Slashdot Mirror


Apollo 11 TV Tapes Go Missing

Richard W.M. Jones writes "On July 21st 1969, Honeysuckle Creek observatory brought us the first TV pictures of men on the moon. The original signals were recorded on high quality slow-scan TV (SSTV) tapes. What was released to the TV networks was reduced to lower quality commercial TV standards. Unfortunately John Sarkissian of Parkes Observatory Australia reports that 698 of the 700 boxes of original tapes have gone missing [warning: large PDF] from the U.S. National Archives. Even more worryingly, the last place on earth which can actually read these tapes is scheduled to close in October this year. The PDF contains interesting comparisons which show that if all you've seen are the TV pictures from the landing, you really haven't seen the first moon walk in its full glory."

438 comments

  1. Um.... by viper21 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I knew I forgot to return those rental tapes.

    I wonder if I can talk them out of the late fees again.

    1. Re:Um.... by Megane · · Score: 5, Funny

      Remember... Be kind - Rewind!

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    2. Re:Um.... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 4, Funny

      I realised this myself a few weeks ago and bought myself a dvd rewinder.
      they claim its the fastest in the world!

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    3. Re:Um.... by Xymor · · Score: 5, Funny

      Holy crap, They were labeled "Moonwalk" so I thought they were the michael jackson video or something and I taped the world cup games over them. My bad guys. Can't you set up the studio in the desert and tape them again?

    4. Re:Um.... by forkazoo · · Score: 1
      I knew I forgot to return those rental tapes.

      I wonder if I can talk them out of the late fees again.

      ob. family guy : I knew I shouldn't have taped over that rental... "Eagle was the name of the lander. There, I just saved you three boring, boobless hours."
    5. Re:Um.... by mikiN · · Score: 1

      Just ask the Chinese to walk the Moon in front of the (HDTV) camera a few times before they get busy opening the first Dim Sum restaurant there...

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    6. Re:Um.... by Roliverio · · Score: 3, Funny

      All your tapes are belong to us...

    7. Re:Um.... by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      Remember... Be kind - Rewind!

      - "Re...wind? Who fights the wind?"
      - "The Windbreaker!"
      - "Precisely. Let's go!"

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
  2. How convenient. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Incontrovertible proof that the moon landing was faked is convenently "lost" by the national archives while Bush II talks about going "back" to the moon.

    1. Re:How convenient. by rkulla · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      the bush administration is all about deleting history. he probably thinks that going to the moon is impossible because god wouldn't want us to try to fly to heaven

    2. Re:How convenient. by KylePflug · · Score: 1

      Erm. Bush has been pushing for a new drive to put men back on the moon and mars for a while now.

    3. Re:How convenient. by got2liv4him · · Score: 1

      nope... no bias here... nope

      --
      King of kings and Lord of lords
    4. Re:How convenient. by rkulla · · Score: 1

      way to expose my theory for the troll it was

    5. Re:How convenient. by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      He's just doing it to (a) look Kennedyesque, (b) win the geek vote, and (c) give a bunch of money away to the aerospace industry. He doesn't actually believe we'll get there.

      (Yes, I know the original is a troll. So am I.)

    6. Re:How convenient. by PUN1SH3R · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. I believe the whole thing was a farse. Funny how there is more technology in your laptop computer than there was in Apollo 11 and they "went to the moon" but now they won't go. Makes no sense to me.

    7. Re:How convenient. by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 1

      Without actually funding it, which basically means that we're still not going to the to the Moon or Mars any time soon, but funding that could be used for more valuble science missions is being diverted to making Bush look good.

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    8. Re:How convenient. by sarragorn · · Score: 0

      this is actually as insightful as it is funny

  3. Conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    oh no more coverup talk will soon follow.

    1. Re:Conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conspiracy nuts take your marks!

  4. Gee, thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    if all you've seen are the TV pictures from the landing, you really haven't seen the first moon walk in its full glory

    Now you tell me. Thanks for the early heads up.

    Oh, BTW, you missed seeing Halley's commet in your lifetime a few years ago.

    1. Re:Gee, thanks. by hords · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh, BTW, you missed seeing Halley's commet in your lifetime a few years ago.

      Halley's comet last appeared in the inner Solar System in 1986, and will next appear in the summer of 2061.

      Surely some of us will live that long.

    2. Re:Gee, thanks. by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 2, Funny

      No sorry, we'll all miss it by at least one year. Personally, I'm betting Newton was right.

      --
      This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
  5. Does it really matter by 0racle · · Score: 0

    If the one place that can read them is closing, does it matter if you can't find what is essentially bunch of unreadable media?

    On the other hand, how do you loose almost 700 boxes? You'd think that 700 boxes of stuff would kind of stick out.

    --
    "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    1. Re:Does it really matter by WilliamSChips · · Score: 5, Funny
      On the other hand, how do you loose almost 700 boxes?
      I don't know, but it's probably nothing like losing them.
      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    2. Re:Does it really matter by MustardMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uh... maybe it would be nice to find them, take them to the place that can read them, and COPY THEM ONTO SOME OTHER MEDIA? I dunno, just a thought.

    3. Re:Does it really matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll bite.

      You don't lose 700 boxes, you lose the little piece of card/database entry which tells you which of the 100000 identical boxes are the 700 you are interested in.

    4. Re:Does it really matter by The_Rook · · Score: 1

      they probably were - probably going to make some hi definition dubs only to find the tapes were missing.

      --
      when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
    5. Re:Does it really matter by Kaenneth · · Score: 4, Funny

      And you really don't want to look in all the boxes; you just might get your face melted.

    6. Re:Does it really matter by NorseWarrior · · Score: 1

      700 boxes is nothing. Ever been to a federal records center? Think 'Raiders of the Lost Ark....'

    7. Re:Does it really matter by Tom · · Score: 1

      I'd really like to know how much Terrabytes? Picobytes? More? 700 boxes full of high-definition tape will eat up. From the pictures in the .pdf there are at least 9, probably 10 rolls per box, so we're talking 7000 rolls of film.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    8. Re:Does it really matter by blugu64 · · Score: 1

      Ha! nice one, I havn't seen that movie in a while

      --
      "Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n
    9. Re:Does it really matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      COPY THEM ONTO SOME OTHER MEDIA

      That would be a violation of the DMCA.

      Even if you find the actual tapes, it doesn't prove ownership. At best, it suggests a possible license. But even a certificate of authenticity doesn't prove a license.

      Without proof of a license, I'm afraid I'm going to have to confiscate those tapes, and levy a fine.

    10. Re:Does it really matter by MMC+Monster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      High Definition? Exactly how high a definition are we talking about here? Anyone know the resolution of these SSTV transmissions?

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    11. Re:Does it really matter by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Nothing to worry about its not as if these things are done in some sorta crazy Microsoft closed source digital codec or something. These are analog recordings. While it might be costly it should always be resonably possible to build a new playback device even without any original players to look at. There are only so many ways to do analog video on magnetic tape after all, basically get the read heads over the right tracks and make get the timings right.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    12. Re:Does it really matter by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and then you end up having your soul sucked out when you open the wrong box and find the Ark of the Covenant by mistake.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    13. Re:Does it really matter by mikiN · · Score: 1

      100000 boxes on the shelf
      100000 boxes
      Take one off, play the tapes
      99999 boxes on the shelf
      99999 boxes
      Take one off, play the tapes
      99998 boxes on the shelf ...
      <yawn />

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    14. Re:Does it really matter by Basecamp88 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they will find the tape with JFK getting shot by Bigfoot, Santa, and the Loch Ness monster while they are looking.

    15. Re:Does it really matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It wouldn't be huge. SSTV records something like 10 frames per second, at 320 lines. Suffice it to say that VGA is miles ahead in terms of quality, but SSTV was great relative to the old broadcasts, for a relative perspective.

      SSTV is used for sending video over voice frequencies, fwiw... It's akin to an animated fax, or like the signals weather fax that satellites send out freely with the fax protocol.

    16. Re:Does it really matter by alphamugwump · · Score: 1

      That's a LOT of pr0n.

    17. Re:Does it really matter by Detritus · · Score: 1

      These are 14-track analog recordings, 9200 feet per reel, 120 ips. If each track is digitized at 16-bits with a 4 MHz sampling rate, the result would be about 100 GB. 700 tapes would result in 72 TB of data. That's a conservative estimate, it would probably be substantially less if the sampling rate was adjusted to match the actual bandwidth of the data recorded on each track.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    18. Re:Does it really matter by Lectrik · · Score: 2, Funny

      but... but my certificate of authenticiy says that it is "proof of license" right on it.

      if it isn't, can we get them for providing false documentation or something?

      --
      --- As to make my comment seem, by comparison, more intelegent... doodie doodie doodie poop poop poop!
    19. Re:Does it really matter by jaxom_01 · · Score: 1

      As they were created by NASA, they are (or should be) in the public domain. Any audio/video NASA produces is automatically entered into the public domain (as should anything created by the goverment)

      --
      The post made with 100% recycled electrons
    20. Re:Does it really matter by Tom · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the data.

      Now since we're talking 700 boxes with probably 10 tapes each, we have to multiply by 10, then correct downwards somewhat for a more realistic sampling rate, etc. - so we're talking on the order of magnitude of 500 TB. That's quite a bit of data they lost.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  6. So.... by arthurpaliden · · Score: 5, Funny

    So the actual 'raw' proof that men were walking on the moon is gone. How convenient.

    1. Re:So.... by ubergenius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only inconvenient thing here is that the conspiracy theorists are going to go absolutely nuts over this.

      --
      Student Manager - Take control of your education!
    2. Re:So.... by afaik_ianal · · Score: 2, Funny

      What was released to the TV networks was reduced to lower quality commercial TV standards.

      Yep - I've been trying to tell people for years that the footage was edited, but everyone just called me "crazy"... MUAHAHA. Then they go and claim that they are only calling me that because I laugh maniacally at the end of every sentence. MUAHAHAHAHAA!

    3. Re:So.... by dacarr · · Score: 4, Funny

      But they're already nuts. That's why they're conspiracy theorists.

      --
      This sig no verb.
    4. Re:So.... by ubergenius · · Score: 5, Funny

      Then... They're going to be... nuts-ier... We're talking, squirrels will be running in front of their moving cars by the millions just to get a taset of this particular level of nut.

      --
      Student Manager - Take control of your education!
    5. Re:So.... by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1

      Yep. That was my first thought. So in addition to all the other inanities the hoax nuts bring, we now have 698 missing tapes. *sigh*

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    6. Re:So.... by CrazyClimber · · Score: 1

      "What sort of person," said Salzella patiently, "sits down and writes a maniacal laugh? And all those exclamation marks, you notice? Five? A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head."

      --Terry Pratchett

    7. Re:So.... by observer7 · · Score: 1, Troll

      But they're already nuts. That's why they're conspiracy theorists. so watergate was just a made up thing and nixion never really had a breakin at watergate ...i knew those nutty dems was making up history as they went .

    8. Re:So.... by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's ok, we can refilm it in HiDef now.

    9. Re:So.... by pharwell · · Score: 1

      We don't even need to build the set. Just build a green room and let George Lucas do the rest!

      --
      I quote others only in order the better to express myself. -- Michel de Montaigne
    10. Re:So.... by SurfaceMount · · Score: 1

      All that has to happen now is that probe they are planning to crash into the moon to go off course and destroy the landing site for my predictions to be complete.
      http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/1 1/0036205

    11. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't even need a green room, he can create the spacemen as well!

    12. Re:So.... by Shanep · · Score: 1

      We don't even need to build the set. Just build a green room and let George Lucas do the rest!

      I much prefer the original. Please don't let him anywhere near it.

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
    13. Re:So.... by blugu64 · · Score: 1

      Well that...and all the other landing sites

      --
      "Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n
    14. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      five years later, after George Lucas remasters the moon landing tapes.....

      "Honey, will you look at that! I never knew Jabba the Hutt beat the Americans to the moon. Well I'm just glad our boys got outta there before they were forced to wear slave bikinis."

    15. Re:So.... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Lucas will decide that Buzz shot, er, stepped out, first.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    16. Re:So.... by rts008 · · Score: 1

      No doubt. If this were to happen, then there would be an argument whether Neil Armstrong shot first...er, I mean stepped first. ;)

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    17. Re:So.... by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Ahhhh....I should have read a little further before I replied- I bow to you- you beat me to it fair and square!

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    18. Re:So.... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Well, those get taken out by convenient meteors. It's an amazing coincidence! Like the World Trade Towers collapsing...

    19. Re:So.... by sbrown123 · · Score: 1

      Don't fret. The NSA has been so busy editing video for the 9/11 attacks that they just haven't got around to "fixing" the moon walk videos yet. George Lucas doesn't seem too busy lately, maybe they can let him a go at it? Add a few Star Destroyers overhead, and a rubber looking Jabba The Hutt, and it can be done for Christmas DVD release.

    20. Re:So.... by blugu64 · · Score: 1

      ya....then I guess it'd work

      --
      "Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n
    21. Re:So.... by NateTech · · Score: 1

      Ah, then never see it well in Denver because the Coors family, the City of Golden, CO and the so-called "public" won't let the broadcasters (who went together, bought all the land around the site where ALL of the TV broadcasting has been done here since the 1950's and put together a plan for their new tower with everyone on the SAME tower, a model of cooperation and non-waste) have their tower after they agreed to take down three or four other towers as a gesture of good-will and "saving the view" of the mountain that has had broadcast towers on it for over 60 years now.

      Yes, the Citizens of Jefferson County, Colorado and the money-bags behind the "anti-tower" effort are an excellent example of why pre-emptive bitchslapping needs to be legalized.

      There's even talk of Eminent-Domain being invoked by the City to take away the land the networks purchased, and then probably a big hoo-hah Supreme Court battle with the FCC involved, since they're the ones mandating the digital format conversion.

      Meanwhile, Denver is the last major city in the U.S. without a permanent HDTV broadcast tower already in the works or up and running, and we're all picking up our mandated HDTV signals from high atop... a downtown office building that doesn't cover half the city's population. (For those that don't know, Downtown Denver is the LOWEST spot in town. Putting stuff on buildings there just gets the RF signal over the "bowl" and barely out to the closest suburbs.

      I think City government morons, backed by beer money, need to let the RF engineers do their jobs, and stay out of it... but what do I know? The city has paid a lot of people to create poorly done RF studies showing that some of the other mountain sites further West away from Denver are "just as good", but those sites are not broadcast sites, they're either mixed use with low-power broadcast and two-way, or they're two-way only, and mixing broadcast and two-way is a maintenance and design headache for everyone on the site, from an RF engineering perspective.

      And mostly -- the real reason -- Steve Coors doesn't want the tower in his backyard. At least that's what I've heard anyway. Ironically, there's a tower ON Coors family property a few hundred yards away, that they happily accept the rent for. It's not a money-maker, but the Feds use it for one of their agency's radio gear. Quite the quagmire, eh?

      I can't imagine how much fun this would have been if Pete Coors had made it to the U.S. Senate. Whoo-boy. Fun times there. It was fun to watch him pull down all the Coors Light billboards with hot chicks in bikinis on them while he ran for the Republican ticket from Colorado, though. All those "Family Values" folks don't really want beer being sold by hot chicks, I guess.

      --
      +++OK ATH
    22. Re:So.... by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      I heard NASA bids high for 1960's 16mm cameras on eBay to shoot those scenes again. :)

    23. Re:So.... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Kneel before the superior fast typing skills that allow me to make an obvious and lame joke before you. BWAHAHAHAHAHAH! :-)

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    24. Re:So.... by CommunistHamster · · Score: 1

      IT'S A TRAP!

  7. We all know where they are by toupsie · · Score: 1, Funny

    They are hidden in the underground television studio at Area 51 where they faked the moon landing.

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  8. This shouldn't be too big of a deal by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1, Funny

    Please, nowadays a kid with an HD camcorder and a copy of Finalcut Pro could fake the moon landing for millions of dollars less than the 1969 production. I'm sure we'll see a bunch of new footage appearing on YouTube any day now!

  9. You don't really believe that conspiracy, do you? by MadRat · · Score: 1

    You know, that we walked on the moon in 1969. :) j/k

  10. Backup by jimktrains · · Score: 1

    ummm...Why weren't they backed up? Arn't you suppose to back up your data as often as possible?

    --
    "You will do foolish things, but do them with enthusiasm." - S. G. Colette
    1. Re:Backup by Detritus · · Score: 1

      These are analog tapes. They are hard to duplicate without substantial loss of quality. When they were made, the standard procedure was to run multiple recorders (two or four is typical) in case of any problems with the tape recorder or other hardware. This results in two nearly identical tapes. The best one is usually shipped back to the appropriate tape storage facility. Depending on the value of the data, the other tape may be archived or held for some period of time and reused.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:Backup by jimktrains · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that space wouldn't be too much of an issue for something this important. Lossless, high-quality conversion is possible.

      --
      "You will do foolish things, but do them with enthusiasm." - S. G. Colette
  11. Back them up! by Bun · · Score: 4, Funny

    Quick! Convert them to HD-DVD, er, Blu-Ray, er...

    --
    "Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
    1. Re:Back them up! by ArielMT · · Score: 2, Funny

      I thought they were backed up on Betamax in the '80s. All you need is a player that can play that forma—

      Oh.

      --
      It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
    2. Re:Back them up! by hackstraw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Quick! Convert them to HD-DVD, er, Blu-Ray, er...

      Funny, but this brings up the debate about distribution, copyright, and file sharing.

      Just think. If these recordings were digitally transferred and uploaded somewhere like http://archive.org/ (which I believe they belong), then we would have access to these things basically forever in the best quality that they could be.

      As Linus has said, "Only wimps use tape backup: real men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it."

      Well, times have changed and p2p is arguably better than ftp.

    3. Re:Back them up! by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      true, funny, and not true.

      Go to your nearest TV studio- they use Betacam SP in many many places yet.

      Though, I admit being unsure whether a betacam sp deck can do consumer beta. *shrugs*

    4. Re:Back them up! by westlake · · Score: 1
      Just think. If these recordings were digitally transferred and uploaded somewhere like http://archive.org/ (which I believe they belong), then we would have access to these things basically forever in the best quality that they could be.

      Forever?

      In the right environment, a book can be shelved and neglected for hundreds of years and still remain readable, a digital archive requires constant, expert, maintenance, by a high-tech priesthood.

    5. Re:Back them up! by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      If it's put up on archive.org or some P2P network, it'd be backed up on people's computers in thousands of places, if not more. What kind of maintenance does that require? Even if it were only kept on a single server, what kind of "constant, expert, maintenance" does there need to be? Regular backups aren't hard to run. And a file sitting on a harddrive doesn't need constant attention paid to it.

    6. Re:Back them up! by Harald+Paulsen · · Score: 1
      Just think. If these recordings were digitally transferred and uploaded somewhere like http://archive.org/ (which I believe they belong), then we would have access to these things basically forever in the best quality that they could be
      Actually, they would probably end up on youtube in the worst quality that they could be.
      --
      Harald
    7. Re:Back them up! by ivano · · Score: 1
      Wow. And who is going to pay for this for the next hundred years. Digital archiving is one of the worse ways to archive things (ask anyone in the business). CDs have a shelf life of 5 years. DAT tapes about 10-20 years. Paper (acid-free) can last 1000 years in the right circumstances and 200-500 years on average, otherwise.

      Of course, what you want is a distribution model where someone, somewhere is backing up and archiving some stuff. But given 1000 years I'm sure this system will break down at some critical point and once that happens then you'll lost it.

      Also who is going to keep all of the software and hardware to read all of these different formats up and running. Hence, as the GP said, these requires dedicated, knowledgable people, always making sure hat we can read the documents with right software and backing up not only the documents but the software to read it. For books, I carry my software with me whereever I go: my brain and my eyes.

      Anyway, on a lighter note, I wonder in 1000 years time what archeologists will know about our time. "Look, Roger, a found some one's and zero's. I think it might be part of a Word document..."

      Ciao

    8. Re:Back them up! by trdrstv · · Score: 1
      As Linus has said, "Only wimps use tape backup: real men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it."

      Really? Time to search for some of his Tax records...

    9. Re:Back them up! by hackstraw · · Score: 1


      Its like the whole cathedral and bazaar debate. My thesis is that its better to make information like this that arguably belongs to the public anyway and let them archive it and maintain it for everybody.

      I'm a big Grateful Dead fan even though Jerry Garcia will be dead 11 years on the 9th of next month. I have been collecting "tapes" of recordings of their concerts for almost 20 years now. And you know what? It works. Even though it may not appear on the date that I want it, by having thousands of monkeys out there uploading and downloading the crap over and over again for me, I can always get the show that I want, and the quality always gets better because new recordings get "found" over time. Its beautiful.

      Clearly, the US government sucks at maintaining data storage either just in the sense of keeping it around as in these tapes, or at keeping their secret data secret. So, what's my libertarian hippie answer?

      Give our data to us, and let us determine what is worth keeping and what is not. Human nature has its own built in "forgetter" of stuff that is worth forgetting, and the ability to remember what is worth remembering. By having free redundancy of the data out there, then the likelihood that any one source will disappear is next to zero.

    10. Re:Back them up! by Bun · · Score: 1

      More to the point, putting stuff out on ftp or file sharing and just expecting 'someone, out there' or a bunch of those 'someones' to keep and back up important archival information is just asking for that information to disappear with nary a whimper. Noone will even know it's gone until they go looking for it.

      --
      "Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
  12. I've got some more copies. No worry by krell · · Score: 4, Funny

    They let me on the Warner Bros backlot where the first Apollo landings were filmed back in the 1960s (my dad was friends with the guy they hired to dump the "lunar sand" in the studio). I had my 8 mm Kodak movie camera with me, and I still have some reels that I filmed myself during the shooting of important scenes. I'll put them on Youtube soon. (If you ever see the finished films, you'll see the edge of one of my footprints from when I strayed into the actual set in the "lunar soil" near Neil at one time. I'm surprised that, perfectionist as he was, Kubrick did not catch that and edit it out.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
    1. Re:I've got some more copies. No worry by pjgeer · · Score: 1

      Take that tinfoil off your head and come along with us. Oh and bring that old camera, we need you to do some filming in, ah, well, somewhere in the Caribbean.

