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.
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!!!!!