James Van Allen described moon landings as "the greatest television show"

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Van Allen said the moon landings were a "the greatest television show".

It was a great television show - hundreds of millions of people watched it around the world.

[ You can address this thread only in response to what Van Allen has said.

Wrong again, remember Van Allen''s discovery allowed Apollo to land on the moon d4espite what silly conspiracy theorists claim.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
But his "greatest television show" comment seems to imply that television played a major role in the Apollo moon landing narratives.

I think that Van Allen was telling us that television is not a truth teller - it's all about the ratings "greatest television show".

Wrong - he was simply stating it was a great tv show - which it undeniably was.

Why do you try and make a silly conspiracy out of everything?

Did you even read the quote? He was obviously bragging about the accomplishment. But he was saying the money would be better spent with unmanned missions .


Do you people really prejudge everything so decisively that you can't understand the actual content of the statement?

I suppose if millions of people saw Jesus Christ floating down from the Sky everyone would believe that too, because 'seeing is believing' never mind the Cognitive Logic.

originally posted by: hellobruce
Wrong again, remember Van Allen''s discovery allowed Apollo to land on the moon d4espite what silly conspiracy theorists claim.

It was printed in the newspaper that Van Allen stated the moon landings were "the greatest television show".

Accept the fact or deny it. You are not allowed to go off topic. Your discussion about silly conspiracy theorists in this thread will be considered off topic.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I believe that James Van Allen was talking about NASA's budget allocation at the time.

He was not saying that the moon landings were staged, (he referred to the "manned moon landings" as if they existed) but was saying that despite their entertainment value, they weren't actually advancing science that much.

His comments were those of a scientist closely allied with NASA but frustrated that he was unable to sway either public opinion or administrative will enough to fund some 'harder' science.

You are right that Van Allen was closely allied with NASA. But his "greatest television show" comment seems to imply that television played a major role in the Apollo moon landing narratives.

I think that Van Allen was telling us that television is not a truth teller - it's all about the ratings "greatest television show".

That it had entertainment value does not mean it was staged.

A David Attenborough wildlife documentary has entertainment value but, despite unnatural lighting, optical filters, telephoto lenses and editing to remove the irrelevant and boring, could not be considered as staged or false. It has both entertainment value and representational integrity.

James Van Allen was clearly NOT saying that it was a false representation, because he was referring to the moon landings as if they were actual in the same sentence. He was obviously saying that the money could be better spent on other things.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
It was printed in the newspaper that Van Allen stated the moon landings were "the greatest television show".

Accept the fact or deny it.

What are you babbling about?

It WAS the greatest TV show, hundreds of millions of people watched man landing on the moon, a great engineering and scientific feat. But for some strange reason some people want to claim man did not land on the moon.

a reply to: chr0naut

Your comments are appreciated. But I prefer to believe James Van Allen when he says the moon landings were "the greatest television show".

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
But I prefer to believe James Van Allen when he says the moon landings were "the greatest television show".

Who claimed watching man land on the moon was not a great TV show? Hundreds of millions of people watching Armstrong walk on the moon - of course it was great TV!

Apart from those who prefer to make up silly conspiracy theories that man did not land on the moon, that is.

a reply to: hellobruce

"silly conspiracy theories"

We are not discussing "silly". We are discussing James Van Allen's quote.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
We are not discussing "silly". We are discussing James Van Allen's quote.

You seem very confused -

Watching man walk on the moon was great TV, hundreds of millions of people watched Armstrong take that first step - no one is arguing that James Allen was incorrect, so exactly what are you on about?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
But I prefer to believe James Van Allen when he says the moon landings were "the greatest television show".

Who claimed watching man land on the moon was not a great TV show? Hundreds of millions of people watching Armstrong walk on the moon - of course it was great TV!

Apart from those who prefer to make up silly conspiracy theories that man did not land on the moon, that is.

Yeah I think the other thing to watch was the I love lucy show . I wonder what the Nielsen ratings turned out for that night ?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
You are right that Van Allen was closely allied with NASA. But his "greatest television show" comment seems to imply that television played a major role in the Apollo moon landing narratives.

I think that Van Allen was telling us that television is not a truth teller - it's all about the ratings "greatest television show".

I don't get your point about "ratings" when you say "it's all about ratings". I suppose you don't know much about television and how ratings work.

Normally the higher the ratings, the more the TV station can charge for advertising because it means there are more viewers getting the message. However despite the high "ratings" and viewership of the moon landing, the result of this greatest TV show wasn't increased revenue, it was lost revenue, because they were showing the events live and not broadcasting as much advertising which is part of the 11 million in lost revenue:

Moonwalk Draws 125 Million Viewers; CBS And Cronkite Win Big

The lunar origination lasted five hours and six minutes, with two and a quarter hours showing Astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin E. Aldrin Jr., in their science-fiction space suits, collecting rocks and in slow motion bouncing weightlessly across the bleak landscape. That was on the night of July 20-21. By 2 p.m. last Thursday (July 24) they and the third member of the crew, Michael Collins, were safely aboard the aircraft carrier Hornet in the mid Pacific, and eight days of grueling television coverage were ended.

It took a minimum of $11 million in expenditures and in revenue loss and an estimated 1,000 personnel for the networks to produce what had to be the biggest show in broadcast history.

So they lost 11 million 1969 dollars which is like a gazillion dollars in today's money. So much for the value of "high ratings". Broadcast magazine said it was "biggest show in broadcast history" and give facts to support that and Van Allen said it was the "greatest television show", sure, why wouldn't it be? Men had dreamed for millennia of walking on the moon and it finally happened on live television, what greater television show could there be?

originally posted by: Greathouse
Yeah I think the other thing to watch was the I love lucy show . I wonder what the Nielsen ratings turned out for that night ?

Local New York Nielsen ratings for the 42 hours of network coverage throughout the moon mission show NBC and CBS tied with an 11.6 rating, 43 share, and ABC with a 3.7 rating, 14 share. New York Arbitrons put NBC on top with a 10.5 rating, 44 share, compared to CBS's 9.7 rating, 40 share, and ABC's 3.8 ratings, 16 share.

That link above has more ratings information also, though the link to the original source has died.

Im pretty sure the moon landing was televised live, making it one of the greatest tv events ever..I don't read more into it than that.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I watched those landings. ...and it was great television. I was six years old, sitting in front of a huge console B/W tv watching Walter Cronkite be rendered speechless. I wanted, like every other six year old American kid, to be an astronaut, largely because of that "great television show". It remains one of my fondest memories from childhood.

what are you positing, as if I didn't already know?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Yes. ...and your implication being that it wasn't real.

Twist it all you desire, it won't change a thing.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

No. Not only is it evident from the text that you posted, as it from history too, exactly what he meant.
I don't know if it's your complete ISIS-like persuasion of nonsense, or just the lack of ability to interpret text, but here goes:

The space race was primarily a political race. Scientists were used to accomplish this, but the race was political. That is, it was economically justified due to politics.
Van Allen pointed this out very clearly. Sending multiple manned missions to the moon did NOT give most bang for the buck to the world of science (his world). But it sure was the greatest TV-show (not his world).

Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Trolling?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: hellobruce

"silly conspiracy theories"

We are not discussing "silly". We are discussing James Van Allen's quote.

You might be discussing the quote by Dr. Van Allen, but you're focusing entirely on the quote and completely ignoring the context of the quote. It seems a little dishonest to perpetrate a quote mine in such a fashion.

If you had read the entire article, you would have found that its premise was a discussion surrounding the fact that the USSR had just dropped an unmanned vehicle which was able to travel a short distance across the Sea of Showers. This feat prompted a debate on manned vs. unmanned space exploration and that is what Dr. Van Allens comment was in reference to... putting men on the surface of the Moon and televising it across the globe made for great television but scientifically, was of less value because for less money, we could accomplish more with unmanned missions similar to our current exploration of Mars. It was great PR, not great science.

As Arbitrageur points out and cites, there wasn't anything in it for the networks who televised the event as they lost 11 million broadcasting the event. That is about 32 million in today's dollars so that casts a large shadow over your POV that the whole thing was done for ratings/financial incentive because there was no incentive there at all aside from televising what was up to that point, the biggest scientific endeavor of human kind. Patriotism is a much bigger impetus in this instance than financial recompense.

Van Allen says in the following sentence that you seem to ignore that "manned lunar landings should be terminated to make possible less costly, and in his view, scientifically more valuable space missions". That doesn't seem to support your suppositional accusation, now does it?

Furthermore, there is indisputable evidence that the Apollo 11 landing at the Sea of Tranquility was a reality. The reflector placed there had to be manually set in place and aimed at the Earth based observatory that bounces laser beams off of it to take measurements of distance and the speed at which the Moon is moving away from Earth.

I find it both interesting and rather telling, that you skirted your true intentions regarding the quote. remaining rather ambiguous until page 2 of the thread you authored.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

news.google.com...

My claim is that this is a direct quote of Dr. James Van Allen published in the New London, Connecticut newspaper "The Day" on December 1, 1970. I have provided proof of my claim.

What do you all think of Van Allen's comments?

And your point???

If you read full article, he instead of making great show wanted cheaper space exploration, but acknowledges that if they did it his way - news of landing on moon would not be such a sensational thing like it was back then.

It is far from any proof or disproof that man never landed on moon....

So what is the point in your post?

Yes he said that one specific line but he also said,right after that "manned lunar landings should be terminated"

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: hellobruce

"silly conspiracy theories"

We are not discussing "silly". We are discussing James Van Allen's quote.

Read the letter, he specifically said that the radiation was not a problem for Apollo and that the landings were not faked. This proves you are attempting to deliberately misinterpret his statement about it being great TV. It was. It was also real. Those are not mutually exclusive things.