John Simkin

Apollo 11 Hoax?

19 posts in this topic

The Guardian published an article today on Apollo 11. Any comments?

The fluttering flag

Claim: The planted US flag waves in the wind, which is impossible without an atmosphere.

Why it's nonsense: The flag doesn't move in any of the videos except when touched by Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin. But then the lack of atmosphere and friction stops it settling quickly, as it would on Earth. "If it moved it would have kept moving. No wind is needed," says Doug Millard at the Science Museum in London.

The shifty shadows

Claim: Pictures show shadows cast by objects on the surface at different angles. There must have been multiple light sources, such as in a TV studio.

Why it's nonsense: A low sun and uneven surface can distort the angles of shadows in images. But if there were multiple light sources, why does each object cast only one shadow? "The moon is an alien place and people who raise these questions simply aren't in a position to comment about what we should expect there," Millard says. "Only 12 guys have been there and know this stuff for real."

The phantom photographers

Claim: Images taken of astronauts arriving on the moon and blasting off again would need someone else there with a camera.

Why it's nonsense: Armstrong's small step was shot by a camera mounted on the outside of the Eagle lander. Still photos of his arrival taken from further away are actually of Aldrin, snapped by Armstrong. Remote cameras left on the moon could easily track departures.

The killer radiation

Claim: Apollo astronauts could not have travelled to the moon as a giant belt of lethal space radiation would have frazzled them.

Why it's nonsense: These so called Van Allen belts, where the Earth's magnetic field collects solar radiation, would be dangerous only if people were to hang out there for several days. The astronauts whizzed through in a matter of hours, and received a radiation dose similar to an X-ray. "You can pass through quite safely as long as you don't linger too long," Millard says.

The missing flame

Claim: There was no exhaust flame from the lunar module when it blasted back off the moon. Therefore, it was a model pulled up on a wire.

Why it's nonsense: The Saturn V rocket burnt liquid oxygen and kerosene on blast-off, which provides a fiery plume. The lunar lander ran on nitrogen tetroxide and Aerozine 50, which doesn't. Its exhaust gases were transparent.

The absent stars

Claim: Space is full of stars, so why do they not appear in photographs taken on the moon?

Why it's nonsense: The astronauts took pictures of brightly lit, shiny white objects. In these conditions, cameras need a fast exposure time and small aperture, making it impossible to capture faint background objects. Guardian photographer Graeme Robertson says: "They would have used a really fast shutter speed so everything in the background would just be black."

The faked footprint

Claim: The famous footprints on the lunar surface needed water to form. Otherwise they would settle out, as they do in dry sand.

Why it's nonsense: Moon dust is a different size and shape from sand and doesn't need moisture to hold a compressed shape. Many powders on Earth can behave in the same way. Walk in spilt talcum powder and see.

The coke bottle

Claim: An Australian lady, known as Una Ronald, claimed to have seen a Coke bottle kicked across the moon during the Apollo 11 landing. It must have been filmed in a studio.

Why it's nonsense: Where to start? Una, if she exists, saw something that the rest of the watching world missed, and of which zero evidence survives. Hardly likely to be the real thing.

The rock prop

Claim: A moon rock photographed on the later Apollo 16's mission is marked with a "C". It's a prop and shows the whole thing was staged.

Why it's nonsense: The C doesn't appear in the original Nasa negatives or prints. Under close magnification, it looks like a hair or fibre that has contaminated a later reproduction.

The Hubble cover-up

Claim: Nasa could end all the moon conspiracy claims by using the Hubble space telescope to take pictures of the equipment left behind.

Why it's nonsense: While Hubble has sent back astonishing images - galaxies, supernovae and nebulae - they are all very, very big. The largest piece of man-made rubbish on the moon is the descent stage of the Eagle lander, about 10m across. That's just too small for Hubble to see.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul...-myths-debunked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Guardian published an article today on Apollo 11. Any comments?
The fluttering flag

Claim: The planted US flag waves in the wind, which is impossible without an atmosphere.

