I have to admit, I don’t remember the moment very well. I was not quite 5 years old, so maybe I can be forgiven. I do remember, very vaguely, Neil Armstrong stepping foot on the Moon… but as an honest skeptic I can’t really say if I remember it first hand, or if I’m simply conflating the eight million times I’ve seen it replayed with the actual event.
Either way, we’ve all seen it. And we’ve seen Neil flub his line every time.
"That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.".
It never made sense to me, of course. It doesn’t make sense. It’s not at all a small step for man. So what was he talking about?
It was years later when someone said to me that he meant to say "One small step for a man…" and then it made sense. Neil had made one small step from the lander pad to the lunar surface, but it was a giant leap for all mankind.
Cool! I felt better. But what happened to Neil’s "a"?
I may be the last science blogger to write about this, but the "a" may have finally turned up. Using sophisticated digital audio techniques, the missing vowel may have been found by a computer programmer:
He used his computer to download the audio recording of Armstrong’s words from a NASA Web site and analyzed the speech pattern with the GoldWave software. In the graphic tracing, he found a signature for the missing “a,” evidence it was spoken and transmitted.
That’s pretty interesting. It’s like having an itch for 40 years that’s finally been scratched. The article is a little confusing to me, though. It says:
According to Ford, Armstrong spoke, “One small step for a man …” in a total of 35 milliseconds, 10 times too fast for the “a” to be audible.
35 milliseconds is 0.035 seconds. I listened to Neil’s line, and it obviously takes longer than that– more like three seconds. I think the author meant the gap between the two words "step" and "man" was 35 milliseconds long, which makes more sense. Maybe it’s a typo in the article. I looked on the NASA website, and given that this is the most iconic thing ever said by a NASA employee, it’s a little weird that there is no mention of this on their site (as of the time I write this).
But I think my favorite line from the article is this one:
The “a” was transmitted, though, and can be verified in an analysis using [...] Canadian sound editing software…
Leave it to Canadians to find an "a", eh?
October 1st, 2006 at 10:41 pm
I was sure I was hearing “one small step for a man”, maybe because I’m not a native english speaker. As you said, otherwise, the phrase would not make sense.
October 1st, 2006 at 10:55 pm
How long did it take you to think that title up eh?
October 1st, 2006 at 11:33 pm
I can’t even write out the first title I thought of. And folks, I’d appreciate it if we keep the discourse on a nice level here, OK? I know that sounds a tad hypocritical, but I’ll admit I wrestled with the title of this. In the end I decided the pun was too funny to pass up, but it was a close thing!
October 1st, 2006 at 11:34 pm
Hmmm… I always thought that “One small step for man…” made perfect sense. A step down a ladder would be small for [any] man. Maybe I’m reading (listening) too much into it. At any rate, I like it better without the “a”.
October 1st, 2006 at 11:47 pm
I can’t believe you wrote that title. Your blog certainly reveals a side of you we haven’t seen elsewhere.
I remember looking up at the full Moon (or close to full who knows) from the drive in theater we were at and talking about the fact people were up there. Can’t remember the movie, but I remember which friends I was with.
October 1st, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Oh, forgot to add, maybe we’re so used to it without the a, but if you think about it, ‘for man’ and ‘for mankind’ are the same thing and ‘for a man’ and ‘for mankind’ really does sound more like what was the intended meaning.
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:34 am
I interpreted the phrase without the “a†as meaning the event was a much larger milestone in the unity of people than in technological progress.
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:55 am
I heared somewhere (I can’t remember where) that Armstrong was a bit choked up when he stepped on the moon (who wouldn’t be?) and just did the line wrong.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:01 am
I thought it was “One small step for man, but a giant leap for a small man” or maybe I got it all wrong
…after all I’m born in 80´s…
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:36 am
I’ll never forget the feeling as a kid, going outside later after the landing and looking up at the moon and knowing that there are – at that moment – people actually on the moon as I watched. It was inspiring.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:36 am
In my head I always added “man, the individual” to make up for the “missing” article of speech. Hmm, the gap following the word “man”…I wonder?
