Moon landings---a partial 'hoax'?

[Elihu]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-0 ... -horseshit

[KUAN]

.
was going to the moon risky?

if it failed would it be talked about in polite circles for long time?

ipso facto; manage risk

[0_0]

I thought this was really interesting:



For some reason he begins with some of the more farfetched stuff, so don't immediately switch it off, it gets better along the way. Or maybe it's just his hypnotic voice..

[82_28]

The Apollo 11 guidance computer code is now available on Github

http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/9/121362 ... ode-github

https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11

I have read through a bit of it and it is kinda interesting. Don't know what most of it means.

[seemslikeadream]

I thought this was really interesting:



For some reason he begins with some of the more farfetched stuff, so don't immediately switch it off, it gets better along the way. Or maybe it's just his hypnotic voice..

yea I like it and I have never seen the Shining...now I want to

[82_28]

Dude! You've never seen The Shining? Inexcusable. I might just torrent that tonight.

Back to the computer instructions or links to I posted above. Like a Civil War re-enactment battle someone should seriously look into utilizing them again with period spacecraft and nothing else to go on. I find that a fun idea.

[RocketMan]

This is one weird Buzz Aldrin riff. "We didn't go there" is pretty clear, tho...

[chump]

https://youtu.be/Y4UP6nRMuGs

-

The Stanley Kubrick Conspiracy - Part !: Tales From A Paper Moon

Science fiction’s portrayal of covered-up or faked space missions dates back many decades. In the February 1955 issue of “Galaxy Science Fiction” magazine, author James Gunn published a story entitled “The Cave of Night”. The story deals with a manned mission to Mars which goes awry, stranding an astronaut with no hope of rescue. The climax of the story is shocking, utilising the notion of fakery to portray an erroneous perception of the outcome of the mission. http://tangentonline.com/old-time-radio ... e-of-night

The plot of the 1969 movie “Marooned” also involved a manned mission to the Moon going wrong - failure of a re-entry rocket leaves the occupants of the lunar capsule stranded in space. Although there is no cover-up inherent to the plot, the original script called for the “suggestion” that a story would be created to perpetuate the notion of a heroic attempt to rescue the astronauts, should they have perished. The film received full support from NASA, including the use of Cape Kennedy for interior and exterior location filming.

“Capricorn One” (1978) went much further than “Marooned”, featuring a plot that utilised Hollywood trickery and gimmicks to fake the first manned space flight to Mars. In the film, the astronaut crew are removed from their rocket and driven to a film set in the desert to record fake footage of their planetary touchdown. Bizarrely, this film also received full support from NASA – which is strange given how NASA has generally avoided supporting Hollywood productions that cast the agency (or fictional agencies with a resemblance to NASA) in an unflattering light (see: NASA’s refusal to support Spielberg’s “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”). The film was directed by Peter Hyams, who would go on to helm “2010: The Year We Make Contact” (the sequel to Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey”) six years later. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capricorn_One

 
The film “Sneakers” also featured a character (played by Dan Aykroyd) who mentions the Apollo cover-up - including "this LTX71 cancellable mike is part of the same system NASA used when they faked the Apollo moon landings." http://www.groundzeromedia.org/the-shad ... ks-legacy/


More recently, the film “Apollo 18” used the ‘lost footage’ plot device (popularised by films like “The Blair Witch Project”) to posit the notion that NASA carried out secret manned missions to the Moon. In this case, the “Apollo 18” mission (involving NASA astronauts landing on the Moon in 1974) was covered-up following the discovery of an extra-terrestrial insect-like organism on the Moon – an organism that subsequently kills the “Apollo 18” astronauts. Interestingly, the film shows the astronauts discovering a dead cosmonaut (along with a Soviet landing module) on the lunar surface – suggesting that, like NASA, the Soviets were also conducting clandestine missions and cover-ups. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_18_(film)

