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

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?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

If anyone knew the moon landing was an impossibility at that time, it would be Van Allen.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
What do you all think of Van Allen's comments?

Why shouldn't one of man's greatest achievements, landing men on the moon, be a great television show?

I suppose if you prefer fantasies like "man never landed on the moon" then you cannot stand factual documentaries like the moon landings! The landing drew the largest television audience for any live event up until that time so a huge amount of people agreed it was a great television show.

His statement makes sense to me however, what is in question here? You claim this is a quote of Van Allen as does the article. Why would anyone think otherwise?

It reads like he was questioning the scientific value of the Apollo missions. It doesn't suggest any conspiracy.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I have often thought about doing a thread on Dr. James Van Allen. ATS cracked a claim that the following letter was fraudulent . I think it was X Who supplied links to certified signatures by Dr. James Van Allen and they matched. As far as I know ATS was the first group to prove this letter is correct and yet we have received no recognition .






That letter takes the largest arrow out of the quiver of moon landing hoax people.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
What do you all think of Van Allen's comments?

Why shouldn't one of man's greatest achievements, landing men on the moon, be a great television show?

I suppose if you prefer fantasies like "man never landed on the moon" then you cannot stand factual documentaries like the moon landings! The landing drew the largest television audience for any live event up until that time so a huge amount of people agreed it was a great television show.

The only quote that matters here is Van Allen quote that Apollo was "the greatest television show".

Did Van Allen say that or not?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Understanding, four words. Context

2nd

Relunctantly I admit I am still on the fence about this topic. I just watched a nearly 4hr documentary called "What Happened on the Moon" last night and it just raised more questions for me. It had breakdowns for just about every area of interest, radiation,camera film, lunar module rockets, video feeds etc with people who worked and built components in each area the segments addressed.

m.youtube.com...

The rational side of me says it would have been easier to just go than to perpetrate this gigantic story.

My butt has gotten used to its spot on the fence, I'll stick around here until a more comfortable seat becomes available.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I, watching the program that night, would express the exact same sentiment.
It was history in the making and not as you seem to imply, a fictionalized presentation.
There was a natural progression of science and technology that allowed those flights.

Some of you folks are attempting the old "flat earth" sort of anti-science argument. Actually, I've seen even that attempted on ATS recently.

I believe you put too much faith in your understanding and interpretation of the word "show."

No scientist of any note has refuted the claim that we made the missions as we tend to accept.

Certainly, the Soviets/Russians would have been the first and most vocal to shout that it was all fake. That would have won them a lot of international "points" in the space race.

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.

Does a purported email from Dr Van Allen count as evidence of what his opinion was? I don't know, but here is this:

Dear Mr. Lambert,

In reply to your e-mail, I send you the following copy of a response that I wrote to another inquiry about 2 months ago --

Ø The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight.

Ø The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure.

Ø A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week.

Ø However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.


Ø The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense.

James A. Van Allen

Link

Believe it as you wish, trust the source if you will.

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".

I think Dr Van Allen is saying that watching men walk on the moon was the best thing he had ever seen on television. I don't think he was saying anything more.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

The moon landing was televised live around the world and I expect that back in 69 it would have been he most viewed program at the time (my view).

Whether there was an inference or it can be construed from Dr Van Allens comment suggesting that the whole shebang was staged and hence being the "greatest show" is....well.....the stuff of conspiracies and the reason why the moon landings and associated conspiracies surrounding the event is such a hotly debated topic.

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?

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

The moon landing was televised live around the world and I expect that back in 69 it would have been he most viewed program at the time (my view).

It was the only time at school we went to the assembly hall and watched tv....

originally posted by: hellobruce

It was the only time at school we went to the assembly hall and watched tv....

We were allowed to stay home that day if we brought a note saying we had watched the landings.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
What do you all think of Van Allen's comments?

Why shouldn't one of man's greatest achievements, landing men on the moon, be a great television show?

I suppose if you prefer fantasies like "man never landed on the moon" then you cannot stand factual documentaries like the moon landings! The landing drew the largest television audience for any live event up until that time so a huge amount of people agreed it was a great television show.

I don't want you to forget your quotation marks buddy. Van Allen said the moon landings were a "the greatest television show".

Where did you get your quote "man never landed on the moon" from? Eh? No source, no dice, no game.

Don't abuse the quotation marks. You can address this thread only in response to what Van Allen has said.

originally posted by: Montana
Does a purported email from Dr Van Allen count as evidence of what his opinion was? I don't know, but here is this:

Dear Mr. Lambert,

In reply to your e-mail, I send you the following copy of a response that I wrote to another inquiry about 2 months ago --

Ø The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight.

Ø The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure.

Ø A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week.

Ø However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.


Ø The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense.

James A. Van Allen

Link

Believe it as you wish, trust the source if you will.

I posted a summarization of that letter with his signature. So yes those statements are proven .