Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Illiniblue35

Did we land on the moon?

14,130 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Czero 101

Thanks for the info, MID, but it appears as though Jackdaw is just wasting our time...

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackdaw

You mean this one?

AS11-40-5877HR.jpg

In fact, slow down and make your syntax make some sense. "...doesn't match the so-called landing on the Moon and the giant step???"

I'm not sure what that means.

That's a photo taken by Buzz Aldrin (AS11-40-5877).

Here's his picture of himself making the impression (AS11-40-5880):

AS11-40-5880HR.jpg

The photo was made for specialists back in Houston who were going to be doing soil mechanics studies...

Wanna show me how that tread pattern is different from the one on Buzz's right lunar overshoe sole...or any lunar overshoe sole?

So maybe explain what you're actually talking about here?

OH...it was a "small step...a giant leap..."

I know you probably weren't around then (HB's, as a rule, are too young for that, geenerally speaking. Although there have been a few who've been older people. Generally, they're daft, or damaged through some sort of abuse or mental impairment (See, Kaysing, William, Rene, Ralph)

:devil:

Oh, of course, "why is this photo there?"

Gee. Kinda hard to explain, but the 1400 + Hasselblad photos taken during the Apollo 11 mission by the crew are now public record and are, along with the other maybe 18,000 images from the other midssions, available.

Only reason I can think of.

Daft? Damaged through abuse? Mentally impaired? - I sincerely hope that you were not having a snipe at the younger generation of today who are far more inquisitive for TRUTH than a Sixties child? . . . . and join Forums such as this daily in their quest?

And . . .May I remind you of Waspie Dwarfs earlier post re UM rules and replies?

Such regulations apply to you . . . . and your buddies?

Now . . . when are we going to do a poll on UM and its 104, 019 members as to the question -

DID WE LAND ON THE MOON?

One member = One vote

Edited by Jackdaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101
Now . . . when are we going to do a poll on UM and its 104, 019 members as to the question -

DID WE LAND ON THE MOON?

One member = One vote

When are you going to actually post the evidence regarding this:

And please explain why there is a pic on the net or web of a footprint that does not match the so called landing on the moon and the giant step for mankind?

A picture or a link to back up your assertion that this "evidence" exists is all we're asking for.

Surely that's not too much, is it?

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Maybe he needs something colourful and big, to understand...

Jackdaw, is there some reason - other than the blindingly obvious - why you keep trying to distract from the fact that YOU HAVE NOT BACKED UP ANY OF THE CLAIMS YOU HAVE MADE?

If you are perhaps suffering from inability to remember or use the page navigation controls, on my next post I shall repeat the claims YOU HAVE NOT BACKED UP

... and will continue to do so.

Also, would you mind CROPPING your quotes to remove that which you are running away from not addressing, so as not to waste bandwidth? That's pretty basic forum etiquette.

Thanks (in advance) for contributing to the forum in a useful way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Daft? Damaged through abuse? Mentally impaired? - I sincerely hope that you were not having a snipe at the younger generation of today who are far more inquisitive for TRUTH than a Sixties child? . . . .

Giant technological leaps of the 1960s are what placed men on the moon.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Now. . . please explain the moon buggy to our readers, believers and hoaxers.

The Apollo Lunar Roving Vehicle

The Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) was an electric vehicle designed to operate in the low-gravity vacuum of the Moon and to be capable of traversing the lunar surface, allowing the Apollo astronauts to extend the range of their surface extravehicular activities. Three LRVs were driven on the Moon, one on Apollo 15 by astronauts David Scott and Jim Irwin, one on Apollo 16 by John Young and Charles Duke, and one on Apollo 17 by Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt. Each rover was used on three traverses, one per day over the three day course of each mission. On Apollo 15 the LRV was driven a total of 27.8 km in 3 hours, 2 minutes of driving time. The longest single traverse was 12.5 km and the maximum range from the LM was 5.0 km. On Apollo 16 the vehicle traversed 26.7 km in 3 hours 26 minutes of driving. The longest traverse was 11.6 km and the LRV reached a distance of 4.5 km from the LM. On Apollo 17 the rover went 35.9 km in 4 hours 26 minutes total drive time. The longest traverse was 20.1 km and the greatest range from the LM was 7.6 km.

