Skip to comments.Apollo 11 Moon Landing & Communion on the Moon
Posted on 08/02/2020 2:40:41 PM PDT by Perseverando
"One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind," stated Astronaut Neil Armstrong, JULY 20, 1969, as he became the f irst man to walk on the moon, almost 238,900 miles away from the Earth.
The second man on the moon was Colonel Buzz Aldrin, who described it as "magnificent desolation."
Aldrin earned a Ph.D. from M.I.T. and helped develop the technology necessary for the mission, especially the complicated lunar module rendezvous with the command module.
Buzz Aldrin's popularity was the inspiration for the character "Buzz Lightyear" in Pixar's animated movie Toy Story (1995).
Buzz Aldrin shared a story, "An Astronaut Tells of a little-known but Significant Event on the Moon," printed in Guideposts Magazine, October 1970), and in his book, Return to Earth, published by Random House, 1973.
Before the two astronauts stepped out of the Lunar Module onto the moon's surface, there was a planned time of rest.
Buzz Aldrin asked for radio silence because NASA was fighting a lawsuit brought by an intolerant atheist, Madalyn Murray O'Hair.
She objected to the previous Apollo 8 crew reading the first chapter of the Book of Genesis in their Christmas radio transmission in 1968.
During the radio silence, Aldrin then privately partook of communion, stating:
"For several weeks prior to the scheduled lift-off of Apollo 11 back in July, 1969, the pastor of our church, Dean Woodruff, and I had been struggling to find the right symbol for the first lunar landing.
We wanted to express our feeling that what man was doing in this mission transcended electronics and computers and rockets ...
(Excerpt) Read more at myemail.constantcontact.com ...
Col Aldrin, an ace in many ways
Buzz, I have to apologize to you for Trump. The optics of the president sitting on his rear end at the oval office desk while shaking your hand seemed disrespectful. Hell, I would have given you a big Modi hug. Hat tip, NASA helped fund several of my aerospace projects. That was a time of building the middle class and an example of the synergy of American industry.
A rarely talked about first.
Buzz and Neil were the Moons first litter bugs.
We're now told that the technology required to transit the Van Allen Radiation Belts and go 238k to the moon and back has been lost to NASA via accidental destruction. The modern spacecraft Orion is now designed specifically to have the equivalent of six feet of lead shielding--like nothing Apollo had--to allow for safe human transit.
I explain it away as pictures of mock-ups. I made a few conceptual models myself back in the day. You have to remember this is back before CAD, back when the nation had real draftsmen. This thing was obviously very complex. It was the way we did things back in the day. I’ve personally seen several different style water and wind tunnels. They worked.
To my knowledge, NASA has never claimed that any LEM Hasselblad-like photos (with reticules) were made using black sky or with a regolith simulant.
Other anomalies, such as below, left-to-right, showing:
1) a still encased Rover while Rover tracks are already present near the LEM (AS17-140-21370),
2) a Rover away from the LEM with no tracks in front or behind it (AS17-137-20979), and
3) two different pictures, said to have been taken on different days at different times of day, 4.5kilometers apart, one including the Rover (top), the other not.
You don’t think pictures of Mock-ups wouldn’t be part of the official NASA images? Typically there was more then one mock-up for a dimensional check. I’ve seen some very creative technical photographers in my time. Much of my own work was done solely from pictures. I’ve seen pictures of jet engine mock-ups you couldn’t tell from the real thing.
So you’re a non believer, ho-hum. I see a single track in that first photo. You do realize they took a motorcycle with them too. Americans are like that, lol. The other photos can be just as easily explained away.
There are other pictures of the rover unpacked sitting at the left from that same camera. It didn’t show tracks either. The track you do see is likely from the equipment rack they towed behind them (without the rover) for drilling and rock collecting. It had close spaced wheels. If you look close it appears as two tracks. They wanted to take a motorcycle to the moon, but didn’t, lol.
And yes, as the photos above attest, there were mock-up photographs taken, but all of the official lunar gallery Hasselblad pictures (with reticules) are clearly marked to have been exposed during each of the lunar missions. All the photo magazines in the official Apollo gallery conform to the standard nomenclature, ASxx-yyy-zzzz' where xx is the actual mission. The specific picture you questioned is shown in this official Apollo Missions archive webpage. You'll note 'AS-40-5922' is contained within Apollo 11's S Magazine, whose legend states: '[129 color images (125 surface; 3 orbital; 0 other)]'. Thus, the only interpretation is that this claimed to be an official-in-every-way picture from the surface of the moon during the Apollo 11 mission.
Your claimed ease at "explain[ing] away" these important facts and turning truth seekers into 'ho-hum' non-believers is troublesome, OftheOhio, though I welcome you to keep trying, as again and again you've shown that those stubborn facts are just not on your side.
I noticed you didn't have anything to say about the two stacked video frames at right in my first post here. They, too, are authentic and more than troublesome for people that say they can easily "explain things away.".
If you choose to continue to say things like, "The track you do see is likely from the equipment rack", I trust you'll be able to point out to what you're referring using an official picture thereof from the galleries as I've appropriately taken the trouble to do to answer your skeptical critique.
I could care less about your conspiracy therories, according to a 2018 report from the Pentagon, the entire Department of Defense lost over 20,000 U.S.-based industrial suppliers from 2000 to 2018. Let that reality sink in. As an engineering designer for the military I saw the destruction myself.
I thought I distinctly remembered seeing someone riding a motorcycle on the moon on television, but that was 50 years ago. You’re the one trying to explain the photo as fake and suggesting the single track being from the not yet unpacked rover. It could have been any number of devices like a camera equipent rickshaw or simple versions of the Modular Equipment Transporter with changed out chevron pattern wheels. Even though they had a rover, you think they just manhandled large pieces of equipment? The first mission to the moon used the MET and there were lessons learned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_Equipment_Transporter Wheel development. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100000019.pdf
As far as the last two stacked pictures, I don’t see any rover in either of those pictures. Clearly it is the same camera location. What I do see looks very much like a piece of equipment. The left astronaut is obscuring whatever piece of equipment is behind him. Some of it’s parts are clearly visible though. The right astronaut looks as if he is dragging something. So what.
Leaat of all, I didn’t forget the story of Apollo 13 and how the mock up was instrumental in saving their lives after the oxygen tank explosion.
As with Pavlov and his dog, the US Mockingbird media have for many decades conditioned citizens to have a programmed reaction when someone uses the term "conspiracy theory." You should be careful not to allow yourself believe you've somehow advanced any argument in using the phrase. If your purpose was simply to cast aspersions my direction, be advised, you've really only soiled yourself.
The MET conveniently has two wheels, spaced 3' or so apart. I guess that can't be the answer for AS17-140-21370 then, eh? Oh, and the Wiki says the MET was only used on Apollo 14, so there's that second (pretty major) strike against your explanation.
The Rover with no tracks could not have been from its first descent onto the lunar surface, as all but a few of the 162 photographs in Apollo 17's Magazine C were ostensibly taken on an excursion away from the LEM.
Whether or not either of us could verify that the lower stacked picture in 3) contains the Rover, Here's an official NASA presentation with overlaid commentary: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bp1UcfrkK8rbMOVaZmqxa8nbVcENLCaL/view?usp=sharing
When the CIA's 1967 memo suggested using the moniker of conspiracy theory to turn the tables against those who might assert that a nefarious act was carried out by multiple people (in government), it was obviously intended to cover for the rising controversy concerning the JFK assassination. Unless you've had your head in the sand for 50+ years, you know that the assassination was a conspiracy. Obviously, Watergate was also a conspiracy unless you're G. Gordon Liddy or you want simply to turn all manner of ridicule onto yourself. There are laws with strict punishments against conspiracy and many events are conspiracies. Having a theory about a conspiracy simply means it's a work in progress and does not deserve ridicule. Take what we now know about the government-ensconced cabal at the White House, DOJ, CIA and FBI concerning coordination to take down PDJT. It's undeniable! We of course have plenty of evidence as to its conspiratorial nature to be able to say that, just as with the hoaxed Apollo missions, whose technology we're laughably told was destroyed so we can't even recreate a moon mission forty-eight years later!
Your inherent condescension toward excusing a conspiracy out of hand is naïve and pre-pre-programmed.
Ha,ha,ha. Beam me up. Thanks for the comment. I like to define who FR’s free traitors are every chance I get, lol. All the DOD contracts I worked on were domestic materials only FYI. What did your original comment have to do with the story, except to suggest it didn’t happen. Clever by half, lol. Apollo 14, their back to using the MET, clearly seen in the photo with original wheels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Surface_Experiments_Package#/media/File:ALSEP_AS14-67-9361.jpg
Who’s to say they didn’t use the MET with chevron wheels or a simple pull cart by Apollo 17. (your pics) It is quite possible the stacked pictures 4.5 kilometers (2.8 miles) meant a distance from home base, which was a significant achievement. My greatest accomplishment as an American designer was screwing over metric every chance I got and I was good at it. Logging into Google???? No Thanks, lol.
Amid all your misfires, false claims, broken logic and attacks, you claim to be an engineer. (Woo-woo!) See below, and please tell me how the inside-the=command-module-in-low-earth orbit pictures manifested representative technology of the 1960s while the outer closer resembles a homeless shelter under some weather-battered bridge?
Who's to say all the things you'd like to have seen among the Apollo "successes" never happened? As I've shown many times, even if you don't like any of the many Internet search engines, there are thousands of pictures in the film repository. Show us in the official pictures your hoped-for MET and motorcycle! I'm sure they wouldn't have missed showing off that expensive non-metric engineering if it had really accompanied any landing on the moon. It apparently hit a sore spot with you that it never made it to the moon, at least on Apollo 8-17.
The issue, of course, is the picture under discussion is from Apollo 17, photo AS17-140-21370, and cannot be explained by a two-wheeled craft that was only said to have been used for Apollo 14 and no other mission.
Furthermore, with MET's two wheels, some 3' apart from one another, added to the fact that we're able to seen well more than 3' to either side of that single wheel track, it can't be from a MET even if Wikipedia or other webpages are in error about the MET only accompanying Apollo 14.
How can I top that, man. I did a bunch of strut work myself over the years, lol. And for one, I was an engineering designer, not an engineer. There’s a big difference, I was a make it happen mf’er among other things besides engineering concepts. I often was an archival photographer on projects too, so I understand what you’re getting at as far as pictures. True story: I was watching the x-files show one night and they mentioned one of my projects. They thought it was alien technology. Naw, just some Ohio country boy representing, lol.
So now you’re an expert on METs, lol. It was designed and a manual produced in April 1970 after the second flight to the moon. Really man, why do you think they went into a phd level wheel study, *hits and grins, lol.
You appear to think that the completion of a manual all but proves that the equipment must therefore have been Included on the next Apollo mission to leave KSC. Obviously theres a lot thats faulty with such a presumption,
Both the link you provided and Wikipedia made clear that the MET was only along on Apollo 14, while it would only help for your arguments favor if it could be reliably shown that it was along on Apollo Mission 17, its really only a matter of faulty reading comprehension that you continue to claim anything else. Unless you have some different, authoritative information than what you provided earlier, we should leave it there.
From where you sit grinning, it must seem that I have a Ph.D. in Applied Mechanics, but I dont..
Since no identified authority claims anything other than that the MET was only on Apollo mission 14, we may leave it at that. Therefore the arguments youve put forward regarding the MET are to no effect.
Transit time through the VAB zone was quite brief for the Apollo missions. We actually have fairly good data on VAB exposure rates, going back to the Gemini 10 flight, which was the first manned spacecraft to penetrate a portion of the Van Allen belts (the South Atlantic Anomaly). Maximum mission duration for Apollo was in the range of 12 days (Apollo 17 made it to 12 days, 14 hours). Of more concern for long-duration missions is primary cosmic radiation. There is some thought of using Orion for long-duration flights, either to Mars or an asteroid, so shielding for that kind of spacecraft would likely be heavier than needed for the relatively short-duration lunar missions. Shielding against primary cosmic radiation (primarily high-energy protons) is challenging because exposure comes from secondary reactions in the shielding itself (sometimes called build-up). The newer shielding is probably some compositte material that provides protection against the primary particles while minimizing secondary emissions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.