Robert FochtAug 22nd, 2006 - 21:01:07

Why am I thinking the tapes are in some senior scientist's home theater ?

Report this comment

Um...cant see!Aug 24th, 2006 - 16:02:33

Boy, it sure would be great if I could actually read the article. Thanks to the noisy and obtrusive Verizon ad that slid over to get my attention, I can not see the words. There is no way to close the ad that I can see and I refuse to click on the ad. I find this kind of advertising unethical.

Report this comment

KAZAug 24th, 2006 - 21:16:00

You know, I don't generally take the 'moon landing was a fake' theories seriously, but the magical disappearance of the tapes at a time when technology increases the chances of anything fake being detected is damned suspicious.

Report this comment

DoplarAug 25th, 2006 - 00:19:00

You should take the moon landings as fake, because they were. Watch the developments of the current attempt to 'return' to the moon. If you're suspicious about the moon tapes gone missing, you'll find yourself asking at each stage of the current moonshot development, 'I thought they figured that out already?' Mark my words. For example, they are currently working on a robot probe to test the radiation level on the moon to determine it's effects on humans. Huh? Yeah, that's what they are doing! Be suspicious about NASA.

Report this comment

MikewoodburythenTennesseeAug 27th, 2006 - 22:23:13

I use to laugh when people said we never went to the moon but now its not that funny. The different mission photos depicting the same same smooth mountain range in the background, the flag that catches a gust of wind. Just a fairy tale that the public bit into.

Report this comment

DSBSep 4th, 2006 - 14:50:35

If your going to buy into the HOAX garbage which has been debunked over and over and over and over again, at least try and know what your talking about. There is no 'gust of wind' catching the flag for example. Check out www.clavius.org to read how the Hoax Believer crowd demonstrate a complete lack of engineering, physics and photography knowledge. Explain please how the 320 lines, 10 fps image will reveal anything that can't already be seen? The 16m film camera has better resolution than any video format resolution, why doesnt that reveal anything? Why didn't all those super sleuths who 'knew' they smelled a rat access the tapes in the 1980's and digitally transfer them then. The computer technology existed back then to do a digital conversion. Surely you all knew that.

Report this comment