as15_88_11901.gif

The Lunar Roving Vehicle had a mass of 210 kg and was designed to hold a payload of an additional 490 kg on the lunar surface. The frame was 3.1 meters long with a wheelbase of 2.3 meters. The maximum height was 1.14 meters. The frame was made of aluminum alloy 2219 tubing welded assemblies and consisted of a 3 part chassis which was hinged in the center so it could be folded up and hung in the Lunar Module quad 1 bay. It had two side-by-side foldable seats made of tubular aluminum with nylon webbing and aluminum floor panels. An armrest was mounted between the seats, and each seat had adjustable footrests and a velcro seatbelt. A large mesh dish antenna was mounted on a mast on the front center of the rover. The suspension consisted of a double horizontal wishbone with upper and lower torsion bars and a damper unit between the chassis and upper wishbone. Fully loaded the LRV had a ground clearance of 36 cm.

as17_147_22526.gif

The wheels consisted of a spun aluminum hub and an 81.8 cm diameter, 23 cm wide tire made of zinc coated woven 0.083 cm diameter steel strands attached to the rim and discs of formed aluminum. Titanium chevrons covered 50% of the contact area to provide traction. Inside the tire was a 64.8 cm diameter bump stop frame to protect the hub. Dust guards were mounted above the wheels. Each wheel had its own electric drive, a DC series wound 0.25 hp motor capable of 10,000 rpm, attached to the wheel via an 80:1 harmonic drive, and a mechanical brake unit. Manuevering capability was provided through the use of front and rear steering motors. Each series wound DC steering motor was capable of 0.1 hp. Both sets of wheels would turn in opposite directions, giving a steering radius of 3.1 meters, or could be decoupled so only one set would be used for steering. Power was provided by two 36-volt silver-zinc potassium hydroxide non-rechargeable batteries with a capacity of 121 amp-hr. These were used to power the drive and steering motors and also a 36 volt utility outlet mounted on front of the LRV to power the communications relay unit or the TV camera. Passive thermal controls kept the batteries within an optimal temperature range.

lrv_display.gif

A T-shaped hand controller situated between the two seats controlled the four drive motors, two steering motors and brakes. Moving the stick forward powered the LRV forward, left and right turned the vehicle left or right, pulling backwards activated the brakes. Activating a switch on the handle before pulling back would put the LRV into reverse. Pulling the handle all the way back activated a parking brake. The control and display modules were situated in front of the handle and gave information on the speed, heading, pitch, and power and temperature levels. Navigation was based on continuously recording direction and distance through use of a directional gyro and odometer and inputting this data to a computer which would keep track of the overall direction and distance back to the LM. There was also a Sun-shadow device which could give a manual heading based on the direction of the Sun, using the fact that the Sun moved very slowly in the sky. The image at left shows a diagram of the layout of the control and display module, the Sun-shadow device is at top center between the heading and speed readouts.

lrv_deployment_art.gif

Deployment of the LRV from the LM quad 1 by the astronauts was achieved with a system of pulleys and braked reels using ropes and cloth tapes. The rover was folded and stored in quad 1 with the underside of the chassis facing out. One astronaut would climb the egress ladder on the LM and release the rover, which would then be slowly tilted out by the second astronaut on the ground through the use of reels and tapes. As the rover was let down from the bay most of the deployment was automatic. The rear wheels folded out and locked in place and when they touched the ground the front of the rover could be unfolded, the wheels deployed, and the entire frame let down to the surface by pulleys. The rover components locked into place upon opening. Cabling, pins, and tripods would then be removed and the seats and footrests raised. After switching on all the electronics the vehicle was ready to back away from the LM. The image at right shows an earlier version of the planned deployment which does not exactly match the final sequence, note for example that the rover is facing away from the LM after deployment.

lrv_s71_00166.gif

The original cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to Boeing (with Delco as a major sub-contractor) was for $19 million and called for delivery of the first LRV by 1 April 1971, but cost overruns led to a final cost of $38 million. Four lunar rovers were built, one each for Apollos 15, 16, qnd 17, and one that was used for spare parts after the cancellation of further Apollo missions. There were other LRV models built: a static model to assist with human factors design, an engineering model to design and integrate the subsystems, two 1/6 gravity models for testing the deployment mechanism, a 1-gravity trainer to give the astronauts instruction in the operation of the rover and allow them to practice driving it, a mass model to test the effect of the rover on the LM structure, balance and handling, a vibration test unit to study the LRV's durability and handling of launch stresses, and a qualification test unit to study integration of all LRV subsystems. The LRV was developed in only 17 months and yet performed all its functions on the Moon with no major anomalies. Harrison Schmitt of Apollo 17 said, "....the Lunar Rover proved to be the reliable, safe and flexible lunar exploration vehicle we expected it to be. Without it, the major scientific discoveries of Apollo 15, 16, and 17 would not have been possible; and our current understanding of lunar evolution would not have been possible."

My link

Apollo 15

Landing site: Hadley-Apennine region near Apennine Mountains. 3 EVAs of 10 hours, 36 minutes. Worden performed 38 minutes EVA on way back to Earth. First to carry orbital sensors in service module of CSM. ALSEP deployed. Scientific payload landed on Moon doubled. Improved spacesuits gave increased mobility and stay-time.

Lunar surface stay-time: 66.9 hours. Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV), electric-powered, 4-wheel drive car, traversed total 27.9 km (17 mi). In lunar orbit 145 hours, with 74 orbits. Small sub-satellite left in lunar orbit for first time. 76.6 kgs (169 lbs) of material gathered.

My link

...- how did it get to the moon?

A picture is worth a thousand words.

normal_Apollo_15_launch.jpg

http://www-pao.ksc.n...5/apollo-15.htm

This picture is worth another thousand words.

800px-Apollo15LunarRover.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

and a couple more thousand on its stowage..

ap15-KSC-71P-206.jpg

ap15-KSC-71PC-345.jpg

ap15-s71-31409_LRVfitcheck2.jpgap15-KSC-71PC-415_LRVstowed.jpg

How's this all working out for you, Jackdaw?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SolarPlexus

Wow this thread never ends. The thing is, NASA filmed *some* scenes in the desert but only a few. This led people to believe that the entire program is a hoax, but it is not. We did went on the moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

Wow this thread never ends. The thing is, NASA filmed *some* scenes in the desert but only a few. This led people to believe that the entire program is a hoax, but it is not. We did went on the moon.

Wow.

Glad to see you're still kicking SolarPlexus. Haven't seen you in.... how long? A year maybe? Welcome back. :)

I'm also glad to see that you concur that "we did went on the moon." But I am curious about these alleged scenes from the desert. Can you please point out specifically which scenes you are referring to? A link to the footage would be preferable.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

I think he could be referring to the training that was done in the desert since it was a close match to the terrain that was expected to be found on the Moon. Some images can be found in the galleries here:

The Incredible Things NASA Did to Train Apollo Astronauts

There are others, too. A simple Google search should yield several results. I don't know which specific videos he was referring to, though...

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Confirmation that suit A is indeed the International Latex space suit prototype.

http://archive.org/details/S65-38750

Test subject James H. O'Kane, Apollo Support Office, Crew Systems Div., wears a International Latex Co., prototype Apollo Lunar Space Suit during tests.

S65-38750_thumb.jpg

Postie...

