Official narrative versus Alternative narrative

There is a constant battle going on for control of the historical narrative. We only need to look so far as Richard Nixon as the perfect example. Nixon has been dead for over 20 years yet there has been a concerted effort made by certain conservative historical societies to rehabilitate the status of Richard Nixon in the historical narrative. In fact, Nixon spent an inordinate amount of time dedicated to setting down the historical narratives of his political life, because he was obsessed with controlling history. He ordered the installation of the White House taping system and that taping system eventually condemned him... those tapes condemn him for everything except a fake moon landings which occurred during Nixon's first term in office 1969-1972.

When I am reviewing the history of the Apollo narratives superimposed on the Nixon narratives I can't ignore the fact that Nixon ordered NASA to stay in low earth orbit for +40 years when he approved the space shuttle program. Details like this are important because opinions are formulated based on the best interpretation of the evidence. The facts show that the Apollo 11 crew were announced to the general public on Richard Nixon's birthday, January 9, 1969, and what seems like a random coincidence might actually have more meaning embedded within it.

What narrative do you believe in? The narrative that was shoved in your face or the narrative that you pieced together for yourself?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Run not part about the space shuttle by me again ? (scratches head)

Money buys history.
Screw Nixon and all of his kind.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Run not part about the space shuttle by me again ? (scratches head)

Simple version: Nixon placed in the White House by Howard Hughes, faked moon landings to beat Commies, Nixon cancells Apollo 18, 19, 20. Nixon redirects NASA to the space shuttle program, effectively keeping manned exploration in low earth orbit for 40-50 years.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I was dead serious. The part included in your OP about the space shuttle did not make any sense to me.

Could you please explain it again.

Edit;

I just saw your second post thank you.

a reply to: Greathouse

Peace!

If you have any ? about the Nixon/Apollo/Shuttle deal, a deal which kept NASA in low earth orbit for 43 years, then it's probably time to come to the realization that the official narratives fall far short of the alternative narratives.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

So perhaps the conspiracy is:

The Moon landing was fake, and the low Earth orbit programs were necessary because NASA didn't have high orbit capabilities at the time.

Interesting idea.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Anyone who believes in official narrative is an ignorant fool in my books

Sadly some people work 2-3 jobs and don't have time to educate themselves

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
There is a constant battle going on for control of the historical narrative.

not sure if this would be off topic:

but here's an more recent example of attempts to control the historical narrative
Conservatives Are Trying To Whitewash Far-right Terrorists Out Of Our Memories

It was 14 years ago when Doris Battle's parents were killed in the Oklahoma City bombing, just two of the 168 people who died during the nation's worst domestic terrorist attack.

And yet, erasing the very memory of the worst act of homegrown terrorism ever committed on American soil -- and until 9/11, the worst such act ever -- seems to be what movement conservatives have been doing all week.

Ever since word emerged earlier this week about the Department of Homeland Security's internal-assessment bulletin about domestic terrorism, the mainstream right has been wallowing in paranoia about the possibility the report might have meant them.

Moreover, no amount of rebuttal -- even from the DHS secretary herself -- is good enough for them.
Yet if you read the report, it couldn't be clearer that it is concerned almost exclusively with far-right extremists: neo-Nazis, skinheads, anti-abortion bombers, and their assorted fellow travelers. What the teeth-gnashing from the right suggests is that they recognize themselves, and their influence, all too readily in the thugs and terrorists who take their beliefs and twist them into something violent.

Guilty conscience, much?

edition.cnn.com...

since 9/11 extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology. According to a count by the New America Foundation, right wing extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political reasons since 9/11. (The total includes the latest shootings in Kansas, which are being classified as a hate crime).

By contrast, terrorists motivated by al Qaeda's ideology have killed 21 people in the United States since 9/11.

(Although a variety of left wing militants and environmental extremists have carried out violent attacks for political reasons against property and individuals since 9/11, none have been linked to a lethal attack, according to research by the New America Foundation.)

Moreover, since 9/11 none of the more than 200 individuals indicted or convicted in the United States of some act of jihadist terrorism have acquired or used chemical or biological weapons or their precursor materials, while 13 individuals motivated by right wing extremist ideology, one individual motivated by left-wing extremist ideology, and two with idiosyncratic beliefs, used or acquired such weapons or their precursors.

a reply to: AdamuBureido

That is exactly how it happens. Historians and science experts are not immune to fine art of financial persuasion.

You can think about


But that kind of thinking will lead you straight into an alternative narrative, some people call them conspiracy theories.

There is so much noise in the historical narrative that the signal level can sometimes get lost. In the telecom industry we would call that a loss of signal. What historical fairy tales do you cling to? What nightmares of history do you acknowledge? Who has control of your historical narrative? Do you trust your history books? Do you trust your experts?

Richard Nixon was obsessed with controlling the narrative of history that included controlling his own narrative within the narrative, with his White House tapes, with his Secret Service diaries, and certainly that narrative must include the long list of the movies he screened during his term in office as President of the United States.

How many people out there accept the school book narratives of history and cling to that without any serious investigation??

If people hadn't noticed yet, Wikileaks and Snowden represent an existential threat to the official narratives... these whistle blowing artists (and many others) have unveiled to us compelling, new alternative narratives. We come to find out that there are dozens of conflicting narratives out there, in numerous configurations, trying to control the overall narrative and the compulsion to control the narrative is ever present and in real time.