Slashdot: News for Nerds


Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apollo 11 TV Tapes Go Missing

timothy posted about 8 years ago | from the check-the-roswell-basement dept.

NASA 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."

cancel ×


Um.... (5, Funny)

viper21 (16860) | about 8 years ago | (#15715440)

I knew I forgot to return those rental tapes.

I wonder if I can talk them out of the late fees again.

Re:Um.... (5, Funny)

Megane (129182) | about 8 years ago | (#15715484)

Remember... Be kind - Rewind!

Re:Um.... (4, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | about 8 years ago | (#15715585)

I realised this myself a few weeks ago and bought myself a dvd rewinder [] .
they claim its the fastest in the world!

Re:Um.... (5, Funny)

Xymor (943922) | about 8 years ago | (#15715705)

Holy crap, They were labeled "Moonwalk" so I thought they were the michael jackson video or something and I taped the world cup games over them. My bad guys. Can't you set up the studio in the desert and tape them again?

More like... (3, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | about 8 years ago | (#15715542)

I knew I forgot to return those rental tapes.

More like they'll show up on eBay.

There's always the possibility a retiring employee thought they wouldn't be missed. Or some overefficient bureacratic paper shuffler elected to do something about all those dusty boxes on the shelf which look utterly horrid (ever have one of these people sweep into your office and suggest your desk needs cleaning?) and would win some kind of medal if they could only dispose of them and put a spit shine on those shelves.

How convenient. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15715442)

Incontrovertible proof that the moon landing was faked is convenently "lost" by the national archives while Bush II talks about going "back" to the moon.

Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!!!! (3, Funny)

gd23ka (324741) | about 8 years ago | (#15715578)

I mean that's just taking it way too far. To think that they actually faked the moon landing.
So what if they did plan to invade Cuba by shooting down a civilian airliner over Cuba and
then blaming Castro for it (Operation Northwood, if you're into FOIA documents), so what
if George W(anker) Bush's Grandpa Prescott cut Onkel Adolf a cheque every now and then and now
they're friends with BinLaden Terrorgroup Inc. so what if these people used unsuspecting
civilians and military unwittingly as subjects in radiation experiments, ... ... ..

The world saw it happen on TV and just because some cooky people have come out of the woodwork
to point out that many lights and shadows on the official footage of the moon landing are obviously
not what they should be if the images were "real", that still doesn't mean they're right. If
they were right, don't you think it would have come to light decades ago and they would have
had this on TV and in the newspapers??!

Your sir, are in desperate need of a heavy dose of reality here. I suspect you have been dodging
your weekly Ritalin injections for months now or else you wouldn't be having so funny ideas.

Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15715611)

Congratulations! You've reached the same status as the parent post - I have no idea if you're serious or not, but either way I still have to laugh at what you wrote.

Re:Oh come on now, you can't possibly be serious!! (1)

Isotopian (942850) | about 8 years ago | (#15715685)

Congratulations! You've reached the commendable status of first AO Score:0 post I've read that was quite funny!

Re:How convenient. (0, Flamebait)

rkulla (973592) | about 8 years ago | (#15715638)

the bush administration is all about deleting history. he probably thinks that going to the moon is impossible because god wouldn't want us to try to fly to heaven

Conspiracy? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15715443)

oh no more coverup talk will soon follow.

Gee, thanks. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15715452)

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

Now you tell me. Thanks for the early heads up.

Oh, BTW, you missed seeing Halley's commet in your lifetime a few years ago.

Does it really matter (0)

0racle (667029) | about 8 years ago | (#15715457)

If the one place that can read them is closing, does it matter if you can't find what is essentially bunch of unreadable media?

On the other hand, how do you loose almost 700 boxes? You'd think that 700 boxes of stuff would kind of stick out.

Re:Does it really matter (5, Funny)

WilliamSChips (793741) | about 8 years ago | (#15715478)

On the other hand, how do you loose almost 700 boxes?
I don't know, but it's probably nothing like losing them.

Re:Does it really matter (4, Insightful)

MustardMan (52102) | about 8 years ago | (#15715500)

Uh... maybe it would be nice to find them, take them to the place that can read them, and COPY THEM ONTO SOME OTHER MEDIA? I dunno, just a thought.

