Comments by "MRA" (@yassassin6425) on "Original Recorded Footage Of The Moon Landing Found | NBC Nightly News" video.
-
12
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"But the press wasn’t allowed inside the feed room and had to record the screen of the “live feed,” in another room. Which wasn’t done in previous nasa missions."
Yes it was. As had been the case with the Mercury and Gemini Programmes before Apollo, the press were seated in a glass-walled area in Mission Control at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, overlooking the personnel and where they could watch the control room teams in action so were completely privy to the proceedings in real time. Other visitors to the control room included: The astronauts' families, Other members of the astronaut corps, and VIPs.
"Why and how could they lose the “original tapes,” of histories most impt event as well?"
They didn't, although at some point some were re-used. So what? Magnetic tapes were employed to back up raw data at source. This consisted of telemetry and broadcast signals sent by Unified S-Band. Once this had been converted and transcribed they were no longer required. Magnetic tape decays and is not intended for archival use. It is also very expensive and was designed to be reused. For this reason, some of the tapes pertaining to the Apollo 11 EVA were erased, however having served their purpose, the contents was not longer required. With the tapes now defunct and the machinery for playing them obsolete, some from Apollo 11 and preceding/subsequent missions have been sold via auction to private collectors. What's your point?
"Why has no other nation sent someone on the moon?"
Because only the Soviet Union committed to a moon landing programme. However, this was doomed to failure due to the untimely death of Sergei Korolev, the consistent failure of the N1 and a budget a fraction that of Apollo. No other nation has been willing to devote the huge funding necessary to develop a manned lunar landing programme, particularly when unmanned probes can be sent at a much lower cost.
Why has no other nation other than the UK/France developed a supersonic passenger aircraft? Cost and sustainability. It has been over 20 years since Concorde flew commercially and it is unlikely to be much before well into the next decade until we see another supersonic civil airliner again.
"Why did the directors of NASA consistently say things like, “we’ll finally be able to get past our atmosphere or once we solve the filament issue, we’ll finally be able to land on the moon?”
They didn't. That would be the dumb online conspiracy theory that tells you what to think. Also, I think you meant 'firmament' - you can't even parrot that correctly.
"And when a reporter asked about the first moon landing, the NASA director tried to back peddle and say that in 2024 with tech at our disposal, NASA lost the tech they had in 68 and they don’t know how to replicate it?"
Again, no one has ever said any such thing. One astronaut, Don Pettit, speaking in 2017 used an unfortunate turn of phrase. Since then, conspiracy theorists and those dimwits that parrot their quote mined nonsense have obsessively fixated upon it because that's what they do. However, if you have a modicum of intelligence, critical faculty, integrity and the will to objectively appraise the information that you receive and you place his sentence within it's full and intended context - the rest of the interview, then it's abundantly clear what he is referring to. The premature cancellation of Apollo in 1972 due to the retraction of funding from congress and the lack of political and public will, resulted in the abandonment of the specific expertise, the tooling, the production processes, the plants and most significantly, the heavy lift capability that sent crewed missions to the moon. Emphasis was placed instead on low Earth orbit, primarily, the development of the Space Shuttle which promised much, but failed to deliver in terms of its commercial and financial returns and launch cadence. The other huge project was obviously the construction of the ISS. Neither of which send man to the surface of the moon. Deep space exploration became the preserve of unmanned missions - robotic landers and probes. Pettit was speaking prior to the approval of Project Artemis that will return man to the surface of the moon. The technology of Apollo is old and obsolete but since much of the hardware remains, you can understand that his use of the word 'destroyed' was metaphorical. Rebuilding a manned programme to the moon using modern technology that has superseded that of Apollo has been a protracted and painstaking process on a budget that is a fraction of that of Apollo. Why is it even necessary to explain this?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Studio? Really? Where? It must be Hollywood, after all that's what you people insist. No, wait, wasn't that supposed to be Shepperton UK? Or was it Pinewood? No, I'm sure it was Elstree...or maybe Twickenham? Hold on a minute, I thought it was supposed to have been shot in a converted aircraft hangar? Definitely Cannon AFB, New Mexico. Hang on, what about Nellis? And speaking of Nevada, it has to have been Area 51. But then many claim that it was filmed in the Nevada desert not in a studio or hangar at all. Actually, it was definitely the Utah outback, that was it. Non, no, the Arizona desert, that's the one. But then there was that claim about Death Valley....and so many point to Devon Island Canada. Perhaps you can clarify?Problem is, you absolute goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'studio" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
You haven't really thought this through have you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tonyhedgecock7472
Serious question - because I'm genuinely interested. Why do you feel the need to parrot uninformed nonsense based upon what an online conspiracy theorist has told you to think about a subject that you demonstrably have absolutely zero understanding of whatsoever? These claims have been consumed and regurgitated over and over and over and over again, but yet none of you attempt to verify them independently for yourselves. I'm curious - why wouldn't you? You claim to want the truth, and yet you either lack the capability or the will to find it and prefer to allow online grifters and con artists to tell you what to think and say. Very, very strange behaviour.
"funny how the original film of such a historic event is missing"
Here's a case in point. This again. Really? What does this even mean? Have you ever thought to question your own beliefs and actually verify this for yourself? Some magnetic back up tapes relating to the Apollo 11 EVA were reused. They contained raw analogue video transmitted via unified S Band and were made using specially designed, high-capacity recording equipment in order to capture the raw transmissions at source in case anything should go wrong with the process used to convert them to a standard broadcast signal. Once the conversion and transmission was complete, the recordings were no longer needed for their original purpose. Any magnetic recording media has a limited life. The magnetic fields of the stored data decay over time. For this reason, and because high-grade tapes were very expensive, they were never considered an archival medium. The data on those tapes, including video data were relayed to the Manned Spacecraft Center during the mission. The video was recorded there and in other locations. There is no missing video footage from the Apollo 11 moonwalk. There was no video that came down slow scan that was not converted live, fed live, to Houston and fed live to the world. Broadcast-converted tapes that were far superior in quality to anything previously seen were recorded in Sydney, Australia, during the Apollo 11 mission. There are also kinetoscopes at the National Archives that had not been viewed in 36 years that were made in Houston. Sifting through the CBS archives there have been tapes uncovered that had been fed directly from Houston to CBS - the raw data as recorded and archived. Meanwhile the original back up tapes are now long obsolete and defunct as a medium. Similar tapes from later missions have been sold off to collectors via auction. You could have established all this for yourself.
"and that with all our modern technology we can't go back"
With all out "modern technology" we can't go back to flying passengers between London and New York at supersonic speeds. Does that mean Concorde was also faked? - or could it be due to other factors beyond available technology due to cost, sustainability and political will?
Seriously, listen to yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Studio? Really? Where? It must be Hollywood, after all that's what you people insist. No, wait, wasn't that supposed to be Shepperton UK? Or was it Pinewood? No, I'm sure it was Elstree...or maybe Twickenham? Hold on a minute, I thought it was supposed to have been shot in a converted aircraft hangar? Definitely Cannon AFB, New Mexico. Hang on, what about Nellis? And speaking of Nevada, it has to have been Area 51. But then many claim that it was filmed in the Nevada desert not in a studio or hangar at all. Actually, it was definitely the Utah outback, that was it. Non, no, the Arizona desert, that's the one. But then there was that claim about Death Valley....and so many point to Devon Island Canada. Perhaps you can clarify?Problem is, you absolute goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'studio" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
You haven't really thought this through have you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Studio? Really? Where? It must be Hollywood, after all that's what you people insist. No, wait, wasn't that supposed to be Shepperton UK? Or was it Pinewood? No, I'm sure it was Elstree...or maybe Twickenham? Hold on a minute, I thought it was supposed to have been shot in a converted aircraft hangar? Definitely Cannon AFB, New Mexico. Hang on, what about Nellis? And speaking of Nevada, it has to have been Area 51. But then many claim that it was filmed in the Nevada desert not in a studio or hangar at all. Actually, it was definitely the Utah outback, that was it. Non, no, the Arizona desert, that's the one. But then there was that claim about Death Valley....and so many point to Devon Island Canada. Perhaps you can clarify?Problem is, you absolute goons can't even get your stories straight. I guess it depends upon which dumb conspiracy theorist that you allow yourselves to be duped by.
Got to say though, that must be some 'studio" to convincingly replicate, uncut, the 1/6th gravity and the vacuum of the lunar surface - not to mention the precise reconstruction of Theophilus in The Sea of Tranquility; the Head Crater vicinity, Ocean of Storms; the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater; the eastern edge of Mare Imbrium, Hadley Rille; The Descartes Highlands; and the eastern edge of Mare Serenitati in the Taurus Littrow Valley. Shout out to the props department too, that managed to fashion fake moonrock consistent which each of those six landing sites and collectively dupe an entire branch of science called geology for over half a century in the process.
You haven't really thought this through have you.
1
-
1
-
Why should he have done?
Why should anyone after years of harassment be forced to swear on a magic book brandished in front of them by that deranged stalker and conspiracy nutjob Bart Sibrel?
Imagine that you did something truly revolutionary, at unimaginable risk to yourself. You did it on national TV, with the whole world watching. Hundreds of thousands of people can personally attest to what you did…Then some grifter with a camera crew comes up to you and demands that you go through some pseudo-formal rigmarole to “prove” that you actually did it. Now, not only is this charlatan insinuating that you faked your great accomplishment, based on half-baked theories and zero hard evidence, but he’s also arrogantly proclaiming himself to be the supreme arbiter of truth (i.e., “If you don’t pass my test, then that proves you faked it”).
When Neil Armstrong was approached he retorted, “Mr. Sibrel, knowing you, that’s probably a fake Bible.” And why should he have sworn on it? he wasn’t Christian. His NASA paperwork marks his religious preference as “none.” However, Jim Lovell, Al Bean and Eugene Cernan all did. You therefore have no choice but to accept that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Before his death, Armstrong allegedly admitted, never landing on the moon."
"Allegedly admitted" - meaning a Tik Tok meme told you so.
"So did Kubrick, relating to direct it!"
No he didn't. Wait, you surely can't be that stupid that you fell for a social media excerpt from T Patrick Murray's ludicrous 'Shooting Stanley Kubrick' featuring an appallingly cast Tom Mayk, that doesn't even remotely look or sound anything like him? Admit it. You did didn't you.
"And why, did the astronuts never admit burden"
What does this even mean?
"passing Allen's Belt, while some orbiting around at 800 km above the Earth, seeing it as serious threat!"
It's the 'Van Allen Belts' - in the plural since there are two of them, with a third that is transitory. You couldn't even get that right. Let's face it, the only reason that you mention it is because dumb online conspiracy theory told you what to think. The alpha and beta charged particles in the belts are no hazard to a craft and its occupants travelling at high velocity in a short space of time through their sparsest regions.
Why are you making arrogant and ill-informed statements about subjects that you clearly have zero understanding and knowledge of whatsoever?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1