  13. Ebay? by Cadallin · · Score: 3, Funny

    Firstly, Isn't this a dupe? And secondly, have they checked ebay yet?

    1. Re:Ebay? by Quizo69 · · Score: 1

      "Firstly, Isn't this a dupe? And secondly, have they checked ebay yet?"

      If it was a dupe, there would be no slashdot article to speak of... because a dupe would mean a backup copy existed, negating the reason! :)

  14. My guess.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Some dude brought them home for the weekend and they wound up being thrown into the trash by his wife.

  15. Good grief, how dumb are you? by attemptedgoalie · · Score: 1

    It was Hanger 18.

    They moved to Area 51 after everybody was talking about Hanger 18 all the time. :-)

    --
    My mom says I'm cool.
  16. I've got them... by SpectreHiro · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now I can prove once and for all that the moon landing was a fraud! So far in reviewing the tapes, I've seen dress-rehearsals, cables, stand-in props... Hell, you can even see a set-designer clad in overalls working on a matte painting in the background.

    Fer criminy's sake, the tapes are labelled "Faked Moon Landing".

    Your ass is mine, NASA!

    --
    You can't win, Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  17. I knew it! by Araxen · · Score: 0, Redundant

    We only walked on the moon in Hollywood not in Space!

    1. Re:I knew it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..Typical idiotic Gen X comment from someone who knows nothing about anything. How pitiful this public education system is.

  18. Quick! Where's a tape!? by EuroChild · · Score: 1

    You just know that one of the people working in the facility used them to tape episodes of Futurama and the Simpsons...

    --
    Does this make my brain look big?
  19. Not surprising, actually by Raul654 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In May, I was a speaker at the ACM Conference on Computers, Privacy, and Freedom (CFP). On the last day of the conference, one of the speakers was the guy in charge of digization efforts at the Smithsonian Musuem of the American Indian. (Granted, a different branch of the government than the National Archives, which this story pertains to). He said that digization efforts are hampered by a number of issues, not the least of which are the sheer size of the collection, the relatively small budget available, the extreme difficulty of digitizing some parts of the collection (like a 16-ton statue, for example). At this point, even getting an electronic catalogue of the entire collection would be a huge step forward.

    --


    To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
    --E.C. Stanton
    1. Re:Not surprising, actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      > ... even getting an electronic catalogue of the entire collection would be a huge step forward

      you mean, like one giant leap?

    2. Re:Not surprising, actually by goofyheadedpunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...the extreme difficulty of digitizing some parts of the collection (like a 16-ton statue, for example)...

      Actually, at the University of Chicago we've been doing this sort of thing for about four years now, though with a bit more than statues. It's time consuming given the current state of scanner hardware, the shear amount of data to be collected and stored and the absolutly shitty software availiable, but it's certainly not extremely difficult. Unless, of course, you count something that's time consuming as difficult.

      --

      What if the entire Universe were a chrooted environment with everything symlinked from the host?
    3. Re:Not surprising, actually by G-funk · · Score: 1

      And don't forget people, copying data is theft!

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    4. Re:Not surprising, actually by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1

      He said that digization efforts are hampered by a number of issues, not the least of which are the sheer size of the collection, the relatively small budget available, the extreme difficulty of digitizing some parts of the collection (like a 16-ton statue, for example). At this point, even getting an electronic catalogue of the entire collection would be a huge step forward.

      You left out the difficulty in getting a government employee to do ANYTHING.

      --
      If you can read this sig, you're too close.
    5. Re:Not surprising, actually by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      the extreme difficulty of digitizing some parts of the collection (like a 16-ton statue, for example).

      Er, you take plenty of digital pictures, you make a 3D model in AutoCAD or something, and you provide detailed descriptions of the material used and the creation process in .txt files?

      This way, if you lose the statue, you have all you need to recreate a perfect copy. Hell, I bet there's a machine somewhere that will take the autocad model and build you a plastic replica from it. Then it's off to the moulders for the brass treatment and we're back with a 16 ton statue.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  20. Re:You don't really believe that conspiracy, do yo by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    Actually have slides, remember those from before digital cameras, that I took off the TV pictures showing them coming down the lader.

  21. Movies stolen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The RIAA was right after all.

    It must have been those damn kids on botorrent and p2p networks!

  22. Bahh.. by eebra82 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    So half the population of the US goes: "Man, the recordings of the world's first Hollywood simulation of the moon are all gone".

  23. youtube please by in2mind · · Score: 3, Funny

    Whoever has those tapes now,upload to youtube please! :p

    1. Re:youtube please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are you going to find a player to upload them with?

    2. Re:youtube please by in2mind · · Score: 1
      Well,assuming that he has the stand alone player to play it,he should atleast be able to record the play with another cam.

      However, for the video to be of any use to him he'd have converted the format long back.Otherwise it'd be quite useless for him to possess in the first place.

  24. MOD PARENT UP by dacarr · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I would mod you up had I the mod points.

    --
    This sig no verb.
  25. Did they ask Dan Rather? by krell · · Score: 4, Funny

    These original DVD's from the CBS vaults were really interesting. They were mastered in 1969 using Amiga Video Toaster. It is probably no coincidence that they turned up missing about the same time Dan Rather left CBS. I wonder if Rather took the wrong boxes when he carted off those old 3.5" inch floppies containing the MS Word 97 docs George Bush's original military service records and archive copies of Bush's Myspace page from 1973.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
    1. Re:Did they ask Dan Rather? by tinrobot · · Score: 1

      Yeah... all that -- and Karl Rove worked the camera.

    2. Re:Did they ask Dan Rather? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are Bush's military service records missing?

      I know if I were drafted in to the service in the early 70's, I would have kept my records to prove I did my service. Especially, being drafted in to the Nation Guard ahead of thousands of men who were sent overseas (back in the 70's the national Guard were kept at home to do what their name means). One wonders how a lackluster student with no work experience got a cush position stateside during the conflict. And then left his unit.

      Why are Bush's military service records missing?

  26. Remember the last scene in "Raiders of the Lost Ar by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    Remember the last scene in "Raiders of the Lost Ark". Boxes and Boxes and more Boxes.

  27. Down the memory hole it goes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next up on Slashdot: Apollo 11 lands on the moon for the first time. The Party rejoices at such a successful mission, which has NEVER happened before.

  28. More like... by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I knew I forgot to return those rental tapes.

    More like they'll show up on eBay.

    There's always the possibility a retiring employee thought they wouldn't be missed. Or some overefficient bureacratic paper shuffler elected to do something about all those dusty boxes on the shelf which look utterly horrid (ever have one of these people sweep into your office and suggest your desk needs cleaning?) and would win some kind of medal if they could only dispose of them and put a spit shine on those shelves.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:More like... by NateTech · · Score: 1

      Yes, they're usually ex-Air Force officers. ESPECIALLY if they went the Academy. Zoomies love telling other people to clean up things.

      --
      +++OK ATH
  29. Actually... by rackhamh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wouldn't you think that only the people who were THERE have seen the moon walk in ALL its glory? ;)

    1. Re:Actually... by nick_davison · · Score: 1

      I doubt it. Neil Armstrong likely saw the first foot to set foot on the moon but probably never saw the entirety of the first astronaut to do it - given that he was the guy and thus got a limited view from inside a helmet rather than the wider angle coverage of the camera.

      It's like first person vs. third person games. Accepting that there can be different viewpoints, no one perspective can show "all" the "glory". Neil likely experience a different, very powerful glory as he jumped down - but has also, quite likely, never experienced "all the glory" of watching the first man to do it in all the recorded detail available.

    2. Re:Actually... by Jerrry · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I was thinking.

      I don't know about you guys, but I will truely morn when Armstrong, Aldrin, Bean, etc., pass on.

    3. Re:Actually... by thatoneguy_jm · · Score: 1

      You mean, like the actors and other people that were at the soundstage? ;-)

  30. How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by Danga · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok, seriously, how can you lose ~99% of the data from something that is such a HUGE part of history? It is not like this was video of the 30th space shuttle launch or something, this was the first time humans had landed on the MOON. I would think that somebody would realize this and would have taken much more care of those tapes.

    Since the PDF is slashdotted so I can't read it I also am curious as to why if "the last place on earth which can actually read these tapes" closes down someone won't be able to save whatever is required to read the tapes, are they just going to trash the machines? That would seem pretty stupid to me. Anyone have any answers?

    The worst part is the conspiracy theorists claiming the landing never occurred are going to go nuts over this. Almost all the tapes of the landing mysteriously disappear as well as the only way to read the tapes, if I was one of them I would go nuts too.

    --
    Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    1. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by gd23ka · · Score: 0, Troll

      What is stopping you then from becoming one?

      Consider this:

      1. There are many discrepancies in the pictures and film footage they claim they took on the moon such as
      wrong shadows, light reflections that shouldn't be there etc.

      2. The high definition master copies of that material disappear

      3. Even the equipment to read these tapes is put out of reach by closing down the facility it was available at.

      1+2+3=?

      But hey, it's just a "Conspiracy Theory", right? Nothing to get excited about because real stuff gets reported
      by real people in real newspapers and on real TV stations, right? All the other folks out there, they're no
      smarter than you or else they'd be on TV so they're just a bunch of cooky conspiracy theorists so never mind
      listening to them, okay? Atta-boy. Here, watch a Battle-Star Galactica Episode instead, that will help take
      your mind off this crap.

    2. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Err, all of this was repeatedly explained, like on the moon the earth is pretty bright, and that you don't see the stars because they're too faint at the shutter speed used.

    3. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      As far as how the tapes were loss, my guess is that they were in boxes labelled "1969 Apollo Moon Landing SSTV Tapes", not something like "The only original recordings of the very first moon landing don't let things things out of your sight or else this valuable piece of history will be lost forever". My guess is that almost *everything* in the US National Archives is the only remaining piece/copy of whatever valuable part of our history it is.

      As far as why there won't be any more SSTV tapes is that technology needs to be supported by a knowledge and manufacturing base. Eventually, some part of the reader will wear out or break down. We'll need a replacement part, and there are no more factories or workshops that make such parts. The people who knew how retired long, and they don't remember. Documentation, specs, and blueprints didn't need to be stored after decades of uselessness. The only option is to hire some engineer to reverse engineer the tech (hopefully without destroying even one of the last remaining copies of the original Moon Landing tapes) and re-create a machine... or transfer it to a new medium.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    4. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by gd23ka · · Score: 1

      Of course, I forgot. But you see the thing is, I'm not an expert on photography so I couldn't tell whether
      these 'explanations' have any merit at all except of course if they actually gave that kind of explanation
      on TV or in some other 'respectable' print publication. If that's the case then I'm certainly not going to
      argue with an expert especially with one who was on TV.

    5. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by Keeper · · Score: 1

      I'm a hobbist photographer, and even I know enough to explain away the conspiracy theorist "discrepancies". This is simple optics and photography 101 we're talking about here...

    6. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by Yehooti · · Score: 1

      Losing this much history of this feat is downright criminal!

    7. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by tibbetts · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is the U.S. government we're talking about. Shouldn't the question be, "How did they manage not to lose 2 of the 700 boxes?"

      --
      :wq
    8. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by Danga · · Score: 1

      What is stopping you then from becoming one?... All the other folks out there, they're no smarter than you or else they'd be on TV so they're just a bunch of cooky conspiracy theorists so never mind listening to them, okay?

      I actually was very intrigued when I first learned that people thought the landing was faked. I did a lot of research looking at both sides and I finally decided there was more convincing evidence on the side saying the landings were real. There definitely is still a lot of strange occurrences such as how many of the main people involved mysteriously died but I still think the landings were real.

      Here are a couple links that I liked (and could still find since it has been a while since I researched) which debunked many of the "conspiracy theorists" claims:

      http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm and http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/ and http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Did%20we%20land%20on %20the%20Moon.htm

      This is an interesting neutral site: http://www.xenophilia.com/zb0003.htm

      Here is one of the "conspiracy theorists" sites I found interesting:

      http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    9. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by gd23ka · · Score: 1

      You should get on TV then and then you could show the whole world what kind of cooky freaks these
      Moon Hoaxer Conspiracy Theorists really are. Honestly, if you're that good I think their case is
      going to crumble just like a house of cards. Same goes for all these freaks who go around claiming
      OUR Government (UNITED WE STAND!) is actually behind the 911 attacks. I mean come on! We need to
      make sure US-Opinion stays .. we'll let's say sensible .. and one terrific way of doing that is
      debunking these 'conspiracy theorists' by getting some real experts on the tube.

      You know, writing this, I'm particularily pissed of at this aircraft design engineer or whatever he
      is, who thinks he's a specialist on aircraft just because he designs them. Anyway they had this guy
      on TV and he pointed out that pieces of wreckage shown from the plane that hit the Pentagon just couldn't
      have possibly come from the kind of airliner we all know hit the Pentagon. (They said what kind of plane
      that was on TV, remember?). Anyway I would love to see this guy debunked by a real expert and shown
      what kind of retard he really is.

    10. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would think that somebody would realize this and would have taken much more care of those tapes.

      Who said somebody isn't? Just because you don't know who is taking care of them doesn't mean that they aren't being cared for.

    11. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by waferhead · · Score: 1

      More likely a new manager came in a ordered a new 5S program.

      Probably in a landfill somewhere.

    12. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by MadEE · · Score: 1
      You should get on TV then and then you could show the whole world what kind of cooky freaks these Moon Hoaxer Conspiracy Theorists really are.
      Get on TV? You make it sound like a person just walks up to the Studio and they put you on national TV. Most people who are knowledgeable in the subjects probably have little time to deal with getting themselves on TV. It is that reason why there are so many cooks on the TV.
    13. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by gd23ka · · Score: 1

      You know, - personally - I think they did go to the moon and then edited out/ blacked out things not intended for
      the chattel. Knowing a thing or two about Masons I could very well imagine that they would could not resist a ritual
      while on the moon. Our ruling elites are pretty much into rituals themselves:

      Every July, Fuehrerpresident Bush, his Daddy and nice folks like Bill Clinton and of course
      David Gergen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gergen, the David Rockefeller and the rest of the really important
      people (the TV People, remember?) they meet at the Bohemian Grove http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove where
      there's the Bohemian Club http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Club where they
      celebrate the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cremation_of_Care Ritual every July. Whatever it is that our hooded and
      black robed masters of Televison Entertainment, World Politics, War against Terror/Drugs/Hatespeech and Billion Dollar
      Mergers that leave thousands without income do, I'd say it's Phoenician Baal Molech worship at it's best but hey that
      would make me a stupid "Conspiracy Theorist".

      Hey serf! If you want to see what your Masters are up to this month, there's a VIDEO made by Alex Jones at
      http://www.infowars.com/ you should watch: (He sneaked into the Bohemian Grove and filmed the ritual)

      http://www.archive.org/details/DSIBG

    14. Re: How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Funny

      > This is the U.S. government we're talking about. Shouldn't the question be, "How did they manage not to lose 2 of the 700 boxes?"

      That would be uncharacteristic thoroughness.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    15. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

      They can't? Tell this guy. (Sorry, someone had to post that.)

    16. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by gd23ka · · Score: 1

      Yes, you may have a point here. Especially as far as the aircraft design engineer is concerned who designs these aircraft
      and he got to say on TV that part of the wreckage that hit the Pentagon couldn't have come from such an airliner.
      A good thing they put "Conspiracy Theorist" after his name, so people know what kind of person is talking there and
      what to think of what he's saying there. I guess it saved a couple of people extra effort of thinking a hell of a lot about
      the issue.

      You're right in that we don't have enough TV formats (errm "shows" is what the layperson calls them) where we deal with
      problem people that abuse the internet and other alternative media. You know, labelling them "conspiracy theorist" may be
      a very effective first line of defense but the problem with these cooks is that they are so incredibly persistent and they're
      people out there helping them.

    17. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by Keeper · · Score: 1

      You don't get it ... logic, reason, and evidence mean nothing to conspiracy theorists. If I (or anyone else) goes on TV, they'd consider us part of the conspiracy to hide the truth.

      Not that I (or anyone else) could get any air time to debunk the stuff in the first place. Truth and science are boring.

    18. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Just the facility capable of replying/re-recording the tapes will be shut down.
      If you have ever worked in/with Fed. Gov't., then you should know that the equipment in said facility will have to stay in inventory and will still be onsite for a while after shutting down- not like for special occasions it can't be reused, and this would be one of those special occasions, if the budget allows.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    19. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      Maybe they were truthfully labeled "fake moon landing" and the janitor thought he could make some space by throwing those out. After all they're not the "real ones", so no one would miss them...

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    20. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by gd23ka · · Score: 1

      Oh I get what you're saying and tell you what, I think this line of thinking is indeed worth pursuing. Logic, reaon and
      evidence means nothing to a "conspiracy theorist", especially the ones in the Whitehouse and in the
      Cooky International Alliance (CIA). We would still like to see some sort of WMD (tm) "Weapon of Mass-destruction" materialize
      out of Iraq. But never mind, you just can't pin the label "Conspiracy Theorist" on real people. It's designed to
      attach itself to the cook who has to actually earn Federal "Reserve" notes if she wants to eat.

      Personally I am in no way concerned what a few hundred people happen to think what the truth is so it doesn't matter
      whether they consider you part of the conspiracy to hide things from them. When we put you in front of the camera we're
      not trying to reach those cooks but the millions of people who might otherwise listen to them. That we have to prevent and
      personally I don't think we're doing a good job in that department. Heil Hitler.

    21. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by m874t232 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Ok, seriously, how can you lose ~99% of the data from something that is such a HUGE part of history?

      Simple: instead of employing archivists, librarians, and imaging experts, the government has been cutting budgets and spending money on sending soldiers to Iraq instead. In different words, if people vote for presidents that promise to reduce "the size of government" and increase the size of the military, that's what they mean. The American public got what the majority voted for.

    22. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It is that reason why there are so many cooks on the TV.

      The Iron Chef is good, but I like Jamie Oliver too.

    23. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

      Just a little side note. Using intelligent, and intelligible, sentences add a lot to your "take me seriously" score. And it's spelled "kooks". Not "cooks". The latter makes tasty food. (Or, sometimes, just food.) The former, well... you're apparently pretty well acquainted with them, already.

      --
      Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    24. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by Timbotronic · · Score: 1

      Ok, seriously, how can you lose ~99% of the data from something that is such a HUGE part of history?

      Last I heard they were being stored next to the Ark of the Covenant

      --

      One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there

    25. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by gd23ka · · Score: 1

      Thank you for correcting me, I have updated my internal databases. This deep into the thread I guess we can afford some meta
      discussion about the thread. Apparently people are reading this thread and someone even got upset enough to moderate the
      root article to 0;Troll. Now let's see if there are people out there who will put it back up. As of late I am getting both
      a lot of flak but also support from people with mod points so I think I'm doing pretty okay here.

    26. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      on your comment #1: only people who don't know what they are talking about think most of those are true. ESPECIALLY the wrong shadows thing (think lots of hills, lots of rocks.) Want proof? Go out into the desert with a single huge light source and try it for your self. Also consider the fact that on the moon the sky is going to be much darker and light is reflecting off the ground. stars will NOT show up in pictures (already proven). I really love the argument about the *cough*translucent*cough* flag being lit from both sides.

      I mean most of the arguments are retarded. There are some good ones I'm sure but most of them are easy to shoot down.

      Also there were mirrors placed on the moon during the trip which get used quite often for reflecting lasers to measure the distance between the moon and earth.

      The proof is there people just refuse to listen. we're all brain washed or secretly working for the gov. if we believe otherwise.

    27. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit if they were stolen I think the odds are that they're in BETTER hands or atleast who ever would have done it knows their worth

    28. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by gd23ka · · Score: 1

      As far as the arguments both pro and contra are concerned, it's not a matter of having hundreds of "retarded" arguments that are
      easily debunked but rather how many good arguments there are that can't be shot down just like that. And as far as the moon hoax
      there remain many open and loose ends.

      I am pretty ambivalent to what degree the moon landing was a hoax, whether in its entirety or just parts of it. Personally I
      think they actually did go to the moon but didn't let us in on everything they did while they were up there.

      However as far as this thread is concerned that's pretty much beside the point I'm trying to make. I'm far more interested to show
      people how ideas and concepts are shot down by nailing them with the label 'Conspiracy Theory' or invalidating people by
      slapping the "Conspiracy Theorist" label on them. The way I see it I have created a thread here on Slashdot worth reading and
      thinking about, oh and even one with things on the sidelines worth investigating.

      If there's one thing we're conditioned to avoid then that's checking out facts for ourselves and making up our own minds...

    29. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by Scott7477 · · Score: 1

      Don't you remember? When Indiana Jones brought back the Ark of the Covenant, the government put it in a plain wooden box and stashed it a giant warehouse. And they didn't even have bar codes for labeling things back then. Come on!

      --
      "Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
    30. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      >Ok, seriously, how can you lose ~99% of the data from something that is such a HUGE part of history?

      The SNR on this kind of material is seriously low. There is rarely any interest in maintaining this stuff (or even keeping track of it) until a story goes out that it's possibly lost. There is a LOT of NASA data that will deteriorate LONG before anyone analyzes it.

      The same thing happened to most of the films of the 1920s, too. Concerned people with their bleeding hearts came out of the woodwork *after* the films were lost to neglect.

      Okay, so Apollo XI was special, and its records should have been handled with even more care than the other missions, perhaps. But let's have a show of hands here, who actively pursued an interest in this material *before* it was reported lost?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    31. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The problem with conspiracy theorists is not that they have claims which contradict common knowledge. Their problem is they never, ever change their conclusion, no matter how much counter evidence you give tot them. At best, they modify their theory to fit their predecided conclusion, but usually they just ignore you and continue spitting same shit to other people. Both reactions are methodological and cognitive failures.

      Beware, you probably are one of them.

    32. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      Ok, seriously, how can you lose ~99% of the data from something that is such a HUGE part of history?
      Very easily. All sorts of important stuff goes walkies. You'd be amazed how many classic rock albums no longer exists as masters, they just have to take copies from the existing CDs. Equally, it's very common for stuff to be recorded in a format that is no longer readable because the hardware is long since gone. This is a huge and understood problem and people are working on trying to fix it but it's slow and expensive activity. On a smaller level, in the UK years ago the BBC did a 'Domeday Project' which used the BBC Micro and custom laserdisc player and was basically an up to date version of the Domesday book from medieval times recording every city, town and village. School kids all over the country helped compile the data and it was a big thing at the time, available in libraries etc. Then a couple of years ago, someone realised there were no known working players left...

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    33. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by Keeper · · Score: 1

      The people seduced by conspiracy theories aren't the type that will be swayed with reason and logic. The millions of people you would be attempting to reach will either dismiss the conspiracy out of hand (because, let's be honest, the people latching onto them generally look and sound like nutters), or they'll accept it regardless of whatever evidence is presented to them.

      People seduced by conspiracy theories don't do so because they believe they have hard evidence supporting their claims -- they do so because it might be possible given a set of conditions that nobody can either prove or disprove.

      The moon landings are a hoax because it MIGHT have been some sort of anti-communist propoganda conspiracy. Hell, it doesn't take much effort to imagine circumstances in which that MIGHT have actually occured. The problem is, of course, there is no way to prove it might not have occured, because as we just stated it doesn't take much effort to imagine cirumstances that it MIGHT have occured. Disproving any evidence supporting the theory doesn't do any good, as it still MIGHT have happened.

      If you want proof of this concept, you only have to look as far as the last slashdot article involving Microsoft.

      You'll forgive me if I don't want to waste my life battling fanatics.

    34. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      cutting budgets and spending money on sending soldiers to Iraq instead.

      Damn, actually had to read a hundred messages before GW got the blame!

      Things are starting to look up for the repubs!

    35. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC there was an article on /. like a year ago or so, where NASA tried to look up some stuff from Voyager, but something like 30% of the video had just disappeared off the tape. Maybe the same stuff is happening here. If it is, then NASA needs to use some of its $Billions to buy a freakin' DVD burner and ATi All-In-Wonder card already....

    36. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by gr8_phk · · Score: 1
      "The worst part is the conspiracy theorists claiming the landing never occurred are going to go nuts over this."

      Hey man, I remember that time lapse shot of the "earth rise" from the moon. They better destroy that one because the earth doesn't move relative to a guy on the moon.

      Actually it was probably from orbit, but we can't check if the footage is missing...

    37. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by SlayerofGods · · Score: 1

      The real question isn't how they lost it..... I mean the government produces a LOT of crap paperwork and stuff that probably buried it (assumeing it really wasn't stolen like many here seem to think).
      The real question is why was there only one copy??? No one thought to duplicate it before this??
      I mean it doesn't even have to be NASA that made a copy, surely there would have been at least one private collector, one museum, one university, someone out there that would have liked a high res copy.

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    38. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by gd23ka · · Score: 1

      So when you talk to someone and you're not happy when they listen to you and modify their theory on account of the facts you give them?
      Instead you have the expectation that they must arrive at exactly the same conclusion you do?

      What does that make you?

      Btw, "Common Knowledge" is so subjective, what may be "common knowledge" to one man. may be utterly preposterous to another.

    39. Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? by WinDoze · · Score: 1

      No soft toilet papers in Hotel Bastardos! You want soft toilet papers, you go to Hotel Gayboy!

      And no flushing guns down the toilet!

  31. Originals look worse by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

    Does anyone think that the originals in the comparisons look worse than the TV versions?

    It may have something to do with the way they got the image, but man, they're not really proving their point with 'em.

    1. Re:Originals look worse by HaloZero · · Score: 1

      It's because George Lucas hasn't had his way with the originals, yet. Soon enough, the 'director's true vision' can be revealed to us. There will come a day.

      --
      Informatus Technologicus
    2. Re:Originals look worse by sakusha · · Score: 1

      WTF are you talking about? The SSTV pictures have much more detail and better greyscale levels than the downconverted NTSC video. Sure, there are artifacts in the picture, they were taken with Polaroid or 35mm cameras which have problems capturing raster images, but these were obviously test shots and not intended for reproduction. Photos of TV screens are difficult to produce, your shutter speed has to exactly match the time it takes to paint one raster, and film cameras weren't built for that, especially when you're using funky raster timings like SSTV.

    3. Re:Originals look worse by Ectospheno · · Score: 1

      What on earth are you talking about? Did you look at the same pdf I did? They showed photographs taken of the original monitors that look way better than the footage that eventually found it's way to TV.

      Are you sure you didn't misread the captions under the pictures?

    4. Re:Originals look worse by sakusha · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see the problem now. You looked at the web page, not the PDF. The images on the web page are screwed up, the PDF has much better quality. Don't judge by the website. Try the PDF, the main article's link was a botched attempt to use Coral Cache or something, edit it to get the original URL and it will load OK. Well at least it did for me.

    5. Re:Originals look worse by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      The photos are super-washed-out. Any bright white has distortion around it that covers about twice as much area as it should with more white. I can't even see enough of the "good" ones to tell if they're any good.

    6. Re:Originals look worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that the originals look pretty sketch in the PDF document. What I don't understand is why they didn't take the tapes that still remain, put them through the machine that's about to be dismantled, and perform the digital transfer they'd like to do. Then we can see the true "before" and "after" experience possible by retrieving the lost tapes.

    7. Re:Originals look worse by aonaran · · Score: 1

      That is an artifact of taking a photo of a screen (The SSTV images) as opposed to a screen capture (the TV images).
      Look at any tech site and you'll find that photos of a computer screen vs screencaptures there also suffer from similar problems.

      In order to not get scan lines in your photo you have to set your shutter speed to less than the scan rate (1/10th of a second on the SSTV monitor) which is really long in film speed terms, thus any bright part of the screen is over exposed, but in the more neutral gray areas you can definitely see a lot more detail than in the TV images that were broadcast.

  32. torrent ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny


    i found the release .nfo but i cant find a torrent

    NASA.faked.moon.landings.1969.LiMITED.VHSRip.Xvid. AC3-TeamFBI.CD1-CD698.rar

  33. they didn't go anywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they didn't "go" anywhere. they don't have legs. someone lost them, but it sounds better to say they may have went missing on their own.

  34. Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!!!! by gd23ka · · Score: 3, Funny

    I mean that's just taking it way too far. To think that they actually faked the moon landing.
    So what if they did plan to invade Cuba by shooting down a civilian airliner over Cuba and
    then blaming Castro for it (Operation Northwood, if you're into FOIA documents), so what
    if George W(anker) Bush's Grandpa Prescott cut Onkel Adolf a cheque every now and then and now
    they're friends with BinLaden Terrorgroup Inc. so what if these people used unsuspecting
    civilians and military unwittingly as subjects in radiation experiments, ... ... ..

    The world saw it happen on TV and just because some cooky people have come out of the woodwork
    to point out that many lights and shadows on the official footage of the moon landing are obviously
    not what they should be if the images were "real", that still doesn't mean they're right. If
    they were right, don't you think it would have come to light decades ago and they would have
    had this on TV and in the newspapers??!

    Your sir, are in desperate need of a heavy dose of reality here. I suspect you have been dodging
    your weekly Ritalin injections for months now or else you wouldn't be having so funny ideas.

  35. In other news by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nearly 700 copies of "A Star Wars Holiday Special" appeared in the trash around LucasFilm that had been taped over some old media George had obtained from NASA years ago.

  36. Australia!!!??? by jarg0n · · Score: 0

    Why were the original US moon landing tapes stored in an Australian observatory!!??

    --
    Error 2101: all your sig are belong to us
    1. Re:Australia!!!??? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      Maybe the Moon was only visible from Australia during the landing, and they never bothered to cart the hi-fi versions across the Pacific. If the signal had to be relayed from Australia to the US, it was probably downsampled in real time. Just a wild guess. Anybody really know?

      There was an Australian observatory scene in The Right Stuff, and this reminds me of that.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    2. Re:Australia!!!??? by Demolition · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why were the original US moon landing tapes stored in an Australian observatory!!??

      As it says in the summary, the tapes were stored in the U.S. National Archives. The man who reported them missing (John Sarkissian) just happens to work for CSIRO Parkes Observatory in Australia.

    3. Re:Australia!!!??? by krell · · Score: 1

      "The man who reported them missing (John Sarkissian) just happens to work for CSIRO Parkes Observatory in Australia."

      Is this the same guy who said that the giant monster in space seen heading to the Earth was really just a gnat on the telescope lens? Not sure I believe his explanation anymore!

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
    4. Re:Australia!!!??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i sure hope that was sarcasm, because there wasnt a single part of the footage filmed from earth (for simple, easily understandable and logical reasons...which you seem to have overlooked)

      anyway i'd love to find what camera they filmed with that could zoom to that detail from a few thousand miles away. pretty advanced for 1969 ;) ;)

    5. Re:Australia!!!??? by Preacher+X · · Score: 2, Informative

      actually the reason for this as far as i have seen is because the australian observatory was the only valid relay point with equipment capable of receiving the signal fromt he video feeds for the lander. During certain orbital positions the US would not have signal contact with the crew, this just happened to be in one of those windows is what most likely happened.

      --
      "And the heathens with their ways of trickery and deceit shall not prevail over the will of the righteous"
    6. Re:Australia!!!??? by nytes · · Score: 1

      Well, there you have it.

      He might actually be able to find them if he wasn't looking in Australia.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    7. Re:Australia!!!??? by mwillis · · Score: 4, Funny

      Born Canadian; I lived in Parkes between 1988 and 1989. Nobody else in /. can say that. Even the ozzies I meet say "wtf?".

      My advice:

      Can you trust somebody who lives next to a giant space telescope? Who knows what planet their allegiance lies with?

    8. Re:Australia!!!??? by istartedi · · Score: 1

      It was neither sarcastic nor serious in the sense that you describe. I thought everybody would understand that I was referring to Line-of-sight signals, which required the Moon to be visible. In the future, I suppose I should dumb it down for people who have user numbers higher than mine. Now *that's* sarcasm.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    9. Re:Australia!!!??? by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

      One of the radio telescopes that recieved the original broadcast from the Apollo 11 was in Australia. They made the original tape, copied it, and shipped it to Goddard. The Aussies then recorded later missions over the copies... and now Goddard can't find the originals.

      --
      Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    10. Re:Australia!!!??? by CCFreak2K · · Score: 1

      "I sense a disturbance in the force. It's as if hundreds of tapes cried out in terror, then fell silent.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
    11. Re:Australia!!!??? by Odonian · · Score: 1
      Because when Apollo 11 landed on the moon, Australia was the side of the earth facing the moon. Parkes Observatory had the responsibility of establishing the video feed and relaying it back to Houston. ...And it almost didnt happen. There was a power failure just before the landing, and Parkes 'lost' the moon on tracking. They had to eyeball it by looking out the window and pointing the dish at the moon. For a fascinating look into these events, I suggest the movie The Dish

      After watching this, you might not be surprised why the boxes were lost.. its a pretty rinky-dink operation from the security standpoint.

  37. This Proves that... by ac7xc · · Score: 1
  38. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congratulations! You've reached the same status as the parent post - I have no idea if you're serious or not, but either way I still have to laugh at what you wrote.

  39. Oh dear... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    No chance Sandy Berger was in there looking at them. Check his socks. And his trash. At home. rick

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  40. Terrible! by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is terrible. We know that in the far future the crew of the Battlestar Galactica intercept some of these recordings but it seems that they just miss the transmissions from the moon. These recordings are doomed to be lost forever.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  41. It's "How can THE GOVERNMENT lose 698/700 boxes?" by ArielMT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's "How can the government lose 698/700 boxes?"

    Very easily. They can have all the best recordkeeping procedures in the world, and still lose anything through poor recordkeeping practices despite procedure. And before y'all attribute it to conspiracy theories, I remind you: Don't attribute to malice that which is sufficiently explained by stupidity.

    --
    It must be Windows. It needs half a gig of RAM and a hardware-accelerated graphics card just to run Solitaire.
  42. See, this is why we use paper to record data by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    in our genetics studies.

    It's easy to copy, you can write on it, it's not power dependent, and in a pinch you can use it to start a fire.

    Plus, if you drink coffee, the rings make pretty pictures.

    At least they didn't use BetaMax for the moon landings.

    But check Cheney's basement, he probably removed it "for official viewing" and has decided we don't get to see them.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:See, this is why we use paper to record data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, obviously they just should've hired an army of cartoonists to draw "Apollo 11: Flip book Edition" :-)

    2. Re:See, this is why we use paper to record data by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Yeah, obviously they just should've hired an army of cartoonists to draw "Apollo 11: Flip book Edition" :-)

      Well, what do you think animated shows are?

      I think they should hire the animator Bill Plimpton to "redraw" the moon landings.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  43. And You Trust Government? by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    Government and the general public education system (arguably = Government at this point) are arguably the slowest and least likely to "keep up" with changes in society and technology.

    Because career employees in the "Public Service Sector" function almost as Tenured Professors's, virtually by design, there is little way to make government entities "perk up", as you can't get rid of positions or employees who are not keeping up. Solution = add more departments (more tax dollars).

    There have been debacles with the IRS computer system, no computer system of note at the FBI, no interacting computer systems amongst security agencies, and now State Department web site hacking and military members' personal data stolen.

    Some times it takes a revolution to get progress. I hope the revolution starts at the ballet box, not the bullet box like the Middle East. Hopefully our U.S. Federal Government figures out how to safely store things, whether it is the National Archives or the Nuclear Archives. Geesh!

    1. Re:And You Trust Government? by m874t232 · · Score: 1

      Government and the general public education system (arguably = Government at this point) are arguably the slowest and least likely to "keep up" with changes in society and technology.

      NASA is having funding problems; they can't afford to "keep up" with changes in society and technology, they can barely keep their core projects running.

      How do these things happen? The archivist responsible for the recordings probably retired years ago and wasn't replaced due to funding cuts. At some point, someone probably needed more space, there was a room full of old dusty tapes, nobody knew that those old tapes were the originals, and they got thrown out. It's as simple as that, and the only people at fault are the politicians that promise to reduce the size of government and the people who voted for them.

  44. Flood by tonymtdew · · Score: 1

    The national archives flooded a couple weeks ago, if you were remotely in the north east, you would have known that. All of DC basically shut down, essentially opening the doors to anybody who wanted to grab anything. IF it had been faked, they wouldnt have kept the video in the archives in such high quality. Every claim to be faked has been proven wrong

    1. Re:Flood by istartedi · · Score: 1

      I live in DC, and although I didn't check out the archives, I'm pretty sure that if I walked into any building downtown and just took stuff, I'd be busted. When DC is "shutdown", this translates to "superfluous cops ar guarding every road block in the small area that's off limits". Besides, what thief would be able to identify this stuff, and even if they could, why would they take it, and why would you RENT A TRUCK and attempt to pull of this job when the profit margin on a simple smash-n-grab or auto theft is so much more reliable?

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    2. Re:Flood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you'd RTFA you'd know that the tapes have been missing since the 1980's.

  45. Apollo 11: The Special Limited Collector's Edition by identity0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Do not worry, dear consumers! The tapes have not gone "missing". The studio that made the original landing footage simply took it back to their labs to Digitally Re-Master it for the Special Limited Collector's Edition DVD, which will be out by Christmas. Since the original director (Kubrik) is gone, they will have directors George Lucas and Steven Spielberg collaborate on this wonderful new addition to the Disney(TM) Classics(TM) Collection(TM).

    New, never-before scenes will be inserted into the middle of the old, staid footage!
    Tom Hanks will replace Neil Armstrong through the magic of digital effects!
    Kristie Alley will be Buzz Aldrin, adding an exciting new romantic subplot to the mission!
    A lovable animal sidekick will have your kids squealing in delight!
    Gagarin shoots first!

    Master directors Spielberg and Lucas will also modernize the plot and imagery to give a fresh, "post-2001" look!
    The American flag, such an archaic-looking symbol (that didn't test well with audiences overseas), will be replaced with a pleasant, pastel blue UN flag. The ugly SUV 'lunar rover' will be digitally removed, and replaced with bicycles which the astronauts will pedal about the moon. The President will be updated to be a Texan oil millionaire conducting a needless war in Asia, who commander Michael Collins (played by academy award-winner Liam Neeson) will denounce for "having turned to the dark side". The "Cold War" sideplot will be updated to be a "Temporal War On Terror", which will feature terrorists from the future attempting to fly the Space Shuttle Columbia into the White House! Can our heroes stop them 'in time'?!

    This and other new changes will keep the franchise fresh and exciting to today's viewers, and like Star Trek: Enterprise, will boldly re-write history that no one but nerds cares about anyways!

    Apollo 11: The Special Limited Collector's Edititon: Coming Christmas 2006 - collect all 6 covers!

  46. Sandy greeted at home by krell · · Score: 1

    Sandy greeted at home by his wife after an innocent visit to the archives: "Is that a sensitive national security dossier in your briefs, or are you just glad to see me?"

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
    1. Re:Sandy greeted at home by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      She WISHES it wasn't a dossier. rick

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  47. Re:It's "How can THE GOVERNMENT lose 698/700 boxes by blibbler · · Score: 1

    The most convincing evidence against most of the massive government conspiricy theories is: how can an entity suddenly perform a massive cover-up operation so competently, when they manage to screw up everything else they do?

  48. no, no no... by MattS423 · · Score: 1

    no guys, we lost those boxes! We don't have the data because WE LOST IT! We went to the moon and made the tapes, we just lost it! dumb comnspiracy theorists. I'll bet your suspicious of this "supposed" "motherhood" and "apple pie" too...

  49. Sure by lawpoop · · Score: 1

    I saw Michael Jackson in concert back in '86. I doubt that the '69 moonwalk would compare.

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
  50. Re:Apollo 11: The Special Limited Collector's Edit by krell · · Score: 1

    Just keep Lucas away from the thing. I'll be damned if I'm going to see Gungans greet Armstrong as he steps foot on the lunar surface. "Ona step for gungans, ona giganta leep for meesa!". However, I have to admit, I would welcome a space battle as the lunar module struggles to complete its landing. In fact, really looking forward to Jerry Bruckheimer adding huge slow-motion fireballs in space depicting the competing Russian modules getting blown up.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
  51. Good grief... by DreadfulGrape · · Score: 2, Insightful

    !No mas! Please, I'm begging you, no more faked-moon-walk replies. 95% of this comment page should be modded "redundant."

    --
    sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
    1. Re:Good grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMEM

  52. Welcome to the new Digital Dark Age! by Artifakt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's been said that future generations will regard the next few decades as a dark age, where the culture lost most of its common heritage. This will supposedly come about because so much audio and video is mouldering away (sometimes literally), locked in vaults where it will rot before anyone can recover it. While such factors as copyrights much longer than the physical life of the archival media are likely to contribute to this, the loss of these tapes is an example of another cause.
          Why do so many people think Colombus discovered America? He got it into the permanent record, where the vikings, chinese, etc. didn't. Will Neal Armstrong be the Lief Ericson of the 26th century, and some one from the Chinese, Indian or Nigerian space program get all the credit, because they kept thir records?

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
    1. Re:Welcome to the new Digital Dark Age! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is very good evidence that the Viking made it to Newfoundland but no real evidence of the Chinese ever making it to America. Skeptism requires evaluating a claim but it seems that ever Tom, Dick and Harry who thinks they know something about the Chinese in 14xx publishes a book of hearsay and conjecture about this. The Viking have a record, both archaelogically as well as literary whereas the Chinese have neither to my knowledge.

    2. Re:Welcome to the new Digital Dark Age! by afidel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually I think it will be quite the opposite. The explosion of cheap means of creating content will mean that much more will survive. I don't think a large percentage of correspondance from say the civil war survived, and the high cost in both materials, education and time to create the material means that there was much less content originally made. If even a fraction of the same percentage from today survives it means that future historians will have such large mountains of information to go through that their problem will be one of cataloging and sorting, not in finding the information to research.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Welcome to the new Digital Dark Age! by noidentity · · Score: 1

      My, what did we do without video cameras? It's a wonder we even survived.

    4. Re:Welcome to the new Digital Dark Age! by Jugalator · · Score: 0

      wtf who cares! i d/led paris hiltn givin a blowjob with bt.. lolol i like dat tape
      wuts this about columbos? u mean chris colombos directing harry poter? yea it rocked

      ^--- The aforementioned post-digital dark age. :-)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    5. Re:Welcome to the new Digital Dark Age! by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Why do so many people think Colombus discovered America? He got it into the permanent record, where the vikings, chinese, etc. didn't.

      "The permanent record" has nothing to do with it. Carve it in the side of a mountain if you like, and it still won't matter.

      Accomplishing something first is insignificant... a footnote in history. The significant part is not keeping that fact stored somewhere, but imparting that knowledge onto others, who can build upon it and benefit.

      The Wright Brothers would have been long forgotten if nobody had built upon their invention. It's not that they were the first to meet some arbitrary cosmic goal, it's that they made a leap which was carried on, and to the benefit of mankind.

      A man walking on the moon is completely insignificant next to the lessons learned in the process of sending him there.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:Welcome to the new Digital Dark Age! by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Why do so many people think Colombus discovered America? He got it into the permanent record, where the vikings, chinese, etc. didn't. Will Neal Armstrong be the Lief Ericson of the 26th century, and some one from the Chinese, Indian or Nigerian space program get all the credit, because they kept thir records?