The reality of this latter concept has been studied by a number of researchers and is known as the “Lost Cosmonaut” paradigm. Whilst the evidence of Soviet space cover-ups isn’t as obvious as that of NASA, at least one account has been evidentially verified. Valentin Bondarenko was a would-be cosmonaut whose death during training was covered-up for decades by the Soviet government. http://www.jamesoberg.com/usd10.html

In 1960, the science fiction author Robert Heinlein wrote an article for Pravda describing how (whilst in the Vilnius region of Soviet-occupied Lithuania, May 15, 1960) he was told a Red Army cadet that the USSR had launched a man into orbit that day. The account was denied by officials later the same day. Heinlein elaborated on the story in a speech he gave at the XIXth World Science Fiction Convention Seattle in 1961.

“A Russian cosmonaut is circling the Earth!’ All the other cadets nodded agreement to everything he said and sometimes added details. I congratulated them on their country’s wonderful scientific achievement--with a frozen smile and a sick feeling in my stomach. We talked a bit more about it, then they went on up the hill and we went down. That afternoon, we tried very hard to buy a copy of Pravda. None were available anywhere… We did listen to the Voice of Moscow--Mrs Heinlein told me that it did report the rocket--but just as one of the Sputnik, no mention of a passenger. That evening our guide joined us to go to the ballet--and she immediately told us that the cadet had been mistaken; it was not a rocket ship with a man in it--just a dummy. The cadet had misunderstood. Well, perhaps so… but, if so, then all those dozen or more cadets were mistaken exactly the same way.” http://web.archive.org/web/200905220837 ... ah1961.htm

Another science fiction luminary and who has expressed views about the Apollo cover-up is Canadian novelist Margaret Atwood. Atwood authored the dystopian novel “The Handmaid's Tale” – a story that addressed such concepts as population reduction, female fertility and ecological disaster. In a 2009 interview, Atwood questioned the technology of the 1960s, why man hasn't landed on the Moon again, and mentioned the shadow discrepancies as well as the radiation belts.http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... ding-hoax/

Perhaps the most unusual (non-science fiction) movie to allude to the Apollo cover-up is the James Bond film “Diamonds Are Forever” (1971). “While investigating multimillionaire recluse Willard Whyte's Tectronics Space Centre outside Las Vegas in the Nevada desert, his cover blown, James Bond (Sean Connery) finds it necessary to make a hasty exit. Finding himself in an artificial moonscape complete with trainee astronauts, Bond dashes for a nearby Moon Buggy vehicle and crashes out of the centre and into one of the 007 films' most famous chase scenes.” http://www.007magazine.co.uk/moonbuggy/moon_buggy.htm

Although I am slightly digressing for a moment, it is worth noting the larger esoteric significance of James Bond. Bond’s creator Ian Flemming has a documented connection with the British Intelligence Community, which in turn has connections with the occult - remember that the occult also appears to have been prevalent in agencies like NASA. Bond’s roots lie with John Dee - a sixteenth century mathematician, astronomer and navigator. Dee was an imperialist and devoted consort of Queen Elizabeth I. He was a student of philosophy, alchemy, divination, the occult and an associated freemason. He was also instrumental in the then-version of what we would now call MI5 and his code-name was 007! John Dee was Ian Fleming’s inspiration for James Bond. http://www.examiner.com/article/john-dee-007

Many of the designs on “Diamonds Are Forever” were conceptualised by Oscar-winning Production Designer Ken Adam. Adam was born into a German Jewish family that fled the Nazi Regime in 1934 to settle in England. Adam was a close friend of the legendary filmmaker Stanley Kubrick and worked on many of his films (he famously designed the “War Room” set featured in “Dr Strangelove”), with one notable exception: “2001: A Space Odyssey”. Adam once described how he was asked by Kubrick to join the production of the film. “I found out that he had been working with experts from NASA for a year on space exploration and all that sort of thing. And the moment I saw that, I thought, not for me. Because I could only function properly with this very powerful computer-like brain of Stanley by knowing as much visually about the subject matter as he did, because then I could justify departing from the visual reality that he knows.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film ... d-War.html

