• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • My Social Media
  • About
    • About Mark Draughn
    • Testimonials
    • Other Authors
      • About Gary Olson
      • About Ken Gibson
      • About Joel Rosenberg
    • Disclosures
    • Terms and Conditions

Windypundit

Classical liberalism, criminal laws, the war on drugs, economics, free speech, technology, photography, sex work, cats, and whatever else comes to mind.

A Slightly Larger Step

September 30, 2006 By Mark Draughn Leave a Comment

When Neil Armstrong stepped onto the surface of the moon in 1969, everyone heard him say,

“That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”

But that doesn’t really make much sense, does it? “Man” and “mankind” mean the same thing in this context, so he’s saying that mankind took a small step and a giant leap at the same time.

That’s not very profound, is it? It would have been much better if he’d thrown the indefinite article “a” in there right before “man” to contrast the easy step of a single human with a vast leap forward for all humankind. Like this:

“That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.”

Well, for three and a half decades now, that’s what Neil Armstrong has been claiming he did say. So now some accounts of the event have the “a”, and some of them don’t. A few of them try to hedge:

“That’s one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.”

Lately, even Armstrong himself is beginning to believe he didn’t say it.

Until…

An Australian computer programmer says he found the missing “a” from Armstrong’s famous first words from the moon in 1969, when the world heard the phrase, “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”

…

Ford said he downloaded the audio recording of Armstrong’s words from a NASA Web site and analyzed the statement with software that allows disabled people to communicate through computers using their nerve impulses.

In a graphical representation of the famous phrase, Ford said he found evidence that the missing “a” was spoken and transmitted to NASA.

“I have reviewed the data and Peter Ford’s analysis of it, and I find the technology interesting and useful,” Armstrong said in a statement. “I also find his conclusion persuasive. Persuasive is the appropriate word.”

Filed Under: Science

Reader Interactions

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

Primary Sidebar

Search

Recent Posts

  • Swift Falling
  • Renovations
  • A familiar war in Iran
  • On the shooting of Renee Good
  • Swift Descending
  • GOA on Trump
  • Yes, It’s a Bribe
  • Talking to my fellow libertarians about DOGE

Where else to find me

  • Twitter
  • Post
  • Mastodon

Bloggy Goodness

  • DrugWar Rant
  • Hit & Run
  • Honest Courtesan
  • Nobody's Business
  • Popehat

Blawgs

  • appellatesquawk
  • Chasing Truth. Catching Hell.
  • Crime & Federalism
  • Crime and Consequences Blog
  • Criminal Defense
  • CrimLaw
  • D.A. Confidential
  • Defending People
  • Gamso For the Defense
  • Graham Lawyer Blog
  • Koehler Law Blog
  • Legal Satyricon
  • New York Personal Injury Law Blog
  • Norm Pattis
  • Probable Cause
  • Simple Justice
  • Tempe Criminal Defense
  • The Civil Rights Lawyer
  • The Trial Warrior Blog
  • The Volokh Conspiracy
  • Underdog Blog
  • Unwashed Advocate

Bloggers

  • Eric Zorn
  • ExCop-LawStudent
  • InstaPundit
  • Marathon Pundit
  • Speakeasy Blog
  • SWOP Chicago

Geek Stuff

  • Charlie's Diary
  • Google Blogoscoped
  • Schneier on Security
  • The Ancient Gaming Noob
  • The Daily WTF
  • xkcd

Resources

  • CIA World Factbook
  • Current Impact Risks
  • EFF: Bloggers
  • Institute for Justice
  • Jennifer Abel
  • StrategyPage
  • Wikipedia
  • WolframAlpha

Frozen in Amber

  • a Public Defender
  • Agitator
  • Bert P. Krages II
  • Dan Heller
  • Defending Dandelions
  • Indefensible
  • Last One Speaks
  • Leslie's Omnibus
  • not for the monosyllabic
  • Not Guilty
  • Preaching to the Choir
  • Ravings of a Feral Genius

Copyright © 2026 Mark Draughn · Magazine Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress