Bill Wood

Welcome

Bill Wood, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these!

• Wikinews:Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
• Wikinews:Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced

Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews:

• Wikinews:Introduction - overview of the site
• Wikinews:Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
• Wikinews:Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
• Wikinews:Contents - the contents page.

There are always things to do on Wikinews:

• Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
• The front page lead articles often need updating
• Developing stories need finishing and publishing
• Discussions need your input
• And of course, stories need writing!

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Doldrums 16:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

apollo tapes article

please do not modify published wikinews article. if the published version has errors in it, a correction will be issued. in the meantime, u r encouraged to create a new article, outlining the issues u had with the published article and recounting ur interactions with SMH about it. Doldrums 16:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:"suppressing the "truth""

Bill Wood, we appreciate your interest in wikinews. like in other newspapers, wikinews articles, once published, are historical documents. if they contain incorrect information, then a correction is issued, after wikinews contributors consider the case. until then, articles remain as they were published. in the meantime, u can help by detailing ur objections to the article, as u've already done so, on the article talk page. (incidentally, why are u removing ur own comments on the talk page?). i also strongly advice u to revert any changes u have made to the article after it was published and wait until other wikinewsies weigh in and consider the matter. wikinews operated on consensus and unilateral attempts to alter articles, after publication is considered to be disruptive to the functioning of wikinews.

i have also posted an alert over the concerns u have raised, to draw others into this discussion. Doldrums 16:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

article protected from editing

the article and its talk page has been protected from editing, in like with wikinews policies. u are, however, free to discuss the matter here or on the talk pages of other users. please ensure that u do not remove comments posted on talk pages, such "refactoring" makes it difficult for other people to follow the thread of conversation. Doldrums 16:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did Wikinews allow the many others, including yourself, if I am reading the history right, make changes, additions and deletions in the very first article? It gets more UNTRUE with each change made in the history. But, it is not OK for a person when is directly involved in the search make changes to correct statements of fact.

Please read the three page summary of the search on honeysucklecreek dot net

Bill Wood

the changes i have made, are to return the article to its published state, which is permitted, in fact, mandated by Wikinews:Policies and guidelines. please list ur objections before other editors and allow them time to consider whether a correction needs to be issued, rather than modifying a published article. Doldrums 16:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If what you said were only true!

Doldrums

You really need to compare the original "news" article with the way it reads now. Night and Day difference. Many Conspriacy Theorists changed, added, and deleted material statements in the article. Not, spelling or punctuation errors corrected. Wholesale context changes. For instance, no where in John Satkissian's Tape Search Paper does it say the the Apollo 11 TV pictures were "projected on a screen" implying we converted the images like a movie pirate with a camcorder to make his own copy to sell on the street. Most of the changes further distorted the story.

Obvisously I do not understand the true purpose of Wikinews. It now appears that the warning that "if you don't want your story to be "mercessly" edited and changed, DO NOT SUBMIT it. How do I resign my membership and get my comments removed from this system?

here is the comparison[1] between the last 5th August version and the current version. the only notable changes are

1. addition of "5 other missions"
2. link to NASA archives.

i don't suppose u have a problem with the latter. the former appears to be an erronous statement, and if unsupported by sources, a correction will be issued.

the "projected on to screen" is taken from the SMH article. note that wikinews has no special access to the "Truth", like other media, we rely on sources and sometimes, sources are fallible.

If you want to know about wikinews, the Wikinews:Mission statement and Wikinews:Introduction are a place to start.

my understanding is that u "resign" from wikinews by not making further edits, but edits u have made will continue to remain. u *may* however request personal information posted by urself on wikinews to be removed, if u wish, but ur article contributions will not be removed. Doldrums 17:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The Two Sources Conflict with each other!

Doldrums

The second source (John Sarkissian's paper) is a totally true and accurate picture of the tapes search. The first source (Richard Macey's story in the tabloid Sydney Morning Herald is largely a work of fiction. While Richard did interview John, he, or his editors, made totally false statements about the search.

1. John never said that it was that NASA lost ALL OF THE APOLLO TV TAPES. His paper only covers the back-up tapes made to be used in case of a failure of the scan converter or a Houston video circuit outage. There were NO problems and NASA and the world received the Apollo 11 TV pictures as they were being telecast from the Moon. The primary scan-converted video recordings are still available in the National Archives and were NOT LOST. In fact you can buy DVD's of every Apollo mission's complete and total television broadcasts on Amazon. (About 50 DVD's full)

2. John never said that Goddard Space Flight Center would be CLOSED in October this year. It is the Data Evaluation Laboratory that is slated to be closed as a budget reduction measure.

3. The SMH Headline implied that it was a NASA BLUNDER that LOST MOON PICTURES. This on the FRONT Page and above the fold. I should point out that nearby headline on the same page said: "Police bury years of sex abuse shame" and a photo above the masthead shows two apparently nude men with the title: YESTERDAY'S HEROES, COUNTDOWN MELTDOWN. It might just be possible that the SMH is a tabloid that enjoys making outrageous claims as "news."