Why it's nonsense: The flag doesn't move in any of the videos except when touched by Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin. But then the lack of atmosphere and friction stops it settling quickly, as it would on Earth. "If it moved it would have kept moving. No wind is needed," says Doug Millard at the Science Museum in London.

Correct. Have a look at the Mythbusters episode where they test this. Also, review the times the flag moves in the Apollo 11 footage. You'll see that it moves only when the flagpole has been twisted into the lunar surface.

The shifty shadows

Claim: Pictures show shadows cast by objects on the surface at different angles. There must have been multiple light sources, such as in a TV studio.

Why it's nonsense: A low sun and uneven surface can distort the angles of shadows in images. But if there were multiple light sources, why does each object cast only one shadow? "The moon is an alien place and people who raise these questions simply aren't in a position to comment about what we should expect there," Millard says. "Only 12 guys have been there and know this stuff for real."

Once again, the Mythbusters show that this is an effect from the terrain. Also see:

http://www.clavius.org/trrnshdow.html

http://www.clavius.org/shad15.html

http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html

The phantom photographers

Claim: Images taken of astronauts arriving on the moon and blasting off again would need someone else there with a camera.

Why it's nonsense: Armstrong's small step was shot by a camera mounted on the outside of the Eagle lander. Still photos of his arrival taken from further away are actually of Aldrin, snapped by Armstrong. Remote cameras left on the moon could easily track departures.

Correct. The camera was mounted on what was called the MESA - the Modularised Equipment Stowage Assembly. You can see it here:

c321b.jpg

ap11-S69-31575.jpg

The missions with the Lunar Rover had a camera on it which could be remotely controlled from Earth, and could film the LM lift-off. These were Apollos 15 to 17. The first two didn't show the lift off very well, because the controller on earth (a guy called Ed Fendell, known as Captain Video) had to try and judge the lag in comms, and estimate how fast the camera needed to be tilted up. He got it right on Apollo 17.

The killer radiation

Claim: Apollo astronauts could not have travelled to the moon as a giant belt of lethal space radiation would have frazzled them.

Why it's nonsense: These so called Van Allen belts, where the Earth's magnetic field collects solar radiation, would be dangerous only if people were to hang out there for several days. The astronauts whizzed through in a matter of hours, and received a radiation dose similar to an X-ray. "You can pass through quite safely as long as you don't linger too long," Millard says.

Correct again. Even Dr James Van Allen - the man who discovered the belts and after whom they are named - disputes this. People also claim that the dosages were hidden, etc. You can hear the astronauts read out their dosimeter reading during the flight; read the air-ground transcript. You can also see the dosages Apollo astronauts received by looking through various post-flight medical reports and debriefings.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11trans.html

raddata.jpg

(more to follow)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The missing flame

Claim: There was no exhaust flame from the lunar module when it blasted back off the moon. Therefore, it was a model pulled up on a wire.

Why it's nonsense: The Saturn V rocket burnt liquid oxygen and kerosene on blast-off, which provides a fiery plume. The lunar lander ran on nitrogen tetroxide and Aerozine 50, which doesn't. Its exhaust gases were transparent.

Yep. These are called hypergolic fuels; they burn on contact with each other. You can see part of the flame, though, on the Apollo 17 LM lift-off video. As the camera nears maximum tilt, you are looking straight up the exhaust nozzle, and you can see the light of the fuels burning.

The absent stars

Claim: Space is full of stars, so why do they not appear in photographs taken on the moon?

Why it's nonsense: The astronauts took pictures of brightly lit, shiny white objects. In these conditions, cameras need a fast exposure time and small aperture, making it impossible to capture faint background objects. Guardian photographer Graeme Robertson says: "They would have used a really fast shutter speed so everything in the background would just be black."

