|
Post by Obviousman on Jul 27, 2008 6:02:26 GMT -4
For Jay:
I'm back home in Perth for a brief holiday, and so I thought I'd visit the State Library to look back over the Apollo news reports.
I looked at both the WEST AUSTRALIAN and the DAILY NEWS for the period 20-28 JUL 69, and can re-confirm that neither newspaper had any letters which mentioned the "coke bottle" incident. The letters - if they involved Apollo - were generally in praise of the landing, or against it saying how it was a waste of money better spent on Earth.
I can also confirm the broadcast times. Armstrong stepped onto the moon at 1058 Perth time (i.e. the morning) with Aldrin at 1116.
There were repeats throughout the day, starting at 1750 on Channel 7 (40 mins duration), 1830 on Channel 9 (30 mins duration), and 1955 on Channel 2 (145 mins duration). The lunar ascent coverage started at 2105 on Ch 7 (35 mins), with Ch9 doing a "Three Hour Moon Coverage" starting at 2230.
(All times from the final edition of the Daily News, 21 JUL 69, TV schedule, page 6).
There is also a writeup on how the TV pictures reached Perth. I'll post details tomorrow, as I am about to step and get on the wallop with an old mate.
Of interest, The West Australian on 25 JUL 69 had details of a passenger jet flight from Brisbane to Honolulu, which witnessed the re-entry of the Apollo 11 CM. Various passengers saw it.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jul 27, 2008 6:30:02 GMT -4
Obviousman, is there a chance of obtaining copies of the articles? I'll happily reimburse you, or if you like send you the ABC national news broadcast including the two-way link to the Qantas pilot! Send me PM if you like.
cheers Dwight
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jul 27, 2008 11:37:11 GMT -4
Thanks! Between you and several other kind-hearted Aussies, a very credible case can be made that none of the details of the "Una Ronald" stand up against the facts.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 27, 2008 11:53:49 GMT -4
...or against it saying how it was a waste of money better spent on Earth. The money was spent on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jul 27, 2008 13:20:37 GMT -4
I took scans of some of the pages, but the records are on microfilm and the scans are not great quality. As soon as I am back home, though, I will scan the copies I have and make them available.
For 22 JUL 69 (the moonwalk took place 21 JUL in Australia), the WEST AUSTRALIAN (a morning newspaper) gave a number of pages to the moonwalk. "Mans day on the Moon" describing the events of the moonwalk; "$21,000 wager won" describing how Englishman David Threlfall won $21,000 when he bet the moon landing would be accomplished before 1971; A brief column on local TV coverage; "New aims to be set" talking about Nixon considering new space initiatives; "Crowds in city watch moon walk"; "Calling the moon" about the phone call from Nixon; a section on the meals they ate; a story about how Buzz took Communion on the lunar surface; and two articles about the telecast procedure.
(The West Australian, 22 JUL 69, page 7, "United Efforts Made Live Telecast Possible")
The re-entry witnessed by a jetliner was a Qantas jet from Brisbane to Honolulu, piloted by Capt Frank A. Brown, starting when they were at 39,000 feet over the Gilbert and Ellice Islands in the mid-Pacific. There were 82 passengers aboard. They viewed the re-entry from the left hand side of the aircraft, and the captain asked them to share the view with other passengers.
"See the trail behind them - what a spectacle!" said Capt Brown.
"You can see the bits flying off. Notice that the top one is almost unchanged while the bottom one is shattering to pieces. The part that is disintegrating is the rocket service module, the top one is the command module."
(The West Australian, 26 JUL 69, page 12, "A Birds Eye View of the Return")
(EDIT: put correct date and page number for article)
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Jul 27, 2008 19:35:24 GMT -4
...or against it saying how it was a waste of money better spent on Earth. The money was spent on Earth. I haven't seen the letters referenced, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the writers of the letters knew that. I'm also going to suggest that nobody here seriously believes that the writers of those letters were claiming the money was actually given to extraterrestrials. At least, I have never seen anyone who claimed this; I have only seen this claim in strawmans constructed at BAUT (and maybe here - I can't remember).
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jul 27, 2008 20:13:54 GMT -4
It was probably my bad wording rather than the people who penned the letters. They probably said it could be spent on better things here on Earth.
If I get time today, I'll go back and get a copy of one of the letters.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Jul 27, 2008 20:22:18 GMT -4
It was probably my bad wording rather than the people who penned the letters. They probably said it could be spent on better things here on Earth. If I get time today, I'll go back and get a copy of one of the letters. Sorry, my comments were not directed towards you - I think the wording is fine, and I think that everyone here knows the kinds of things those letter writers were arguing ETA - ugh, I tried to change my display name, but the non-ASCII characters are crap. I'll change it back
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Jul 28, 2008 6:57:42 GMT -4
More on how Perth got the broadcast:
(my comments in italics) (Source: the Weekend News, Saturday 26 JUL 69, page 13, "Moon men take a bow") (The Weekend News was the Saturday edition of the Daily News)
When I get back home, I'll scan the copies. I went back today and got some better quality ones... although the quality is still not great.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 28, 2008 7:51:39 GMT -4
Dwight and Obviousman: I've done a 49-page typescript of about 100 of the Apollo 11 articles in the West Australian between 11 July and 15 August 1969. I've mentioned a few times here that anyone is welcome to a copy -- PM me with email address if so.
I had the microfilms sent over to New Zealand so I could back up Peter B's research into Una Ronald, and took photocopies of about 100 articles, then scanned and typed them.
There were only nine letters about Apollo 11, and none of them mentioned a "Coke bottle." One letter-writer seemed to think that US taxpayers should have been forking out to ensure that toilets in West Australia flushed properly.
Obviousman: You may have copied some of the few that I didn't, so I'm keen to swap if you have. I've done a list in the typescripts. I was a bit too inhibited by both time and money to get all of the articles.
I also plan to collect as many as possible from my local Palmerston North newspaper, and have started recording the headlines.
The most amusing thing about the microfilms was the address where they were produced: The British Library, Newspaper Library, Colindale Avenue, London, NW9 5HE. But apparently Bennett and Percy couldn't possibly verify the non-existence of the letters about the Coke bottle, even though four ApolloHoax members from the U.S., Australia and New Zealand have now done so.
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Jul 28, 2008 8:05:54 GMT -4
One letter-writer seemed to think that US taxpayers should have been forking out to ensure that toilets in West Australia flushed properly. Well, that seems pretty reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 28, 2008 8:14:04 GMT -4
The 27 articles I didn't copy from the West Australian -- date followed by page number and headline: 7 Jul 1969 - 9 - Nixon date worries Apollo men 7 Jul 1969 - 9 - Photo - Plaque on LM's descent stage 8 Jul 1969 - 5 - Pocketful of the moon… Ralph Broom reports from New York 8 Jul 1969 - 7 - Photo - Frank Borman in Leningrad 9 Jul 1969 - 1 - Photo - Armstrong in a simulated descent from the lunar module 9 Jul 1969 - 1 - Space monkey dies suddenly 10 Jul 1969 - 1 - Photo - Rock container 12 Jul 1969 - 3 - Apollo countdown begins after leak is fixed 14 Jul 1969 - 1 - Russia sends moon probe 15 Jul 1969 - 3 - Russians still vague about purpose of moon shot 15 Jul 1969 - 4 - Hazards for men in the moon landing 15 Jul 1969 - 22 - Space wives prepare 16 Jul 1969 - 3 - Apollo 11 countdown goes well; all ready 16 Jul 1969 - 3 - 500 guard Cape 16 Jul 1969 - 3 - Russian aim - by von Braun 17 Jul 1969 - 8 - Ships, diplomats represent Russia 17 Jul 1969 - 9 - They're welcome to it 17 Jul 1969 - 9 - Moon virus real problem - expert 17 Jul 1969 - 9 - Apollo toast 17 Jul 1969 - 9 - Two say infection risk small 17 Jul 1969 - 9 - Officials confident 19 Jul 1969 - 2 - Astronaut's moon walk may be advanced 19 Jul 1969 - 8 - Photo - The young hero - Andrew Aldrin, 10 31 Jul 1969 - 19 - Film shows first steps on the moon 8 Aug 1969 - 3 - Photo - Birthday cake - Neil Armstrong's 39th birthday 12 Aug 1969 - 3 - Apollo astronauts go home to their families 15 Aug 1969 - 3 - Millions acclaim the American moon men Samples: The West Australian, Monday 21 July 1969, page 6 Letter — Down to earth H. V. Abrahams, Kelmscott: I have heard various viewpoints on the Apollo flight to the moon. Some people think it is a waste of time and money, others think it is a wonderful achievement for man to leave this planet and actually set foot on another celestial body. The people who think the time and money could be used to aid the millions of starving and diseased people in other less fortunate countries than ours are very noble in their thoughts, I'm sure. However, one tiny point worth considering in this wonderful year of scientific progress is that our lavatories cannot be flushed due to the fact that the hole in the ground where the effluent has to settle is too full because of a lack of suitable drainage in the area in which we live. There are many, many other people in W.A. with similar problems. At least the starving millions in the so-called less fortunate countries don't need to use the lavatory. How about using some of the millions of dollars spent in sending a man to the moon to give us the basic requirements for decent living? The West Australian, Monday 21 July 1969, page 8 Scientists will be watching Neil Armstrong's first step on the moon will draw the biggest television audience in history. But, the show will be as much for scientists as the public. When Armstrong climbs out of the hatch of the lunar module, he will stop on the second rung of the vehicle's ladder and pull a ring lowering a black and white television camera. The camera will be aimed at the bottom of the ladder to record for the world the first step on the lunar surface. Surface It will also tell scientists much about the lunar surface and man's performance in a lower-gravity situation. Once Armstrong has stepped on to the moon he will set up the camera on a small tripod to record Edwin Aldrin's descent. Under present plans, the camera will be in operation the entire two hours and 40 minutes the men are on the lunar surface. Scientists will watch closely how they move in the moon's airless low-gravity conditions (gravity is one-sixth that on earth). Dr Don Lind, a Nasa scientist, believes a kangaroo hop may be the best way for them to get about. Another possibility is a loping walk with slow, three-foot strides. Dr Lind said that the moon suits were so stiff that if an astronaut fell down, he might get up by doing a push up and then "running" vigorously till his feet were under his centre of gravity. More probably his companion would help him to rise. —A.A.P.-Reuters Another sample here with Mike Dinn's reply underneath. And another.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 28, 2008 10:34:49 GMT -4
I'm also going to suggest that nobody here seriously believes that the writers of those letters were claiming the money was actually given to extraterrestrials. I’m sure they didn’t, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some people who believe just that. After all, didn’t we get much of a technology from the Roswell aliens? It was probably my bad wording rather than the people who penned the letters. They probably said it could be spent on better things here on Earth. I’m sure that’s what they say, or at least what they mean. Of course I’ve always found this to be a bogus argument. The money simply cycles back through the economy. A big hunk of it pays the salaries of the Apollo workers, some of it pays company shareholders, some of it goes to capital reinvestment, etc. Those on the receiving end use it to buy food, shelter, education, healthcare, goods, etc. Ultimately it goes to farmers, construction workers, teachers, healthcare providers, miners, factory workers and other hardworking Americans who are just trying to provide for their families. I guess by saying it should be better spent they mean it should be given away to those who produce little in return rather than using it to R&D technology that generally benefits humanity, produces new industries, stimulates the economy, and generates tax dollars to more than offset the initial investment. [/rant]
|
|
|
Post by Retrograde on Jul 28, 2008 15:38:54 GMT -4
I’m sure that’s what they say, or at least what they mean. I'm not so sure. I have never heard anyone object to spending on space exploration on the grounds that the money leaves earth's economy. I have heard people ridicule this argument, but no one has yet been able to point me to anyone who actually makes this argument. Can you show me someone who argues this? Of course I’ve always found this to be a bogus argument. It certainly sounds bogus to me. But I have yet to find a person who actually makes this argument. The only place I have ever heard this argument is second-hand (and always misrepresented) at BAUT and here. I have heard people make arguments that money spent on space exploration should be spent on something else, because the benefits from something else exceed the benefits of space exploration. For fairly obvious reasons, people would rather address a specious argument than the real one, because the real one just might have some merit. But, I've spent a great deal of time and effort looking for evidence one way or the other on the matter. So far, I've found precisely zero real economic analysis. Sure, I can find pages and pages of woonalysis at BAUT, but I have not found any actual economic analysis on the benefits of the space program (for or against). The funny thing is, that's true no matter what they spend the money on. If $100 billion were spent to build and operate the Benny Hill Museum of Comedy, the money would follow a similar trajectory. If they spent it building skyscrapers in Antarctica that nobody would ever use, the money would get spent on materials, on workers who would in turn spend their salaries on food, housing, education, automobiles, holiday travel, etc. This job creation argument seems to be used on every public works project that there is, with equal (in)validity. Another odd thing, nobody ever emphasizes the offsetting job destructive effects of the taxation (or borrowing) required to finance their spending projects. Why is that? The argument ought to be, the benefits from spending $X on activity A are greater than spending $X on activity B. Since arguments that the workers on space exploration spend their salaries on all kinds of other stuff applies equally well to spending on any other activity (and also applies if you just leave it in the