NASA erased moon landing tapes

[begin_within]

"The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed -- magnetically erased -- and re-used to save money."

The good news is that CBS News had saved good copies of them.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090716/science/science_us_nasa_tapes

[UndertheOcean]

1. WTF ? are they morons ?

[aquart]

7. Well, yeah.

Thought that part was obvious.

[Retrograde]

50. Sounds like the NASA I worked for in the 80s

They had a habit of losing things, like a room-sized computer. I wouldn't put it past some bureaucrat to save a few bucks by reusing old tapes.

True NASA story: my request to spend a few hundred dollars on a set of TOPS-20 manuals (since we were, after all, supposed to be writing programs for it) was turned down with the explanation that we already had a whole shelf of VAX VMS manuals. (For you youngins: those were two of the many operating systems that were around before Microsoft came on the scene)

[jcarterhero]

78. What idiots

n/m

[riverdale]

2. They went down the same rabbit hole as Bush's military service records

[ControlledDemolition]

39. Not even the same 2017 (or 27?) rabbit hole seal set by LBJ on JFK's hit?

This is similar to the FBI confiscating security video from nearby gas stations, hotels etc on 911. Oh! Three of the four black boxes (so I have read) were recovered, but contained nothing that would shed any light on the attacks! Go figure.

(Edit: Thought the words but didn't type them!)

[HeresyLives]

3. I find this very hard to believe.

[hlthe2b]

4. Amazing... truly amazing...

:eyes:

[ingac70]

5. All the money they spent on the space program...

and they couldn't be asked to buy more video tape.

This just helps add to the conspiracy that it was faked.

[tridim]

6. I guess they blew the film budget on the launch?

What'd they have, like 50 cameras?

I think we went to the moon, but this really doesn't make a lick of sense.

[csziggy]

20. After the first moon landing interest in the space program quickly declined

And the budget at NASA was cut to the bone. The article says "The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed -- magnetically erased -- and re-used to save money." Chances are that tapes just got mixed up and somebody probably did not realize those were the only original tapes.

It was probably some junior whatever relegated to the storage area that was given the task of degaussing those 200,000 tapes for some other project.

[doc03]

8. Was looking at book on the space programs

at the book store the other day. There were several pictures of the moon landing, there is no atmosphere on the moon right? Why does it look like wind is blowing the flag?

[Occulus]

9. Inertia n/t

[doc03]

12. As the years go by I find it hard to believe

that we were actually able to go to the moon 40 years ago. Why haven't we ever gone back again or why didn't the Russians ever do it? It seems like a lot money and effort wasted for a few rocks.

[ContinentalOp]

22. Um, we did go back. We landed there 6 times. 12 men walked on the moon.

We haven't done it since because of attitudes like yours. The next step was supposed to be a space station which could be a stepping stone to Mars. But the shuttle program was twisted way beyond what it was intended to be and ultimately used as a big cargo van to send satellites into space for private industry. It was a total bureaucratic perversion of the original plan.

[doc03]

27. Why hasn't anyone else attempted to land there

since? Let me guess no oil or anything else of value.

[cherokeeprogressive]

31. Or so the Soviets thought.

They would have been the only other country with a space program capable of getting there.

[ContinentalOp]

32. Who wants to be the second country to get to the moon?

:shrug:

[Art_from_Ark]

43. Who wants to be the second country to get to the moon?

China, apparently.

[Johonny]

81. several countries have landed crafts on the moon

that a person is in the craft makes it magical how? The soviets had a very extensive moon program that did many of the same things to US man missions did (just without the people). We only launch 25-30 space missions a year.

[Ignis]

61. "shuttle program was twisted...for private industry"

You're absolutely correct there. It's amazing how blatant and transparent the MIC is sometimes.

[MicaelS]

41. "wasted for a few rocks."

Because we had too many people with just this attitude across the political spectrum is the reason we haven't gone back. We had too many progressives crying about the poor, and too many conservatives complaining about their taxes, and too many seniors complaining about "their" social security.

[Occulus]

48. We went there, there are mirrors left there, and astronomers can bounce lasers off them

They're a special type of mirror called, I believe, an "offset mirror". It helped prove that the moon is actually moving away from the Earth.

We went, we left things behind, we can see them to this day.

[ControlledDemolition]

73. I started out as a true believer too...

With regard to you comment on the 'moon rocks'...

