|
Post by margamatix on Jul 30, 2005 14:27:21 GMT -4
In the UK, our most popular daytime radio show is a Radio 2 programme called "Steve Wright in the Afternoon"
Steve Wright is the most inoffensive DJ you could imagine. The point of the show is to play middle-of-the-road music, have friendly banter with the studio zoo, and interview guests, invariably because they have a product to promote.
He has interviewed everybody who is anybody- politicians, sportsmen, film stars- famous names from the World over. And always, in a gentle, co-operative and non-hostile way.
There are some UK members here, I'm sure they can confirm the veracity of this.
On more than one occasion, I have heard him relate the tale of how he was once due to interview Neil Armstrong.
Of course, he was very excited about this. Who wouldn't be?
A minute or two before the interview was due to start, following the months of bureaucracy needed to set up such an interview, Neil's agent approached Steve Wright with one very minor, almost insignificant condition before the interview could go ahead.........
"No questions about the Moon"
Well, naturally.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 30, 2005 15:35:55 GMT -4
And this is supposed to prove, what?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jul 30, 2005 17:58:18 GMT -4
As hard as it may seem for you to believe, some people don't want fame, don't like fame, especially if it has been thrust upon them.
|
|
|
Post by Enterprise on Jul 30, 2005 20:33:59 GMT -4
I do believe the Moon landings took place, but I'm amazed with the continuing refusal by Neil Armstrong to talk about the event. I don't buy the idea that he doesn't want fame. He has hosted several programmes on flight, one showing on Discovery Wings at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jul 30, 2005 23:55:41 GMT -4
Neil Armstrong, despite popular urban legend does regularly talk about his Apollo days. Like any celebrity, voluntary or not he is fully within his rights to decide whether or not he discusses certain aspects of his life. He is _not_ the only person of fame to have entered into interviews like this. Over at the ALSJ the site contains a very detailed dissection of the Apollo 11 transcripts - so much for not discussing the event. Since 1969 he has travelled extensively talking about his first lunar step. One thing he steadfastly refuses to do is sign autographs. The reasons can be found at Collect Space website. As late as July of this year, Mr Armstrong was in Spain talking about, amongst other things, his Apollo mission.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jul 31, 2005 1:05:55 GMT -4
Much of it boils down to how would anybody feel if something they had experienced in their life, something profound, was questioned by some jerk.
How would any of us react to that?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 31, 2005 4:59:08 GMT -4
But Steve Wright is the most guest-friendly and non-hostile interviewer you could imagine- and the most basic research by Neil Armstrong's agent would have confirmed this.
You would think NASA would have said "Look Neil, you will be the first man on the moon, and there will be massive public interest in your achivement for the rest of your life, are you up to it?"
No. The reason for his reticence is the same as the reason for his perennial shame-faced and guilt-wracked demeanour.
He has no more walked on the surface of the Moon than have I.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 31, 2005 6:16:18 GMT -4
No. The reason for his reticence is the same as the reason for his perennial shame-faced and guilt-wracked demeanour. He has no more walked on the surface of the Moon than have I. No, you're just making an unfounded assumption based on your previous preposition. So Armstrong doesn't like talking about the time on the moon. It doesn't have to be because it was a lie. You are simply assigning motives on someone to support what you want to believe. A UFO believer could just as easily claim that it's because he doesn't want to lie about having seen UFO's and alien bases on the Moon. A Hoagland supporter could claim that it's because he doesn't want to lie about the alien ruins they found there. Are they right because they make the same presumptive statements as you do? Of course not. It's more likely that since he tends to dislike interviews, that he really is sick of talking to everyone about the moon and because he actually personally believes that his Test Pilot career was far more important that he wanted to talk about what he cared about rather then rehashing the moon for the several hundreth time. He wouldn't be alone in his belief that his time on the moon wasn't the highlight of his career. One astronaut (Al bean I think) thought that his time on Skylab was far more exciting than his time on the moon. You are merely trying to put your expectations and beliefs onto Armstrong. ie, If I'd gone to the moon I'd want to talk about it. You then say, because he doesn't he must be lying. It's a false premise and an invaild argument. As an example. Say that I had an interview with Sir Ed Hillary and in it he decided that he'd rather talk about his work in India and Nepal rather than conquering Everest, after all he's been there done that a lot of times and the work in Nepal and India is far more important. So he tells me I'm not to ask about Everest, does that mean that he never climbed it, that he faked it? Of course not, it just means that he would rather talk on a different topic that hasn't been covered over and over and over again Now true, I can't prove that my reason is absolutely true, only Armstrong himself knows why, but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that my reason is a lot closer to the truth than yours, and regardless, for the sake of argument the fact you can't prove my claim (or the UFO claimants or Hoagland) wrong means that you can't just offer yours as the only possible reason by default.
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 31, 2005 6:47:28 GMT -4
Well, let's just hope that when Neil Armstrong goes to meet his Maker, he does so with a clear and untroubled conscience.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 31, 2005 8:21:24 GMT -4
No. The reason for his reticence is the same as the reason for his perennial shame-faced and guilt-wracked demeanour. And what does Buzz Aldrin's perennial non-shame-faced and non-guilt-wracked demeanor indicate?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 31, 2005 10:08:31 GMT -4
Well, let's just hope that when Neil Armstrong goes to meet his Maker, he does so with a clear and untroubled conscience.
That's pretty low.
Mr. Armstrong isn't a publicity hound. He's given quite a few interviews about his Apollo experiences over the decades. He doesn't like to be on camera a lot because he's a rather shy and private person.
For this, he is called all sorts of vile things by people who have contributed nothing useful in their lives. That's terrible.
Let me ask you - Bart Sibrel has repeatedly stalked astronauts, lied his way into ambush "interviews", and was fired from his job for lying about his credentials. Those are facts. They are completely independent of the merits of his Apollo claims.
Tell me now, what kind of conscience do you think he should meet his Maker with?
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 31, 2005 10:49:14 GMT -4
And what does Buzz Aldrin's perennial non-shame-faced and non-guilt-wracked demeanor indicate? That'll be the Buzz Aldrin whose response to suggestions that it was all a hoax was "You'll have to talk to the administration (NASA) about that. We were just passengers" then?
|
|
|
Post by TaeKwonDan on Jul 31, 2005 10:56:20 GMT -4
And what does Buzz Aldrin's perennial non-shame-faced and non-guilt-wracked demeanor indicate? That'll be the Buzz Aldrin whose response to suggestions that it was all a hoax was "You'll have to talk to the administration (NASA) about that. We were just passengers" then? I'll take Not Getting Sarcasm for $800, Alex.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 31, 2005 11:40:35 GMT -4
That'll be the Buzz Aldrin whose response to suggestions that it was all a hoax was "You'll have to talk to the administration (NASA) about that. We were just passengers" then? That was Aldrin's response to Bart Sibrel. You have to realize the astronauts are going to respond differently to this vile man, whose reputation precedes him, than they will to a legitimate reporter. Sibrel is nothing more than a stalker out to destroy the reputations of honest men for his own personal gain.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jul 31, 2005 12:04:01 GMT -4
Wouldn't it be wise to compile a database of all the interviews Neil Armstrong has given since July 1969, where he has talked about the moon, as opposed to those where he hasn't? I could easily see a damned if you do damned if you don't reaction to no matter what the outcome would be, but the statistics would be interesting.
If I had a dollar for every on air interview I've been involved with where the interviewee has stipulated discussion topics, or has steered from topics, I'd be a very rich man, that's for sure. That is their perogative, and they are fully within their rights, no matter how nice the interviewer is, to do so. That is the nature of the business, and every interviewer understands that. Rock stars tend to be the most formal, having even walked out of live i/v situations when the stipulations where ignored.
|
|