Kubrick is often cited as the likeliest candidate to have filmed fake footage of the Apollo 11 Moon landing. Some researchers have suggested that a deal was struck between Kubrick and certain agenda players sometime in the mid/late 1960s. It is known that the production history of “2001: A Space Odyssey” overlapped the era of NASA’s Apollo program and that NASA collaborated extensively with the film’s production team. The film was released in 1968, over a year before the Apollo 11 mission. The film’s narrative also featured a cover-up (a story is perpetuated about the spread of a fictitious virus, prompting a quarantine of a lunar base) to hide the discovery of an extra-terrestrial artefact – the Tycho Monolith – on the Moon, and a subsequent mission to the planet Jupiter with a “secret” agenda.

In 1997, a number of “Apollo Hoax” researchers appeared as guests on Jon Ronson’s Channel 4 discussion show “For the Love of Lunar Conspiracies”. The show was one of a series that “examined” subjects often attributed to the hidden-global-agenda players. The guests on this episode were David Percy, Mary Bennett, Barry Reynolds, Matthew Williams, Andy Thomas and Marcus Allen. The guests predominantly discussed the then-prevailing evidence of a cover-up. At one point, Percy discussed the scene in the Bond film “Diamonds Are Forever”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75I_6uPtZCg

Percy: “It’s a James Bond movie and people say ‘what’s that scene doing in there!?’ He walks into this lab and they’re going to the Moon and he says, ‘I’ve come to inspect your radiation shields!’ The next thing he does, he walks out of the lab into a Moon set with astronauts poncing around and phoney backgrounds to it…”

Bennett: “…And a studio above it”

Percy: “That’s right. A complete studio… (Inaudible) he’s being chased out of the set. So you have a connection in a James Bond movie of a lunar set and a statement just prior to it: ‘I’ve come to inspect your radiation shield!’ Isn’t that interesting?”

Ronson: “And these movies were made for a purpose then?”

Bennett: “Well the… certainly all movies are made for a purpose. One is to entertain; two is to make money… or possibly the other way around. One is the product of the other.”

Ronson: “Or are they also made for a slightly more sinister purpose?”

Bennett: “I don’t think James Bond is made for a sinister purpose. I think we have a, erm… possibly… there’s a zeitgeist in artists that they’re going to pick up the general energy of what’s going on and scriptwriters who are very close to the edge of things are going to incorporate it in all work, as anybody does – a painter, writer, whatever. They’re caring about things and, as you know, in repressive societies you can get a lot said in fiction or in entertainment that you can’t actually say straight out. And just because America is not labelled a communist society, it doesn’t mean to say that it’s a democracy either.”

Percy: “But, in some cases, you can have a situation where things are done to confuse…”

The conversation quickly turns into a discussion of Hollywood’s perception management of the ET/UFO subject and no further mention of the lunar fakery subject in movies is made.  It is interesting that there is no mention made of Stanley Kubrick throughout the discussion. Given the nature of the subject, I am surprised his name wasn’t mentioned at least once. It is possible that Kubrick’s possible involvement was discussed, but never made the final edit. Alternative knowledge researchers who have participated in “conspiracy hit-pieces” for the mainstream media have regularly described how they have been, on occasion, interviewed for several hours - with only a few minutes of the interview footage ultimately being used in the final edit.

However, Jon Ronson is a life-long fan of Kubrick; he has written numerous pieces about the filmmaker. He even conducted an interview with Kubrick’s widow, Christiane, for an article published in The Guardian newspaper in 2010.