Not quite. Because the sky in the lunar pictures is black, we tend to think it was "dark". Not true; think about it: the Moon was in sunlight, the same sunlight that shines down on the Earth. Because there is no atmosphere on the Moon, the sky appears "dark" but it was as bright as daylight on the Earth. Now the explanation about exposure and aperture and shutter speed makes sense. Can you take a photo during the day on Earth and see stars? Even so, astronauts could move into a shadowed area, let their eyes adjust to the reduced light, and see stars in the sky.

The faked footprint

Claim: The famous footprints on the lunar surface needed water to form. Otherwise they would settle out, as they do in dry sand.

Why it's nonsense: Moon dust is a different size and shape from sand and doesn't need moisture to hold a compressed shape. Many powders on Earth can behave in the same way. Walk in spilt talcum powder and see.

See the Mythbusters ep to demonstrate why this is correct.

The coke bottle

Claim: An Australian lady, known as Una Ronald, claimed to have seen a Coke bottle kicked across the moon during the Apollo 11 landing. It must have been filmed in a studio.

Why it's nonsense: Where to start? Una, if she exists, saw something that the rest of the watching world missed, and of which zero evidence survives. Hardly likely to be the real thing.

Not a good explanation.

Una Ronald claims to have “stayed up late” to watch the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moonwalk when living in or near Perth, Western Australia. She was amazed to see a “coke bottle” kicked across the lunar surface. This object was only seen during the live broadcast and was removed from replays in the days following. She also claims to have seen, about 7 to 10 days later, several letters mentioning the same thing in her local paper (The West Australian).

This claim has many irregularities, and researchers have discovered what might be an explanation. To begin, it is claimed that she “stayed up” to watch the live broadcast. This might have been the case in the United States, but it was not in Perth. The first step onto the Moon occurred at 2.56am on 21 July 1969 – Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). Perth is 8 hours ahead of GMT, so it occurred at 10.56am in Perth. That’s in the morning. The moonwalk video was actually received by ground stations in the eastern states before being transmitted to Perth (see http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/index.html for more details).

The claim regarding the newspaper reports are also incorrect. For at least two weeks following the broadcast, there were no articles or letters regarding sightings of a “coke bottle” in either The West Australian or the Daily News, the only two daily newspapers in Perth at the time. I have personally checked this, and any interested party can examine copies of the various editions of the papers on microfiche at the Batte library (State Reference Library) in Perth.

What Una Ronald probably saw was a reflection of Buzz Aldrin’s visor, reflected inside the television camera lens. This effect is known as catadioptrism, or “ghosting”.

A full explanation, with images from Apollo 11 demonstrating the effect, can be found here:

http://www.clavius.org/cokebottle.html

The rock prop

Claim: A moon rock photographed on the later Apollo 16's mission is marked with a "C". It's a prop and shows the whole thing was staged.

Why it's nonsense: The C doesn't appear in the original Nasa negatives or prints. Under close magnification, it looks like a hair or fibre that has contaminated a later reproduction.

Correct. See here:

http://www.clavius.org/rover1.html

The Hubble cover-up

Claim: Nasa could end all the moon conspiracy claims by using the Hubble space telescope to take pictures of the equipment left behind.

Why it's nonsense: While Hubble has sent back astonishing images - galaxies, supernovae and nebulae - they are all very, very big. The largest piece of man-made rubbish on the moon is the descent stage of the Eagle lander, about 10m across. That's just too small for Hubble to see.

As they said. The smallest detail on the Moon that the Hubble telescope can resolve is about 300 feet wide. The smallest detail in a distant galaxy that the Hubble telescope can resolve is many times larger than our whole solar system, but since galaxies are so large, that amount of detail still makes an interesting picture. Just like you can take a clear snapshot of a distant mountain range showing plenty of detail but a picture of an ant from 10 feet away shows only a little dot with no detail at all. The smallest detail on the distant mountain might be a large tree that barely shows as a small fuzzy dot in the photo, but as a small detail on a mountain it is important and interesting. Still, some orbiting satellites have shown the Apollo 15 site and you can make out the exhaust plume from the liftoff. Future satellites may also show the sites.

To be honest, the best evidence will be when we return to the Moon and show the sites as they are today. Even so, you know that the deniers will claim that either the images are faked or the artifacts found were "planted".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Guardian published an article today on Apollo 11. Any comments?

The fluttering flag

Claim: The planted US flag waves in the wind, which is impossible without an atmosphere.

Why it's nonsense: The flag doesn't move in any of the videos except when touched by Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin. But then the lack of atmosphere and friction stops it settling quickly, as it would on Earth. "If it moved it would have kept moving. No wind is needed," says Doug Millard at the Science Museum in London.

The shifty shadows

Claim: Pictures show shadows cast by objects on the surface at different angles. There must have been multiple light sources, such as in a TV studio.

Why it's nonsense: A low sun and uneven surface can distort the angles of shadows in images. But if there were multiple light sources, why does each object cast only one shadow? "The moon is an alien place and people who raise these questions simply aren't in a position to comment about what we should expect there," Millard says. "Only 12 guys have been there and know this stuff for real."

The phantom photographers

Claim: Images taken of astronauts arriving on the moon and blasting off again would need someone else there with a camera.

Why it's nonsense: Armstrong's small step was shot by a camera mounted on the outside of the Eagle lander. Still photos of his arrival taken from further away are actually of Aldrin, snapped by Armstrong. Remote cameras left on the moon could easily track departures.

The killer radiation

Claim: Apollo astronauts could not have travelled to the moon as a giant belt of lethal space radiation would have frazzled them.

Why it's nonsense: These so called Van Allen belts, where the Earth's magnetic field collects solar radiation, would be dangerous only if people were to hang out there for several days. The astronauts whizzed through in a matter of hours, and received a radiation dose similar to an X-ray. "You can pass through quite safely as long as you don't linger too long," Millard says.

The missing flame

Claim: There was no exhaust flame from the lunar module when it blasted back off the moon. Therefore, it was a model pulled up on a wire.

Why it's nonsense: The Saturn V rocket burnt liquid oxygen and kerosene on blast-off, which provides a fiery plume. The lunar lander ran on nitrogen tetroxide and Aerozine 50, which doesn't. Its exhaust gases were transparent.

The absent stars

Claim: Space is full of stars, so why do they not appear in photographs taken on the moon?

Why it's nonsense: The astronauts took pictures of brightly lit, shiny white objects. In these conditions, cameras need a fast exposure time and small aperture, making it impossible to capture faint background objects. Guardian photographer Graeme Robertson says: "They would have used a really fast shutter speed so everything in the background would just be black."

The faked footprint

Claim: The famous footprints on the lunar surface needed water to form. Otherwise they would settle out, as they do in dry sand.

Why it's nonsense: Moon dust is a different size and shape from sand and doesn't need moisture to hold a compressed shape. Many powders on Earth can behave in the same way. Walk in spilt talcum powder and see.

The coke bottle

Claim: An Australian lady, known as Una Ronald, claimed to have seen a Coke bottle kicked across the moon during the Apollo 11 landing. It must have been filmed in a studio.

Why it's nonsense: Where to start? Una, if she exists, saw something that the rest of the watching world missed, and of which zero evidence survives. Hardly likely to be the real thing.

The rock prop

Claim: A moon rock photographed on the later Apollo 16's mission is marked with a "C". It's a prop and shows the whole thing was staged.

Why it's nonsense: The C doesn't appear in the original Nasa negatives or prints. Under close magnification, it looks like a hair or fibre that has contaminated a later reproduction.

The Hubble cover-up

Claim: Nasa could end all the moon conspiracy claims by using the Hubble space telescope to take pictures of the equipment left behind.

Why it's nonsense: While Hubble has sent back astonishing images - galaxies, supernovae and nebulae - they are all very, very big. The largest piece of man-made rubbish on the moon is the descent stage of the Eagle lander, about 10m across. That's just too small for Hubble to see.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul...-myths-debunked

Thank you John, for your voice of reason on this subject. Did you know who published the very first rendition of this quite preposterous myth about the Apollo 11 Hoax? None other than The Liberty Lobby, in the Spotlight when Mark Lane was their General Counsel. Lane even defended The Liberty Lobby against the lawsuit by Mel Mermelstein. Lane took the side

that The Holocaust never happened and lost of course. Isn't it ironic that there are no such things as Black Klansmen but there seem to be more than a few Jewish Nazis around.

Now who would ever believe that Apollo Hoax or Holocaust Hoax garbage? After all the latter was published and promoted by Regnery Press for decades, and William Regnery started The America First Committee along with Gen. Robert E. Wood, both of whom were expert brain washers and pro-Nazi elements. Wood was also a major shareholder in United Fruit as well. Why would anyone fall for either hoax? They are both such palpable lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, David. Remember the "conversations" between "Bill Miller" and "Larry Peters"?

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The shifty shadows

Claim: Pictures show shadows cast by objects on the surface at different angles. There must have been multiple light sources, such as in a TV studio.

Why it's nonsense: A low sun and uneven surface can distort the angles of shadows in images. But if there were multiple light sources, why does each object cast only one shadow?

The author of this claim is of course our very own Jack White. He has, as far as I know, never addressed this obvious flaw with his theory though he has been asked about on several occasions. He’d much rather insinuate John and Evan are in cahoots (or perhaps even the same person).

The phantom photographers

The Hubble cover-up

Claim: Nasa could end all the moon conspiracy claims by using the Hubble space telescope to take pictures of the equipment left behind.

Why it's nonsense: While Hubble has sent back astonishing images - galaxies, supernovae and nebulae - they are all very, very big. The largest piece of man-made rubbish on the moon is the descent stage of the Eagle lander, about 10m across. That's just too small for Hubble to see.[/color]

The other obvious problem is that even if the Hubble could resolve items left behind by the Apollo missions hoax believers (HB’s) would simply claim the images had been faked. I imagine that if the Chinese produce images of such items from their unmanned moon missions the HB’s will claim they are “in on it” just as the claim the Soviets at the height of the Cold War were “in on it”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul...-myths-debunked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you know who published the very first rendition of this quite preposterous myth about the Apollo 11 Hoax? None other than The Liberty Lobby, in the Spotlight when Mark Lane was their General Counsel. Lane even defended The Liberty Lobby against the lawsuit by Mel Mermelstein. Lane took the side that The Holocaust never happened and lost of course. Isn't it ironic that there are no such things as Black Klansmen but there seem to be more than a few Jewish Nazis around.

Now who would ever believe that Apollo Hoax or Holocaust Hoax garbage? After all the latter was published and promoted by Regnery Press for decades, and William Regnery started The America First Committee along with Gen. Robert E. Wood, both of whom were expert brain washers and pro-Nazi elements. Wood was also a major shareholder in United Fruit as well. Why would anyone fall for either hoax? They are both such palpable lies.

I did not know this. "The Liberty Lobby" appears to be one of those organizations that tend to believe every conspiracy going. There is some evidence that the intelligence agencies are partly responsible for these conspiracies taking hold. The main reason is that it helps to discredit those carrying out research into the real conspiracies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, David. Remember the "conversations" between "Bill Miller" and "Larry Peters"?

Jack

sure do.... Miller resurfaced (yesterday-Thursday) on acj, btw..... no softballs there :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
['Evan Burton' date=Jul 2 2009, 04:27 AM' post='169133]

['John Simkin' post=169125' date='Jul 2 2009, 07:10 PM]

me detects a softball game, here? LMAO!

Right, David. Remember the "conversations" between "Bill Miller" and "Larry Peters"?

Jack

Really?

To my knowledge, John Simkin has never shown a particular interest in Apollo claims, but has always demonstrated an eclectic interest and subsequent reporting.

I, on the other hand, am known for my particular interest and (if I may blow my own horn) expertise in this subject.

So John posts a subject on which I am interested, and I reply.

What a surprise!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The main reason is that it helps to discredit those carrying out research into the real conspiracies.

A conspiracy to discredit conspiracy theorists........ Wow! :)

conspiracy_thinking.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, there is truth in that. There are so many easily disprovable "conspiracy theories" - such as 'the Moon landings were faked' - that is DOES distract from more mundane but very real conspiracies. I would prefer if people with excellent research skills spent their time finding the real coverups - such as pay rorts, expenses, illegal dealings, dodgy contracts, etc - instead of distracting discussion away on fringe stuff. Still, that's just my opinion.

Edited by Evan Burton
spelling correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was in the G2 section of the Guardian yesterday, the whole section was given over to the 40h anniversary of Apollo 11. John was just posting it for general interest. Jack David, if you are able to rebut the substance of this report please do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know what you know? "Everybody knows", or "some people say...", which is it for you?

What I think I know is most often the product resulting from a political process, case in point is the notion that

the Wright Bros. achieved the first powered flight in December, 1903.

I'm a skeptic, especially when it comes to the credibility of the US government. and any of its agencies, in this instance, NASA.... I've studied the story of Gustav Whitehead, aka Weisskopf, and to me it appears quite possible he was "railroaded" by the Smithsonian in collaboration with the Wright Bros.....

Just as Weisskopf was forced to a standard of proof, NASA has to earn its credibility, here are anecdotes from the record:

http://www.historynet.com/gustave-whitehea...ontroversy.htm/

Gustave Whitehead and the First-Flight Controversy

Stanley Yale Beach was the aeronautical editor of Scientific American. A resident of Stratford, he helped finance Whitehead for some time. Beach also designed a Whitehead-built biplane that suffered from a major flaw: its wings were flat, with no curvature, or ‘camber.’ It never flew despite Whitehead’s effort to alleviate Beach’s error by installing a cambered monoplane wing behind the flat surfaces. A few excerpts from Beach’s reports in Scientific American in 1906 and 1908 contradict Orville’s version of Beach’s beliefs about Whitehead.

Beach’s reports referred to powered flights in 1901 by Whitehead in the issues of January 27, November 24 and December 15, 1906, and January 25, 1908. Included were these phrases: ‘Whitehead in 1901 and Wright brothers in 1903 have already flown for short distances with motor-powered aeroplanes,’ ‘Whitehead’s former bat-like machine with which he made a number of flights in 1901,’ ‘A single blurred photograph of a large bird-like machine constructed by Whitehead in 1901 was the only photo of a motor-driven aeroplane in flight.’

The last quote is from a long article by Beach on the first annual exhibit held by the newly formed Aero Club of America at the 69th Regiment Armory in New York City. The report appeared in Scientific American, January 27, 1906. In that issue Beach also wrote, ‘It would seem that aeroplane inventors would show photographs of their machines in flight to at least partially substantiate their claims.’ That barb, according to O’Dwyer, was clearly aimed at the Wrights, who had been invited to show photographic evidence of their December 17, 1903, flight but refused even to attend the exhibit. ‘That famous photo,’ O’Dwyer added, ‘did not surface until 1908.’

Beach’s January 27, 1906, report also noted that’such secrecy [the Wrights'] was in sharp contrast to the ‘free manner’ with which glider pioneer Lilienthal ‘gave the results of his experiments to the world.”

Almost a year later, in his report on the second annual exhibit of the Aero Club of America (Scientific American, December 15, 1906), Beach wrote: ‘The body framework of Gustave Whitehead’s latest bat-like aeroplane was shown mounted on pneumatic tired, ball-bearing wire wheels….Whitehead also exhibited the 2-cylinder steam engine which revolved the road wheels of his former bat machine, with which he made a number of short flights in 1901.’