. . .
July 20-21, 1969
I was glued to the tube I recall and refused to leave it, the landing, Armstrong,
Aldrin, or Cronkite for anyone or anything. Sorry Collins.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:43 am
July 20-21, 1969
I was glued to the tube I recall and refused to leave it, the landing, Armstrong,
Aldrin, or Cronkite for anyone or anything. Sorry Collins.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:48 am
First of all, the line as scripted must have been “There’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.” It’s hard to see how there could be any controversy over this point.
Second, i’m skeptical. Our researcher is a computer programmer. Now if our researcher was a linguist specialising in phonetics, we’d have something. Having met a few, I’ve formed a stereotype of programmers, that they are forever pontificating on matters well outside their area of expertise, based on pure rational intuitions that bear little resemblance to empirical reality. Perhaps this is unfair or my sample is biased, but I personally wouldn’t trust a computer programmer’s opinion on anything unrelated to computers.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:56 am
First of all, the line as scripted must have been “That
‘s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.” It’s hard to see how there could be any controversy over this point.
Second, i’m skeptical. Our researcher is a computer programmer. Now if our researcher was a linguist specialising in phonetics, we’d have something. Having met a few, I’ve formed a stereotype of programmers, that they are forever pontificating on matters well outside their area of expertise, based on pure rational intuitions that bear little resemblance to empirical reality. Perhaps this is unfair or my sample is biased, but I personally wouldn’t trust a computer programmer’s opinion on anything unrelated to computers.
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:04 am
Jason Stokes: I agree 100% and then some, if it was up to computer geeks we would all still be typing commands in MS-DOS to start programs and write batch files to edit our videos and rip our CDs.
We can send a man to the moon but can’t determine whether he said “a” or not.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:48 am
At the time Neil did his thing I was busy working and raising two kids and a wife. What I remember best is the jump from that last step, jump to the surface and bounce a little, while wearing a couple hundred lbs. of space suit. That said more for where they were than any mere words.
Gary 7
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:04 am
I was always under the impression that what Armstrong said was, “That’s one small step for Man, one giant leap for Mankind.” The letter (word?) “a” is really un-necessary, and as we have seen, changes the meaning.
But as a written report, as edited normally by the Editorial staff, from the audio of the occasion, and presumeably not from any press release, the final copy for print, and possibly the copy for TV newsreaders, it did not capitalise the word “Man”. If it is considered in that light, it makes perfect sense, as the word “Mankind” is capped, but it does seem odd that an Editor missed the point.
Is there any report from the man (Man?) himself (Armstrong), explaining the variation? What did he have to say in retrospect?
Ivan.
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:38 am
I was surprised with the graphic title. But in hind sight, BA, you are a victim of Uranus puns. Blame the Germans, the French wanted to call it Herschell, and Herschell wanted to call it….well, that’s another joke.
I was one of the few Americans who saw three Neil Armstrongs on the moon. My HS football friends convinced me we’d be back in time after drinking in some nearby cornfield. When it got late, I left them and I walked down the dirt road until I saw a trailer, knocked on the door, and was welcome in as a complete, and slightly unstable stranger. They had two young children. We sat quite trying to capture this momentus event and were awe struck. It was frustrating to lack the focus necessary to see clearly what was happening. After about 10 minutes I walked back to the knot heads who were worried about me but wouldn’t believe what I had done. Farmers are great folks.
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:02 am
George,
Don’t worry too much about your lack of focus at the time — the pictures were so grainy, I doubt it made much difference. At least, one of the things I remember most distinctly about the video (granted, I was all of 8 at the time) is how long it took NASA to get things straight. When the video first started up, it was mirror reversed (vertically, I think). I don’t think things got fixed until Neil was nearly down the ladder. To top it off, I don’t think most folks at the time realized how convoluted the process was of producing the video (being essentially a feed from a TV camera focused on the screen of a TV in Australia playing the direct feed in an incompatible format).
Ah, yes… The memories of staring at a fuzzy, cryptic, shadowy image on my folks’ old black & white screen — thinking, “what the heck IS that?”
Lorne
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:30 am
I don’t see how “One small step for [no 'a'] man…” in this context makes sense as anything but a backwards rationalisation. I mean, what the Hades is that supposed to mean? If you’d never heard the quote before and didn’t know it was so iconic, and someone came up to you and said it without the “a” before “man”, you’d say, “Uh… don’t you mean ‘a man’?”
Because, really, Man and Mankind are the same thing. Both refer to the human race in aggregate. Unless you think it was some kind of bizarre sexist comment, like “Yeah, it was a small step for Men, but a Lady woulda had a long way to go!”
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:28 am
Just ran the clip through my PC…. I cannot hear the ‘a’ or find a gap. I even got the ‘Buzzing’ sound down to hear the words…
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:40 am
I’m skeptical. When Armstrong says it, it’s almost like two syllables of one word: “for-man.” There’s no gap in there at all, certainly not enough for an entire syllable.
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:50 am
Wait a minute! Maybe he said, “That’s one small step, foreman.” So the question becomes: who’s the “foreman”? Obviously, the leader of the construction crew that built the soundstage in Arizona where they faked the moon landing! Armstrong was complaining that they built the steps to be too small for his big space boots. Conclusive evidence!!!!!!
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:32 am
I got to stay up and watch it because it was my 4th birthday
But I really don’t remember the line, although like pretty much everyone in the western world, I’ve seen the video a thousand times. I always thought it didn’t make sense without the “a”, but I assumed we didn’t hear the “a” because:
1. He misspoke in the excitement of the event; and
2. Perhaps his transmission wasn’t 100% clearly received.
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:58 am
I have to credit this to someone else (whose identity I can’t recall, though I think it was posted on the ApolloHoax forum)…
Taking local ‘accent’ into account, Armstrong may have shortened “for” to “f’r” and blended it into the “a”, so the whole thing sounds more like “f’ra”.
The recording kind of sounds like that: “That’s one small step f’ra man, one giant leap for mankind.” (Obviously, the second “for” is enunciated properly.)
I know it looks weird in print, but it sounds different if spoken aloud, and without lingering on the “f’ra” thing. Just say it quickly, or listen to the original.
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:53 am
The computer programmer who did this specializes in writing code related verbal speech and communication, so its not as far-fetched as you might think.
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:55 am
I remember being distracted by the obviously intended “a” at the time he first said it. I just assumed he was overdosing on adrenaline at the moment and flubbed the line. I have no trouble excusing this – if I were in his boots, I would have had difficulty talking at all during those first moments. I was glad to read the article and see that he intended the “a” but it wasn’t transmitted clearly enough.
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:59 am
A nifty side story: The article BA cited references wikipedia, saying:
Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia of sorts, states in an entry on Armstrong that “for some reason the ‘a’ was never spoken.”
It should come as no surprise that when I went to view the encyclopedia article, I found no such statement. Here’s what I found instead:
First Moon walk
Once they were ready to go outside, Eagle was depressurized, the hatch opened and Armstrong made his way out and down the ladder. Placing his left foot on the surface at 2:56 UTC July 21, 1969, he spoke the words he would always be remembered for:
That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.
It had long been assumed that Armstrong mistakenly had omitted the word “a” from his famous remark, rendering the phrase redundant. Armstrong, who admits that he often forgot syllables when speaking, is quoted as saying that he “would hope that history would grant me leeway for dropping the syllable and understand that it was certainly intended, even if it wasn’t said — although it might actually have been.” Listening to the audio seems to reveal that the “for” runs on smoothly, giving no time for “a” to be spoken. However, research in September 2006 shed new light on the issue. A digital audio analysis conducted by Peter Shann Ford, an Australia-based computer programmer, suggests that Armstrong did, in fact, say “a man”, but the “a” was inaudible due to the limitations of communications technology of the time. Ford and Auburn University professor of history James R. Hansen, Armstrong’s authorized biographer, presented these findings to Armstrong and NASA representatives, who are conducting their own analysis. Armstrong has expressed his preference that written quotations include the “a” in parentheses.[26]
Where [26] is a reference to BA’s article. I wonder if Encyclopedia Britannica is up-to-date on this…
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:25 am
I was a young wife raising 3 children. I was not raising my husband nor was he raising me; however, this moment with or without the “a” was the most thrilling moment of my entire life. Hurray for humankind’s urge to explore!!
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:29 am
For whatever it’s worth, as an American who happened to be in London at the time, watching and listening to it on BBC-TV, I /heard/ “for a man”. It was about 4 in the morning, London time, of course.
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:06 am
Somebody ought to ping the folks at Language Log about this – it’s right up their street.
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:10 am
I like what Pete Conrad said after he stepped off the lander in the Apollo 12 mission:
Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that’s a long one for me.
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:36 am
I have never had a problem with the line as remembered. If he had said, “One small step or man, one giant leap for humans.” That would have be weird. Since he used “man” and “mankind” it was obvious to me that there was a destinction, i.e. man= us, people, humans; mankind=our civilization, humanity. I always thougth of it as the sum is greater than the parts.
Tony
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:36 am
I put the blame for this whole thing squarely on the shoulders of NASA. Those astronauts, engineers, technicians, etc, were working their butts off for years and NASA gave the job of figuring out what to say, at the most important moment in human history, up to Armstrong. As if the guy didn’t already have enough to do! If you didn’t say ‘a’, I forgive you Neil.
I suspect NASA’s writers were too busy with that famous disaster speech Nixon was to use in the event the crew didn’t make it back to earth.
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:06 pm
This is discussed on the bulletin board, here:
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=47472
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Jamie wrote: “The computer programmer who did this specializes in writing code related verbal speech and communication, so its not as far-fetched as you might think.”
That may be so, but why was he using Goldwave software?! Goldwave is shareware! I mean, it’s an OK program and all, but for professional applications?
J. D.
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:45 pm
All this talk about a flubbed line, when we should be proud of the fact that the First Man On the Moon did not instead follow the incredibly strong human impulse of taking the opportunity to read the big list of People He Hates and Wants to Rub It in Their Faces. That’s what any of us would have done.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:23 pm
I remember hearing the line as a child and being confused because “man” meant “mankind” in the context as worded. But I was a young kid and just learned to accept it for what it was supposed to mean.
Listening to it now, it is difficult to hear how the “a” could be there. But Armstrong has always claimed that he said it, or at least thought he said it. After I started paying attention to the controversy, I noted the overly long pause between the two lines and wondered if he recognized he’d flubbed it right as he said it and was trying to decide whether to correct himself or gloss over it. But that’s perhaps reading in too much. That hasn’t been confirmed by Armstrong. I prefer to take him at his word that he didn’t realize it didn’t come out right.
I can convince myself he said “fora” and slurred it enough to mush it in with the “r” and mostly drop out. Given the numerous ways people have of butchering vocalizations on a regular basis (such as the typical dropping of the “g” from “-ing”), I have no problem accepting that Armstrong naturally slurs his “a”‘s and that in this case it got doubly clipped by the radio technology.
It would be interesting to see the analysis.
Jason Stokes Said:
>First of all, the line as scripted must have been “There’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.†It’s hard to see how there could be any controversy over this point.
I will point out that the only scripting was self-scripting. Armstrong came up with that line himself. It was not provided by NASA. If he flubbed his line, it was his own line he flubbed.
icemith said:
>I was always under the impression that what Armstrong said was, “That’s one small step for Man, one giant leap for Mankind.†The letter (word?) “a†is really un-necessary, and as we have seen, changes the meaning.
Please elaborate on how the “a” is unneccesary, and how capitalizing the “Man” makes that statement make sense. Your version is “That’s one small step for mankind, one giant leap for mankind.”
>Is there any report from the man (Man?) himself (Armstrong), explaining the variation? What did he have to say in retrospect?
From the article quoted:
And there’s this:
I’m quoting Snopes
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/onesmall.asp
They’re quoting Jacob Berkowitz, “Moonlanding: One Small Slipup for (a) Man.” [Toronto] Globe and Mail. 17 July 2004 (p. F9).
Bad Albert said:
>I put the blame for this whole thing squarely on the shoulders of NASA.
I don’t know, I like the fact that they didn’t overscript the event.
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:37 pm
I’ve always been more interested in the pause between the first and second statements. I think the way it actually went was “That’s one small step for man (aw, CRAP, I flubbed the line, I hope nobody notices)…one giant leap for mankind.”
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:58 pm
outraged. I come here expecting incisive political commentary and what do I find? Yet another post about astronomy!
That’s it. I’m leaving.
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:15 pm
How many people have praticed and practiced a line for some important event, only to get to the moment and either speak to fast or flub it up somehow. It’s human nature. But I’m glad to hear that he probably did say what he meant to say after all.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:39 pm
I thought I’d mention – it was discovered by an Australian, who was using a Canadian program.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:48 pm
baric, very good! You made me laugh out loud!
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Well, now that’s all sorted, perhaps we can get to work on straightening out that other famous flubbed space quote:
“To boldly go…”
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:12 pm
Phil beat me to it, baric. I, too, laughed out loud at your comment!
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:24 am
Everybody has their own story ….
I was five when Apollo 11 happened and my parents woke me and my sisters in the middle of the night (this was in Europe) and took us all into bed to watch the moonwalk live on our rickety
old portable B&W TV. Whatever else I have to thank my parents for, and there’s plenty, that’s one memory, however vague on details, that’s burned into my brain forever.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:15 am
I’ve always figured that Armstrong said “…a man”, but that the “a” got swallowed in the ambient noise. Does anyone knwo the song “Lawyers, Guns, and Money” by Warren Zevon? In that, Zevon sings “I’m an innocent bystander…”, but I can’t for the life of me hear the “an”; I just assume it must be there, both from context and the lyrics on the songsheet. Definite and indefinite articles are small, slippery words, and are often inaudible to listeners; we infer their presence from context, as with Zevon. As with Armstrong.
—
My own Apollo 11 story is that I was barely 5YO at the time, and I remember my mother enthusing “Look at that! Man on the Moon!”, but I was singularly unimpressed, because I expected them to beam down to the surface like in Star Trek, and when they didn’t I concluded that Armstrong and his team were utterly naff compared to James Kirk and team…
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 am
Yep, laugh spittle all over the screen, thanks baric
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:36 pm
FWIW. I was 15 YO at that time, but recall vividly the moment. For me, so far, it was the biggest adventure ever completed by mankind, so I delighted in every second of it.
IIRC, the lines definitely had an ‘a’ between ‘for’ and ‘man’, but it sounded kind of slurred by Neil’s drawl. Next day, the media had the recording edited for clarity (reducing noise, etc. for broadcasting) and the ‘a’ is less audible. I guess that’s why the controversy started.
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:53 pm
Was it in the movie “Apollo 13″ where some said Neil should have yelled “What is THAT?!?!”, screamed and cut his mike??
I was 14 at the time, attended (the TV) personally, and frankly, I think he just flubbed his line. Frankly, I don’t care. I remain to this day, astounded bu the event.
I also remain astounded that, in teh ensuing nearly 40 years, I still am not able to go MYSELF
JC
October 3rd, 2006 at 6:58 pm
The linguists at Language log have now blogged about this in their usual entertaining and erudite way, and they are, well, very sceptical. Here’s David Beaver, Mark Liberman and David Beaver again. It looks like they’re not finished, either.
Peter Shann Ford’s original paper is apparently available here.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:32 pm
Harold said what I was going to say. My hubby has always said that’s why there is the pause (except he understood it to be after the second “one”.) So it went like “One giant step for man, one (oh crap, flubbed this historic moment…) giant leap for mankind.”
October 4th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
One other comment:
“Armstrong famously fluffed his line,”
I believe the word being sought is “flubbed”, as in mangled, missed, messed up. “Fluffed” usually suggests making more important, drawing out, inflating. Or, in another context, something not printable on a child friendly web page.
October 4th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
I am extremely skeptical about this.
First of all, the guy didn’t have access to any of the original NASA tapes or anything. He found a sound recording on their website, presumably from the TV broadcast which was already bad quality due to audio conversion and 60s technology.
But even on the off-chance that NASA extracted that phrase from their original tapes and made it available, the guy has no qualifications for this sort of thing, plus (and this is the kicker) he did it using Goldwave. An off-the-shelf $45 audio editing program for hobby users.
This entire thing smacks of a hobby project and I think a different person would get a different result using the same tools.
I’ve been looking through the various stories on this including this one:
http://reports.discoverychannel.ca/servlet/an/discovery/1/20061002/1002_discovery_armstrong/20061002?hub=DiscoveryReport
And as far as I can tell, the only thing he postulates is that there’s a gap between two words that’s longer than usual and there may have been an ‘a’ in there. Or, you know, Armstrong just *might* have been a little nervous stepping down that ladder to walk on the Moon for the first time in human history, or he could’ve taken a breath. I can think of many other reasons for there to be a small gap between two words.
I quote from the article: “The phrase was spoken quickly and the microphone didn’t catch every syllable, says Ford. But the signature of the word is there, existing visually in a graphic representation of the famous quote.”
This sounds like pure hocus-pocus to me. I’ve been doing a lot of audio editing in my time and I’ve never come across any of these ‘ghostly’ signatures in sound. If he’s talking about filtering techniques, again I’ll have to say that with a sound as quick and as small as an ‘a’ vowel, you apply a filter of the right kind and get the sound you want out of any 35 ms sample you care to choose.
And slowing down the speech by a factor of 10 to prove there’s a sound there is just plain cheating. I’m surprised they didn’t interview an actual sound engineer at all to look over Ford’s work.
I am much more inclined to believe that the audio transmission itself was dropping once in a while and may have blacked out at that critical moment. Despite what the article’s headline says, Goldwave is *NOT* sophisticated audio editing equipment.
And this stuff about ghostly signatures at 35 ms is just laughable.
I can’t imagine how anyone can take this seriously.
October 5th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
TG, so what about the rebuttal analysts using freeware? Care to comment on that?
The cost of the software is not an issue to me. Does the software have the capability to do what should be done to process the audio file? Did he get access to the best audio file source? Did he apply the right techniques to process the audio file? Was his analysis sound, or flawed? Those are the legitimate questions to my mind.
I think this is an intriguing start but needs further review by experts in the field, perhaps working with better copies of the original audio.
October 13th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Call me inarticulate if you like, but if _I_ was making the first moon-landing my first words may well NOT have been printable!
October 24th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
I realize this happened 37 years ago and that I’m 50 @#&&* years old, but I have this memory of Armstrong DESCRIBING THE TEXTURE OF THE LUNAR SURFACE before he uttered his famous line. Anyone else out there remember that? Not glamorous for sure but historically accurate, I think. Electronic devices can be edited ya know.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:03 pm
This is really late, but my favorite memory of this event is watching my grandfather stand in the middle of the living room and cry… He said: “I never thought I’d see such a thing as a man walking on the moon.” Pretty amazing thing for him to witness seeing as he was born in the late 1800′s!
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:52 am
Kids party ideas
[...] Cheesychuckie loved by the Lovely One to love the unlovely. Thursday, June 5, 2008 My Birthday Wishlist Every year before my birthday comes, I always publish a wishlist. Why? So people like you (my dear 2 [...]
August 15th, 2009 at 1:28 am
Armstrong did indeed fluff the line; the cadence of his speech is clear: he said, “…small step fermay-an” in his American accent with no room for an “a”. He was confusing the syntax of the words “man” and “mankind”, as that kind of language was unfamiliar to him. It is a clumsy, high-minded and forced thing to make him say, anyway.