4 ms·
Sounds like the best way to hide any editing done to the original tapes. puts foil hat on
by Raed667 11y ago
Sounds like the best way to hide any editing done to the original tapes.
puts foil hat on
- simonh 11y agoIt's ok, you can take the foil hat off. The broadcast from the moon was relayed live to TV stations across the world. The tapes they're talking about were just NASA's recordings of that direct broadcast. So there never was any opportunity for the tapes to be edited like that, because they didn't sit in the chain between the cameras on the moon and the broadcasts everyone saw on their TVs. Fortunately other news organisations (and probably governments) also taped the broadcast as well, hence we still have recordings available. In fact, it was technologically impossible to record the entire live broadcast on a single tape because tapes with enough capacity didn't exist until many years later. Therefore a faked broadcast from tapes would have had visible transitions as they switched from tape to tape. These transitions would have been visible on the taped copies of the broadcast which the currently available recordings derive from.
- shultays 11y agoI refuse to believe your logical explanations
- simonh 11y agoKeep the faith, man! Of course the taped copies we have now must have been recorded on multiple tapes. So are the transitions on them from switching tapes to record the broadcast, or are they actually the transitions from the original faked broadcast? If the original broadcast was faked and broadcast from tapes, you'd expect to see both types of transitions in the modern copies!
- rdudek 11y agoThanks! This is another great explanation of the vent that I can use against those who think moon landing was fake. In the past, I always told folks that landing occurred during Cold War and USSR was watching closely. If this was faked, Soviets would love nothing better than to discredit the US worldwide.
- icehawk219 11y agoThis video[0] on Youtube does a good job explaining the whole "video technology didn't exist" part that most people, myself included, don't realize. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU
- rdudek 11y agoThanks. That is a great video.
- kiiski 11y ago> Therefore a faked broadcast from tapes would have had visible transitions as they switched from tape to tape. In other words you're saying that one should believe NASA landed on the moon, because broadcasting a fake recording would have been technologically too difficult for them? I don't doubt that they landed on the moon, but I'm not quite convinced about that logic ;)
- Navarr 11y agoThe fun thing about that argument is that if NASA _didn't_ land on the moon, then it falls apart! "If NASA has the power to land on the moon, clearly they could've faked a broadcast." "If you're saying they didn't land on the moon, though, how can you use that as technological proof to edit the broadcast?"
- oconnore 11y agoEspecially suspicious when accounting for the sorts of technological developments that have taken off since then -- lots of sending packets to screens of various sizes, not very much human exploration. /s
- ifdefdebug 11y agoHere is the original recording of the moon landing. Besides clear evidence for editing, if you watch carefully you will find even more strong evidence for the fake. For instance, the sun light reflected from the space craft is in the wrong angle! https://youtu.be/7JDaOOw0MEE?t=4m46s https://youtu.be/7JDaOOw0MEE?t=4m46s
- xyclos 11y agoat least it wasn't rickroll.
- JustSomeNobody 11y agoEveryone knows that angles on the moon are different due to the gravity difference!
- Zuider 11y agoOf course the moon landings are fake. The moon is still up there, isn't it? And wouldn't people have complained of a strong smell of cheese if it actually had come down? Unless it landed in France, that is. I think the French are hiding something.