It's Official: CNN reports tapes of Lunar Landing Lost

[greencrow0]

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/08/14/space.tapes.reut/index.html">edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH...index.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>700 boxes lost...I think that's really all we need to know to answer the question of whether the Lunar Landings were as rigged as 9/11.<br><br>gc <p></p><i></i>

[yesferatu]

yup.<br><br>Another example of what happens when "crazy conspiracies" make headway on the internet. <br>The MIC PTB have an "oh shit!" moment, panic, and their only solution is something like this. <br>Many will just shrug. Because "things sometimes get lost, oh well". <br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[orz]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I think that's really all we need to know to answer the question of whether the Lunar Landings were as rigged as 9/11.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->Wow. Winner of world's most loaded sentance award 2006! <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :D --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif ALT=":D"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>Seriously, I wouldn't say that's all we need to know... some actual evidence that the moon landing was fake would help too. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>Also, can you really 'rig' a moon landing? Doesn't that imply that we DID go there, but cheated!? <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :eek --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eek.gif ALT=":eek"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> how does THAT work? <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[Bilbo Hicks]

"Also, can you really 'rig' a moon landing? Doesn't that imply that we DID go there, but cheated!? <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :eek --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eek.gif ALT=":eek"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> how does THAT work? <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> "<br><br>Dont be too surprised..There a lot of anomalies with the moon landings that are very hard to explain away with Physics..<br>Some interesting points worth 'rigint'ing from Dave <br>McGowen & Hufschmid:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://davesweb.cnchost.com/apollo.htm">davesweb.cnchost.com/apollo.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html">www.erichufschmid.net/Mor...lenge.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.EricHufschmid.net/Science_Challenge_24.html">www.EricHufschmid.net/Sci...ge_24.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.erichufschmid.net/Science_Challenge_25.html">www.erichufschmid.net/Sci...ge_25.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.erichufschmid.net/Science_Challenge_26.html">www.erichufschmid.net/Sci...ge_26.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Then in the movie 'A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Moon' you have the NASA footage of using the darkened cabin & window of Apollo to supposedly fake a far-earth shot, which in reality is a near-earth orbit shot. Many moon-hoax theorists say that Saturn took off into orbit, but thats where it stayed, while the movie set took over. Its a wild theory indeed, but the arguments about the lunar lander not leaving any crater or dust clouds is compelling, at least from a physics point of view. <br>Then there is the fact that Buzz Aldrin is a 33rd degree mason, Armstrong was a mason too, Michael Collins is rumored to have connections too. Not that has anything to do with it, even though Neil Armstrong, potentially the greatest american hero of all time is a major recluse. <br>I was not born during the landings so I have no clue. I do believe now that even if the moon landings were not faked, there are people in the world who would fake them if it was advantageous.<br><br> <br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[5E6A]

Let's ruminate on the possibility of a faked moon landing. If it was faked, to what extent would the fakers go to cover that conspiracy? Would it be necessary, for instance, to do years of testing on the construction of the Apollo spacecraft to ascertain the threshold of velocity and size of particle that would cause the capsule to rupture and implode? Seriously, your take on the minutia involved in order to ensure the fake passes muster.... <p></p><i></i>

[RB1]

The only "conspiracy" involved in the Apollo missions was NASA hiding how close Neil Armstrong came to botching the landing of Apollo 11. Armstrong was a few seconds from leaving the Lunar Lander without enough fuel to meet back up with the Command Module in Lunar orbit. <p></p><i></i>

