This one is big folks, in spite of the fact that it probably didn't even make the radar scopes at SeeBS, CNoNews, Faux News....I wouldn't know, because I don't watch them (or, for that matter, listen to their radio shows either). It's been building for some time. What am I talking about?
The U.S.A.'s nervousness over other nations (and corporations) going to the Moon, and, well, finding whatever NASA found there during the Apollo landings. (And no, folks, I am not in the "we never went and it was all theater" school.) First, NASA a few years ago tried to create "no fly" zones and "historical site no-go" zones around the Apollo sites (for some reason, we were less concerned about the robotic landers like Surveyor, or the Russian landers).
Now, however, some in Congress want to raise the ante:
Did you catch it? Here it is once again:
The Act, Edwards said, "will ensure that the scientific data and cultural significance of the Apollo artifacts remains unharmed by future lunar landings."
The Act would endow the artifacts as a National Historic Park, thereby asserting unquestioned ownership rights over the Apollo lunar landing artifacts. "The legislation will additionally require the Secretary of the Interior to pursue nominating the historic Apollo 11 lunar landing site, where humanity left its first steps on the moon, as a World Heritage Site," the lawmaker said.
Edwards said the Act builds on the recommendations of a 2011 report titled "NASA's Recommendations to Space-Faring Entities: How to Protect and Preserve the Historic and Scientific Value of U.S. Government Lunar Artifacts."
Now, does this mean that nations that land anything on the Moon are going to be able, now, to claim the site as their sovereign national territory? Or does it mean that there will have to be a new global agency set up to administer and regulate such "sites". One has to admit, the latter would be a neat and nifty way to create global government agencies with real teeth, and one can already see hints of this in the article with the reference to corporate interests.
In other words, the same old pattern of corporate-government interface is perhaps being quietly extended to the Moon. This, in the light of recent announcements and debates over asteroid mining is another indicator, in my opinion, that space, and whatever we find there, was collateralized long ago as a deliberate component of the hidden system of finance.
But there's something else here too, and I hope you caught it, namely, the repeated use of the word "artifact" in the article, and then this interesting, and very odd paragraph, a paragraph that suggests there is more afoot -- much more -- than merely protecting historical sites and making national parks of them on the lunar surface:
"'I applaud the idea that two Congresswomen have decided to spark public dialogue about protecting the artifacts on the moon as an important part of American and ultimately, humanity's lunar legacy,' said Beth O'Leary, an associate professor of anthropology at the University of New Mexico in Las Cruces. She is a leading expert in the field of space archaeology.
The mere mention of "space archaeology" in an article with repeated uses of the word "artifacts" is suggestive, to say the least, that something else is in play in all these deliberations besides resources, corporations, and possible global space regulatory agencies.
See you on th.... er... by the way... did you notice the picture at the bottom of the article?
See you on the flip side.