[Merged] Did we land on the moon?

[skyeagle409]

It's untenable.

The specific area (the 'halo') image with scale...

http://www.nasa.gov/...llo15_halo.html

So roughly an area measuring 200m by 100m, on the whole?

The LM landing gear span - about 9m.

The length of the LM's shadow isn't known, but it appears (from this image, at least) to be less than twice the LM span, or 18m.

But the nearest 'darker' area is even closer to the LM, taking into account the shadow's direction ..

No way this fits your claim of a LM engine - period.

A real disturbance, as you've claimed here - would only become much clearer and much more distinct, the nearer you are to it. But this is the exact opposite, which means it is not a genuine disturbance.

You might want to take a look at this video.

[MID]

The length of the LM's shadow isn't known, but it appears (from this image, at least) to be less than twice the LM span, or 18m.

But the nearest 'darker' area is even closer to the LM, taking into account the shadow's direction ..

Actually, the length of the shadow in the photograph I was discussing is known.

It's 19.5 feet, plus or minus an inch or so.

Take a look at that shadow:

And your right. The shadow is not only less than twice the LM's landing gear span, it's actually about 10 feet shorter than the LM's landing gear span. It couldn't possibly be as long as the LM span, let alone twice that length.

What's the significance of the observation you're making here?

Maybe you would you like to know how I know the length of that shadow, and why that dirt looks darker in front of the LM, and why it's lighter off to the side?.

That would be fun to explain!

[MID]

No way this fits your claim of a LM engine - period.

A real disturbance, as you've claimed here - would only become much clearer and much more distinct, the nearer you are to it. But this is the exact opposite, which means it is not a genuine disturbance.

Maybe you will tell me the specifics of Falcon's descent to the lunar surface, and especially, the terminal descent phase, specifically, attitudes assumed dring final descent and throttle manipulations input by Dave Scott as he executed the landing?

If not (which is the case), then you can't explain the disturbance at all.

But, since it's not a genuine disturbance at all ( ), I suppose you'll not even attempt to learn anything about this stuff, although I can say, I am impressed with the turbologic that concluded that this is not a genuine disturbance...

[DONTEATUS]

Fun but painful IS there a point to all this ? Just know we went we walked,we brought back rocks and dust and dirt !

Why would anyone even think differently ?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Fun but painful IS there a point to all this ? Just know we went we walked,we brought back rocks and dust and dirt !

Why would anyone even think differently ?

Thinking differently is not at all a bad thing. Enquiring and doubting the "official story" are also good things. If we simply believed with out question we would never uncover corruption and lies in high places. It is essential that people question the status quo. On these points I agree with the conspiracy theorists.

However when these doubts require you to ignore the evidence, to dishonestly cherry pick evidence and claim it supports your case when it doesn't, when you operate a double standard; demanding proof of that which is already proven whilst making unsupported statements and personal opinions to back your own case and when you deny the truth simply because it IS the official story then you are no longer acting in a rational way. This is not the behaviour of a "different thinker", this is the behaviour of a "believer" who chooses not to rationally think about the evidence at all.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Waspie_Dwarf

[Obviousman]

Correct. For example, those who claim the LM could not have been real because it was "...never tested on Earth...". If you accept that, then you have to believe that Curiosity was faked because the MSL landing system was never tested on Earth; the first time it was tested as a whole was when it landed on Mars. If however, you look at the testing that was conducted for both system, you can see how there was a very high degree of confidence in them.

[turbonium]

Actually, the length of the shadow in the photograph I was discussing is known.

It's 19.5 feet, plus or minus an inch or so.

Take a look at that shadow:

And your right. The shadow is not only less than twice the LM's landing gear span, it's actually about 10 feet shorter than the LM's landing gear span. It couldn't possibly be as long as the LM span, let alone twice that length.

What's the significance of the observation you're making here?

Let's recap..

You claim the LM descent engine blasted surface dust outward and upward.

Satellite images show this feature is roughly 200m x 100m in size.

You estimate the LM shadow is 19.5 ft., or just under 6m. This shadow extends into the darker region beyond the 'halo'/'swath' area.

Do you see the problem yet?

If the LM engine blasts the dust outward (and upward) in all directions. Where do you think the LM landing spot is within the region of disturbance? Near the edge of it, or near the center of it?

Is it obvious now?

If not, look at the video clip of the LM landing. See the dust blasting out, until the LM lands on the surface?

How's that for significance?

[skyeagle409]

Additional confirmation on the reality of the Apollo moon missions

Several other Australian sites which are no longer part of the Deep Space Network were also involved in relaying Apollo lunar transmissions. The deep space (lunar) tracking station was originally Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station. Carnarvon Tracking Station was one of the smaller and more numerous MSFN sites used primarily to support the near-earth segments of Apollo missions, though it also relayed data from the ALSEP lunar surface experiments. Due to its location on Australia's west coast, Carnarvon played a special role in the Apollo trans lunar injection and atmospheric reentry phases. Deakin Switching Centre routed the Apollo television broadcasts.

http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/other_stations/deakin/index.html

[ChrLzs]

IF a certain poster had answered the CRITICAL QUESTIONS I had posted earlier, that poster would have been able to do one of two things:

1. Prove he had a modicum of knowledge about the 'issue' that he is still desperately trying to make a point with..

2. Listen and LEARN.

He has, of course, completely ignored those questions, which shows either:

A. He knows why I raised them and is deliberately and wilfully ignoring them as he knows he hasn't got a leg to stand on, and is thereby (attempting to) mislead this forum. (Without success, I note)

B. He does not want to learn, rather preferring to remain ignorant as that is the only position he can argue this from..

Here are the questions that said poster has refused to answer and discuss. I think he may know they shoot enormous holes in his posturing (- although I'm betting he can't quite work out why number 1 is important.. he'll find out later).

1. The Moon does not have any significant atmosphere. Yes or No?

2. The regolith (or lunar soil if you like) is largely composed of basaltic and anorthositic rock particles, along with silicate glass particles and various agglomerates of those and other minerals. Yes or No?

3. The major processes that determine the nature of the lunar regolith are:

Comminution - the crushing and grinding caused mainly by meteorite impacts

Aggregation/Aglutination - the welding and fusing of particles, again mainly caused by the high temperatures of meteorite impacts

Spallation/Sputtering - effects caused by the impact of high energy particles mainly from the solar wind

Yes or No?

Those issues are CRITICAL to the claim being made (most of the folks on this thread will have an idea why), yet the poster making this silly claim has REFUSED to answer them. He has most likely refused BECAUSE he doesn't have a clue WHY I have asked them (he just knows it will be bad when his lack of knowledge is thereby revealed..). The only other possibility is that he knows very well why I am asking them.. Anyway, this is his last chance to answer those questions. I'll give him a whole week to do so (I'm goin' outback not long from now and I ain't taking the PC..), but after that I shall return and begin the PROPER process of investigating the (non)issue of the visibility of regolith disturbance from Apollo missions.

The claimant is welcome to keep avoiding the questions.., but if he tries to answer them, I'd strongly suggest he knows his topic.. It's going to look VERY bad when I explain all the issues that said claimant is completely ignorant of.

Anyways, I'm off late tomorrow - if I don't have time to pop back in afore then, have fun in my absence y'all..

[turbonium]

NASA controlled the entire Apollo project, and the tracking stations.were no exception. Simply look at the clear evidence of NASA control.

.

Who else but NASA would be funding the Apollo tracking stations? Who else pays the bills, hires the staff? It's not Santa Claus.

[turbonium]

IF a certain poster had answered the CRITICAL QUESTIONS I had posted earlier, that poster would have been able to do one of two things:

1. Prove he had a modicum of knowledge about the 'issue' that he is still desperately trying to make a point with..

2. Listen and LEARN.

He has, of course, completely ignored those questions, which shows either:

A. He knows why I raised them and is deliberately and wilfully ignoring them as he knows he hasn't got a leg to stand on, and is thereby (attempting to) mislead this forum. (Without success, I note)

B. He does not want to learn, rather preferring to remain ignorant as that is the only position he can argue this from..

Here are the questions that said poster has refused to answer and discuss. I think he may know they shoot enormous holes in his posturing (- although I'm betting he can't quite work out why number 1 is important.. he'll find out later).

1. The Moon does not have any significant atmosphere. Yes or No?

2. The regolith (or lunar soil if you like) is largely composed of basaltic and anorthositic rock particles, along with silicate glass particles and various agglomerates of those and other minerals. Yes or No?

3. The major processes that determine the nature of the lunar regolith are:

Comminution - the crushing and grinding caused mainly by meteorite impacts

Aggregation/Aglutination - the welding and fusing of particles, again mainly caused by the high temperatures of meteorite impacts

Spallation/Sputtering - effects caused by the impact of high energy particles mainly from the solar wind

Yes or No?

Those issues are CRITICAL to the claim being made (most of the folks on this thread will have an idea why), yet the poster making this silly claim has REFUSED to answer them. He has most likely refused BECAUSE he doesn't have a clue WHY I have asked them (he just knows it will be bad when his lack of knowledge is thereby revealed..). The only other possibility is that he knows very well why I am asking them.. Anyway, this is his last chance to answer those questions. I'll give him a whole week to do so (I'm goin' outback not long from now and I ain't taking the PC..), but after that I shall return and begin the PROPER process of investigating the (non)issue of the visibility of regolith disturbance from Apollo missions.

First of all, "significant" is a subjective term. Your idea of a "significant" atmosphere may differ to mine. For example, I could argue ANY atmosphere is "significant", simply because it exists. And you can say an atmosphere isn't "significant" unless it has x,y and z

But no matter, I'll answer 'yes' to all three questions, so now it's your move.

[Obviousman]

NASA controlled the entire Apollo project, and the tracking stations.were no exception.

(Bolding mine) Absolutely false. Not only do the people who worked there say otherwise but the records themeselves indicate this was not correct. Another example of ignoring reality to suit your own desires.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Obviousman

[mrbusdriver]

Turbo,

You seem under the impression that NASA engineered and assembled everything that went into the Saturn launces of Apollo, including the spacecraft. That's not how it worked.

NASA bid out contracts for the design and construction of each part...the S1C. the SM, the LM, the various propulsion systems etc. NASA may have overseen the projects, as in the SII situation, but it was the companies themselves that had it make the hardware. NASA had an assembly of experts that could focus on problem areas for solutions, but again, the contractors did the main design and construction. And NASA didn't "own" them...they had other, non-NASA projects going on as well.

Does your employer "own" you? Can he make you do anything he says, no matter how unethical or immoral? Are NASA contractors somehow different from you?

You really like to insult people you don't know...

[MID]

Ah, now I'm seeing what your attempting here.

Let's recap..

You claim the LM descent engine blasted surface dust outward and upward.

Satellite images show this feature is roughly 200m x 100m in size.

I'm guessing that you have deliberately ignored the nature of this subtle surface disruption, and the nature of the lunar dust, and the fact that dust "blasted" out in thin, linear sheets, and that the DPS engine pushed it out at differeing angles, and in different sheets, and disrupted it to different thicknesses, dependednt upon the distance from the DPS bell, the angle it struck the surface, the velocity, which would be based on altitude, and upon throttle setting and exhaust gas velocity.

One of the reasons I asked you for the descent data was so you could see these factors and how the dirt wasn't disrupted in a symmetrical path.

Of course I didn't expect any real study on your part, and obviously I didn't get it.

Suppose they had come into the landing area and yawed left 15 degrees, then rolled 10 degrees right at an altitude of 120 feet, and their throttle was at 18% with an exhaust gas velocity of 300 FPS.. Suppose you understood that and realized that the ground disruption below them wouldn't have been symettrical, but would've saw a lengthening and leserdisruption to their left?

Since your specialist's knowledge had declared that this disruption wasn't real. I asked for the data!

You estimate the LM shadow is 19.5 ft., or just under 6m. This shadow extends into the darker region beyond the 'halo'/'swath' area.

Do you see the problem yet?

I don't estimate it. I know it. Wanna know how?

(I asked hoping for a learning experience to blossom, but alas... )

And you say that this shadow extends into the darker area beyond the swath area?

Do you think that "swath area of 300 x 600 feet (according to your estimate from orbital pictures) is a symmetrical disturbance?

And is it possible that you actually looked at the photo provioded of that shadow, and the darkened area in front of the LM, and that while looking carefully at it, you realized something...?

That the darkened area is created by Dave Scott and Jim Irwin and their LRV over the course of the 3 EVAs they conducted in that area back in July, 1971?

Just look at the place and notice something common, something you didn't see in the hundreds of surface photos...

Look at all the SWATHING, HALOING or whatever you want to call it. It's everywhere, along rille edges, on mountains and around craters!

It's common, easily understood, and easily explainable. But it astounds me that you again wish to take an old, totally fleshed out item, and resurrect it in order to restate it as being some sort of proof of your contention???

If the LM engine blasts the dust outward (and upward) in all directions. Where do you think the LM landing spot is within the region of disturbance? Near the edge of it, or near the center of it?

Is it obvious now?

If not, look at the video clip of the LM landing. See the dust blasting out, until the LM lands on the surface?

Uh yea...it's obvious, turb. You don't understand the dark area you're looking at. Men made it. To good men, over three days outside the LM back in the summer of '71.

How's that for significance?

Yes, and I did understand the significance of it, not your clsimsd and empty comments,. but the significance of the real event of 41 years ago, when it actually happened.

Maybe now, you understand the significance of why it's so difficult for you here, and why you'll never prove what you contend.

It would be a great pleasure to learn about this stuff. I know it.

And this Halo, Swath baloney, which you're extending desparately, and ineffectively, is boring nonsense, and shows only one thing:

You don't understand what your attempting to talk about.

But we all do understand that these many swaths or haloes that are typical on the Moon aren't real features, because they're just not always visible on the ground, since they're very subtle, and we jknow that since you've taught us, if you cn't see it clearly on the ground, but you can from orbit--it can't be real!

[ChrLzs]

I'll answer 'yes' to all three questions, so now it's your move.

Just for the record, let me point out that in his 'answer' there was not even a glimmer of understanding of why I pointed out those facts.

Indeed, this:

First of all, "significant" is a subjective term. Your idea of a "significant" atmosphere may differ to mine. For example, I could argue ANY atmosphere is "significant", simply because it exists. And you can say an atmosphere isn't "significant" unless it has x,y and z

is a simply marvelous waffling comment that gives a PERFECT example of the problem. For despite that being the IDEAL time for him to say WHY it is VERY significant (and it IS) .... he could not do so.

And that's just the beginning of what will be a comprehensive demonstration of how little knowledge the claimant has on this topic.

There's no shame in not having knowledge of a topic.. after all, I have almost no knowledge of the technicalities of .. say .. quantum entanglement. But then I don't display that ignorance at physics forums by posting ridiculously incorrect and ill-informed claims - that's where the shame comes in.

In fact I'll wager that even though he now has a week to find out why those things are VITALLY important and relevant, he won't. Or is that ..can't..?

Anyway, I'll leave it at that and take my short sabbatical. I won't bother our claimant for a week or so, during which time he is welcome to Google up whatever he can to try to look like he knows the topic well enough to back this claim up. Problem is that he doesn't know what is about to unfold (despite several big hints in posts already made by me and others). Unless you are genuinely familiar with this topic, you would be very unlikely to be able to guess at what you need to type in..

So, good luck. Someone will need it...

[MID]

NASA controlled the entire Apollo project, and the tracking stations.were no exception. Simply look at the clear evidence of NASA control.

.

Who else but NASA would be funding the Apollo tracking stations? Who else pays the bills, hires the staff? It's not Santa Claus.

...You know, turb, I find myself stifled in any attempt to argue that fact.

NASA did essentially control the Apollo Program. It was managed by NASA, manned by NASA, and certainly flown by NASA. The Unites States government paid for it, and a pile of independent contractors were hired to help. Even they reported to NASA.

I agree with you.

When reviewing Project Apollo, there is absolutely clear evidence of NASA control. That evidence is available and is as plain as day. It's this:

WE DID IT. WE LANDED ON THE MOON, SIX TIMES IN 3 YEARS..not only fulfilling President Kennedy's challenge, but executing a massively successful lunar exloration program.

It's only possible that this happened because of NASA!

You know, I'm thinking you've been learning something ...

[MID]

Now Turb...

You failed to answer my question regarding the photograph. Perhaps it's just too difficult?

Just what do you know?

Try this:

Who are these people whose names I list below:

These 12 did something extraordinary. These 12 men are the only human beings to have done it.

David Scott, Buzz Aldrin, Charles Conrad, Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan, Al Bean, Al Shepard, Ed Mitchell, Jim Irwin, John Young, Charles Duke, and Jack Schmitt.

These 24 men are the only people to have done something extraordinary too, They are the only men to have been someplace extraordinary. What did they do?

David Scott, Buzz Aldrin, Charles Conrad, Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan, Al Bean, Al Shepard, Ed Mitchell, Jim Irwin, John Young, Charles Duke, and Jack Schmitt, Frank Borman, William Anders, James Lovell, Tom Stafford, Michael Collins, Dick Gordon, Fred Haise, Jack Sweigert, Stu Roosa, Al Worden, Ken Mattingly, and Ron Evans.

And these 6 guys have done something that no other people have ever done:

This is perhaps the most exclusive club on the planet. Indeed, the first three represent the only three men to have accomplished this thing that are alive on this planet.

Gene Cernan, John Young, Dave Scott, Alan Shepard, Neil Armstrong, and Pete Conrad

What did these six do?

[postbaguk]

Further to the Japanese and Chinese images of the Apollo 15 landing site I posted earlier, I found a JAXA image of the Apollo 11 landing site. Although the resolution isn't sufficient to resolve the lander itself, It seems to show a similar brightened area to that shown in LRO images, exactly where the Apollo LM would be. Great stuff!

http://wms.selene.da.../mi/mi_002.html

Here's a crop of an LRO image of the Apollo 11 site (levels adjusted).

And here's the comparison. (The Selene image is zoomed in, you can clearly see the brightened area where the LM is located in both images).

Edited September 22, 2012 by postbaguk

[MID]

Posty, I'm thinkin'...

This issue is done. He's done.

There's nothing else he can really say about this material...except:

"It's all a fake. NASA is responsible for those pictures, so they can't be real."

Edited September 22, 2012 by MID

[skyeagle409]

NASA controlled the entire Apollo project, and the tracking stations.were no exception. Simply look at the clear evidence of NASA control.

.

Who else but NASA would be funding the Apollo tracking stations? Who else pays the bills, hires the staff? It's not Santa Claus.

Are you implying that the Australians, China, Japan, Russia, and many other nations around the globe that verified the Apollo moon missions, are lying?

China publishes high-resolution full moon map

BEIJING, Feb. 6 (Xinhua) -- China on Monday published a full coverage map of the moon, as well as several high-resolution images of the celestial body, captured by the country's second moon orbiter, the Chang'e-2.

The map and images, released by the State Administration of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defence (SASTIND), are the highest-resolution photos of the entirety of the moon's surface to be published thus far, said Liu Dongkui, deputy chief commander of China's lunar probe project.

India: Chandrayaan-1

As with SELENE, the Terrain Mapping Camera of India's Chandrayaan-1 probe did not have enough resolution to record Apollo hardware. Nevertheless, as with SELENE, Chandrayaan-1 independently recorded evidence of lighter, disturbed soil around the Apollo 15 site

Soviet Union: Observers of all missions.

Soviet Union

The Soviet Union monitored the missions at their Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment".[28] Vasily Mishin ("The Moon Programme That Faltered."), in Spaceflight. 33 (March 1991), pages 2–3 describes how the Soviet Moon programme lost energy after the Apollo landing.

Japan: SELENE photographs

Japan

In 2008, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings.[23] On the left are two photos taken on the lunar surface by Apollo 15 astronauts in July or August 1971. On the right is a 2008 reconstruction from images taken by the SELENE terrain camera and 3-D projected to the same vantage point as the surface photos. The terrain is a close match within the SELENE camera resolution of 10 meters

The Bochum Observatory director: Verified Apollo 11 Mission

The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies.

A compilation of sightings appeared in "Observations of Apollo 11" in Sky and Telescope magazine, November 1969, pp. 358–359.

Spain

The Madrid Apollo Station, part of the Deep Space Network, built in Fresnedillas, near Madrid, Spain tracked Apollo 11.

Goldstone Tracking Station in California tracked Apollo 11.

The UK

At Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, the telescope was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik. At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the unmanned Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to land on the Moon. In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings they made.

USA

Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and in the command module. Recordings made by Baysinger share certain characteristics with recordings made at Bochum Observatory by Heinz Kaminski (see above), in that both Kaminski's and Baysinger's recordings do not include the capsule communicator in Houston and the associated Quindar tones heard in NASA audio and seen on NASA Apollo 11 transcripts. Kaminski and Baysinger could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from the earth.

Apollo 12

Surveyor 3 camera brought back from the Moon by Apollo 12, on display at the National Air and Space Museum

* Paul Maley reports several sightings of the Apollo 12 Command Module.

* Parts of Surveyor 3, which landed on the Moon in April 1967, were brought back to Earth by Apollo 12 in November 1969. These samples were shown to have been exposed to lunar conditions.

We have all of that evidence above vs. no shred of evidence from you.

[MID]

Proof Apollo astronauts walked on the moon.

Yes, Sky, Apollo 12...not only man's second lunar landing, but A precise, exact spot-on landing by Pete Conrad, step two in a comprehensive lunar exploration capability.

I'll never forget watching him fly right over the rim of Surveyor crater...the excitement in his voice palpable, and circling the rim of the crater before plopping Intrepid down on the opposite side of the crater. Al Bean was enthusiastic about Pete's landing. The "Beautifuls" came through clearly. Fortunately, Pete's colorful expletives were not coming through!

But he nailed it dead on!

:tsu:

I miss Pete Conrad...

Edited September 22, 2012 by MID

[skyeagle409]

Yes, Sky, Apollo 12...not only man's second lunar landing, but A precise, exact spot-on landing by Pete Conrad, step two in a comprehensive lunar exploration capability.

I'll never forget watching him fly right over the rim of Surveyor crater...the excitement in his voice palpable, and circling the rim of the crater before plopping Intrepid down on the opposite side of the crater. Al Bean was enthusiastic about Pete's landing. The "Beautifuls" came through clearly. Fortunately, Pete's colorful expletives were not coming through!

But he nailed it dead on!

:tsu:

I miss Pete Conrad...

Colonel Warren and I, flew together yesterday and I couldn't help but take a picture of a photo of the Apollo 14 astronauts he has on display in his museum, which I am adding as an attachment. He is very proud to have been on the Apollo 14 recovery team.

Edited September 22, 2012 by skyeagle409

[DONTEATUS]

Mid, ITs just good to know that 99 % of the people that think on this planet Do know we went to the Moon and Yes NASA does solve the Impossible ,Oh So Well ! And that theres really nothing we can do about people that are blind to the facts ! But I guess its what gives us or fun for the day sometimes !

See you Looking up and winking at the Moon Soon !

[MID]

Colonel Warren and I, flew together yesterday and I couldn't help but take a picture of a photo of the Apollo 14 astronauts he has on display in his museum, which I am adding as an attachment. He is very proud to have been on the Apollo 14 recovery team.

And...he should be proud of that. Sky.

Anyone, involved in Apollo in some way, would be proud.

Indeed, most all americans who were around then, are proud to have been around to witness it!

I've got to say I'm rather pensive about thinking of Pete, and of course, Neil left us a couple weks ago, and looking at the 14 crew, there's two more Moon travelers who are gone: Al Shepard and Stu Roosa..

I was thinking last night while looking at the stars how lucky I have been in my life to have been exposed to the special people I have known...and, COL Warren can be proud of all he's done...certainly the Apollo 14 crew recovery, and of course, all in his life that preceeded that event as well.

Another salute to the Colonel from me!

:tsu:

[skyeagle409]

And...he should be proud of that. Sky.

Anyone, involved in Apollo in some way, would be proud.

Indeed, most all americans who were around then, are proud to have been around to witness it!

I've got to say I'm rather pensive about thinking of Pete, and of course, Neil left us a couple weks ago, and looking at the 14 crew, there's two more Moon travelers who are gone: Al Shepard and Stu Roosa..

I was thinking last night while looking at the stars how lucky I have been in my life to have been exposed to the special people I have known...and, COL Warren can be proud of all he's done...certainly the Apollo 14 crew recovery, and of course, all in his life that preceeded that event as well.

Another salute to the Colonel from me!

:tsu:

Thank You! I will pass on your salute to him at his home, which will brighten his day! And, I salute those of NASA who have brought us great pride and people must understand that NASA is responsible for many of the technological marvels of today. Check this out.

http://www.youtube.c...CIzZHpFtY?rel=0

Edited September 23, 2012 by skyeagle409