I searching for a link for my last post, I came across this article which I think might also be relevant to the Space Suit discussion:

How to Maneuver in a Space Suit Using the ‘Apollo Number’

Here's a quote from the article:

“Being in a space suit is like being inside a balloon,” Carr said. “When you take a balloon and bend it, it wants to spring back into its original state.” That springiness comes from the pressurized breathing gases inside the suit, which make the garments quite stiff but also help support their weight. The bounce helps astronauts bound from leg to leg as they run, and it encourages a third kind of gait called loping, which looks like a modified version of skipping.

Without extra support from the gas-filled suit, combined with the moon’s lower gravity, astronauts could never have maneuvered in their 220-pound exoskeletons. But the self-supporting suits have disadvantages as well: While running in a suit is easier, it’s a lot harder to walk or bend over to pick things up, as shown in the video of astronaut Charles Duke below.

...

“For sure, we need to have a lower mass suit,” Carr said, “to achieve self-support.” One possibility would be to use a nylon-spandex suit that applies pressure, he said, instead of filling the suits with a pressurized bag of gas.

Although there are improvements to be made, Carr said he has tremendous respect for the designers who created the Apollo suits. “It’s 1960s technology, but there has really been a ton of detailed design work that’s gone into the the space suits to make them comfortable,” he said. “This is literally a small spacecraft.”

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

I think he could be referring to the training that was done in the desert since it was a close match to the terrain that was expected to be found on the Moon. Some images can be found in the galleries here:

The Incredible Things NASA Did to Train Apollo Astronauts

There are others, too. A simple Google search should yield several results. I don't know which specific videos he was referring to, though...

Cz

I certainly hope those images aren't what he was referring to...

Good information though. The preparations for Apollo really left almost nothing to question. Quite inspiring in terms of how things should be done if you ask me. I wish more would follow NASA's example when it comes to preparation and training. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

Maybe UM should do a poll on DID WE LAND ON THE MOON using its over 100, 000 members?

What exactly do you think that will achieve? Since when is scientific truth determined by an opinion poll? It is determined by the weight of evidence. That evidence convinced all the relevant authorities of the authenticity of the Apollo landings more than 4 decades ago. Since that time there has been not a single piece of evidence which has cast doubt on the authenticity of Apollo. Not one.

If you think a poll will help feel free, start one. But maybe you should know the results of the previous polls on this subject before you do so.

This poll from 2003: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6722&st=0&p=267502&hl=apollo%20hoax&fromsearch=1entry267502 found that over 63% of members that voted believed the landings to be genuine. Those that voted against include 12.2% that agreed landings were impossible because the moon is made of cheese.

There is this poll from 2005: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=44316&mode=show&st= found that nearly 66% of members that voted believed that the landings were genuine. Those that disagreed included10% that voted for a totally blank option.

Then there is this poll from 2006: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=72159&hl=apollo%20hoax&st=0 here 68% believed that the landings were genuine.

Now given that this is not a scientific site, encourages alternative views and has a very active conspiracies section I would expect a higher level of belief in the hoax theory than in the population at large.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Jackdaw, further to Waspie's comments, where do you think you would get the most useful poll results?

From a conspiracy site? A site devoted to unravelling mysteries? A street poll? An education forum? A science forum? A space science forum?

Out of interest, there's a poll on JREF right now that you might want to look at..

JREF Apollo Hoax poll

Oh .. dear ... I think you better get on over there and start banging your drum, and adding another vote for the hoax believers. After all, that will DOUBLE their vote..

Anyway, do start up your poll. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

It is also worth noticing that Jackdaw claims people are more questioning of the truth now than they were in the 60's. Given that I'd like to see his explanation for the percentage believing in Apollo actually rising (albeit marginally) with each poll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafterman

So I had an interesting discussion with a friend of mine the other day about the whole hoaxing thing.

Conspiracists would have us believe that the United States spent $25 or so billion dollars to hoax the moon landing and that it is physically impossible for human beings to travel to the moon (Van Alen belts and all).

Given that China, India, and Russia have all publicly stated that they intend to send astronauts to the moon in the coming years, are we to assume that they also are going to waste tens of billions of dollars to pull off an equally elaborate hoax? Keep in mind that they would also have to hoax in exacting detail the Apollo equipment that is already on the moon - because you know they're going to take pictures of it or even bring some of it back. So if Russia goes first, will they let China and India "borrow" their Apollo models?

And while we're at it, what about Orion? The United States is going to waste another hundred or so billion to fake sending more astronauts into space?

In whose mind does this make sense exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden

...In whose mind does this make sense exactly?

I refuse to answer on the grounds that it could get me banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RaptorBites

Greetings mister WD.

The only relevant point that your previous poll links - which are in themselves dated re the advances within the net and knowledge - reveal to myself is the fact that some of its participants had doubts about the so called moon landings and indeed the astroNOTS?

I watched England on a black and white tele win the world cup in 1966 via the BBC. It was true and happened.

Watching the moon landing courtesy of NASA? hmmmm?

N icely A nimated S pace A dventures

I just had to laugh regarding this post.

I mean seriously, World Cup? Moon Landing? How can you even put those 2 in the same comparison?

Ok back to the subject at hand, your reasoning regarding NASA's claim to the moon landing is your mis-trust of NASA (since you did make a mockery of the acronym). Yet have not come up with any evidence of your own outside of what has already been debunked multiple times over this thread.

I believe that you are only here to troll the forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Hey Jackdaw....

(Maybe that'll grab his attention)

Just in case you ignored missed this earlier, I'll ask it for the THIRD TIME now...

When are you going to actually post the evidence regarding this:

And please explain why there is a pic on the net or web of a footprint that does not match the so called landing on the moon and the giant step for mankind?

A picture or a link to back up your assertion that this "evidence" exists is all we're asking for.

If you aren't able to provide a link, perhaps you'd be kind enough to withdraw your claim that such an image exists, or explain why it seems to be too much to ask for you to back up what you are claiming.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Food for thought...

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

Food for thought...

Cz

Indeed. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Food for thought...

Cz

I heard that!! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RaptorBites

Food for thought...

Cz

LOL.

People still try to beat the bloody pulp that used to be a dead horse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

Fitting the facts to suit your worldview. People resign from their post all the time without being privy to a massive hoax. Perhaps Webb resigned due to the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire?

Sure, CEO's resign their posts all the time. Like the dozens of bank CEO's, including the World Bank, recently resigned. Like the CEO's of BP, Research in Motion, and so on, have resigned.

In the vast majority of these cases, there is either a scandal or a massive financial crisis in play at the time. Some are due to illness, company takeover, or just retirement.

NASA had no major financial crisis at the time Webb resigned. He was not ill. There was no takeover involved. And he wasn't retiring.

The main reason Webb gave for his resignation...

..Webb was a Democrat tied closely to Johnson, and, with Johnson choosing not to run for reelection, he decided to step down as administrator to allow the next president to choose his own administrator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Webb

Webb was the administrator of NASA from February 14, 1961 to October 8 (or 7) , 1968.

Apollo 7 launched on Oct.11, 1968.

The Presidential election took place on Nov.5, 1968.

Apollo 8 launched on Dec. 21, 1968.

To claim he resigned to 'leave the position open for the next President' is pure nonsense. He resigned nearly one month before the election took place! Even worse, his resignation was just 3 (or 4) days before Apollo 7 - only the most important mission NASA had ever planned to that point!

He had also signed off on Apollo 8 being the first manned mission to the moon, which was planned to launch only 2 months after Apollo 7.

This has scnadal written all over it.

Regardless, how did the remaining hoaxers know he wouldn't blow the lid off the hoax? Why wasn't he bumped off?

I'm sure they had enough dirt on him, especially after the Apollo 1 fire, to know he would not try to expose the hoax.

I can't even be bothered to argue the point with you. It's far more revealing that you chose not to address the main issues I raised, which are salient points regardless of where the missions were allegedly hoaxed from.

And what about CAPCOM? He was in constant radio communication with the astronauts. They could ask them questions in real time. They spoke to them during the televised EVAs. It would be impossible to pre-record the televised EVAs, especially when you consider that Ed Fendell was also in mission control, remotely operating the cameras. So the televised EVAs would have to be live, with all the potential for something going catastrophically wrong and giving the game away. Then you have to figure out a way to realistically fake the 1/6th g in real time. Whenever you see an astronaut taking a photo during EVA, you'd need a Hasselblad accurately corresponding to the same scene.

The televised EVA's didn't have to be 'live', and they weren't live. How do you know what Ed Fendell actually saw, or was doing, at the time? Supposedly, he was operating a remote control camera on the moon. But we have nothing to verify this, in any way, and you know it.

You simply assume this as true, along with everything else. That's why it is very easy to fake. You believe the story as told, and don't think of challenging one single part of it.

Then you've got to be able to fool the entire world's space-faring nations, not just for a couple of years, but for all eternity. Tale the LROC images of the Apollo sites, which clearly verify the Apollo images and film footage of landings and lift-offs. This requires a whole new generation of people who need to be in on the hoax, both at NASA and ASU. They are faking images, in the full knowledge that any space-faring nation could at some point send a probe to the moon capable of imaging the Apollo sites at a higher resolution than LRO, and blowing the whole thing out of the water. Unless you accept that all the world's space-going agencies, both nationally and privately funded, are also in the pocket of NASA (that 'small team' is expanding exponentially).[/b]

Oher space-faring nations - like Russia - may indeed know it was hoaxed, and decided it's much better as a bargaining chip to keep it silent, rather than trying to expose it to the world. It makes sense, when you don't even know if the world will believe your claim of a hoax anyway.

Perhaps the US threatened any nation who knows of the hoax will be bombed into dust if they dre speak out.

It's pure speculation, at any rate.

As for the next generation of scientists - well, they've all been scratching their heads over how Apollo somehow managed to fly men to the moon 40 years ago, while they cannot even get a manned rocket beyond LEO!

I really wonder how many of them still believe in the Apollo story now...

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

Webb had of course been grilled by Congress, almost daily, since th Apollo 1 fire. There's no doubt it took it's toll, despite the fact that Webb's efforts resulted in the the heat being taken off the President, and NASA itself. Rightfully so of course.

But the real issue was that President Jophnson had announced that he wasn't running for re-election in 1968. He knew Tom Paine had been picked by Johnson to succeed him, and, with a new President coming into office in January, 18969, he'd be replaced anyway.

Very much like Griffin resigned because that's SOP when a Democrat comes into office, and you were appointed by a Republican...regardless of what that means for NASA and the U.S space program.

Just as Obama too rid us of the best NASA administrator we'd had since Webb/PPaine, and has made the agency weak as a reult of appointing a puppet who would do his bidding..despite the fact the this bidding destroyed a program and cost thousands of jobs...so Webb knew that he didn't want to hang around in case another President, without the far reaching vision he and his bosses posessed, would be elected in 1968.

Webb was correct. It happened just like that.

Nixon saw to that.

Jim Webb was, in many ways a visionary...unlike Nixon, and unlike Obama today.

As I said, this makes no sense.

Webb resigned just 3 days before Apollo 7, the most important mission NASA had ever about to conduct (to that point). It's also just a couple months before NASA attempts to make history with the first-ever manned flight to the moon (Apollo 8).

In other words, Webb resigns during the most important period in the history of manned spaceflight. The Apollo 7 and 8 missions he signed off - he approved these plans .

So he decides to resign just 3 days before NASA's most important mission? What's his excuse again? Oh, right - to leave it open for the next President, and whomever he wants to appoint.

Which is still nearly one month away from actualy occurring. What is so urgent that he can't even wait a couple of weeks to resign? That is, why can't he wait until after Apollo 7 to resign? Johnson is still the President during Apollo 7.

A "visionary", indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.