[...] Cheesychuckie loved by the Lovely One to love the unlovely. Thursday, June 5, 2008 My Birthday Wishlist Every year before my birthday comes, I always publish a wishlist. Why? So people like you (my dear 2 [...]

The cost of the software is not an issue to me. Does the software have the capability to do what should be done to process the audio file? Did he get access to the best audio file source? Did he apply the right techniques to process the audio file? Was his analysis sound, or flawed? Those are the legitimate questions to my mind.

I think this is an intriguing start but needs further review by experts in the field, perhaps working with better copies of the original audio.

I’ve been looking through the various stories on this including this one:
http://reports.discoverychannel.ca/servlet/an/discovery/1/20061002/1002_discovery_armstrong/20061002?hub=DiscoveryReport

And as far as I can tell, the only thing he postulates is that there’s a gap between two words that’s longer than usual and there may have been an ‘a’ in there. Or, you know, Armstrong just *might* have been a little nervous stepping down that ladder to walk on the Moon for the first time in human history, or he could’ve taken a breath. I can think of many other reasons for there to be a small gap between two words.

I quote from the article: “The phrase was spoken quickly and the microphone didn’t catch every syllable, says Ford. But the signature of the word is there, existing visually in a graphic representation of the famous quote.”

This sounds like pure hocus-pocus to me. I’ve been doing a lot of audio editing in my time and I’ve never come across any of these ‘ghostly’ signatures in sound. If he’s talking about filtering techniques, again I’ll have to say that with a sound as quick and as small as an ‘a’ vowel, you apply a filter of the right kind and get the sound you want out of any 35 ms sample you care to choose.
And slowing down the speech by a factor of 10 to prove there’s a sound there is just plain cheating. I’m surprised they didn’t interview an actual sound engineer at all to look over Ford’s work.

I am much more inclined to believe that the audio transmission itself was dropping once in a while and may have blacked out at that critical moment. Despite what the article’s headline says, Goldwave is *NOT* sophisticated audio editing equipment.
And this stuff about ghostly signatures at 35 ms is just laughable.

I can’t imagine how anyone can take this seriously.

“Armstrong famously fluffed his line,”

I believe the word being sought is “flubbed”, as in mangled, missed, messed up. “Fluffed” usually suggests making more important, drawing out, inflating. Or, in another context, something not printable on a child friendly web page.

Peter Shann Ford’s original paper is apparently available here.

I was 14 at the time, attended (the TV) personally, and frankly, I think he just flubbed his line. Frankly, I don’t care. I remain to this day, astounded bu the event.

I also remain astounded that, in teh ensuing nearly 40 years, I still am not able to go MYSELF

JC

IIRC, the lines definitely had an ‘a’ between ‘for’ and ‘man’, but it sounded kind of slurred by Neil’s drawl. Next day, the media had the recording edited for clarity (reducing noise, etc. for broadcasting) and the ‘a’ is less audible. I guess that’s why the controversy started.

“To boldly go…”

That’s it. I’m leaving.

Listening to it now, it is difficult to hear how the “a” could be there. But Armstrong has always claimed that he said it, or at least thought he said it. After I started paying attention to the controversy, I noted the overly long pause between the two lines and wondered if he recognized he’d flubbed it right as he said it and was trying to decide whether to correct himself or gloss over it. But that’s perhaps reading in too much. That hasn’t been confirmed by Armstrong. I prefer to take him at his word that he didn’t realize it didn’t come out right.

I can convince myself he said “fora” and slurred it enough to mush it in with the “r” and mostly drop out. Given the numerous ways people have of butchering vocalizations on a regular basis (such as the typical dropping of the “g” from “-ing”), I have no problem accepting that Armstrong naturally slurs his “a”‘s and that in this case it got doubly clipped by the radio technology.

It would be interesting to see the analysis.

Jason Stokes Said:
>First of all, the line as scripted must have been “There’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.” It’s hard to see how there could be any controversy over this point.

I will point out that the only scripting was self-scripting. Armstrong came up with that line himself. It was not provided by NASA. If he flubbed his line, it was his own line he flubbed.

icemith said:
>I was always under the impression that what Armstrong said was, “That’s one small step for Man, one giant leap for Mankind.” The letter (word?) “a” is really un-necessary, and as we have seen, changes the meaning.

Please elaborate on how the “a” is unneccesary, and how capitalizing the “Man” makes that statement make sense. Your version is “That’s one small step for mankind, one giant leap for mankind.”

>Is there any report from the man (Man?) himself (Armstrong), explaining the variation? What did he have to say in retrospect?

From the article quoted:

“It doesn’t sound like there was time for the word to be there,” Armstrong said in the book. “On the other hand, I didn’t intentionally make an inane statement, and . . . certainly the “a” was intended, because that’s the only way the statement makes any sense.

And there’s this:

But he knew what he said. “There must be an ‘a’, ” Mr. Armstrong says of the event in the 1986 book Chariots for Apollo. “I rehearsed it that way. I meant it that way. And I’m sure I said it that way.”

I’m quoting Snopes
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/onesmall.asp
They’re quoting Jacob Berkowitz, “Moonlanding: One Small Slipup for (a) Man.” [Toronto] Globe and Mail. 17 July 2004 (p. F9).

Bad Albert said:
>I put the blame for this whole thing squarely on the shoulders of NASA.

I don’t know, I like the fact that they didn’t overscript the event.

That may be so, but why was he using Goldwave software?! Goldwave is shareware! I mean, it’s an OK program and all, but for professional applications?

J. D.