Sn 2006gy

[Blartman 2]

Can't believe this is not on the list. It's been on it's way out for a couple of thousand years now. Surely an obvious candidate for this year's list?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6633609.stm

[Olveres 8]

Can't believe this is not on the list. It's been on it's way out for a couple of thousand years now. Surely an obvious candidate for this year's list?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6633609.stm

 

It'll get an article here and there but not a true Obituary, so it wouldn't make the list.

[Guest Guest]

nowhere near famous enough. betelguese or the sun yes, sn2006gy no.

[Blartman 2]

nowhere near famous enough. betelguese or the sun yes, sn2006gy no.

 

It got press coverage on the BBC, and it's bigger than any star on the list! (and more likely to die this year)

[Cowboy Ronnie 78]

Can't believe this is not on the list. It's been on it's way out for a couple of thousand years now. Surely an obvious candidate for this year's list?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6633609.stm

 

Those scientists could be making it all up, for all we know. If we can get Britney Spears' underwear (or lack thereof) captured on film in all its minutiae surely we should expect to see photographic evidence of the explosion of a star 150 times the size of the sun.

 

I'm starting to wonder if all the claims about the moon landings being staged are so far-fetched.

[Banshees Scream 110]

I'm starting to wonder if all the claims about the moon landings being staged are so far-fetched.

 

Third degree skeptics. People got nothing better to do in this world then debate about the never happened. People tell stories, it is apart of socializing. Science has no reason to lie, government are the only liars. They lie about the designing of under-ground air crafts and possible UFO crashes. They landed on the moon, it happened.

[Anubis the Jackal 77]

Now, I usually regard the conspiracy theorists that deny the moon landings with the same contempt as flat-earthers or creationists, but having watched Big Pat present The Sky at Night the other day (purely for research purposes, y'unnerstan') I can see their point to an extent. Those shots of Armstrong and Aldrin embarking on what must surely rank as the greatest expedition since the days of Magellan were, quite frankly, sh*t. You'd have thought someone would have packed a better movie camera, Cassavetes was filming his 'hand-held' movies that looked better on a thousandth of the budget that NASA had available.

[Dave to the Grave 11]

nowhere near famous enough. betelguese or the sun yes, sn2006gy no.

Not sure why really, but that made me laugh. Thank you 'Guest', for proving that there's life in the Deathlist yet.

[Monoclinic 39]

Science has no reason to lie...

 

Unless you are Professor Hwang Woo My Results Suk

[Banshees Scream 110]

Now, I usually regard the conspiracy theorists that deny the moon landings with the same contempt as flat-earthers or creationists, but having watched Big Pat present The Sky at Night the other day (purely for research purposes, y'unnerstan') I can see their point to an extent. Those shots of Armstrong and Aldrin embarking on what must surely rank as the greatest expedition since the days of Magellan were, quite frankly, sh*t. You'd have thought someone would have packed a better movie camera, Cassavetes was filming his 'hand-held' movies that looked better on a thousandth of the budget that NASA had available.

 

The date was 1969, and the portable video camera didn't become available to the public till sometime in the mid 1980's I assume. I doubt the landing was framed cause' for what reason? If your risking your lives in a man built craft which took a decade to construct, and if one of the wires slits they could all be f**ked hours and hours from earth. I'm sure they were armed with the best set of filming equipment to date - even the most high tech, but one thing in my mind is clear - None of them were photographers.

[Cowboy Ronnie 78]

Now, I usually regard the conspiracy theorists that deny the moon landings with the same contempt as flat-earthers or creationists, but having watched Big Pat present The Sky at Night the other day (purely for research purposes, y'unnerstan') I can see their point to an extent. Those shots of Armstrong and Aldrin embarking on what must surely rank as the greatest expedition since the days of Magellan were, quite frankly, sh*t. You'd have thought someone would have packed a better movie camera, Cassavetes was filming his 'hand-held' movies that looked better on a thousandth of the budget that NASA had available.

 

I doubt the landing was framed cause' for what reason?

 

A reason could be that in 1969 the US needed a boost. Vietnam was going horribly wrong, the Cold War was in full swing, and Russia had won the races to get the first satellite and man in space. Given how ass-backwards e.g. video/film cameras were back then, how much of an incredible achievement was it to get men in a spaceship to the moon and back safely? And who was in any position to refute the claim?

 

I don't really believe the hoax theory but I'd put it as way more plausible than: crop circles created by aliens, Nessie, the Yeti, Bigfoot, ghosts, magic, fortune tellers, the Bermuda Triangle, Area 51 having an alien space ship and Liverpool coming back to win from 3-0 down in a European Cup final v. Milan

[Gunjaman5000 32]

Now, I usually regard the conspiracy theorists that deny the moon landings with the same contempt as flat-earthers or creationists, but having watched Big Pat present The Sky at Night the other day (purely for research purposes, y'unnerstan') I can see their point to an extent. Those shots of Armstrong and Aldrin embarking on what must surely rank as the greatest expedition since the days of Magellan were, quite frankly, sh*t. You'd have thought someone would have packed a better movie camera, Cassavetes was filming his 'hand-held' movies that looked better on a thousandth of the budget that NASA had available.

 

I doubt the landing was framed cause' for what reason?

 

A reason could be that in 1969 the US needed a boost. Vietnam was going horribly wrong, the Cold War was in full swing, and Russia had won the races to get the first satellite and man in space. Given how ass-backwards e.g. video/film cameras were back then, how much of an incredible achievement was it to get men in a spaceship to the moon and back safely? And who was in any position to refute the claim?

 

I don't really believe the hoax theory but I'd put it as way more plausible than: crop circles created by aliens, Nessie, the Yeti, Bigfoot, ghosts, magic, fortune tellers, the Bermuda Triangle, Area 51 having an alien space ship and Liverpool coming back to win from 3-0 down in a European Cup final v. Milan

A couple of things here may need clarification;

Given how ass-backwards e.g. video/film cameras were back then

Film cameras haven't changed much in the last 50 years or so, one would assume a battery powered electric camera was used given the crank-handle would be difficult to operate wearing gloves, and;

Cassavetes was filming his 'hand-held' movies that looked better on a thousandth of the budget that NASA had available.

I'm unsure what the light/lighting conditions would be like on the moon, I'm willing to guess the Astronauts of the day, who were test pilots incidentally as opposed to the scientists of today, couldn't light the moon and make it look good to save themselves.

 

I agree with Ronnie though, the hoax is too elaborate to be a fake.

[Anubis the Jackal 77]

Before you all go thinking that I've joined the tinfoil hat brigade, let me make it clear that I'm sure man did walk on the moon in 1969, it's just that the films were appalingly bad. Carry on...

[Guest Sam Russell]

Before you all go thinking that I've joined the tinfoil hat brigade, let me make it clear that I'm sure man did walk on the moon in 1969, it's just that the films were appalingly bad. Carry on...

Whilst the footage may not be to your tastes, Mr Jackal, I would politely suggest that you and the members of your forum visit my site for a fuller description of how we shot the lunar footage, and an explanation of why some of the footage (from the early missions) was poor and some (from later Apollo missions) was rather good.

 

The footage may be "appalingly bad" by modern standards but, bearing in mind the technical difficulties encountered, the hand of luck intervening occasionally for better or worse, and the relatively low level of available technology back then, it was quite some feat to record any moving images at all.

 

There will always be sceptics who claim we faked the footage; that's something I've had to live with along with everyone else involved with Apollo but let me assure you, the footage is real and we spent many hours, days and months trying to record those missions as clearly as possible, so that the rest of the world could share in this massive achievement, which was undertaken not just for the glory of the United States and NASA, but for all mankind.

 

Best Regards,

Sam Russell

[Anubis the Jackal 77]

Fascinating stuff, Mr Russell, and as I say, I do not doubt the veracity of the lunar missions, or the footage thereof. However, the difference in quality between the 1969 and 1971 missions is marked, so maybe an expert such as yourself can explain (to someone who is not doubting the moon landings ) why the footage of the Apollo 11 mission was so poor?

[Guest Sam Russell]

Fascinating stuff, Mr Russell, and as I say, I do not doubt the veracity of the lunar missions, or the footage thereof. However, the difference in quality between the 1969 and 1971 missions is marked, so maybe an expert such as yourself can explain (to someone who is not doubting the moon landings ) why the footage of the Apollo 11 mission was so poor?

Yes, I can explain that for you. It's essentially very simple (by today's digital standards, it sounds farcical), but I'll explain it in some detail for you.

 

The images broadcast to the public were actually not the raw footage that was being taken; the camera on the Apollo lander recorded images in a format different to the NTSC format used by the US television broadcasters, so the images that were broadcast from the moon to tracking stations in California (Goldstone) and Australia (Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek) would not have shown up as anything other than interference on a standard television set.

What you saw on your TV screen were actually recordings taken by pointing a TV camera at the small monitors in the tracking stations (the tracking station used depended on the time of the broadcast, due to the Earth's position relative to the moon). The original images were pretty sharp, but if you've ever tried to record images from your TV screen on even a modern camcorder, you'll know that the degradation of the image is pretty severe when you play it back. Rewind to 1969 technology, and you magnify the problem greatly.

This image was then relayed to Houston, and on to the rest of the world in NTSC format.

So, that is the reason why the images were so "ghostly" or grainy; they were a crude "copy" of the originals. In hindsight, many people think that it may have been a blessing in disguise, giving the images a truly "other-worldy" appearance; you are obviously not a member of that camp. I too would have loved it if we could have shown the world the raw footage as it was seen in the tracking stations.

 

As you might expect, by the time we got to Apollo 14 in 1971, the pressure to show better footage had resulted in the development of better technology; in particular, the downlink to the tracking stations was put through a converter which was capable of handling the transposition to broadcast-format TV images, which is why the later missions are recorded so splendidly.

 

The bad news for you, Mr. Jackal is that, although the original Apollo 11 footage was recorded on 14" magnetic tapes, nobody knows where it is. This seems like massive oversight, I know, but over the years NASA have recorded a lot of footage, all of which has been stored, moved, stored again at various facilities (most notably the National Records Center in Suitland, Maryland); the Apollo 11 footage seems to have been mislaid, and so we're left with just the grainy images from the original conversion for TV broadcast. One day the tapes might turn up, and we'll all have our prayers answered and be able to watch that historic footage in it's full glory. Keep your fingers crossed!

 

I hope that's answered your question.

 

Thanks for your interest,

Sam Russell.

[Banshees Scream 110]

The bad news for you, Mr. Jackal is that, although the original Apollo 11 footage was recorded on 14" magnetic tapes, nobody knows where it is. This seems like massive oversight, I know, but over the years NASA have recorded a lot of footage, all of which has been stored, moved, stored again at various facilities (most notably the National Records Center in Suitland, Maryland); the Apollo 11 footage seems to have been mislaid, and so we're left with just the grainy images from the original conversion for TV broadcast. One day the tapes might turn up, and we'll all have our prayers answered and be able to watch that historic footage in it's full glory. Keep your fingers crossed!

 

Mr.Russel, with most respect I have to say NASA must be very unorganized to lose or in so many words 'misplace' original film of such a very stellar moment in American history. It reminds me of the bottom half of that great painting by Da vinci 'Mona Lisa' it was stolen and never recovered. My question for you is how much would the original tapes be worth approximately?

[Anubis the Jackal 77]

Excellent. The answer in a nutshell. I'll bear it in mind next time they are broadcast. Not so sure about the Mona Lisa though, but lets not get all Dan Brown here please.

[Banshees Scream 110]

Excellent. The answer in a nutshell. I'll bear it in mind next time they are broadcast. Not so sure about the Mona Lisa though, but lets not get all Dan Brown here please.

 

The bottom of the painting had been trimmed early in the nineteenth century, those pieces alone could be worth a heavy wallet if ever recovered which I doubt. I don't believe in Dan Brown or any code at all, it is just common speculation that makes a lot of money among the public. I'm sure everybody saw the movie accept me. I couldn't be bothered to waste my time or life.

 

At least Nostradamus spelled Hisler.

[Anubis the Jackal 77]

(atj walks blindly into mantrap...)

 

 

 

But surely it was the sides of the Mona Lisa that were meant to be missing? (and I didn't watch that godawful film either.)

 

 

 

 

 

(atj picks up cheese from middle of mantrap and furtively sidles off, nibbling)

[Banshees Scream 110]

No more talk about Da Vinchi.

 

End of conversation. Compare with American Idol, I refuse to watch it - Because I won't give it ratings.

[honez 79]

I don't believe in Dan Brown

Neither do I. But I do like to think Father Christmas might be real.

[CarolAnn 926]

Excellent. The answer in a nutshell. I'll bear it in mind next time they are broadcast. Not so sure about the Mona Lisa though, but lets not get all Dan Brown here please.

 

The bottom of the painting had been trimmed early in the nineteenth century, those pieces alone could be worth a heavy wallet if ever recovered which I doubt. I don't believe in Dan Brown or any code at all, it is just common speculation that makes a lot of money among the public. I'm sure everybody saw the movie accept me. I couldn't be bothered to waste my time or life.

 

At least Nostradamus spelled Hisler.

 

He actually spelled "Hister," which is the historical name for the Lower Danube.

[Monoclinic 39]

(atj walks blindly into mantrap...)

 

 

 

But surely it was the sides of the Mona Lisa that were meant to be missing? (and I didn't watch that godawful film either.)

 

 

 

 

 

(atj picks up cheese from middle of mantrap and furtively sidles off, nibbling)

 

and thanks to that God awful film I can't get tickets to see the Last Supper in Milan next weekend. Grrrr.