“After Stanley Kubrick” by Jon Ronson (Guardian.co.uk – Wed 18 Aug 2010) http://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/au ... christiane

Interestingly, researcher and host of the popular “Richplanet TV” show, Richard D. Hall, has alleged that Ronson may be connected to, or an asset of, the British intelligence establishment. Here is a quote from his article “MI5 Exposed”:

“Ronson is another close associate of John Lundberg who runs Jon Ronson’s website. Ronson is the author of ‘The Men Who Stare at Goats’ and producer of many UK television programmes which have essentially debunked people like David Icke and Alex Jones. If there is going to be a mainstream documentary about an “alternative view”, it is often given to Ronson because he’ll make sure that truth and objectivity are the last things on the agenda. His recent book ‘The Men Who Stare at Goats’ is quoted by Colonel John Alexander, who the book is about, as being ‘based on about 5% reality and 95% hokum’, yet this hokum was made into a Hollywood film which therefore makes the film another piece of disinformation. Ronson’s close association with John Lundberg, along with the complete lack of truth seeking in both his writing and programme making makes us believe that Ronson is part of the MI5 psy-ops operation.” http://www.richplanet.net/detail.php?dbindex=209


It is possible that the reason why Kubrick’s alleged connection with the Apollo Hoax wasn’t discussed in Ronson’s show was because there was next to no awareness of the possibility in 1997. Whilst researching the “Kubrick connection”, I have attempted to identify who originated the story and when it first became publicly known. This has been incredibly difficult. I have watched, listened to and read as much material relating to Kubrick as I can lay my hands on. Although Kubrick’s knowledge of esoteric, alchemical and occult subjects (and the allusions, made to these subjects, in his films) has been examined for several decades, there appears to be no mention of Kubrick in relation to the Apollo cover-up prior to the mid/late 1990s… at least as far as I am currently aware of. It is possible that Percy, Bennett, et al, were unaware of the connection in 1997.

In Part 2, I will examine the origins of the Kubrick / Apollo Hoax paradigm...
Stay tuned folks!


http://thetruthseekersguide.blogspot.co ... art-1.html

http://thetruthseekersguide.blogspot.co ... art-2.html

http://thetruthseekersguide.blogspot.co ... art-3.html

http://thetruthseekersguide.blogspot.co ... art-4.html

http://thetruthseekersguide.blogspot.co ... art-5.html

http://thetruthseekersguide.blogspot.co ... art-6.html

http://thetruthseekersguide.blogspot.co ... art-7.html

http://thetruthseekersguide.blogspot.co ... art-8.html


[…]

comments:

[…]

aferrismoon said...

Coincidentally The Moon Launch occurred on July 16th '69 while Kubrick's last film ' Eyes Wide Shut' was released on July 16th, 1999, the same day John F. Kennedy,jr fell from the sky to his death, He being the son of the president who famously stated that the US would reach the moon by the end of that decade.

cheers

[…]

[Wombaticus Rex]

It is possible that the reason why Kubrick’s alleged connection with the Apollo Hoax wasn’t discussed in Ronson’s show was because there was next to no awareness of the possibility in 1997.

It is equally possible that the author has missed The Entire Point of Jon Ronson's Career.

[stickdog99]

Recently, I have been reading about the terrible problem of killer lunar dust that any future manned missions to the Moon must critically. carefully, and strategically account for. This lunar dust supposedly accounts for why China's Yutu rover was stopped dead in its tracks after just one day of lunar exploration.

The funny thing is that I don't remember anyone mentioning the incredible problem of killer Moon dust until at least 30 years after six manned Apollo missions to the Moon ended.

Here is a scientific article that does its best to explain away this strange paradox: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2830#bib23

...

A precursor to a second paradigm shift was May 2016 announced revision of Chang'e-4 scientific priorities. Using Kuhn terminology of scientific progress, a second shift would follow our “revolution” in 2015 that sunrise-driven dust storms caused the 2014 ″crisis” of immobilisation of Chang'e-3 lunar rover Yutu. No such sequence occurred previously with lunar dust. Measurement-based evidence from Apollo 11 to Chang'e-3 confirms that Apollo dust is the major surface problem for risk management plans of lunar expeditions.

...

The last man on Moon, Gene Cernan, reported “we can overcome other physiological or physical or mechanical problems except dust”. Dust adhered ‘to everything, no matter what kind of material” with “restrictive, friction-like action” (Cernan, 1973).

Full stop. Am I missing something, or would this supposed 1973 assessment count as an important firsthand scientific observation concerning the future feasibility of human survival on the Moon? Note that I cannot find a single mention of "overcome other physiological or physical or mechanical problems except dust" on the interwebs before 2005: google search

Starting in 2005, the intense problem of killer moon dust appears to have somehow appeared on the internet's radar. Since then, popsci publications have even treated us to the cool story of the astronaut who was allergic to killer lunar dust, and whose kevlar suit was almost destroyed by this toxic killer dust! All of these more recent articles make it seem as if we have known about and appreciated the incredible scope of this problem all along!

Yet here is a scientific paper subcontracted by NASA to explore the potential problem of lunar dust in 1991: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi ... 002733.pdf

While the above document recognizes the potential problems of lunar dust on photovoltaic arrays and radiators, it concludes that almost of the dust that accumulates is a result of human activity. There is absolutely no mention of the supposed Apollo original dust detector results in this article, and the observations of the Apollo astronauts of the dust they encountered while hitting golf balls and doing donuts with the Lunar Rover are summarized thusly:

"After only hours on the lunar surface, the Apollo astronauts
observed that lunar dust was the source of certain aggravating
operational problems. They reported that it had die capacity
to get everywhere. The O-ring seals of their suit gloves and
helmets became bogged down with dust, and dust interfered
with their mechanical pulleys and zippers (Apollo 12 Technical
Crew Debriefings, 1969). During the rover operations, cameras
became obscured, and rover batteries and radiators had to be
brushed clean at every stop (Morris, 1973). A color contrast
chart was dropped and rendered useless, because lunar dust
simply does not wipe off readily. For the Apollo Program,
lunar dust problems were troublesome but tolerable, and did
not severely jeopardize mission objectives."

Moving back to the explanation proffered in 2018 for how lunar scientists somehow managed to completely ignore the killer dust ramifications of the Apollo data and the deadly personal experiences of their own astronauts for nearly 40 years (written by the same scientist who proposed the initial Apollo dust measuring experiments no less): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2830#bib23

During the 1960s science fiction images of spacecraft sinking majestically out of sight in deep dust captured populist attention. Consequently, the single issue of structure-bearing strengths of the dust surface became priority for Apollo engineers whose top priority had to be the life-or-death safety of each astronaut. This single issue was resolved in 1964 when Ranger 7 photographs in 1964 showed “a big rock sitting calmly on the surface and not sinking out of sight. So thus anybody in his right mind would conclude that the bearing strength of the lunar surface was not an issue” (Hinners, 2010). Although narrowly-based, this culture of dismissal of the importance of lunar surface dust was applied generally before Apollo 11 and persisted at least until 2010 (Hinners, 2010).

DAP 2010 (O'Brien, 2011) drew attention to how, with the single 1969–1970 exception made about Apollo 11 by O'Brien et al. (1970) differing from Bates et al. (1969), scientists had not challenged the 1964 Apollo culture of dismissal. The culture was further tolerated by omitting for 40 years references to published Apollo discoveries which challenged it. Neither the Apollo 11 controversy involving the Apollo 11 DDE nor the discovery by Tommy Gold of strong cohesive forces in photograph Apollo Image AS14-77-10367 from the Thermal Degradation Samples (TDS) experiment (Gold, 1971) was referenced in review literature of lunar dust (Colwell et al., 2007) until DAP 2010 (O'Brien, 2011). Consequently debates about lunar dust were not informed.

...

The Kuhn Cycle in the field of movements (or transport) of Apollo dust before the Apollo 11 mission, was populated only by “pre-Science”. The overheating (Harris, 1972) and failure of the first scientific observatory put by a human on another cosmic body, EASEP supporting the Apollo 11 Passive Seismometer, by dust mobilised by Apollo LM rocket-exhaust effects (O'Brien et al., 1970), is operationally “pre-Science”, It proved to be not sufficient to constitute a “Model Crisis” (Fig. 1) and did not change the culture established by Ranger photos of rocks in 1964 (Hinners, 2010). One reason is that (i) while the historic NASA Preliminary Science Review contained a report (Bates et al., 1969) claiming that no significant degradation by dust occurred, (ii) a correcting report (O'Brien et al., 1970) could not be agreed among the same 3 co-authors and published until October 1970, after Apollo 12 and 13 and a month before Apollo 14. O'Brien was and is listed as a co-author of (Bates et al., 1969) without his agreement or knowledge before publication.

The adverse experiences of Apollo astronauts with dust over 3 years and 5 missions ending with Cernan's summary (Cernan, 1973) further proved the unacceptability of vast systematic flaws in the 1964 model of “dismissal” (Hinners, 2010). Even such expert test-pilot evidence consistently endorsed over 5 missions before Apollo 17 could not sufficiently constitute a “Model Crisis” which might lead to a paradigm change and an active interest in managing the movements of fine dust before Cernan summaries (Cernan, 1973).

Again, the complete dismissal of the seemingly important firsthand Cernan summaries is a complete mystery to me. As far as i can tell, this critically important firsthand debriefing is cited in no scientific literature before 2010: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=e ... 22++&btnG=

We show here the early major reasons for including the entire Apollo program within the Kuhn category of Pre-science. Degradation effects caused by Apollo 11 Lunar Module ascent on 21 July 1969 were measured by the DDE. The official report in the Apollo 11 Preliminary Science Report (PSR) (Bates et al., 1969) was that “a preliminary analysis (showed) no appreciable cell degradation caused by dust or debris from the LM (Lunar Module) ascent.” ...

The Apollo culture of dismissal was also unmoved by debriefing reports of each Apollo astronaut about major operational dust problems that decreased their efficiencies and time available for work (Cernan, 1973). Nor did many continuing problems of overheated experiments and dust-related failures (Gaier, 2005) result in significant changes in culture, so that no Apollo dust measurements were made on Apollo 16 and 17.

Such historic details are given here because of the imminent 50th year celebration of Apollo 11 and because they picture the 1964 culture of Pre-science and reluctance to admit a crisis. Widespread very strong emotional reactions understandably resisted possible criticisms of the outstanding successes of Apollo 11, shown by the TV revelation by Buzz Aldrin more than 30 years after Apollo 11 relating that Armstrong and Aldrin “decided (during LM ascent) it wasn't necessary to inform the public immediately” that the flag had blown over during LM ascent (Aldrin, 2012). O'Brien's Progress Report to Harry Messel in mid-August 1969 of dust contamination similarly recommended no media coverage. Messel agreed, both unknowingly consistent with the astronaut judgements. There was no Australian media coverage about Apollo 11 dust contamination effects until December 1969. However, here in February 2018 the global community is preparing to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the historic Apollo 11 landing on Moon. To our knowledge no other publication of analyses of these tranches with written provenance of authentic collective history of this major factor of Apollo 11 exists.

We will show in Section 2.2 that the net result of the half-century of qualitative and quantitative evidence to date supports a paradigm change from dismissal to top priority for the importance of fine dust, as reported by the change in priority of Chang'e-4 reported by Zou et al. (2016). We caution that by 1 February 2018 no authoritative endorsement of the 2016 reported change is presently known to us.

What is so weird about O'Brien's claim above is that pop-sci culture already made a clear paradigm shift to intense concern about killer Moon dust way back in 2005.

There was even New Yorker article all about it in 2013: https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-o ... -moon-dust

Popular Mechanics wanted to make 100% sure that you knew that NASA knew all about this critical problem in 2009: https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/ ... 4/4216322/

And WIRED wanted to make sure that we were all are wired to acknowledge this intractably insidious and potentially deadly upcoming problem as "old news" way back in 2005: https://www.wired.com/2005/04/what-a-li ... st-can-do/

[stickdog99]

Does this really sound defensible for a organization that actually wanted to learn everything possible about the Moon it visited six separate times? One small step for man, a lot of otherwise unattainable data left rotting in individuals' attics for mankind.

https://www.nature.com/news/2009/090424 ... 9.397.html

...

In 2006, O'Brien learned from a friend that NASA had lost its original data tapes of his dust-detection experiments. "So I telephoned [NASA curation scientist] Dave Williams," he says, who confirmed it.

O'Brien, now an independent environmental consultant in Perth, Western Australia, then dug up his own copies of the 7-track magnetic tapes, which NASA had sent him following the Apollo missions. As NASA's 7-track tape reader broke down a few years ago, O'Brien is working with data-storage firm SpectrumData, based in Perth, to extract the tape data. Fortunately, he printed some 100 pages of data when he first received the tapes, so was able to carry out a preliminary analysis. His findings will be published in a May issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

...

Metzger says that a recent look at pieces of the unmanned Surveyor 3 probe, which was near Apollo 12 's landing site, showed similarly "clumpy" soil scouring. Given that recent finding, Metzger says, "it makes sense why Brian has such dramatically different results on the solar cells."

...

"Astronaut suits sitting in storage for close to 40 years are still black from dust," says Mihály Horányi, a physicist at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

I mean, what? Spend billions to send a select handful pf people to the Moon. But do not quarantine, clean, scientifically analyze, or even collect for auction the precious Moon material they bring back on their suits?

Curators at The National Space Science Data Center at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, began seeking orphan data sets from the Apollo programme not long after the latest Moon missions were announced some 3 years ago, says David Williams, the curation scientist who O'Brien contacted in 2006. Normally the centre handles routine data handovers from NASA-supported investigators, he says.

"Back in the Apollo era there wasn't any such systematic agreement," Williams says, and although many investigators did share their data, others never got around to it, and NASA had no formal policy to request it. Data from later Apollo experiments was less likely to reach NASA, he says, "especially because Apollo was cut off fairly quickly".

Williams's office continues to receive boxes of tapes from Apollo scientists, such as a set of heat-flow experiment tapes recently found at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York. The data formats vary widely and often arrive with little explanation, he adds, and it can be "a bit like detective work" finding people who can help interpret it. "Of course, we want to do this before everyone retires or worse," Williams says.

Once the data is read — a process that has involved mailing tapes to a Canadian company since NASA's reader broke down — Williams and his colleagues add it to a publicly available Internet database. "I think a lot of people want to look at the raw data to get a chance to come to their own conclusions," he says.

Wow! So now we actually want to collect an analyze some of the data that the Apollo missions collected 40 years after the fact?

[chump]

*Fascinating stories of how Stanley Kubrick could’ve directed the entire production:

https://youtu.be/h_COQbeaCCE
“Make the big lie, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”
- Adolph Hitler -

https://youtu.be/beh-UqTvNXU

“It is fact. It is fiction. It’s mixed together. It’s hard to separate them until you examine it closely”
- Marcus Allen, photographer and image expert.

^Several scenes from C Everard's "Secret Space" possibly showing the actual models used to simulate the mainstream moon landing.^

——————

https://youtu.be/yo5w0pm24ic

What Happened On the Moon? - Analysis of the Lunar Photography

*via my faavorite aangiry faanatic

[Monk]

[Belligerent Savant]

^^^^^^^

this guy claims there was no slow motion tech in 1969...
The final scene of Bonnie and Clyde was in slow motion, filmed in 1967. That's not the earliest example, of course.

We'd be remiss without also pointing out that tech available to a given industry does not = tech available to Intel agencies.

Just cuz Hollywood didn't have the means -- if indeed it was the case they didn't -- doesnt mean there weren't means to achieve it.

Also, did he mention the below?

Because NASA's equipment was not compatible with TV technology of the day, the original transmissions had to be displayed on a monitor and re-shot by a TV camera for broadcast.


Copyright 2006 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Original Article CNN News: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/0...eut/index.html

[The original article is no longer available, fyi]

[Iamwhomiam]

People hear, but do not listen. Thank you monk. His sign-off had just the right touche.