PDA

View Full Version : Now i want clarity! (Apollo moonlandings fake or 100 procent real)



Denis12
2006-Jan-31, 08:33 PM
All the stories that the apollo moonlandings are fake or not fake but real,are giving most people here and elsewhere a feeling of great confusion ,and it hurts me that there is still no clarity about this. And the stories about that the apollomissions are fake still continue,through the confusion still continues. I and millions of people in the United states and in the rest of the world wants to know 1 thing. Is it fake or real! If somebody knows the truth? Please tell me this. What do you think? Denis.

Swift
2006-Jan-31, 08:37 PM
I can only speak for myself, but I think there are very few people on this forum who are confused and the vast majority know that the landings were real.

Are there specific things that confuse you?

ToSeek
2006-Jan-31, 08:44 PM
There are only a handful of public figures who think that the Moon landings were faked, but they are very visible, and the people who believe them flock to this forum since we are a bastion of debunkery on that score.

The best place for achieving clarity in this area is JayUtah's website, Clavius (http://www.clavius.org), which demolishes just about every Moon I've seen.

AstroSmurf
2006-Jan-31, 08:47 PM
The best place for achieving clarity in this area is JayUtah's website, Clavius, which demolishes just about every Moon I've seen.

Except one, surely?

Laser Jock
2006-Jan-31, 08:50 PM
The best place for achieving clarity in this area is JayUtah's website, Clavius (http://www.clavius.org), which demolishes just about every Moon I've seen.

WOW!! Can it destroy a planet too? :D

JayUtah
2006-Jan-31, 09:54 PM
...which demolishes just about every Moon I've seen.

Wow, must be one of those order-of-magnitude errors.

Seriously though, there's no general confusion. That's not to say that there aren't confused people out there, but this is not one of those questions where people in the know simply aren't sure what to think. It's one of those questions where the facts, logic, and expertise lie wholly on one side of the question, and a very small cadre of profiteers is trying to stir up just enough confusion among the lay public in order to sell their books and videos.

I cover most of the specific questions on my website. And I hang out here to answer any others that come up, that fall within my knowledge. I'm an engineer and a photographer. I've worked in aerospace. I've studied the Apollo claims closely and the conspiracy theorist claims closely, and so far the facts clearly point to Apollo being authentic.

sts60
2006-Jan-31, 10:30 PM
All the stories that the apollo moonlandings are fake or not fake but real,are giving most people here and elsewhere a feeling of great confusion ,

Denis, "most people" aren't confused; most people understand Apollo hoax claims are baloney.

and it hurts me that there is still no clarity about this.

There's perfect clarity about this. On the one hand you have historical and scientific fact; on the other hand you have ignorance, pseudoscience, fraud, and the worst panderings of mass media to the gullible and scientifically ignorant.

And the stories about that the apollomissions are fake still continue,through the confusion still continues.

So do stories that the Holocaust never happened, or that the 9/11/01 attacks were staged by the U.S. government. Pernicious fairy tales such as these will always be with us. That does not lend them credibility.

I and millions of people in the United states and in the rest of the world wants to know 1 thing. Is it fake or real! If somebody knows the truth? Please tell me this.

Yes, Apollo was real. If you doubt the history books, there is a truly staggering amount of documentary, physical, and scientific evidence, not to mention the direct personal experience of tens of thousands of people who worked on the program.

What do you think?

I think that you should read Jay's Clavius (http://www.clavius.org) site, for a start.

Nicolas
2006-Jan-31, 10:33 PM
If anything, this hoax confusion is a good illustration to show that it would be at least possible that the Viking voyages to North America were forgotten/ became myths after a while, certainly by those who did not really fancy the Vikings. I'm not trying to start a historical debate on the correctness of these claims, it just occured to me that Apollo illustrates that an obvious truth can become dismissed as a legend or a tale rather quickly. In case of Apollo the amount of people believing the claims are real are luckily a majority. Many of us lived to see the events live; the moon landings are relatively fresh events.

My own opinion? Those missions are as real as they can be. They fit perfectly into space exploration as we know it, every aspect is correct without moving beyond rigid laws of physics. Many details of the missions can be checked and verified, and everything is correct. In order to pull off such a hoax, only pressing the "launch" button stops you from actually performing the misions as well. You can come up with great lies, but the more complex the situation gets, the more details need to be correct. IN case of Apollo, so many details are correct that doing it would be less difficult than faking it - you've got all of the details but none of the coverup of THOUSANDS of people. It may sound unbelievable, but the only true fantastic claim here is that indeed mankind was smart and crazy enough to shoot people towards the moon and shoot them back a short time after arrival, yes even taking a buggy along to go do some driving around. All those people in need of great stories should hold on that one, they're holding on to the truth in the process.

Sites like BAdAStronomy and Clavius are very good. Even Richard Hoaglands moon hoax debunking site is excellent upto the point where he starts seeing huge structures in JPG artifacts as usual :).

Denis12
2006-Jan-31, 11:26 PM
And what do i think about the apollomissions to the moon? I am lucky that i belong to the majority who believe that the moonlandings are real. But the hoaxbelievers will still exist in the future. Denis.

Nicolas
2006-Jan-31, 11:37 PM
They will. But if we keep as much knowledge and evidence as possible, the truth will stay around. Certainly when permanent or very frequent manned moon travels become reality in a relatively near future, the truth of the Apollo voyages will be considered as real as the voyages of Columbus. A start of the era kind of thing. Only, if we wait like 400 years beofre going back to the moon, chances are people will no longer believe those primitive millennium men could pull that trick and might consider it a legend or story.

JayUtah
2006-Jan-31, 11:40 PM
The emerging consensus seems to be that conspiracism will always exist because it represents a certain philosophy, epistemology, and approach to cognition that appears endemic to human nature.

jt-3d
2006-Feb-01, 02:22 AM
In other words, it's anti-establishment, unique and cool to believe in conspiracies. It's mundane, herd following and old fashioned to believe that any given conspiracy doesn't exist.

(Not that I really understood what Jay said. That's just my 2)

Faultline
2006-Feb-01, 02:24 AM
100 percent real, and only unclear to those who listen to an overly suspicious booksales monger and media hound with a pension for bad arguments and worse misconceptions.

count zer0
2006-Feb-01, 02:26 AM
In other words, it's anti-establishment, unique and cool to believe in conspiracies. It's mundane, herd following and old fashioned to believe that any given conspiracy doesn't exist.

(Not that I really understood what Jay said. That's just my 2)


Yeah that is what the people who set up conspiracy want you to
believe.

For the record the moon landings are 100% real. It is stupid theories
like this that make real conspiracies like 9/11 seem insane.

Peter B
2006-Feb-01, 02:44 AM
Count zer0 said:
For the record the moon landings are 100% real. It is stupid theories like this that make real conspiracies like 9/11 seem insane.

That makes you a fairly unusual person. It's been my experience, and the experience of a number of people on this forum, that people rarely believe only a limited number of conspiracy theories. They usually either believe all of them or none of them.

count zer0
2006-Feb-01, 03:25 AM
Count zer0 said:

That makes you a fairly unusual person. It's been my experience, and the experience of a number of people on this forum, that people rarely believe only a limited number of conspiracy theories. They usually either believe all of them or none of them.

I am not a conspiracy theorist. Except in the case of 911.
JFK was almost certainly killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, although
some of the surrounding information is suspicious.
There are no aliens abducting people and sticking things up their bum.
However, 911 is a fraud, when you look at the big picture, how their
are questions about everything that took place, it just doesn't seem
right. The day it happened, I was sick. I said, "This was a military operation"
I didn't immediately target the US military but in my mind there was no way a group of terrorists pulled that off. I let the whole issue go however, until a few weeks ago, when I happened upon a video entitled "Loose Change" Looking at the evidence there I decided to investigate and reach my own conclusions. The conclusion I have reached is that 9-11 is bravo sierra.

Cl1mh4224rd
2006-Feb-01, 03:27 AM
I am not a conspiracy theorist. Except in the case of 911.
JFK was almost certainly killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, although
some of the surrounding information is suspicious.
There are no aliens abducting people and sticking things up their bum.
However, 911 is a fraud ...
Yeah, umm... keep it in the proper thread(s), please.

peter eldergill
2006-Feb-01, 03:34 AM
I am not a conspiracy theorist. Except in the case of 911.
JFK was almost certainly killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, although
some of the surrounding information is suspicious.
There are no aliens abducting people and sticking things up their bum.
However, 911 is a fraud, when you look at the big picture, how their
are questions about everything that took place, it just doesn't seem
right. The day it happened, I was sick. I said, "This was a military operation"
I didn't immediately target the US military but in my mind there was no way a group of terrorists pulled that off. I let the whole issue go however, until a few weeks ago, when I happened upon a video entitled "Loose Change" Looking at the evidence there I decided to investigate and reach my own conclusions. The conclusion I have reached is that 9-11 is bravo sierra.


Isn't there already someone on the board with the username Countzero?

Just curious as to why you would pick an almost identical name to someone else here.

Pete

count zer0
2006-Feb-01, 04:33 AM
Isn't there already someone on the board with the username Countzero?

Just curious as to why you would pick an almost identical name to someone else here.

Pete
I have been using the monkier count zero on the net since the early
nineties. I don't care if other people on internet bbs use the same name,
it is my net name and I am sticking to it. It is a very popular book and therefore
the name is up for grabs. Why should I change it when I am so used to it and so darn fond of it?

Count Zero
2006-Feb-01, 04:57 AM
I have been using the monkier count zero on the net since the early
nineties. I don't care if other people on internet bbs use the same name,
it is my net name and I am sticking to it. It is a very popular book and therefore
the name is up for grabs. Why should I change it when I am so used to it and so darn fond of it?
Because it might be polite to chose to avoid confusion, that's why.

Mind you, I certainly can't fault you for your imaculately good taste in choosing it as a net name. :D But it is a choice and I'm sure that, if left unchanged, it will cause confusion.

How 'bout Count 0, Count Zero Interrupt, or even Bobby Newmark?

Thanks in advance,
Rick

count zer0
2006-Feb-01, 05:16 AM
Because it might be polite to chose to avoid confusion, that's why.

Mind you, I certainly can't fault you for your imaculately good taste in choosing it as a net name. :D But it is a choice and I'm sure that, if left unchanged, it will cause confusion.

How 'bout Count 0, Count Zero Interrupt, or even Bobby Newmark?

Thanks in advance,
Rick
Can't change it now, but how about I sign my posts Bobby?
BTW good choice, great author. Like to have a general chatter
discussion about how great Pattern Recognition was.

The Supreme Canuck
2006-Feb-01, 06:37 AM
If you ask the admin, I think they can change your name.

Count Zero
2006-Feb-01, 07:29 AM
Can't change it now, but how about I sign my posts Bobby?
You sign 'em Bobby, & I'll sign 'em Rick until the mods make the change. That'll work!


BTW good choice, great author. Like to have a general chatter discussion about how great Pattern Recognition was.

Good call. You can start a general William Gibson thread over at the "Small Media at Large" section. Then we can exchange reasons why we picked the nick. :) Last one I read was All Tomorrow's Parties.

czero
2006-Feb-01, 07:33 AM
You sign 'em Bobby, & I'll sign 'em Rick until the mods make the change. That'll work!



Good call. You can start a general William Gibson thread over at the "Small Media at Large" section. Then we can exchange reasons why we picked the nick. :) Last one I read was All Tomorrow's Parties.
Aw man, you have to read pattern recognition! It is excellent, although
much more grounded than the earlier cyber punk stuff. Also get your hands
on China Meiville's stuff if you can. It is excellent. Although I would like to discuss with you here I have already been banned once. Damn my big mouth!

Wolverine
2006-Feb-01, 07:42 AM
czero is count zer0, attempting to return under another name after the suspension of their primary account.

10. Sock Puppetry

Users are allowed only one account per person. Don't attempt to register a second or third forum username so you can have different personalities and have conversations with yourself. Sock puppets will not be tolerated. All such accounts (including the primary one) will be banned without warning.

15. Repeat/Chronic Offenders

Be warned: If you are banned and try to get back in by spoofing or changing your email, appropriate action will be taken -- not limited to but including contacting your ISP.

Given the blatant disregard for our forum guidelines, count zer0's temporary suspension has become permanent.

Count Zero
2006-Feb-01, 07:43 AM
Although I would like to discuss with you here I have already been banned once. Damn my big mouth!

Well, suspended for 24 hours. Yeah, politness is very, very important around here. Our good-natured back & forth to resolve this is a fine example of how to do things right.

Rick

Count Zero
2006-Feb-01, 07:48 AM
*Sigh* Oh well. I will go ahead and read Pattern Recognition.

We now return to our thread, already in progress.

*
*
*
Yes Denis, there were Moon Landings, and I was lucky enough to watch the first one lift off with my own eyes.

The one-and-only Count Zero,
Rick

Hans
2006-Feb-01, 08:08 AM
Just a comment on a statement above - as an illustration of how odd ideas can come about.

"If anything, this hoax confusion is a good illustration to show that it would be at least possible that the Viking voyages to North America were forgotten/ became myths after a while, certainly by those who did not really fancy the Vikings."

Before the Viking landing site at L'anse Meadow was found the debate over the reality of the Sagas was impressive, long and sometimes "terse". However once the site report and a few notables had been taken thru the evidence at the village. Acceptance of a Viking colony in Newfoundland was world wide...almost. One of the Professors who had fought against the idea of the Vikings reaching North America came out with a counter theory. That American Indians had gone to Greenland and Iceland and brought the artifacts back to Newfoundland plus a new way of living that LOOKED like Vikings but wasn't.......

Sigma_Orionis
2006-Feb-01, 01:14 PM
My opinion:

The Apollo project was NOT faked, it was real and IMHO a landmark not only in what they accomplished but in HOW it was acomplished.

People like Jay and Phil, sts60 (and whole lot who will have to excuse me for not remembering their nicks off-hand so I will label them as PANs :D ) have over and over again given excellent arguments backed with extremely compelling evidence to whatever "anomalies" HB have put forth.

THe HBs I have seen here OTOH put forth arguments that could be considered impressive at first look but that cannot withstand the simplest of scrutinies not to mention that are backed with evidence which at best is very questionable. And time and time again have shown to be either put forth because of a political agenda or at best practices that (if I attempt to even describe it properly I am going to get banned immediately :) so I'll just aproximate) are in my opinion extremely questionable.

Although the following is not a deciding factor, it's worthy of mention that when confronted with the arguments and evidence PANs show, HBs usually (not always though) retort to personal attacks and behavior inappropiate to any sort of discussion (except for the ones that end in a fight). This behaviour appears to be common for almost all HBs although some PANs have done it as well (and the moderators have shown to do their best efforts to be fair, to the point of banning people they agree with if they have transgressed the forum rules, I have witnessed myself plenty of times)

As mentioned plenty of times, one of the very desirable side effects of these discussions is that the amount of valuable information released (valuable to me anyways ) about the Apollo proyect, Aerospace Engineering and other disciplines is very much appreciated :)

gwiz
2006-Feb-01, 01:42 PM
The average hoax theory supporter tends to bluster a lot when confronted with questions like "where did the moon rocks come from, then?" and "why didn't the Soviets blow the whistle?" This leads them to start postulating "radiation ovens" (what are those?) to make rocks that geologists say are unfakeable, or in extreme cases claiming that the Soviets went along with it and the whole cold war was also a hoax. This last rather undermines the usual hoax theory starting point that the whole idea was to make the USA look superior to the USSR.

Photon
2006-Feb-04, 11:22 AM
I,m in the same boat as you. Though I certainly do'nt believe it was a hoax or fake as it would be harder to fake it me thinks.
My advice is to do your own research and restrict yourself to independent answers.
The more I study the Apollo missions the less I doubt them.

Duane
2006-Feb-04, 07:14 PM
The more I study the Apollo missions the less I doubt them.

Which is usually the case for those who take the time to actually read about the missions, and critically examine the evidence presented for both sides of the argument. Sibel isn't even the worst of the offenders.

Wolverine
2006-Feb-05, 12:37 AM
Sibel isn't even the worst of the offenders.

And that's one sad commentary.

Jakenorrish
2006-Feb-08, 11:17 AM
I,m in the same boat as you. Though I certainly do'nt believe it was a hoax or fake as it would be harder to fake it me thinks.
My advice is to do your own research and restrict yourself to independent answers.
The more I study the Apollo missions the less I doubt them.

TO anyone who is unsure as to the reality of the Apollo missions, you won't receive better advice than that. Well done Photon.

MAPNUT
2006-Feb-08, 04:29 PM
Let me just add that as someone old enough (54) to have been following the history as it happened, to have watched the step-by-step progress of the space program from rockets to satellites to the primitive Mercury capsules, to Gemini missions, to orbital Apollo missions, to Apollo missions around the moon and back, to a whole series of moon landings, all of them covered exhaustively and watched by an entire nation that was intensely interested, the idea of the key part of it having been faked is so preposterous that I marvel that anyone bothers talking about it. This the first time I've bothered to post on it. Apparently JayUtah is too young to have witnessed it and feels he had to do some research to back up his debunking efforts. I have no such need. It happened, I saw it.

JayUtah
2006-Feb-08, 06:16 PM
Apparently JayUtah is too young to have witnessed it and feels he had to do some research to back up his debunking efforts.

I distinctly remember Apollos 16 and 17. I was too young to appreciate them at the time for the technical accomplishments they were, but I knew exactly what was going on.

The personal perspective is important. The authenticity and validity of the Apollo missions, or of any occurrence, depends much on the gestalt of all the undefinable things that were experienced then but which have been lost to history. The research I do isn't necessarily involved in recovering that, but certainly would be helped by it.

R.A.F.
2006-Feb-08, 06:39 PM
Apparently JayUtah is too young to have witnessed it and feels he had to do some research to back up his debunking efforts. I have no such need. It happened, I saw it.

There will come a time when all those who actually witnessed the Apollo missions as they happened will be dead. While I can understand your convictions (myself being "slightly younger" than you :)), It is very important that these issues do not go unchallenged.

For the sake of future generations who won't have had the "benefit" of being alive during the Apollo missions.

Joff
2006-Feb-08, 06:41 PM
Does the phrase "fake or 100 percent real" give anyone else a sinking feeling? Like if there's one composed or modified photograph that means the whole Apollo programme "must be" fake?

I only ask because of all the weaselly ID arguments I've heard over the last year or so...

MAPNUT
2006-Feb-08, 07:57 PM
There will come a time when all those who actually witnessed the Apollo missions as they happened will be dead. While I can understand your convictions (myself being "slightly younger" than you :)), It is very important that these issues do not go unchallenged.

For the sake of future generations who won't have had the "benefit" of being alive during the Apollo missions.

I sure hope by the time my generation has passed, there will be such accomplishments far surpassing landing on the moon, that there will be no reason to question having landed on the moon. It will be a shame if there aren't.

Of course sending probes to Jupiter, Saturn and Pluto and landing probes on Mars, Venus and a comet are pretty amazing feats, but one can always say those were faked. I wonder, if we sent Bart Sibrel to the moon, made him get out and walk around, and brought him back, would he say that was faked?

sts60
2006-Feb-08, 08:02 PM
I'm up for it, except the "brought him back" part.

Sigma_Orionis
2006-Feb-08, 09:03 PM
Since I consider that Sibrel's reasons to spread this nonsense is to sell his books, I think if it was actually possible to send him to the moon and see by himself the landing sites of the apollo spacecraft, he would say that somehow the evil US goverment tampered with his mind so he would have dellusion of going to the moon.

Evac
2006-Feb-09, 01:30 PM
I think is obvious that in 1 or 2 years when the Japanese send the Selene Project, we'll have clear pictures of the landing bases of the Apollo missions, and even the rovers. I wonder, would the footprints be still there?

Duane
2006-Feb-09, 03:32 PM
I wonder, would the footprints be still there?

Because there is no atmosphere, erosion on the moon is purely the result of impacts, from micrometeors up. This is a very slow process (well, mostly! :surprised ) so the footprints should still be visible a million or so years from now. (Source (http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/home/F_Apollo_11.html), look at the caption under the photograph of the footprint)

R.A.F.
2006-Feb-09, 03:38 PM
Welcome to the board, Evac!

gwiz
2006-Feb-09, 05:04 PM
I wonder, would the footprints be still there?
When the Apollo 12 crew visited the landing site of the Surveyor 3 probe, the prints made when Surveyor 3 bounced a few times during landing were still pretty fresh looking. Admittedly, that was after less than three years, but I wouldn't expect much change even now.

Evac
2006-Feb-09, 06:23 PM
Wow, thanks for the link Duane, I suspected it but.. wow.. now I feel silly just for asking that

MID1
2006-Feb-10, 02:17 AM
Apparently JayUtah is too young to have witnessed it and feels he had to do some research to back up his debunking efforts.

I distinctly remember Apollos 16 and 17. I was too young to appreciate them at the time for the technical accomplishments they were, but I knew exactly what was going on.

The personal perspective is important. The authenticity and validity of the Apollo missions, or of any occurrence, depends much on the gestalt of all the undefinable things that were experienced then but which have been lost to history. The research I do isn't necessarily involved in recovering that, but certainly would be helped by it.


It's sort of tough to to recover that aspect, I think. It's something generated within the individual, and is singular to that person. At the same time , a whole generation may feel some hints of the same things as well, but how do you document what that was like to feel, so that others can understand in concrete fashion? It's easy to describe the technical...we have tens of thousands of pages of mission reports, science reports, mission debriefings, etc. to look at if we are so disposed.

But the gestalt...ah there we have a problem.
I rememeber the technical accomplishments distinctly, as well as the emotional impact, which I still feel. But describing all of the latter, wow, that's something else altogether.

I often suggest watching one of the regular guys who was involved, Gene Kranz, and the way he speaks of this stuff. The emotion in his face when he talks about the people, the things they did, the effort, the dedication...and those tears in his eyes when he thinks back to things like Apollo 13...

That sort of says it all, making an entirely human statement about what Apollo was really all about. You can't fake that sort of thing...just like you couldn't have faked the program.

Kiwi
2006-Feb-10, 10:32 AM
I often suggest watching one of the regular guys who was involved, Gene Kranz, and the way he speaks of this stuff. The emotion in his face when he talks about the people, the things they did, the effort, the dedication...and those tears in his eyes when he thinks back to things like Apollo 13...

That sort of says it all, making an entirely human statement about what Apollo was really all about. You can't fake that sort of thing...just like you couldn't have faked the program.


Yes! Grab the 2-disc DVD of the movie Apollo 13 and watch the wonderful documentary Lost Moon: The Triumph of Apollo 13 on disc 2.

The most memorable and moving part on all two discs, to me, is Gen Kranz speaking about the successful recovery of the crew in chapter 13:
0:52:05 Gene Kranz: "It's again tradition that you wait until the crew gets on the carrier deck, at which time cigars, and the world map lights up. And... Oh sh**! (Pause) It's..." (Kranz goes silent, looks away, and his face quivers. He takes a while to compose himself.) "It was neat."

And he said this 26 years after the event.

Then Ed Harris talks about portraying this moment in the movie, which he did with some wonderful acting.

peteshimmon
2006-Feb-10, 06:58 PM
I'll just add I am old enougth to remember a
full Moon rising from the back garden gate and
realising it was a mysterious place never
reached by humans. Then 10 years later it was!
Those guys made the lives of people my age
a bit of an anti climax:) And a small
incident a few years after the first. My late
father was watching the Saturday afternoon
racing as usual. Then Moon coverage interupted.
He was a bit annoyed. Then he looked at the
clarity of the pictures and said something
about them coming frm a studio. He did not
say much more as I was creased up. I tried to
explain NASA was having a company clean up
the video. So this may be where it all
started, this and Diamonds are Forever. Anyone
remember what that company was? Also I read
that some American viewers were annoyed. So
nothing unusual about my Dad!

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Feb-10, 07:11 PM
Too fuzzy: faked.
Too clear: faked.
http://www.cosgan.de/images/midi/boese/c045.gif
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Gillianren
2006-Feb-10, 07:54 PM
My mother has an atlas that, in its introduction, says a bit rapturously that there are people alive today who lived before man could fly, and maybe one day, they would live to see man land on the moon. Clearly, this atlas is older than I.

She keeps it, for the record, because the state maps are very good, even though quite a lot of the political boundaries in other places are wrong. (It has two Vietnams.)

MID1
2006-Feb-11, 06:51 PM
My late
father was watching the Saturday afternoon
racing as usual. Then Moon coverage interupted.
He was a bit annoyed. Then he looked at the
clarity of the pictures and said something
about them coming frm a studio. He did not
say much more as I was creased up. I tried to
explain NASA was having a company clean up
the video. So this may be where it all
started, this and Diamonds are Forever. Anyone
remember what that company was? Also I read
that some American viewers were annoyed. So
nothing unusual about my Dad!

No, there was nothing unusual about your Dad, rest his soul.

It was, and most certainly is a characteristic of modern man, certainly Americans, to become rapidly jaded and complacent about the extraordinary. This was illustrated early in the lunar exploration days. We tend to over-emphasise and emotionalize over something in extremis initially, and very quickly revert to a "who cares" attitude.

After Apollo 11, and President Nixon's gushing over the crew when they came back ("This is the greatest day in the history of the world since the creation"...wow...), no one really payed much attention. Apollo 12, an extremely successful mission, quickly lost the interest of the American population (and I'm sure the lack of TV from the lunar surface helped with that), and the live feeds provided from the MOCR on 13 weren't even picked up by the networks for the most part.

Of course, throw in an explosion in an oxygen tank and a somewhat perilous situation, and suddenly everyone's back in the fold. But by the J Missions (15-17), which were utterly remarkable, people actually got annoyed I am told at having networks cut in to cover an EVA...perhaps the most phenomenal, interesting, and fantastic things to occur in mankind's history.

This complacency most assuredly contributed to Nixon's desire to cut back and get rid of Apollo pre-maturely, so he could devote resources to what he was really interested in: Viet-Nam, and some sort of space legacy of his own (that being the Shuttle (Apollo was Kennedy's legacy, and he wasn't too keen with that)...which of course did not become his legacy at all).

Your mention of the improved TV quality inspires me to tell you that what you describe was a reflection of something which is common in business circles today--among companies that are truly progressive. Continuous Improvement processes (Kaizen, etc...). This somewhat typical business paradigm, where people accept personal responsibility for their functions, co-exist as equal contributors to the whole, where people can sit around in meetings, check their egos at the door on the way in, tell someone that their idea sucks, make a suggestion as to how to improve on it, and not be chastized for it--was invented in the MOCR during the Apollo planning days by the flight directors and control teams that managed the Apollo missions.

It's just one of many of the benefits of Apollo that most people are not aware of today (It's also one of the reasons that so many of the former Apollo flight controllers actually consult with businesses today on process improvement methods...they pioneeered the idea).

Just like the LMs were continually upgraded and improved, the EMUs were improved and upgraded, and each subsequent mission showed evolution in systems design and reliability in many different areas, so too did the TV transmission quality become continually better as Apollo moved through the J-Missions.

Regards.

peteshimmon
2006-Feb-12, 05:30 PM
I tend to think President Nixon may have
eliminated a disaster for all we know. What
else was there that 6 successful missions
did not find? It just a dusty lava ball after
all. And I am very grateful there are no
bleaching bones to think about while looking
at the Moon. The complicated things nations
did after WW2 gave many things like PERT and
quality. The name Demming comes to mind. But
was it him who thought of this that made me
laugh. A car boss wondered why Japanese
differentials purred while American one
rattled as usual. They were same factory costs.
Then he found the Japanese made a batch of parts
and measured them up carefully. Then they
marshalled them into kits where the parts
fitted together best. Like bespoke suits.
Brillient:)

MID1
2006-Feb-12, 11:09 PM
[QUOTE=peteshimmon]I tend to think President Nixon may have
eliminated a disaster for all we know. What
else was there that 6 successful missions
did not find? It just a dusty lava ball after
all. QUOTE]

__________________________________________________ _________________________________________________
I would say that such thinking is rather pointless. No offense, but to think there would've been a disaster had he not cancelled Apollo is rather negative, and somewhat skewed, especially given the successes that we'd experienced up until that point.

We do not know what else there was to discover, since we did not continue the program to it's planned conclusion. And, it is apparent that you have not investigated any of the voluminous scientific reports that came out of Apollo...else you would not say, "It just a dusty lava ball after all."

That statement is rather telling.

Besides, Nixon did not avert any disaster. Indeed, his cancellation of the program, and his desire to promote his own legacy in space, set the stage for the shift in the paradigm of NASA management that would result in not only the compromise vehicle we call the Shuttle today (a mistake, admitted by the current NASA administrator), but the greatest space disaster in the history of space flight...Challenger, and of course the subsequent destruction of Columbia on what should've been a routine re-entry and landing.


Me thinks you need to re-think your thinking! :naughty: