News & Analysis
What Is the Real Legacy of NASA After Armstrong's Death?
Neil Armstrong's Legacy - We Need It Now More Than Ever ... Neil Armstrong, the first man to step on the moon, died last Saturday ... The Republican convention, hurricane Isaac and many other issues dominated the news, even though Neil Armstrong represents something that had far more impact on our lives than this hurricane, or anyone attending this convention. Neil Armstrong represents the adventurous spirit of an innovator willing to lead from the front. Advances in flight, and space travel, might have happened without him – or maybe not. Neil Armstrong was willing to see what could be done, willing to experiment and take chances, without being overly concerned about failure. Rather than worrying about what could go wrong, he was willing to see what could go right! What Neil Armstrong told us all, and practiced with his actions, was to never stop setting crazy goals. Even when the immediate benefit may be unclear. The journey of discovery unleashes opportunities which create their own benefits – for society, and for our economy. Losing Neil Armstrong is an enormous loss, because we need leaders like him now more than ever. – Forbes
Dominant Social Theme: NASA's space program in the 20th century was among the most important chapters of human civilization.
Free-Market Analysis: A recent article over at Forbes, above, gives us a jumping off point to evaluate the legacy of America's manned space program. After all, the legacy of the space program is deeply ingrained in America's collective heart and mind.
We've run articles in the past questioning the entire NASA space program. As believers in directed history, we tend to find there's much about NASA's behavior in the 20th century that seems questionable.
But even assuming NASA did all it said it did, the debunkery of NASA itself doesn't seem to have stopped. On YouTube it seems more active than ever. Polls show that increasing numbers of young people are skeptical of NASA's claims.
Thus, now that NASA's most iconic figure has died, let's revisit NASA from the standpoint of power elite dominant social themes. Our argument is these themes are being gradually undermined by what we call the Internet Reformation. The power elite's fear-based promotions are being exposed for the falsehoods they are.
The NASA promotion was set up in the 20th century to take advantage of the Cold War. The idea was to use the fear of the Soviet enemy to create monstrous bureaucracies that would make clear to people that only fedgov could provide a counterweight in a dangerous world.
NASA, in other words, was a metaphor for omnipotent leviathan. We can tell that it was a promotion because like so many promotions it surges and pauses, depending on how the powers-that-be want to use it.
But it is not what it was. And in this article we ask why not ... and more importantly, why NASA hasn't been able to stamp out the debunkery that is rife on the Internet.
Granting that NASA did all it said it did, the continued upsurge in skepticism is notable and may have fairly serious implications for the future and the ability of the power elite to continue to provide a believable narrative on any one of a number of fronts.
The Forbes article is a good example of NASA meme-building as it as been practiced for decades. It explains that Armstrong's legacy "represents the adventurous spirit of an innovator willing to lead from the front ... Rather than worrying about what could go wrong, he was willing to see what could go right!"
The article elaborates on this perception. "His history of try, fail, test, improve, try, succeed is an example for all leaders." It also provides specific advice generated by America's space triumph:
Firstly, know what you are talking about. Have the right education, obtain data and apply good analysis to everything you do. Don't operate just "from your gut," or on intuition, but rather know what you're talking about, and lead with knowledge.
Second, don't be afraid to experiment, learn, improve and grow. Don't rest on what people have done, and proven, before. Don't accept limits just because that's how it was previously done.
Constantly build upon the past to reach new heights. Just because it has not been done before does not mean it cannot be done.
The article concludes with an impassioned, desperate plea for a "bigger, better funded NASA." It is positioned in economic as well as historical terms, as we can see from this statement:
It was, without a doubt, the most successful economic stimulus program in American history – even though politicians have been moving in the opposite direction for nearly 2 decades!
The very last part of the article bemoans the lack of aspiration in the United States when it comes to manned space flight.
Nobody seems to care about going to space any more ... But ... [w]e have barely begun understanding the implications of growth created by exploring space. Only our imaginations are limited, not the opportunity.
But as we have pointed out, these sorts of exhortations are losing their effectiveness in the 21st century. When one examines the NASA legacy, one increasingly has to deal with debunkers and accusations of a hoax.
Debunkers claim that if scenes of walking on the moon were properly prepared in advance, then only a very few would need to know. What if those who WERE in on the secret believed what they did because they were convinced it was a national security issue. In other words, these individuals lied out of patriotism. Here's the conclusion from one debunking website, ApolloAnomolies.com:
If NASA actually sent men to the moon six times, then why did they find it necessary to fake photos and film clips shot during the Apollo missions? Some people believe that NASA faked the moon landings upon learning that it wasn't possible to overcome the technical difficulties in going to the moon – that if they couldn't make it, they'd fake it.
Others, including myself, believe that it was NASA's intent to defraud the American people from the outset as they knew all along that it wasn't a goal that could be achieved. The reason they did this is hinted at by what was undoubtedly accomplished: each Apollo Saturn V lofted a payload into Earth's orbit.
We've been told that this payload included a functioning lunar module and command module and that they were later sent on a trajectory to the moon, but if no moon landing actually took place then it's a pretty safe bet that no lunar module or command module capable of functioning as advertised was ever onboard a Saturn V rocket during lift-off. That being the case, one wonders just what payload was actually placed into Earth orbit during each Apollo mission.
Could it be that these payloads were of a military nature? Lacking congressional support for their plans, perhaps NASA and the Pentagon found another means of achieving their goals. If legislators wouldn't support their vision, then NASA and the gang had only to dress their vision as one that would be supported.
By igniting the public's imagination with a vision of landing men on the moon and returning them safely back to Earth (a goal which conveniently encompasses that of placing a military payload into Earth's orbit), NASA and the Pentagon easily obtained the thirty billion or so funding they sought from the unwary American taxpayers.
While we TV viewers were unknowingly watching pre-recorded film footage of actornauts performing on a moonscape, in reality, a crew of NASA employees were busy sending a shiny new military or spy satellite on its merry way...
Sounds implausible you say? Bear in mind that following in the wake of this so-called "greatest achievement of mankind," the entire emphasis of the American space program suddenly shifted from heady "space exploration" to the ho hum development of a better "space" delivery vehicle that could do no more than simply achieve Earth orbit!
Add to that, hardly more than a decade had passed following the final Apollo mission before Reagan was seen announcing his controversial Star Wars program! Was Apollo really just about space exploration as we were told, or was it a clever deception employed in pursuit of the unauthorized, unilateral control of space?
The argument, then, is that people could maintain a sense of conspiratorial purpose if they felt or were told that the reason for their connivance was a patriotic one. Additionally, debunkers claim that those who would not go along with the conspiracy (mostly astronauts) met with grim fates and died untimely deaths.
The debunkers point to literally hundreds of anomalies and alternative realities when it comes to what they consider the flawed narrative of landing men on the moon. This debunkery then extends to the larger debunkery of modern history which conspiratorial historians claim is entirely artificial, from the staged depressions, to the unnecessary wars, to the other fear-based propaganda about running out of food, water and energy. The idea is always to celebrate the state and advance toward world government.
Here are some statistics from a CNN article entitled, "Could the Moon Landings Have Been Faked?"
A 1999 Gallup poll found that a scant 6 percent of Americans doubted the Apollo 11 moon landing happened, and there is anecdotal evidence that the ranks of such conspiracy theorists, fueled by innuendo-filled documentaries and the Internet, are growing.
Twenty-five percent of respondents to a survey in the British magazine Engineering & Technology said they do not believe humans landed on the moon ... And a Google search ... for "Apollo moon landing hoax" yielded more than 1.5 billion results.
This is the real legacy of NASA's moon landings. It may be one of inspiration and courage but it is also one of massive incompetence and inept public relations. Instead of properly combating the "debunkers," NASA has allowed the debunking to continue with up to 25 percent of some informed audiences now believing men did not go to the moon.
It is a legacy of bitterness, distrust and resentment about unconvincing scenarios that paint government achievement in an increasingly dubious light. The more NASA contemptuously stonewalls by not explaining about "petrified" moon rocks and why it would secretly retouch the most important historical video footage ever made (men landing on the moon), the more people will have doubts about the larger credibility of the narrative.
Conclusion: In the Internet era one needs to fight such evidence with facts, not just lofty pronouncements.
See also, "Wagging the Moondoggie."
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 09/06/12 09:17 AM
DB: "The NASA promotion was set up in the 20th century to take advantage of the Cold War. The idea was to use the fear of the Soviet enemy to create monstrous bureaucracies that would make clear to people that only fedgov could provide a counterweight in a dangerous world."
----------------------------------
Quite so. In addition, the monstrosity was translated into gargantuan architecture to give more weight to the 'only fedgov can do such things' meme. I'll never forget how the guide at a bus-tour through Kennedy Space Center boasted at minute intervals about how this or that was "the biggest building, door, place, etc. IN THE WORLD" ... rolling R and all.
Besides, I think the fact that the Soviets "failed" to expose and exploit the apparent Apollo hoax is just another indication that the entire Cold War was phony itself - and the Soviet leadership in bed with Money Power.
"But in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon--if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there."
JFK, Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs, May 25, 1961
Click to view link
Reply from The Daily Bell
The "debunkery" idea is that the Soviets were faking too. Didn't send up a man up into space when they said they did, etc. Was an elaborate charade like the Cold War itself.
|
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 09/06/12 10:00 AM
DB: "The "debunkery" idea is that the Soviets were faking too. Didn't send up a man up into space when they said they did, etc. Was an elaborate charade like the Cold War itself. "
-----------------
Well, do you subscribe to this "debunkery" idea?
DID the Soviets send up a man up into space when they said they did?
Reply from The Daily Bell
How can we know for sure without doing real investigative work? We identify patterns. We explain dominant social themes. Is it necessary to identify every promotion in detail? Leave that to the historians.
Basically we have lived through massive directed history. One can quibble about the details but not the underlying pattern. ...
The space race was a promotion, only they didn't think they would ever have to defend it. They didn't count on the Internet it seems and now the entire 20th century narrative is toppling.
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
|
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 09/06/12 10:47 AM
DB: "How can we know for sure without doing real investigative work? We identify patterns. We explain dominant social themes. Is it necessary to identify every promotion in detail? Leave that to the historians.
Basically we have lived through massive directed history. One can quibble about the details but not the underlying pattern. ...
The space race was a promotion, only they didn't think they would ever have to defend it. They didn't count on the Internet it seems and now the entire 20th century narrative is toppling. "
------------------------------------
Sigh ... of course it is NOT necessary to identify every promotion in detail. I was just curious as to what you THINK about this particular detail. You know that I agree with your paradigm in aggregate.
Never mind ...
 |
Posted by bewildered on 09/06/12 12:32 PM
Supposedly there's a mirror that was placed on the moon which is used to measure the distance from earth to the moon with a laser. Was it not placed there? Was it placed by an unmanned system?
Reply from The Daily Bell
"Conspirators will argue that the moon dust can be reflective from Earth and the effect would be the same as having a mirror reflect the light back. Weak, but their better argument is that a a vase of flowers, a book, a block of cheese, and even a 'lunar laser ranging retroreflector array' can all be placed on the moon using "unmanned missiles". And they can."
Click to view link
|
Posted by provolone on 09/06/12 12:55 PM
The issue is not if they landed on the moon or not. Fact or fiction, the moon landing is not important to me personally. During my lifetime, it is improbable that I would become involved in any moon related activities. For me the moon is only a celestial body that I occasionally notice.
What is concerning and disturbing is the idea that a group of men with guns would come and take me before a 'judge' if I were to refuse to pay for any state sanctioned space adventures.
As far as I am concerned, government institutions can go wild and create any number of video hoaxes, sci-fi thrillers, or legitimate spacecraft. My preference would be that they fund these activities on a voluntary or for profit basis.
One of the common defenses I hear for space activity are the technologies that have been generated. If these systems are so beneficial and essential to our lives, why can private businesses and passionate researchers not invest their own resources to further these goals?
|
Posted by Bluebird on 09/06/12 02:24 PM
It is odd to me that people really do not want to know if this is true. I have tried various ways to share this info and get the door slammed in my face, so to speak. "We went to the moon," they say. Case closed. But I feel it is very important to learn if it is true. Once you peek behind the curtain, you begin to wonder what else is hidden there. I am glad to hear that some have more luck than I.
Lew Rockwell had an article which made some very good points. It was written after the Mars landing and compared their remarks about the down thrust stirring up dust. That was not a problem with the "moon landing" it seems. It shows footprints in the dust, yet there was no dust on the legs of the lunar module. Take a look:
Click to view link
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thanks.
 |
Posted by IndyLyn on 09/06/12 04:53 PM
It is so sad to think Neil Armstrong took the truth to his grave. The rest of the men on that infamous 'moon walk' still have a chance to set the history books straight, if they were the heroes they've been made out to be.
|
Posted by dimitri on 09/06/12 05:03 PM
A propos the moon dust: why isn't there a huge dust storm in this article's photo? After all, the flag is waving heartily. Was it starched? With less gravity to prevent dust from falling out of suspension quickly, there should be at least some that's not ground bound IF indeed there is a "lunar wind."
|
Posted by Hank on 09/06/12 05:16 PM
"Instead of properly combating the "debunkers," NASA has allowed the debunking to continue... ." Because the "debunkers" have a better story to tell.
|
Posted by piolenc on 09/06/12 06:05 PM
Here we go again. Let me remind y'all that skepticism doesn't just mean refusing to believe what isn't adequately proven - it also means accepting as true that which IS proven.
The moon landings simply could not have been faked, for reasons I have trotted out before. The flag business is nonsense - the flags were made of a stiff material and the poles included a horizontal bar to hold the flag extended. If you look at the video footage, the flag isn't fluttering - it's wrinkled because the horizontal pole isn't holding it with enough tension.
It is understandable that today's youth find it hard to believe that NASA - a cash-burning, glory-hogging, incompetent bureaucracy - could ever have achieved what it claims. But NASA didn't realize those things - legions of dedicated, competent people, most of them employed by private industry, did those things, and most of them stayed only long enough to do the job they came to do, then went on to other projects.
The same is true today - when a complex undertaking like the latest Mars rover Curiosity can be deposited in what amounts to a helicopter assault on the Red Planet, with everything going just right. NASA takes the credit, but it only brokered the assignment of taxpayer funds to the program.
Reply from The Daily Bell
read "wagging the moondoggie"
|
Posted by Von on 09/07/12 08:45 PM
I have a lot of respect for Daily Bell, and read on a regular basis.
Your thesis on centralized global control, central banking, and the internet reformation are brilliant
But sorry - you do a 180 on credibility with the "moon landing hoax" business.
Really? C'mon guys. Why go there with such flimsy "evidence"?
It just gives the doubters ammunition to stick a tinfoil hat on you and dismiss everything else you say on here.
Your main thesis is too important and valid to waste on this.
 |
Posted by Let it be on 09/07/12 09:33 PM
And a guy living in a cave was responsible for 9/11
Believe nothing you hear and 1/2 of what you see.
The truth does not exist.
|
Posted by speedygonzales on 09/08/12 03:02 AM
Wow! You get me back!
|
Posted by speedygonzales on 09/08/12 03:15 AM
I have many videos in my computer, as backup- no more on web, which shows too realistic simulation of landing in studio. In one scene light ramp felt down, rats, people walking. Real question to me is why was so important to make everytning so real on those simulations. Those not messed up sequences looks realy like those from the moon. Other story. You know am chalenger. So I get to the total end of climate change. Beside this NASA send module to study 2 Van Allen belts. You all know how complicated was film camera compare to digital. Whatever happened those pictures from the moon could not be here. Because The Moon is behind Van Allen belts-protection shield
|
Posted by speedygonzales on 09/08/12 03:25 AM
??? Click to view link ???
This is really not a man who was on the moon. He lies and he cries, his voice is shaking and he is talking about future discoveries. He never gave live interview.
