It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA ADMITS: Moon Landing Tapes Got Erased

page: 11
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 
I wasn't having a dig at you KK
Don't take offense




posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


It's not the same thing, NASA did not destroyed their first Moon landing mission, what was not preserved was a copy of the real event, not the event itself (obviously), so your comparison is not really a comparison.

It would be like having a video of Leonardo DaVinci painting the Mona Lisa and erasing the tape, not like re-painting the canvas (I suppose it's canvas).

What it shows is lack of organisation, to say the least.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by kinda kurious
 

It would be like having a video of Leonardo DaVinci painting the Mona Lisa and erasing the tape, not like re-painting the canvas


I do see your point, but.......It was preserving the act of painting (landing) which was to serve as proof / evidence / documentation of an event.

Yes there still exists a moon and the assumption we went there as depicted on the copies of video. Perhaps my example was faulty.

And for the record, the 'copies' are significantly less quality than original considering Analog 2" Quad NTSC composite "dub" would lose approx. a fourth of the quality per generation. ( Not like digital 'clones' of today.)

Just to add that I find WW's assumption odd that if the original videos existed, they'd probably be deteriorated beyond usability AND YET the copies survived same span of time intact.


I realize I've got some VERY SMART people convincing me otherwise,
just too many weird little inconsistencies for me and my atom sized brain.

But thanks just the same.





[edit on 22-7-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by kinda kurious
Just to add that I find WW's assumption odd that if the original videos existed, they'd probably be deteriorated beyond usability AND YET the copies survived same span of time intact.

It's possible, the storage conditions could be different, but if I remember it well, magnetic tapes have a tendency to reach a magnetic equilibrium, meaning that the whole tape has a tendency to lose the different magnetism levels at different areas, I still remember having to play my tapes at least once a year to avoid that problem and to keep the plastic tape from adhering to the next loop in reel.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
It's possible, the storage conditions could be different.


I totally agree about proper storage. One of my first jobs was to 'exercise' stored videotape as an intern. We would rack up old 2" Quad on a RCA TR-600-A VTR and fast forward the large reels to end and rewind back to head, replace on shelf opposite direction of how they were found. (Eliminated "print-through" and tape "warpage.")

Or perhaps they were just keeping the interns busy.


Hey, this guy had some NASA tapes allegedly stored in his garage and they played back fine:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

(Great thread and related.)

[edit on 22-7-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
hahahaha, if you think NASA ERASED THE ORIGINAL FOOTAGE then i have several bridges to sell you



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 



Hey, this guy had some NASA tapes allegedly stored in his garage and they played back fine:


I saw that thread....do ya think Gary George had a machine to play those tapes on??



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
....do ya think Gary George had a machine to play those tapes on??


Nope, this facility was involved: www.dcvideo.com... (Burbank,CA)
(They specialize in vintage videotape, retrieval and archival of obsolete formats. A stroll down memory lane for me. Great site if you are in to old video stuff.)

Discussion on Collect Space

Regards...KK

[edit on 22-7-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   
At the 20 sec mark you can see him suddenly jump with out bending his knees as if a cord was pulling him up.....and if watch carefully you will see he got tugged a second time after the first pull.......any one see that too or am i nuts




posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   
I was a believer in the moon landings.

now I am almost certain that they faked the landings.

Here what changed my mind.

1) They "deleted" the high quality slow-band Apollo tapes

2) this Mythbusters episode at 6 minutes...


3) Watch shadow of the flag
i205.photobucket.com...

4) Apollo 1 accident, they were alive for longer than Nasa says, they had time to save them, but they didnt. This shows how far Nasa would go.
www.youtube.com...

5) Strange Apollo 17 pics of the rover...
* There no tracks at the rover
* the wheels are not turning
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

6) When watching many of the high-res Apollo pictures, there is a line with sharp contrast in ground details and color in the distance, in a strait line across the picture. This is exactly what you would expect if they were on a set and the "walls" was a screen with moon painted on or projected onto. Stanley Kuprick used projection screen in his 1968 sci-fi 2001: A space Odyssey
Notice the line with sharp contrast across each picture
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
any geologist present?

7) Nixon was president.

8) Nasa had nearly 100% succesrate with rockets and Lunar modules.
Compare with Russia's countless failures just to get a unmanned rover on moon. Nasa was little too perfect, they had no computers to run simulations on.

9) I am sure I will find more

[edit on 23-7-2009 by conar]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by conar
 


Very nice job pulling all that together. You'll likely get hammered. I appreciate the work that it took.