"Paul Jacobs, a private investigator from San Francisco, interviewed the head of the US Department of Geology in Washington about the 'moon rocks'. Did you examine the Moon rocks, did they really come from the Moon? Jacobs asked - the geologist did not respond, only laughed. Paul Jacobs and his wife died from cancer within 90 days.

Another couple of interesting things to consider...

"How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started. "They should have been fried", says Rene."

"Virgil Grissom, a NASA astronaut who baited the Apollo program, was due to pilot Apollo 1 as part of the landings build up. In January 1967, he hung a lemon on his Apollo capsule (in the US, unroadworthy cars are called lemons) and told his wife Betty: "If there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it's likely to be me.""

[Vickers]

10. Starch.

:thumbsup:

[csziggy]

13. There is wire in the fabric of the flag to hold it out.

When the flag was first extended, the could not be flattened and looked wavy.

People often ask me, “How can the flag on the Moon wave if there is no air?” Well, that would be a good question, if the flag actually waved on the Moon. People see the image shown here, and it looks like the astronaut is standing beside a flag that is standing out straight in a stiff breeze. That is what it is supposed to look like! However, there is no wind at all. So, how does the flag stay extended like that?

Well, quite simply, NASA wanted to have a flag to plant in the lunar surface. There is no wind, so the flag would just hang there limp. That would not be very impressive. Also, it would be just a swatch of colored fabric in photos. There would be no way to tell that it was an American flag. So, they came up with an ingenious way of sticking aS69-39333.jpg flag in the surface that looked like it were waving. The fabric of the flag has a wire mesh sewn into it. The flag rolls up into a nice little package. When on the Moon, the astronauts extend the pole and stick it into the ground. They can then unroll the flag. Working in heavy spacesuits, though, it is easier to unroll the flag and then stick it into the ground. The lunar surface is grainular and tough to poke the flag into. So, they have to rock the pole back and forth shoving it down into the ground. Watching on the TV, this back and forth motion makes the flag swing back and forth like it is waving.



The wire mesh is sewn into the fabric so that the flag will appear to stand out straight in the absense of wind. But, a flag sticking straight out from the pole doesn’t look natural. So, the astronauts often would extend the flag and bend ripples into it so that it looked more like it were wAS12-47-6897.jpgaving. Look at video of the astronauts moving around the flag. It looks like it is waving, but it is frozen in position as the astronauts move by. It doesn’t actually wave. As it turns out, the flag didn’t really unroll as smoothly on the Moon as it did in tests on Earth, so the astronauts didn’t have to do much work to make it look like it were waving. It tended to look crinkly anyway.

http://astroprofspage.com/archives/162

[doc03]

16. In the pictures I saw you could also see very clear foot prints

from the astronauts boots, but there also appeared to be other prints that looked older and wind blown. There was also a picture of the flag standing on its own with nobody touching it and it also looked like it was waving in the wind.

[csziggy]

17. A still photograph made the flag look like it was waving?

That's some advanced technology! The footprints were probably from the astronauts trying to straighten out the flag. The dust of some would be more dispersed than than of others.

Tell you what - take a piece of aluminum foil, wrap it around a pipe, put on thick mittens and try to unroll and straighten it out. Then take a grainy black & white still photo of it and see if it looks like it is waving.

[RoyGBiv]

18. Go read this ...

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Please.

Bad: When the astronauts are assembling the American flag, the flag waves. Kaysing says this must have been from an errant breeze on the set. A flag wouldn't wave in a vacuum.

Good: Of course a flag can wave in a vacuum. In the shot of the astronaut and the flag, the astronaut is rotating the pole on which the flag is mounted, trying to get it to stay up. The flag is mounted on one side on the pole, and along the top by another pole that sticks out to the side. In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will ``wave'', since it is attached at the top. The top will move first, then the cloth will follow along in a wave that moves down. This isn't air that is moving the flag, it's the cloth itself.

New stuff added March 1, 2001: Many HBs show a picture of an astronaut standing to one side of the flag, which still has a ripple in it (for example, see this famous image). The astronaut is not touching the flag, so how can it wave?

The answer is, it isn't waving. It looks like that because of the way the flag was deployed. The flag hangs from a horizontal rod which telescopes out from the vertical one. In Apollo 11, they couldn't get the rod to extend completely, so the flag didn't get stretched fully. It has a ripple in it, like a curtain that is not fully closed. In later flights, the astronauts didn't fully deploy it on purpose because they liked the way it looked. In other words, the flag looks like it is waving because the astronauts wanted it to look that way. Ironically, they did their job too well. It appears to have fooled a lot of people into thinking it waved.

This explanation comes from NASA's wonderful spaceflight web page. For those of you who are conspiracy minded, of course, this doesn't help because it comes from a NASA site. But it does explain why the flag looks as it does, and you will be hard pressed to find a video of the flag waving. And if it was a mistake caused by a breeze on the set where they faked this whole thing, don't you think the director would have tried for a second take? With all the money going to the hoax, they could afford the film!

Note added March 28, 2001: One more thing. Several readers have pointed out that if the flag is blowing in a breeze, why don't we see dust blowing around too? Somehow, the HBs' argument gets weaker the more you think about it.

[doc03]

21. Reminds me of all the various explanations

the government has given for Roswell and all UFO sightings. You know 20 years ago I thought the claims the moon landing were staged were ridiculous. But as more and more time goes by and I hear more and more lies the government has fed us over the years I have become a little sceptical.

[RoyGBiv]

23. Ohdeargod ...

How are you on the shape of the Earth?

[doc03]

25. It looks flat to me n/t

[RoyGBiv]

28. If only I knew you were kidding n/t

[MicaelS]

40. If you're skeptical of the moon landings, then

I suggest you spend a couple of hours at this website. Clavius Moon Base http://www.clavius.org/index.html It'll answer any question you have about the legitimacy of the moon landings.

[Posteritatis]

49. Moon landing skeptics are incapable of being convinced

You have to actively not-think in order to hold the position if you're anywhere past, say, tenth grade. As far as they're concerned, evidence for the landings merely means They(tm) went through more effort to fake them, or somesuch bullshit.

[TheMightyFavog]

62. Just like Birthers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

End of Line.

[riverdale]

71. What the fuck is a birther?

Every time a moon discussion comes up, somebody throws that out there.

[IDemo]

72. birth certificate conspiracists->

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19450.html

[anigbrowl]

51. Right, because only you and a few others are brilliant enough to see the real truth

The fact is we never landed on the moon, we only pretended to. And the USSR played along with the deception because they are all secretly governed by the illuminati.

[dionysus]

63. we have a 6%er!

:woohoo:

[cherokeeprogressive]

33. Neil Armstrong was on the bottom rung of the ladder...

Ready to step onto the moon. Buzz Aldrin was backing onto the top step. Neil said to Buzz, "Hey Buzz, there are footprints out here"... Buzz Aldrin went back into the LEM and closed the hatch.

It could have happened...

[JVS]

19. There is a horizontal bar on the top of the flagpole that holds it out.

[Rebubula]

59. No wind...

...and the flag is not blowing. It is a stiff material with a rod on the top to extend the flag out. The flag is merely rumpled.

[HughMoran]

11. Morans

Not that private business doesn't do stupid shit like this every day, these tapes were priceless. Idiots.

[jaysunb]

14. Remember when the Taliban blew up the historic

carvings a few years ago.....the last eight years will be remembers in a very dark way when the history is written. :evilfrown:

[Duer 157099]

15. I thought this was old news?

I remember hearing about this a long time ago.

It's almost beyond incredible though.

It'd be like someone tossing the very first xray crystallographic evidence of the structure of DNA.

You just don't do that. You just don't.

[RoyGBiv]

24. It is ...

I think what may be more recent is the admission of exactly what happened to them.

I like this quote:

"We should have had a historian running around saying 'I don't care if you are ever going to use them -- we are going to keep them'," Nafzger said.

[ContinentalOp]

26. Many many old television shows were lost in this way.

Videotape was VERY expensive at the time and footage was saved by filming a video monitor and then the videotape was wiped and reused. Pretty much none of the original live TV exists for this reason. And some older shows that were in color are lost and only exist as black and white 16mm kinescopes (some old BBC shows like Doctor Who for example).

Lucille Ball was the first to realize that a show could have an extended life in syndication and she took the revolutionary step of filming I Love Lucy in 35mm to avoid these problems.

Still, it seems like by the time NASA erased or dumped the moon landing video it was a little late to make that mistake. They must have done that in the early to mid '70s when videotape would have been cheaper and more ubiquitous. I suppose they thought that enough film copies existed that it didn't matter, or it was some kind of typical bureaucratic bungling.

When major entertainment corporations have the negatives for classic movies deteriorating away in vaults or record labels lose the master tapes to classic albums that are presumably worth millions of dollars in future revenues as a business asset, it's not hard to see how something like this can happen within the bureaucracy of a government program.

[Joe Fields]

29. Ummmm...all of the early t.v. shows were shot on celluloid.

There was no such thing as videotaping of programs until the mid-1960's. The celluloid deteriorates over time, plus there was a fire in the NBC vaults, back in the '60's that destroyed many many years worth of historic programming.

[ContinentalOp]

30. LOL, not the live ones!

The moon landing was a LIVE event shot with a videocamera. I Love Lucy was one of the first shows shot on film. Many TV programs before that were broadcast live and only transferred to film for rebroadcast in different time zones. So many local programs and special live broadcasts weren't kinescoped because it wasn't anticipated that they would ever be needed again.

[ContinentalOp]

35. And here are some references:

Playhouse 90 began as a live series, making a transition to tape in 1957. Its status as a "live" drama was short lived in any case, since the difficulties in mounting a 90-minute production on a weekly basis required the adoption of the recently developed videotape technology, which was used to pre-record entire shows from 1957 onward.
The program was normally telecast in black-and-white, but on Christmas night, 1958, it offered a color production of Tchaikovsky's The Nutcracker, starring the New York City Ballet and choreographed by George Balanchine. The program was, however, presented live rather than on videotape, and has survived only on a black-and-white kinescope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playhouse_90#Live_to_tape


When The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show, aka The Burns and Allen Show, began on CBS television October 12, 1950, it was an immediate success. The show was originally live before a studio audience. Ever the businessman, Burns realized it would be more efficient to do the series on film; the half-hour episodes could then be syndicated. The kinescope recordings of the live telecasts from the 1950-1952 seasons of The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show have fallen into the public domain;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burns_and_Allen#Television


Berle asked NBC to switch from live broadcasts to filmed shows, to make possible future reruns and residuals, and he was not happy when NBC showed little interest. NBC did consent to make a kinescope of each show — a reference copy filmed directly off a TV screen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Berle

[Joe Fields]

36. you DO realize that the moon landing was 1969?

While it is true that a couple of programs in the late 1950's experimented with videotape, almost all were filmed on celluloid. Just a reminder, television programs actually began in the mid 1940's. The videotape player wasn't invented until 1957, a few years after I Love Lucy was cancelled. Videotape really wasn't used until sports programming in the mid '60's.

[ContinentalOp]

37. There's a difference between video and videoTAPE

Live video existed from the very beginning of television. How do you think live events were broadcast? You can't film something and broadcast it LIVE! It has to be developed and printed first. Programs were broadcast live with a video camera and if they needed to be shown again later they were filmed off of a television monitor in the studio (kinescope).

The moon landing was shot with a video camera:
"The original footage was filmed by a video camera on the lunar module, in a non-standard format which US television channels could not use. It was beamed back to earth, and then converted into a TV-friendly system."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8155045.stm

Early TV shows like Playhouse 90, etc. (see my other post) were done live to video in front of a studio audience. They were not videotaped though. Just shot with a video camera and broadcast live. To save them permanently they were kinescoped.

[Joe Fields]

38. you seem confused, so let me explain...

you have already changed the parameters of our disagreement. I NEVER mentioned anything about video. YOU first mentioned videotape, and I corrected you. Videotape is magnetic. Videotape was not available until 1957, but was rarely used. Instead, 16mm and 35 mm film was used. Most of the first 20 years of television has been destroyed by either fire or just film deterioration.

The type of film or tape used has absolutely nothing to do with the transmission of a telecast, whether it be live or not.

I hope this clears things up. I have a feeling you aren't very old, or you wouldn't have lumped the moon landing in with early television shows. The 1960's were not considered early television, especially 1969.

[ContinentalOp]

42. You say I'm changing the parameters?

You're the one who said that "all of the early t.v. shows were shot on celluloid" which clearly wasn't the case before the 1950s. Again, I Love Lucy ('51) was one of the first shows to be shot exclusively on film.

Much of the early days of television were lost, not primarily due to fire or deterioration but largely due to the fact that in many cases no permanent recording was ever made! If a show was broadcast live (with a video camera) and not intended for rebroadcast in another time zone it was simply lost into the ether. Otherwise the video feed was transferred to film with a kinescope, just like the moon landing.

I'll admit that the first couple of sentences of my original post were a little unclear. I was conflating early TV which was never videotaped with early videotaped shows and that may have been confusing. But I was thinking of early videotaped shows (late '60s, early '70s) like Doctor Who in particular.

"Between approximately 1967 and 1978, large quantities of material stored in the BBC's Engineering department (videotape) and film libraries were destroyed or wiped to make way for newer programmes.
Most Doctor Who episodes were made on two-inch quad videotape for initial broadcast and then telerecorded onto 16mm film by BBC Enterprises for further commercial exploitation.
The first Doctor Who master videotapes to be junked were those for the serial The Highlanders, which were erased on 9 March 1967, only a very short time after their original transmission.<7> Further erasing and junking of Doctor Who master videotapes by the Engineering Department continued into the 1970s. Eventually every single master videotape of the programme's first 253 episodes (1963-1969) was destroyed or wiped, with the final 1960s mastertapes to be erased being those for the 1968 serial Fury from the Deep, which were authorised for wiping in late 1974.<8>"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_missing_episodes

My original point was simply that in the time period in question (late '60s, early '70s) it was somewhat common to wipe and reuse videotapes and to not take a longterm archival approach to television content. It's not very surprising that NASA would do something like that when it was pretty much standard practice in the industry at that time. And since filmed kinescopes of the footage still exist people obviously thought it wasn't a big deal. After all (again, tying into my original point), prior to the widespread use of videotape, kinescopes of live video feeds were the ONLY way to archive shows at all, so it wouldn't necessarily be seen as a step down from the videotaped footage.

[NashVegas]

46. I Understood Exactly What You Were Saying

Everyone who was a soap watcher in the late 1960s/early 1970s knows how much material was lost to recycled tapes.

[Joe Fields]

54. I understood what he was saying, but the late 60's and 70's aren't "early t.v."

Yes, it's true that much videotape was recycled, when it was being prevelently used, which was from the late 60's on. The loss of early programming was not as a result of this however, because celluloid was used.

[ContinentalOp]

69. My use of "early" in my first post was confusing.

There are two issues: early TV (30s & 40s) and early videotape (say late 50s, to late 60s). The latter is the context of the moon landing. Tapes were wiped because tape was expensive. The former was an example of why the loss of a videotaped copy wasn't necessarily considered a big deal, as a kinescoped film copy of a live video transmission was the status quo for the first couple of decades of television.

[Joe Fields]

58. Just what do you think film is?

film IS part celluloid, among other ingredients. Acetate, nitrate, celluloid....

Film is NOT videotape.

And yes, if you research, you'll find that all early shows were filmed, not taped, since tape wasn't invented until 1957.

I think your definition of early television programming and mine are different. I go back a little further than the late 60's.

[Rebubula]

60. Wow...

...I am surprised that you did not just tell the whippersnapper to get off your lawn.

[Javaman]

65. he doesn't have to, it's covered in bear traps. nt

[ContinentalOp]

68. You don't have a CLUE what you're talking about and you clearly haven't read my posts.

Very few early shows were filmed. That didn't become common until the '50s. Before that they were live video broadcasts. Sometimes the video feed was filmed (a kinescope), in exactly the same way that the moon broadcast was preserved (kinescope of a live video feed)!

You're the one who is confusing two different things I'm talking about:
- early TV, almost NONE of which was filmed ('30s-'40s)
- early videotaped programs, (late '50s through early '70s) many of which were wiped so the tapes could be reused and now they only exist as kinescopes...just like the moon landing!

You may be older than I but I have the benefit of having studied this stuff in a University program as HISTORY. You lived through it but obviously weren't paying attention.

[Joe Fields]

75. I think you must have skipped a lot of classes. I didn't just take a film

class. I majored in television and motion picture production.

[ContinentalOp]

77. Haha, that's embarassing!

You really should know this stuff then. Can you name me a TV program that was shot on film prior to I Love Lucy in 1951?

[NashVegas]

82. But It Sounds Like You Wound Up In the Sales Department

[ContinentalOp]

70. BTW, it's hilarious that you keep referencing Celluloid...

which hasn't been used in the production of film stock since 1951. Coincidentally the year videotape was first introduced. ;)

[Joe Fields]

74. Jesus, do some research, man and get off of it.

There's nothing more pathetic than someone beating a dead horse when they are wrong. The videotape recording process wasn't invented until 1957. It wasn't used for recording television programs until the mid 1960's.

But then you go right ahead believing your own revisionist history. One thing you must understand, if you're going to post things on DU, you'd better be accurate, or you're going to get called on it.

[ContinentalOp]

79. Interesting that I'm the one who has posted a lot of facts and references and you haven't.

"The electronics division of entertainer Bing Crosby's production company, Bing Crosby Enterprises (BCE), gave the world's first demonstration of a videotape recording in Los Angeles on November 11, 1951."

"RCA-owned NBC first used it on the The Jonathan Winters Show on October 23, 1956, when a pre-recorded song sequence by Dorothy Collins in color was included in the otherwise live program."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotape

And I already posted this bit of info before which I'm sure you ignored:
"The first Doctor Who master videotapes to be junked were those for the serial The Highlanders, which were erased on 9 March 1967, only a very short time after their original transmission."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_missing_episodes

Proving that wiping and reusing videotapes was already going on within the TV industry around the time of the moon landing and isn't such an unusual event or government conspiracy or anything.

Anyway, I don't even know what you're objecting to anymore. I've already conceded that I misused the word "early" in my first post and mistakenly conflated early TV broadcasts with early videotape usage. Still, I don't think that it was too bad of an error since the moon landing was right about the midpoint of TV's roughly 80 year history, so anything that happened in those first 40 years might reasonably be referred to as the "early" half of TV history.

I just find it really bizarre that you still insist that all TV programs were shot on film before the invention of videotape and you even seem to think that film is still made of celluloid.

[ContinentalOp]

80. Wow, and after all of that back and forth with Joe Fields...

I could have simply posted this link which says exactly what I was originally trying to say:

"A significant amount of early television programming is not lost, rather it was never recorded in the first place. Early broadcasting in all genres was live, sometimes performed repeatedly because there was no means to record the broadcast or content itself was reasoned to have little monetary or historical value. In the United Kingdom, much its programming was lost due to the actors union's contractual demands to limit the re-screening of recorded performances.

Apart from the phonovision experiments, no recording of pre-World War II transmissions (i.e. transmissions from 1939 or earlier) exist. Filming became a viable method of recording broadcasts in 1947 though still they were sporadically filmed, and just as preserved. Magnetic videotape technologies became a viable method to record and distribute material in the 1950s but would not prove its worth until the rise of the home video industry in the 1970s. Nonetheless in this twenty-year gap, televised programming was still considered disposable and what was recorded was routinely destroyed by wiping, the reusing of video tape by recording over previous content"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lost_television_broadcasts

[Dr Fate]

34. Proves that the moon landing was a HOAX.

;)

[SoCalDem]

44. "Days of Our Lives" was coming on, and someone grabbed the wrong tape

:)

[begin_within]

47. Can you imagine this conversation:

"What's on those?"
"Oh just old stuff, the Apollo program, crap like that."
"Think we'll ever need these again?"
"Nah, everyone's seen those. Why would we?"
"OK, then I'll put those in too."
"Cool. Hey wanna do lunch?"

[Javaman]

66. I think it was simpler than that...

"Is it okay for me to put these old video tapes on top of the microwave for a sec?"

[melm00se]

45. this'll fuel the

"moon landings were faked" loonies

[zappaman]

52. People still believe we went to the moon?

We never went there folks. Why not? Because there is no moon. In the early 20's, technology was developed that created a "moon" and "stars" in the sky. Since that time the technology has improved and sometimes is even employed during daylight hours. The governments of the world want us to think there is a moon, but in truth, there is nothing out there. Sorry to burst your bubbles.

[anigbrowl]

53. XD

[RagAss]

55. Bravo !

[Posteritatis]

57. Nice, but imagine how the people will react when they hear the truth about the Earth itself! (nt)

[RagAss]

56. Andy Kaufman took them to Mexico with him.

[TheMightyFavog]

64. And then Andy traded them to Elvis for...

The recipie for the best peanut butter, banana, and bacon sandwich ever.

[surrealAmerican]

67. Just how archival were these tapes anyway?

Surely, they would have needed to be copied to a different format anyway.

[Lagomorph]

76. Information technology didn't come along for many years....

NASA's computer's were little more than high power calculator's. Transferring data was done with trucks, airplanes and ships.

Bandwidth? What bandwidth?

[time4me2fly]

83. Things that make you go 'hmm...'

:eyes:

[TheWatcher]

84. Dear God, PLEASE.

You know, the other day I mused to a friend of mine that we have reached the point with the Media where they might just start throwing shit out there to see what the Public would believe.

I was joking, of course.

Looks like in the words of the Immortal Morrissey, "That Joke Isn't Funny Anymore."

Wow.

Just, WOW.

Next up, The Earth was FLAT All Along.

:eyes: