Print 56 comment(s) - last by FaceMaster.. on Jul 28 at 8:38 PM

Newly restored footage of the Apollo 11 moon landing was released in honor of the fortieth anniversary of mankind's arrival on the moon. The fabeled missing high-quality video tapes are still lost, apparently accidentally deleted.  (Source: NASA TV)
Epic moment for mankind can now be relived in slightly higher resolution

Forty years ago today, on July 21, 1969 humans reached the moon for the first time.  Astronaut Neil Armstrong from the cockpit of NASA's Apollo 11 Lunar Lander leaped into history books with the famous words, "Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed."

The mission was the third to the moon, but the first to land, a significant milestone (Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 had reached Moon orbit).  It would be succeeded by 5 more manned Apollo missions and then decades without manned spaceflight to the celestial body.  In honor of the anniversary, crewmembers aboard the Space Shuttle Endeavour, currently docked with International Space Station, will complete a 6.5 hour spacewalk.

Astronauts Dave Wolf and Tom Marshburn will complete the space walk.  Meanwhile ISS residents Gennady Padalka and Frank DeWinne will enjoy less ceremonious duties -- repairing the Waste Hygiene Compartment toilet in the space station's Destiny laboratory.  An important pump in the toilet failed Sunday.

The Endeavour's launch was delayed several times due to weather.  At last in space, the Shuttle's crew will work to
complete construction of Japan's Kibo space laboratory during the 17 day voyage.

In other Apollo 11 anniversary news, partially restored versions of the compressed signal sent to Mission Control in Houston from three ground receiving stations in California and Australia were released on Friday

The video was not the
fabled "lost" moon tapes some had hoped for -- those tapes of the high quality raw feeded were apparently taped over on accident.  In the 1970s and 1980s NASA had a shortage of tapes due to lack of budget and taped over approximately 200,000 of its tapes -- the high-quality footage was apparently among those lost.  The newly released footage does add more details than the existing videos, such as Neil Armstrong's face visor, too blurry to be seen in the original video.  A reflection can be seen in the visor.

The restoration is costing $230,000 and the released footage represents 40 percent of the final project.  Perhaps to silence would-be moon landing conspiracy theorists,
NASA senior engineer Dick Nafzger, who's in charge of the restoration project remarked, "There's nothing being created; there's nothing being manufactured."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By MrBlastman on 7/20/2009 2:55:05 PM , Rating: 5
Queue comments from the freaks who think the whole Apollo 11 landing was faked.

Yes, they are freaks.

RE: 3...2...1...
By xlmussel on 7/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: 3...2...1...
By Wonga on 7/20/2009 3:09:00 PM , Rating: 5
Sentences start with capital letters.

RE: 3...2...1...
By TSS on 7/20/2009 8:00:28 PM , Rating: 5
Remember kids, Capitalization is the difference between helping your Uncle Jack off a horse, and helping your Uncle jack off a horse.

RE: 3...2...1...
By Visual on 7/21/2009 3:59:12 AM , Rating: 2
Uncle is not a name and should not be capitalized. Nor should "capitalization", except if you were going for the illustrative effect.

RE: 3...2...1...
By bighairycamel on 7/21/2009 2:20:12 PM , Rating: 2

14. Capitalize titles showing family relationships when the title is used with the person’s name or as the person’s name. Do not capitalize family titles when preceded by a article, pronoun, or adjective that modifies it.

Example: We invited Aunt Becky to the party.

My aunt is now living in Phoenix , Arizona .

Mom, where is the peanut butter?

My mom needs to go to the store to buy more peanut butter.

RE: 3...2...1...
By Visual on 7/22/2009 3:16:42 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly what I meant - but I should have specified that I was referring to the second instance of "uncle".

RE: 3...2...1...
By FaceMaster on 7/28/2009 8:38:59 PM , Rating: 2
Uncle is not a name and should not be capitalized. Nor should "capitalization", except if you were going for the illustrative effect.


RE: 3...2...1...
By MrPoletski on 7/21/2009 5:48:50 AM , Rating: 2

RE: 3...2...1...
By CZroe on 7/21/2009 1:28:12 AM , Rating: 2
Not only that but the word "I" is always capitalized be it alone or part of a contraction.

