Posted on 07/25/2006 11:13:09 AM PDT by wagglebee
THE first men to walk on the Moon reported seeing a UFO, a new TV documentary reveals.
Astronaut Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the Moon's surface after Neil Armstrong, says space agency bosses covered up their sighting.
And the Apollo 11 astronauts were also careful not to talk about it openly.
He said: "There was something out there, close enough to be observed, and what could it be?
"Now, obviously the three of us weren't going to blurt out, 'Hey, Houston, we've got something moving alongside of us and we don't know what it is, you know?
"Can you tell us what it is?'
Advertisement Falk AdSolution
"We weren't about to do that, because we knew that that those transmissions would be heard by all sorts of people and somebody might have demanded we turn back because of aliens or whatever the reason is."
The documentary, tonight on Five, also reveals that the astronauts had to repair the lunar module with a ballpoint pen after the historic landing in July 1969.
In the cramped conditions, someone's bulky spacesuit had snapped off a circuit breaker essential for starting up the engine.
To this day, Aldrin treasures the everyday object that saved their lives.
He said: "I used a pen, one of several that we had on board that didn't have metal on the end, and we used that to push the circuit breaker in."
The programme also draws on classified documents made public for the first time.
..one time when you were at band camp?
Hehe. You forgot to mention beebers.
She has jumped the shark as well as dyed her hair.
Now we know why his name is "Buzz."
Now we know why his name is "Buzz."
Spica is in Virgo. It means 'navel'.
My wife has a friend whose mother was the secterary to the general who was in charge of Project Blue Book.
On her deathbed she said "Lynn, it don't matter what anybody says, they are real"
Now why would a mother do that, true or not??
How so, RightWhale?
I note that dyed hair or no, she is fairly attractive looking in that picture.
What was the attack?
One reason I like the FR UFO threads so well is that there are often Freepers on them who have witnessed something themselves. It's interesting in the extreme to hear what they have to say. In any case, one always learns something, hears something not heard before. On a subject that could ond day prove to be vital.
One reason I like the FR UFO threads so well is that there are often Freepers on them who have witnessed something themselves. It's interesting in the extreme to hear what they have to say. In any case, one always learns something, hears something not heard before. On a subject that could ond day prove to be vital.
= = = =
I very much agree.
And this is a case in point:
My wife has a friend whose mother was the secterary to the general who was in charge of Project Blue Book.
On her deathbed she said "Lynn, it don't matter what anybody says, they are real"
Now why would a mother do that, true or not??
- - - -
Naysayers are often, on such threads, quick to call up Occam's Razor. Clearly, to me, the simplist conclusion is the obvious one . . . the mother was telling the truth.
To me, that one truth from that one mother is worth far more than all the hot headed, narrow, rigid biased, ignorant, derisive, silly, blind, deaf and dumb retorts these threads seem to pull from all the 2-4 year olds on the forum.
Maybe I should take something for my headache. I feel real annoyed today.
How does that Hubble thingie work then?
That's not my recollection of the scene. And Andrew Chaikin stated in the book that Armstrong had a baffled expression on his face while Aldrin took communion--which he probably got from Aldrin (who was the only guy to see Armstrong's facial expression).
It was all about the looks and body language between the actors, but if you see the scene there's no doubt about what they were going for.
I'll have to get the DVD set back from my niece and see it again, because that wasn't my recollection. I thought that the whole thing with Aldrin was handled well--a man of faith struggling with the sin of pride, and overcoming it.
Kix is the bland, sphere shaped cereal. Quix was a 70's era kids cereal that was 'saucer shaped', packed with sugar, and had a friendly looking alien as it's spokes-toon.
Those two statements do not add up for me logically.
Is your point that they didn't do it but if they did it's not Tom Hanks' fault? Tom, is that you?
Seriously, as I said, I dismissed my original perception of the scene and attributed any perceived anti-Christian bias to Hollywood culture, not any individual. I reassessed that surrounding Hanks doing The DaVinci Code and my perception tipped over towards it being a deliberate slam. I would have to recreate the stuff that I did nearly a year ago to pull it all back together but I found other things that Tom Hanks has done and said that reinforced my perception. Same thing for Ron Howard. I think both of them have felt type cast as "good guys" in the classic WASP mold and that they have consciously been trying to do things to break away from those images.
In my mind it speaks less to their personal beliefs at work and more to their perceptions of what will play in Hollywierd and what they have to do to advance their careers. Of course that simply makes them whores who will sell out God to get ahead (assuming you believe in all that God stuff).
Chaikin stated that Armstrong had a baffled expression on his face while Aldrin took communion.
Now, there's only one guy who could've seen Armstrong's face at that point. That guy is Buzz Aldrin.
Is your point that they didn't do it but if they did it's not Tom Hanks' fault?
Since the series was based on Chaikin's book, it seems to me that accurately recreating a scene from the book does not provide sufficient ground for condemning Hanks.
Much appreciate your kind and perceptive comments on this thread.
Don't mind being a fairly fool hardy point person . . . taking most of the kinder garten level assaults . . . but it helps a lot when there's at least a gram or two of responsiveness from the choir! LOL.
I wonder how many have read the interview Linda Moulton Howe did. Not too many seem brave enough to discuss it. Or else they are busy having summer fun?
Oh, you also deduced that it must have been Aldrin's fault that this story got out (and it couldn't possibly be an anecdote by Armstrong or someone else "dramatized" by Chaikin).
I'm not saying you're wrong but I am saying those positions do not make sense when presented together.
Did they portray Armstrong as "looking baffled" by Aldrin's offering him communion? If so that can easily be construed as I have interpreted the scene. You have to accept that given what you've said about Chaikin's book. Given that then you can't stand on your statement that the scene doesn't play that way. You interpret it differently than I do. Fine. I'm perfectly willing to accept that you perceive the scene differently than I do. But you can't argue that I'm wrong and the scene doesn't play that way and then cite the book (and Aldrin) as the source of a potentially negative portrayal and the ones that should be "blamed" for anything I may have found troubling.
Right now this isn't about how the mini-series portrayed Buzz Aldrin taking communion on the Moon. It's about internal consistency and logic in debate.
Oh, for a Jesuit education so that I could cite chapter and verse!!!!!
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.