Astronaut Analysis

Astronaut Statement Analysis

Astronaut Analysis

The following analysis has been provided by statement analyst Peter Hyatt. For more information you can visit Peters blog, www.hyattanalysis.com/blog/.

TV Show which presents the analysis

Neil Armstrong (November 1970)

25 January, 2017 - Statement Analysis Report for Mr. Richard D. Hall, Rich Planet.net

Link to video : Neil Armstrong Interview

I. The Transcript Interview
II. Analysis
III. Conclusion

Transcript of TV Interview with Neil Armstrong and Patrick Moore, BBC TV - 1970

Patrick Moore

Mr Armstrong I do realise that when you were on the Moon you had very little time for gazing upwards, but could you tell us something about what the sky actually looks like from the Moon? The Sun, the Earth the stars if any, and so on.

Neil Armstrong

The sky is erm a deep black, errr, when viewed from the moon as it is when viewed from er cislunar space, the space between the Earth and the Moon. Pause.

The, erm, the Earth is the only visible object other than the sun that can be seen although there’ve been some reports of seeing planets. I myself did not see planets from the surface, but I suspect they might er be visible. The Earth is quite beautiful from space, err it’s er, and from the Moon, it looks quite small and quite remote but er it’s very blue and covered with er white lace and of the clouds and the continents are clearly seen although they have very little colour from that distance.

Patrick Moore

What about the Sun did you see any trace of the corona?

Neil Armstrong

No the er glare from the Sun on the helmet visor was too difficult to pick out the corona. The only time we could see the corona was during eclipse of the Sun from the Moon, that is when we were flying through the Moon shadow and could observe the, the er, the solar corona peeking out from behind the Moon.

Patrick Moore

Looking at the photographs that you brought back, er the colour photographs of the Moon surface. It seems that the colour of the surface actually varies according to the angle from which you see it, is this so? Does it do this?

Neil Armstrong

Yes it certainly does. Err it’s a characteristic that we observe first while er travelling around the Moon, in orbit. We could see that at the terminator, at the er the boundary between the black part of the Moon and the lighted part of the Moon, err it was as if you were looking at a television set with the contrast turned err to f… erm full contrast. Very black and very white. Er, as you moved further into the light there were more and more shades of grey. But as you moved further such the Sun was higher above the horizon you actually start to see, the er tans and browns appear although er at a very low level. Similarly on the surface of the moon the same characteristic is evident. You can see, er browns er if the Sun is high enough, Apollo 12 for example landed while the Sun was only 5 degrees above the horizon so when they arrived they saw no browns or tans anywhere, only fairly high contrast greys,

Patrick Moore

Interrupts But you did?

Neil Armstrong

But, Yes I did the Sun was at eleven degrees and Apollo 12 did also the next day when the S… er when they arose from their sleeping period the Sun was higher of course then the browns were observable to them.

Patrick Moore

When you were actually walking about on the Moon surface, and kicking about a certain amount of dust, did you notice any local colour and also were you at all subconsciously worried about the possibility of unsafe areas?

Neil Armstrong

Well the colour is aer is a puzzling phenomenon on on, on the Moon aside from the characteristics that I’ve already mentioned, er you generally have the impression of being on a desert like surface with rather light coloured hues, err, yet when you look at the material er at close range as if in your hand you find it’s a charcoal grey in fact and we were never able to find any things that were very different from that colour. Err I suspect that as we get more and more samples with future flights we will see that there is in fact some colour but the optical properties on the Moon are most peculiar.

Patrick Moore

When you were actually walking about did you have any difficulty in distance judging, cos I, I think I heard you say once that er near, far things looked quite near?

Neil Armstrong

Yes we had er, some difficulties in perception of, of diffic.. of distance, er for example our television camera, eer, we judged to be from the cockpit of the lunar module only about er fifty to er sixty feet away, yet we knew that we had pulled it out to the full extension of a one hundred foot cable. Er, similarly we had difficulty er guessing how far the hills out on the horizon might be. Err, peculiar phenomenon is the closeness of the horizon due to the greater curvature of the Moon than we have here on Earth of course four times greater, and the fact that errr, it is an irregular surface with err crater rims overlying other crater rims. Er you, you can’t see the real horizon you’re seeing hills that are somewhat closer to you. Er, there was, a large crater er which we overflew during our final approach which was .. had hills of the order of a hundred feet in height, and er we were only eleven, twelve hundred feet west of that hill and we couldn’t see a hundred foot high hill from eleven to twelve hundred feet away.

Patrick Moore

Did you notice any obvious difference between the far side and the near side? As you went round it. I mean apart from the obvious differences in topography?

Neil Armstrong

(Pause) No observable distan ... er differences in colour, errm, but then er the Suns angle was always somewhat different over there so it would be difficult to make a, er, general, errr, correlation. Er, I would say the topography is the striking change of course as all your viewers know there are no seas on the far side of the Moon. And it is er, it’s all highlands and er high mountains, big craters so er it’s strikingly different from the, from the …

Patrick Moore

Interrupts There’s just one more thing, one more thing I’d like to ask you. Er, you are one of the very very few people I think whose opinion on this is really worth having, in fact there are only four of you. Do you think from your knowledge of the Moon having been there that it is going to be possible in the foreseeable future to set up scientific bases there on anything like a large scale?

Neil Armstrong

Oh I’m quite certain that we’ll have such bases, err, in our lifetime. Err somewhat like the Antarctic stations, err, in similar scientific outposts continually manned. Although, er, certainly there’s the problem of the environment, the vacuum, and the high and low temperatures of day and night. Still in all in many ways it’s more hospitable than Antarctica might be, er there are no storms, no snow, no high winds, no unpredictable weather, er phenomena that we’re yet er aware of and the gravity is a very pleasant kind of place to work in, better than here on Earth, and er I, I think it would be quite, quite a pleasant place to do scientific work and quite practical.

Patrick Moore

Mr Armstrong, thank you very much and again let me say what tremendous honour and privilege it’s been to have you with us.

Neil Armstrong

Thank you.

II. Analysis

We enter the analysis with the presupposition of truth; that is, we expect the subject (interviewee) to speak from experiential memory in the Free Editing Process.

The Free Editing Process is where a subject freely chooses his own words. This is a process in the brain that takes place in less than a microsecond of time.

The use of pronouns, in particular, is intuitive. When a subject answers, he does not pause to decide to ask himself, “Should I choose the pronoun “I” because I was alone, or should I choose the pronoun “we”?” The answer is processed quickly when one is speaking from memory of that which was experienced.

Experiential memory produces sensory description.

When I was a boy, more than 40 years ago, I loved to go swimming at the local community pool. To this day, the smell of chlorine can ‘instantly transport me’ back four decades to happy (emotional/hormonal) memories, as if they were just yesterday.

The context is the lunar landing.

This was a unique, dramatic and historical event. The expectation of truth, therefore is the following linguistic formula for reliability:

1. The Pronoun “I”
2. Past Tense Verbs
3. Sensory description

Traveling and visiting another planet is unique. This means that it is not something commonly experienced.

When talking about a movie, it is common to say “that movie will scare you” with the second person pronoun “you” to address a universal audience with the expectation of universal experience.

“Going to a funeral makes you cry” is used in the same way: universal application.

When a subject experiences something unusual, we expect the pronoun “I” to be used.

When a subject experiences something of impact, we expect the pronoun “I” to be used alongside of sensory detail.

“I was almost killed when that red car cut me off.”

Here, the unnecessary detail (the color of the car) enters the language as a signal of veracity.

Why?

Because the subject experienced a dramatic increase in hormonal response when nearly killed. The hormonal increase to the brain heightens awareness and the subject reliably reported what happened with:

1. The pronoun “I”, psychologically putting the subject, who experienced this trauma, “front and center” in recall;
2. The past tense verb “was” because he is speaking from memory of what he experienced and it happened in the past. This establishes “linguistic commitment.”
3. Sensory language: his recall included the color of the car. This suggests further veracity as with color, one personally experiences impact.

The expectation of a momentous event is the same. Presupposing truth we look for the subject to speak from experiential memory; that is, what he was most impacted about, in an event that more than 99.9% of the population has not experienced. The language should be “personal” and “impactful” or ‘sensory’ in scope, and because it has already happened, it should be past tense verbs.

The signal of one speaking from experiential memory contains elements

The pronoun “I” coupled with past tense verbs, sensory description, with no unnecessary pauses, or qualification.

We presuppose truthfulness from any subject as our expectation, thus will pause to be confronted by any lack.

This is the essence of deception detection.

Patrick Moore

Mr. Armstrong I do realize that when you were on the Moon you had very little time for gazing upwards, but could you tell us something about what the sky actually looks like from the Moon? The Sun, the Earth the stars if any, and so on.

The Interviewer prefaces his question about what the subject (Neil Armstrong) could see by stating that Mr. Armstrong was limited in time. The wording of interviewers can impact answers and here, he allows for time limitation which may limit what the subject reveals; giving him a ready available for qualifying his answer. If the subject has any reluctance to answer this question, he may thus invoke the interviewer’s own words to excuse the limited response. This is something interviewers should avoid.

The interviewer also uses the word “actually” which indicates he is comparing the appearance of the sky from the subject to something else. This additional word may also influence the answer. It could raise suspicion and increase a subject’s defensive posture.

The question is “sensory” and given the unique experience that the subject had, the answer should have three elements:

1. The pronoun “I”
2. Past Tense verb
3. Sensory description

This was an unique, dynamic and even overwhelming experience; the language should reflect this.

Neil Armstrong

The sky is erm a deep black, errr, when viewed from the moon as it is when viewed from er cislunar space, the space between the Earth and the Moon. (Pause.)

We note “erm” and “errr” as pauses in the answer and seek to determine if this is a habit of speech or if it is a signal that the subject needs more time to consider his answer.

That he began with “The sky is a deep black” indicates a willingness to answer the question directly.

This is a somewhat lengthy answer, which begins with two pauses for thought. The subject is presupposed to have been on the moon; something of great rarity at the time of this interview. The subject is intelligent and well trained. The expectation is that he will, according to the wording of the question, report what he, himself saw.

In any singular, or “exclusive” event, there is an expectation of heightened importance and when we speak from experiential memory, the structure of the sentence is reliable.

Expected: Given the unique experience of being on the moon, we first note that the subject does not begin his answer with the pronoun “I.” In analysis, this reduces reliability. Given the context of unique experience, the pronoun “I” would have shown the psychological strength of experiential memory. It’s absence is noted.

Even with influence from the interviewer, the expectation is the experiential use of

“I saw…” in some part of the answer. Here is the same answer without the pauses:

The sky is a deep black, when viewed from the moon as it is when viewed from er cislunar space, the space between the Earth and the Moon

Next, we note the use of passive voice with “when viewed from the moon.” Passive voice removes the subject, himself, personally from the statement. The use of passivity is found in concealing identity and/or responsibility in statements. For example, “the gun went off” is passive voice. If the subject was in a crowd and did not know who fired the gun, this would be appropriate.

Here, the subject is describing a ‘universal’ viewing and avoiding the singular experience that is expected.

With such a unique and unusual event, we expect not only a strong use of the pronoun “I” but of distinct sensory detail: what his eyes experienced, including emotional impact. This is common among those who speak from experiential memory and is used to discern veracity.

He has told us it is “deep black” but not that he saw it.

Next: when viewed from er cislunar space, the space between the Earth and the Moon

This is similar to the universal pronoun “you” that is used to describe a common experience. This leads to a question: is viewing the space between the Earth and the Moon a common experience that listeners would readily relate to?

The, erm, the Earth is the only visible object other than the sun that can be seen although there’ve been some reports of seeing planets.

This is his second sentence after reporting in both passive and universal language. He tells us, in general terms what “you” (universal, unnamed) can know, similar to what would be reported in a textbook.

Please note also the inclusion of “some reports.”

He has, thus far, avoided giving us personal experience that is highly expected in such an event. This is an indication of ‘avoidance’ of the response.

There is no linguistic connection here between the subject and experiential language to this point.

The Rule of the Negative

Truthful people tell us what they saw, heard, and experienced. When one tells us what they did not see, hear or experience, the analyst recognizes that this sentence increases in importance:

I myself did not see planets from the surface, but I suspect they might er be visible.

Here we not only have “the rule of the negative” but we have the unnecessary addition of the word “myself.”

Since he experienced something highly unique, not only does he report what he did not see, but he feels it necessary to input himself into the sentence, where no such imputation should be needed. Who else would be answering this question, or “not seeing” what he did not see?

He offers a weak assertion: “I suspect they might be visible” appropriately matching “might” with “suspect.”

Being that he has, thus far, not told us what he has seen, it is interesting to note the inclusion of the word “suspect.” What other word might he have chosen?

“I think they might be visible…” would be an “appropriately weak” assertion where one lacks certainty. The word “think” is the most commonly chosen, therefore, we note the use of “suspect” or “suspicion” within his vocabulary in context of his answer.

We continue to wait to hear him tell us what he saw.

The Earth is quite beautiful from space, err it’s er, and from the Moon, it looks quite small and quite remote but er it’s very blue and covered with er white lace and of the clouds and the continents are clearly seen although they have very little colour from that distance.

Here we have more sensory description but we have not heard him tell us (the audience/interviewer) what he, himself, saw. The description is strong, but is not yet connected to the subject. This could come from him, or it could come from a book or another’s opinion.

With such a stupendous, history making event, we expect to hear “up close, personal” language. Thus far, we have not.

Patrick Moore

What about the Sun? Did you see any trace of the corona?

Compound questions should be avoided as they allow the subject to choose which to answer. The second question is a “yes or no” question.

Neil Armstrong

No the er glare from the Sun on the helmet visor was too difficult to pick out the corona.

Here, he says “no”, which answers the question, but then continues to avoid personal linguistic connection such as:

No, the glare of the Sun on my helmet visor was too difficult for me to pick out the corona.

This would have been a statement of personal connection which he has not yet made. Remember, he was asked, “Did you…?” with the focus upon himself. He should answer for himself.

The only time we could see the corona was during eclipse of the Sun from the Moon, that is when we were flying through the Moon shadow and could observe the, the er, the solar corona peeking out from behind the Moon.

Even if he said, “The only time I could see…was when we were flying…” which would fulfill the personal impactful event on self, while sharing (“we”) when flying. Stronger is what “I saw”, rather than “we.” The pronoun “we” could be produced if he and at least one other discussed this specific topic. Still, given the nature of a most unique and overwhelming event, the expectation remains:

he should be using “I” and past tense verbs, in correlation with sensory description.

The Use of “We”

Please consider that given the spectacular and unique privilege of what he experienced, the pronoun “we” may be used in a desire to not claim any glory or credit for himself. This may be an indication of “team” over “individual.”

Even with this accepted, we continue to expect him to, at some point, tell us what he experienced. Thus far, he has not.

When the pronoun “we” is used consistently, we look for the first emergence of the pronoun “I” and conclude that the sentence containing it is very important. This is a similar technique we use where one only speaks using “I”; the first inclusion of the pronoun “we” is weighted in importance.

Patrick Moore

Neil Armstrong

Yes it certainly does.

The wording is appropriate given the structure of the question: “Does it do this?” answered by “it does…”

We do note the inclusion of “certainly” as an unnecessary emphasis.

Err it’s a characteristic that we observe first while er travelling around the Moon, in orbit. We could see that at the terminator,

Rather than:

1. “We saw” and the stronger
2. “I saw”

He only tells us what they “could” see at this point.

Question: What causes this weak assertion?

Question: Why does this historical and spectacularly unique event not yet produce a personal response from the subject?

at the er the boundary between the black part of the Moon and the lighted part of the Moon, err it was as if you were looking at a television set with the contrast turned err to f… erm full contrast.

Here he uses the universal “you” (2nd person) that is more likely used in commonly experienced issues, such as a television set contrast. Still, however, the lack of personal connection linguistically raises the question of personal impact upon the subject.

What follows next is “Distancing Language”:

Very black and very white. Er, as you moved further into the light there were more and more shades of grey. But as you moved further such the Sun was higher above the horizon you actually start to see, the er tans and browns appear although er at a very low level.

This is distancing language (“you”) but the event described is specific to him (and exclusively astronauts) whereas there is nothing universal about the movement described. Whereas the listener can be referred to with the use of a television, the same cannot be said in space travel. Description is in the language but there is no justification for the distancing use of the pronoun “you” in a very highly specialized and dramatic personal experience.

Similarly on the surface of the moon the same characteristic is evident.

Here, there is no pronoun “I” and no past tense verb. The pronoun “I” used with a past tense verb is a signal of linguistic commitment.

Here, no use of “I” is also in a sentence where the present tense description is given.

You can see, er browns er if the Sun is high enough, Apollo 12 for example landed while the Sun was only 5 degrees above the horizon so when they arrived they saw no browns or tans anywhere, only fairly high contrast greys,

He refers back to history and reports what is commonly and already known. The interviewer has asked him, specifically for himself, of his experiences. This general answer may have caused the interruption:

Patrick Moore

Interrupts But you did?

Here, he specifically wants the subject to answer for himself.

Neil Armstrong

But, Yes I did. The Sun was at eleven degrees and Apollo 12 did also the next day when the S… er when they arose from their sleeping period the Sun was higher of course then the browns were observable to them.

Here we finally have the subject speaking for himself. Unfortunately, it is due to an interruption and is not a complete: it begins with “but”, which may have been a continuation from the previous sentence. This interruption does not allow for us to clearly separate the sentences and view them as the free editing process.

When he said, “but yes I did…” we hold to an expectation that he would now include himself (“I”) and tell us the sensory descriptions that he holds within personal experiential memory.

He does not. He went back to history from his previous answer.

Therefore, we do not have the linguistic connection that remains expected.

Patrick Moore

The interviewer presumes he was walking on the moon. We have yet to hear Mr. Armstrong make this claim, or more expectedly (since there is no accusation to the contrary; spoken or unspoken), the linguistic connection.

Neil Armstrong

The theme of distance continues in the description of colour. First, he uses the self-reference: “that I’ve already mentioned”, rather than engage in experiential memory. We note the first reference was also not first person statement.

Next, we note that he avoids telling us what he, himself saw by using second person universal, “you”: “you generally have the impression…”

It is impossible for anyone not there to have this impression, including the interviewer, who did not experience it. We prefer he state, without qualification, what he saw.

He does not.

When the pronoun ‘I’ reemerges, it is a weak assertion: “I suspect that as we get…” which is another disconnect from the formula of reliability: First person singular, past tense, with sensory description.

Patrick Moore

When you were actually walking about did you have any difficulty in distance judging, cos I, I think I heard you say once that er near, far things looked quite near?

The topic is sight. The one being interviewed is singular. We look for him to answer with “I saw” in some form. Sensory is very individual. When it is discussed one may then say the thoughts or perceptions of another, but here, he is interviewed alone and is being asked for first person, eye witness account.

He does not give a first person singular account.

Neil Armstrong

Perception:

he does not speak for himself including in the realm of “perception.” This is to address the brain’s interpretation of what was seen or experienced. He consistently in the interview tells us what “we” saw, “we” thought, “we” perceived, as well as what “you” saw, and so on. Although many of these topics were likely discussed, he should still be speaking for himself.

This use of “we” is most unexpected. We must now consider that if he is not deceptive, why does he have a reason to “join a crowd”, even in personal experience and perception.

Patrick Moore

Did you notice any obvious difference between the far side and the near side? As you went round it. I mean apart from the obvious differences in topography?

Neil Armstrong

The weakness continues: “I would say the topography…” is future/conditional tense. Even in this singular opinion, he does not give a reliable connection.

Patrick Moore

Neil Armstrong

Here we have the use of two personal connections (“I”); with both qualified.

The first is “Oh, I’m quite certain that we’ll have such basses, (pause) in our lifetime.” Here he is not only “certain” but calls upon the ‘reinforcement’ of being “quite certain.”

The second use is with a slight stutter on the pronoun “I”, which suggests the possibility of increase of nervousness. In analysis, this is called the “stuttering “I” and is used to measure anxiety.

We use the pronoun “I” millions of times in life. The brain’s efficiency is extreme in this regard. When a non-stutterer halts or stutters on the pronoun “I”, the commitment (psychologically) comes into question with nervousness possibly moving into anxiety and tension. In extreme settings (more than 6 “I’s”) we find its inclusion due to personal homicide and possible nervous break down and hospitalization.

He moves the topic to Antarctica, which is similar to going to another Apollo mission (above), yet we ask

Question: “What topic produced the stutter on the pronoun “I”?

Answer: The emotion produced regarding a space station.

“and er I, I think it would be quite, quite a pleasant place to do scientific work and quite practical”

The emotion he relates to the future station is “pleasant” for a specific reason: to do “scientific work.”

Why might this create nervousness or even stress?

Patrick Moore

Mr Armstrong, thank you very much and again let me say what tremendous honour and privilege it’s been to have you with us.

Neil Armstrong

Thank you.

Analysis Conclusion: Neil Armstrong does not linguistically connect himself to the lunar landing.

This is evident in his consistent ‘distancing language’ including intuitive pronouns and passivity.

Question: What may have caused this?

Where might the use of distancing language and universal affirmations be appropriately found?

The answer is found in the passing of time, and the common knowledge, through media (including television, movies, photos) where the public is long aware of such things, and the subject, himself, having processed and spoken about his for many years, no longer speaks from experiential memory, but ‘self references’; that is, he speaks from memory of what he has repeated so very often.

The date of the interview is 1970, which precludes the time necessary for both processing and repetition to the point of engaging memory of prior accounts in most settings.

If I were to take this interview and change the names to unknown, and change words which would no longer indicate the setting (1969 lunar landing), it is likely that analysts would conclude that the subject is not speaking from experiential memory and question if deception is evident.

The context is difficult to overcome and we must then consider what would cause him to show no experiential memory of such a dramatic and singular historical experience.

The subject shows a distinct linguistic disconnect with the experience.

Some of the possibilities include:

1. Security Mandate

A subject who has been repeatedly debriefed and who has had to recount his experiences many times, along with strict coercive warnings of confidentiality, may produce this form of distancing language. In a situation like this, passivity and the use of the pronoun “you” may be found. The language may mimic a prisoner of war who is under acute threat to not reveal detail, therefore passivity and universal references enter.

This, of course, begs the question of what would be needed to be kept highly confidential; enough to produce a nervous like distance.

Deceptive Language

This is seen in some law enforcement officials when speaking reluctantly about matters of national security. Due to the extreme level of personal experience in space travel, particularly given the period in history, it would require:

a. Incessant debriefing
b. Much repetition (constantly made to revisit his own statement)
c. Nervousness. In a case where the subject is nervous, that is, feeling under coercive threat, he is likely to “stay to script”, that is, to work from self reference rather than revisit, experientially, what he went through.

If Neil Armstrong felt a sense of threat from his own government, and was subject to constant re-telling of his account, and then given strict warnings when speaking to the public, it could produce the distancing language we see here.

2. Baseline

At times, an individual will have an unusual manner of speaking. It is true that some subjects will speak in a most distinct and unusual manner and this does not change in extraordinary circumstances. This question or concern, however, is easily satisfied by listening to him speak about anything in life. It would be quite rare to hear someone use such distancing language as a norm, or baseline, but it is possible. To be convincing, it would have to prove to be his norm, but even here, the change of context to a most unusual and overwhelming event, is difficult to justify.

3. Deception

The lack of commitment mimics deceptive language.

Those who work in fields where strong confidentiality must be maintained, including medical professionals, will produce statements that show deception because, in fact, they are concealing, deliberately, information related to their profession. The sensitivity indicators are noted because the subject is making an effort to conceal specific information. Simply, this means he is speaking freely while thinking of the very topic he must conceal, hence, the indicators show up in his language. This is ‘appropriate’ or professional deception. Doctors, nurses, police, security detail, social workers, therapists, and others who work in confidentiality professions, including sales and business negotiations, frequently conceal information which is indicated in the language.

Is there information contained herein that warrants the subject concealing his experiences?

If he is deceptive, the question now becomes, “Why?”

Why would deception be necessary?

Security mandate?
A false event?
A government (military) staging?

The lack of personal commitment, in context, is stark.

4. The Unknown

We recognize that there may be other explanations for the lack of verbal commitment, currently unknown given the size of the sample.

Team Mentality and Humility

Although the subject may be using the pronoun “we” to stay within the emphasis of “team”, given the nature of the momentous and sensory overwhelm, the expectation remains that he would tell us at least some things that personally impacted him. What he experienced should produce personal description.

It is absent.

This is, however, a very small sample. Yet, here, he has not linguistically connected himself to the experience.

We need a larger sample from Mr. Armstrong to obtain a more definitive opinion.

Lastly, we must consider the inclusion of emotion for the subject in his final answer. This is especially striking because he did not connect emotion to self in his descriptions of what the interviewer alleges Mr. Armstrong experiences. (The interviewer linguistically placed Mr. Armstrong on the moon; something Mr. Armstrong did not).

He used the word “pleasant” to describe a future lunar station in which he predicts specific work be done: “scientific work.”

What caused this?

Why not simply say “a good place for research” since “scientific work” is unnecessary as it is what he does, and what the entire mission was?

One might wonder if the subject was concerned that less than pleasant activity might be implemented, in the future.

What might be not “pleasant”?

Could it be possible military research?

If so, this may explain the avoidance of personal commitment as well as the use of passivity under strict mandate from the United States military.

It is, however, only one possibility.

Mr. Armstrong does not here linguistically place himself on the moon. This refusal of commitment is consistent. There is not one place in the interview where he used the normal linguistic connection to experiential memory.

He tells us what “we” saw; “we” perceived, thought, observed, and so on, but not what he, himself, did.

In the few uses of the pronoun “I”, placing himself psychologically in the sentence, he uses “weak assertions”, avoiding direct statements.

Buzz Aldrin (Circa. 2004)

10 July, 2017 - Interview with Bart Sibrel and Buzz Aldrin, circa 2004

Link to video : Buzz Aldrin Interview

The situation

Bart Sibrel, an independent journalist, is in Buzz Aldrins office with a camera crew. Aldrin has agreed to do a filmed interview and the cameras are rolling. Aldrin did not know he was going to be directly challenged about the veracity of the Apollo 11 mission, and whether they went to the moon.. It is clear that Aldrin does not want to take part in an interview of this nature.. Aldrin seems uncomfortable because he knows he is being recorded on camera and is trying to terminate the interview without appearing to be unreasonable.

Aldrin : I mean do you have Neil Armstrong interviewed already?

The interview begins with the subject posing a question about his flight team member. Please consider this as a possible defensive posture on the part of the subject. In a prior interview, there was a linguistic reluctance to commit to information about the lunar landing.

The analysis of that interview concluded that this could be from a number of reasons with two dominant themes;

1. The subject did not experience lunar landing
2. The subject did experience lunar landing but was under strict orders to not disclose information about such, as part of national security.

Consider that either point would lead to passivity as part of a weak linguistic commitment.

Here, we may consider that the subject (Aldrin) does not wish to be psychologically “alone” with the possible disclosure of classified information.

It could be classified due to military necessity; whether it was a military form of deception to cause other nations to believe the United States held technological advantage or not, the language would some the same.

An example of this is found in medical privacy laws and statutes.

Not only are medical professionals bound in confidentiality, but the consequences of such will impact language. This is true for any profession in which effort must be made to conceal information.

Sibrel : No. He doesn’t want to be interviewed.

Aldrin : Well, I, I know.

The subject recognizes that the member of his team does not want to be interviewed. Please consider the possibility that, before the interview begins, our subject does not wish to be interviewed, either. This is not lost on the interviewer:

Sibrel : Why does he, why does he not give interviews?

The question is specifically seeking “why” the reluctance to give information exists.

Aldrin : Well, cos that’s his personal er choice. ( Pause) . And I guess it’s mine in a way to do things, err, when they’ve been, (pause) er researched and worked out as far as a business arrangement. This is not news, this is not an anniversary.

1. The subject does not refute reluctance
2. The subject reports that the choice to not want to give an interview is a personal choice. He does not say, “I don’t know” and “you will have to ask him” but tells us in an “unnecessary” statement. By calling it his “personal” choice, any choice to not “want” to give an interview would be personal. This is, therefore, unnecessary to state, making it very important information.

He does not say, “that’s his choice” but gives us additional information by the word “personal.”

The subject introduces this as a “personal” choice which then can be asked, “What other choice would there be?”

a. professional choice
b. legal choice

A professional choice would be one in which payment is part of the equation. A legal choice would be a choice based upon possible legal ramifications regarding the information of an interview.

By telling us it is his “personal choice”, the subject is, inadvertently, raising questions as to the possibility of other elements of choice and restriction.

This should have led a journalist to consider a question such as:

“Would he be under any restrictions to discuss this?” in some form. The topic should be explored.

That the subject may be, himself, concerned about this is to be considered:

And I guess it’s mine in a way to do things,

We now are given affirmation that “personal choice” has introduced other options or “choices” for the subject.

First, he makes a weak commitment to this with “I guess.”

Next, he takes ownership of this choice with “mine”

Then, he qualifies this unnecessary freedom of choice by qualifying it with, “in a way.”

The reader/analyst should now consider why reluctance is part of the interview.

At the date of this interview, our subject is uncertain as to what he may or may not be free to say.

This is to strongly suggest that there was a time when the subject and his team member were not free to “choose” to disclose information via interviews.

This is consistent with the analysis of the prior interview.

What is it that causes this reluctance?

And I guess it’s mine in a way to do things, err, when they’ve been, (pause) er researched and worked out as far as a business arrangement.

Here he introduces “business arrangement” which may relate to “professional choice” where he is paid for the information. We should now consider the topic of “business” as on his mind, yet the next sentence also shows some reluctance:

This is not news, this is not an anniversary.

1. He reports in the negative, what is “not.” This elevates the topic in importance.
2. He tells us that this is “not news”;
3. and it is “not an anniversary.”

We note that “news” comes before anniversary.

If he reported that it was “not an anniversary” it may suggest that he does not see the need for an interview. We would wonder, however, why our subject would consider only an anniversary as to be a reason to interview.

“This is not news.”

In the negative, the subject affirms what the interview is not: “news.”

There are two points within statement analysis that elevate this sentence:

a. This is an unnecessary statement.
b. It is given in the negative.

With these two elements, the subject, himself, has led us to wonder:

Is this news?

By asserting to a journalist or interviewer that it is “not news”, while not as a result of a direct question, this statement is very important to the subject.

Why?

err, when they’ve been, (pause) er researched and worked out as far as a business arrangement. This is not news, this is not an anniversary.

The subject indicates a reluctant or defensive posture. The interviewer recognizes this, and compares it to what he has, via the word “actually”:

Sibrel : Well actually it is we found err a very unique reel of footage, that we have queued up to show you.

Aldrin : yeah

The subject only acknowledges this with “yeah” offering no comment nor question. He has told the IR that it is “not news” and it is “not” the anniversary, which questions the reason for the interview. He has been answered, but offers no reply beyond agreement.

Sibrel : And it’s from the mission, and to our knowledge no one has ever seen it before. And it’s thirty years old.

Consider that the subject is reluctant to share information, which increases his defensive posture and upon being given further information by the interviewer, thus showing him that it is, in fact “news”, the subject responds to the statement with a question:

Aldrin : And you want me to see this while you have me on camera?

We have confirmation that the subject’s concern is exposure of information from him to the public.

Note that “while” speaks to the element of time, not content. This suggests that the subject may have preferred being shown in private, that is, off camera.

He was asked to “tell us what it is” and answered this with a question about being “on camera.”

Therefore, being asked about something related to his work, that he is not aware of, has increased his sensitivity to the topic.

It is important to consider that under general or normal conditions, in any profession, the topic of what the footage is would elicit a question or comment rather than the timing of such.

Our subject is concerned about privacy/confidentiality. He has answered via a question telling us that the topic is very sensitive to him.

Sibrel : Well … and to tell us what it is.

This is an unnecessary statement.

Aldrin : (pause) – Uh hu

Sibrel : I mean it’s

Aldrin : (interrupts), Well I don’t know why I should do that.

Any professional who is free to talk about his profession would likely ask about the content of the footage, perhaps even with great interest, given how it was introduced.

For the subject, it provoked a question about disclosure, and here it produced an interruption, not about the material itself, but of the “personal choice” to comment. We must now consider this in light of the weak assertion (“I guess”) of the subject’s choice to allow an interview.

He reports in a statement what he does not know.

He began with a pause (“well”) and tells us what he does not know.

He does not report ignorance of the topic, but of his choice.

This has caused a considerable increase in tension for the subject: the unknown footage.

The tension is not related to what the subject may or may not know, but it created the increase in tension regarding the reason why he would speak specifically on camera.

We now have confirmation about the sensitivity of “personal choice” as the subject indicates that he may not have “personal choice” to comment on what he has not seen yet.

Note the language that follows: not only does he interrupt the interviewer, but specifically shows us the indicators of tension.

Sibrel : (pause), It’s a, well it’s a very unique footage.

What would be “very unique” would be only to the public; not to an eye witness who was there.

Aldrin : (interrupts),Well it may be, but I need to see it and then we sit down and we talk about it, what you’re taking a picture of. (long pause) I don’t see where there’s an advantage (pause) in it for me to do what you’re asking me to do. I see all sorts of pitfalls. I see (coughs) people who have managed to talk to somebody, who did you talk to in our office?

The subject begins with a pause (“well”) indicating a need to think before he answers.

The subject acknowledges that it “may be” that the IR has very unique never-before-seen footage. This is to affirm the possibility of such in existence.

He then weighs this possibility against, via comparison (“but) with his “need.” The pronouns here must be followed:

but I need to see it

Without disputing the existence of very unique footage, the subject makes a very strong statement: “I need to see it” without qualification. Here, he does not use “I guess” or an exercise of “personal choice.” This is very important to him.

It is not, however, all that he must have:

but I need to see it and then we sit down and we talk about it,

“and then” is the passage of time. Not only does this choice of wording reveal his need to see it, but there will be time for him to process the information.

“we sit down” is to:

a. reveal tension (body posture; “sitting down)
b. demand for unity with “we” This unity will only come after he, himself, has viewed what the IR has
c. “and we talk about it” is to repeat the emphasis on unity.

Question: What might be the pause of time here?

Answer: The subject must be convinced that he, himself, has the cooperation (unity) of the interviewer (IR).

He did not say, “and then we talk about it” but said:

“we sit down” (tension, unity) and “we” (unnecessary emphasis on unity) talk about it.

Before they talk about it, they will sit down.

This slows down the pace, increases tension and tells us that the subject will not disclose information or even continue the interview until the subject is convinced that there is unity (agreement) between himself and the interviewer.

and then we sit down and we talk about it,

Next, we now see why he only could “guess” about “personal choice”: I don’t see where there’s an advantage (pause) in it for me to do what you’re asking me to do.

This breaks the unity of “we” and now goes back to “I” in which he reports what he does not see.

He does not see the advantage.

Then, there is a pause, which signals increase in sensitivity in the need for more consideration, where he adds “for me.”

The subject has turned this back to himself.

Recall he referenced the element of time, but not the topic. Now, he introduces “advantage” for himself.

He is there to share information (interview) which is for others.

Question: is the subject disagreeing because he is not being paid?

I see people who have managed to talk to somebody, who did you talk to in our office

Here the subject acknowledges that he has knowledge that “people” have gain access to “somebody” (unknown, singular entity, authority in context).

That these people have “managed” suggests considerable effort and success. This may be due to various reasons including:

a. Difficulty in identifying those in authority
b. Managing through barriers to actually “talk to” one in authority

Not only does this sentence tell us that it is so challenging to get through to authority, but that our subject wants to know the name of the official that the interviewer talked to.

This now answers the question as to why there is reluctance: it is not due to restricted to money (professional, advantageous) but requires “somebody” from “our office” to be notified.

Our subject needs some form of permission to speak freely in the interview, even after the lengthy passage of time.

Sibrel : I talked with er Heather at Tor Books.

Aldrin : But is this helping book promotion?

Sibrel : (no reply)

Aldrin : Are you going to be putting anything out during the time that I’m marketing? books?

Sibrel : (no reply)

The subject asked a direct question that the Interviewer did not answer regarding helping book promotion.

The subject then asked another question that specifically called for an answer of what he, himself, would be marketing.

The interviewer did not answer.

Regardless of the topic, this is a breach of trust. The interviewer is seeking information but will not provide information. This will always put the interviewee into a defensive posture.

Consider that this is the third element of defensive posture for the subject:

1. Professional payment
2. Permission from his office
3. Lack of unity and trust between interviewer and subject.

Aldrin : See Heather is not, does not represent me for the things your talking about. She represents err, uh book selling (pause) activity.

He speaks directly about publicity and representation, but not about any permission or confidentiality issues.

The refusal to answer has likely settled the subject into his already established defensive posture. It is a significant mistake in journalism. The subject, via answering questions, is vulnerable and now trust is broken.

Sibrel : I think when you see the footage, you’ll you’ll see that it’s …

Aldrin : (interrupts) Why?

Sibrel : very extraordinary, one of a kind,

Aldrin : OK (quietly)

Sibrel : behind the scenes …

Aldrin : Yeah

Sibrel : camera footage

Aldrin : Well if it is, why do you have access to something that no one else has seen before?

He now turns into the interviewer. Trust is broken as he challenges the interviewer: not with “how” but “why?”

This reduces sensitivity towards the footage down, and sensitivity, personally, towards the interviewer upward.

Sibrel : Serendipity I guess. (pause) And er it was recorded on the 18th.

Aldrin : Of what?

Sibrel : Of July, 1969

Sibrel starts playing the footage on a screen for Aldrin to view

Aldrin : (as the tape plays Aldrin looks at the screen momentarily, but then stares at Sibrel in a cold way, and does not show interest in the tape initially)

Sibrel : Do you remember this?

Aldrin : The 18th?

Aldrin watches the footage. The footage shows the Earth filmed from within the Apollo 11 spacecraft at a time when the mission was supposed to be half way to the moon. The footage shows the astronauts filming the Earth from the back of the spacecraft through a circular window a number of feet away. It is claimed they are using a crescent shaped insert in front of the circular window in order to mimic the Earths terminator (the line between day and night) so that the Earth appears to be much further away than it actually was. The lights are turned out in the spacecraft making the space within the spacecraft indistinguishable from the space outside the spacecraft surrounding the Earth. Sibrel believes Apollo 11 was in a low Earth orbit for the duration of the mission and these shots were being made by the astronauts to possibly be used to convince the public that Apollo 11 was on it’s journey to the moon. The final shot shows Michael Collins with the Earth outside the window looking very large indicating Apollo 11 probably was in a low Earth orbit at this time.

Aldrin : What, what is your er opposition, that we didn’t go to the moon?

In effect, the interview “ended” when the Interviewer “betrayed” the subject by his silence. It now turns into a challenge and the opportunity is lost.

Sibrel : I know for a fact that you didn’t.

This is a critical mistake on top of a critical mistake. Here he could have presented the topic as doubt; not as “for a fact”, which technically weakens the assertion while increasing the challenge, personally, to the subject.

This challenge, which should have been avoided, was not expected by the subject. Journalists seek information by trade; not press narrative. This is how to lose a subject.

Aldrin : huh?

Sibrel : I know for a fact that you did not.

Aldrin : You know for a fact that we did not?

The topic is very sensitive to our subject: in parroting back words (low effort):

a. the subject retorts in question form and
b. changes the pronoun “you” to “we” in the answer. This suggests that the defensive posture is not only high, but it is now something in which the subject does not wish to be alone, psychologically with.

The subject does not want to be accused of not going, by himself, but as a team with others.

Sibrel : That’s correct, as you’ll see this tape proves it …

Foolishness compounded. The interviewer ended the interview; not the subject and not the topic.

Aldrin then starts to remove his microphone, and stands up in order to terminate the interview

Aldrin : OK, well I’m not interested in, in satisfying your suppositions when there’s all this evidence that we did. This is an unexpected and weak assertion. He did not say “I’m not interested in satisfying your suppositions when we did…” but instead goes to “evidence.” This is a subtle form of distancing language.

When one experiences something personally; particularly something that is dramatic or historic, the expected language will always be this personal experience. The subject will not have need for, nor interest in, “evidence.” This is the psychological “wall of truth” that shows itself strongly in language. It is not here.

Sibrel : (referring to the video) This proves as you see that you were using the window to demonstrate that you were half way to the moon when you were …

Aldrin : (interrupts, speaking to cameraman) TURN THE CAMERA OFF PLEASE (pause) Turn the camera off. (pause).You’re full of shit.

It is personal.

This is why an interviewer must never break trust with a subject. He could have said, “I would like to learn…” and “I would like to write the truth in a book” and “I am open to learn about this footage…”

Instead, he presented it in the form of an accusation.

Note that the subject had previously used the pronoun “we” to describe them, even though it was in increased tension, it was still unity.

The topic did not break the unity.
The subject, himself, did not break the unity.

Sibrel : It shows that you’re in Earth orbit, now if the moon is three days away, and this is late on the 18th, how could you have possibly walked on the moon two days later when this was shot on the 18th.

Aldrin : Do you want me to sit in front of a camera while you’re taking pictures and you’re showing this and then you want to see my reaction?

This is a challenge that could have been diffused with honesty: “Yes, this way we can learn from you…” or anything similar.

By repeating the word “fact”, the interviewer only increases the resistance of the subject.

Sibrel : I know for a fact that you didn’t …

Aldrin : (interrupts) That’s slimy journalism, do you realise that?

Sibrel: (starts talking)

Aldrin : (interrupts) You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Sibrel : (hands Aldrin an envelope) If you read the document that I have in here, you’ll find that it’s not. But this is a personal plea to do what is right.

Virtue signaling is also insulting, which only increases the resistance. This is a very poorly conducted interview.

By using “personal plea”, however, he got the subject’s attention, who turns back to his earlier offer:

Aldrin :Well, we sit and we talk about things ahead of …

Analytical Interviewing 101: do not interrupt the subject.

It is likely that the lack of trust could have been repaired by reviewing the material off camera. This should have been agreed to as it is disarming and would have allowed the interviewer to get information one way or another.

The interviewer shows that he is not interested in the truth, but in pushing his narrative.

Sibrel : (interrupts) These are documents that you’ll want to see. I know for a fact …

The interviewer’s own weakness continues in his repetition of “fact”

Aldrin : (interrupts) But what it is you’re trying to do is unethical, you don’t believe that?

The subject asked the interviewer a question and the interviewer refused to answer.
The subject asked the interviewer a second question of which he was refused.
The subject now introduces ethics.

Sibrel : No I do not.

Aldrin : Well, then have a difference of opinion.

Sibrel : This is where you’re using the window of the spacecraft to appear to be the Earth far away.

Aldrin : Yeah

Sibrel : We got the raw footage of it, we have an auxiliary track of someone prompting you when to speak.

Aldrin :Do you believe in UFOs?

Sibrel : No I do not.

Aldrin : Do you believe we’ve been visited by … Well why do you want to believe this stuff?

The need to ridicule the interviewer suggests the sensitivity to the information. Unfortunately, the interviewer made sure that the sensitivity to the information would not be addressed.

Sibrel : I know for a fact, I’ve had this analysed. And this, this is the window, and you’re in.. and it is dated by an atomic clock at the Goldstone tracking station which is on the tape.

Aldrin is now opening draws and busying himself with other things as though the interview is finished.

Aldrin : Well you’re talking to the wrong guy. Why don’t you talk to the administrator of NASA? We’re passengers. We’re, we’re guys going on a flight. We’re not …

a. question form is regarding authority.
b. sentence in the present tense is unreliable
c. What he was about to tell us in the negative (“we’re not”) is elevated in importance to the subject (and to us) but it will not be known because the interviewer interrupted the subject.

Sibrel : I know for a fact that you didn’t go. And this tape would prove it in a court of law.

Aldrin : (no reply)

Sibrel : It would.

Aldrin : Why don’t you try? Why don’t you put your money into a court of law and see how people laugh at you? You want it …

At this point Aldrin is concerned about the camera recording what he was about to say. He looks at the camera.

Sibrel : No, no one has laughed

Aldrin : Is your camera working?

The subject is concerned about how he will come off on the camera. This is the result of not only sensitive information, but broken trust personally. The subject likely is concerned that the journalist, who has condemned him, will wish to portray him, personally, as one in guilt.

Sibrel : No no no one has laughed.

It is likely that the journalist has been laughed at.

Aldrin : And this makes you, the, the real famous person that has discovered this and reveals all this stuff. What an ego you must have to want to propel yourself like this.

The wording used by the subject here, while attempting to insult, reveals sensitivity towards the topic, not only the interviewer. This is why accusations should be made reluctantly, only when absolutely necessary, and without morals.

Sibrel : That’s not why I’m doing it. And God knows that’s not why I’m doing it. I’m doing it for the truth to come out because I think it was wrong.

The self justification is another mistake for a journalist.

This has set up the disparity:

The journalist knows right from wrong, and the subject is wrong.

There is no unity in this and the information now greatly hindered as it turns personal; to condemn the journalist and defend self. It moves emotion away from the topic (which would have have granted the most yield) and towards personal justification.

Doing it for the truth is a positive, but “because I think it is wrong”, whether accurate or not, condemns the subject as the “wrong doer” and pushes him into an even greater defensive posture. This will lead him to defend himself, rather than the mission or any details of the mission. The journalist increases the personal pressure which then causes us to view any sensitive reaction in the same way. One is “wrong” and has to defend himself so he is not “wrong” but the interviewer is “wrong.” While this is being done, valuable potential information is lost.

Aldrin : Well but you’re doing it the wrong way. You don’t mislead somebody like me to come in here and …

The subject addresses the betrayal.

Aldrin was told he was “wrong” and now he tells the journalist that the journalist is “wrong.”

Note the self importance: “somebody like me” follows the ridicule of the journalist becoming famous in discovery.

We might have gotten some insight into the topic discovered had the journalist not made this personal “good guy versus bad guy.”

Far better would be to allow the subject to see the material and know what it is about and to decline to discuss it, only to be asked why he had a need to not discuss, including asking, “are there military reasons?” in some form. By setting up an adversarial relationship, the journalist lost the opportunity.

Sibrel : If you didn’t go to the moon that’s misleading people. I’m showing you this tape …

Aldrin : (interrupts) OK, we went to the moon, we’re not misleading anybody.

This is not a strong assertion because:

a. it is parroted language, which reduces the element of internal stress if he was being deceptive;
b. he did not use the pronoun “I”, as expected, in a most personal historic event.

It is “Unreliable” as it stands.

Sibrel : Then, how is it possible that this, this is the window and it’s shot to make it look like …

Aldrin : Look, you can manufacture all you want …

This is a weak accusation but we cannot conclude it is from the content. This is why making it personal, through virtue signaling and condemning the subject loses the opportunity for information, including information gleaned specifically through the lens of statement analysis.

Sibrel : This is straight, this isn’t manufactured, and you know that it isn’t. I believe this would prove it in a court of law that you did not go to the moon. Taken on the 18th it proves when you remove the crescent, here’s the line.

Aldrin : Can you give me your business card…

Sibrel : (referring to the envelope) It’s all in there. It’s all in there.

Pause

Sibrel : This proves that it’s the window. You can see them removing the crescent insert that you did to create the terminator line in front of the window.

Aldrin : You’re so full of shit I can’t believe it.

Aldrin : If you show this publicly you’re open for a law suit. OK?

Again, personal.

Analysis Conclusion:

The journalist did not glean information on the topic due to the fault of the journalist, alone.

The subject was placed in a personally accusatory defensive posture while being interviewed on a sensitive topic. It was the sensitivity around the topic that would have given us insight.

The journalist, instead, guided the subject to avoid the topic and defend himself and attack the journalist.

The lens of statement analysis allows for us to discern not only truth from deception, but content analysis.

Had the journalist not made such accusations, nor used morally charged language, he would have gotten information from the subject.

Whether the subject never went to the moon, or if he did and is not permitted to speak about it from authorities (military), information could have been gleaned had the journalist remained open and unified with the subject.

He did not.

In the interview, the subject has the information. Each interruption lost information. Where there is a time for accusation is only at the end of an interview, or when the subject refuses to answer.

Viewing the subject’s use of the pronoun “we”, the subject was, at the least, willing to speak off camera to learn what would be asked on camera. This would have been valuable information.

Even if an agreement was reached before the camera was turned on, the journalist would have allowed for some information to be presented for analysis.

The journalist’s primary motive, according to his language, was not obtaining information. His repetition of the word “fact” showed increased sensitivity, for the journalist himself. He has likely an acute need here for self justification that would have been addressed in formal training. As interviewers, we allow subjects to condemn us if they wish, as long as they keep talking about the topic at hand.

It is likely that the journalist, due to his own fault, and perhaps, from being personally accused of holding to a conspiracy theory, felt the need for self justification and allowed it to overrule his effort to obtain information.

The topic is very sensitive to both parties. One showed a strong need for avoidance, while the journalist possesses a strong need to prove his belief.

In any interview, the interviewer will get one of two impressions: either the subject is working with him to facilitate the flow of information; or he is working against the interviewer to hinder it.

Buzz Aldrin began with a defensive posture. He introduced payment, representation but also the sensitive topic of authority. Our subject was acutely aware of the need, even years later, for official permission to speak freely.

This is, in fact, something that did come out of this interview as part of the analysis conclusion: Aldrin does need permission to freely choose to share information about a missing many years prior. This is evident from his words regarding his fellow astronaut’s choice.

Why is this?

Although money was mentioned, which may go back to an official position where being paid for appearances needed approval, it does not appear strongly linked in the language.

Classified Information

Information remains classified for many decades. Those with experiential memory of a historical event will have it reflected in their language. If they must conceal the information, regardless of the cause of concealment, it will put them under considerable stress and will show itself in the language.

This concealment will often be seen, linguistically, through a lack of commitment. Passivity, passive voice and well as skipping over time is expected.

This event, whether it was actual, or was a military bluff, was a historic event for them. The language will reflect this.

The defensive posture of the subject was already high before the journalist raised it to the point of effectively ending the interview.

The origin of the defensive posture and sensitivity towards the topic, itself, is not known here.

The journalist made this into “good guy versus bad guy” which hindered significantly the ability to obtain knowledge.

Had the journalist challenged him without virtue signaling, we may have gotten a significant yield from Aldrin’s words.

For those looking to learn the truth as to whether or not the lunar landing took place, this was a lost opportunity.