Erased tapes of the Moon landing - Any News?

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by Xenoglossy

 

How is a damaged file inaccurate?

Seriously!!!!!

Though I'm kinda repulsed in general, I feel the need to answer because there might be people reading this thread who don't know what I meant (I'm sure, you do)

Example:
The Bible is pretty complete. Nevertheless archeologists still crap their pants whenever they find some little fragment of some insignificant part of it (which they already have). Why? Because every little part of history counts. Every little bit can be useful in reconstucting what really happened.

Now assume that our civilization collapses for some reason. 500 years later people have these "myths" that once some men were on the moon. The remains of the NASA archives are discovered, but only copies of the footage are found. Now the documents claim that the moon landings happened in the 1960ies, but the only footage available is 40 years older. This raises some serious questions for the historian.

I can't believe that I have to explain the significance of keeping important historical artifacts.

Originally posted by flexy123
This should give you an idea about the "importance" of those tapes....because it's really minor aside from the "historical" value.

Yeah, "historical" value - like this is some kind of joke. Because history is such an irrelevant subject, right?

reply to post by Xenoglossy


Thank you your argument proves my opinion.When There comes a time when we need to explain the moon landings.What would the people want a accurate record, or a corrupted record. The move will go a long way to keep the record straghit . The record of the event has been copied. To prevent any degregation.

I really lose any faith in you that you even care what you are talking about. Look at the replies to your OP, I am not the only one who saw that your main point was that there was a conspiracy

Yet you abandon that and change your opinion to the historical meaning.

If you had any real beliefs you would have stood your ground on your OP.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
If you had any real beliefs you would have stood your ground on your OP.

As I said pretty early in the thread: it was you who assumed that I had some secret agenda in mind (propagating some hoax or another). I just wanted to direct the attention at the destruction of a invaluable artefact and what this could mean.

btw. in case you don't know: I created this thread is "General Conspiracies" because I realize that talking about such matters is not really considered ... propper. I don't know why it got moved here.

reply to post by Xenoglossy


If NASA's past record on disclosure and openness is any indication of their intent.....

I'll chose the conspiracy most of the time.

N...never
A...a
S...straight
A...answer

I don't pay taxes to buy lies!!!

reply to post by Xenoglossy


Thank you your argument proves my opinion.When There comes a time when we need to explain the moon landings.What would the people want a accurate record, or a corrupted record. The move will go a long way to keep the record straghit . The record of the event has been copied. To prevent any degregation.

I really lose any faith in you that you even care what you are talking about. Look at the replies to your OP, I am not the only one who saw that your main point was that there was a conspiracy

Yet you abandon that and change your opinion to the historical meaning.

If you had any real beliefs you would have stood your ground on your OP.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by Xenoglossy

 

Thank you your argument proves my opinion.When There comes a time when we need to explain the moon landings.What would the people want a accurate record, or a corrupted record. The move will go a long way to keep the record straghit . The record of the event has been copied. To prevent any degregation.

I really lose any faith in you that you even care what you are talking about. Look at the replies to your OP, I am not the only one who saw that your main point was that there was a conspiracy

Yet you abandon that and change your opinion to the historical meaning.

If you had any real beliefs you would have stood your ground on your OP.

Well, you are clearly ignorant about how history as a science works. And while this could be excused - your constant denial about the importance of the original artifacts proves that you are not only ignorant, but unwilling to learn as well.

I gave two examples to how incomplete artifacts could still be valuable in the context of historical reseach (one real example and one hypothetical, but concerning the tapes of the moon landing directly) - especially when we are talking about the originals (be it tapes or whatever else).

If all you have to say in response is: "But we have awesome copies. That is surely better than some aged originals." save yourself the time needed to type a response and me the hassle of reading about your ignorance.

Originally posted by EricR

I may be mistaken but we don't have second source proof from anyone. A satellite passing by, snapping pictures from massive distances, gives us zero detail that can be counted as proof IMHO.

Top half taken by Apollo 17 crew as they left the Moon
Bottom half from the LRO taken 40 years later.

First posted by jra on here

Even the tracks match!!!

I subscribe to this option...

2. The tapes were erased so that nobody could see them. If we assume that the mood landing happened - which we pretty much have to, considering the evidence - we are led to conclude that the orginal tapes showed something we were not supposed to see.

...But I doubt they were erased, I just think that was a convenient excuse to keep them from going public.