As a high curiously, self-proclaimed fence-sitter, I'd only like to add:

The original signals beamed back were "Slow-Scan" 325 lines of resolution @ 10 frames per second (Hence the jerky motion) due to bandwidth constraints. Presumably those signals were then 'transcoded' or converted to the American standard of NTSC @ 30 fps for "live" telecast

The re examination of Myth Busters footage was compelling.

The Rover wheels position and 'no tracks' images are interesting. Obviously staged.

After reviewing other presentations on the possible use of 'front screen projection',
I find the images you provided (FROM NASA) very convincing. Virtually every expansive landscape I review now exhibits the tell tale traits. (Also in the 'flag shadow' photo, the distinct foreground / background luminance and discoloration mis-match is highly apparent.)

For me it is an uneasiness in my gut coupled with all the overwhelming undefinable
doubt that prevents me for accepting moon landings (as portrayed) hook, line and sinker.

Well done! Since I can only offer 1 star,



[edit on 23-7-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Inspired by Conar to add:


Who is operating the camera?

Reframing when both astronauts are in scene.

Oh yeah, remote control. Sorry.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by conar
* the wheels are not turning

I don't have time for more, so I will answer just this point.

Not seeing the wheels turning is to be expected, as the scene was a bright day scene the camera used a high shutter speed, and with those settings the movements are "frozen", that is how we can see photos of athletes in action, for example, instead of a clearer body and blurred arms and legs.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Wouldnt the picture get blurred if taking the pictures so fast that the wheels are not turning? because he is panning a lot between the shots.
Funny stuff about that rover sequence, the back screen is not at the mountains. When zooming in, one can easy see the difference in color, the back screen is a little darker than the ground.

[edit on 23-7-2009 by conar]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by conar
 



conar], as to your series of pics in question #6:

Look at this image. The Moon photos are simply showing the top of a hill, in the foreground, a valley or depression behind it that you can't see, then a rise in the far background. THAT is why detail is lacking in the distance!!!




posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by conar
 


conar, as to question #5:

The fourth pic clearly shows Rover tracks, in the foreground, since the Rover had passed that way at one point.

In the distant pics, the angle is bad to see the tracks!! Maybe I can find a picture of a car on a dirt road taken from a dozen yards away....OH, and maybe that car will be moving abot 8 MPH in very bright sunlight, and the picture will be snapped with a fast shutter speed to "freeze" the motion of the wheels!!!

Here...looky, looky. This car is moving very fast, since it's in mid air in a "jump", don't you agree???

EVERY movie I've ever seen of cars jumping through the air, the weels are spinning. The drive wheels, because of the engine, and the other wheels, because they keep rollin' along, rollin' along......



Here's a low angle of the car, on dirt....where are the tire tracks???
(I love that it's a 1969 Dodge! How appropriate!)





[edit on 23 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 09:14 AM
link   
It's not just the details. It's ground composition, color, texture etc

My nephew of 10 years can see it
www.hq.nasa.gov...

[edit on 23-7-2009 by conar]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by conar
 


conar, as to question #5:

The fourth pic clearly shows Rover tracks, in the foreground, since the Rover had passed that way at one point.

In the distant pics, the angle is bad to see the tracks!! Maybe I can find a picture of a car on a dirt road taken from a dozen yards away....OH, and maybe that car will be moving abot 8 MPH in very bright sunlight, and the picture will be snapped with a fast shutter speed to "freeze" the motion of the wheels!!!

Here...looky, looky. This car is moving very fast, since it's in mid air in a "jump", don't you agree???

EVERY movie I've ever seen of cars jumping through the air, the weels are spinning. The drive wheels, because of the engine, and the other wheels, because they keep rollin' along, rollin' along......



[edit on 23 July 2009 by weedwhacker]


Nice Weedwhacker, now take 3-4 more pictures where you look slightly to the side, but the car is still hanging there



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by conar
 



It's not just the details. It's ground composition, color, texture etc


Look at your picture again. You are looking at something with NO visual references for distance...noting familiar. The hills in the distance are very far away, with different terrain possibly. Different 'soil' types. The ground composition, texture, LOOK different, because it's far away! Did you see my example of sand dunes?

Thing is, on Earth, you can judge distance fairly accurately, even guess...because you're used to it!



[edit on 23 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
We got that camera arm in front of the astronaut as reference, he is sitting on the rover while taking these pictures, so you get a feeling how far from the ground it is taken. From that reference, you can estimate the distance to the "hill"
www.hq.nasa.gov...

I would say 10-15 meter

[edit on 23-7-2009 by conar]



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join