3 ms·

I can't agree with this enough. I didn't actually tune into TV until the local 11:00 pm newscast, and he wasn't mentioned until 11:20. That's just insane to me.

by jeffool 14y ago

I can't agree with this enough. I didn't actually tune into TV until the local 11:00 pm newscast, and he wasn't mentioned until 11:20. That's just insane to me. And, I think, bad news judgment. The man was a living legend. I've recently seen him compared to Lindbergh, but I think that's wrong. He wasn't "the first person to use a new technology to do a given task", he was closer to a Columbus. (Let's avoid any aside into morality with the Columbus parallel, please.) He was "the first person to do the task". And I say "closer" because as we know, Columbus "found" a continent that was full of people. Armstrong was literally the first. He literally doesn't have a comparison. And he was alive in our time.

slapshot 14y ago
> Armstrong was literally the first. I prefer to think of it as Armstrong being the symbol of a massive team effort. As much as he was the first person to step on the moon, it took thousands of "nerds" (as they proudly admitted at the time) to put him there. His act of walking down the ladder was risky, but it was based on the contributions of thousands. I'm OK with him not being excessively glorified. It could have been Buzz Aldrin just as easily being the first, or any of the other Apollo astronauts. Indeed, perhaps we should spend more time glorifying those who gave their life for the Apollo missions (directly, Grissom, White and Chaffee, and indirectly probably many more) and the people who built the technology to put a man on the moon. Let's raise a toast to Buzz, for he did take the first step, but also to the many thousands of people who put him there. They, as much as he, are the true heroes of the story.
- jeffool 14y ago
  heh, I believe you meant raise a toast to Neil. But that said, you're absolutely right, it could have been one of many other people. But having been that guy, I don't know that evoke else would have sacrificed so much, purposefully, as to not taint what he accomplished with the shortcomings and shortsightedness of man. It's bern said in documentaries that his willingness to be an icon was intentional. And as much as I value that, you're right. The way to do so is to remember what he was a symbol of.

by jeffool 14y ago

slapshot 14y ago

> Armstrong was literally the first. I prefer to think of it as Armstrong being the symbol of a massive team effort. As much as he was the first person to step on the moon, it took thousands of "nerds" (as they proudly admitted at the time) to put him there. His act of walking down the ladder was risky, but it was based on the contributions of thousands. I'm OK with him not being excessively glorified. It could have been Buzz Aldrin just as easily being the first, or any of the other Apollo astronauts. Indeed, perhaps we should spend more time glorifying those who gave their life for the Apollo missions (directly, Grissom, White and Chaffee, and indirectly probably many more) and the people who built the technology to put a man on the moon. Let's raise a toast to Buzz, for he did take the first step, but also to the many thousands of people who put him there. They, as much as he, are the true heroes of the story.

jeffool 14y ago
heh, I believe you meant raise a toast to Neil. But that said, you're absolutely right, it could have been one of many other people. But having been that guy, I don't know that evoke else would have sacrificed so much, purposefully, as to not taint what he accomplished with the shortcomings and shortsightedness of man. It's bern said in documentaries that his willingness to be an icon was intentional. And as much as I value that, you're right. The way to do so is to remember what he was a symbol of.