[orz]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Dont be too surprised..There a lot of anomalies with the moon landings that are very hard to explain away with Physics..<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Make that very hard to explain away without having a clue about physics. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>Seriously, I've read a lot of Moon hoax discussions online and tho I love the idea as a sci-fi concept, I haven't seen <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>one</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> of the so-called 'anomalies' that hasn't been very thoroughly debunked. Not only that but the most common ones are total obvious nonsense! I mean, people are still going on about 'no stars visible in the photos', the flag waving, etc etc etc.... <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>I just the other day read an explanation of the lack of crater from the lander... can't remember the URL alas but I'm sure you could find it if you search.<br><br>All discussions on the subject either end up with either ludicrous circular arguments where the moon hoax fans straight up ignore all refutation of their points, or a hillarious moving of goalposts until you basically have a moon hoax in which the whole space programme was real, we went to the moon, but didn't actually land and instead deployed robots to put the lander and equipment there... uh, what!?! <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>There may well be anomalies, mysteries etc but even if there are, the majority of the facts indicate the moon landing was real. Most 'anomalies' are based on misunderstanding of the science as far as I can tell.<br><br>But yeah... certainly I can believe NASA would cover up negligence and stupid mistakes <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> But fortunately for them no fake studio moon required for that. <p></p><i></i>

[Bilbo Hicks]

I find it hard to believe that all those in mission control & logistics could of been kept in the dark (like the stars w.o. atmospheric glare ;-) or were in on it. <br>Thinking about it, it could be argued that the thrusters were not needed right before the landing, that they were used just before, hence no crater is created from exhausts.<br><br>As for the other anomalies like the astronauts not seeing stars (supposedly according to moon-hoax theorists, because a sky full of stars is harder to fake due to known constellations), its a very interesting physics debate as why that would be w.o. an atmosphere on the moon.<br>Like this article here saying that stars are not visible in space..<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.hasslberger.com/phy/phy_15.htm">www.hasslberger.com/phy/phy_15.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>and no stars visible due to shutter speeds to compensate for brightness..<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1032">van.hep.uiuc.edu/qa/listing.php?id=1032</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[orz]

Exactly. The photo stuff especially (no stars etc) should be immediately obvious to anyone who's taken a few holiday snaps! <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>Re the lack of crater: from <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html">www.badastronomy.com/bad/...pollo.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn't need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.<br><br>Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Also i don't think they were coming in straight downwards, were mooving over the moon surface horizontally too so the exhaust would not be concentrated in one place...<br><br>etc etc ...zzzzz<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START |I --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tired.gif ALT="|I"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> yes we went to the moon, get over it.<br><br><br><br><br>However, the moon is hollow, and is a millions of years old spaceship. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :b --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":b"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[DireStrike]

Doesn't anybody have a really big telescope we could use to settle this once and for all? But then I guess everybody would have to have their own, or else it could be argued that the scope is showing false images.<br><br>How big of a telescope would you need to resolve the crap we left there anyway? <p></p><i></i>

[orz]

I don't think any earth based telescope can do it... supposedly Hubble could but there seems to be some controversy or confusion over whether it's actually possible to photo the moon, or whether it'd be way too bright or somthing...<br><br>However, we don't need to literally see the various stuff they left up there to prove it's there:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lun...Experiment</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[stickdog99]

From the article:<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>NASA has retained copies of the television broadcasts and offers several clips on its Web site.<br><br>But those images are of lower quality than the originals stored on the missing magnetic tapes.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Because NASA's equipment was not compatible with TV technology of the day, the original transmissions had to be displayed on a monitor and re-shot by a TV camera for broadcast.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--></em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>How convenient that the only recordings left are video recordings of television broadcasts of TV cameras pointed at a monitor that was displaying the original transmissions.<br><br>Where did the original recordings go? <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=stickdog99>stickdog99</A> at: 8/16/06 6:06 pm<br></i>

[orz]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>How convenient that the only recordings left are video recordings of television broadcasts of TV cameras pointed at a monitor that was displaying original transmissions.<br><br>Where did the original recordings go?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Uh, well, that's rather the whole point of the articles saying they're missing? <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>I doubt the guys trying to find the tapes to transfer this valuable data to modern formats before the obsolete equipment is decomissioned and/or the tapes rot find it 'convenient' at all!!! <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>If you actually read all the articles about this, it seems they're not lost as in they had them the other day and they've vanished suddenly; rather it looks like more a case of noone's looked at them for decades and now someone wants them it turns out noone knows where they've been stored. <p></p><i></i>

[stickdog99]

Yep. Just like Dubya's missing military records.<br><br>Nothing to see here, folks. <p></p><i></i>

[orz]

OK...<br><br>so, what is on those tapes that's so damning them? <p></p><i></i>