...I doubt someone taped over it, considering my brother in-law didn't work for NASA. He taped over part of our wedding day video with family videos.

reply to post by Xenoglossy

The tapes were erased so that nobody could see them. If we assume that the mood landing happened - which we pretty much have to, considering the evidence - we are led to conclude that the orginal tapes showed something we were not supposed to see.

Haven't you ever question, why they never been returning to the moon? And have you asked the question, why never any other nation landed on the moon?

Originally posted by Spartanian

Haven't you ever question, why they never been returning to the moon?

But ... they did return to the moon. Several times.
en.wikipedia.org...

Not anymore since 1972, though.

Originally posted by Spartanian
And have you asked the question, why never any other nation landed on the moon?

Because it's not as easy as it seems in the movies. The Chinese are struggling RIGHT NOW with simple orbital maneuvers (let alone going to the moon).

Russia was in a terrible shape financially - they just couldn't afford it I suppose (though this might be debatable).

And there are no other countries who are able to send humans into space. The european ESA might try, but they concentrate on unmanned missions.

reply to post by Xenoglossy


Well I won't resort to name calling, someone who has no real reply does that.

The to examples you gave are the perfect example's for making a true copy and announcing it. If they would have made a true copy of the bible announced it and kept it. There would be no debate now would there?

No your turn to reply with pure speculation.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
The to examples you gave are the perfect example's for making a true copy and announcing it. If they would have made a true copy of the bible announced it and kept it. There would be no debate now would there?

You made your point: NASA was completely justified in destroying the original tapes, after they made copies.

I made mine: NASA should have kept the originals no matter what.


As this turned into a petty argument about whose opinion is more valid, I propose we let it rest as it is. Anybody reading this thread can decide for himself which opinion he tends to agree with.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
The to examples you gave are the perfect example's for making a true copy and announcing it.

Copies WERE made and announced.

The original recordings of the first humans landing on the moon 40 years ago were erased and re-used, but newly restored copies of the original broadcast look even better

We arent talking about any previously unseen recordings here, just the originals of ones you've already seen.


The scenario goes like this...
1. The original tapes of The Beatles song "She Loves You" get destroyed.
2. ATS users start shouting that the song never existed
3. ATS users start shouting that they were fools for not making other copies
4. ATS users claim its a conspiracy to cover up something, because such an event could never occur.

reply to post by Xenoglossy

Because it's not as easy as it seems in the movies

So you will tell me, what the US has done in the late 60s no one can reproduce, not even the US itself? No, thats not the reason. Even the unmanned missions to the surface of the moon, nothing is seen or heard about it. It's a miracle that Japan allows HD videos from the orbit of the moon.

Originally posted by alfa1
The scenario goes like this...
1. The original tapes of The Beatles song "She Loves You" get destroyed.
2. ATS users start shouting that the song never existed
3. ATS users start shouting that they were fools for not making other copies
4. ATS users claim its a conspiracy to cover up something, because such an event could never occur.

Way to go.

As far as I am aware of, there is no wide-spread doubt about the existence of the Beatles song "She Loves You".
There are also no doubts about whether the text got changed.
There are also no wide-spread urban legends about the Beatles hiding something from the general public.

Also: the orginal recording of "She Loves You" is probably of lesser historical importance compared to the freaking MOON LANDING.

Otherwise: a perfecly good analogy.

reply to post by alfa1


Thank you, that's just what I said.

2nd to last post

Thank you your argument proves my opinion.When There comes a time when we need to explain the moon landings.What would the people want a accurate record, or a corrupted record. The move will go a long way to keep the record straghit . The record of the event has been copied. To prevent any degregation

last post

The to examples you gave are the perfect example's for making a true copy and announcing it. If they would have made a true copy of the bible announced it and kept it. There would be no debate now would there?

reply to post by Xenoglossy


You quoted the last part of his post and agreed. Try reading the whole post.

Originally posted by Xenoglossy
You made your point: NASA was completely justified in destroying the original tapes, after they made copies.

I made mine: NASA should have kept the originals no matter what.


As this turned into a petty argument about whose opinion is more valid, I propose we let it rest as it is. Anybody reading this thread can decide for himself which opinion he tends to agree with.

reply to post by EricR


are you kidding?

"This fake moon landing video was produced by a viral marketing company called "The Viral Factory" and was directed by Adam Stewart in 2002. This viral hoax led to 3,000 people, taken in by the footage, calling NASA to complain about their dishonesty in saying that they had conquered the moon.