Re:Does it really matter (1)

The_Rook (136658) | about 8 years ago | (#15715549)

they probably were - probably going to make some hi definition dubs only to find the tapes were missing.

Re:Does it really matter (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15715516)

I'll bite.

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.

Re:Does it really matter (4, Funny)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 8 years ago | (#15715706)

And you really don't want to look in all the boxes; you just might get your face melted.

So.... (5, Funny)

arthurpaliden (939626) | about 8 years ago | (#15715462)

So the actual 'raw' proof that men were walking on the moon is gone. How convenient.

You don't really believe that conspiracy, do you? (1)

MadRat (774297) | about 8 years ago | (#15715469)

You know, that we walked on the moon in 1969. :) j/k

Re:You don't really believe that conspiracy, do yo (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | about 8 years ago | (#15715511)

Actually have slides, remember those from before digital cameras, that I took off the TV pictures showing them coming down the lader.

Re:So.... (3, Insightful)

ubergenius (918325) | about 8 years ago | (#15715479)

The only inconvenient thing here is that the conspiracy theorists are going to go absolutely nuts over this.

Re:So.... (4, Funny)

dacarr (562277) | about 8 years ago | (#15715513)

But they're already nuts. That's why they're conspiracy theorists.

Re:So.... (5, Funny)

ubergenius (918325) | about 8 years ago | (#15715530)

Then... They're going to be... nuts-ier... We're talking, squirrels will be running in front of their moving cars by the millions just to get a taset of this particular level of nut.

Re:So.... (1, Troll)

observer7 (753034) | about 8 years ago | (#15715564)

But they're already nuts. That's why they're conspiracy theorists. so watergate was just a made up thing and nixion never really had a breakin at watergate ...i knew those nutty dems was making up history as they went .

Re:So.... (2, Funny)

afaik_ianal (918433) | about 8 years ago | (#15715487)

What was released to the TV networks was reduced to lower quality commercial TV standards.

Yep - I've been trying to tell people for years that the footage was edited, but everyone just called me "crazy"... MUAHAHA. Then they go and claim that they are only calling me that because I laugh maniacally at the end of every sentence. MUAHAHAHAHAA!

Re:So.... (1)

CrazyClimber (469251) | about 8 years ago | (#15715554)

"What sort of person," said Salzella patiently, "sits down and writes a maniacal laugh? And all those exclamation marks, you notice? Five? A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head."

--Terry Pratchett

Re:So.... (1)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | about 8 years ago | (#15715551)

Yep. That was my first thought. So in addition to all the other inanities the hoax nuts bring, we now have 698 missing tapes. *sigh*

Re:So.... (3, Funny)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | about 8 years ago | (#15715597)

That's ok, we can refilm it in HiDef now.

Re:So.... (1)

pharwell (854602) | about 8 years ago | (#15715620)

We don't even need to build the set. Just build a green room and let George Lucas do the rest!

Re:So.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15715697)

Don't even need a green room, he can create the spacemen as well!

We all know where they are (1, Funny)

toupsie (88295) | about 8 years ago | (#15715466)

They are hidden in the underground television studio at Area 51 where they faked the moon landing.

Good grief, how dumb are you? (1)

attemptedgoalie (634133) | about 8 years ago | (#15715496)

It was Hanger 18.

They moved to Area 51 after everybody was talking about Hanger 18 all the time. :-)

Remember the last scene in "Raiders of the Lost Ar (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | about 8 years ago | (#15715534)

Remember the last scene in "Raiders of the Lost Ark". Boxes and Boxes and more Boxes.

This shouldn't be too big of a deal (1, Funny)

Rude Turnip (49495) | about 8 years ago | (#15715467)

Please, nowadays a kid with an HD camcorder and a copy of Finalcut Pro could fake the moon landing for millions of dollars less than the 1969 production. I'm sure we'll see a bunch of new footage appearing on YouTube any day now!

Backup (1)

jimktrains (838227) | about 8 years ago | (#15715473)

ummm...Why weren't they backed up? Arn't you suppose to back up your data as often as possible?

Back them up! (4, Funny)

Bun (34387) | about 8 years ago | (#15715474)

Quick! Convert them to HD-DVD, er, Blu-Ray, er...

Re:Back them up! (2, Funny)

ArielMT (757715) | about 8 years ago | (#15715565)

I thought they were backed up on Betamax in the '80s. All you need is a player that can play that forma—


I've got some more copies. No worry (4, Funny)

krell (896769) | about 8 years ago | (#15715481)

They let me on the Warner Bros backlot where the first Apollo landings were filmed back in the 1960s (my dad was friends with the guy they hired to dump the "lunar sand" in the studio). I had my 8 mm Kodak movie camera with me, and I still have some reels that I filmed myself during the shooting of important scenes. I'll put them on Youtube soon. (If you ever see the finished films, you'll see the edge of one of my footprints from when I strayed into the actual set in the "lunar soil" near Neil at one time. I'm surprised that, perfectionist as he was, Kubrick did not catch that and edit it out.

Re:I've got some more copies. No worry (1)

pjgeer (106721) | about 8 years ago | (#15715652)

Take that tinfoil off your head and come along with us. Oh and bring that old camera, we need you to do some filming in, ah, well, somewhere in the Caribbean.

I guess I'm redundant (-1, Redundant)

akissner (988683) | about 8 years ago | (#15715488)

I'm going to be really original and make a reference to how this ties in with the fact that the moon landing never happened.

Ebay? (3, Funny)

Cadallin (863437) | about 8 years ago | (#15715490)

Firstly, Isn't this a dupe? And secondly, have they checked ebay yet?

My guess.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15715494)

Some dude brought them home for the weekend and they wound up being thrown into the trash by his wife.

I've got them... (2, Funny)

SpectreHiro (961765) | about 8 years ago | (#15715498)

Now I can prove once and for all that the moon landing was a fraud! So far in reviewing the tapes, I've seen dress-rehearsals, cables, stand-in props... Hell, you can even see a set-designer clad in overalls working on a matte painting in the background.

Fer criminy's sake, the tapes are labelled "Faked Moon Landing".

Your ass is mine, NASA!

I knew it! (0, Redundant)

Araxen (561411) | about 8 years ago | (#15715502)

We only walked on the moon in Hollywood not in Space!

Re:I knew it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15715703)

..Typical idiotic Gen X comment from someone who knows nothing about anything. How pitiful this public education system is.

Quick! Where's a tape!? (1)

EuroChild (523969) | about 8 years ago | (#15715507)

You just know that one of the people working in the facility used them to tape episodes of Futurama and the Simpsons...

Not surprising, actually (4, Interesting)

Raul654 (453029) | about 8 years ago | (#15715510)

In May, I was a speaker at the ACM Conference on Computers, Privacy, and Freedom (CFP). On the last day of the conference, one of the speakers was the guy in charge of digization efforts at the Smithsonian Musuem of the American Indian. (Granted, a different branch of the government than the National Archives, which this story pertains to). He said that digization efforts are hampered by a number of issues, not the least of which are the sheer size of the collection, the relatively small budget available, the extreme difficulty of digitizing some parts of the collection (like a 16-ton statue, for example). At this point, even getting an electronic catalogue of the entire collection would be a huge step forward.

Re:Not surprising, actually (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15715647)

> ... even getting an electronic catalogue of the entire collection would be a huge step forward

you mean, like one giant leap?

Re:Not surprising, actually (2, Interesting)

goofyheadedpunk (807517) | about 8 years ago | (#15715695)

...the extreme difficulty of digitizing some parts of the collection (like a 16-ton statue, for example)...

Actually, at the University of Chicago we've been doing this sort of thing for about four years now [] , though with a bit more than statues. It's time consuming given the current state of scanner hardware, the shear amount of data to be collected and stored and the absolutly shitty software [] availiable, but it's certainly not extremely difficult. Unless, of course, you count something that's time consuming as difficult.

Movies stolen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15715512)

The RIAA was right after all.

It must have been those damn kids on botorrent and p2p networks!

Bahh.. (0, Redundant)

eebra82 (907996) | about 8 years ago | (#15715514)

So half the population of the US goes: "Man, the recordings of the world's first Hollywood simulation of the moon are all gone".

youtube please (3, Funny)

in2mind (988476) | about 8 years ago | (#15715515)

Whoever has those tapes now,upload to youtube please! :p

MOD PARENT UP (0, Redundant)

dacarr (562277) | about 8 years ago | (#15715520)

I would mod you up had I the mod points.