RE: 3...2...1...
By Mojo the Monkey on 7/20/2009 4:34:49 PM , Rating: 3
The video was not the fabled "lost" moon tapes some had hoped for -- those tapes of the high quality raw feeded were apparently taped over on accident. In the 1970s and 1980s NASA had a shortage of tapes due to lack of budget and taped over approximately 200,000 of its tapes -- the high-quality footage was apparently among those lost.

This particular incident fueled the fire for a while. And, to be honest... WTF NASA?!

RE: 3...2...1...
By Lord 666 on 7/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: 3...2...1...
By AnnihilatorX on 7/20/2009 5:03:57 PM , Rating: 2
On the note of silencing conspiracy theories, video footage is not the best device. Scientists routinely uses the reflectors put up during moon landings to perform laser range findings from earth to observe moon earth distances up to millimetre scales.

RE: 3...2...1...
By MrBlastman on 7/20/2009 5:19:20 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely correct - as far as the conspiracy nuts are concerned, I love to see how they try and explain how they got there without humans putting them in place.

RE: 3...2...1...
By Captain Orgazmo on 7/21/2009 5:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
Here's one easy response: it was landed by an unmanned probe, just like the previous unmanned moon landers before Apollo.

However, there are harder things for the loonies to try and refute, and I am convinced that you could probably land some of these fools on the moon, and they would still claim it was all a conspiracy.

People who believe in things that defy all logic (i.e. conspiracy theories, cults, religions, etc.), simply cannot be logically reasoned with.

RE: 3...2...1...
By maven81 on 7/21/2009 6:40:46 PM , Rating: 2
Here's one easy response: it was landed by an unmanned probe, just like the previous unmanned moon landers before Apollo.

But the funny part is, the conspiracy nuts don't realize that this would be MORE complicated to pull off, not less! The lander would have to pick up a couple of rock samples, deposit equipment around the site, set up a reflecting mirror pointing at earth etc. And it would have to do this without any support from the ground, because any transmissions telling it where to drive and what to do would be picked up by the Russians.
This would require a level of AI far more advanced then anything that could be done in 1969. Even today's mars rovers aren't quite that capable.

RE: 3...2...1...
By Fritzr on 7/22/2009 3:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
The conspiracy nuts don't mind a challenge. All the junk that can be seen from orbit was scattered by the lander that placed the reflector.

Tire tracks? Those aren't tire tracks! They are scrapes in the dust from thrown rocks/unexplained phenomena/meteor strikes etc.

Footprints? Since men have not been to the moon there can be no footprints. Therefore those marks that look like footprints are natural formations and we may someday understand how they were made.

Remote control is possible. Moon side broadcasts only when North America is visible using directional beam. All transmissions are encrypted. The Soviets kept mum on intercepts they got to protect their spy network. Records of those intercepts that might have been found after the fall of the USSR were lost/destroyed/filed and still unnoticed.

As for the rock samples. Either a probe fired off a rocket to return samples to Earth or the so-called Moon Rocks are all fakes. By supllying both these as possibilities you can hand the second to folks not willing to believe that a lander could launch a rocket from the moon and give the first to those willing to believe the Moon Rocks are strange enough to be from space. They could also be explained away by declaring that they are samples of meteorites.

Hand a conspiracy nut an anomaly and you just give them a chance to add to the details of how it was all faked :)

You can be sure that if a regular tourist site is set up on the moon that allows people to visit and see the Apollo landing sites in person, that the conspiracy nuts will provide "evidence" that the scene being viewed was created by the Lunar Tourist Board and had nothing to do with NASA :P

My favorite so far, seen in a YouTube comment, is that a lens flash (light reflection on the camera lens) is clear evidence of the strings holding the marionettes :)

That same nut also stated that the depth of scene in the pictures is due to the use of a dirigible (think Zeppelin) hangar. How they managed to create a vacuam in a building of that size is left to the imagination :D

RE: 3...2...1...
By TETRONG on 7/21/2009 10:05:21 AM , Rating: 2
The theory is not that we never went to the moon, it's just that the A11 landing was faked to discourage the Ruskies.

RE: 3...2...1...
By borowki2 on 7/20/2009 7:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
It is fake! I know it is so since the pictures that took of the earth from the moon shows the earth as a sphere, which is simply another lie that they've been trying convince us of. I know it is not true since my own grandfather died when his U-boot fell off the edge of the earth.

RE: 3...2...1...
By mmntech on 7/20/2009 9:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
I remember the story of the reporter who said it was faked right to Buzz Aldrin's face. He got a broken nose as a result. Gotta love Buzz.

The Moon landing still stands as man's greatest achievement, to step on an alien world. It was never just an achievement by the United States. The whole world landed on the Moon that day 40 years ago.

RE: 3...2...1...
By Gul Westfale on 7/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: 3...2...1...
By TETRONG on 7/21/2009 10:24:08 AM , Rating: 1
That reporter wasn't a reporter. He was film-maker Bart Sibrel asking a valid question.

Why were actors on an elaborate soundstage at Northrop Grumman pretending to be on the moon?

RE: 3...2...1...
By maven81 on 7/21/2009 11:49:39 AM , Rating: 2
Tell you what... prove to me that you're not just a figment of my imagination. Or a bot.
The only proof I have that you exist are a few words on my computer monitor. That doesn't mean anything! I've never met you, and even if I had how would I know that it wasn't a dream? So by your logic you don't exist.

RE: 3...2...1...
By MrBlastman on 7/21/2009 12:29:27 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think he can prove it because people as looney as him who think the moon landing was faked must be a figment of our imagination. I just can't see people like that really existing.

RE: 3...2...1...
By callmeroy on 7/21/2009 12:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
Conspiracy is such an easy thing to start, so that's why its started --- anything can be a conspiracy....just pick something you don't like, or something you find personally dumb and make up crap about it then spread the word...boom conspiracy is born.

Sometimes it turns out to be true, but I'd say maybe 1 out of every 1000 conspiracy theories are real.

Folks want to believe that they can't be duped, that they are the one person (or group of persons) who can say "you can't fool me" --- so that's why they hold onto conspiracy theories so tightly....because they are too insecure otherwise.

Everyone with some rational thought and a touch of maturity and integrity would be fine with just admitting if they were wrong about something, so there's no need to invent conspiracy theories out of non-sense.

More to the point surrounding the moon landing theories --- first the best presentation of debunking all the stated reasons conspiracy hounds have of it being faked was a special episode of MythBusters. I'm sure if one searched the net they could probably some how track down the episode and probably even buy it on DVD or something.

I saw it last year -- they went through every conspiracy issue on why the moon landing was fake and analyzed it and picked it apart with actual scientiests, experiments, models, computer animations, physics, etc. It was very interesting --- everything from "why did the flag look like it was fluttering in the wind?" to "on the real moon the light wouldn't have cast that way on the astronaunts"...and all things in between.

The conclusion by the whole Mythbuster team and the scientists was the conspiracy theorists on the moon landing being fake are basically insane nut jobs and don't know what they are talking about.

The moon landing isn't the biggest theory I get upset about though --- I can't believe some folks still deny the holocaust ever happened....that one really throws me a curve ball of logic.

Considering my grandfather served in WWI and WWII and stood at the camps and saw with his own two eyes...

RE: 3...2...1...
By delphinus100 on 7/25/2009 8:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
"The moon landing isn't the biggest theory I get upset about though --- I can't believe some folks still deny the holocaust ever happened....that one really throws me a curve ball of logic.

Considering my grandfather served in WWI and WWII and stood at the camps and saw with his own two eyes..."

The more time elapses between the present and the last Moon landing (December 1972), the easier it is for people to believe it never happened at all (Indeed, I've heart basically; "If we really did it before, why can't we do it again?" Basic reason: Money. Pure and simple.). But sooner or later, someone will indeed return to the Moon, though the next one may or may not be an employee of the US Government.

We can only hope that there's never a recurrence of something like the Holocaust, to prove that human beings are indeed capable of that kind of killing on that kind of scale...

But my favorite two counter-arguments to the Moon-hoaxers are:

1. The Soviets/Russians. If they could have proven we were faking it, it would've been the greatest propaganda coup of all freaking time. Yet they never so much as hinted that it wasn't so. Are the Conspiracy Theorists to have us believe they have better resources than the KGB? (The only fakery where the Moon is concerned is the Russians pretending disinterest in ever sending a man there, once it was clear to them that the best they could hope for was a fairly distant second. Indeed, in a slightly different universe, they could've at least sent one man around the Moon, as little as two weeks before Apollo 8.) Those who think otherwise, don't remember or don't understand the Cold War.

And yet, I have read claims that the Soviets were in on the deception...right.

2. Apollo 13. Why the hell would we want to fake a failed mission? It only gave more ammunition tho those who want to a: Send only machines, or b: Cut space spending in general. If the crew had died, I must think the CTs would claim they're still alive and hiding on the same island as Hitler, Elvis Presley, John Kennedy and Tupac Shakur...

RE: 3...2...1...
By ggordonliddy on 7/20/09, Rating: -1
RE: 3...2...1...
By MrPoletski on 7/21/2009 6:00:41 AM , Rating: 2
well, (hopefully) before they get started...

There are no stars in the pictures because the cameras did not have the dynamic resolution (the light side of the mono is actually VERY light) to see the bright astronaught and the stars that were tens of thousands of times (probably more) less bright.

The flag appears to flap..ish because there is no air resistnace to its motion, therefore when the pole is wobbled (as they place it in the ground) the flag will wobble too. The flag will move like a piece of chainmail does in air and take some considerable time to slow down to a rest.

The different backdrops seen are because of perspective. all you need to do is walk 10m to the right and you have a different foreground and the same background. You can do this on earth easily enough.

That rock with a stage numbering on it is about as much a stage number reference as the virgin mary is really appearing in mexicans burritos and riasing damp infested cement.

Different height/length/angle shadows are common on uneven surfaces.

umm, cant rememebr the rest..

No the moon isn't made out of cheese, that's why they didn't bring any cheese back?

you forgot to mention the LRO pics
By kattanna on 7/20/2009 3:20:48 PM , Rating: 3
you failed to mention the new LRO pics of the apollo 11 and 14 sites

the apollo 14 site is a much better pic

By ThePooBurner on 7/20/2009 5:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
By marsbound2024 on 7/20/2009 7:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I submitted an article about it on Friday but looks like it fell through the cracks. If they didn't like it, I still think they could have gotten the idea that the subject would've made an interesting news piece. :)

RE: you forgot to mention the LRO pics
By ggordonliddy on 7/20/2009 10:36:49 PM , Rating: 1
It's kind of amusing that the release blurry low-res photos as "definitive proof". If you believe the video is fake, are you really gonna believe a photo that can be easily faked and in which you can't make out details on anything?

By geddarkstorm on 7/21/2009 11:52:52 AM , Rating: 2
The LRO is currently in its elliptical commissioning orbit, which means it ranges from 30 to around 250 some kilometers from the moon. Once it goes into its operational phase next month or September, it'll be at a constant orbit of 50 km above the moon, going pole to pole, and should provide us with much better pictures. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

By TETRONG on 7/21/2009 10:00:28 AM , Rating: 2
You'd have to be exceedingly stupid to accept a digital image from NASA as proof of anything.

Just a thought
By tjr508 on 7/21/2009 1:03:11 AM , Rating: 2
Spending $230k to edit footage may not be likely to silence conspiracy theorists.

RE: Just a thought
By Sazar on 7/21/2009 11:23:16 AM , Rating: 2
Mythbusters already did that honestly.

Their episode on the moon landings debunk all the conspiracy theorist's claims.

$230K Video repair?
By Belard on 7/20/2009 4:03:09 PM , Rating: 2
So... with over 200,000 video tapes, did they actually save money? $230,000 worth?

Perhaps the tapes marked "Eagle Lunar landing" = DON'T ERASE IT!

Plumbing issue - ISS
By Spind on 7/21/2009 3:26:29 AM , Rating: 2
Can Joe the plumber provide better solution to ISS plumbing issue?
Anyone please enlighten me, why plumbing issue does not stop with just houses on earth (everywhere on earth though)?

New footage?
By AnimeRomeo on 7/21/2009 10:16:41 AM , Rating: 2
Did they finally release the video of them landing on Halo?

Am I missing something...
By inighthawki on 7/20/09, Rating: 0
Why did we go to the moon again?
By deanx0r on 7/20/09, Rating: -1
By ClownPuncher on 7/20/2009 3:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
Loud noises!

RE: Why did we go to the moon again?
By rcc on 7/20/2009 4:10:17 PM , Rating: 5
Because it was there. If you don't understand that answer, I really can't help you.

RE: Why did we go to the moon again?
By deanx0r on 7/20/09, Rating: -1
By JediJeb on 7/20/2009 5:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
The public views this as a huge step for mankind, and granted it was a huge engineering feat, it is in my humble opinion no where as revolutionary as the discovery of vaccine, insulin, or the innovation of plastics or electronics which really saved or made our lives better.

Much of the advancements in the plastics and electronics would still be unheard of without the space program pushing then along. Many of the things we take for granted today woul still be needing funding to get done.

RE: Why did we go to the moon again?
By rcc on 7/20/2009 6:15:19 PM , Rating: 2
Because it was there. The same reason Columbus (and/or the Norse) sailed for the Americas. The same reason that people climb Mt Everest. etc. etc.

The timing was certainly political. The side benefits to technology were/are legion. All of which allows us to rationalize the decision to go. But behind it all, because it was there. And I, for one, am ok with that. It's the attitude that gets mankind it's advances in most areas.

RE: Why did we go to the moon again?
By Fritzr on 7/22/2009 4:47:06 PM , Rating: 2
The reason was political not financial.

In 1917 The Russian Revolution deposed the Tsar and established a democratic government.
Later that year the Bolshevik revolutionary movement took over the country (in the official history they threw out the Tsar and the 6 months or so of democracy never happened)
For the next 20+ years the USSR maintained the appearance of outstanding progress in science and society. The American Communist Party was quite popular due to this image as were the communist parties in other democracies. That the USSR was hiding their dirty laundry and was using socialist & communist groups abroad for their own ends was not well known till after WWII

In WWII the Germans established the importance of rocket science as a military and scientific priority. Prior to WWII rocketry was a curiosity with no real relevance to mainstream science.

In 1957 The USSR demonstrated the ability to land a payload anywhere in the world by successfully orbiting Sputnik. This was a serious public scare since the race to build a better atomic arsenal and the brand new H-bomb was major news at a time when the public perception was that the Soviets could put an H-bomb on a Sputnik launcher and land it in the US. This idea is now called ICBM. The US at the time was also developing orbital rockets but the one that might have beaten Sputnik to orbit blew up on the pad. Stalin actually had Sputnik launched ahead of schedule to make sure the Americans wouldn't be first to launch an orbiter.

This rocketry competition became a major propaganda tool that was used to show the world how much better the Soviet system was compared to the US. The US invested many millions of dollars in space research in an attempt to at least stay on par with the public appearance of the Soviet program. The Soviets had the advantage since any of their rockets that failed at launch became officially nonexistent. Thus by accepting a higher fatality rate than NASA was allowed and by stealing copies of US military & NASA research as well as having well funded R&D of their own, the Soviets managed a series of widely announced "firsts" in space.

President John F. Kennedy put it all on the line on May 25, 1961 when he told a Joint Session of Congress that the US was going to put a man on the moon and do it before Jan 1 1970 ("I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."). NASA received massive funding & made the Apollo program their primary focus. Each of the missions leading up to Apollo 11 was a test flight by an "X plane" as they looked for problems and developed solutions. Along the way there was a disaster that was the public relations equivalent of Challenger when the crew of AS 204 died due to fire inside the command capsule. After this disaster the AS 204 mission was designated Apollo 1, and the Apollo designation was retained for all future flights in this series.

AS 204 burned on January 27, 1967. With less than 3 years to go to declare a propaganda victory, 10 more missions were flown including Apollo 11 to complete the testing required and execute a manned lunar landing and return mission. The crew of Apollo 11 made good on JFK's boast and landed safely on July 20 1969. The Soviet space program had been working on a manned lunar lander also, but the program was quietly abandoned with an announcement that the Soviets thought robotic landers were better :)

This mission was a worldwide event. I watched it live on BBC television in Suffolk England. Was late at night, but that was a very popular programme :D

One of the odd bits of trivia is that Eagle had 10 seconds of fuel left after landing. Definitely not something they would have wanted announced at the time :P

The US space program went into the doldrums with the ending of Apollo and is still today looking for a mission that will generate the interest and support enjoyed during the attempt to make good on the martyred president's boast.

People today talk about the Apollo mission as being a landmark event. Forgotten is how important it was at the time to national image and public morale.

RE: Why did we go to the moon again?
By rcc on 7/23/2009 12:48:51 PM , Rating: 2
People today talk about the Apollo mission as being a landmark event. Forgotten is how important it was at the time to national image and public morale.

Not to those of us that were around it's not.

RE: Why did we go to the moon again?
By TSS on 7/20/2009 8:47:20 PM , Rating: 2

Cosmochemist and geochemist Ouyang Ziyuan from the Chinese Academy of Sciences who is now in charge of the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program has already stated on many occasions that one of the main goals of the program would be the mining of helium-3, from which operation "each year three space shuttle missions could bring enough fuel for all human beings across the world."

go read that. if there ever was a business reason to go to the moon, it would be this.

would you rather spend 800 billion trying to get that substance, or 800 billion in pure theft for something that'll shrivel and die anyways a few years later? or would you prefer to become dependant on the chinese for fuel as well as money, since they *are* going to the moon (as are the indians and the japanese).

By MrBungle123 on 7/20/2009 4:24:36 PM , Rating: 4
Why did we go to the moon again? Sure it was quite an accomplishment, but it didn't cure the sick nor feed the hungry.

So we could poke fun at the sick and/or hungry from a much higher vanatge point.

RE: Why did we go to the moon again?
By rosskey711 on 7/20/2009 4:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
We went to see how old the moon was and what the moon rock was made up of and guess what it has tons of tritium in it. Tritium is a huge energy source and buzz aldrin has said commercial mining of the moon will start by 2050.

By rosskey711 on 7/20/2009 4:38:58 PM , Rating: 3
not hydrogen 3 helium 3 my bad go to number 3

By deanx0r on 7/20/2009 4:49:51 PM , Rating: 1
Tritium is a huge energy source and buzz aldrin has said commercial mining of the moon will start by 2050.

Did those same people predict that we will land our first man on Mars by 2020? And why commercial mining by 2050? Is it because by then, we wouldn't care about that prediction or is it because those people would be dead to answer our questions?

Given the current trend on so called green renewable energy sources such as solar or wind, they couldn't be farther away from their vision.

By Bubbacub on 7/20/2009 6:18:59 PM , Rating: 2

this he3 bollocks has got to stop.

you build a working economical fusion reactor first. then you use he3 from the earth (of which their are sources), when these resources are looking like they may run out THEN one option could be to improve space based infrastructure to exploit extra-terrestrial resources (or you decide to use a different fuel - we have more than enough fission based fuels to last hundreds of years). if we have a working mass market fusion reactor infrastructure requiring more he3 than the earth can produce by 2050 then i would be very surprised. ITER is going to be going for some time and it is its yet unspecified and unplanned successor which is meant to be a prototype for a commercial reactor. it is complete BS to suggest that the moon is going to be a viable source of anything other than propaganda for quite some time.

By StevoLincolnite on 7/20/2009 8:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
It's made of Naquadriah, so that the Goa'uld will be able to push the moon slightly out of orbit, blow it up and take the Earth with it!

By rippleyaliens on 7/21/2009 3:26:55 AM , Rating: 1
Same reason we as humans always wish for things beyond our means.. Why not go?? Why not try.. He who doesnt want better, is stuck being the same. Im sure when a new device comes out, and ya WISHED ya had it.. Same thing. We had technology, russians didnt, WHY NOT GO??
Most Sheep say, why did we go??
Most wolves say, i wished i had gone,
Some sheep dogs, say, Glad i went, F-ya...

Same for having a military. why do we need it..
Most sheep say, thank god im not in
Most wolves, say Doh,, here comes those americans
Most sheep dogs, say, Whew.. Glad i could be there, to make some enemies, dream come true.. (to die in glorious battle)...

"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki