Remembering Apollo 11

Posted 18 July 2009 by Richard B. Hoppe

The 1960s were heady days in more senses than kids today might suppose. It wasn't all Haight-Ashbury and pot and hippies with flowers in their hair. I spent a couple of years in the military in the early 1960s down at the Cape launching early versions of Polaris missiles into the Atlantic missile range, or sometimes into the Banana River if the range safety officer saw fit to push the destruct button. (As a side benefit I got to participate in the Cuban blockade in 1962 aboard a U.S. Navy ship.) Those were the Project Mercury years of the manned space program, and one would occasionally see one or another of the original seven astronauts around the Cape or in Cocoa Beach (anyone remember the Cape Colony Inn?), and we'd marvel at how they'd stuff themselves into a tiny Mercury capsule atop an Atlas rocket and blast away into near-earth space. Watching those launches in 1962 and 1963 I never thought then that I'd work on their successor systems and watch the fruits of that work take men to the moon.

As most readers of science blogs already know, the Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter has just returned photos of five of the six Apollo landing sites on the moon, including one (Apollo 14) where the foot trails made by astronauts are visible! And those are preliminary images. The LRO team promises 2x or 3x better resolution when the orbiter is in its final orbit. One of those sites is special to me. In the mid and late 1960s I was a member of a group in Honeywell's Development and Evaluation Laboratory (later in the Systems & Research Center) that was charged with stress testing components of the Apollo Command Module control system. We tortured reaction jet controllers, abused thrust vector servo assemblies, and kicked around translation and rotation hand controls for months. We soaked them in vacuum chambers, cycling the temperature up and down on a 12-hours on, 12 hours off schedule, subjected them to over-voltages and under-voltages, shook them on vibration tables, and generally tried to see how bad we could treat them before they failed. Out of all that testing came the final versions that were installed in Apollo Command Modules and flew in them, including the version that flew in Apollo 11. On the day that the Eagle -- the Lunar Excursion Module associated with the Apollo 11 flight -- landed at Tranquility Base, my wife and I had gone to the Minneapolis Humane Society to adopt our first dog, Beau. We got home in time to watch the television broadcast and see the blurry video of Neil Armstrong stepping off the LEM ladder. (R.I.P. Walter Cronkite, who broadcast the landing that day in 1969 and who died yesterday.) It was an amazing feeling -- a combination of elation and relief -- to know that the landing had been successful. All the people who worked on the manned space flight projects over the years after John F. Kennedy committed us to going to the moon within a decade were proud to have contributed to the mission. I sure was that day, and I still am. I left the Apollo program after our part of Apollo 11's development was finished to work on other prototype spacecraft and aircraft systems, but knowing stuff I worked on took humans to the moon is something I'll be proud of until I die.

66 Comments

Kengee · 18 July 2009

Thanks for sharing your memories, you must pinch yourself sometimes, knowing you had a part into that great adventure.
I do have one question though Why aren't you posting this on UD or some such aren’t all engineers ID'ist?

David Utidjian · 18 July 2009

I was 11 years old at the landing of Apollo 11 on the moon. Watching it on a B&W Zenith TV in a neighbours apartment. I was simultaneously stultified, elated, and proud as Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon.

I just heard that Walter Cronkite died. He was as much a part of the space program in the sixties and seventies as the program itself. Walter was the one that told the story. He was a great man during great times.

-DU-

springer · 18 July 2009

The moon landing was accomplished by evolution. Evolution produced RBH and all of his drives and desires. There's no more to be proud about here than there is in being proud about a thunderstorm.

Frank J · 18 July 2009

At almost 15 I was still politically clueless (a brief "anti-America" phase that I now regret soon followed), but I had been passionate about science at least since age 3, standing outside with the neighbors looking for Sputnik. I was probably never more optimistic about the US's future than in 1969 - Vietnam war notwithstanding. Alas, the public's value of science was near a peak and soon began a steady decline that continues to this day. Now more than ever before, people need to heed the warning of Paul Gross: "Everybody who has undertaken in the last 300 years to stand against the growth of scientific knowledge has lost."

Anyway, goes without saying that owe Richard B. Hoppe many thanks, not just for fighting anti-evolution pseudoscience, but for many other impressive accomplishments.

David Utidjian · 18 July 2009

springer said: The moon landing was accomplished by evolution. Evolution produced RBH and all of his drives and desires. There's no more to be proud about here than there is in being proud about a thunderstorm.

Dave... is that you? -DU-

Altair IV · 18 July 2009

Unfortunately I was just a baby during the Apollo moon landings. If I could go back to any point in time, it would be 1968-1970 so I could experience Apollos 8-13 (along with Woodstock, the Beatles, and so much else). Those were the true glory days of the US, IMO.

By the way, I think the Onion has the most succinct summary of Apollo 11:

Onion Classic Headline July 21, 1969

(warning NSFW)

GvlGeologist, FCD · 18 July 2009

To continue our conversation from the Disco Tute Dance thread again, it's amazing how everyone sort of considers the landings to be old hat now (although I think I heard it'll take MORE than a decade to go back again) and how special it was at the time.

I'm sad that Uncle Wally didn't quite make it to the 40th anniversary. I'll always remember his reporting during the space shots.

And thanks, RBH (and those of thousands of others [in on the conspiracy!?!?]), for your contributions.

DistendedPendulusFrenulum · 18 July 2009

You know, it's funny--today at the fast food joint I was talking to a retired military man who'd been doing telephone system work at Redstone at the same time my ole man was helping Von Braun with vibration-induced component failure problems. We mostly talked about the hugeness of the project, but then he looked straight at me and said "at that time, you would never have seen a huge anti-science movement in the US. We knew we needed the best science possible--and you certainly wouldn't have seen any self-styled conservative attempting to sabotage science education."

RBH · 18 July 2009

Kengee said: Thanks for sharing your memories, you must pinch yourself sometimes, knowing you had a part into that great adventure. I do have one question though Why aren't you posting this on UD or some such aren’t all engineers ID'ist?

I was a Navy-trained engineering technician in those days, working at Honeywell 4 to midnight and going to the University days working on degrees in cognitive science and anthropology.

fusilier · 18 July 2009

It was my 20th birthday.

I cried.

fusilier
James 2:24

cronk · 18 July 2009

Isn't it interesting that many of those that reject evolution also deny the successes of the Apollo program?
Are there any psychologists out there who can explain this rejection of both science and success? (or at least refer some good readings)

Stanton · 18 July 2009

cronk said: Isn't it interesting that many of those that reject evolution also deny the successes of the Apollo program? Are there any psychologists out there who can explain this rejection of both science and success? (or at least refer some good readings)

Evolution is evil and wrong, so is science: that's because science, evolution, and reason are the harem harlots of the Devil, after all [/sarcasm]

Dave Luckett · 19 July 2009

Stanton said: Evolution is evil and wrong, so is science: that's because science, evolution, and reason are the harem harlots of the Devil, after all [/sarcasm]

You're not so very far from the attitudes of a later offshoot of Calvinist tradition, as interpreted through the folkways of the Scots borderers/Ulster protestants who became a strong influence on much of evangelical America. A very strong visceral rejection of intellectualism was and is evident in that culture. I'm not sure where it comes from, seeing as Presbyterians, Anglicans, Catholics and even mainstream Calvinists all showed considerable respect for learning, at least. The attitude might predate Protestantism itself, but I suspect it is rooted in the old Border values, which include extreme, almost insane pugnacity, clannishness, hatred of government and distrust of strangers, plus anything-goes pragmatism and unfettered individualism amounting almost to disdain for law. Anybody who has read, say, George MacDonald Fraser's accounts of the Border reivers will recognise the mindset. Joe Bageant's "Deer Hunting with Jesus" specifically makes the link. It's understandable, given the history. But when it involves specific rejection of science, because science is automatically distrusted as a part of an egghead conspiracy, something's very wrong, and it has to go.

