Apollo 11 TV Tapes Go Missing 438
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."
Re:So.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does it really matter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does it really matter (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Actually... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's "How can THE GOVERNMENT lose 698/700 boxes?" (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Good grief... (Score:2, Insightful)
Welcome to the new Digital Dark Age! (Score:5, 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?
Does it surprise anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Does it really matter (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Back them up! (Score:5, Insightful)
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/ [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.
Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! (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.
Re:Welcome to the new Digital Dark Age! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:The real moon conspiracy (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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 [imageshack.us]. A side-on shot at take-off [imageshack.us].
Now, how large a plume do you reasonably expect the much smaller Lunar Module engine to create?
More Bait & Switch nonsense. . ? (Score:2, Insightful)
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