      Neal Armstrong could only become "the Lief Ericson of the 26th century" in some weird fantasy future - in which the thousands of books on the topic become lost, along with every TV recording, dozens of DVDs, about the same number of video releases, at least five different (LP) albums... Neal Armstrong is pretty firmly in the permanent record.
    7. Re:Welcome to the new Digital Dark Age! by DigiShaman · · Score: 1
      And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost. History became legend, legend became myth...

      Galadriel: Lord of the Rings

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    8. Re:Welcome to the new Digital Dark Age! by zotz · · Score: 1

      [Will Neal Armstrong be the Lief Ericson of the 26th century, and some one from the Chinese, Indian or Nigerian space program get all the credit, because they kept thir records?]

      Dude! You got it wrong from the break. The Bahamians already went there (the moon) in 4321 B.C. but we didn't manage to get it into the permanent record and so it is our great exploits that are being passed over even as we speak!

      all the best,

      drew
      (da idea man)

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
    9. Re:Welcome to the new Digital Dark Age! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This type of event is a great example of why I dismiss most claims of "government conspiracy" - much of the government is usually to greedy/incompetent/corrupt to actually pull off anything like a "faked" lunar landing. Looting the archives and hoarding a bunch of valuable tapes, spacesuits, and trinkets? That's more their speed.

    10. Re:Welcome to the new Digital Dark Age! by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >Why do so many people think Colombus discovered America? He got it into the permanent record, where the vikings, chinese, etc. didn't.

      To be fair, lots of people DO know other people got here first. It didn't become a big deal in the world because there wasn't any compelling economic reason for their discovery to be important. The route the Vikings took was followed by fishing fleets, which were working the North Banks between Greenland and Newfoundland in the 1400's: because there was incentive, they were going there, and in those communties it was well-known that there were landmasses to the southwest of Greenland. But until someone found a good source for slaves, and soon thereafter, silver and gold, there wasn't any reason for the general public to pay attention to the New World any more than to news of Madagascar, the southeastern coast of Africa, the Spice Islands, or Australia until such time as they started being Important.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    11. Re:Welcome to the new Digital Dark Age! by Maltheus · · Score: 1

      I do believe we landed on the moon, but if the government was truly incompetant, statistically speaking, wouldn't they fuck up in our favor now and then?

    12. Re:Welcome to the new Digital Dark Age! by HaveNoMouth · · Score: 1
      Neal Armstrong is pretty firmly in the permanent record.

      He is for now, but Neal Armstrong is a meme, and memes can change depending on what records get preserved. Of all the media you mentioned, only the paper books (and under ideal circumstances, maybe the LP albums) have a chance of being readable after a few hundred years. It's because of those books that I worry less about Armstrong's legacy than about, say, history's view of the causes of the current Iraq war, because most of the documentation for the latter is probably not on paper.

      We are idiots, setting ourselves up for an information disaster. Go read A Canticle for Leibowitz for a sobering take on the possible consequences of this.

    13. Re:Welcome to the new Digital Dark Age! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    14. Re:Welcome to the new Digital Dark Age! by illtud · · Score: 1
      Neal Armstrong is pretty firmly in the permanent record.

      He is for now, but Neal Armstrong is a meme,

      ...yes, a Slashdot meme, it appears. It's Neil Armstrong, for god's sake. The irony of discussing whether the guy will be known in a few hundred years when you can't even get his name right!

  53. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Isotopian · · Score: 1

    Congratulations! You've reached the commendable status of first AO Score:0 post I've read that was quite funny!

    --

    It's poetry with a beat behind it! And guns! They're like beatniks with automatic weapons.

  54. The Dish by hall_simon · · Score: 2

    The Dish is the lighthearted 'adapted' history of the Parkes observatories role in the tracking and transmission of the first lunar landings. Quite funny if you get Australian humour.

    1. Re:The Dish by Shanep · · Score: 1

      The Dish is the lighthearted 'adapted' history of the Parkes observatories role in the tracking and transmission of the first lunar landings. Quite funny if you get Australian humour.

      I loved the bit when they are greeting the US President in Parkes and they have a band play the USA national anthem.... out comes..... the Hawaii Five-O theme!

      As an Aussie, I don't particularly like typical Aussie movies. I think it is because I feel we exaggerate our own mannerisms in a way which almost validates the exaggeration and very poor interpretation from other nationals making movies about us. At least we get the accent right. We do NOT sound like a cross between New Zealand and South Africa!

      However I really like The Dish.

      --
      War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
  55. Where is Sam Preecs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The PDF articles asks "Where is Sam Preecs?" and opines that this person could have key information on the whereabouts of the tapes. Well, a quick google search for "Sam Preecs" shows that this is a family name in Virginia, which is in the right neck o' the woods for the National Archives, and a search for "Samuel Preecs" shows someone with that name who has alive during the relevant time frame.

    131. Samuel PREECS - U.S. Social Security Death Index

    Birth: 18 May 1921 State Where Number was Issued: Indiana Death: 18 Feb 1993

  56. stolen, of course by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Ok, seriously, how can you lose ~99% of the data from something that is such a HUGE part of history?

    Because most likely they were stolen by NASA employees/managers, government contractors, or "given" (improperly) to elected officials. There a case within the last few years where someone found a storage room at NASA chock full of stuff including two space suits. The stuff was supposed to have gone to the Smithsonian, but oops, gee, donchaknow, it just mysteriously ended up in a storage room nobody knew anything about.

    Rumsfield had a piece of the airplane that hit the Pentagon, as a showpiece- almost like a trophy. There were plenty of other examples of thefts. I doubt any of the victim's families saw so much as a pebble. In the executive branch of the federal government the World Trade Center site was like a free-for-all memento/souvineer stop. I'd be astounded if visiting officials at NASA didn't have the same 'sticky fingers'.

    1. Re:stolen, of course by glass_window · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not sure if it is related, but they did just have the National Archives's basement flood very badly with the large amount of rain the end of last month. It's possible things were hastily relocated. Due to the massive volume of missing tapes, I'd venture to guess they'll either start showing up somewhere, or they'll realize they were moved somewhere else without it being recorded.

    2. Re:stolen, of course by Rorschach1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A lot of this can be attributed to staff turnover and lack of continuity. I used to work in a building associated with various launch programs at Vandenberg AFB. I found out at some point that the systems I was responsible for used to be housed in a basement computer room, and that there might still be documentation and stuff there. But with the exception of the maintenance guys, NO ONE had key card access through the three locked doors you had to go through, and no one had even been assigned responsibility for those areas. When I finally did get access, I found whole racks of equipment that were still powered on, not connected to the outside world. A power line monitor had logged every power glitch for years before its paper tape finally jammed. To this day, I think there are still racks of backup tapes down there.

      Of more historical interest, I was once in a plain, ordinary conference room in another building when someone pulled aside the curtains draped around the walls to show me what was there. One whole wall was covered with a schedule matrix running from maybe 1985 through 1989 or so, with little magnetic space shuttles on it. When the west coast shuttle program was canned back in '86, they just pulled the curtains closed and walked away.

      Yeah, some stuff of historical value gets stolen. But much of it is just overlooked, misfiled, misplaced, or just plain forgotten.

    3. Re:stolen, of course by purduephotog · · Score: 1

      Trophy? More like a grim reminder. One in which so many people have died then, now, and will in the future always helps to give one perspective.

    4. Re:stolen, of course by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's an incredibly depressing thought.
      The area where I grew up had a lot of mining history in the 1890's and some up until the 1940's. When I was young and we'd go out exploring in our Jeep sometimes we'd come across old mine buildings way up in the middle of nowhere that had been similarly abandoned at the end of one season and just never opened back up: cookhouses with all the spices still on racks on shelves, bunkhouses with newspapers and gloves. Two years ago I was hiking way above treeline and came across a place that probably closed in 1978 and there were file cabinets filled with maintenance reports on the bearing wear on some of the air-powered drills. It's *weird* to walk into someone's life from (30-100) years ago.
      (No, there were no boxes full of old tapes in any of the aforementioned places.)

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  57. PDF by antdude · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just go to http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/tapes/Se arch_for_SSTV_Tapes.pdf :) The story had Coral Cache URL. =)

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:PDF by Danga · · Score: 1

      Hey thanks! Someone mod antdude up, I would but obviously that is not an option for me.

      --
      Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
    2. Re:PDF by antdude · · Score: 1

      Danga: Thanks. :) I thought it was funny that Coral Cache got hammered!

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    3. Re:PDF by sandn · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Before you listen to any more drivel by 'AntDude', take a look at who you're dealing with: http://pbx.mine.nu/antdude.jpg. The abortion in the center is 'AntDude'. I won't even get into discussion about him listing his 'sex' as 'female' on his SHITTY 'blog' (aqfl.net). This faggot has nothing better to do than sit on the internet and spew worthless garbage. He's the new LostCluster when it comes to posting utterly worthless tripe. Not to mention his submitted stories! Every single one of his last 10 or so submissions have been tagged as 'lame' or 'slownewsday'. Why does taco even bother posting his shit. Maybe he gets some tiny deformed chinese cock up his taco ass in exchange for some linkspam with google ads? Do the world a favor and never reply to comments from ANTDUDE and mark him as a FOE.

  58. And the answer from the Real-Landing-Supporters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..."Those tapes tried to proof the lunar landing was a hoax... why do you need video when you have photos of rocks that definetly DON'T cast shadows in different directions?, it was just a camera thingy, sure NASA paid a lot of dough for them but the lunar atmosphere screwed everything up".

    Please stop the conspiracy theories, not swearing on a bible on something that happened doesn't prove anything.

  59. Conspiracy Fodder by iconeternal · · Score: 1

    I can't wait to hear how consipracy theorists are going to spin this one.

  60. They're not lost by artifex2004 · · Score: 1

    The problem is just that they still need to be edited, because the higher fidelity versions clearly show "Capricorn One" on the patches.

    (Mars, Moon, what's the diff?)

  61. Oh, sorry by mrfantasy · · Score: 1

    I think I used those tapes to record several episodes of "Too Close For Comfort". I mean, JM Bullock!

    --

    -- Of course I'm paranoid. I'm a sysadmin.

  62. Re:Apollo 11: The Special Limited Collector's Edit by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 1

    And the police officers will all be holding walkie talkies.

  63. I saw a bunch of similar tapes... by dkegel · · Score: 1

    ... when I was working on the Mars Observer Project,
    a side project of the team was to transcribe old
    Lunar Orbiter slow scan TV tapes. We had a bunch
    of the old tapes, and were refurbishing one of the
    old tape players. This was back in 1989. I'm not
    sure what came of it. Perhaps the folks at Malin Space Science Systems
    (http://msss.com) would know.

  64. Expect more data loss with DRM, other data hiding. by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 1

    This obsession with information as eternal property, causes the higher quality original to be locked away in some safe. While very high quality originals (and ability to create high quality copies) may exist, those who profit from the copies will only allow lower quality copies to be made, to maximize the number of times to re-sell the copy. Meanwhile if the "owner" looses interest, the original fades into nothing. The surviving copies would likely be the most common, low quality copies, or perhaps nothing at all if the DRM serves is purpose.

    The eternal information property ... DRM model can only lead to "dark" data in a new dark information age.

  65. Re:It's "How can THE GOVERNMENT lose 698/700 boxes by Shanep · · Score: 1

    Very easily. They can have all the best recordkeeping procedures in the world, and still lose anything through poor recordkeeping practices despite procedure.

    Someone obviously did not properly fill out form: ZT082-7465-826/AYG-46-B_1.03

    --
    War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
  66. Closing? by 8ball629 · · Score: 1

    What do they mean closing? I mean, wouldn't someone else buy the hardware that the current place is using for purposes such as this? Or are they melting the hardware down?

    You would think tapes such as these would already be converted to a more current media or atleast be in a secure location. How can you lose something as important as the first walk on the moon?

    Things like this don't help support the claims that we walked on the moon now do they?

    I still can't believe the LAST place the play these very tapes is CLOSING in October, what is it a movie theatre?

    1. Re:Closing? by Detritus · · Score: 1

      It's the Goddard Space Flight Center Data Evaluation Lab, not a movie theatre. The problem is the lack of money to keep it open, you know, to pay the people who work there, pay for the infrastructure and to maintain the hardware. If closed, the hardware would probably be put in storage and eventually sold at a government surplus auction.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:Closing? by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      When reading the pdf, I already wondered if that is what happened to the tapes already...

  67. Re:It's "How can THE GOVERNMENT lose 698/700 boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not really that convincing, Blibbler. Maybe they slip up on purpose once in a while to take your mind off of
    other things they don't want you thinking about at the moment. Personally I have only scratched the very top
    of the iceberg here and I even think that the little information advantage I have over you is because they
    want me to have it.

  68. Quality and Tape... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
    A) If you read the fine article, it tells us that the usual resolution being used for images was 320 lines, and the 1280 lines was possible but seldom used. A VHS VCR does about 320 line resolution. It is doubtful that all the missing tapes, or even any large number of them, were "high quality" recordings.


    B) What the heck is a "high quality slow-scan tape" anyway? SSTV is done using AUDIO, so all you need is a standard audio tape and you've got as high a quality as you need. There is no way anyone mistakenly recorded The Simpsons over these, unless you recorded just the audio track.

    1. Re:Quality and Tape... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      from wikipedia

      History

      The concept of SSTV was introduced by Copthorn Macdonald in 1957-1958[1]. He developed the first SSTV system using an electrostatic monitor and a vidicon tube. Commercial systems started appearing in 1970. SSTV was used extensively during the early years of the NASA Apollo program to transmit images to Earth, and the first images from Apollo 11 on the Moon were SSTV.


      It was how the signals from the spacecraft to earth were transmitted.

      The tapes themselves probably hold the recordings of this data stream rather than the cine type images.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  69. Does it surprise anyone? by awfar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Does it surprise anyone they are missing, neglected, with no funding for perpetually archiving the results?

    If a tree falls in the wood, and there is no proof, was a sound made?

    Do the presidential libraries suffer that fate?

    That critical things that the US (or any) Government is actually responsible for is, once again, messed up?

    They are like an unfocused, irresponsible child, except they have big guns, our credit card with unlimited limit, and the legal system to perpetuate it.

    If I am out of line consider Katrina, War on Terror, Social Security, the scandals, Halliburton, energy prices, approach to global warming, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

    Dumbasses all around.

  70. counter - argument by pitu · · Score: 1

    I have only one counter-argument that I think is sufficient = the russians.

      The trip to the moon was not a secret plan as spoutnik was, and everyone knew
      the americans were going to the moon, so the russians must have closely followed and tracked
      the whole mission.

      If this was a fake mission the russians would have been the first to report it (they wer in 'cold' war anyways) ..ofcourse there might be some ppl that believe the whole cold war was staged... but hey, there are many levels of paranoia

    1. Re:counter - argument by gd23ka · · Score: 1

      That is of course assuming the Russians were really an enemy in this context. Remember, when we are talking
      moon-landing hoax we're also talking shadow government here. Just like their wagging the dogs tail with
      "The War on Terror" today they were wagging it back then.

  71. Re:Australia!!!??? 'The Dish'! by falken0905 · · Score: 0

    See The Dish and you'll understand. It takes place at the Parkes Observatory in New South Wales, Aus. Actually, it's a pretty good movie - especially for folks like 'us'.

  72. Maybe... by Sockpuppetofdoom · · Score: 1

    The tapes are sitting next to the missing Dr. Who eps?

  73. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The world saw it happen on TV [...]
    Back in 1939, a large part of the eastern seaboard heard about a Martian Invasion on the radio. Turned out it wasn't true.

    There is lots of evidence that we landed on the moon (900 pounds of moonrocks being a good part of it). But to say, "I know we landed on the moon 'cause I saw it on my Tee Vee!" is ridiculous.

    Considering the low resolution television images that came back, it would have been very easy to fake it.
  74. Re:It's "How can THE GOVERNMENT lose 698/700 boxes by fm6 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Don't attribute to malice that which is sufficiently explained by stupidity.
    You must be new around here.
  75. Re:Apollo 11: The Special Limited Collector's Edit by dpiven · · Score: 1

    Just wait until "Apollo XIII: Brokeback CSM".

  76. they have top men working on it... by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    top men

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  77. Not lost, maybe now classified. by alfredo · · Score: 1

    Since bush has taken office they have been classifying information that before was public information. This info in most cases have no national security significance. It is of interests to the academic. Much of our history is now out of our reach due to the desire to replace our history with their neo conservative definition of our past.

    Also the EPA library will soon be shut away from the public. We paid for that info, now we will have to pay for it again, assuming that we will have any access. national weather service hurricane info is being privatized too.

    --
    photosMy Photostream
  78. Time to transfer to DVD by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    Sounds like someone needs to take these tapes and copy them to DVD, if they are found again.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Time to transfer to DVD by ArtStone · · Score: 1

      How many years do you think it will be before there is no functioning device capable of reading a DVD? How many people have a functional 8 track player today (other than the oddball colletor) or the spare parts and technical knowledge to repair one?

      This entire presentation (which I actually read) fits into the category of "If it was really that important, someone would have done it by now". The PDF is clearly intended to draw support for keeping an obsolete facility alive for no real purpose other than to keep people employed during the twilight years of their career chasing after the ghosts of their youth.

      After the few hours of Apollo 11's time on the moon, the public quickly lost interest in the moon, the Apollo program and NASA. There are very few people outside the program who can even name any of the Apollo astronauts after Apollo 11. For those not born after about 1965, they have no first hand memory at all of this event. Should you recover these tapes, those people will likely say "But why isn't it in color? I'm not going to waste my time watching that"...

      It's a shame that NBC reused all of Johnny Carson's Tonight Show tapes from my youth - but life has gone.

      As to where Sam Preecs is (a very unusual last name), a quick search shows there are a handfull of Preecs in the Maryland area - most would be the age to be his children... (assuming he was 50ish in 1969). For those who didn't look at the details, Sam Preecs was the Warehouse Manager where these alleged tapes were supposedly stored after they left the National Archives. Maybe someone should consider picking up the phone and calling them?

      --
      Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
    2. Re:Time to transfer to DVD by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Either way, it would be nice if they were put into the public domain. It doesn't matter whether the resultant format is DVD or onlin MP4. That way anyone could copy them if they wanted.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  79. The National Archives by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 1

    These are also the people who are supposed to keep track of such important documents as the U.S. Constitution. Can someone please photocopy it just in case it gets misfiled? kthxbye

    --
    And the brethren went away edified.
  80. Re:Apollo 11: The Special Limited Collector's Edit by G-funk · · Score: 1

    Don't worry though, once sales of this version die down, the old crusty one will be released on DVD just so you can buy it all again in order to see the version you remember from the 60s. And then there's the Blu-Ray version! And HD-DVD! Both with slightly different content, so you need to buy both!

    --
    Send lawyers, guns, and money!
  81. Re:Expect more data loss with DRM, other data hidi by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

    At least people in the future will have a source of random numbers.
    Just shine a laser tracker at one of these "compact disc" things and the odd random bits will jump back out completely meaninglessly.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  82. it's been done by chocolatetrumpet · · Score: 1

    Then certainly, we shouldn't bother returning to the moon because it's "been done."

    Actually - I'm a "let the robots explore space while we control them remotely here on terra" but you know, whatever.

    --
    Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
  83. Picture quality - writeup errors by dangitman · · Score: 1
    The writeup makes it sound like the original tapes were of extra-high quality, kind of like an early version of high definition, that was converted to "lower" quality. However, the link states that:

    The television camera taken to the lunar surface was a slow-scan black and white camera with a vertical resolution of 320 lines scanned at 10 frames per second. This camera was chosen because the available bandwidth from the Moon (700kHz) was not sufficient for a standard TV signal.

    On Earth, the received slow scan signal was converted to a standard TV picture (in this case, the American standard of 525 lines and 30 frames per second) using specially built scan converters.

    So, how is 10FPS with 320 lines of definition higher quality than 30FPS with 525 lines of definition? Not that having the originals isn't a good idea, but the writeup is very misleading.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
    1. Re:Picture quality - writeup errors by mako1138 · · Score: 1
      Yeah, the /. writeup fails to say that each 320-line frame was scanned into an NTSC field (~262 lines) and repeated six times to match timing.

      This scan-conversion process produced lower resolution
      images than the SSTV (down from 320 to 262.5 lines) and introduced additional signal noise. (PDF, p6)
    2. Re:Picture quality - writeup errors by dangitman · · Score: 1
      Well, I understand that scan conversion does degrade the image - but the writeup made it sound like the actual format of broadcast TV (in its native form) was worse than the low-res slow-scan stuff. If it were accurately written, the writeup would have talked about degradation during conversion - not converting into a "lower quality format" - when the actual format is actually of higher quality, even if the conversion does not use the full potential of the format.

      There was also mention on the Honeysuckle site that the PAL converted video that was broadcast in Australia was higher quality than the NTSC stuff for America (no surprise there, of course.)

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    3. Re:Picture quality - writeup errors by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The main difference between PAL and NTSC is that the PAL standard has more scan lines at the sacrifice of a lower frame rate (50 fps vs. 60 fps). Both broadcast signals use approximately the same radio carrier frequency bandwidth, so it isn't really that much of a real difference in quality unless you are a nationalist biggot.

      The real reason for the difference in broadcast standards is mainly due to the fact that in North America, the alternating current power stations operate at 60 Hz, where as many European countries have their power frequency at 50 Hz. It is not a coincidence that the respective television broadcast standards use those frequencies for their televisions.

      There are other differences between the standards, of course, although it is also helpful to keep in mind that PAL was developed after NTSC, and they did fix some of the problems that were discovered after NTSC was implemented on a larger scale... something major engineering standards often don't have happen until after they are implemented.

    4. Re:Picture quality - writeup errors by dangitman · · Score: 1
      The main difference between PAL and NTSC is that the PAL standard has more scan lines at the sacrifice of a lower frame rate

      No shit. That would explain why video shot at a low frame rate but more lines than a single field of NTSC would convert better into PAL, right? Which was my point.

      I also don't think one has to be a "nationalist bigot" to see how poorly NTSC performs in terms of color rendition (hence the misnomer "Never Twice the Same Color") compared to PAL. However, I am curious at the tone of your response, as I was not dissing NTSC - in fact, I was stating that NTSC was in fact a better format than the slow-scan TV, but the conversion is what fucked it up, not the NTSC format itself.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  84. I know where the tapes are..... by SoundGuyNoise · · Score: 1
    They're in a goverment warehouse, being researched by top men.

    TOP MEN!

    --
    You never expect irony, do you?
    Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
    @iyfwrestling
  85. Huston, Huston! There is something large and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    suspiciously white coming off the crater ri...

    Several people I have spoken to heard Armstrong getting very excited (a rare event from my understanding of the man) and say those words before transmission was cut. They were glued to the television watching the moon landings.

    I have no doubt man went to the moon. The signals of the moon landing came via the Parkes observatory in Australia and were viewed by the australian public.

    I've never thought that the moonlandings were faked, but I have always wondered about those statements repeated from people who watched the moon landings live in australia.

    So asides from loosing some articles of HISTORY that are vitally important, there is no way to confirm these anecdotal statements before that generation dies. Oh yes, very convenient indeed.

  86. god damn it by swschrad · · Score: 1

    and this is the government we're trusting for our retirement, security, and protection from scourges like bird flu?

    vote out ALL incumbents this November. all of them. and let's change all the priorities completely.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:god damn it by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      Let's not and say we did eh?

  87. Picobytes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I do not think the prefix "pico-" means what you seem to think it means. Do you mean "petabytes"?

    See also, "terabytes".

  88. Vacation movies by rts008 · · Score: 1

    I worked at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in 1976-77 and know that Neil and CO. watched the tapes during debriefing of the mission, then later got to re-view with family.

    "look dear, that's MY foot making that footprint!"

    Okay that alledged "quote" I made up, as I was not there for debriefing (before my time there), but wouldn't you?

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  89. Old Media: readable? by tcgroat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "With the use of modern image processing techniques, it is hoped that the original high quality TV images can be restored for public viewing before the magnetic data tapes deteriorate beyond repair." Is it likely the originals are still in good condition? 37 years is a long time for archiving magnetic media. This also implies that there are no high-quality, first-generation backups: what utter negligence! Nixon's 18 minute gap should have been sufficient warning!

    1. Re:Old Media: readable? by HaveNoMouth · · Score: 1
      Is it likely the originals are still in good condition? 37 years is a long time for archiving magnetic media.

      I take it you didn't RTFA. It specifically addresses this point. Short answer: Yes.

  90. We need to find Sam Preecs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you read through the PDF, Sam Preecs was the agency official who signed off on the storage order at the Goddard Space Flight Center. He is "the most likely person to know where the tapes are" according to the paper. So put an APB on Sam Preecs.

  91. Heh, heh, heh.... by Chmcginn · · Score: 1
    We prefer the term "differently sane", thank you very much.

    Mumble mumble mumble...

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  92. Conspiracy was Correct?? by DolomiteZipper · · Score: 1

    Is this the proof that the landing really was faked??

  93. malice, indifference, or incompetence by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1
    It's been said that future generations will regard the next few decades as a dark age, where the culture lost most of its common heritage. This will supposedly come about because so much audio and video is mouldering away (sometimes literally), locked in vaults where it will rot before anyone can recover it. While such factors as copyrights much longer than the physical life of the archival media are likely to contribute to this, the loss of these tapes is an example of another cause.

    Loss or deterioration of the physical medium is the simplest to deal with, yet is an area where failure is seen currently.

    Loss of codecs or data specs is another: who's going to fund/spend time reverse engineering a format or codec just to read a file to see if it is worth reverse engineering or decoding? DRM adds a whole new dimension to data loss. When the keys or authorization is lost, the file and it's contents are essentially lost.

    Yeah, yeah, a lot of people go on about not attributing to malice what can adequately explained by stupidity or incompetence. With the case of the missing Apollo 11 tapes the are arguments for a case of malice, indifference or simple incompetence. And any of these can be the direct result of political appointees, rather than qualified individuals. But guess what, whether malice, indifference, or incompetence, the results are the same: lost data (which was damned expensive to acquire and/or irreplaceable) and lost cultural heritage.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  94. Re:It's "How can THE GOVERNMENT lose 698/700 boxes by Chmcginn · · Score: 1
    Maybe they slip up on purpose once in a while to take your mind off of other things they don't want you thinking about at the moment.

    Once in a while?

    I guess conspiracy theories are the new religion of the overly book-intelligent, under social-developed, eh?

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  95. Re:Expect more data loss with DRM, other data hidi by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
    While very high quality originals (and ability to create high quality copies) may exist, those who profit from the copies will only allow lower quality copies to be made, to maximize the number of times to re-sell the copy. Meanwhile if the "owner" looses interest, the original fades into nothing.

    Something like this happened with the Gospel of Judas. It was found in the desert, preserved by the aridity, and passed through a few hands to a Swiss antiquities dealer. He wanted $3 million for it; when he couldn't get it he stashed it in a safe deposit box, for 17 years, where it rapidly crumbled away. Finally in 2000 it was sold and they spent 5 years reassembling and restoring it; but about 20% was lost.

    If greed can almost destroy a gospel, none of our cultural heritage is safe.

  96. Check eBay by slapout · · Score: 1

    You can find anything on there :-)

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  97. Re:It's "How can THE GOVERNMENT lose 698/700 boxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    They didn't put any cover sheets on the TPS reports required to document the location of the tapes.

    Either that or NASA is embarrassed at the bad grammar in Neil Armstrong's quote: One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

    It's missing the word "a" before "man." In the context as stated, the word "man" means the same thing as "mankind."
    Man has conquered space. It is one giant leap for man.

    Mankind has conquered space. It is one giant leap for mankind.

    Same thing. The quote should have been: One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.

    Ooops!
  98. Re: Moon landing: George Lucas remaster... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "That's no moon..."

  99. Re:Apollo 11: The Special Limited Collector's Edit by TH4L35 · · Score: 1

    Its for comments like this that I believe Slashdot's "Score:5, Funny" should be capable of being cranked all the way up to 11...

    --
    When Thales was asked what was difficult, he said, "To know one's self." And what was easy, "To advise another."
  100. Re:Apollo 11: The Special Limited Collector's Edit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funniest post ever on Slashdot

  101. What else did they lose? by guruevi · · Score: 1

    If they can lose about 99% of the greatest victory in the Cold War, what else did they lose? Will they conveniently lose the Constitution too within a few years so we can't prove our rights anymore? Will they lose all laws on privacy, free speech, ... that would be convenient now wouldn't it.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  102. Wikipedia seems to know technical details on SSTV by JewGold · · Score: 1

    Why doesn't NASA? Wikipedia SSTV article

    --
    Is this a news report or a trailer for a motion picture?
  103. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by kd5ujz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have 900lbs of mooon rocks if you want to buy them...............

    --
    -William
    God is everything science has yet to explain.
  104. Lunar Rover by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

    If this observatory filmed the moon walk, then they should be able to use it to take pictures of the Lunar Rover, and LM module. I would expect this to put hitch in the conspiracy theory nuts' claims.

    --
    -William
    God is everything science has yet to explain.
    1. Re:Lunar Rover by kd5ujz · · Score: 1

      nevermind, don't pay any attention to this. For some strange reason I ASSuMEd this was some kind of super camera/telescope that photographed the moonwalks from ground ( sounded amazing to me too), then I got to thinking, and read the PDF.

      --
      -William
      God is everything science has yet to explain.
  105. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by sbrown123 · · Score: 1

    900 lbs of Moon rock is proof we were on the moon? Well, if you have 900 lbs of Pluto rock it would be more believable you went to Pluto. Why? Well, the close proximity of the moon to our planet makes it very likely you can find 900 lbs of moon rock on Earth without needing to go to the moon for it.

  106. Re:Australia!!!??? 'The Dish'! by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 1

    The Dish was a fun movie, and the Parkes Observatory folks are happy with the publicity it got them.

    The Dish is also a work of fiction (though a delightful one). The real story is available and makes a fascinating read.

    The Visitor's Centre at Parkes has the replica control console they made for The Dish on display. The real one had long since been upgraded. I've been there: it's a short drive north of Parkes, NSW. A town of strip malls and fast food: the exterior shots in The Dish were done in Forbes, the next town down the highway.

    The bit in the film about getting the Moon's coordinates wrong because they weren't in the nothern hemisphere really happened. They also had a major technical problem at a bad time, but it was a blown-up television scan converter.

    And, yes, it's still in the middle of a sheep paddock...

    ...laura

  107. Just and Idea by EEPROMS · · Score: 1

    Why don't these Govt archives store the data on a none volatile medium.

    What about storing the data on glass, You can etch the data into the surface of the glass with some type of laser/chemical combination.

    Ive seen 3D images laser etched into a glass block, why not ones and zero's ?

    Anyway just an idea.

  108. Nah....you just have to get 37 light years away by daniel422 · · Score: 1

    from the moon to see it (or more).

  109. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by zizdodrian · · Score: 1

    Fair enough - but 900lbs? No meteorite or spacebourne detritus that big has fallen to earth for thousands of years. Good luck finding moon rocks on earth. To fake moon rocks you would have to have to crush "them under 1000 atmospheres of pressure, while keeping them at 1100C for a few years. Then while keeping under pressure, you would have to cool them slowly for a few more years." - Dr Karl Kruszelnicki

  110. Re:It's "How can THE GOVERNMENT lose 698/700 boxes by Euler · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that always bothered me too. Neil Armstrong testifies that he did say it with the 'a' as would be logically expected. It was lost somewhere in transmission. It's pretty hard to overcome the incompetence of bad reporting though, especially when it gets repeated thousands of times the wrong way. Unfortunately, Armstrong is reclusive and doesn't get the word out enough about his actual quote. The official records and transcripts were amended upon Armstrongs request, for anyone who cares to verify it.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/words/misquotes.htm l

  111. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by mark-t · · Score: 5, Insightful

    TV may be low resolution, but there were several things you could see that still would have only been possible in an airless environment and a substantially lower gravity. Many of those scenes could not have been faked in a studio, even today, let alone in 1969. While one may try to argue that they were faked with photorealistic animation, that leaves the nasty problem of actually GETTING photorealistic animation.... in 1969. Oh... but that creates yet another conspiracy: that NASA and the government had more computing power available to them in 1969 than modern movie studios with huge render farms have today. And it just gets worse from there... one has to keep inventing more extravagant and obviously contrived excuses about why we can't possibly find any evidence for the truth while simultaneous suggesting that all the evidence that might contradict their theory is "obviously" planted which just goes to further "prove" the conspiracy. (insert rolling eyes expression here).

    It's about on par with a Jehovah's Witness trying to say that the geological evidence for an old planet was just put there by God to test our faith.

    Any attempt at a rational discussion with a conspiracy theorist quickly devolves into a flurry of conjecture and hypothesis with no logical foundation. Occam's Razor be damned.

  112. Not the first time history got lost. by jd · · Score: 1
    The BBC burned its copy of the moon landing recordings in the 70s, along with the vast majority of its black and white archive. "Why" depends on who you ask and when you asked them. Oh, they weren't terribly careful about putting reels in the right cans, and nobody seems to have thought to have checked, so they lost a lot of early colour material as well. Virtually all of their early material in their collection has been provided by bootleggers. (The many assorted independent TV stations in Britain are endlessly destroying historic recordings, only to plead with viewers to send in bootlegs and stolen tapes a few years later, when they realize that the stuff is (a) historic and (b) valuable.)


    That the National Archives in America is just as incapable of looking after its material is depressing. They're only getting round to looking for the tapes now? Ok, so they're limited in money, so prioritize! Digitize the stuff that's utterly unique FIRST. They might still have found it stolen, but at least they'd have found it stolen around the time the theft happened, and have half a chance of recovering it. Right now, recovery is almost certain not to happen and even if they did, there won't be anything capable of extracting the information by the time they do.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  113. Re:It's "How can THE GOVERNMENT lose 698/700 boxes by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
    It's "How can the government lose 698/700 boxes?"

    And you correctly answer the question:
     
    Very easily. They can have all the best recordkeeping procedures in the world, and still lose anything through poor recordkeeping practices despite procedure.

    Ayup. And 700 boxes is probably just a fraction of a days intake at the National Archives.
     
     
    And before y'all attribute it to conspiracy theories, I remind you: Don't attribute to malice that which is sufficiently explained by stupidity.

    Sadly, there's a significant portion of the Slashdot hivemind who blame everything on malice, conspiracy and Microsoft.
  114. Have they looked... ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...on that shelf just below where the Ark of the covenant is stored ?

  115. Where is Sam Preecs by __aapopf3474 · · Score: 1
    From the PDF:

    In 1970, the tapes were placed in the US National Archives in Accession #69A4099. By 1984, all but two of the over 700 boxes of Apollo era magnetic tapes placed in the Accession, were removed and returned to the GSFC for permanent retention. These tapes are now missing.
    ...
    Accession Document #69A4099. Note: Sam Preecs is the Agency Official who signed the Accession. He is the most likely person to know where the tapes are. Where is Sam today?

    I'd wager he's dead :

    20. Samuel PREECS - U.S. Social Security Death Index
    Birth: 18 May 1921 State Where Number was Issued: Indiana Death: 18 Feb 1993
    21. Samuel PREECS - U.S. Social Security Death Index
    Birth: 17 Nov 1889 State Where Number was Issued: Texas Death: Dec 1972

  116. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by evilviper · · Score: 1
    So what if they did plan to invade Cuba by shooting down a civilian airliner over Cuba and then blaming Castro for it

    They "plan" every possible senario you can imagine. That's a ridiculously long way from actually doing it.

    and now they're friends with BinLaden Terrorgroup Inc.

    The Bush family is frendly with the most highly respected family in Saudi Arabia, second only to the Royal Family, who happen to share their last name with a terrorist? *Gasp*!

    so what if these people used unsuspectingcivilians and military unwittingly as subjects in radiation experiments,
    You act like they did this YESTERDAY. People didn't always know that radiation was a bad thing. And, in the past, the accepted standards for experiments on "unwitting" civilians were much more lax than they are today.

    Even today, you may end up being an unwitting subject in an artificial blood trial, if you require emergency medial care. If we find out, decades from now, it has some unknown long-term effects we couldn't have imagined, another nut will eventually be yelling about it as proof the government killed thousands of people, and is only faking all the evidence of a colony on Mars.

    just because some cooky people have come out of the woodwork to point out that many lights and shadows on the official footage of the moon landing are obviously not what they should be if the images were "real", that still doesn't mean they're right.

    "cooky" being the key word. Yes, the guy flipping burgers at McDonalds, who took half a year of art, and a year of "Physical Science" in college, thinks the shadows and the dust patterns don't look quite right.

    This crap reminds me of the Zapruder film all over again... People, who have NEVER even seen a high-powered riffle bullet hitting a person, are CONVINCED they know the exact direction the shot really came from.
    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  117. The Real Base is on Mars by CranberryKing · · Score: 1

    The tapes are missing because they may reveal that we already had a space station on the moon. It was a staging "base camp" for us to reach our real base on Mars. This is why the moon landing was faked.

    Believe it.

  118. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jehovah's Witnesses don't say that. But at least you spelled their name correctly. They don't believe in Evolution, most certainly, but they don't have a problem with the idea that the Earth is very old. It's quite obvious that the Earth has been around since long before the creatures living on it arrived.

  119. obligatory "I for one" joke by NieKinNL · · Score: 1

    ..maybe the tapes show giant ants walking arround.. Probably the government doesn't want us to know about our giant ant like overlords.

    --
    -- # man women
  120. Futurama is prophetic! by 200_success · · Score: 1

    In a few hundred years, everyone will think that the first people there were whalers singing "We're landing on the moon..."!

  121. Re:Um.... Obligatory Penny Arcade reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Sheesh, we've got such better technology these days, why waste tapes on that old stuff when you could be saving Top Gun and Magnum P.I.?

  122. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2, Insightful
    TV may be low resolution, but there were several things you could see that still would have only been possible in an airless environment and a substantially lower gravity.
    Like what? I'm not asking be snotty or anything...

    I love working out how you could fake the moon landings. Not that they were fake, but could it be done with 1969 technology in such a way that no one at NASA would be aware of it? I agree, I hear these stories of advanced computer graphics and I shake my head. NASA cannot be in on the joke--they have to believe that they have sent people to the moon.

    For example, the video from Apollo 11 was in Black and White. This is far easier to manipulate than color and probably within the realm of 1969 analog technology. If you need bright light and sharp shadows, it's pretty much an adjustment to the contrast curve. I'm sure somebody could have built a camera to give grainy images with the appropriate contrast in order to hide wires and things like that.

    Any attempt at a rational discussion with a conspiracy theorist quickly devolves into a flurry of conjecture and hypothesis with no logical foundation. Occam's Razor be damned.


    Well, I think it's purely for entertainment purposes. Like I said, I think it's entertaining to think about how it could be done. But, after awhile, the complexity becomes overwhelming. You can, arguably, fake the video on the moon. But how do you fake the video from the CSM? That was color and much better quality. What about the film--both still and 16mm video--shot on the moon? And the moon rocks? They have to be able to pass the test by scientists. What about the reflectors and other instruments? They have to really be on the moon. It wouldn't do to have an earthquake in California and--amazing coincidence--one on the moon at the exact same time.

    At this point, as you say, Occam's Razor applies. It would be easier to land people on the moon than to fake landing people on the moon.
  123. Sadly ... by dsmall · · Score: 2

    I would expect at the National Archives there is room to lose nearly anything. I'd say, look behind the Ark of the Covenant...

          Sadly, on the Russian side, one of the Space Museums was burned down in a dispute between two "protection" rackets, so many one-of-a-kind items, such as Yuri Gagarin's helmet and so forth, are lost forever.

          This occurred some time ago; it is unfortunate there are no high resolution pictures of these items.

            The single best collection I know of on Soviet space science would be Robert Kennedy's CD, at www [period] ultimax [period] com , which has many highly unusual events from the space program on it. Very interesting stuff indeed. Also very funny review of the physics of "Independence Day" indeed.

            -- thanks,

            Dave Small

    1. Re:Sadly ... by ArtStone · · Score: 1

      "I would expect at the National Archives there is room to lose nearly anything."

      Has anyone looked inside Sandy Berger's socks?

      http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sent enced/

      --
      Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
  124. More $ for war, less for important stuff.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't even want to believe that we live here and now in a world where the dumb jock types (read screaming monkeys) have got us into ANOTHER WAR and, here we go again, waisting 1.5 trillion (1500 X 1-billion) on more wars while R&D budgets dwindle away, important tapes from the moon landing get lost/stolen.

    We really do need a massive development of new Nano/biotech to fix all the problems we currently have (energy sources, better computers, new Nani/biotech to fix diseases/fix aging etc), but noo, here we go and blow another 1.5 trillion on a stupid war for domination/control of the middle east oil resources...if we had spent that money on Nanotech/biotech right now..we could be growing solar cells, cars, houses, new computers (millions of times as powerful as the current tech we have) and we would have advanced Nano and AI for reversing aging, boosting intelligence, forget plastic surgery, just re-program your body with nanobots to improve/customize your looks, improve your intelligence, make your permanently in your 20's (age wise, with unlimited life spans), but noo, we waste another decade on war, Halliburton etc. same old crap, just new decade.

    (The ironic thing is that you have to thank the current miltary (Darpa) for actually funding much needed nano basic research (how ironic, big business cant be bothered because they are too cheap), just goes to show that it will be surprising if we survive this century with any real advance tech (more advanced than todays tech).

  125. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't have a truckload of moon rocks, but I do have 900 pounds of something from Uranus.

  126. This was predicted.. by riflemann · · Score: 1

    This is just the beginning of the saga. Now with the evidence lost, 1000 years from now our ancestors will think whalers were the first on the moon..

  127. Ha! So it *was* a hoax after all! by Cannelloni · · Score: 2, Funny
    The finally got rid of the stages landing Stanley Kubrick shot in some desert somewhere. It conveniently "disappeared"! I was right all along! Ha-HAAAA ha ha haaa!

    ;)

    --
    Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
  128. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    there were several things you could see that still would have only been possible in an airless environment and a substantially lower gravity

    *cough* swimming pool *cough*

  129. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Petersson · · Score: 1
    More arguments AGAINST Faked Moon Landing Conspiracy:

    - Travel to the Moon was technically possible even in 1969. It just required shitload of money.
    - No one has ever claimed that he was participating Faked Moon Landing creation. Usually, people tend to publish books about it because some of them still have concious.
    - There is no real evidence of Faked Moon Landing and presented circumstational evidence is very questionable. Quite real evidence would be e.g. forgotten cigarette butt in dust of the Moon surface.
    - In a Moon surface-like scene it's extremly hard to avoid all flaws, like undesired light reflections, air vs. vacuum issues and different gravity, especially in 1969. It is hard job even today.

    --
    I'm not insane. My mother had me tested.
  130. The real moon conspiracy by iendedi · · Score: 0, Troll

    The real moon conspiracy is not "Did we walk on the moon?" but "How did we get there?"

    It appears to be reasonably clear that Americans were on the moon in the 60s (left intentionally vauge). But there are very significant problems with the Apollo story.

    (#1) The most significant problem in the story is the Van Allen radiation belt. Go do your research on this sucker and the absolute lack of radiation shielding on the Moon lander. We are talking dead astronauts before they reach the moon. WAY BEFORE.

    (#2) Fuel. If you know how to do the math, do the math. Could the Apollo actually propel the lander to the moon in the time it took? Or... go look it up... there are some interesting quotes by Wernher van Braun on the net about the size of rocket actually required (hint: bigger than Apollo).

    (#3) Sound, Vibration and lack of exhaust burn/crater under the lander on the moon. Just watch the video of the lander (where is the sound and vibration from the thrusters). Then go look at the pictures of the lander on the moon (where is the charred earth and crator from the exhaust of the lander?)

    (#4) The lander taking off from the moon. Go watch this one. Anyone with half a brain will find the video amazingly funny. A small pop and woosh! Off goes the lander like a rocket without exhaust...

    But, the fact is, we do have equipment up there (laser reflectors, etc..) Much of the video footage really is unimaginable to fake and the rocks we have could not all have been found in Antarctica, right?

    So, we are left with a mystery. The mystery isn't "did we go?". The mystery is "what is the secret behind how we got there?"

    Can anyone say "Military technology"... Or perhaps "Advanced propulsion systems" ???

    Am I a conspiracy nutbag or has the US been in possession of high aerospace technology (such as antigrav) for more than 40 years? You be the judge. But don't be hardheaded and blind.

    --

    It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
    1. Re:The real moon conspiracy by LordSnooty · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sound? On the moon? You really haven't thought this through, have you?

    2. Re:The real moon conspiracy by ultrasound · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Am I a conspiracy nutbag or has the US been in possession of high aerospace technology (such as antigrav) for more than 40 years? You be the judge. But don't be hardheaded and blind.

      I'm afraid sir, that Occams razor says that you are a conspiracy nutbag. I did some research, with my eyes open and my head soft.

      From Wikipedia: Proponents of the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. Van Allen himself, still alive and living in Iowa City, has dismissed these ideas. In practice, Apollo astronauts who travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and received a harmless dose. [5]. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation. Astronauts who visited the moon probably have a slightly higher risk of cancer during their lifetimes, but still remain unlikely to become ill because of it.

      Now I'm not saying this is the best authoritative source, but the citation

      [5] The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon. Infrared Processing and Analysis Center. Caltech: (2000). Retrieved on 2006-06-11

      appears to have more rational arguments in favour than you present against.

      If that bit of conspiracy nuttiness is the best argument you have, then I'd say you've got a pretty weak case. Unfortunately reality is much more boring than fantasy conspiracies, because generally the accepted hypothesis is correct, even if its boring because it does not involve secret cabals etc. Conspiracy theories generally fail because they assume that politicians and people in powerful possitions are very good at keeping secrets and not making mistakes. Whereas all evidence of their behaviour points to the absolute opposite. The general level of incompetency would prevent any major conspiracy from working, or being kept secret for more than a few days.

      Hope you can open your eyes and not be so hard headed ;-)

    3. Re:The real moon conspiracy by stjobe · · Score: 5, Informative
      You need to visit this site. It answers a lot of your questions.

      Van Allen belts:

      The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.
      Fuel issues:
      First, the assumption that a given mission must expend all the vehicle's fuel is highly naive. Every rocket is provided with slightly more fuel than its mission requires, as a safety margin. In any event, the rocket is not compelled to burn all of it. The Saturn V was a sophisticated flying machine that was able to shut off its engine when the desired velocity was obtained, regardless of remaining fuel.
      Craters and the like:
      By comparison, a fully-loaded Harrier jump jet produces 27,000 lbf thrust at liftoff -- ten times more than a lunar module. Yet you typically do not see a crater under a Harrier. This is because popular intuition dictates that a rocket engine of any size is automatically more powerful than a jet engine of any size. In fact, most jet engines are more powerful than the lunar module's rocket engines.
      Lunar Module takeoff film:
      Some conspiracists point out that the film of the lunar module ascending from the lunar surface to meet the command module doesn't show any visible exhaust products. That's because by the time it comes into view of the command module the engine has stopped firing. Just as a baseball thrown upward will continue to rise after it has left the propulsive effect of your hand, the lunar module continues to rise after its engine stops firing. Unlike space ships in the movies, real spacecraft don't have to fire their engines continuously in order to make headway.
      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    4. Re:The real moon conspiracy by Fred_A · · Score: 1
      Am I a conspiracy nutbag or has the US been in possession of high aerospace technology (such as antigrav) for more than 40 years? You be the judge. But don't be hardheaded and blind.
      Since the "space" vehicles used since then have all been rather primitive and have certainly not used any antigravity, one has to conclude that you're a conspiracy nutbag (as you put it).
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    5. Re:The real moon conspiracy by Black.Shuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1. Even the man who DISCOVERED the Belts - Mr. James Van Allen himself - has dismissed this notion given the trajectory of the rockets.

      2. However much fuel it took, the engine only had to be "on" for less than 1% of the whole journey. The rest of the time Newton took the drivers seat.

      3. The craft is moving in a vacuum. There is no wind-sheer, eddies, or other atmospheric phenomena to buffer it around when the *tiny* manouvering jets fire. The astronauts would indeed feel themselves "pulled" about as the vehicle manouvered, but sound? Vibration? Even by 1969 standards, they weren't flying around in some clunky old Honda Accord with dodgy suspension. Refer to Space Shuttle footage and observe just how small manouvering jets need to be, and how little they affect the vehicle outside of simply shifting it about.

      Crater? Charred earth? They're not on the Earth. ;) How can the glass-like composition of the Moon's surface be reasonably expected to react in the same way as setting off a Saturn V in a wheat field? Not only that, but the engines were fired only intermittently on approach, landing and briefly during takeoff from the lunar-surface.

      4. The characteristics of a rocket-plume depend on the atmosphere it's burning in and the composition of the fuel. Just watch a Space Shuttle launch and observe not only the difference between the Solid Rocket Boosters and the main Shuttle engines, but the changes they go through as the vehicle climbs up and out of the atmosphere. Sure, the SRBs make a lot of smoke and mess, but the Moon Lander was not using solid-fuel. It was using liquid-fuel like the three main-engines of the Shuttle.

      Take a look for yourself:
      Compare the three main Shuttle engines to those of the Solid Rocket Boosters. A side-on shot at take-off.

      Now, how large a plume do you reasonably expect the much smaller Lunar Module engine to create?

    6. Re:The real moon conspiracy by shotfeel · · Score: 2, Informative

      This site is always a lot of fun. The linked page goes through much of the "evidence" used in a Fox TV show about the Apollo moon hoax, and debunks the evidence step-by-step.

      One of the things that has fascinated me in the past when reading stuff on the site, is that the way things often work in space often seems to contradict common sense and intuition, even for the scientifically minded.

    7. Re:The real moon conspiracy by instarx · · Score: 1

      Am I a conspiracy nutbag or has the US been in possession of high aerospace technology (such as antigrav) for more than 40 years? You be the judge.

      You are a conspiracy nutbag.

    8. Re:The real moon conspiracy by scheming+daemons · · Score: 2, Funny
      (#3) Sound, Vibration and lack of exhaust burn/crater under the lander on the moon. Just watch the video of the lander (where is the sound and vibration from the thrusters). Then go look at the pictures of the lander on the moon (where is the charred earth and crator from the exhaust of the lander?)

      Dude.. are you retarded? Do you know what sound is? Geezus.. you learn in 4th grade science that sound is the vibration of air molecules. There is no atmosphere on the moon, doofus. Sound isn't possible.

      Am I a conspiracy nutbag

      You're an insult to conspiracy nutbags. Most conspiracy nutbags have IQs over 80 and don't ride the "special" bus to school or wear a helmet all the time for their protection.

      --
      "I have as much authority as the pope, I just
      don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin

    9. Re:The real moon conspiracy by iendedi · · Score: 1
      Dude.. are you retarded? Do you know what sound is? Geezus.. you learn in 4th grade science that sound is the vibration of air molecules. There is no atmosphere on the moon, doofus. Sound isn't possible.
      Oh, I guess I must be wrong in my assumption that the engine was attached to the LEM which contained a breathable environment for the crew. Or perhaps vibrations from the engine don't propagate from the engine to the crew compartment? Or maybe the audio being recorded of the astronauts talking during decent to the moon wasn't in the compartment full of air molecules being vibrated by the entire LEM that is connected to that engine?

      I guess I must be missing something...

      You're an insult to conspiracy nutbags. Most conspiracy nutbags have IQs over 80 and don't ride the "special" bus to school or wear a helmet all the time for their protection.
      Dude, I swapped that fig newton bar I found under my seat for your helmet, fair and square, on our bus no less than 10 years ago. Tomorrow I will give it back... Didn't know it bothered you so much...
      --

      It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
    10. Re:The real moon conspiracy by iendedi · · Score: 1

      The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.

      I have seen this argument rage a bit and am certainly no authority. There was a writeup by soeome at Caltech that seems to support the assumption that the LEM could have made it through the Van Allen belt without killing the Astronauts, but it must be observed that by his own admission, he is seeking to justify that solution rather than being skeptical of it.

      "It has to be possible to go to the Moon, because we who are old enough all saw them on TV; a million of us (me included, for Apollo 11) saw the actual launch; a few of us (me included, for Apollo 8) saw the Trans-Lunar Injection burn, from low-Earth orbit to trans-lunar trajectory in the dark sky over Hawaii; and how could anyone fake all that?!"

      This is pretty typical. Everyone wants to believe that we went to the moon. I am not disputing that we did. I am, actually, just suggesting that there might have been a bit of extra technology at work that the general public isn't aware of. And I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that the US keeps a lot of military secrets. Anyhow, let's move along...

      First, the assumption that a given mission must expend all the vehicle's fuel is highly naive. Every rocket is provided with slightly more fuel than its mission requires, as a safety margin. In any event, the rocket is not compelled to burn all of it. The Saturn V was a sophisticated flying machine that was able to shut off its engine when the desired velocity was obtained, regardless of remaining fuel.

      Again, I am not a rocket scientist (IANARS), but my point had nothing to do with the ability to turn on and off the boosters. My point was simply about the required delta-v to make it to the moon and back in the time it took.

      By comparison, a fully-loaded Harrier jump jet produces 27,000 lbf thrust at liftoff -- ten times more than a lunar module. Yet you typically do not see a crater under a Harrier. This is because popular intuition dictates that a rocket engine of any size is automatically more powerful than a jet engine of any size. In fact, most jet engines are more powerful than the lunar module's rocket engines.

      From Wikipedia, we see that the descent thrust of the Lander was just under 10,000 lbf of thrust, so your choice of the Harrier jump jet is a good one for comparison's sake at about 2.5x the thrust of the lander. Really, this issue is almost trivial to point out the paradox in: We have footprints in fine dust on the moon from Neil Armstrong just feet from the thruster that must have been firing to keep the lander from crashing. Without an atmosphere to blow the dust back over the scatter region where the 10,000 lbf thrust would have scattered such dust (very violently), how is it possible that there was dust for Neil to step inot after the lander landed?

      Some conspiracists point out that the film of the lunar module ascending from the lunar surface to meet the command module doesn't show any visible exhaust products. That's because by the time it comes into view of the command module the engine has stopped firing. Just as a baseball thrown upward will continue to rise after it has left the propulsive effect of your hand, the lunar module continues to rise after its engine stops firing. Unlike space ships in the movies, real spacecraft don't have to fire their engines continuously in order to make headway.

      Actually, the videos (google for them) clearly show the lander firing and heading off into deap space

      --

      It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
    11. Re:The real moon conspiracy by mark-t · · Score: 1
      (#1) The most significant problem in the story is the Van Allen radiation belt. Go do your research on this sucker and the absolute lack of radiation shielding on the Moon lander. We are talking dead astronauts before they reach the moon. WAY BEFORE.
      While the Van Allen belt does carry a relatively high amount of radiation, the astronauts weren't exactly dawdling on their journey, they were moving at quite a clip. They were thus only exposed to about 1 rem of radiation while in the belt.
      (#2) Fuel. If you know how to do the math, do the math. Could the Apollo actually propel the lander to the moon in the time it took? Or... go look it up... there are some interesting quotes by Wernher van Braun on the net about the size of rocket actually required (hint: bigger than Apollo).
      Indeed... if they had kept the rockets at full burn all the time. They didn't. The engineers at NASA simply calculated a trajectory that had a low enough overall energy requirement that they could carry the fuel. This is fairly simple math (doable with pencil and paper) for anyone familiar with the physics involved and the appropriate formulas.
      (#3) Sound, Vibration and lack of exhaust burn/crater under the lander on the moon. Just watch the video of the lander (where is the sound and vibration from the thrusters). Then go look at the pictures of the lander on the moon (where is the charred earth and crator from the exhaust of the lander?)
      How can there be sound when there is no air to carry it? As for the subject of a blast crater, none should be expected. During the final stages of landing, the LEM was no longer rapidly decellerated, it had already slowed to the necessary speed for touchdown and only had to support its own weight (which was greatly reduced by the fact that the moon has a lower gravity and that a lot of fuel had already been used). The amount of thrust at the time (about 1.5 PSI) was much to low to carve out a crater.
      (#4) The lander taking off from the moon. Go watch this one. Anyone with half a brain will find the video amazingly funny. A small pop and woosh! Off goes the lander like a rocket without exhaust..
      Nope. The fuel used by the LEM (Hydrazine) produces a nearly transparent plume in a vacuum.
    12. Re:The real moon conspiracy by iendedi · · Score: 1
      Since the "space" vehicles used since then have all been rather primitive and have certainly not used any antigravity, one has to conclude that you're a conspiracy nutbag (as you put it).
      I sure hope all that Nasa junk is cover for the real space program, because if this is all we can do for $18billion a year and the military can't outdo it with trillions in black budget since the 40s, we have really wasted a lot of cash.

      To be honest, it doesn't take a conspiracy nutbag to conclude that UFOs are just military craft and that Nasa is just PR and distraction to keep everyone from snooping around into the affairs of the military. All it takes is a little common sense and the ability to follow the money.

      If you are convinced that everything about Apollo makes sense and you can watch a shuttle launch and actually believe that it costs as much as advertised and you can happily ignore the trillions that dissapear into black projects without bothering to consider where it goes and perhaps ignore the UFO phenomena.... Well, my guess is you voted for Bush, so there probably isn't too much anyone can do for you ;-0
      --

      It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
    13. Re:The real moon conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think he meant sound in the LEM which is connected to the engine... So it makes sense.

    14. Re:The real moon conspiracy by ActionAL · · Score: 1

      occams razor is a huge hole to exploit.

      evil can exploit occams razor, because all they have to do is make their plans complicated and filled with convoluted hard to solve puzzles, and then whala- all the occams razor fans will automatically rule it out.

      which benefits the evil people because supposedly all the occam fans are looking for the easiest solution and ruling out everything else, so the fools won't even bother trying to do their research.

    15. Re:The real moon conspiracy by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      evil can exploit occams razor, because all they have to do is make their plans complicated and filled with convoluted hard to solve puzzles, and then whala- all the occams razor fans will automatically rule it out.

      I know English is hard because it's like 75% loanwords, but it's voila, as in et voila.

      Occam's razor doesn't say that the simplest solution is true. It says you should eliminate unnecessary assumptions. The two are slightly similar but not identical.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:The real moon conspiracy by drinkypoo · · Score: 0
      Skeptical? Go research how much money has been spent on black projects since the 1940s. What do you think could be purchased for that much cash?

      A whole bunch of blow and teenage hookers.

      You do realize that our government wastes money at every opportunity, right?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:The real moon conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you are so sure. Place some dry dust with an equivalence to "moon dust" in a bell jar. Evacuate said jar. Drop a steel ball (conveniently held with a magnet at the top of the jar)by removing the magnet. Note what happens. Air is required to "lubricate" dust particles. Explain footprints in "moon photos" without air to lubricate dust particles. There are more simple examples but you clever lads are too deep into denial to even try them Oh well.

    18. Re:The real moon conspiracy by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "From Wikipedia, we see that the descent thrust of the Lander was just under 10,000 lbf of thrust, so your choice of the Harrier jump jet is a good one for comparison's sake at about 2.5x the thrust of the lander. Really, this issue is almost trivial to point out the paradox in: We have footprints in fine dust on the moon from Neil Armstrong just feet from the thruster that must have been firing to keep the lander from crashing. Without an atmosphere to blow the dust back over the scatter region where the 10,000 lbf thrust would have scattered such dust (very violently), how is it possible that there was dust for Neil to step inot after the lander landed?"
      1. You don't land at full throttle. The decent engine would be constantly throttled back as the lander burned off fuel.
      2. That lack of are means that the dust would follow a ballistic path. It would in fact probably fall much quicker to the ground than on earth since there wouldn't be any air resistance. Remember the hammer and feather?
      3. The lander's main engine did shut down before landing. The legs of the lem had switches on them so when they touched down the main engine would shut down.
      As you said you are not a rocket scientist.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    19. Re:The real moon conspiracy by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Oh, I guess I must be wrong in my assumption that the engine was attached to the LEM which contained a breathable environment for the crew.

      You're wrong. The LM was depressurised for takeoff and landing.
      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  131. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 3, Informative

    What these conspiracy theorists always forget is that we placed beacons on the moon which we "ping" with lasers constantly.

    Behold more mass-media lies (part of the conspiracy no doubt) here!!

    Even if the footage was all faked, and NASA was nothing but a PR department gone wrong, *something* qwnt to the moon and placed very specifically calibrated censors there, coincidentally, these censors have been used WORLDWIDE for some 40 years now. Fade back...Occum's razor trumps David Duchovny for the win.

  132. The BBC Did This Too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in 1989 the BBC wanted to do a 20 year retrospective on Apollo 11. They wanted to use their old tape of the landing, complete with commentary by Patrick Moore and James Burke, but found the tape had been reused to record an episode of "Brideshead Revisited". So they had to show the old CBS footage instead, with commentary by Robert Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke. In the UK we'd never seen Heinlein at that moment before. It was amazing. He was out of his seat, jumping up and down, shouting, "It doesn't matter any more! It doesn't matter any more! We can trash this planet!"

    Now some might say this was a terrible and cynical reaction to the great event. Considering the values indicated by the loss of these tapes, and the lack of useful progress in the last 37 years (anyone remember DC-X), we might now recognise this as the realistic and hopeful response that it was.

  133. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by ultrasound · · Score: 1

    I think that the strongest proof that the US landed on the moon was the absence of any attempt by the USSR to discredit the claim. Given that the space race was being used by both sides to demonstrate the superiority of capitalism/communism, I'm sure the Soviets would have shouted from the rooftops if there had been any faking going on. And i'm sure that Nasa etc. were sufficiently penetrated that such activity couldn't have been hidden from well placed moles.

  134. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Bromskloss · · Score: 1
    Many of those scenes could not have been faked in a studio, even today, let alone in 1969.
    It would be interesting to hear what you have in mind.
    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
  135. Read the article properly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is amazing for all the super sleuth conspiracy proponents can't quite get a grip that the missing tapes are _not_ the only source of the original TV tapes. That material is safely archived at NASA on both kinescope and videotape. Additionally, DVDs of the material (all of it) are available from www.spacecraftfilms.com and have been for a number of years.

    We are talking about the tapes containing the slow scan TV signal, the telemetry and bio data all in one signal. The video image was then scan converted to NTSC TV standards. While an important part of history, the tapes are not solely crucial to it. This is no different to the BBC wiping tapes of early Dr Who, with the exceoption here that the TV images are available at NASA. Over 35 years tapes go missing, whether it be a Number 96 special or Apollo S-band tapes. It happens in TV all the time whether you like or not. They are somewhere, and will eventually be found. Let's not forget the TV contents have been copied and are archived.

    For those of you convinced the landings were faked, take a look at www.clavius.org and see how all the points raised here (many, many, many, many times over) are thouroughly debunked.

  136. They still have tapes from later Apollo missions? by 9x320 · · Score: 1

    They do still have tapes from later Apollo missions, right? Wouldn't those high resolution tapes of other times astronauts walked on the moon still be equally good proof we've been there? Why don't they preserve those by sending them out to be copied if they still have them? Sadly, my question will probably go unnoticed because of all the +5 funnies drowning out all the +5 insightfuls.

  137. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Captain+Zep · · Score: 1
    "*cough* swimming pool *cough*"

    Yeah, because when you kick up dust in a swimming pool it looks exactly the same as it does on the moon...

    The moon conspiracy argument has been done to death so very many times, and there is simply no credible evidence that Apollo was a fake. And there's a ton of evidence that it was real. I've heard all the usual conspiracy arguments, and for all of them there are entirely reasonable explanations for the supposed problems. In most cases the 'evidence' amounts to nothing more than a lack of scientific/technical understanding - all too common these days.

    Why do some people have such a hard time believing that at enormous cost, with vast numbers of people working on it and committed to making it a success, you couldn't do this, just because we aren't doing it now?

    Z.

  138. What about all the other tapes? by HuskyDog · · Score: 1

    Perhaps I misunderstood the PDF, but it appears that although the actual Apollo 11 tapes are missing, the National Archives have hundreds (perhaps thousands) of similar tapes (i.e. same size and format) mostly labelled "Magnetic Tape". Presumably, they can also only be read by this one machine at Goddard? So, if that one remaining lab is closed, will the archive keep all the other tapes (which may or may not be interesting) and if so why? What would be the point if there is nothing to read them on?

  139. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by dylan_- · · Score: 1
    who happen to share their last name with a terrorist? *Gasp*!
    While I agree with you in most of your post, you make it sound here like it's just a coincidence that they're both called bin Laden. Mohammed bin Laden established the family business and Osama is his son. The family business is currently run by Bakr bin Laden who is Osama's half-brother. In other words, they don't "happen to share their last name", they are his family (though they do say he's been estranged for some time).
    --
    Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
  140. I know where they went by Vodkaneat · · Score: 1

    They fell in the analogue hole...

  141. Not faked...but UFOs in the background by Danathar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Unlike SOME cooky crazy people I don't think the moon landing was faked, BUT it IS obvious that the tapes were taken by MIB in order to conceal alien spacecraft that were imaged on the tapes.....

  142. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Fred_A · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's a very valid point, I'm surprised I haven't seen it raised before.

    Unless... ...nah.

    Unless of course... ...THE SOVIETS WERE FAKED AS WELL !!!

    --

    May contain traces of nut.
    Made from the freshest electrons.
  143. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by AcidLacedPenguiN · · Score: 1

    Agreed, though I do have to say sometimes attempting rational discussion with a conspiracy theorist is just entertaining. Especially if they show you their stylish tinfoil hat.

    On another note, for some reason your post reminded me of the exceptionally well written dialogs from the Deus Ex series of games. Bravo.

    --
    disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
  144. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Detritus · · Score: 1

    Another issue is how do you fake it so that the thousands of people who worked for NASA's tracking network think they are tracking the Apollo spacecraft, and communicating with it, as it goes to the Moon and back. They can see where the antenna is pointing to, and the doppler shift tells them the relative velocity. You can't fake this with a satellite in Earth orbit, or Lunar orbit. It would have to be a fully robotic duplicate of the Apollo mission, complete with landing on the Moon, deploying experiment packages, leaving the Moon, and returning to Earth. It would be easier to do it with real people.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  145. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a whole shitload of something.

  146. currently downloading... by Punch-Drunk+Slob · · Score: 1

    more seeders plzzzzz

    --
    By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes: Open, locks, whoever knocks!
  147. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by 3vi1 · · Score: 1

    I find it hilarious that people think we could have faked the moon landings. I mean, we were in an international space *race*; probably the biggest rivalry in the history of the world. If there were any way in hell those men weren't actually on the moon, the Soviets would have been all over it and shamed us forever.

    Some things are too risky to fake... and way too risky to fake multiple times.

  148. Mouldering away? by tgd · · Score: 1

    I suppose thats better than Scullying around.

  149. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The answer is obvious: secret alien technology was used to create the tapes.

  150. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

    It's about on par with a Jehovah's Witness trying to say that the geological evidence for an old planet was just put there by God to test our faith.

    Please don't troll.

    Jehovah's Witnesses don't say anything about geological evidence. It has nothing to do with their belief structure, since it's not a subject the Bible deals with. In fact, JW's aren't even one of those crack-smoking Christian faiths that claim the earth was created in 6 literal days, as they repeatedly point out that the word translated as "day" means "period of time", not the literal value of "24 hours". And according to JW's, God cannot lie. So if there's some evidence that the earth is billions of years old, then either someone else is lying about the evidence, or, more likely, the earth is billions of years old. God cannot and would not lie about anything, especially not something that trivial. If he wants to test us, then he'd do so directly and without ambiguity.

    The fact is, Jehovah's Witnesses point out (often, and without letup) that nothing in the Bible contradicts anything science has conclusively established yet. Round earth? Isaiah chapter 40. Earth not sitting on the back of a turtle or something? It's in Psalms. There are more, but you should get the point by now. The only major disagreement JW's have with science is Darwinian evolution. The Bible says each animal was created "according to its kind". So nothing jumped the gap between, say, reptile and mammal, though there's no disallowment of mutations (even "evolutionary" ones). Heck, even humans "evolved" a bit according to their pre-existing genetic information. Some became darker-skinned, others lighter-skinned. Some have distinctive combinations of facial features and bone structure, others have different combinations of such. Some are tall, some are short. All according to their kind - human. It's just that human "evolution" hasn't yet caused enough differences to classify some as a different species. Birds are quite a bit less biologically complex and therefore more likely to "jump species", and they're what Darwin noticed first (finches, IIRC).

    And don't try (as others have) to tell me that I don't know what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. I am one. I know exactly what we believe (and yes, we all believe the same things, or we wouldn't all be Jehovah's Witnesses).

  151. Australia!!!??? - yeah, we sent you the footage. by rynoski · · Score: 1

    here. "Three tracking stations were receiving the signals simultaneously. They were CSIRO's Parkes Radio Telescope, the Honeysuckle Creek tracking station outside Canberra, and NASA's Goldstone station in California."

    "During the first few minutes of the broadcast, NASA alternated between the signals from its two stations at Goldstone and Honeysuckle Creek, searching for the best quality images. When they switched to the Parkes pictures, they were of such superior quality, that NASA remained with the Parkes TV pictures for the remainder of the 21/2-hour telecast."

    There was no power failure, it was high winds. I wasn't alive at the time, but I do know a little bit of the history of Parkes (i was born 30km south of there, and spent the first 18 years of my life in the region).

    And it doesnt look look aussies who lost the tapes, the national archives in the US appear to have lost them.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: 1) those that can extrapolate from incomplete data.
  152. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it would be easy to fake it now and I have no doubt about that. Back then however not every little kid had a P3 and Adobe Premier/After Effects on it...

  153. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by fermion · · Score: 1
    Here is the confusing thing. We know a government is not of magical competency. It is run by regular people, with regular problems, and regular intelligence. Keeping secrets is a difficult thing if more than one person knows that secret. Inevitable someone is going to spill the beans, either accidently or on purpose.

    In fact keeping a secret requires a large scale logistics and high level processing. Despite the la la land that most conspiracy theorists live in, it is not just a simple matter of killing everyone involved, especially for a government project. Even if no hard evidence is found, there will always be enough circumstantial evidence to piece the program together.

    So given these fact, why would it be easier to keep a secret coverup secret than sending men to the moon. Furthermore, since it was a space race, why would the russians allow the fabrication. For such a program, involving thousands of people, would they not be able to get one mole into the program?

    It is funny that people who routinely call the government incompetent attribute characteristics that require the utmost level of competence.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  154. Where is Sam Preecs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/tapes/Se arch_for_SSTV_Tapes.pdf

    From page 17:

    Accession Document #69A4099. Note: Sam Preecs is the Agency Official who signed the
    Accession. He is the most likely person to know where the tapes are. Where is Sam today?

    From page 16:

    Conclusion:

    The tapes we are searching for were most likely stored in Accession #69A4099 which according to
    the National Archives records, were transferred back to Goddard. The answer as to what became of
    the tapes can only be determined by Goddard. In a like manner, answers as to where these tapes
    might reside today can only be determined by digging into the Goddard organization and
    procedures of the time period during which the Accession #69A4099 was active, and trying to
    contact some of the members who were at the time responsible for managing this particular activity.
    The organization that exists at Goddard today is very much different from what was in effect thirtyseven
    years ago, as well as the methodology with regard to the handling of this type of material.
    The information, if it does exist, resides with those who managed these efforts during the 1970's. If
    we want to find out where they are, that's where we must go if these treasured archival tapes are to
    be located. The search has shifted back to Goddard and, under the leadership of Dick Nafzger, a
    new phase of the search is being discussed within Goddard to determine the organization that is best
    qualified to oversee and continue the search.

    From page 14:

    Stan Lebar Describes His Search Efforts

    In 2005, the current search for the tapes was initiated by Stan Lebar through Richard Nafzger of the
    Goddard Space Flight Center. This search has resulted in several promising leads. Richard Nafzger
    concurs with Stan's findings described below, and has requested that he continue the effort with his
    approval, and that of other NASA management. Stan describes his search to date:
    I understand that there are those at JSC who are presently engaged in the new program effort to
    return to the moon and are seeking the very same tapes that we have been looking for these past
    couple of years. Rightly so, they want to review the Apollo lunar EVA telemetry data that was
    produced by Apollo in the 1969-70 time period, as indeed they should.
    Below is a summary of the National Archive search for the Apollo 11 Lunar surface telemetry tapes
    I performed under the direction and support of Richard Nafzger, of NASA Goddard that was
    completed in March, 2006.
    1. The three tracking sites which received the 10 frame rate Apollo 11 lunar camera television
    signal, as transmitted directly from the moon during the lunar EVA, were Goldstone, CA,
    Honeysuckle Creek, Australia and Parkes, Australia. The M-22 tape recorder, using 14 inch tape
    reels recording at 120 inches per second, was primarily used to record the transmissions. The
    procedures for shipping the original recorded tapes were defined by a NASA document. Each site
    was to prepare dupes of the processed tapes, send the original boxes of tapes (on the order of 12-15
    tape reels with five tape reels per box) to Goddard and retain the dupes until so advised by Goddard.
    Upon receipt of the original tapes, Goddard was to verify that each tape received contained the
    original data as recorded at the tracking sites. When Goddard had verified that the original M-22
    tapes from the sites contained data, each site was so notified and the dupes that were being retained
    by each site could then be erased and used for other purposes.
    2. A search for documentation at Goddard that would show either the present stored location for the
    Apollo 11 tapes or disposition was never located. No reference documentation was ever found that
    referred to any of the Apollo mission telemetry data tapes. When the National Arch

  155. 1 box would be normal, but 700.... by purduephotog · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've toured the archives for work purposes and planning purposes for large digitization efforts. The speaker from the Smithsonian is absolutely right- just how the hell do you digitize that much crap? The numbers are staggering- pick any task and multiply it by the billions of feet of film and you've got serious timeframes- in the order (of some estimates I did) 30 to 50 years.

    But I find it odd that they could misplace all the boxes. The check-in/ check-out procedure used at the archives is fairly regimented- to screw something that large up requires a deliberate effort to delete or mis-file the boxes.

    To give you an idea, a box is received / dropped off at the archives. It has it's master database that says "This box is #####". The organization that drops it off maps a number assigned by the archive to that box, and said org maintains all the details of what is IN the box.

    The archives then move the box and it's paperwork to the specific row, shelf, and complex. I believe they are to make a total of 12 to 15 'pulls' per hour, which when we were wanding meant actively finding an item in about 2 minutes after you walk into a complex (this place is huge- each complex is a football field).

    The paperwork is then returned to central processing for annotation and entry into the DB.

    But to lose 700 CF (each box is 1 CF or so) requires serious effort- that implies that someone filed them all in either the wrong complex or completely off the wall location- and that NO ONE has tried to place another item on wherever they are currently sitting.

    Now, assume they've been actively 'pulled' for a number of years. Your standard pull & return places a piece of paper at the boxes location- it's a copy of the form showing who pulled it and when. The paper sits where the box originated- I saw some papers from the 70's which implied that the organization pulled the item yet is still paying around 30 cents / month for that space.

    A permanent withdrawl could have been done to 'stop the monthly fees', but that means the box wouldn't necessarily go back to the same spot. If all those boxes were moved around the entire archives it would be nearly impossible to locate- there's just not enough eyes to find them- and even then you can double stack boxes to boot so you'd never see them.

    So... either the boxes are there or someone checked them out. If they were checked out and the paperwork was lost.... you'll never find them. If they weren't checked out, you would need a miracle (and yes, they do have 'reward' sheets for lost boxes posted around the area) to find them. Maybe there's a cache of boxes somewhere... and then maybe not.

    1. Re:1 box would be normal, but 700.... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1


      But I find it odd that they could misplace all the boxes. The check-in/ check-out procedure used at the archives is fairly regimented- to screw something that large up requires a deliberate effort to delete or mis-file the boxes.


      Hmm, I smell a conspiracy! Whaddaya wanna bet, with the higher quality, you can see a boom mic on one of those tapes...

    2. Re:1 box would be normal, but 700.... by 5KVGhost · · Score: 1
      The procedures at the National Archives sound fairly effective. However, the boxes are not missing from the National Archives. According to the PDF the 700 boxes were removed from the Archives for transfer to the Goddard Space Flight Center, and then lost sometime after that:

      In 1970, the tapes were placed in the US National Archives in Accession #69A4099. By
      1984, all but two of the over 700 boxes of Apollo era magnetic tapes placed in the
      Accession, were removed and returned to the GSFC for permanent retention. These tapes
      are now missing.


      The two boxes left at the Archives are still accounted for, so apparently the GSFC is to blame for misplacing the rest of them. They're probably in some half-forgotten storage facility somewhere.

      BTW, I hope the folks at the Archives are looking into using RFID tags or something similar. It'd make a lot easier to find boxes when they're inevitably misplaced.
    3. Re:1 box would be normal, but 700.... by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1

      Lost the paperwork for the Ark too, huh?

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
  156. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    What these conspiracy theorists always forget is that we placed beacons on the moon which we "ping" with lasers constantly.

    First of all, most "conspiracy theorists" aren't so much forgetfull as they are ignorant.
    Secondly, no one seems to be denying that the Russians had landed robots on the moon before July 1969. It's not that it is impossible to do so, beacons could be sent there with rockets. The big question is, was it possible to send and retrieve humans in this way, at that time.

    Occam's razor here is, what is the easiest way to achieve the propaganda of a manned Lunar landing? Actually doing it, or faking it?

    Personally, I still wonder. Of course, since there's a lot of noise in the info on that subject (loud nutjobs), I don't particularly want to investigate this, but I don't think that it was more impossible to fake than it was to accomplish. Both would be quite hard, but the resulting propaganda would be worth it either way.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  157. Sandy Berger by Leebert · · Score: 1

    On a completely unrelated note, has anyone seen Sandy Berger recently?

  158. The voices told me... by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    But they're already nuts. That's why they're conspiracy theorists.

    Everyone is nuts; Normal people simply share the same kind of crazy.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  159. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Number6.2 · · Score: 1

    My God! It's all beginning to make SENSE! That means...that means the LAST FIVE THOUSAND YEARS is a sham!

    Scuse me, I just got a fed-ex package here...hey, it's a cell phone, and it's ringing...

    --
    "If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" --Voltaire
  160. More Bait & Switch nonsense. . ? by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Is this another bit of, "Destroy the Credibility of the Idea of Conspiracies"?

    That is. . , provide a tatalizing albeit false idea, let the steam build and then debunk so that everybody looks silly?

    Here's a hint: If it happens on big public broadcasting, (and if Peter Jennings doesn't contract terminal cancer shortly after it airs), then it's probably (more) misleading.

    Anybody who is serious about learning how the world really works is going to have to be a lot more savvy and critical about what data to allow into their knowledge structure. --And they're going to have to learn how to ignore emotional attacks, like the "Tinfoil Hat" remark, which is fueled by the part of the world which doesn't want you to ask questions.

    And those who fling emotional attacks at those who ask questions: You are being manipulated.


    -FL

    1. Re:More Bait & Switch nonsense. . ? by CranberryKing · · Score: 1

      Amen.

  161. Communists and Re:The real moon conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a friend from an Eastern European/former communist country (she had to learn Russian in school) and it astonishes me but she honestly does not believe the US landed on the moon, ever. Much as the US used to belittle any Soviet effort at anything (we always think of "first to the moon!" but who from the US... ok Slashdot crowd not representative... thinks of "first in space!"), I'd guess this is the same thing from the other side. Not that we ever denied the Soviets had the first person in space (and the first satellite), but we do tend to not think of it at all. But to actively deny that the US landed on the moon! I was too shocked to press her about it to see what else she believed, but I certainly wasn't going to change her mind.

  162. Where are the tapes? by aaronsb · · Score: 1

    They're in the basement of the Alamo!

  163. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by jeffy210 · · Score: 1
    calibrated censors there, coincidentally, these censors have been used WORLDWIDE


    Wow, I didn't know that we sent those type of people to the moon, trained them and then used them all over the world. China may want to get ahold of these moon-savvy censors for their firewall. Perhaps you meant "sensor"
    --
    ------
    "And may your days be long upon the earth."
  164. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by bogado · · Score: 1
    Oh... but that creates yet another conspiracy: that NASA and the government had more computing power available to them in 1969 than modern movie studios with huge render farms have today. And it just gets worse from there... one has to keep inventing more extravagant and obviously contrived excuses about why we can't possibly find any evidence for the truth while simultaneous suggesting that all the evidence that might contradict their theory is "obviously" planted which just goes to further "prove" the conspiracy. (insert rolling eyes expression here).


    You forgot that animation can be done without computers, all the disney classics (up to alladin) were made without them. Sure it would take a fine animator that can paint a photo-realistic frame, shoot it, alter it slightly, shoot it again and so on. This would take years and years to make, each second of footage has 24 frames in TV or worst 50 half-frames that are interlaced, so a minute of this animation would compromise at least 1440 frames of foto-realistic original art. Very hard, very improbable, but possible if enought artist are hired and enouth time, a few years pehaps, is alocated to the production.

    hehehe I still think that men was on the moon, though. :-D
    --
    []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

    ^[:wq

  165. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by ivano · · Score: 1
    No. Not if you can show that the moon rocks have not been in an oxidising atmosphere for the last few billion years. Science isn't as clean cut as you think it is. There are always clues.

    Ciao

  166. Bunch of questions by chord.wav · · Score: 1

    OK, lets assume for an instant that US never made it to the moon and, to keep Kennedy's "in this decade" promise, they have staged a moon with bouncing astronauts, etc..

    Now, wouldn't they want to erase all posible evidence of the contrary?
    Of course, the simplest explanation is always the most likely to be true. These dumbasses simply lost them.

    Questions to the reader:
    If China lands on the moon. Would you believe it?
    Now. What if China lands on the moon and they say they didn't found an american flag where it is supposed to be?
    What if they kinda prove it (video + some kind of GPS)?
    My guess is that 90% of the US people would not believe any of the previous question no matter how hard the chinese try to prove the contrary.
    Then, what does it take to make you change your opinion about the US moon landing?

  167. photographic evidence .. Re: Not faked ... but UFO by rs232 · · Score: 1

    "the tapes were taken by MIB in order to conceal alien spacecraft"

    The photographic evidence is irrefutable.

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
  168. Re:Apollo 11: The Special Limited Collector's Edit by CrasHUV · · Score: 1

    I love moon conspiracy. But the truth is they probably just misplaced them.
    Maybe the Ark of the Covenant melted the paint of the lunar tape boxes as well.

    --
    Its all just smoke and mirrors.
  169. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by vertinox · · Score: 1

    There is lots of evidence that we landed on the moon (900 pounds of moonrocks being a good part of it).

    The funny thing about moon rocks is that they turned out to be very similar to material on the the earth.

    So we can assume that the moon was either part of the earth a long time ago or that they just happened to fly in some rocks from the desert.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  170. Just when I thought I'd heard EVERY insult... by The_REAL_DZA · · Score: 1
    [conspiracy "theory" that the moon landings were faked]...It's about on par with a Jehovah's Witness trying to say that the geological evidence for an old planet was just put there by God to test our faith.

     
    We "young-Earth creationists" put up with a lot, but when you compare us to this batch of kooks you're going TOO FAR!
    --


    This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
  171. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

    Considering the low resolution television images that came back, it would have been very easy to fake it.

    Did you not even read the Slashdot summary?

    The video signal broadcast from the Moon to Earth was higher resolution than standard broadcast TV. Those master tapes of that hi-res signal are now missing, leaving only those low-res second-generation copies that we all saw on TV.

    Is it possible that the master tapes never existed? Maybe. But people claim to have viewed them -- are they liars? Conspirators?

  172. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by aonaran · · Score: 1

    No no, He meant censer, as in incense burner. The moon smells really nice now.

  173. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by vertinox · · Score: 1

    Occam's Razor be damned.

    To be fair, the simplest solution ist that Occam could be wrong about his razor.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  174. Meanwhile... by Media+Tracker · · Score: 1

    Until they find those missing tapes, you can watch excerpts of the Apollo 11 videos at the ALSJ, along with a complete transcription of the radio transmissions.

    Spacecraft Films also sells a 3-disc DVD box set with enhanced video of the whole mission (as well as other Apollo missions), including onboard footage, surface TV, etc. Fascinating stuff.

  175. Re:Apollo 11: The Special Limited Collector's Edit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love 9/11 conspiracy. ..such as the official story.

    Sometimes I wonder if we'll ever know the truth. I do know we don't want to know. And a few of us geniuses think we already know, it was terrorists with boxcutters, it had to the be the boxcutter terrorists, in the flight cabin, with their passports.

    But when the evidence doesn't match reality, scientists inquire.

  176. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    What is the old spy rule? The percentage chance that a secret will leak out is equal to the number of people who know about it squared.

    The Feds couldn't even keep the details of nuclear weapons secret never mind a massive moon landing fake.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  177. Ummm, weren't those tapes important? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    I'll never understand how places that have priceless artifacts in their care treat them with less care and security than a janitor's closet. Between this and the thefts of major artworks over the years (The Scream, the Isabella Stewart Gardner museum robbery, etc) I think either insurance companies or the government should force owners of items deemed "of major cutural significance" to properly protect them. Either you protect them or you can't publicly display them, force them to sell to someone who can protect them, and/or a big insurance premium increase.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  178. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Sorry... wasn't trying to incite any flamage on that issue, it's just something that I've heard them say to me on at least a couple of occasions. Not sharing their particular view on theology, I was not aware that this was not a common perception among them.

  179. Take Two! by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    Actually these tapes were just the rehersal tapes. "Ok Neil, can you hide your footsteps with the brush and go back up the ladder? This time just stick to the script please."

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  180. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Adding employees to a project increases the project's complexity and does not linearly reduce the time it takes. For many complex problems there can even come a point where you've added so many people to the project that it starts taking even longer than it would have with fewer people. While there is always an optimum number of people to put on any one project such that it can be done in the least possible time, it's not always possible to predict what that number might be, and for a complex enough problem the time scale could simply be impossible in any fixed amount of time. It would seem to follow that drawing many hundreds of thousands of frames of photorealistic art by hand for the purpose of animation is an intractable problem even if one has many artists at their disposal.

  181. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by SirPavlova · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that's my favourite argument when the issue comes up too. I was about to reply to another post with it when I noticed yours... won't bother now. Cheers, dude.

    --
    Yar.
  182. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by stupidfoo · · Score: 1

    Well, actually, yes, the moon was formed when a large Mars sized object struck the Earth early in its history. Much of the ejected material became the moon. The rocks on the moon are made up of very similar material due to this. There is also very little heavy metals like iron on the moon because most of the ejected material was from the surface of the then forming Earth and not its core.

    The rocks from the moon were not oxidized like those found on earth (due to a lack of oxygen).

  183. If the tapes are ever found... by lomedhi · · Score: 1

    It would be interesting to see how much the quality could be even further improved by using identical frames recorded at the three different locations, as well as the overlap from the two recorders that had to be reloaded every 15 minutes, for noise removal.

    --
    Did you say "insightful" or "inciteful"?
  184. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
    why would it be easier to keep a secret coverup secret than sending men to the moon.

    Whaddaya mean? The secret gets out all the time. The brilliant part is that almost nobody believes it, so those who do get branded as "wackos."

  185. Oh and here's a bit of debunking by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    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.

    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.

    Assuming this is accurate (and it's more likely to be accurate than the conspiracy theories) it pretty well explains the thrust thing.

    http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  186. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And where was this video stored waiting slow scan transmission? Memory in the old machines was ferrite core - large power hungry and not much of it. As for TV recorders ever see an Ampex prior to Beta or VHS? Ever see the synchronous motors that drove the reels? Hmmmmm? Curiouser and curiouser.

  187. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by eggegg · · Score: 1

    It is funny that people who routinely call the government incompetent attribute characteristics that require the utmost level of competence.

    No, dude. The idiot up front is just a distraction -- it's the guy in back with the pacemaker pulling all the strings that make the world dance.

    It was, after all, not until Nixon was elected that we actually 'landed' on the moon when, not coincidently, Dick Cheney began a career in politics as special assistant to the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity -- none other than Nixon appointee, Donald Rumsfeld. Does anyone really think the increase in American energy consumption and the steady decline of civil rights soon thereafter was an accident?

    Once rid of the Vatican-controlled Kennedy Brothers(TM) and that pesky negro preacher, nothing has stood in their way -- hell bent on either world economic and political domination by controlling the world's energy supply and the policies that govern them... or to seize control for their Zionist masters on the religious right...
    I can never remember which one.

    As the world grows increasingly weary and leery, a framework for continued domination is in place. "Green is the new petroleum!" went the cry from the group of aging alcoholics drinking anything but Scotch from Geronimo's skull while gathered 'round a college underclassman masturbating in a casket beneath a frat house in Connecticut. Their most capable operative/pawn is performing better than expected. Already in more than 400 theaters, his movie continues to be embraced by the wealthy lefties whose ideology unexpectedly formed amid the 'energy crisis' thirty years ago. This group, thought unreachable until only now, and unwittingly motivated to support the Statesman from Tennessee by the engineered 'election snafu' of 2000 and 2004, may still escape the Alzheimers-inducing tannins and waxes manufactured by Monsanto and slated for introduction next year into food items labeled "Certified Organic'.

    But what I can't remember is whether it was Merom or Conroe that had the Homeland Security backdoor...

  188. when are you going to stop making excuses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bush has been in office for six years and the Republicans control Congress. When something goes wrong in government or foreign policy, it is Bush's fault. There is nobody left for the Republicans to shift the blame to anymore.

  189. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by mfrank · · Score: 2

    And of course the kicker is you can be damn sure the Soviets were tracking it too. Even if it were possible for the US govt to fool the American people, the Russians would have sported major wood at the thought of exposing a fraud like that.

  190. So what's on the 2 that remain? by WeirdKid · · Score: 1

    The article says the missing tapes include the Apollo 11 footage. 698 of 700 are missing, so what was left?

    What would/could someone do with these tapes (assuming they were taken) if the only place that can read them is the DEL at Goddard? How hard would it be to build something that could read these tapes?

    This is why all that stuff needs to be tagged with RFID or something, so that a record is made everytime when it leaves or enters a storage room or the building. Sure, it wouldn't stop King George II from destroying evidence, but it would stop Joe Mopbucket or Sally Shelf-straightener from throwing it in the trash.

    1. Re:So what's on the 2 that remain? by Drakai · · Score: 1

      You really do make up the best nick names :)

      Joe Mopbuckett lol

  191. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Darby · · Score: 1

    I find it hilarious that people think we could have faked the moon landings. I mean, we were in an international space *race*; probably the biggest rivalry in the history of the world. If there were any way in hell those men weren't actually on the moon, the Soviets would have been all over it and shamed us forever.

    And you really think that proves anything?!?
    What makes you think we didn't just make up Russia too?

    Have you ever been there? If not, then hah! If so, then you're clearly part of the conspiracy.

    See? Easy as shooting fish through the bottom of your lifeboat ;-)

  192. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And none of those engineers and technicians, (face it, it's not realistically possible that NASA, Boeing, Grumman, Rockwell, and everybody else just highered a bunch of artists with fake credentials and nobody caught on) complained about the fact that their fancy degrees were going to waste while they used their sliderules as straight edges, that they were wasting billions of their friends and neighbors taxpayer dollars when there was a war in Vietnam, and that they never got to test anything.

  193. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Proteus · · Score: 1
    And it just gets worse from there... one has to keep inventing more extravagant and obviously contrived excuses about why we can't possibly find any evidence for the truth while simultaneous suggesting that all the evidence that might contradict their theory is "obviously" planted which just goes to further "prove" the conspiracy.
    Not to mention that even if the publicly-shown moon landing videos could be proved as fakes, all that proves is that the footage shown to the public was faked — it doesn't prove that we didn't go.

    It's about on par with a Jehovah's Witness trying to say that the geological evidence for an old planet was just put there by God to test our faith.
    Wrong fundamentalists: JW's aren't "young earth" theorists, but creationists who believe that the "6 days of creation" are symbolic and that the earth probably is as old as geologists think it is, but also that all species were directly created by Jehovah (an alternate transliteration of 'Yahweh').

    The concept of "fossils were put here to test our faith" is credited to Philip Henry Gosse, a contemporary of Darwin, as the young-earthers' response to the mounting evidence of an old earth at that time.

    Just in case you care. ;-)
    --
    We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
  194. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by mark-t · · Score: 1

    My apologies. But I have on more than one occasion heard a person claiming to be a Jehovah's Witness tell me exactly that. Not sharing their particular theological view, I had no basis to assume that it was anything other than a common belief in that religion. I stand corrected.

  195. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by mark-t · · Score: 1
    Indeed I do care, as I seem to have offended a whole swackload of JW's with my comment... I may not believe what they do, but I certainly didn't intend to spout actual disinformation about their belief system.

    I was sure that the people I heard that line from were Jehovah's Witnesses, but it's possible I was wrong.

  196. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

    Hi,
        You believe God can't lie, but what about the bible? Do JWs believe the bible is 100% correct? Is there a particular translation that is 100% correct? Or do JWs feel that the bible might have had human faults introduced when it was written down by humans?

  197. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 1

    Let's give the conspiracy the benefit of the doubt, and suggest that Apollo 11 was faked and the motive for this was anti-USSR propaganda.

    What was the motive for Apollo 12, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16, and Apollo 17? In other words, once "the sheeple" already believe our flag is sticking out of the face of the moon, why pretend to go back another 5 times? (Six times assuming Apollo 13 was just another PR move).

    Yes, I find it odd that no other country has ever been to the moon in the decades since, and yes, it is odd that these tapes disappeared just as the Chinese claim that they are ready to visit the moon for the first time, which coincidentally has sparked the fist effort to return Americans to the moon since 1972. Yes, President Bush is a conspiracy theorists' wet dream, and a *lot* of what this President does is purposefully left quiet, which tends to invite a lot of debate.

    But why fake it five times? And, where did those billions and billions of dollars in expenses (those which allegedly ended the age of moon exploration) really go?

  198. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by joatamon · · Score: 1

    Considering the low resolution television images that came back, it would have been very easy to fake it.

    I hope this was meant as a joke. It was not even possible to do digital music synthesis in real time back then. The moon landing would NOT have been easy to fake, and for quite a few reasons:

    • An estimated 6 million people watched that rocket lift off live from the Cape. The damn thing was visible with the naked eye for miles around. Something big sure got launched.
    • We're talking HISTORY here. This was during the height of the Cold War, and nobody was going to let the US take credit for something it didn't do. That mission was tracked by every country that could afford an optical or radio telescope. The spacecraft was tracked both optically and electronically by friend and foe from the time it left the launch pad until the capsule splashed down. SOMETHING went to the moon, landed, and returned.
    • Some of you might not be aware of this, but the earth is round. The moon can only be seen from one side of the earth at a time. NASA had tracking stations in several countries around the world that received the data and relayed it back to the States. You've got to either fake an incoming signal from the moon, or thousands of people would have to be in on it. Thousands of other current and future NASA employees (including me) would have had to be in on it as well, and NO secret can be kept by that many people for such a long time.
    • In 1969, we used punched cards and paper tape for computer input, and "mainframe" computers had memory measured in KB and not MB. You got typical memory cycle times of one or two microseconds. The IBM mainframe I worked with at the time had three memory partitions, a 100K partition, a 200K partition, and a 300K partition. This was the Triangle Universities Computation Center (TUCC) in Research Triangle Park, N.C., and was shared by three universities. This was typical cream of the crop high tech for the day. NASA didn't have much better. You couldn't fake a moon landing using hardware like that. It would be easier to do it than to fake it.
    • Finally, a retroreflector was left on the moon by the Apollo 11 crew, and it is being used to this day. It is possible, using a telescope and laser that most major university physics departments can afford, to get very precise measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon by bouncing a laser beam off of this reflector. Some of this work has been used to help verify some of Einstein's theories. You can find out about this by spending a bit of time with Google.
    I can't, for the life of me, understand why this "controversy" is still going strong. I suspect that the type of person who believes that the landing was a fake is the type who learned his physics from Star Trek, "Put us into a synchronous orbit over the pole, Mr. Data..."
  199. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    But why fake it five times?

    Why would it have to be faked everytime?
    The point of faking it is that the U.S. had to be there first, that was the point: To win the race.

    Why go back for real once the race is won with a fake? Why, so people would assume that since it was done for real later on, then obviously the first time was for real too (horrible logic, but a common assumption).

    P.S. Like I said, not that I believe I could prove it either way. But I have this sinking feeling it wasn't all on the up and up.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  200. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1
    That's why I said, as part of this, NASA can't be in on it. Arguably, this would have been done by the military.

    Here's the scenario I came up with. This is pure fantasy on my part--I'm making it up and I don't believe it. It's just an entertaining fantasy to begin the game with.

    The LEM has some sort of problem that requires parts of it be redesigned. There is absolutely no way that it will be ready for use before Kennedy's deadline of "the end of the decade." But it has become vitally important for the US to hit Kennedy's deadline because we know the Russians are also trying to make it to the moon in the same timeframe. What to do? If we don't make the end of the decade, we're going to have a lot of Americans howling. If we don't do it ASAP, the Russians might beat us. There's no way to do it, though, because the LEM problems.

    So we must fake Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 to show up the Russians--Apollo 12 was done to show the Russians that we can do it twice and it wasn't a fluke.

    That's the why of the game. Given this, here's some comments.

    Keeping secrets is a difficult thing if more than one person knows that secret. Inevitable someone is going to spill the beans, either accidently or on purpose.
    Fair enough. However, who's going to believe him?

    In our scenario, the moon-landings were not all fake. Just two. The reason to fake the missions has it's basis in patriotism, so you could easily convince people to keep it secret. And even if one spills the beans, who's going to believe him? NASA says it was real--and they believe it because they weren't part of the conspiracy. There are only six people in the public eye--Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins, Pete Conrad, Richard Gordon, and Alan Bean--who have to keep the secret. After all, if Neil Armstrong said it was fake, I'm going to believe him. If John Schmoe said it was fake and he knows because he set up the fake cameras in the desert, I'm not going to buy it.

    Even if no hard evidence is found, there will always be enough circumstantial evidence to piece the program together.
    But circumstantial evidence is just that--circumstantial. People won't necessarily believe it, especially with enough voices saying that it really did happen and they know because they were there.

    Also remember that there's a lot of national pride tied up in this. Anyone who says we didn't land on the moon is certainly not a patriot.

    I agree that the conspiracy nuts are usually way out in left field. But how many people would you need to fake the video portion? I don't think you'd need that many people...
  201. 5S is to blame. by purduephotog · · Score: 1

    I couldn't read the PDF, but that explains alot.

    And frankly, if the tapes are sitting somewhere there, they're in the trash can. 5S has a notorious habit of finding the least competent person and saying "Go clean that shit up".

    Which explains why I pulled 35 lbs of legally non-disposable heavy metals out of a trashbin after 5S wandered by and 'cleaned' an area. Has that slowed the process down... ? nope.

    History is lost.

  202. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by 3vi1 · · Score: 1

    Yes: I've been to Russia. Shut your pie hole.

  203. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 1

    That's an interesting pov; 11 was faked to win the race, and we had to go back (i.e. do it for real) to cover our tracks. But with the sudden spike in interest by both China and the USA after 30 years or disinterest, I could almost believe that the 1960's-70's missions were ALL made up, and now we have to get there before the Chinese do or be found out.

    Of course, this is all pure "what if" conspiracy fun. Truth be told, I'd like to think we really did it just like the history books promised.

  204. Re:How.. the worst kind of fanatic consp. theorist by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    You know, like I said I don't really care whether the moon hoax theory is true, fully or in part. I have my own theory
    about what happened and I even gave it somewhere in this thread but it is completely irrelevant to the point I am
    trying to make:

    Basic Programming - Serf, Human:

    What we tell you is largely true. What you see on TV or read in the newspapers, magazines etc., what letter degree university people or
    the ones in uniform tell you, that is largely true. We are smarter than you and that is why we are running things and you are not.

    If others present you with material that they obviously did not get from the previously mentioned respectable sources such as
    television, print etc. and/or which has not been certified by a letter degree person etc. then it is largely false. These people
    are mentally deranged must be avoided unless you want others to believe that you are likewise afflicted and suffer social isolation.

    FIAT.

    That is the kind of basic programming that every human adult that goes through the conditioning process which begins upon leaving their mother's
    womb and doesn't stop merely after graduating school has gone through. You right: It is hard to combat that kind of fanatic, the
    conspiracy theorist who considers theories presented to him merely on the account of how many other people believe that theory to hold true
    and who is prepared to act against better judgement just to avoid being laughed at.

  205. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    So what if they were about to kill 400 people just so they have a reason to start a war?

    Oh yes I know, it's the War on @SET[Communism, Drugs, Terrorism, Private Gun-ownership, Tax Evasion, Atheism, Unamericanism .. ], I guess _WE_ can live with some collateral damage as long as we don't get picked as collaterals.

    Mein Fuehrer was pretty nice when he needed a reason to invade Poland. All he did was blow up a radio station just over the polish border. The American Fuehrer sank an oceanliner with I don't know how many hundreds of people in WWI and the second time around allowed Perl Harbor to happen.

    Ooooh... wait... COOONSSSPPIIRRAAACYYY THhhHHheEEEoooORRRRYYYYYyyY ... CRIMETHINK! CRIMETHINK! Can't even _entertain_ the thought that just because they put out papers like that, that whey would do things like that. Oooohh Noooo, can't go there. OFfF LLiiImmiitSS! It wasn't on TV and Wikipedia doesn't say so either so it's just a crazy, kooky thing to say.

    Another thing, like Dylan said, Osama is family, in fact he's their son. He's most definately a friend of the family.

    You didn't say anything about the radiation experiments? Too bad. I particularily like how the Dept of Energy admits to injecting a healthy young women with plutonium without her knowing. I don't know but she could have had Dr. Mengele for a doctor and would probably have fared better.

    People, don't just go and believe (or disbelieve) what I'm telling you. Instead, go and look up the things I'm talking about and see for yourself.

  206. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by evilviper · · Score: 1
    I'm tired of your insane ranting, so I'll keep this very short.

    So what if they were about to kill 400 people just so they have a reason to start a war?

    See first post.
    Also, the plan WASN'T to kill anybody. The plan (imperfect and preliminary as it was) was to more or less HIDE those people. They never even planned to kill those people.

    CRIMETHINK! CRIMETHINK! Can't even _entertain_ the thought that just because they put out papers like that, that whey would do things like that.

    That's good. Supplement your paranoia with an equally large persecution complex, just because rational people don't buy-in to your insane rantings, and take utter lack of evidence as PROOF.

    You didn't say anything about the radiation experiments?

    No, I didn't say anything about radiation experiments. However, I had the CIA break into /. headquarters, and covertly edit the comment database to make it APPEAR as if my last comment actually DOES say a great deal about the radiation experiments, all just to fuck with your head, and make you look like a complete idiot.
    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  207. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    Right. Why "Hide those people, build a remote controlled drone and shoot that down over Cuba. Invade the country, haul Castro in chains to New York, kill anybody who has seen the wreckage sans bodies, let people go and follow up on them should they ever dare to talk about what happened"

    when instead you could

    "Shoot down a passenger plane over Cuba, Invade the country, haul Castro in chains to New York".

    You know during the entire threat, I aim to get the message across that people are conditioned to discredit things they hear just because it is
    not backed up by the official media etc. Looking at your and the replies of some others that is apparently the last thing you want to discuss.
    Which is great because from now on I am going to pursue that a lot here on Slashdot and elsewhere.

  208. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by mark_osmd · · Score: 1

    Sort of like one of the classic SNL skits "masterbrain" was the one where Reagan was totally in control of the Contra situation, speaking fluent arabic to banking contacts to finance the whole thing, doing all the calculations on money on a accountant calculator (or in his head) and keeping all the rest of the cabinet in the dark. http://snltranscripts.jt.org/86/86fmasterbrain.pht ml But at the same time the people claiming that Reagan did run the whole contra affair were also saying he was a senile, naive fool.

  209. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

    Hey, no biggie. I just wanted to set the record straight. "Fundamentalists" get a lot of flak on /., and it's not all deserved.

    The doctrinal basics of being a JW are all the same (we don't allow dissenters to keep close association with the organization), but our focus isn't scientific, so we only touch on a few topics that tend to stumble those that might otherwise join us. That leads to a lot of people filling in the blanks and spouting their opinions as "fact". We're (as a group) constantly warned not to do it, but it happens a lot anyway.

    Thanks for not being the typical argumentative /. user. I'm sorry I jumped on you like that.

  210. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

    Briefly, yes, probably not, and yes.

    We believe that:

    - God cannot lie.

    - The Bible is God's word, and therefore, contains no lies. That means we do a lot of study to figure out why certain things appear to be contradictory. This has always led to an understanding that the Bible does not contradict itself. The details do matter.

    - There are minor copyist mistakes that have crept into the Bible over the centuries and milennia, but that they're not things that have greatly altered the overall meaning of the text. We've also done a lot of work to mitigate these errors by comparing multiple older versions and even archaeological evidence and texts.

    - There are several major threats to the "purity" of the Bible, and these are ongoing. The most amazing of the lot has to do with God's name. It happens that the divine name (YHWH) was removed from the Hebrew scriptures (the "old testament") in about 6900 places in most translations. It used to commonly appear in 4 places in the KJV, but in recent years (within the last 100 years) has been removed even from those places. This is presumably to keep people from "taking his name in vain", but these efforts are misguided. Through careful study of numerous texts, translations, and revisions (several hundred, in fact), Jehovah's Witnesses have compiled a translation of our own. We call it the "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures". It's a modern-language translation (currently available in about 20 languages) that restores the divine name as used in the common language for the translation. In English, for example, it's rendered as "Jehovah". In Italian, "Geova". There are an additional ~200 places in the Greek scriptures (the "new testament") that got a similar treatment. The NWT is as close to a "correct" translation as we need, and it does get some updates as better translation tools and more alternative texts have become available - there have been 3 revisions since the original 1960 publishing, the latest in 1984.

  211. Don't Worry... by Kodiak+Claw · · Score: 1

    They'll turn up on ebay.

  212. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by evilviper · · Score: 1

    Funny. You count that document as solid evidence when it suits you, and utterly discount what it actually say when it doesn't suit you. Who's the irrational nutjob again?

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  213. Re:Oh come on... Greetings from Moriah? by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    Like you said, the Northwood document was more or less a brainstorm, nothing more, nothing less. I guess we can expect some
    form of efficiency here that if they had enacted the airplane scenario, it would have been at the inconsequential cost of a
    couple of hundred civilians.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods , but really all you need is to type "Operation Northwoods"
    into Google.

    But like I said this is not what I'm here for. The message I want to get across is: It's time people turned off
    their TV sets and turned on their minds. Don't thumb your nose at someone because what they're saying is not what
    they're saying on FOX or in the NY Times.

    And on the other hand don't believe anyone blindly -- instead do your own research and your own thinking and go
    with what _YOU_ come up with.

  214. Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! by Proteus · · Score: 1
    I was sure that the people I heard that line from were Jehovah's Witnesses, but it's possible I was wrong.
    It's also possible you were right: I'm sure there are segments of that organization that have even more conservative beliefs than the religion at large. I can only really speak to the doctrinal positions that JWs espouse in their literature.

    A fascinating sect to study, actually: for what is, in my opinion, a small and largely harmless group of fundamentalist sectarians, they sure do raise a lot of ire. And produce amazing ranges of misconception. They're misrepresented almost as badly as the Hare Krishnas. Unfortunately, they (JW's) don't scare as easily as the local "we're more conservative than the Missouri Synod" baptists, with whom I have no end of fun with when they see my statue of Kali-ma[0]. ;-P

    I'm glad you actually cared to be informed; most people have their preconcieved ideas about the various fringe religions, and it causes no end of argument.

    [0]: Which is, incidentally, purely decorative -- I have yet to decide if those proselytes are more terrified of me before or after I tell them I'm an atheist. ;-)
    --
    We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can. – Cullen Hightower
  215. The Dish was just a movie!!!!!!!! by Cameltoe · · Score: 1
  216. Lo-Tek! by hawkfish · · Score: 1

    There was a hilarious story a few years back about how in the late 80s the British Parliament decided to start putting laws on digital media instead of vellum (lambskin) as had been done for almost 1000 years. 10 or so years later the project was canned because it was becoming impossible to read the 10 year old media. By contrast, 1000 year old vellum was still perfectly legible.

    In a related story, one of the early issues of Wired had a nice chart showing the age vs longevity of various kinds of media. Clay cuneiform tablets are still legible after about 6000 years, but modern CDs only had a projected lifetime of about 10 years.

    --
    You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates