Long-lost footage of Apollo 11 moon landing

[Still Waters]

Long-lost footage of Neil Armstrong descending the ladder of the Apollo 11 lunar module will be screened in public for the first time in Sydney next week, according to a prominent astronomer.

The video runs for a few minutes and is considered to be some of the best footage of the historic 1969 moonwalk, but the film was lost in archives for many years and was badly damaged when found, said John Sarkissian.

It depicts the first few minutes of Armstrong’s descent which was recorded in Australia as Nasa was still scrambling for a signal, showing a far clearer image than was initially screened worldwide.

Read more...

[The Caspian Hare]

How on earth do you lose something like this for four decades... I thought I was absent--minded sometimes.

[sarah snow]

How on earth do you lose something like this for four decades... I thought I was absent--minded sometimes.

I was thinking exactly the same thing

[MID]

Niel Armstrong coming down the ladder wasn't actually a priority in 1969. We saw it anyway, and the 16 mm films taken by Buzz Aldrin show it much more clearly that these films will.

This is but an interesting tid-bit to history...the tapes were all stored. And the TV feeds were used to make repros for public consumption. Some of those many hundreds of data tapes wound up siting in corners for decades...

It's no big deal, and these won't show anything revolutionary.

It'll just be nice to splice them with the other enhanced TV transmissions for historical purposes. Future generations will be able to view this momnent in history much more clearly than those of us who saw it first hand remember.

[cluey]

like always.........just proves we are and will always be better(we don't need to prove s h i t actually).........not our fault it was lost....or unable for it to be shown first.......we are a humble nation

Edited September 29, 2010 by cluey

[Horus Christos]

Hmmm...surprised no conspiracy theorist has surfaced trying to debunk the moon landing yet.

C'mon, waiting for idiot #1 to please come forward......

[The Silver Thong]

Hmmm...surprised no conspiracy theorist has surfaced trying to debunk the moon landing yet.

C'mon, waiting for idiot #1 to please come forward......

So it wasn't filmed in Area 51 it was filmed in Australia

[Belial]

Yeah on the set they made prisoner cell block H

OFF TOPIC but, who remembers vinegar tits and old vera, lol?

[Trolololol]

Yeah....4 decades for them to touch up the lunar wallpaper and wires in the footage for general consumption

[The Id3al Experience]

like always.........just proves we are and will always be better(we don't need to prove s h i t actually).........not our fault it was lost....or unable for it to be shown first.......we are a humble nation

Humble Nation? Haha - Nah im sorry I guess New Zealanders can never move on from that underarm throw aye haha,

Hey Guys Im new here. Been reading off this site for good year now and only joint up haha, anyways hope to chat more when the need arises.

[Jeanine]

Seems like they need to shore up a little shifting sand. Nothing like long lost artifacts to buck up a shaky story. While I have no reason to disbelieve the moon landing, after all its not such a big deal, right? After all, it gave us the C3PO model, just ask Richard C. Hoglund. But I always wonder what happend to the stars...yeah..that ol' background wallpaper leaves me wondering. Not that I'm a skeptic. But simply just admitting my own ignorance about such things.

[cluey]

Yeah on the set they made prisoner cell block H

OFF TOPIC but, who remembers vinegar tits and old vera, lol?

those chic's where badass's alright

[cluey]

Humble Nation? Haha - Nah im sorry I guess New Zealanders can never move on from that underarm throw aye haha,

Hey Guys Im new here. Been reading off this site for good year now and only joint up haha, anyways hope to chat more when the need arises.

now,now...that's a bit below the belt don't ya think........lol...................just our cool sense of humor

[regeneratia]

Interesting that following a new theory about the moon landing, that another video of it surfaces.

I sit on the fence on this one and watch the action/reaction to it.

[booNyzarC]

Hmmm...surprised no conspiracy theorist has surfaced trying to debunk the moon landing yet.

C'mon, waiting for idiot #1 to please come forward......

That was my initial thought as well. I wonder when that will happen...

Oh wait...

Seems like they need to shore up a little shifting sand. Nothing like long lost artifacts to buck up a shaky story. While I have no reason to disbelieve the moon landing, after all its not such a big deal, right? After all, it gave us the C3PO model, just ask Richard C. Hoglund. But I always wonder what happend to the stars...yeah..that ol' background wallpaper leaves me wondering. Not that I'm a skeptic. But simply just admitting my own ignorance about such things.

Glad to hear that you aren't a skeptic. I share the following just to help inform to the best of my ability.

I won't comment on Hoagland, because I don't have the links for it... But more importantly, his discoveries are among the most ridiculous I've ever heard so I haven't even bothered thinking about it, let alone documenting a response. I'm sure someone else would be more than willing to respond to this though.

However, there is a very good explanation for the lack of stars right here in this link.

"The fact of the matter is ... the moon's surface reflects sunlight, and that glare would have made stars difficult to see. Also, the astronauts photographed their lunar adventures using fast exposure settings, which would have limited incoming background light."

Many thanks to S2F for this link which I obtained from here.

Interesting that following a new theory about the moon landing, that another video of it surfaces.

I sit on the fence on this one and watch the action/reaction to it.

What new theory are you talking about regeneratia?

Edited October 1, 2010 by booNyzarC

[regeneratia]

That was my initial thought as well. I wonder when that will happen...

Oh wait...

What new theory are you talking about regeneratia?

Is sitting on the fence not allowed? Or did you get that part read?

[booNyzarC]

Is sitting on the fence not allowed? Or did you get that part read?

I did indeed read that part. Sitting on the fence is completely allowed. I hang out there on many things. I asked you about the new theory. Care to share?

[regeneratia]

I did indeed read that part. Sitting on the fence is completely allowed. I hang out there on many things. I asked you about the new theory. Care to share?

I am not familiar with it enough to share. But I am sure, if you do a search for it, that you will find it.

[booNyzarC]

I am not familiar with it enough to share. But I am sure, if you do a search for it, that you will find it.

I'm not really in the habit of trying to hunt through all of the strange conspiracy theories that are out there. Especially when all I have to go in is that it is "new." But this new one sounds like something you don't put much confidence in, no worries from me.

[regeneratia]

Why would what I think about it matter to you?

I don't follow you.

[booNyzarC]

Why would what I think about it matter to you?

I don't follow you.

I'm not saying that what you think about it matters to me, but I wouldn't have asked you about it in the first place if I wasn't curious about the new theory and your opinion. I think you may have missed the most important point I was trying to make, possibly because I failed to communicate it adequately. So let me attempt to be more clear.

You mentioned that there was a "new theory about the moon landing."

I asked you to share, if it was something you believed had merit.

You indicated that you didn't know enough about it, but you suggested that I look it up.

But I don't really have much related information to look up, do I? New theory? That's about it... And how am I supposed to know if "new" means that it is truly a never-before-discussed theory or simply new to you?

As far as I'm concerned, the number of hoax theories are ridiculously large, and there is no way I'm going to scour through these 190,000 Google hits with the hope of randomly finding whatever new theory you are referencing.

This would be like me saying "That new restaurant had a really good steak.", And you asking "New restaurant? Care to share?", And me responding "I'm sure that if you do a search for it, you will find it."

So now you have what information to do the search? It is a new restaurant... it serves steak... Good luck finding the specific restaurant I'm talking about.

I suspect that my explanation doesn't make much sense. No worries. I'm sure if you latch onto this new theory as acceptable, whatever it is, we'll hear about it at some point.

As always, nice chatting with you.

[regeneratia]

No, I think your message makes sense. And you communicate quite adequately.

I have found that rising to the challenge that others throw at me only creates a trap I will not step into again. Many people are on ignore for what they have done.

I watched a movie about whether or not we went to the moon. I have no opinion on this and did not waste a lot of time thinking about it. I have not gravitated nor spent much energy to one position or the other on this issue.

Maybe it is not a new theory. If there are more than one theories out there about it, I don't know about them.

My general pattern will be to say "look it up yourself", ... tho you really made some good points on this. I have been told that I will lack credibility if do not bother to provide sources. But I am not seeking credibility. I am just saying what I think. I found that even tho I provide sources, chances are they are not going to be read, they are not going to be thought about, and that it is merely a waste of my time to do it.

If one has that "need to know" that I so value and honor in a person, that deep passion to KNOW, they will do a search on it themselves, read about it, and learn without my slant or judgments on it. I am not here to attempt to convince you one way or another.

However, I sure do like your writing style.

I'm not saying that what you think about it matters to me, but I wouldn't have asked you about it in the first place if I wasn't curious about the new theory and your opinion. I think you may have missed the most important point I was trying to make, possibly because I failed to communicate it adequately. So let me attempt to be more clear.

You mentioned that there was a "new theory about the moon landing."

I asked you to share, if it was something you believed had merit.

You indicated that you didn't know enough about it, but you suggested that I look it up.

But I don't really have much related information to look up, do I? New theory? That's about it... And how am I supposed to know if "new" means that it is truly a never-before-discussed theory or simply new to you?

As far as I'm concerned, the number of hoax theories are ridiculously large, and there is no way I'm going to scour through these 190,000 Google hits with the hope of randomly finding whatever new theory you are referencing.

This would be like me saying "That new restaurant had a really good steak.", And you asking "New restaurant? Care to share?", And me responding "I'm sure that if you do a search for it, you will find it."

So now you have what information to do the search? It is a new restaurant... it serves steak... Good luck finding the specific restaurant I'm talking about.

I suspect that my explanation doesn't make much sense. No worries. I'm sure if you latch onto this new theory as acceptable, whatever it is, we'll hear about it at some point.

As always, nice chatting with you.

[booNyzarC]

No, I think your message makes sense. And you communicate quite adequately.

I have found that rising to the challenge that others throw at me only creates a trap I will not step into again. Many people are on ignore for what they have done.

I can't speak to what anyone else may have done, but in my experience here so far - most are just interested in openly discussing subject matter that is of common interest. At times, this turns to heated debate, but that is a natural progression for topics like these; especially if the participants hold strong feelings about the subject matter.

It is unfortunate that you have chosen to ignore someone, however. The decision is completely yours, but you might consider lifting the ignore so that you have the opportunity to enjoy the value that these members might deliver in other threads and discussions. Just because there may have been a heated moment in one thread, doesn't mean that you can't share a common interest in a completely different topic. Who knows, you might actually find that you like the people in question.

I watched a movie about whether or not we went to the moon. I have no opinion on this and did not waste a lot of time thinking about it. I have not gravitated nor spent much energy to one position or the other on this issue.

Maybe it is not a new theory. If there are more than one theories out there about it, I don't know about them.

Fair enough. There are a ton of different theories along these lines, but I still haven't seen one that stood up under scrutiny. Like most conspiracy theories, to truly believe in the conspiracy requires ignorance of certain verifiable facts, whether intentional or not. I commend you for not swallowing whatever was in the movie without further consideration.

My general pattern will be to say "look it up yourself", ... tho you really made some good points on this. I have been told that I will lack credibility if do not bother to provide sources. But I am not seeking credibility. I am just saying what I think. I found that even tho I provide sources, chances are they are not going to be read, they are not going to be thought about, and that it is merely a waste of my time to do it.

I think that the question of credibility would only come into play if you were attempting to push a point of view without backing it up. Clearly that wasn't the case here, you were just commenting about an experience. I wasn't asking you to back it up, I was just asking about which theory you were talking about - and you clarified that to a degree which satisfied my curiosity. Thank you for that.

If one has that "need to know" that I so value and honor in a person, that deep passion to KNOW, they will do a search on it themselves, read about it, and learn without my slant or judgments on it. I am not here to attempt to convince you one way or another.

I agree that each person must investigate the truth of things they are interested in for themselves.

However, I sure do like your writing style.

Thanks, I really appreciate that.

[turbonium]

Just the latest example of how absurd the Apollo story is. Apparently, my uncle's 45 year old home movies are treated with more respect and care. What a joke!

A total bs story to 'restore' footage - as in, we can now remove the evidence of the hoax.

[Belial]

Maybe it would take for ever to photo edited all the films taken, so this as now resurfaced as a clean film, hey i just make comments here?