hands of the taxpayers - what do they do with their money?), this is not an argument in favor of spending on space exploration. I guess by saying it should be better spent they mean it should be given away to those who produce little in return rather than using it to R&D technology that generally benefits humanity, produces new industries, Oddly enough, that's what a lot of people who want to cancel space funding say. Spend it on medical research, new R&D technology, benefits humanity, produces new industries - why give it to the space people, they'll just crash something into a comet or something like that. So, those are the competing claims. Who is right? I have looked high and low for an economic study showing that the benefits of spending on space exploration are greater than the benefits of spending on other things. So far, I've found precisely nothing, for or against space exploration. If you know of such an analysis, I'd love to see it. I've gotten a great deal of ridicule, scorn, and abuse at BAUT for having the audacity to ask, which tells me that they don't have any evidence. Apparently, asking for evidence makes you a Luddite. stimulates the economy, and generates tax dollars to more than offset the initial investment. This is another thing I would like to see the analysis for - an actual equilibrium analysis, numbers and all. I guess I need one of these too: [/rant]
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 28, 2008 19:40:54 GMT -4
I’m sure that’s what they say, or at least what they mean. I'm not so sure. I have never heard anyone object to spending on space exploration on the grounds that the money leaves earth's economy. I have heard people ridicule this argument, but no one has yet been able to point me to anyone who actually makes this argument. Can you show me someone who argues this? I was agreeing with Obviousman’s comment " They probably said it could be spent on better things here on Earth." In other words, I agree with you that I've never seen anyone argue that the money leaves Earth’s economy. The funny thing is, that's true no matter what they spend the money on. I agree with you; that's my point. You seem to be under the impression that I’m making an argument that the money is better spend on space exploration -- I am not. I'm saying that people who make the argument the money is better spend on something else share the same responsibility for justifying their position as those who favor space. It is not self evident that there are better ways to spend our money. The argument ought to be, the benefits from spending $X on activity A are greater than spending $X on activity B. Since arguments that the workers on space exploration spend their salaries on all kinds of other stuff applies equally well to spending on any other activity (and also applies if you just leave it in the hands of the taxpayers - what do they do with their money?), this is not an argument in favor of spending on space exploration. I'm not arguing that the money is better spent on space exploration. Oddly enough, that's what a lot of people who want to cancel space funding say. Spend it on medical research, new R&D technology, benefits humanity, produces new industries - why give it to the space people, they'll just crash something into a comet or something like that. I agree there are many things worthy of R&D funding, including space exploration. The space program has produced many technologies that have benefited mankind, improved quality of life, and produced spin-off industries. Just as important is research in medicine, energy, etc. If someone tells me the world would be better off if we were to cut the space budget and dump the money into something else, I want to see justification for it. I have seen many people who seem to imply we should spend NASA's billions on welfare projects. This is where I was trying to draw a distinction between spending the money on R&D versus 'giving it away'. Although I suppose there is something noble in trying to help the disadvantaged, we get little return on our money. I think an investment in something that stimulates the economy, spurs new industry, and creates jobs is ultimately better than a free handout. stimulates the economy, and generates tax dollars to more than offset the initial investment. This is another thing I would like to see the analysis for - an actual equilibrium analysis, numbers and all. I can't provide an analysis because I lack facts and figures, but I think it's pretty obvious that a vibrant economy in which money frequently changes hands is going to generate far more tax dollars than a stagnate economy. My argument was not about spending money on space per se; my argument was about spending money on any R&D project that will stimulate economic growth versus spending it on welfare type programs. Most of the people I've seen who argue against space exploration are just a bunch of bleeding hearts who try to get all righteous on us. They allude to some magic way in which NASA's budget can be used to solve all the world’s problems without providing any justification for their argument. I am not interesting in their hand-waving arguments. If somebody can provide a concrete and viable plan on how we can put an end to hunger or poverty or whatever, then I'll listen to what they have to say. In the meantime I'll continue to support space exploration.
|
|