NASA sold moon landing tapes to intern by mistake

ripvanwillie

Active member
Messages
54
Reactions
232
Getting back to the original subject, the lost tapes. I'm kinda surprised no one noticed the exposure card at the beginning of each reel. The card shows photographic data including the date the film was shot as well as the photographer. According to all of the various cards shown in this film, the footage was shot by photographer T. Guynes on November 11, 1969. That is nearly four months after the supposed flight! It also shows the aperture settings as well as film speeds, so they are definitaly referring to filming. Clearly this footage was put together after the fact, but photographic credit goes whomever actually used the camera to capture the images, which should have been one of the astronauts on the flight, not T. Guynes. If he/she was an editor after the fact, it would have stated so, and the camera and lens serial numbers, and exposure info would have been moot. So, when and where was this footage actually shot and by whom?
apollo scam.JPG
 
Last edited:

Timeshifter

Well-known member
Messages
416
Reactions
1,319
In this 'new' 4k footage (Which looks more like 10th generation copy of 480 footage) Armstrong says his lines after he is down the ladder and on the lem platform/ stepping off.

In my timeline, he said this as he came down the ladder, and I am 100% sure it was a different angle, more to the right...

more ME of my old brain farting?

Also, why is he bouncing up and down the bottom step/ ground so much? (2 mins) Practising? Yeh, like you would do that on live tv....
 

Samson4prez

Member
Messages
33
Reactions
57
Seems like Groom Lake would be the perfect place to shoot moon footage at night with a giant sunlight/earthlight simulator. Also to get some good b-roll for those moon capsule fly-bys... Green screen tech has been around since the 1890s whats funny is the green screens use in simulations on the news channels during the moon landing, looks really similar to the actual footage. I wonder how many atomic bombs are responsible for all of those craters....
Screen Shot 2019-07-18 at 5.03.46 PM copy.jpg
 

EmmanuelZorg

Member
Messages
13
Reactions
28
Seems like Groom Lake would be the perfect place to shoot moon footage at night with a giant sunlight/earthlight simulator. Also to get some good b-roll for those moon capsule fly-bys... Green screen tech has been around since the 1890s whats funny is the green screens use in simulations on the news channels during the moon landing, looks really similar to the actual footage. I wonder how many atomic bombs are responsible for all of those craters....
View attachment 25837
I'm not entirely sure about filming there; there's quite a bit of sagebrush type plants in that area. However, since they did atomic testing there in the late 1950's, maybe it was mostly killed off? Not sure how much would have grown back in 10-12 years.

The film restoration has me curious. I saw the movie "The Cold Blue" a few months ago. This was a limited release documentary made with restored WWII archive footage. Computers were involved, but supposedly the film itself was better than one would assume. It suggested that a lot of the resolution issues from WWII era footage was due to the way it was converted for viewing. I'll admit I am largely ignorant of such things, but it seems like this Apollo 11 film is using the same method of 'restoration' as used in the WWII film (and in WWI film like in "They Shall Not Grow Old").
 

trismegistus

Well-known member
Messages
261
Reactions
1,413
No Agenda talked about this whole debacle on their show last week and provided some excellent insights as to why there is no way these tapes are legit. Here's a link to the section of the show, highly recommend listening to the whole segment but I will paraphrase here.

  • These tapes claim to be 2in. 4-head Ampex tapes
  • 2in Ampex tapes were not used during the moon landing recording
  • There is a clip that explains how footage got from the moon to the public's TV.
    • Westinghouse Slow Scan camera that broadcast to three different locations on slow-scan
    • Best video they had came into Goldstone, CA over landline and microwave to Houston
    • Pre-conversion was recorded on Slow-scan 14 track tapes (telemetry)
    • There was no video that wasn't fed live to Houston and converted live
    • The camera that was allegedly on the Moon shot in slow-scan 10FPS w/ 320 lines
    • Slow scan had to be up-converted for TV optically from a 3 kHZ bandwidth
    • TV camera was pointed at the slow scan image and that is what is sent to Houston and live TV
    • Recording was done on 1in Memorex reels w/ 14 tracks (this is the "lost telemetry data")
    • Telemetry track had 1 track for video, rest were for voice, biomed, etc.
    • Telemetry video was to be used as a backup in case live TV went down
    • Tapes were recorded at 120 inches per second (9000 feet of tape in a 9 minute walk)
    • 45 tapes were sent to Goddard (4-500k over the total Apollo program)
    • This tape was never meant to be used as the video of record, merely a backup
  • Cameras at the time for slow scan weighed around 700lbs, but in the moon landing they engineered one weighed only 7lbs
    • The engineer who designed this camera spoke on his experience with the moon landing recording
    • He was "elated the camera worked" but "what we saw was disturbing" because "it was not what we had simulated and we know we had a problem"
    • The engineer died 5 months later after he spoke on this.
    • Adam Curry speculates that he was so disturbed because the engineer recognized that his camera that he designed was not what was being shown on TV.
All of that to say, it is impossible that any recording of the Moon landing is on 2 inch Ampex tape. I know I'm preaching to the choir here but these tapes are a complete scam.
 

ripvanwillie

Active member
Messages
54
Reactions
232
No Agenda talked about this whole debacle on their show last week and provided some excellent insights as to why there is no way these tapes are legit. Here's a link to the section of the show, highly recommend listening to the whole segment but I will paraphrase here.

  • These tapes claim to be 2in. 4-head Ampex tapes
  • 2in Ampex tapes were not used during the moon landing recording
  • There is a clip that explains how footage got from the moon to the public's TV.
    • Westinghouse Slow Scan camera that broadcast to three different locations on slow-scan
    • Best video they had came into Goldstone, CA over landline and microwave to Houston
    • Pre-conversion was recorded on Slow-scan 14 track tapes (telemetry)
    • There was no video that wasn't fed live to Houston and converted live
    • The camera that was allegedly on the Moon shot in slow-scan 10FPS w/ 320 lines
    • Slow scan had to be up-converted for TV optically from a 3 kHZ bandwidth
    • TV camera was pointed at the slow scan image and that is what is sent to Houston and live TV
    • Recording was done on 1in Memorex reels w/ 14 tracks (this is the "lost telemetry data")
    • Telemetry track had 1 track for video, rest were for voice, biomed, etc.
    • Telemetry video was to be used as a backup in case live TV went down
    • Tapes were recorded at 120 inches per second (9000 feet of tape in a 9 minute walk)
    • 45 tapes were sent to Goddard (4-500k over the total Apollo program)
    • This tape was never meant to be used as the video of record, merely a backup
  • Cameras at the time for slow scan weighed around 700lbs, but in the moon landing they engineered one weighed only 7lbs
    • The engineer who designed this camera spoke on his experience with the moon landing recording
    • He was "elated the camera worked" but "what we saw was disturbing" because "it was not what we had simulated and we know we had a problem"
    • The engineer died 5 months later after he spoke on this.
    • Adam Curry speculates that he was so disturbed because the engineer recognized that his camera that he designed was not what was being shown on TV.
All of that to say, it is impossible that any recording of the Moon landing is on 2 inch Ampex tape. I know I'm preaching to the choir here but these tapes are a complete scam.
10 frames per second does not a movie make! The human eye would easily see the individual frames at such a slow speed. There is no way this footage was shot at 10fps. It wouldn't be fast enough to create motion! Silent films were shot at higher frame rates than that.

The history of frame rates; why speeds vary
 

Banta

Active member
Messages
44
Reactions
158
Just Putrid Lies from Not A Space Agency

I have nothing to add except this passage from Wagging the Moondoggie, from the late, great (assassinated???) Dave McGowan:

“But wait,” you say, “NASA has solid evidence of the validity of the Moon landings. They have, for example, all of that film footage shot on the moon and beamed live directly into our television sets.”

Since we’re on the subject, I have to mention that transmitting live footage back from the Moon was another rather innovative use of 1960s technology. More than two decades later, we would have trouble broadcasting live footage from the deserts of the Middle East, but in 1969, we could beam that shit back from the Moon with nary a technical glitch!