Pinko Punko · 19 July 2009

Thanks for the great reminiscence, RBH. What a wonderful post.

Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews · 19 July 2009

You can re-live it all in real time at wechoosethemoon.org. Nostalgic, thrilling and triumphant all at the same time. I feel 10 years old again.

DistendedPendulusFrenulum · 19 July 2009

Anti-intellectualism is a crucial plank for any in-group/out-group attitude policing effort. All totalitarian movements and governments use it. Stalin used it, Mao used it, Mussolini used it, Bin Laden used it, and, of course, the Liberal Bashing Industry uses it.

Frank J · 19 July 2009

cronk said: Isn't it interesting that many of those that reject evolution also deny the successes of the Apollo program? Are there any psychologists out there who can explain this rejection of both science and success? (or at least refer some good readings)

I listen to right-wing talk radio in the car. Host Michael Medved is a known anti-evolution activist, but other hosts and most guests and callers are just misled or potentially misled about evolution. It's hard to tell if they have been misled because the topic is rarely evolution. I doubt that most guests and callers deny the success of the space programs, or of other major sci/tech successes. And when the subject is education in the US, hosts, guests and callers unanimously agree (& I do too) that the status quo is horrendous. But when they call for major improvement it invariably concerns history and literature, never science. The problem is not so much denial or dislike of science, but that science is simply not a priority. Only when evolution is specifically addressed do Medved & the rare anti-evolution activist guest pretend that we need more science education. Of course, what they want is to replace some of what little evolution is taught with misrepresentations that only reinforce misconceptions that most students already have. I'm no psychologist, but I do know that science give one the right (independently verifiable) answer, not necessarily the answer one wants. So if one's political agenda, left or right, is strong enough, the temptation to second-guess science can be too hard to avoid.

Wheels · 19 July 2009

cronk said: Isn't it interesting that many of those that reject evolution also deny the successes of the Apollo program?

I'm not sure that's the case. In my experience the people who deny the moon landings are also the people who think rainbows are signs of government tampering with the water supply. Of course, I don't read Uncommon Descent much, so if there is a strong anti-Apollo sentiment among anti-evolutionists, I probably just haven't noticed it.

Mal Adapted · 19 July 2009

Cronk,

Are there any psychologists out there who can explain this rejection of both science and success? (or at least refer some good readings)

Seek and ye shall find 8^): http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php

dave souza · 19 July 2009

Aaarght! So near, yet thwarted by a voice over at the crucial moment. As students we didn't have a colour telly, few did in Britain at that time, but we watched it on the black and white box in the flat. Didn't have Walter Cronkite on the BBC's presentation of it, and there was that long pause at the foot of the ladder while Armstrong described the surface, then said the immortal words "I can feel it with my foot, it's kinda soft and squishy" before jumping down with both feet on the ground to come out the the official guff about one small step etc. . . Presumably that was the live broadcast as the U.S. got it, with the first words covered by Cronkite's voice over......

Joe Felsenstein · 20 July 2009

I watched Armstrong on the moon with some ambivalence. Fascinating and an historic moment. But the same government that had used this technology was also, at that moment, pounding Vietnam with millions of tons of bombs. Many of us who were involved in the movement against that war felt at least as ambivalent as I did, and were well aware that the basic motivation of the whole Moon Race was competition with the Soviet Union, and that military motives did not lie very far beneath the surface on either side of that competition. I am sorry from the comments here to see that that context seems to have been forgotten.

dave souza · 20 July 2009

Fair point, Joe, as you'll remember, People walking on the moon, smog gonna get you pretty soon, ship of fools....

A shiny toy from the military industrial complex, one underground press magazine cover had a really nice drawing of the LEM with a discarded coke bottle in the foreground.

Sylvilagus · 20 July 2009

DistendedPendulusFrenulum said: Anti-intellectualism is a crucial plank for any in-group/out-group attitude policing effort. All totalitarian movements and governments use it. Stalin used it, Mao used it, Mussolini used it, Bin Laden used it, and, of course, the Liberal Bashing Industry uses it.

I wouldn't say "any" such effort. Maintaining group boundaries is a function of most if not all societies, but the means (and the rigidity) by which such boundaries are maintained varies enormously: language, religion, symbolism, etc. The movements you cite are all post-industrial, even mid to late 20th century. I think the anti-intellectualism you describe has more to do with tapping into the angst and alienation that large-scale societies provoke than some sort of generic totalitarian impulse. Ernest Mandel in Late Capitalism described the "cult of the expert" that is a crucial part of contemporary capitalism. Much of the anti-intellectualism is a reaction against this. It's no coincidence that modern fundamentalisms of various sorts arose during the early 20th century. Christian fundamentalism for example basically said don't trust the authorities, don't trust the "experts," trust this Book that you can read for yourself. This was occuring at exactly the time when technological advancements were making radical changes in the lifestyles of average Americans. In that sense, much anti-intellectualism has its roots in, I think, I healthy skepticism against the powers that be, albeit all too easily harnessed by demagogery.

Eamon Knight · 20 July 2009

Um, what happened to the post re Francis Collins that I was trying to get to? Clicking on links to it keeps bringing me here.

RBH · 20 July 2009

Eamon Knight said: Um, what happened to the post re Francis Collins that I was trying to get to? Clicking on links to it keeps bringing me here.

Weird. Clicking on the Collins post title on the main PT page gets me to the post OK. Tried clearing your cache? (That's the magic ritual for many such ills, I'm told.)

JGB · 20 July 2009

Since you brought it up, I heard a story Joe about you and refusing to sign a loyalty oath back in the day at the UW. Was there any truth to that if you don't mind me asking?

Joe Felsenstein · 20 July 2009

JGB asked:

Since you brought it up, I heard a story Joe about you and refusing to sign a loyalty oath back in the day at the UW. Was there any truth to that if you don’t mind me asking?

There's partial truth to that, but this is not the place for that discussion -- email me and I'll be happy to explain what happened. We were giving here our reactions to the moon landing in 1969, and I was simply trying to point out that total enthusiasm wasn't the whole story, and why.

RBH · 21 July 2009

Joe Felsenstein said: I watched Armstrong on the moon with some ambivalence. Fascinating and an historic moment. But the same government that had used this technology was also, at that moment, pounding Vietnam with millions of tons of bombs. Many of us who were involved in the movement against that war felt at least as ambivalent as I did, and were well aware that the basic motivation of the whole Moon Race was competition with the Soviet Union, and that military motives did not lie very far beneath the surface on either side of that competition. I am sorry from the comments here to see that that context seems to have been forgotten.

They weren't mutually exclusive, Joe. At least, it was possible to be a veteran as I was, to work on the Apollo program as I did, and to be active in the anti-war movement, which I also was. I was in the group that took over the 5th Congressional District Democratic-Farmer-Labor party organization for Gene McCarthy (ousting the Humphrey troops) in 1968, McCarthy's first major political win. RBH, former DFL Organization and Membership Chairman, 11th Ward, City of Minneapolis (5th Congressional District)

MDPotter · 21 July 2009

The moon landing and vietnam?
Kinda cool story I came across the other day:
http://www.herald-mail.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=227101&format=html

RBH · 21 July 2009

MDPotter said: The moon landing and vietnam? Kinda cool story I came across the other day: http://www.herald-mail.com/?cmd=displaystory&story_id=227101&format=html

That's an amazing story. A whole lot of people showed a whole lot of courage there.

D. P. Robin · 21 July 2009

I remember that day so well. I was so excited (at 12), as were my brother (at 9) and my sister (at 6). I remember staying up to what the flag being planted and trying to take a picture of the TV picture (not very successful).

One year ago July 20, I flew to Los Angeles, met my sister and my sister-in-law at my brother's bedside and stayed there as he died of multiple organ failure, Yesterday, I couldn't post--the mix of emotions were too painful. as I'm sure you'll all understand.

Coincidentally, Mythbusters did a good job of dismantling several of the "they did it on a movie set" crackpot theories against the Space Program.

dpr

Stuart Weinstein · 22 July 2009

I was just 8 years old when the Eagle landed and Armstrong walked out shy
of 11PM? EST. I remember it was late at night, but my Dad woke me up so I could witness it. No question that made a profound impact on me. I had already been following the space program pretty closely and my father worked for a defense contractor that made a few things for the space program.

You cannot imaging how thunderstruck people were. Yet three years later the program was canceled. Just goes to show how fickle the people can get sometimes.

My one brush with an astronaut occurred at an LPSC conference around 1992,3. I had passed out in my chair during the end of a session discussing the geophysics of the planet Venus and woke up in the middle of a session on lunar geochemistry. A couple of lunar specialists got into an argument about what moon rocks were found at which site. Finally, a distinguished looking gentlemen stood up and said they were collected by Apollo 17. Someone asked "What makes you so sure?" The gentlemen replied, "I know because I was there".

That gentlemen was Harrison Schmidt.

RBH · 22 July 2009

Schmitt, incidentally, was himself a Ph.D. geologist and the only Apollo astronaut who was a working scientist, AFAIK.

Stuart Weinstein · 22 July 2009

RBH said: Schmitt, incidentally, was himself a Ph.D. geologist and the only Apollo astronaut who was a working scientist, AFAIK.

Yes he was,

springer · 22 July 2009

Speaking of Schmitt, the only working scientist to walk on the moon, he was just in the news lately for other reasons. It seems he resigned from the Planetary Society because of a disagreement with them. Schmitt thinks anthropogenic global warming is bullsh1t. Odds are any given global warming denialist is an evolution denialist too. A man after my own heart. Thanks for bringing up his name.

Dave Thomas · 22 July 2009

springer said: Speaking of Schmitt, the only working scientist to walk on the moon, he was just in the news lately for other reasons. It seems he resigned from the Planetary Society because of a disagreement with them. Schmitt thinks anthropogenic global warming is bullsh1t. Odds are any given global warming denialist is an evolution denialist too. A man after my own heart. Thanks for bringing up his name.

Regardless of his stand on global warming, Schmitt is no creationist. Read the article, & check out the photograph with people, and you'll see what I mean. Cheers, Dave

fnxtr · 22 July 2009

A bit late, but kudos, RBH. It was an amazing undertaking.

springer · 23 July 2009

Dave Thomas said:
springer said: Speaking of Schmitt, the only working scientist to walk on the moon, he was just in the news lately for other reasons. It seems he resigned from the Planetary Society because of a disagreement with them. Schmitt thinks anthropogenic global warming is bullsh1t. Odds are any given global warming denialist is an evolution denialist too. A man after my own heart. Thanks for bringing up his name.
Regardless of his stand on global warming, Schmitt is no creationist. Read the article, & check out the photograph with people, and you'll see what I mean. Cheers, Dave

A minor correction for yoru article: Gene Cernan was the last man to walk on the moon. Schmitt was the last to arrive but not the last to depart. It would be quite surprising if Schmitt, a Republican senator and an Apollo astronaut, doesn't meet the minimal definition of deist - belief that the universe was created by God. Republican senators who are atheists are as rare as teeth on a hen and possibly non-existent. When you say "creationist" you surely must mean "young earth creationist" and with that clarification I would certainly agree. Young earth creationists who are geologists are virtually non-existent. Many of them, however, are old earth creationists. I should probably clarify my own "evolution denier". By that I mean chance & necessity denier. One can support an old earth, common descent, reject revelation of all kinds, reject a living God who intervenes in the working of the universe, and still be a creationist. These are deists and their influence in the United States is long and deep beginning with people such as Thomas Jefferson and (scientist) Ben Franklin. If I had to bet on it I'd play the odds and bet that Schmitt is at least a deist.

Novparl · 24 July 2009

The "success" of the moon mission. Reminds me of a poem written by a black Noo Yawk ghetto dweller "Whitey on the moon." At the time, taken in by the massive media mega-hype, I thought "what a miserable git". Now I think he had a point.

Incidentally, as an OEC, I'm obviously ant-science. So why am I using the Internet? Isn't it rather wonderful technology? And to think it evolved without any design!

Tuus iam regnat Apollo.

Novparl · 24 July 2009

Ant-science? Formicology?

Stanton · 24 July 2009

Novparl said: Incidentally, as an OEC, I'm obviously ant-science. So why am I using the Internet? Isn't it rather wonderful technology? And to think it evolved without any design!

Then how come you continue to refuse to answer David Luckett's question of When did life appear on your old Earth, and how do you know this? Are you genuinely afraid of the alleged abuse a genuine answer will generate?

phantomreader42 · 24 July 2009

Stanton said:
Novparl said: Incidentally, as an OEC, I'm obviously ant-science. So why am I using the Internet? Isn't it rather wonderful technology? And to think it evolved without any design!
Then how come you continue to refuse to answer David Luckett's question of When did life appear on your old Earth, and how do you know this? Are you genuinely afraid of the alleged abuse a genuine answer will generate?

I guess novparl is afraid the Elders of Zion will send the Underpants Gnomes to rough him up if he actually answers a question. The lying creationist kook has become a parody of himself.

novparl · 24 July 2009

"The lying creationist kook" ooh! I'm bleeding I'm bleeding!

I've already pointed out that there is no pt in arguing with people who don't know the difference between OEC & YEC.

For what it's worth, I believe the father of humanity was Jean Jaures.

Darwin ueber alles!

18:00 BST

phantomreader42 · 24 July 2009

So, in the delusional mind of the nutcase who thinks both evolution and the moon landing are vast conpiracies, the difference between Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism is that somehow, magically, only ONE of them is creationism! Oh, and novparl, I see you're STILL too much of a coward to answer when and how you claim life appeared on this old earth, or how you know this. What's the matter, afraid the black helicopters will whisk you away if you try to show your work? Fuck, at least Ben Stein and the Dishonesty Institute get PAID to spread lies and call scientists Nazis. You just lie and make yourself a laughingstock for free!

novparl said: "The lying creationist kook" ooh! I'm bleeding I'm bleeding! I've already pointed out that there is no pt in arguing with people who don't know the difference between OEC & YEC. For what it's worth, I believe the father of humanity was Jean Jaures. Darwin ueber alles! 18:00 BST

stevaroni · 24 July 2009

novparl rants... I’ve already pointed out that there is no point in arguing with people who don’t know the difference between OEC & YEC.

They both advocate a position for which there is no evidence whatsoever - in fact, a position that all the evidence points against? Oh, wait, that's the similarity, you said difference. Nevermind.

fnxtr · 24 July 2009

novparl said: I've already pointed out that there is no pt in arguing with people who don't know the difference between OEC & YEC.

Um... one believes POOF happened sooner rather than later? And we should care because....????

Stanton · 24 July 2009

novparl said: "The lying creationist kook" ooh! I'm bleeding I'm bleeding! I've already pointed out that there is no pt in arguing with people who don't know the difference between OEC & YEC.

Then why do you insist on coming here to antagonize the other commentors if you have no intention on answering any questions asked of your opinion?

Novparl · 26 July 2009

You choose to be antagonized. Your free will.

FNXTR - your question is tough. Oh no, sorry, meaningless.

17:25 BST

Stanton · 26 July 2009

Nonpareil trolled: You choose to be antagonized. Your free will. FNXTR - your question is tough. Oh no, sorry, meaningless. 17:25 BST

How is this supposed to answer the question of When did life appear on your old Earth, and how do you know this? that was addressed to you?

Stanton · 26 July 2009

Nonpareil trolled: You choose to be antagonized. Your free will. FNXTR - your question is tough. Oh no, sorry, meaningless. 17:25 BST

Your logic is off, as usual: if you're being requested to antagonize, then you have no right to complain about having to deal with a hostile audience. Secondly, when did anyone here request that you antagonize us? That, and when are you going to answer Dave Luckett's question about when you think that God/Gods created the Earth and life and how you're so sure that you're correct?

Dan · 26 July 2009

novparl said: I've already pointed out that there is no pt in arguing with people who don't know the difference between OEC & YEC.

There is no point in arguing with someone who thinks that this post is relevant to a thread concerning "Remembering Apollo 11".

stevaroni · 27 July 2009

zhilijun said: .　　　你好! ..... etc...

I din't get much of that, zhilijun, but you make great cymbals.

RBH · 27 July 2009

stevaroni said:
zhilijun said: .　　　你好! ..... etc...
I din't get much of that, zhilijun, but you make great cymbals.

I disappeared him and his cymbals. :)

Lucas · 28 July 2009

Have you notice that all the shadows are on "the OTHER SIDE" but the one belonging to the spacecraft? The light is coming from the left....right??!!
Weird!!

Cheers
Nice Blog

Dave Luckett · 28 July 2009

Lucas said: Have you notice that all the shadows are on "the OTHER SIDE" but the one belonging to the spacecraft? The light is coming from the left....right??!! Weird!! Cheers Nice Blog

No, I notice exactly the converse. All the shadows of the crater rims are to the right, in the craters. The light is coming from the left, at a fairly low angle. Your comment would only make sense if you interpreted the craters as little bumps. They're not.

novparl · 28 July 2009

So OECs only believe the same as YECs? What about the OEC belief in extinction events, such as dinosaurs 67 mya? Or the Big Bang? Oh, they never happened!

If there was nothing before the Big Bang, then time began 13,7 bya. Interesting.But not to you dullards.

Feel free to distort the above. I wdn' have it any other way, my dear dung beetles.*

*Homophobic joke.

Paul Flocken · 28 July 2009

fusilier said: It was my 20th birthday. I cried. fusilier James 2:24

i was only one month old. i cried too. :^D

novparl · 29 July 2009

Nice one. lol.

novparl · 30 July 2009

Wow! I've had the last word! Praps the reference to the beginning of time...

DS · 30 July 2009

Dan wrote:

"There is no point in arguing with someone who thinks that this post is relevant to a thread concerning “Remembering Apollo 11”.

But he doesn't remember it. There is no point in arguing with someone whose only recollection of the Apollo program is the movie Capricorn One, starring OJ Simpson.

Stanton · 30 July 2009

novparl said: Wow! I've had the last word! Praps the reference to the beginning of time...

How come your last words don't answer the question of When did life appear on your old Earth, and how do you know this? that was asked to you?

phantomreader42 · 30 July 2009

Stanton said:
novparl said: Wow! I've had the last word! Praps the reference to the beginning of time...
How come your last words don't answer the question of When did life appear on your old Earth, and how do you know this? that was asked to you?

Because he is incapable of answering questions. Babbling like a fool about how getting the last word magically makes him right is all he can do. Actually making a clear, honest statement supported by evidence is no more within his power than for a pig to sprout wings and fly. Novparl is hopeless, utterly bereft of intelligence or understanding.

novparl · 31 July 2009

@Phantomtosser 42

All the above applies to you. Presumably the theory is, if you accuse someone of something, you can't be guilty of it itself.

Have a gay day.

novparl · 31 July 2009

Whoops! Itself = yaself.

phantomreader42 · 31 July 2009

I see you're STILL too much of a coward to answer a simple question, novparl. And everyone else sees it too.

novparl said: @Phantomtosser 42 All the above applies to you. Presumably the theory is, if you accuse someone of something, you can't be guilty of it itself. Have a gay day.

Scott Schneeweis · 9 January 2010

Richard..request advise a good email/phone to reach you at..I have a couple of electronics assemblies from the Block II Apollo Command Module produced by Honeywell that I would like to discuss with you.

Many thanks -
Scott

http://www.SPACEAHOLIC.com/