Neil Armstrong RIP

[Mikebits]

The first man on the moon has passed at the age of 82.
https://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/us/neil-armstrong-obit/index.html?eref=igoogledmn_topstories

His vessel is no more, but his legend will live on. RIP

 

[tvtech]

Sad. I was six Years old when he took that first step for Mankind. No TV in South Africa then...heard it on my Dad's valve radio.

RIP Neil Armstrong. You will forever be remembered.

tvtech

 

[Ratchit]

To the Ineffable All,

I remember what Armstrong actually said, "That's one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind." NASA has since edited that written quote and audio broadcast, but except for one network news item the next day, I have never heard of NASA acknowledging having done so.

Ratch

 

[Joe G]

"His vessel is no more, but his legend will live on. RIP"


YES, indeed! but in the future many may see his monument and footprints on the moon, and ask, who was that guy grandpa?

 

[Inquisitive]

Here is the sound clip from that day in history

**broken link removed**

Here is the one from NASA.

http://www.nasa.gov/62284main_onesmall2.wav

Was not aware of the discrepancy. The latter is the way I remember it.

 

[MrAl]

Hi,

Computer analysis of the sound track had revealed that he did in fact speak the word "a" in between there, but it was said so fast that it was not noticed by anyone including himself when he later reviewed the sound passage. We all do this now and then but dont realize it. He was most likely taken aghast himself at the height of the moment in light of the highly unique circumstances and so probably was a little nervous and wasnt talking as normally as he usually does. If i stepped out of a capsule onto the Moon i'd be lucky if i could say anything at all for a while

To me it would also make sense if 'man' was taken to be 'present man' and 'mankind' was taken to be 'future man'.

In any case we cant ignore the fact that he did in FACT use two different words, "man" and "mankind", and so thus there is no mistaking that he meant two entirely different things or senses of those things. If he really meant what most people heard it would translate into:
"That's one small step for mankind, one giant leap for mankind"
which wouldnt make much sense being a contradiction.

 

[Ratchit]

Inquisitive,

I believe you got the "doctored" tape. I was in front of a TV, very alert and cognizant. I remember distinctly what he said because it caught my ear when he said "a man". I remember thinking to myself, "Why didn't he say man or mankind?" The next day NASA corrected it in a news release.

Mr Al,

I am not defaming Armstrong for saying what he did, but it disturbs me that the record can be so thoroughly changed and promoted as factual. In this case, it doesn't matter too much. But in other situations, who knows? I always thought oral history as practiced by primative tribes did not compare very well with recording methods available to more civilized peoples. However, after witnessing a historical event, I think oral history might have some advantages.

Ratch

 

[ronsimpson]

it disturbs me that the record can be so thoroughly changed and promoted as factual.

Right now, on talk radio, they are talking about how the moon landings were filmed in a hanger at aria 51. And now, with Armstrong gone, they think it is time to bring this up again. Will they never give up?

Armstrong has (had) more guts than all of us put to together.

 

[MrAl]

Inquisitive,

I believe you got the "doctored" tape. I was in front of a TV, very alert and cognizant. I remember distinctly what he said because it caught my ear when he said "a man". I remember thinking to myself, "Why didn't he say man or mankind?" The next day NASA corrected it in a news release.

Mr Al,

I am not defaming Armstrong for saying what he did, but it disturbs me that the record can be so thoroughly changed and promoted as factual. In this case, it doesn't matter too much. But in other situations, who knows? I always thought oral history as practiced by primative tribes did not compare very well with recording methods available to more civilized peoples. However, after witnessing a historical event, I think oral history might have some advantages.

Ratch

Hello,

So you are saying that you heard "a man" on the original broadcast? And they dropped the 'a' later by removing it from the tape?

 

[Ratchit]

ronsimpson,

Right now, on talk radio, they are talking about how the moon landings were filmed in a hanger at aria 51.

There are many sites posted by the "mooners", that aver the moon landing was a fake. Some of the things they note are no large dust clouds raised by the takeoff, shadows in the wrong place, the flag appearing to fly in a breeze, etc. Then there are counter sites that explain and debunk what the mooners say. I think it is pretty well established that we did what it appears we did. You can be sure the former Soviet Union was tracking the flight and the direction of the radio transmissions, and would have been first with the news if it was not true.

Ratch

 

[Mikebits]

Right now, on talk radio, they are talking about how the moon landings were filmed in a hanger at aria 51. And now, with Armstrong gone, they think it is time to bring this up again. Will they never give up?

Armstrong has (had) more guts than all of us put to together.

Gadzooks, One of Americas hero's is no longer with us. The mooners try to take that away, what a bunch of smacktards.

 

[Ratchit]

Mr Al,

So you are saying that you heard "a man" on the original broadcast? And they dropped the 'a' later by removing it from the tape?

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. And they also changed the transcript.

Ratch

 

[Ratchit]

Mikebits,

Gadzooks, One of Americas hero's is no longer with us.

No human lives forever. The Mooners have been trying to convince the public that Apollo was a fake for a long time now.

The best proof that we did go to the moon is that a fake would involve too many people. Not just those operating the big dish antennas all over the world, but a army of technicians, contractors, engineers, and managers. Something that big, with that many people involved just could not be kept under a lid. There would be death bed confessions, disgrunted workers, and a thousand other leaks. Those Mooners sure are dumb for thinking that would be possible. It would be a greater achievement than the moon mission itself. Even the Soviet Union in its prime would not be able to pull off that fake.

Ratch

 

[MrAl]

Mr Al,



Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. And they also changed the transcript.

Ratch

Hi again,

Unfortunately that was a long time ago and the mind has a way of perverting things that are far distance in the past. You're asking me to believe in your memory over everything i have read so far about this issue. That's not that i dont believe what you say, but i know that memories get distorted sometimes and this is not particular to any one person but happens to a lot of people.

Doubts spring up for example, why did they have to do a computer analysis of the recording then?
Also, why would they change it, to serve what purpose?

Can you offer some sort of proof that it happened the way you said it did so very very long ago? This would be very interesting.


On an unrelated note:

Should Neil be the first man to be buried on the moon?

 

[Mr RB]

RIP Mr Armstrong, and in my mind deserving the title of "Sir Armstrong" as with many great explorers.

Of course the real credit doesn't belong to one man, or the three, but to the entire infrastructure that made it possible including the massive government funding. It makes me wonder where mankind would be today if money was better spent on feeding our hungry and advancing our growth, instead of on trillion dollar aircraft carriers so we can go to some impoverished country and shoot up camel herders.

As for Mr Armstrong being buried on the moon, although that might rekindle a certain amount of support and interest in moon activity it does sound a little cheesy.

Anyway, Mars is where it's at, my preference would be to grow serious infrastructure in orbit, a space city, and possibly a large moon base, then a Mars base. We have to start reaching out to the stars again sooner or later.

 

[RichTheDude]

Rest in peace Neil. A great inspiration to many generations, and more to come.

I think it is disgusting that people are questioning the moon landings so close to the death of a great man. The moon landings are real and anyone who believes otherwise, well I will be polite and say I do not have much time for them.

There have been reconnaissance missions from Japan, Russia and NASA all showing the landing sites. Not to mention the mirrors placed on the moon to track it's orbit and all the suspicious nations monitoring the Apollo rockets.

I watched a TV programme on channel 4 (UK) that I can only describe as effluent nonsense. One example of why the landings was fake was that space suits can not be made. This guy put a GARDEN glove in vacuum chamber, and found it expanded. To him this was proof space suits could not be made.

I have no idea why TV agencies are producing and permitting the broadcast of such pseudo science gibberish fantasies.

 

[Ratchit]

Mr AL,

Unfortunately that was a long time ago and the mind has a way of perverting things that are far distance in the past.

Some things, yes, but not this.

You're asking me to believe in your memory over everything i have read so far about this issue.

Who wrote it? What material did they have to base their writings?

That's not that i dont believe what you say, but i know that memories get distorted sometimes and this is not particular to any one person but happens to a lot of people.

What you say is true, but that event is burned into my memory. I have thought about it for years. You could even say that I might have imagined watching the landing on TV.

Doubts spring up for example, why did they have to do a computer analysis of the recording then?

Who did the analysis? What material did they have to work with?

Also, why would they change it, to serve what purpose?

Nothing nefarious. Just to smooth over a speaking flub Armstrong made.

Can you offer some sort of proof that it happened the way you said it did so very very long ago? This would be very interesting.

Yes, it would. No, I cannot. I don't have the resources to do so. I do remember that the Huntley Brinkley news program did carry a news item about it the next day or so. Perhaps the network archives could shed some light on it.

Ratch

 

[Ratchit]

Mr RB,

It makes me wonder where mankind would be today if money was better spent on feeding our hungry and advancing our growth,

No better today than we were before. It was reported a while back, that in the US, the many trillions of dollars the US spent/wasted on the "War on Poverty", first started by the Lyndon Johnson Administration and continued from there, hardly moved the statistics at all. That is one thing you cannot just throw money at to solve.

instead of on trillion dollar aircraft carriers so we can go to some impoverished country and shoot up camel herders.

You mean people poor, but weapons rich countries? Those aircraft carriers and submarines help suppress the the militaristic ambitions of those countries and greatly insure the safety of those countries who cannot defend themselves. That was a cheap shot and not thought out very well.

As for Mr Armstrong being buried on the moon, although that might rekindle a certain amount of support and interest in moon activity it does sound a little cheesy.

Correct, it is his family that should decide and pay for a burial elsewhere. It must be noted, that his return trip from the Moon and a safe landing on Earth was just as great an accomplishment. Therefore, it could be said that an Earth burial is just as appropriate.

Anyway, Mars is where it's at, my preference would be to grow serious infrastructure in orbit, a space city, and possibly a large moon base, then a Mars base. We have to start reaching out to the stars again sooner or later.

I will stick with robots until it is proven than manned settlements are paying propositions.

Ratch

 

[Ratchit]

RichTheDude,

I have no idea why TV agencies are producing and permitting the broadcast of such pseudo science gibberish fantasies.

Permit me to give you one. Titillating, sensationalist, mind candy whose only purpose is to gather eyeballs for commercial purposes.

Ratch

 

[tvtech]

Never mind...

tvtech