Neil Armstrong (left): What Really Happened on the Moon … In an article he wrote for "Krulwich Wonders…," Krulwich pondered why the 1969 Apollo 11 astronauts didn't venture more than 90 yards from the Lunar Module. With a whole moon to explore, you'd think Armstrong and Aldrin would be hopping up the nearest mountain, or spelunking down a lunar skylight. Right? It turns out that his wondering thoughts didn't go unanswered. NASA astronaut legend Neil Armstrong decided to respond to Krulwich's blog by sending him a long email with an uncharacteristically chatty tone. In the message, Armstrong gave a wonderfully vivid explanation as to what it was like on the lunar surface and why Buzz and himself were limited by what they could do. Although much of Armstrong's text is a matter of historical record, as Krulwich says, "reading between the lines, I kinda think he wanted to do more, go further." – Discovery.com
Dominant Social Theme: The great, shy man breaks his silence.
Free-Market Analysis: It is increasingly obvious from a 21st century vantage-point that the 20th century was a sort of Dark Ages. As we emerge blinking dazedly into a new era of Internet information, we can see increasingly how much of the previous century was an elite promotion designed to create a kind of One World Order.
Chief among these promotions may have been the so-called NASA moon landings. And the chief witness for those who disbelieve that man ever walked on the moon is the person who first touched down on the surface – astronaut Neil Armstrong. Armstrong, in fact, is a walking compendium of reasons why many people believe that men never did fly to earth's main satellite; or at least not US astronauts. (Apparently, according to scripture, ancient Hindu spacemen may have gotten there and fought a fierce battle.)
In any event, almost every action of Neil Armstrong bespeaks great hesitation. From the most abysmal and awful, single press conference every organized or presented (when Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin returned from the moon) – and still available in all its weird woefulness on Youtube – to his tortured and twisted statements which often reference the moon generally without specifically placing him there, to his general avoidance of anything remotely having to do with moon-landing celebratory events, Armstrong's behavior is logically that of a man with something to hide. He seems to have a guilty conscience. He seems in constant mourning.
And yet now he speaks – not in person but via email. He is uncharacteristically chatty, we are informed. We are happy for him if this is the case. Never has a decent individual seemed to us so tortured by a great accomplishment as this man. Mind you, we have not gone so far as to disavow the possibility that man walked on the moon (nor will we ever unless concrete proof is offered one way or the other) but we are in the business of tracking the dominant social themes of the elite and the NASA script smells rather much like a promotion. (Viet Nam was a bad deal and the moon landings put the US government back in business.)
Today, with the advent of the Internet and the additional scrutiny the "moon landings" have received, one could make a case that NASA is in some kind of long-term, emergency damage control. Fairly recently, NASA announced it had "lost" the original films of the Apollo astronauts on the moon. The agency had apparently just discovered they'd been accidently written over. Fortunately, NASA has released new and improved versions of the originals, and has proudly announced that the new versions are far clearer and crisper because they have been doctored! No reticence there. We have also noted how many of the original moon rocks have gone missing and how a piece of petrified (earthbound) wood was found in the middle of one batch still extant. (NASA has no explanation, nor will one be forthcoming.)
We have delved into Youtube of all places to observe a startling series of analyses focused on specific videos that provide interesting evidences of tiny models that were used to fake NASA photos as well as glints of wires that appear and disappear regularly, holding the astronauts up. We have listened to an interview with a later moon astronaut who seems to have no knowledge of the terrible Van Allen radiation belt – so either he was ignorant of it or it was not considered a problem worth mentioning at the time. Then there is the question of the photos themselves. Rudimentary calculations reveal that given the number of photos, astronauts would have had to be churning them out at something like one every 30 seconds. How is this possible given all the other things the astronauts had to do? We could go on, but we won't. It upsets many who pass this way (and never return as a result).
But consider, please, the "larger picture" before you reject the possibility of a hoax out-of-hand. So much of the 20th century's great events turn out not to have been what they were portrayed as being. The US federal income tax may never have been ratified; central banking was implemented in the US via some level of subterfuge; the origins of World War I remain most murky; (perhaps one goal was to launch the failed global facility called the League of Nations); the Roaring 20s came about because the Federal Reserve printed too much money; the Great Depression and subsequent financial regulation was blamed on the private sector rather than the quasi-public Federal Reserve; Hitler's rise was funded in part by Western banks – just as Russian communism had been; America's entry into World War II was decided by Pearl Harbor (but President Roosevelt may have known about it in advance and encouraged the attack); both the Korean and VietNam wars were pursued deceitfully; questions still swirl some 50-years later around both Jack and Bobby Kennedy's deaths, as well as the death of Martin Luther King and numerous popular rock and roll stars (Bob Marley, Jimi Hendrix, etc.)
Then there were outright intelligence operations. Operations Gladio, Paperclip and Mockingbird were CIA controlled gambits designed to help panic the Western middle classes into giving up more power and wealth to internationalist facilities; the hippie period of the 1960s may have been set off by another intelligence operation; Iraq was quite possibly manipulated into invading Kuwait by a US ambassador's "green light." Various US domestic disturbances in the 1990s are seen by some as "false flag" events designed to allow the federal government to crack down on a nascent "patriot movement"; the greater European Union is seen by many as a contrived expansion driven by subterfuge rather than popularity.
Of course the 21st century has seen its share of questionable reporting as well, beginning with 9/11 and then continuing through serial US wars, a Great Recession and subsequent, questionable corporate bailouts. But out of all of the above, if we had to choose one potential promotion that stood out for sheer chutzpa, it would have to be NASA's decade-long quest to put a man on the moon. And now sad sphinx (Neil Armstrong) talks. Or rather he doesn't talk but emails it in. A suspicious individual could argue that this is further evidence of damage control. Of course from our point of view no matter what NASA does, the questions will keep on coming, and they will grow louder. The Internet is a process not an episode. As the questions rise, NASA will have to keep battling, of course. Old elite promotions never die, nor do they even fade away.
NASA's spokespeople will continually and bravely venture forth. Its leaders, appointed or promoted, will continue to make the case that an operation that loses the most significant tapes in humankind's history was competent enough to put men on the moon within a 10-year time horizon on six separate occasions without losing a soul. They will have to argue that while spacemen had never been more than 400 miles into space, all of a sudden NASA was able to project them on a 500,000-mile round-trip without a serious glitch or the loss of even one life. They will have to argue that the Van Allen radiation belt – which is generally recognized as serious barrier to deep-space travel these days – was a fairly trivial occurrence.
Most seriously of all, they will have to explain why after putting men on the moon almost at will during a five year period in the middle of the 20th century, NASA's brain-trust is projecting that the agency will not be able to send men to the moon until at least the middle 2020s. Strange indeed. We will have to wait at least another decade-and-a-half before the "right stuff" is again in evidence.