Why did Beach, an enthusiastic supporter of Whitehead who liberally credited Whitehead’s powered flight successes of 1901, later become a Wright devotee? O’Dwyer offered some intriguing answers, all reflected by his research files, which state that in 1910 Whitehead refused to work any longer on Beach’s flat-winged biplane. Angered, Beach broke with Whitehead and sent a mechanic to Whitehead’s shop in Fairfield to disassemble the plane and take it to Beach’s barn in Stratford. In later years (in O’Dwyer’s words), ‘Beach became a politician, rarely missing an opportunity to mingle with the Wright tide that had turned against Whitehead, notably after Whitehead’s death in 1927.

‘The significance of the foregoing can be appreciated by the fact that Beach’s 1939 statement denouncing Whitehead (almost totally at odds with his earlier writings) was quoted by Orville Wright (as shown earlier). Far more important, however, was the Smithsonian’s use of the Beach statement as a standard and oft-quoted source for answering queries about aviation’s beginnings-because it said that Gustave Whitehead did not fly.’

O’Dwyer also focused his recent reflections on the missing photograph of Whitehead’s Airplane No. 21 in apparent flight in 1901-the blurred picture referred to by Stanley Beach in Scientific American, January 27, 1906.

William J. Hammer, Thomas A. Edison’s chief electrical engineer, was also a renowned aeronautical photographer and a founding member of the Aero Club of America. ‘Hammer,’ O’Dwyer said, ‘reserved an entire wall to show some of his own photographs from a collection (cited by Alexander Graham Bell as ‘the largest collection of aeronautical photos in the world’). It was Hammer’s exclusive wall, with one exception: six Whitehead photos, including four static views of Whitehead’s 1901 monoplane, one of his 1903 engines and the all-important sixth picture-the ‘blurred photograph of a large bird-like machine constructed by Whitehead in 1901…of a motor-driven aeroplane in flight,’ as described by Beach in Scientific American.’...

plan_sidebar.png

http://gustavewhitehead.org/affidavits_-_1934/

The following excerpts are posted in chronological order, oldest first:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1552367.stm

Wednesday, 19 September, 2001, 16:08 GMT 17:08 UK

Lost Moon-landing tape found

By BBC News Online science editor Dr David Whitehouse

A dramatic recording of the first manned landing on the Moon has been rediscovered at Nasa's Johnson Space Center in Texas.

The tape covers the crucial few minutes as the Apollo 11 lander touches down on the surface of the Earth's satellite in July 1969.

The recording is of the flight director, Gene Kranz, and his "white team" of mission controllers. Each member of the team was responsible for one aspect of the landing, such as fuel, altitude, orientation, crew health, etc.

The rescued recording of the perilous descent combines the flight director/controller loop with the astronaut loop. It also covers the decision about whether the astronauts should remain on the Moon following the landing - or immediately lift off.

The impetus to locate the tape came from Kipp Teague, who runs an online resource of data on the Apollo Moon landings....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/aug...ternationalnews

One giant blip for mankind as moon landing tapes are mislaid

Dan Glaister in Los Angeles

The Guardian, Tuesday 15 August 2006

....The grainy television recordings have buoyed the many theories that suggest the moon landings never took place, and were instead a cold war propaganda ploy. Critics point to the lack of stars in the broadcast images of the night sky, as well as the multiple shadows - suggesting, they argue, a second light source, such as a spotlight - and the fluttering of the US flag on the breezeless moon.

"The conspiracy theorists have been with us since day one on this," said a Nasa spokesman. "We hope that when we go back to the moon again they'll finally believe us."

The original tapes of the moon landings were shot from a camera mounted on top of the Eagle lunar lander. These were sent back to three tracking stations, two in Australia and one in California. After being converted to the 60 frames a second used for television broadcast, they were sent by analogue signal to Houston for broadcast, further degrading the image quality.

A year after the landings, the original film was copied on to magnetic tape and delivered to Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Greenbelt, Maryland. All but two of the 700 boxes of magnetic tapes are now missing.

"I would simply like to clarify that the tapes are not lost as such," John Sarkissian of the Parkes Observatory in Australia, who has been involved in the search for the tapes, told the website space.com. "We are confident that they are stored at Goddard ... we just don't know where precisely."