Did they ask Dan Rather? (4, Funny)

krell (896769) | about 8 years ago | (#15715522)

These original DVD's from the CBS vaults were really interesting. They were mastered in 1969 using Amiga Video Toaster. It is probably no coincidence that they turned up missing about the same time Dan Rather left CBS. I wonder if Rather took the wrong boxes when he carted off those old 3.5" inch floppies containing the MS Word 97 docs George Bush's original military service records and archive copies of Bush's Myspace page from 1973.

Re:Did they ask Dan Rather? (1)

tinrobot (314936) | about 8 years ago | (#15715696)

Yeah... all that -- and Karl Rove worked the camera.

Down the memory hole it goes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15715541)

Next up on Slashdot: Apollo 11 lands on the moon for the first time. The Party rejoices at such a successful mission, which has NEVER happened before.

Actually... (2, Insightful)

rackhamh (217889) | about 8 years ago | (#15715544)

Wouldn't you think that only the people who were THERE have seen the moon walk in ALL its glory? ;)

Re:Actually... (1)

nick_davison (217681) | about 8 years ago | (#15715702)

I doubt it. Neil Armstrong likely saw the first foot to set foot on the moon but probably never saw the entirety of the first astronaut to do it - given that he was the guy and thus got a limited view from inside a helmet rather than the wider angle coverage of the camera.

It's like first person vs. third person games. Accepting that there can be different viewpoints, no one perspective can show "all" the "glory". Neil likely experience a different, very powerful glory as he jumped down - but has also, quite likely, never experienced "all the glory" of watching the first man to do it in all the recorded detail available.

How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? (4, Interesting)

Danga (307709) | about 8 years ago | (#15715550)

Ok, seriously, how can you lose ~99% of the data from something that is such a HUGE part of history? It is not like this was video of the 30th space shuttle launch or something, this was the first time humans had landed on the MOON. I would think that somebody would realize this and would have taken much more care of those tapes.

Since the PDF is slashdotted so I can't read it I also am curious as to why if "the last place on earth which can actually read these tapes" closes down someone won't be able to save whatever is required to read the tapes, are they just going to trash the machines? That would seem pretty stupid to me. Anyone have any answers?

The worst part is the conspiracy theorists claiming the landing never occurred are going to go nuts over this. Almost all the tapes of the landing mysteriously disappear as well as the only way to read the tapes, if I was one of them I would go nuts too.

It's "How can THE GOVERNMENT lose 698/700 boxes?" (2, Insightful)

ArielMT (757715) | about 8 years ago | (#15715622)

It's "How can the government lose 698/700 boxes?"

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.

Re:It's "How can THE GOVERNMENT lose 698/700 boxes (1)

blibbler (15793) | about 8 years ago | (#15715661)

The most convincing evidence against most of the massive government conspiricy theories is: how can an entity suddenly perform a massive cover-up operation so competently, when they manage to screw up everything else they do?

Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? (0, Troll)

gd23ka (324741) | about 8 years ago | (#15715646)

What is stopping you then from becoming one?

Consider this:

1. There are many discrepancies in the pictures and film footage they claim they took on the moon such as
wrong shadows, light reflections that shouldn't be there etc.

2. The high definition master copies of that material disappear

3. Even the equipment to read these tapes is put out of reach by closing down the facility it was available at.


But hey, it's just a "Conspiracy Theory", right? Nothing to get excited about because real stuff gets reported
by real people in real newspapers and on real TV stations, right? All the other folks out there, they're no
smarter than you or else they'd be on TV so they're just a bunch of cooky conspiracy theorists so never mind
listening to them, okay? Atta-boy. Here, watch a Battle-Star Galactica Episode instead, that will help take
your mind off this crap.

Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? (1)

vadim_t (324782) | about 8 years ago | (#15715667)

Err, all of this was repeatedly explained, like on the moon the earth is pretty bright, and that you don't see the stars because they're too faint at the shutter speed used.

Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? (1)

gd23ka (324741) | about 8 years ago | (#15715728)

Of course, I forgot. But you see the thing is, I'm not an expert on photography so I couldn't tell whether
these 'explanations' have any merit at all except of course if they actually gave that kind of explanation
on TV or in some other 'respectable' print publication. If that's the case then I'm certainly not going to
argue with an expert especially with one who was on TV.

stolen, of course (4, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | about 8 years ago | (#15715710)

Ok, seriously, how can you lose ~99% of the data from something that is such a HUGE part of history?

Because most likely they were stolen by NASA employees/managers, government contractors, or "given" (improperly) to elected officials. There a case within the last few years where someone found a storage room at NASA chock full of stuff including two space suits [] . The stuff was supposed to have gone to the Smithsonian, but oops, gee, donchaknow, it just mysteriously ended up in a storage room nobody knew anything about.

Rumsfield had a piece of the airplane that hit the Pentagon, as a showpiece- almost like a trophy. There were plenty of other examples of thefts [] . I doubt any of the victim's families saw so much as a pebble. In the executive branch of the federal government the World Trade Center site was like a free-for-all memento/souvineer stop. I'd be astounded if visiting officials at NASA didn't have the same 'sticky fingers'.

Re:How can you "lose" 698/700 boxes??? (1)

lawpoop (604919) | about 8 years ago | (#15715719)

As far as how the tapes were loss, my guess is that they were in boxes labelled "1969 Apollo Moon Landing SSTV Tapes", not something like "The only original recordings of the very first moon landing don't let things things out of your sight or else this valuable piece of history will be lost forever". My guess is that almost *everything* in the US National Archives is the only remaining piece/copy of whatever valuable part of our history it is.

As far as why there won't be any more SSTV tapes is that technology needs to be supported by a knowledge and manufacturing base. Eventually, some part of the reader will wear out or break down. We'll need a replacement part, and there are no more factories or workshops that make such parts. The people who knew how retired long, and they don't remember. Documentation, specs, and blueprints didn't need to be stored after decades of uselessness. The only option is to hire some engineer to reverse engineer the tech (hopefully without destroying even one of the last remaining copies of the original Moon Landing tapes) and re-create a machine... or transfer it to a new medium.

Originals look worse (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | about 8 years ago | (#15715558)

Does anyone think that the originals in the comparisons look worse than the TV versions?

It may have something to do with the way they got the image, but man, they're not really proving their point with 'em.

Re:Originals look worse (1)

HaloZero (610207) | about 8 years ago | (#15715610)

It's because George Lucas hasn't had his way with the originals, yet. Soon enough, the 'director's true vision' can be revealed to us. There will come a day.

Re:Originals look worse (1)

sakusha (441986) | about 8 years ago | (#15715690)

WTF are you talking about? The SSTV pictures have much more detail and better greyscale levels than the downconverted NTSC video. Sure, there are artifacts in the picture, they were taken with Polaroid or 35mm cameras which have problems capturing raster images, but these were obviously test shots and not intended for reproduction. Photos of TV screens are difficult to produce, your shutter speed has to exactly match the time it takes to paint one raster, and film cameras weren't built for that, especially when you're using funky raster timings like SSTV.

Re:Originals look worse (1)

sakusha (441986) | about 8 years ago | (#15715725)

Ah, I see the problem now. You looked at the web page, not the PDF. The images on the web page are screwed up, the PDF has much better quality. Don't judge by the website. Try the PDF, the main article's link was a botched attempt to use Coral Cache or something, edit it to get the original URL and it will load OK. Well at least it did for me.

Re:Originals look worse (1)

Ectospheno (724239) | about 8 years ago | (#15715701)

What on earth are you talking about? Did you look at the same pdf I did? They showed photographs taken of the original monitors that look way better than the footage that eventually found it's way to TV.

Are you sure you didn't misread the captions under the pictures?

torrent ? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15715560)

i found the release .nfo but i cant find a torrent

NASA.faked.moon.landings.1969.LiMITED.VHSRip.Xvid. AC3-TeamFBI.CD1-CD698.rar

they didn't go anywhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15715574)

they didn't "go" anywhere. they don't have legs. someone lost them, but it sounds better to say they may have went missing on their own.

In other news (5, Funny)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | about 8 years ago | (#15715579)

Nearly 700 copies of "A Star Wars Holiday Special" appeared in the trash around LucasFilm that had been taped over some old media George had obtained from NASA years ago.

Australia!!!??? (1)

jarg0n (882275) | about 8 years ago | (#15715591)

Why were the original US moon landing tapes stored in an Australian observatory!!??

Re:Australia!!!??? (1)

istartedi (132515) | about 8 years ago | (#15715675)

Maybe the Moon was only visible from Australia during the landing, and they never bothered to cart the hi-fi versions across the Pacific. If the signal had to be relayed from Australia to the US, it was probably downsampled in real time. Just a wild guess. Anybody really know?

There was an Australian observatory scene in The Right Stuff, and this reminds me of that.

Re:Australia!!!??? (4, Interesting)

Demolition (713476) | about 8 years ago | (#15715712)

Why were the original US moon landing tapes stored in an Australian observatory!!??

As it says in the summary, the tapes were stored in the U.S. National Archives. The man who reported them missing (John Sarkissian) just happens to work for CSIRO Parkes Observatory in Australia.

Re:Australia!!!??? (1)

krell (896769) | about 8 years ago | (#15715727)

"The man who reported them missing (John Sarkissian) just happens to work for CSIRO Parkes Observatory in Australia."

Is this the same guy who said that the giant monster in space seen heading to the Earth was really just a gnat on the telescope lens? Not sure I believe his explanation anymore!

Oh dear... (1)

rickb928 (945187) | about 8 years ago | (#15715617)

No chance Sandy Berger was in there looking at them. Check his socks. And his trash. At home. rick

Sandy greeted at home (1)

krell (896769) | about 8 years ago | (#15715654)

Sandy greeted at home by his wife after an innocent visit to the archives: "Is that a sensitive national security dossier in your briefs, or are you just glad to see me?"

Re:Sandy greeted at home (1)

rickb928 (945187) | about 8 years ago | (#15715682)

She WISHES it wasn't a dossier. rick

Terrible! (2, Funny)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | about 8 years ago | (#15715621)

This is terrible. We know that in the far future the crew of the Battlestar Galactica [] intercept some of these recordings but it seems that they just miss the transmissions from the moon. These recordings are doomed to be lost forever.

See, this is why we use paper to record data (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 8 years ago | (#15715624)

in our genetics studies.

It's easy to copy, you can write on it, it's not power dependent, and in a pinch you can use it to start a fire.

Plus, if you drink coffee, the rings make pretty pictures.

At least they didn't use BetaMax for the moon landings.

But check Cheney's basement, he probably removed it "for official viewing" and has decided we don't get to see them.

And You Trust Government? (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | about 8 years ago | (#15715634)

Government and the general public education system (arguably = Government at this point) are arguably the slowest and least likely to "keep up" with changes in society and technology.

Because career employees in the "Public Service Sector" function almost as Tenured Professors's, virtually by design, there is little way to make government entities "perk up", as you can't get rid of positions or employees who are not keeping up. Solution = add more departments (more tax dollars).

There have been debacles with the IRS computer system, no computer system of note at the FBI, no interacting computer systems amongst security agencies, and now State Department web site hacking and military members' personal data stolen.

Some times it takes a revolution to get progress. I hope the revolution starts at the ballet box, not the bullet box like the Middle East. Hopefully our U.S. Federal Government figures out how to safely store things, whether it is the National Archives or the Nuclear Archives. Geesh!

Flood (1)

tonymtdew (976074) | about 8 years ago | (#15715640)

The national archives flooded a couple weeks ago, if you were remotely in the north east, you would have known that. All of DC basically shut down, essentially opening the doors to anybody who wanted to grab anything. IF it had been faked, they wouldnt have kept the video in the archives in such high quality. Every claim to be faked has been proven wrong

Apollo 11: The Special Limited Collector's Edition (5, Funny)

identity0 (77976) | about 8 years ago | (#15715642)

Do not worry, dear consumers! The tapes have not gone "missing". The studio that made the original landing footage simply took it back to their labs to Digitally Re-Master it for the Special Limited Collector's Edition DVD, which will be out by Christmas. Since the original director (Kubrik) is gone, they will have directors George Lucas and Steven Spielberg collaborate on this wonderful new addition to the Disney(TM) Classics(TM) Collection(TM).

New, never-before scenes will be inserted into the middle of the old, staid footage!
Tom Hanks will replace Neil Armstrong through the magic of digital effects!
Kristie Alley will be Buzz Aldrin, adding an exciting new romantic subplot to the mission!
A lovable animal sidekick will have your kids squealing in delight!
Gagarin shoots first!

Master directors Spielberg and Lucas will also modernize the plot and imagery to give a fresh, "post-2001" look!
The American flag, such an archaic-looking symbol (that didn't test well with audiences overseas), will be replaced with a pleasant, pastel blue UN flag. The ugly SUV 'lunar rover' will be digitally removed, and replaced with bicycles which the astronauts will pedal about the moon. The President will be updated to be a Texan oil millionaire conducting a needless war in Asia, who commander Michael Collins (played by academy award-winner Liam Neeson) will denounce for "having turned to the dark side". The "Cold War" sideplot will be updated to be a "Temporal War On Terror", which will feature terrorists from the future attempting to fly the Space Shuttle Columbia into the White House! Can our heroes stop them 'in time'?!

This and other new changes will keep the franchise fresh and exciting to today's viewers, and like Star Trek: Enterprise, will boldly re-write history that no one but nerds cares about anyways!

Apollo 11: The Special Limited Collector's Edititon: Coming Christmas 2006 - collect all 6 covers!

Re:Apollo 11: The Special Limited Collector's Edit (1)

krell (896769) | about 8 years ago | (#15715678)

Just keep Lucas away from the thing. I'll be damned if I'm going to see Gungans greet Armstrong as he steps foot on the lunar surface. "Ona step for gungans, ona giganta leep for meesa!". However, I have to admit, I would welcome a space battle as the lunar module struggles to complete its landing. In fact, really looking forward to Jerry Bruckheimer adding huge slow-motion fireballs in space depicting the competing Russian modules getting blown up.

no, no no... (1)

MattS423 (987689) | about 8 years ago | (#15715662)

no guys, we lost those boxes! We don't have the data because WE LOST IT! We went to the moon and made the tapes, we just lost it! dumb comnspiracy theorists. I'll bet your suspicious of this "supposed" "motherhood" and "apple pie" too...

Sure (1)

lawpoop (604919) | about 8 years ago | (#15715663)

I saw Michael Jackson in concert back in '86. I doubt that the '69 moonwalk would compare.

Good grief... (2, Insightful)

DreadfulGrape (398188) | about 8 years ago | (#15715681)

!No mas! Please, I'm begging you, no more faked-moon-walk replies. 95% of this comment page should be modded "redundant."

Welcome to the new Digital Dark Age! (4, Insightful)

Artifakt (700173) | about 8 years ago | (#15715683)

It's been said that future generations will regard the next few decades as a dark age, where the culture lost most of its common heritage. This will supposedly come about because so much audio and video is mouldering away (sometimes literally), locked in vaults where it will rot before anyone can recover it. While such factors as copyrights much longer than the physical life of the archival media are likely to contribute to this, the loss of these tapes is an example of another cause.
      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?

The Dish (2)

hall_simon (596926) | about 8 years ago | (#15715694)

The Dish [] is the lighthearted 'adapted' history of the Parkes observatories role in the tracking and transmission of the first lunar landings. Quite funny if you get Australian humour.

Where is Sam Preecs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15715708)

The PDF articles asks "Where is Sam Preecs?" and opines that this person could have key information on the whereabouts of the tapes. Well, a quick google search for "Sam Preecs" shows that this is a family name in Virginia, which is in the right neck o' the woods for the National Archives, and a search for "Samuel Preecs" shows someone with that name who has alive during the relevant time frame.

131. Samuel PREECS - U.S. Social Security Death Index

Birth: 18 May 1921 State Where Number was Issued: Indiana Death: 18 Feb 1993

And the answer from the Real-Landing-Supporters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15715724)

..."Those tapes tried to proof the lunar landing was a hoax... why do you need video when you have photos of rocks that definetly DON'T cast shadows in different directions?, it was just a camera thingy, sure NASA paid a lot of dough for them but the lunar atmosphere screwed everything up".

Please stop the conspiracy theories, not swearing on a bible on something that happened doesn't prove anything.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account