Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits

[edogg]

having watched the originall broadcast (live) and the making of the james bond "movie moonraker" (i think ) there are remarkable simularities in the way the astronauts move like they are on wires as apposed to low gravity
so NASA in the 60's was short of tape and had to erase the first moon landing yeah course they did !after all it was not 1 of the single most significant events in mans history was it ?

also any photographer knows normal camera film is fogged by radiation but the americans got round that in their cameras with no lead screening HOW

 

[Darkstar]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to argue their case and the moon landings will always be a hot one.

I am not saying im against conspiracy theorists but i do know a lot of bollocks when i hear it..

Make your mind up mate. You say everyone is entitled to their own opinion and then say that anyone who disbelieves the moon landings..their opinion is a load of bollocks! :err:

The old low quality footage was just grainy enough to be credible as genuine moon footage with what they could do with 60's props and effects. Now, with digital technology advanced enough to create a backdrop, surroundings and effects realistic enough to withstand extremely close scrutiny, a better quality appears, just in time for a 40 year anniversary as if by fantastic coincidence.

NASA Never A Straight Answer

Wonder how much they paid Pixar to do the remake??

 

[hamba]

:yawn2: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

 

[Munkey]

Of course Neil Armstrong went to the moon, here's a little song he wrote about his experience.

I've been to Button Moon, I followed Mr. Spoon,
Button Moon, Button Moon. I've been to Button Moon,
Button Moon x 4, Be back soon! Button Moon.

Here's some of the original footage remastered in High Definition.

 

[Jackel]

Bloody groundhog day this.

 

[DiamondGeezer]

Hmmm...... Post is a good read

I'm off to watch Capricorn One (1978)

 

[iliveinuk]

Well, after reading through all this, next people will be saying Father Christmas aint real, and we all know thats not true

 

[emarald]

I honestly think the whole thing is a farce. There are too many inconsistencies in the story of the "Moon Landing". Now, I do think we've orbited the moon, sent probes to the moon etc... But mankind, I don't think so. If we had, why have we never gone back? Why does the Space Shuttle only fly BENEATH the Van Allen belt? Surely technology is better today than before.The Moon is ten times higher than the Van Allen radiation belts. The spacecraft moved through the belts in just 30 minutes, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions.

For more info. look into a movie called "Paper Moon". They bring up dozens of valid points that need to be explored and explained - like the door on the lander being SMALLER than the life support packs that the astronauts supposedly wore on the surface. So how did they get out? Did they just hold their breath until they could put it on?

How about that cool dunebuggy rover?Note: In addition, moving footage of astronauts and the lunar rover kicking up lunar dust clearly show the dust particles kicking up quite high due to the low gravity, but settling immediately without air to stop them. Had these landings been faked on the earth, dust clouds would have formed. (They can be seen as a 'goof' in the movie Apollo 13 when Jim Lovell (played by Tom Hanks) imagines walking on the Moon). This clearly shows the astronauts to be (a) in low gravity and (b) in a vacuum. Where was that stashed? It's huge! And why does the sand shooting out from the tires look exactly like sand on the desert shooting off of car tires. Wouldn't low gravity and lack of atmosphere shoot that stuff like 100 yards into the air?Four mission-worthy Lunar Rovers were built. Three of them were carried to the Moon on Apollo 15, 16, and 17, and left there.

The computing power was less than my wristwatch for crying out loud! Nobody is going to convince me that they flew thousands and thousands of miles, through the Van Allen Belt entered into the moon's gravitational field and controlled a landing all using a Texas Instruments calculator!!!

Nope, not buying it. How about the space suits? How were they able to fully pressurize a space suit in the vacuum of space and control the internal temperature when it had a swing of hundreds of degrees depending on sun exposure versus shade!all of the lunar landings occurred during the lunar daytime. The Moon's day is approximately 29½ days long, and as a consequence a single lunar day (dawn to dusk) lasts nearly fifteen days. As such there was no sunrise or sunset while the astronauts were on the surface. Most lunar missions occurred during the first few earth days of the lunar day.
? AND still be able to move around when the thing was fully pressurized - it would've looked like a giant balloon!

The reality is that we barely have the technology to put PEOPLE on the moon today. Sure we can send all types of gizmos and gadgets - robots, probes and such - but there are too many inherent problems with getting people there.

The reality is probably that it was a political stunt to unite the nation against the Communist threat at the time.

Another component of the Moon hoax theory is based on the argument that professional observatories and the Hubble Space Telescope should be able to take pictures of the lunar landing sites. The argument runs that if telescopes can "see to the edge of the universe" then they ought to be able to take pictures of the lunar landing sites. This implies that the world's major observatories (as well as the Hubble Program) are complicit in the Moon landing hoax by refusing to take pictures of the landing sites.

A telescope's angular resolution (ignoring the muddying effects of Earth's atmosphere) is limited by the diffraction of light in the optics. This diffraction limit depends linearly on the telescope's aperture so that at visible wavelengths the resolution is about 14.1/D arcseconds where D is the aperture of the telescope in centimeters. For the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) in low Earth orbit whose mirror is 2.4 metres (7.9 ft) across, the diffraction limited angular resolution is about 0.059 arcseconds which corresponds to about 110 metres (360 ft) at the distance of the Moon. In order to resolve an object 1 meter across into a single fuzzy spot would require a telescope 110 times larger than the HST, or about 250 metres (820 ft) across. But to resolve such an object with enough detail to recognize what the object is would require perhaps 100 times more resolution still, or a telescope whose aperture is some 25 kilometres (16 mi) across. Additionally, any ground-based telescope would have to mitigate against the effects of seeing, beyond what is currently possible with adaptive optics.

If I had more time I could find logical answers to your other question but if you did a bit of research yourself maybe you can find the answers.

 

[v14]

Another component of the Moon hoax theory is based on the argument that professional observatories and the Hubble Space Telescope should be able to take pictures of the lunar landing sites. The argument runs that if telescopes can "see to the edge of the universe" then they ought to be able to take pictures of the lunar landing sites. This implies that the world's major observatories (as well as the Hubble Program) are complicit in the Moon landing hoax by refusing to take pictures of the landing sites.

A telescope's angular resolution (ignoring the muddying effects of Earth's atmosphere) is limited by the diffraction of light in the optics. This diffraction limit depends linearly on the telescope's aperture so that at visible wavelengths the resolution is about 14.1/D arcseconds where D is the aperture of the telescope in centimeters. For the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) in low Earth orbit whose mirror is 2.4 metres (7.9 ft) across, the diffraction limited angular resolution is about 0.059 arcseconds which corresponds to about 110 metres (360 ft) at the distance of the Moon. In order to resolve an object 1 meter across into a single fuzzy spot would require a telescope 110 times larger than the HST, or about 250 metres (820 ft) across. But to resolve such an object with enough detail to recognize what the object is would require perhaps 100 times more resolution still, or a telescope whose aperture is some 25 kilometres (16 mi) across. Additionally, any ground-based telescope would have to mitigate against the effects of seeing, beyond what is currently possible with adaptive optics.

If I had more time I could find logical answers to your other question but if you did a bit of research yourself maybe you can find the answers.

your not really finding logical answers though are you.
you're pasting technical gobbledygook which you probably don't understand but are happy to accept as fact because it's on wikipedia.

 

[hoppy]

Make your mind up mate. You say everyone is entitled to their own opinion and then say that anyone who disbelieves the moon landings..their opinion is a load of bollocks! :err:

The old low quality footage was just grainy enough to be credible as genuine moon footage with what they could do with 60's props and effects. Now, with digital technology advanced enough to create a backdrop, surroundings and effects realistic enough to withstand extremely close scrutiny, a better quality appears, just in time for a 40 year anniversary as if by fantastic coincidence.

NASA Never A Straight Answer

Wonder how much they paid Pixar to do the remake??

I am not saying that people who disbelieve the moon landings are talking bollocks or that their opinion does not matter, its just some people put their point across better than others.

You said you had studied the moon landings for 5yrs, which i find strange as some of the points you made were way off the mark and were discredited a long time ago.

So NASA decide to tart up the old video to coincide with the 40th anniversary!!
Whats wrong with that.:err:
If we had made it to the moon, we would be doing exactly the same as its a helluva accomplishment.

Like i said before, i am not an anti conspiracy theorist, there are a few that i actually believe in but the moon landings is not one of them..

 

[nara]

your not really finding logical answers though are you.
you're pasting technical gobbledygook which you probably don't understand but are happy to accept as fact because it's on wikipedia.

So technical equates to gobbledygook and is illogical?

If something is too difficult for me or you (or emarald) to understand, then it can't be fact?

Help me out here.

 

[v14]

So technical equates to gobbledygook and is illogical?

If something is too difficult for me or you (or emarald) to understand, then it can't be fact?

Help me out here.

No nara, dont wet yourself.

Technical doesn't equate to gobbledygook.

But emeralds post about Hubble to me is gobbledygook. But i'm a bit thick.

I dare say you are fully conversant with the physics of the hubble space telescope and will be able to confirm that the information is correct.

I know you won't let me down.

 

[emarald]

No nara, dont wet yourself.

Technical doesn't equate to gobbledygook.

But emeralds post about Hubble to me is gobbledygook. But i'm a bit thick.

I dare say you are fully conversant with the physics of the hubble space telescope and will be able to confirm that the information is correct.

I know you won't let me down.

Let's simplify it for you the main mirror in the Hubble Space Telescope has a diameter of 2.4 meters. Visible light has an average wavelength of about 0.5E-6 meters. The Moon is at a distance of 3.8E8 meters. Putting these numbers into the formula gives the size of the smallest feature that the Hubble Space Telescope can resolve on the Moon's surface. It is just under 100 meters.

Flags are seldom this big, so Hubble Space Telescope images of the Moon can not resolve the flags or other objects left behind by the Apollo astronauts. To recognize a flag and see details, such as stars and stripes, would require resolving details as small as about a centimeter. This resolution would require a space telescope with a diameter of about 20 kilometers.
Hope this helps

 

[Darkstar]

Well here is the definitive proof of man going to the moon.

Nasa today released images from the LRO which show images of the Apollo landing sites.
This is the first time since the end of the Apollo program that images have been taken that resolve some of the actual hardware left behind. Depending on the probe's altitude at the time the images were taken, these may or may not be as good as LRO can ultimately provide.

NASA - LRO Sees Apollo Landing Sites

:roflmao::roflmao:

 

[v14]

Let's simplify it for you the main mirror in the Hubble Space Telescope has a diameter of 2.4 meters. Visible light has an average wavelength of about 0.5E-6 meters. The Moon is at a distance of 3.8E8 meters. Putting these numbers into the formula gives the size of the smallest feature that the Hubble Space Telescope can resolve on the Moon's surface. It is just under 100 meters.

Flags are seldom this big, so Hubble Space Telescope images of the Moon can not resolve the flags or other objects left behind by the Apollo astronauts. To recognize a flag and see details, such as stars and stripes, would require resolving details as small as about a centimeter. This resolution would require a space telescope with a diameter of about 20 kilometers.
Hope this helps

thanks for googling that and taking the trouble to put "Lets simplify it for you" at the begining lol.
It really proves your understanding of the subject

Can Hubble Space Telescope See Flag on the Moon? What Is the Smallest Detail HST Can Photograph on Lunar Surface? | Suite101.com

i shall say no more .....

 

[emarald]

thanks for googling that and taking the trouble to put "Lets simplify it for you" at the begining lol.
It really proves your understanding of the subject

Can Hubble Space Telescope See Flag on the Moon? What Is the Smallest Detail HST Can Photograph on Lunar Surface? | Suite101.com

i shall say no more .....

I was only trying to help you understand as you had already admitted you were a bit retarded in this subject.
To simplify things even more do you know how a TV works? maybe not but it works, Do you know how a car works? maybe not but that also works, Just because you dont understand how the hubble space telescope works, does not mean it don't work, I can assure you it works.

 

[v14]

I was only trying to help you understand as you had already admitted you were a bit retarded in this subject.
To simplify things even more do you know how a TV works? maybe not but it works, Do you know how a car works? maybe not but that also works, Just because you dont understand how the hubble space telescope works, does not mean it don't work, I can assure you it works.

if you say so.

 

[K]

This thread is shit, your argueing over something we will never likely prove.. heres a test for you though..

Bit windy outside but, undo your zip and remove your snake taking care not to scrape it on the lower zip.. now proceed to dispense liquid whilst attempting to in a straight line.

Further notice - Males only.. Women use a funnel. Also try not using 2 hands.

 

[v14]

This thread is shit, your argueing over something we will never likely prove.. heres a test for you though..

Bit windy outside but, undo your zip and remove your snake taking care not to scrape it on the lower zip.. now proceed to dispense liquid whilst attempting to in a straight line.

Further notice - Males only.. Women use a funnel. Also try not using 2 hands.

NASA .. erm I mean Nara say's it's true.

No further proof is needed.


can we close this mods

 

[K]

NASA .. erm I mean Nara say's it's true.

No further proof is needed.


can we close this mods

Yes but Nara is multi talented.. he can talk and piss you off at the same time..