Friday, April 12, 2013

No, Neil Armstrong did not liken himself to a parrot‏

        In comments to the previous post here, I metaphorically rolled my eyes at the fact that Richard Hoagland, after all these years, is still repeating the canard that Neil Armstrong likened himself to a parrot in his 25th anniversary speech at the White House.

        Hoagland said this during the panel discussion at last weekend's Awake & Aware conference in Glendale. I decided to chide Hoagland in e-mail, and it led to this exchange, which is only informative in that it testifies to how utterly obtuse the man is.
Reminder: What Armstrong actually said was "Wilbur Wright once noted that the only bird that can talk is the parrot, and he doesn't fly very well, so I'll be brief".

I can't believe you trotted out that falsehood yet again at the A&A panel discussion. Armstrong was possibly the greatest pilot in history, and also famously poor at public speaking. You are saying he likened himself to a bird whose talents are THE EXACT OPPOSITE???

Please think before you speak and write.

The first responsibility of a real scientist/engineer is to OBSERVE.

Please watch and listen CAREFULLY.

Neil Armstrong, at the opening of this famous White House speech, on the 25th Anniversary of the Apollo 11 Landing, DOES directly compare himself to ... a parrot!
The real meaning of this astonishing, personal comparison (given your obvious point -- that Neil was, demonstrably, the unparalled pilot of all time), is equally obvious--
He was (in this, and in all his public speeches re Apollo ...) merely repeating "a carefully-sanctioned script" ... which (as a guy obviously wrestling with his own integrity in all of this) he wanted all Americans to know--Even if he couldn't "tell it straight."

It is YOU who should be watching and listening CAREFULLY. I can't believe you are really this obtuse. He is saying "My talent is for flying, not talking, SO I'LL BE BRIEF". In other words, THE OPPOSITE of a parrot. Dear me, dear me....

I hope you're a better engineer than writer!

You really missed the entire point of his remarkable, carefully-chosen opening ....

If, as you claim, he was likening himself to a parrot, WHY WOULD HE SAY "SO I'LL BE BRIEF"???

Parrots are GOOD AT TALKING. Surely you can understand that!!!!!

Why bring up "parrots" at all ...?                 :)

What is the ONE THING parrots are universally known for?

Not "talking" ....
But REPEATING ... what other people say.

Neil knew EXACTLY what he was doing with that opening ....          :)

>>Why bring up "parrots" at all ...?    <<

Because Wilbur Wright did.

Now look -- Parrots are a) Good at talking, b) Bad at flying.
Armstrong, by his own admission, is a) Bad at talking, b) Good at flying.

THE OPPOSITE of a parrot!!!!!!!!!!!!!


No, he QUOTED Wilbur ....


He didn't HAVE to.             :)

He needed the "parrot/repeating" METAPHOR ... and, quoting Wright deftly deflected the responsibility of choosing THAT metaphor (for thos paying attention) from HIMSELF.

Stick with engineering ....             :)

What you write here has no credibility whatsoever. You are totally wrong. 

Hoagland's e-mail address is


Chris Lopes said...

Armstrong was quoting Wright because a) Wright was one of the founders of aviation b) Wright was from the same state as Neil, and c) Wright said something funny about pilots giving speeches that Armstrong thought would get a chuckle. It's not really that complicated. Hoagland is just pretending to be that stupid.

expat said...

Exactly, Chris.

Chris Lopes said...

I did like the "stick to engineering" line, as it is dripping with irony. In the 4 decades or so of his professional life, Hoagie has only managed to write 2 books (1 1/2 really, as the second one was with Bara). So he isn't really an authority on writing either.

Anonymous said...

Chris, I don't think it's pretending.

He once chose to believe in it and can't back down now. If he would, then why not investigate all the other things he penned down or uttered during presentations. It's all or nothing at this stage.

Hoagland is the real parrot in the story: talks well but the words just don't fly. And I grew up with a talking parrot: they repeat and combine with not much awareness of context. They do it more for effect, for enjoyment. And they're clever animals which can give all kinds of wrong impressions about their intention. But understanding what they're saying is not one of their gifts. Great amusement value though.

Anonymous said...

I agree, Hoaxland isn't pretending to be stupid. He genuinely believes what he thinks; and that's the scarey bit. If he wrote a book or presented a seminar where he admitted he'd duped a few for so long, he'd of course field a bit (well okay, quite a lot)of negative feedback, but at least he'd be honest. As it stands, he's dishonest, but he's so far down the road, it's no longer a joke but he believes his BS. He's deluded and a snake oil salesman, but I'm not sure even he knows which.


Chris Lopes said...

I admit it's possible the old fraud has convinced himself that Armstrong was equating himself with a parrot. The best con men tend to believe some of what they are saying, some of the time. And Hoagie has been pushing this meme for quite awhile.

Delusional or not though, you aren't going to get him to admit the error. As Anonymous said, his credibility (with the pseudo-science crowd) is at stake. That's his only bankable quality at the moment, as he's no longer even remotely entertaining.

Strahlungs Amt said...

Just browsing Mikey's Facialbook on a Sunday morning.

Mike was at:
Bottoms UP Gentlemens Club — with Adam Terry.
about 3 months ago

An image of a gun with the words:

And if you scroll down further, he's really crying over Maggie Thatcher.

Strahlungs Amt said...

Then there's this gem:
I've decided on my career goals; I want a star on the Hollywood walk of fame.
Right next to Shatner.

Sure Mike. Except that next to you Shatner is a towering intellectual with a highly successful career, who's worth millions and who owns a successful horse farm. Shatner starred in what was arguably the most innovative TV show in history, which dealt with philosophical issues and social issues of the time in ways that ordinary mainstream TV couldn't reach. He is also a former Shakespearian actor who worked hard to get where he did and who raises money for children's charities.

What did you ever do with your life Mike? Write some pseudoscience books and score with Vegas strippers? I know you like cats and dogs but have you ever done anything in your life to help another human being? Hell, you don't even give your buddy Hoagland credit for your last book.

No wonder you love Thatcher and Reagan so much.

Strahlungs Amt said...

I just found a video of the young Hoagland. I think this explains a lot.

Anonymous said...

Strahlungs Amt said

I just found a video of the young Hoagland. I think this explains a lot.


Oh how I hope that video is true of Hoaxland. Sadly I think his own life was far more traumatic.


Anonymous said...

Wait. Wait wait. We are to believe that Armstrong was parroting (heh) "a carefully-sanctioned script", and yet he went off script in order to subtly tell us that he was on script?


expat said...

Of such is the logic of the Hoagland, yes indeed.

Anonymous said...

Neil must be saying that like the parrot he does'nt fly very high(more then LEO). That's a clever pointer to the nasa hoax, with little risk of having an accident.

expat said...

No, anonymous, it's simpler than that. He's saying he's NOT LIKE A PARROT because he isn't good at speaking.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Forum and Brim said...

If you break down what Armstrong was saying, he was clearly using a metaphor to let the audience know that, since he was obviously a great pilot, he couldn't speak well as opposed to the parrot who spoke well but wasn't known for his ability to fly).

However, in order to avoid upsetting the-powers-that-shouldn't-be, he may have used the metaphor as part of a double entendre that technically did not cross a line. As such, he may have been hoping it would be enough to 1) spark interest in those just learning about the conspiracy theory, and 2) deepen the resolve of those already questioning the authenticity of the Apollo 11 mission. In other words, the two separate ideas about what he meant don't have to be mutually exclussive.

People who know things that can threaten the status quo often meet a TIMELY death before their natural time in order for the perpetrators to maintain plausible deniability. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both died on July 4, 1826 exactly 50 years after declaring independence from GB. Antonin Scalia also died under mysterious circumstances, and he believed the SCOTUS was as dangerous as Jefferson (and Lincoln for that matter). Neil Armstrong died during an operation that could have been botched.

All of these men had reached the average lifespan, or better, but mystery surrounded their death. I believe this happens because people tend to make themselves right with God towards the end. They want their lives to have meaning, and the powers-that-should-not-be know this; so to hedge their bets, they eliminate the threat as soon as possible.