Talk:Buzz Aldrin

'Bold text'Bold text

"[[Regrettably, Sibrel suffered no permanent injury." - Regrettably? That's not really NPOV, hoping that people suffer injurie I do not know when but he went on Letterman aftr he punched Sibrel. It was during the section where Dave answers mail from viewers. One viewer wrote in asking if Dave believed someone has went to the moon. Dave said he believed so or something. Then Buzz came out and said no, "We were just trying to beat the damn Ruskies(sp?)" or something like that.

Should Aldrin's appearance on The Simpsons be mentioned twice? Gildir, Jan 17, 2006

I have now been bold and deleted the second reference to The Simpsons. Gildir, Jan 19, 2006

This isn't Buzz Aldrin Fan'opedia - an attempt at neutrality when dealing with him punching someone in the face would be nice! 67.40.249.122 05:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And the facts that lead up to it, for instance the slander/libel by Sibrel. Bubba73 (talk), 17:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Are represented - I'm sure you read the passage in question - "In September, 2002, Bart Sibrel's repeated demands (over several years) that Aldrin swear an oath on the Bible that he had walked on the Moon, or admit that it was all a hoax, came to a head. Aldrin had pointedly ignored Sibrel, refusing to swear an oath, and Sibrel was becoming much more aggressive with Aldrin and several other Apollo astronauts. Sibrel often gained access to the astronauts by lying, claiming to represent organizations that he does not, and assuming false identities. When he approached Aldrin in September 2002, he cornered Aldrin and a young female relative, stood in their way as they tried to leave the area and shoving a Bible towards Aldrin several times, called Aldrin a "a coward, a liar, and a thief". Aldrin punched Sibrel in the face, claiming that he felt forced to defend himself and his companion. Sibrel suffered no permanent injury. Although the Beverly Hills police investigated the incident, charges were dismissed. (See here for a video clip of the incident.)" 67.40.249.122 17:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Aldrin doesn't have to swear on the Bible for Sibrel. A person (in the US) only has to do that for a legal court. Sibrel is at fault here. And even if Aldin did swear on a stack of Bibles, Sibrel and others like him wouldn't believe it. Bubba73 (talk), 18:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that he does, merely reporting what happened. 67.40.249.122 18:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Because of the large number of people who believe that the first lunar landing was a hoax, shouldn't the first paragraph of this entry say something like, "...is an American pilot and astronaut who, as believed by many, (or something to that effect) became the second human to set foot on the Moon..." in order to make the entry more neutral?

no. Fact is not decided by popular vote.

Yes, this should be mentioned. For great justice. 17:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

he is the mare, a female horse.

claiming or indicating he felt forced to defend himself?

He claimed he punched Sibrel because he felt forced to defend himself. Punching someone does not automatically 'indicate' self defense. For great justice. 21:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That misconstrues the new statement: he personally indicated, his punch didn't indicate; he "indicated" rather than "claimed". "Claimed" is a loaded word that connotes "claimed falsely" in this kind of usage; "Kenneth Lay claimed he had no idea Enron was in trouble..." "Indicated" is a neutral substitute. - Reaverdrop 21:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I claim that I think that's ok as long as we disambiguate the word 'indicated' from the act of punching. My worry is that we are claiming that the act of punching indicated that he felt the need for self defense! Thanks for discussing it! For great justice. 21:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Bart 'agressive' or 'assertive'

Agressive has conotations of violence, and Bart was not violent. Assertive implies persistance, which he certainly showed. For great justice. 21:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Aggressive doesn't necessarily connote violence. Stalking a total stranger for years, sneaking up on him and his relative on an evening out and insisting that he put his hand on a bible and swear that his Moon landing was not a hoax, is already way beyond justifying "aggressive" and making "assertive" way, way too tame and slanted in his favor to be NPOV. - Reaverdrop 21:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In the context of Buzz's violent outburst, it makes it look as if Bart's thorough investigation is somehow unreasonable. How can we make it clear that Bart was in no way physically agressive? For great justice. 21:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It already doesn't say he did anything physically aggressive... but, per my comments above, this John Hinckley-esque behavior was already far askew from a mere "thorough investigation", and even merely "aggressive" is almost too gentle a description to keep NPOV. The only surprising thing is that Sibrel hadn't already been apprehended by the police for stalking. - Reaverdrop 21:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what assasination has to do with it. Trying to get a key member of the hoax to swear his innocence doesn't seem unreasonable to me. For great justice. 21:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

He tracked him and other astronauts for years, frequently lying to gain access to them, personally confronting them in the midst of their social lives. This is stalking and it is criminal behavior, of a behavioral pattern nearly indistinguishable from John Hinckley's in the years leading up to his encounter with Reagan. Real historical, journalistic and scientific investigators and polemicists do not engage in criminal stalking. Sibrel should already have been in prison, and I have little doubt Aldrin was both legally and morally justified in defending himself and his relative with physical force by that point. But your matter-of-factly referring to the Moon landings as "the hoax" makes your particular point of view clear. - Reaverdrop 22:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I presume that if it were criminal behavior, Aldrin would have pressed charges. Your point of view about Aldrin is not relevant. The video is clear, Sibrel does not threaten Aldrin. For great justice. 15:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Threw out UFO sighting story

I reverted the anonymous edit of 24 July 17:20, which claimed that Aldrin confirmed in an interview that the Apollo 11 crew saw UFOs on the flight. As everyone knows, "UFOlogy" is a deeply unscientific and fact-free discipline and should not be dignified in this way, unless verifiable proof is presented. Apart from this general situation, my problem with the edit in question is that the two sources cited are an entry on www.ufoevidence.org and a Scottish tabloid newspaper printing two-inch-big headlines. In other words, the sources are squarely ridiculous. --Geheimdienst 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's all the news today for some reason; not just dubious sources. I guess a documentary came out? — Omegatron 21:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Attempts to determine the nature of unidentified flying objects can not honestly be said to be unscientific by nature. It is a field of study that has been plagued by hoaxters and pseudo-scientific charcters to be sure, but that does not mean UFOs don't exist (they do - it is their nature which can not be honestly said to have been determined), nor that attempts to determine their cause should be dismissed out of hand (an action that would be dogmatic and unscientific itself). Either way, the interesting piece is that he has chosen to make the claim after so long and also stated that the space agency covered it up. Regardless of whether or not the claim is true or whether, if true, it was actually aliens isn't the point. Him making such controversial statements is noteworthy either way. 208.3.253.171 22:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Christopher

The documentary is going to be on the science (Discovery) channel over the next 4 days (according to tvguide) [1]. I'll be making an effort to watch for this clip (about 15mins into the show apparently).

Buzz definitely said these things - check out the documentary yourself. It's worth noting that the sighting of an unidentified flying object does not mean there were aliens - only that there was an object that was unidentified. The only language entered here referring to aliens has to do with Buzz not reporting the find directly due to a fear that it would be interpreted as aliens and they would be ordered to turn back. There is nothing pseudo-scientific here. Of most worthy note, IMO, is his claim that the space agency covered it up. 208.3.253.171 22:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Christopher

Wrong Arm

Isn't his left arm crooked, not his right? --MosheA 00:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

First on the Moon?

OK, someone go look at the Trivia section and see #9 "Aldrin lobbied very strongly to be the first one out of the lunar module and thus becoming the first man to set foot on the moon on the Apollo 11 mission"

I wasn't alive when this happened, but I think all those books (and wikipedia articles) I've read all correctly state that Armstrong was first on the moon. It seems to be backed up by a source. Yet when I go to the Armstrong page it reads: "...famously known for being the first human ever to set foot on the Moon"

I'm at a loss of words right now. Someon