It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Neil Armstrong Article on BBC site

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Hi all,

Neil Armstrong remains somewhat of a mystery regarding his very private nature since the Moon landings.

Why is this?



To my knowledge he has done two television interviews in the last 40 years


A good article here on the man. i never really knew much about him or have looked into it, but this is a good place to start for anyone looking to dig a little deeper.

news.bbc.co.uk...




posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   
My take on Armstrong is he's the "good" guy.

Buzz is the "bad" - leaving Collins "the ugly".

Apollo 11 Press Conference 1969 download here: www.mininova.org... .... 3 guys - back from the BIGGEST achievement in our known history - they look so sullen, scared, confused - tranced....

Mind Control was a factor - threats another. Armstrong wants to talk - but he knows if he does, the threats will most probably be carried out.

In a way I feel sorry for Armstrong. Aldrin, and Collins on the other hand, something deceptive is in their demeanor. Probably both nice guys, but who knows what NAZA did to these off world explorers...



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
My take on Armstrong is he's the "good" guy.

Buzz is the "bad" - leaving Collins "the ugly".

Apollo 11 Press Conference 1969 download here: www.mininova.org... .... 3 guys - back from the BIGGEST achievement in our known history - they look so sullen, scared, confused - tranced....

Mind Control was a factor - threats another. Armstrong wants to talk - but he knows if he does, the threats will most probably be carried out.

Maybe a 3 WEEK QUARANTINE was the main factor, one you failed to mention once again, or maybe they were solemnly realizing after 3 weeks that they had just passed the greatest moment of their lives leaving them less to look forward to than to look behind.. Instead you just spin it the way you want with unproven assertions and besmirching.



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


I'll just give you this to ponder then:



posted on Jul, 7 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Isn't Neil set with some corporate positions.
The Wright Brother never divulged their propeller design.
They were not going to parrot that secret.
Perhaps they patented the design and made sure the corporations paid.
I head there was never any better design.

NASA is in the gravity business and Von Braun would certainly
want to know more than Einstein. Tesla announced in 1932 his
gravitation theory would explain the expanding universe and
criticized Einstein for inserting a "lambda" in his equation.
Von Braun would want to know the Tesla theory and may have
heard of it before WWII. After the war Tesla's effects were most
certainly riffled through by Von Braun to know the secret of gravity.

That done the Moon Mission met its final obstacle.
Tesla said the Earth provides 36" of lead shielding.

Don't forget in that capsule there are two ways out.
If they don't go to the Moon and say so, accidents can happen.
NASA can't have heroes dying of radiation poisoning going to
the Moon, on the Moon, coming back from the Moon and a few
days later.

Imagine, your in Earth orbit and you hear we need 36" of lead or
you go according to plan.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
reply to post by ngchunter
 


I'll just give you this to ponder then:

Ah yes, his metaphore for the difficulty of exploration and discovery MUST mean he's a filthy liar... or maybe it just means you're still suffering from confimation bias. There are no great breakthroughs or great ideas undiscovered that instantly become available if anyone ever disproved the moon landings; it would only mean that many of our so-called advances in space-based technology were false hoaxes, it wouldn't do anything to advance technology. Your attempt to twist his metaphore doesn't even work the way you wish it did. It's clear that what he was saying was that advances in science would come to those who look deeper and uncover the hidden truths in nature itself.

[edit on 8-7-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 


Think of the control and money spent to run the program and to
get them in that capsule. I feel the investors were hoodwinked
by Von Braun's dream who later found out the truth.
However Von Braun never disclosed the most highly guarded
secrets.

We would crap our pants all the way to the moon.
The option to circle the Earth would seem OK.
Especially if we were told no one would ever go to the moon and live.
Altitude radiation level compared with sea levels might hold the secret.



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Do you often hear people telling you "out of context"? You should.

You seem to think you know it all - do you work for NASA?

They lie, get over it. Armstrong looks happy in this talk?



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 


Think of the control and money spent to run the program and to
get them in that capsule. I feel the investors were hoodwinked
by Von Braun's dream who later found out the truth.
However Von Braun never disclosed the most highly guarded
secrets.

We would crap our pants all the way to the moon.
The option to circle the Earth would seem OK.
Especially if we were told no one would ever go to the moon and live.
Altitude radiation level compared with sea levels might hold the secret.




Totally agree with the radiation part - but I now believe they did go to the Moon, with ET help. I think they mixed real and false images on purpose too.

[edit on 8-7-2009 by watchZEITGEISTnow]



posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Such a dissent had never been attempted and only in
the dreams or physical misrepresentations of fiction writers.
Armstrong just about crashed in a test dissent.

Just about impossible to make a controlled landing.
Small remote rovers make bounce downs.

The only stable mover against gravity and safe in any
storm is the craft promised by Tesla.
Gasses out one end might takeoff alright but will never
land safety.
One thing in engineering must take place to believe:
you have to test and the lander was never fully tested.


jra

posted on Jul, 8 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Armstrong just about crashed in a test dissent.


Due to a mechanical problem with one of the thrusters on the LLRV itself. And nothing to do with Armstrong or difficulty of flying the vehicle.


Just about impossible to make a controlled landing.
Small remote rovers make bounce downs.


And what did you base this conclusion on? It's far from impossible.

Some one correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know. The only reason the rovers used airbags was to keeps costs down, as well as to keep the weight of the spacecraft down. Only the 3 Mars Rovers used airbags. Vikings 1 and 2 as well as the Phoenix lander used rockets to land. The next Mars rover, the Mars Science Laboratory, will use rockets as well.


One thing in engineering must take place to believe:
you have to test and the lander was never fully tested.


Never fully tested? Then what was the point of Apollo 9, Apollo 10 and Apollo 11 then? Apollo 9 tested the LM in Earth orbit. Apollo 10 tested the LM in Lunar orbit and it descended all the way down to 15.6 km above the Lunar surface and then came back up to rendezvous with the CSM. Apollo 11 was also test of the Apollo systems. Plus there were the 5 Surveyor landers that landed on the Moon before Apollo.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join