Jarrah said: NASA public affairs officer Paul P. Haney announced on January 27 1967 that the fatal fire had been recorded on film and that this video material was handed over to a board of inquiry.
Mark Gray of Spacecraft Films denies the existence of any video of the Apollo 1 fire. Why does he deny the existence of such material, when NASA announced they had just that? Why is he suppressing that footage from public view?
This is a very good example of when something turns from hobby to passion to obsession. Jarrah has what can only be described as a hatred of Mark Gray, principal of Spacecraft Films.
Why do I say this? Let's have a look at what Jarrah has said.
Did Paul Haney announce on 27 Jan 67 that there was film footage? My records say it was on 28 Jan 67, but.. yes, he did.
Was the statement correct? No.
Why?
There was audio recording of all the communication channels, and there was live video from a camera pointed at the spacecraft hatch... but the video feed was not recorded.
A possible explanation for the NASA PAO's statement was because recordings (audio) of the events were being provided to the board, and statements were taken from all persons who saw the video feed.
During the confusion of the first couple of days, it is understandable that a mistake was made.
Now - does Jarrah accuse NASA of a coverup? No - he accuses Mr Gray! It's just another sign that Jarrah White does not seek what happened, but instead wants to accuse / prove wrong / hurt those whom he has disagreements with.
Not a scientific method.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is a very good example of when something turns from hobby to passion to obsession. Jarrah has what can only be described as a hatred of Mark Gray, principal of Spacecraft Films.
ReplyDeleteLet’s get one thing clear. This has nothing to do with some ‘psychotic hatred’ or ‘obession’ that you accuse me of suffering from. The fact remains, like it or not, Mark Gray is a proven con artist.
I proved conclusively that although the ground-to-air communications audio was perfectly synced to the video, at various moments the camera would cut from one angle to another during these supposed “live” Apollo 10 telecasts – and there would be no sign of interruption in the audio. The only conclusion is that these views of earth were filmed in advance, edited together and then broadcast with the ground to air communications dubbing the video regardless of the edits.
Not only that, despite being sold as “Unedited & Complete”, I uncovered various pieces of flight footage missing in the Apollo 10 telecasts sold by Spacecraft Films. We know this footage exists because if you look at the transcript dialogue between these camera cuts, Houston would confirm that the Deep Space Network received this video feed. Meaning that the footage does indeed exist, and for whatever reason it was excluded from this so-called "complete" DVD set. It is fraud to sell something as complete when you know perfectly well it isn’t. And Gray clearly knows his DVD set is incomplete – he has access to the transcript and knows perfectly well what was received. Even if he made a mistake and thought his set was complete, he has made no attempt to acknowledge this and retract his erroneous "complete footage" claim as any reputable and honest person would do.
I released my video proving the above and in response Mark Gray filed false charges of copyright infringement to get it pulled from public view. NASA footage is public domain, so his copyright claims are void. Not one of you from either BAUT or Apollohoax.net even lifted a finger to disprove my findings or prove Gray’s alleged innocence. Instead you continued to praise him even after he had been proven to be guilty of fraud, and hyped about my supposed infringement of copyright.
There was audio recording of all the communication channels, and there was live video from a camera pointed at the spacecraft hatch... but the video feed was not recorded.
A possible explanation for the NASA PAO's statement was because recordings (audio) of the events were being provided to the board, and statements were taken from all persons who saw the video feed.
Speculation. You haven’t a shred of evidence that Haney was wrong or that he made a mistake. Further, NASA video recorded all the various other CSM tests the crew did in Spacecraft 012 and also the simulator. They also video recorded the countdown simulations on various other Apollo flights, albeit future missions, Apollo 7 for example. Do you honestly think they wouldn’t record the plugs-out test when they recorded all their previous simulations? There was even going to be an emergency escape procedure at the end of the test – those practices are typically recorded on film. Footage even exists of the crew exiting the van and entering the gantry on the day of the test.
Now - does Jarrah accuse NASA of a coverup? No - he accuses Mr Gray! It's just another sign that Jarrah White does not seek what happened, but instead wants to accuse / prove wrong / hurt those whom he has disagreements with.
For your information, I am accusing three parties of cover-up. NASA, North American Aviation, and Spacecraft Films. I even say this in my video. NASA and NAA effectively carried it out and covered it up, and Spacecraft Films is assisting to that cover-up by actively suppressing video material to the public.
A little bit of setting the record straight is required here,
ReplyDeleteFirstly, some of us DID lift a finger to research whether your edit claims had any merit. And we didnt feel any pressing urge to present you with our findings. We did investigated by examining other sources of the same material you seem to have issue with. What do you know? Cuts found on SCF footage exist on the other sources RELEASED SOME TIME PRIOR TO SCF FOOTAGE. I guess that puts an end to suggesting falsely that Mark is covering up, doesn't it? What sources? You're the self-proclaimed research expert: you find out. Here's a hint, one source is produced right near you, in Sydney.
So then, some of us decided to examine WHY there are momentary gaps in the footage and here's what we found - being surprised no less, that someone like you who claims to have done the research could so blatantly miss.
Firstly, cutting out the unnecessary discussion on USB, voice was down-linked via the PM translator on 2287.5 MHz while the TV was sent to the ground via a separate FM transmitter on 2277.5 MHz. Right there is a rock solid explanation (well it is to anyone who has any dealings with downlinks) as to how TV signal could be lost while audio could be maintained. To compound the problem possibilities, the circuit margins were vastly different. The PM voice would be clear for carrier signal levels at least 20 dB lower than the video circuit. I am curious though. All the USB documentation I have read so far mentions seperate receivers being used for voice than TV. How could you possibly have missed that in your investigation? It's a big piece of information to have overlooked.
Anyway back to the cuts in Apollo 10 TV: Was anything of importance missing? We had to go to some archival recordings made by the US TV networks on the day of the telecast. Here's the major stuff missing:
*Loss of signal (noise) that is, no video snyc no line information, nothing. Sometimes it comes back but is very weak and unstable. see circuit explanation for how that happened.
*Cabin interior consisting of black. You know, the same color you get when the light is too low for the camera iris to let any of it through to the image scanner.
*As detailed in onboard recordings readily and easily available from NASA sources, the TV camera was switched off while the carrier signal was still transmitting. Ground stations defaulted to color bars. I thought you followed all leads up? How did you miss that? Even the NASA transcripts published in several different sources details the Apollo 10 camera being switched off. It's pretty hard to read up on Apollo 10 TV and neglect to notice that fact.
Why did that material go missing on the kinescopes (hey by the way did you also notice these cuts happen only ony kines? The mind boggles). How the hell do I know? I was only a small child at the time. I'd safely speculate it was deemed (stupidly) non-essential to the record. Unless you can somehow explain how snow/color bars or black equals evidence of a movie set?
Jarrah, are you a court of law, or are you a police officer, or a sheriff issuing subpoenas? It would appear that you are more concerned that no-one supplied you with information they found rejecting your claims against SCF, rather than whether or not they found it. Perhaps you aren't the only one, your majesty, who has pressing affairs of state which are more important than spoon feeding you with the blatantly obvious. The half-baked manner in which you have merely stated "Mark is a fraud" while doing nothing more than superficial "investigation" goes to show how much legal weight your allegations carry. IT APPEARS YOU ARE THE FRAUD BECAUSE YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDNT DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND I HAVE, DARE I SAY, PROVEN IT ABOVE.
Regarding TV vs audio from Apollo 10, DSB is entirely correct: they were sent from the CSM on different S-band frequencies using separate S-band transmitters and modulation methods (PM for voice, FM for video).
ReplyDeleteBecause of its much smaller bandwidth (lower information rate) the link margins were much more generous for voice than for video.
Voice could use the spacecraft omni antennas, but beyond low earth orbit video required the directional high-gain antenna at the base of the SM.
Due to the passive thermal control mode (PTC, the "barbeque roll") performed during cislunar coast, continuous voice coverage required switching between the omni antennas.
But video could only be sent when the high gain antenna was pointed at earth, and because of the geometry of the antenna, spacecraft and traectory, this was only possible during part of each PTC rotation.
Continuous TV transmission meant coming out of PTC and maintaining a fixed inertial attitude, something they didn't want to do very often because of the fuel and crew effort required, and because of the greater thermal stresses on the spacecraft.
No doubt all this qualifies as unimportant engineering mumbo-jumbo to Jarrah White. Like all of the Apollo hoaxmeisters has shown himself to be completely innumerate and ignorant of the factual details.
I have been waiting for 8 years for the Cape Set that I ordered from Mark Grey. I just received an email ad from Spacecraft Films offering 15% off for the holiday. I will never order anything from him until I get what I have been waiting for. Mark owes me 50 bucks or the set I ordered.
ReplyDelete