I implore you to read John's paper. Then decide if the wikinews article has any relation to the Real World.

Now how to I get it across that the current wikinews article needs to changed to remove the false and misleading parts? This kind of claptrap is hurting our search because NASA thinks we are behind this misleading information.

i have flagged this page as listing errors u have identified. these will be examined and a correction issued, as it appears that the article does have errors. please bear with us, as it may take some time to look thro'. the correction will look like this. Doldrums 17:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

does this proposed text of correction cover the problems with the article? Doldrums 18:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Write the correction

Hi Bill Wood, the reason why your edits were reverted over at Apollo Moon landings tapes reported missing, as it was mentioned above, is because once an article is published, it's supposed to be finished. However, since the article is very inaccurate, feel free to write the correction article at a title like Search on for missing Apollo landing tapes, and I'll post the correction notice (as is current convention). —this is messedrocker (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The added benefit of a brief correction article is it goes on today, thus catching all the previously misinformed readers. However, is it actually an opportunity to interview some of the people interested/involved in the search for the tapes? I know they've put a lot online - which I've yet to go through, but an informal interview can result in more useable quotes with techical details getting explained. The significant difference you'd see with a Wikinews interview is the openness of the process that follows the interview, technical errors and misconceptions can be cleared up before the whole thing is published. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Brian

I am one of the two key people involved in the search for back-up slow-scan Apollo 11 Tapes. Check the Tape Search Flyer on honeysucklecreek dot net (sorry I do not know how to post a link the way others do. I am free to respond to an interview request any time. Bill Wood August 13, 2006 1315 PDT

I just finished reading the article from honeysucklecreek, interesting and if a lead on the tapes comes up we'd be delighted to do a full interview with as many of the team as you can get in front of computers at once (we often interview in IRC (online chat) moderated for prepared questions, and open at the end for a free-for-all where you get good quotes as things are explained to people who haven't read the background material.) In the meantime I think we need a correction article plus the notice on the article based on the SMH coverage. If I find some time tomorrow I'll make a start and get you to check my accuracy.

Incidentally, links are done by enclosing a URL in square brackets, eg [http://www.example.com]. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• We have a correction article, as well as the correction notice, Erroneous newspaper report garners publicity for Moon landing tapes. I had intended this to be kept and worked on for a few days so we could get permission to use some of the pictures from the PDF report. So it isn't particularly polished I'm afraid. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Some Apollo Data Background Information

I was on duty as the Unified S-band lead engineer at Goldstone during the Apollo 11 EVA. My crew was responsible for communicating with the Apollo 11 Lunar Module while it remained on the surface of the Moon. We supplied the voice, telemetry data and slow-scan television to the station recording area where the Mincom M22 telemetry recorders and RCA scan converter were located.

Data that was recorded on the station was NOT the prime source of mission data. Spacecraft telemetry data, including the astronauts PLSS systems, were decoded and sent to Houston in real time. The television data was scan converted and sent direct to Houston in real time. Voice communications with the astronauts was carried to and from Houston in real time. We had two independent microwave circuits to Houston for redundancy. The tape recorded data was considered as a backup source that would be used in case it was needed later to analyze a problem.

This happened on Apollo 13, when we played back the Command Module telemetry data at a slow speed, so we could read out the oxygen pressure data up until the tank exploded. Since the S/C antenna was driven off earth point by the explosion, the data could not be seen by the people at Houston. By rolling strip chart recording out on the floor of the control room, we were able to see the pressure spike that occurred just before the downlink dropped out.

On all of the Apollo missions we recorded the raw data for later use if it was needed. GSFC kept the data tape originals until all mission requirements for post-mission analysis were completed. To my knowledge the Apollo 11 slow-scan telemetry tapes were never requested because very excellent scan-converted tapes were available to all interested. Since the only equipment that could do the conversion worked well, no one thought that some day, 35 years in the future, a better way to convert the slow-scan tapes would be found. It was redundant data!

As a result, the Apollo mission telemetry tapes were sent to the Washington National Records Center for storage, subject to recall by GSFC in case any were needed later. GSFC did recall some tape boxes as needed. Eventually all of the Apollo telemetry were recalled by GSFC. We only found a few overlooked tapes at the NRC from the Apollo 9 mission. I suspect that the main reason for recalling the tapes was to save on the storage fees charged NASA by the NRC.

I need to emphasize that our search is NOT an official NASA activity. It is a private effort to locate the records and find out what was done with the tapes. We hope there are still some tucked away in some NASA facility. However, the tapes, not being designated as a critical source of historical data, could have been degaussed and reused for later missions. Just like television networks around the world erased television programs from the 1960's through the 1970's just so they would not have to buy new videotape. Think of all the really good TV programs that were lost forever due to this practice.

Bill Wood Barstow, CA USA