The data evaluation lab at Goddard is the only known place to have the equipment and expertise to play back the tapes, according to Mr Sarkissian, but the lab is scheduled for closure in October. Even if the lab's equipment is saved, the tapes may be of little use. "They are so old and fragile, it's not certain they could even be played," said the Nasa spokesman.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7013002065.html

The Saga Of the Lost Space Tapes

NASA Is Stumped in Search For Videos of 1969 Moonwalk

By Marc Kaufman

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, January 31, 2007; Page C01

As Neil Armstrong prepared to take his "one small step" onto the moon in July 1969, a specially hardened video camera tucked into the lander's door clicked on to capture that first human contact with the lunar surface. The ghostly images of the astronaut's boot touching the soil record what may be the most iconic moment in NASA history, and a major milestone for mankind.

Millions of television viewers around the world saw those fuzzy, moving images and were amazed, even mesmerized. What they didn't know was that the Apollo 11 camera had actually sent back video far crisper and more dramatic -- spectacular images that, remarkably, only a handful of people have ever seen.

(Determined sleuths Richard Nafzger and Stanley Lebar once thought they were close to finding the lost Apollo tapes.)

NASA engineers who did view them knew what the public was missing, but the relatively poor picture quality of the broadcast images never became an issue because the landing was such a triumph. The original, high-quality lunar tapes were soon stored and forgotten.

Only in recent years was the agency reminded of what it once had -- clean and crisp first-man-on-the-moon video images that could be especially valuable now that NASA is planning a return trip....

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/110442...n-landing-tapes

WORLD EXCLUSIVE: NASA FINDS MISSING MOON LANDING TAPES

Sunday June 28 2009 by Ted Jeory

ECSTATIC space officials at Nasa could be about to unveil one of their most stunning discoveries for 40 years — new and amazingly clear footage of the first moon landing.

The release of the new images next month could be one of the most talked about events of the summer.

The television images the world has been used to seeing of the historic moment when Neil Armstrong descended down a ladder onto the moon’s surface in 1969 is grainy, blurry and dark.

The following scenes, in which the astronauts move around the lunar lander, are so murky it is difficult to make out exactly what is going on, causing conspiracy theorists to claim the entire Apollo 11 mission was an elaborate fraud.

However, viewers have only ever seen such poor quality footage because the original analogue tapes containing the pictures beamed direct from the lunar surface were lost almost as soon as they were recorded.

Instead, a poor quality copy made from a 16mm camera pointing at a heavily compressed image on a black and white TV screen has been the only record of the event.

The Sunday Express can now reveal that the missing tapes containing the original high quality images have been found.

If the visual data can be retrieved, Nasa is set to reveal them to the world as a key plank of celebrations to mark the 40th anniversary of the landings next month.....

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastro...eo-tapes-found/

[update 2: According to Bob Jacobs, NASA Deputy Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs, the Sunday Express article I link to below "is a fiction". Sounds to me like I got duped, and I apologize to everyone for forwarding this story. Hopefully more info will come out soon, and I’ll update as I hear it.]

[update: folks at CollectSpace (bottom post on forum page) are saying this article is a hoax. . I have no evidence either way, which is why I wrote this post using the "allegedly" format. Hopefully more evidence one way or another will come out soon.]

On July 20, just weeks from now, it will be the 40th anniversary of the moment a human stepped foot on another world.

You’ve seen the footage: Neil Armstrong in his bulky suit, stepping off the lunar module’s footpad. Ironically, though, for such a momentous occasion, the video looks awful. Noisy, low-res, and washed out. Well, it turns out that’s because this iconic scene, shown millions of times in the ensuing years, is not the original footage. It was actually taken using a 16mm camera aimed at a screen at NASA’s Mission Control room. And the screen was only showing highly compressed data, so the end result is the lousy stuff we’ve grown used to.....

Edited by Tom Scully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom,

I'm off to work but I'll address your points later. The last one from the Express, about the tapes being found, is wrong. There will be an announcement within a couple of weeks saying what has really happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now