As it turns out, however, NASA doesn’t actually have all of that Moonwalking footage anymore. Truth be told, they don’t have any of it. According to the agency, all the tapes were lost back in the late 1970s. All 700 cartons of them. As Reuters reported on August 15, 2006, “The U.S. government has misplaced the original recording of the first moon landing, including astronaut Neil Armstrong’s famous ‘one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind’ … Armstrong’s famous moonwalk, seen by millions of viewers on July 20, 1969, is among transmissions that NASA has failed to turn up in a year of searching, spokesman Grey Hautaluoma said. ‘We haven’t seen them for quite a while. We’ve been looking for over a year, and they haven’t turned up,’ Hautaluoma said … In all, some 700 boxes of transmissions from the Apollo lunar missions are missing.”

Given that these tapes allegedly documented an unprecedented and unduplicated historical event, one that is said to be the greatest technological achievement of the twentieth century, how in the world would it be possible to, uhmm, ‘lose’ 700 cartons of them? Would not an irreplaceable national treasure such as that be very carefully inventoried and locked away in a secure film vault? And would not copies have been made, and would not those copies also be securely tucked away somewhere? Come to think of it, would not multiple copies have been made for study by the scientific and academic communities?

Had NASA claimed that a few tapes, or even a few cartons of tapes, had been misplaced, then maybe we could give them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps some careless NASA employee, for example, absent-mindedly taped a Super Bowl game over one of them. Or maybe some home porn. But does it really seem at all credible to claim that the entire collection of tapes has gone missing – all 700 cartons of them, the entire film record of the alleged Moon landings? In what alternative reality would that happen ‘accidentally’?

Some of you are probably thinking that everyone has already seen the footage anyway, when it was allegedly broadcast live back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, or on NASA’s website, or on YouTube, or on numerous television documentaries. But you would be mistaken. The truth is that the original footage has never been aired, anytime or anywhere – and now, since the tapes seem to have conveniently gone missing, it quite obviously never will be.

The fact that the tapes are missing (and according to NASA, have been for over three decades), amazingly enough, was not even the most compelling information that the Reuters article had to offer. Also to be found was an explanation of how the alleged Moonwalk tapes that we all know and love were created: “Because NASA’s equipment was not compatible with TV technology of the day, the original transmissions had to be displayed on a monitor and re-shot by a TV camera for broadcast.”

So what we saw then, and what we have seen in all the footage ever released by NASA since then, were not in fact live transmissions. To the contrary, it was footage shot off a television monitor, and a tiny black-and-white monitor at that. That monitor may have been running live footage, I suppose, but it seems far more likely that it was running taped footage. NASA of course has never explained why, even if it were true that the original broadcasts had to be ‘re-shot,’ they never subsequently released any of the actual ‘live’ footage. But I guess that’s a moot point now, what with the tapes having gone missing.

With NASA’s admission of how the original broadcasts were created, it is certainly not hard to imagine how fake Moon landing footage could have been produced. As I have already noted, the 1960s were a decidedly low-tech era, and NASA appears to have taken a very low-tech approach. As Moon landing skeptics have duly noted, if the broadcast tapes are played back at roughly twice their normal running speed, the astronauts appear to move about in ways entirely consistent with the way ordinary humans move about right here on planet Earth. Here then is the formula for creating Moonwalk footage: take original footage of guys in ridiculous costumes moving around awkwardly right here on our home planet, broadcast it over a tiny, low-resolution television monitor at about half speed, and then re-film it with a camera focused on that screen. The end result will be broadcast-ready tapes that, in addition to having that all-important grainy, ghosty, rather surreal ‘broadcast from the Moon’ look, also appear to show the astronauts moving about in entirely unnatural ways.

But not, it should be noted, too unnatural. And doesn’t that seem a little odd as well? If we’re being honest here (and for my testosterone-producing readers, this one is directed at you), the average male specimen, whether astronaut or plumber, never really grows up and stops being a little boy. And what guy, given the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to spend some time in a reduced gravity environment, isn’t going to want to see how high he can jump? Or how far he can jump? Hitting a golf ball? Who the hell wants to see that? How about tossing a football for a 200-yard touchdown pass? Or how about the boys dazzling the viewing audience with some otherworldly acrobatics?

And yes, Neil and the guys did exhibit some playfulness at times while allegedly walking on the Moon, but doesn’t it seem a bit odd that they failed to do anything that couldn’t be faked simply by changing the tape speed? When I attended college, I knew a guy on the volleyball team who had a 32” vertical leap right here on Earth. So when I see guys jumping maybe 12”, if that, in a 1/6 gravity environment with no air resistance, I’m not really all that impressed.

Am I the only one, by the way, who finds it odd that people would move in slow motion on the Moon? Why would a reduced gravitational pull cause everything to move much more slowly? Given the fact that they were much lighter on their feet and not subject to air and wind resistance, shouldn’t the astronauts have been able to move quicker on the Moon than here on Earth? Was slow motion the only thing NASA could come up with to give the video footage an otherworldly feel?

Needless to say, if what has been proposed here is indeed how the ‘Moon landing’ footage in the public domain was created, then the highly incriminating original footage – which would have looked like any other footage shot here on Earth, except for the silly costumes and props – would have had to have been destroyed. Perhaps it’s not surprising then that NASA now takes the position that the original footage has been missing since “sometime in the late 1970s.”

Unfortunately, it isn’t just the video footage that is missing. Also allegedly beamed back from the Moon was voice data, biomedical monitoring data, and telemetry data to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship. All of that data, the entire alleged record of the Moon landings, was on the 13,000+ reels that are said to be ‘missing.’ Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.

There is, therefore, no way for the modern scientific community to determine whether all of that fancy 1960s technology was even close to being functional or whether it was all for show. Nor is there any way to review the physical record, so to speak, of the alleged flights. We cannot, for example, check the fuel consumption throughout the flights to determine what kind of magic trick NASA used to get the boys there and back with less than 1% of the required fuel. And we will never, it would appear, see the original, first-generation video footage.

You would think that someone at NASA would have thought to preserve such things. No wonder we haven’t given them the money to go back to the Moon; they’d probably just lose it.
And, not particularly relevant to the tapes, but just a great reminder on how this machine works... seems to be how the whole heliocentric model is defended this days too (the bolded part, the rest is for context):

Left unexplored by the makers of Moon Machines was the obvious question of how those clean-room conditions could have been maintained once the lander set down on the Moon. The astronauts couldn’t shed their protective suits until they were back in the safety of the pressurized capsule, so how exactly did they keep from tracking copious amounts of that lunar dust back into the allegedly sterile LEM cabin? As is revealed in the Lunar Rover episode of the Moon Machines series, “The astronauts quickly learned that the dust adhered to everything it touched.”

Everything, that is, except the outside of the lunar module, which, as we have already seen, remained as clean as if it were sitting on the showroom floor. And the dust apparently also didn’t adhere to the astronauts’ boots or spacesuits, even if Apollo astronaut Charlie Duke did say, while describing what it was like to ride in the lunar rover, that “Moon dust was pouring down on us like rain, and so after a half of a Moon walk, our white suits turned gray.” None of that dust, of course, was introduced into the sterile interior of the cabin.

We know that with absolute certainty because we have already been told that in order for the lunar module to operate safely and correctly, the cabin had to be kept dust-free. One of the best-kept secrets of the Apollo program, it turns out, is that there was actually a third passenger along for the rides to the Moon and back: Neil Armstrong’s mother. Her primary responsibility was to make sure the boys properly wiped their feet before entering the capsule.

Astute readers, by the way, may have noticed that Duke’s comments about driving the rover directly contradict another of the fables sold by the ‘debunkers.’ According to Phil Plait, if you watch the video footage allegedly shot on the Moon, “you will see dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. Again, the Moon isn’t the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It’s actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum.”

As would be expected, we find Jay Windley making essentially the same claim: “dust will fall immediately to the lunar surface. The behavior of the dust in the video and film taken on the lunar surface is one of the most compelling reasons we have for believing it was shot in a vacuum. The dust is clearly dry, but it falls immediately to the surface and does not form clouds.”

Who then are we to believe? The guy who actually operated the rover, allegedly on the surface of the Moon, and said that the dust was raining down on he and his partner from all directions, or a couple of self-proclaimed ‘experts’ who directly contradict NASA’s man-on-the-scene?

There is a reason, I might add here, why NASA defers to these two clowns while not officially endorsing their ‘debunking’ arguments. It’s called plausible deniability. NASA knows that ‘debunking’ the fact that the Moon landings were hoaxed requires a lot of twisting of facts and the promotion of a lot of dubious science, and they choose not to be directly involved in such endeavors. That is also, no doubt, why the agency withdrew its sponsorship of a ‘debunking’ book that is said to be in the works.
apolloyoutube.PNG
 
Last edited:

Beanieboo111

Member
Messages
23
Reactions
47
After Soviet Luna 16 I believe scooped some regolith on the moon and brought it back, a gesture of good will was extended by USSR, and 1 or so grams of moon soil has been passed to US government. That is out of 101 grams that Luna 16 was able to procure after drilling 35 centimeters into the lunar surface . By that time US allegedly had in its possession few more than a few kilograms of moon rock and regolith. The US accepted the USSR regolith and the scientific community in USSR was expecting a gesture with a commensurate amount. Time went by and nothing was coming. Only after a year or more the US presented USSR with an equal amount of regolith which soviet scientists were able to identify as lunar with minor differences from the sample that was presented to US. No rock, of which the US had a proverbial ton, was received by USSR. Only one study was performed on the US sample and then this sample disappeared and no longer was available for study. People were trying to get any clarity Ron a person who is currently in charge but to no avail. What seems to have taken place was the same sample was returned with other things mixed in to immigrate slight diversity in samples.


In late 70’s a Russian scientist Bogatokov was invited to speak in Caltech on the subject of the moon regolith and it’s composition. In his presentation he directed audiences attention to the film of iron that soviet scientists found in the samples brought by the unmanned crafts. The uniqueness of that film that it appeared on the crusty surface of the moon the very top layer and that it was not oxidizable. They left it out open in earth atmosphere for weeks and no oxidizatioj was noted. One of the prominent people in the Soviet space program said with regards to this discovery that if we could learn how to make iron like this on Earth all the future space programs would pay for themselves. But I digress. After the presentation by Bogatikov, a father of American “Moonology”, Jerry Weinberg I believe his name was, approached the Russian scientist and said that what he spoke about was impossible. He said that they performed every possible analysis on the samples brought by Apollo missions and nothing like this was discovered. After some time has passed and few info exchanges, the US side suddenly discovers the iron and confirms all Bogatikov’s statements.

Just some info from the Soviet side on the fly :)

PS.
Lunar subject is larger then just the moon hoax. It was the beginning of dissolution of the USSR by the late soviet “elites” who chose to covert their power into money thereby ensuring their permanency at the tip of the power pyramid.
 

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,210
Reactions
16,778
I wish they issued one in on what it’s like to be a Moon landing believer.

Meanwhile, they keep on spreading the lies:
 

Timeshifter

Well-known member
Messages
416
Reactions
1,319
Apollo 11: Original Moon landing recordings bought for $217 in 1976 sold at auction for $1.82M

If these tapes, actually featured an actual moon landing, they would be priceless. Yet they fetch just 1.82 million. Think about that.

Consider how much money sports stars bring in bidding wars.

This is a load of old b######s

Source
 

PrincepAugus

Well-known member
Messages
443
Reactions
889
Sorry if I keep using this thread as moon landing shenanigans, but look at the Wikipedia propaganda machine pumping out everything moon landing related (btw I purposely zoomed out the website to screenshot the whole image):

Lol.PNG
 

Top