PDA

View Full Version : a funny hoax alternative



The Bad Astronomer
2002-Feb-07, 11:37 PM
I got an email from a reader who pointed me to this page: The Museum of Hoaxes (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/alt3.html). This came out in 1977, after Kaysing claims he had already determined the landings were a hoax (and guess how much I trust his claims), so it almost certainly didn't start the hoax idea. I wonder how many people still point to it and believe it, though.

ToSeek
2002-Feb-08, 01:28 PM
On 2002-02-07 18:37, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
I wonder how many people still point to it and believe it, though.


Go the the Enterprise Mission message board, and you'll find out. It's pretty appalling.

Squirm
2002-Feb-08, 02:10 PM
TBA, what on Earth are you talking about, man?

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Feb-08, 05:20 PM
On 2002-02-08 09:10, Squirm wrote:
TBA, what on Earth are you talking about, man?


That page is about a TV show, done as an April Fool's Day joke, that claimed the Moon landings were faked. The show was aired in the UK in 1977.

AstroMike
2002-Feb-08, 05:31 PM
ToSeek: Go the the Enterprise Mission message board, and you'll find out. It's pretty appalling.

I have been to the Enterprise Mission message board several times. I haven't wrote anything there, but I have looked through it.
Nibiru? Nemesis? Planet X? Hollow Moon? I guess people will believe anything before learning some real astronomy.

ToSeek
2002-Feb-08, 06:32 PM
I couldn't find anything in a brief search on the message board, though I did find five sites that appear to believe this April Fool's joke:

truinsight (http://www.truinsight.com/HOME%20PAGE%20ALTERNATIVE%20THREE%20.htm)

Nazis on the Moon (http://www.mt.net/~watcher/13.html)

Thule.org (http://www.thule.org/alt3.html) (This one includes a clipping quoting the original writer as well as a link to an HB page.)

Best Video Productions (http://www.rense.com/BVP/BVPshowcase.htm)

totse.com (http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/flying_saucers_from_andromeda/alt-3.html)
_________________
"... to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson, Ulysses

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2002-02-08 13:33 ]</font>

K. Hovis
2002-Feb-08, 07:00 PM
On 2002-02-07 18:37, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
I got an email from a reader who pointed me to this page: The Museum of Hoaxes (http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/alt3.html). This came out in 1977, after Kaysing claims he had already determined the landings were a hoax (and guess how much I trust his claims), so it almost certainly didn't start the hoax idea. I wonder how many people still point to it and believe it, though.

Didn't Capricorn One come out about the same time? Hmmmm... I think I smell a conspiracy. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

AstroMike
2002-Feb-08, 07:05 PM
K. Hovis: Didn't Capricorn One come out about the same time?

Capricorn One was released in 1978. What your's point? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

_________________
"The contemplation of celestial things will make man both speak and think more sublimely and magnificently when he descends to human affairs." -Marcus Cicero

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-02-08 14:09 ]</font>

Squirm
2002-Feb-08, 09:10 PM
Bah! All of this is preceded by James Bond who, if you recall, stumbles over a fake moon set in the 1971 film Diamonds Are Forever. A number of people believe this to be a huge whistle blow, including David Percy. Apparently DP got a few important facts regarding the script writing wrong, and so his claim has been thrown out. I still find it quite an interesting claim, myself. As I currently understand it, nobody has taken credit and no explanation has been forthcoming for why the scene was included. There are also a few vague references from James Bond regarding radiation shielding.

AstroMike
2002-Feb-08, 09:41 PM
Bah! Ian Fleming died in 1964, and he wrote Diamonds Are Forever in 1956, two years before NASA was incepted.

Here's Clavius' dismissal: http://www.clavius.org/movies.html

Donnie B.
2002-Feb-08, 09:47 PM
Wait a sec...

You're suggesting that because a James Bond movie showed a "fake" lunar surface (er, make that a fake fake lunar surface, since it was a movie set of a fake lunar surface), that this is somehow evidence that the Apollo missions were faked?


This follows how?


If I recall that scene correctly, it took place in the facility of a NASA contractor; there was a guy in an EVA suit on the fake moon, picking up rocks with a long tool. JB hijacks his lunar rover and uses it to escape.

You don't suppose they might have wanted to give the astronaut some training before they sent him up there? You don't suppose they might have needed to show this to give our hero a plausible reason to stumble across a vehicle he could escape in -- one that would make for an interesting and unusual chase sequence?

Man, sometimes I just can't believe how [insert invective here] some people can be.

Addendum: just read the Clavius refutation of the HB claims about Fleming. While it easily refutes the idea that Fleming himself might have been a lunar-hoax whistle blower, it doesn't address the question of why the scene was there, leaving open the possibility that somebody else involved in the production was a whistle blower. But as I tried to express above, there's no mystery as to why the scene was included.

Remember, when the movie was written, the general public had never seen a lunar rover. If Bond was to escape in one, there had to be a setup shot so that people would understand what that funny-looking go-kart thing was. Hence the scene of a practice lunar EVA.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2002-02-08 16:57 ]</font>

Squirm
2002-Feb-08, 10:38 PM
AstroMike: Bah! Ian Fleming died in 1964, and he wrote Diamonds Are Forever in 1956, two years before NASA was incepted. Here's Clavius' dismissal:

I am not promoting the Ian Fleming angle. Quite the opposite, in fact. So your dismissal is completely uncalled for.

I think I read somewhere that the scene in question was introduced much later for the screenplay. Perhaps Jay can shed some light on that.

Donnie, no, I'm not suggesting James Bond is proof of anything. I'm just saying that this film is the earliest reference I know of and it happens to be an interesting one.

Donnie B.: You don't suppose they might have wanted to give the astronaut some training before they sent him up there?

Nah, they had the whole slow motion thing going on. If it was aboveboard they would have instinctively grabbed him as he raced across the set. As it was the astronauts continued to glide as he made his escape, indicating they were being filmed or suchlike.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Squirm on 2002-02-13 11:05 ]</font>

Chip
2002-Feb-08, 10:45 PM
On 2002-02-08 16:10, Squirm wrote:
Bah! All of this is preceded by James Bond who, if you recall, stumbles over a fake moon set in the 1971 film Diamonds Are Forever..... As I currently understand it, nobody has taken credit and no explanation has been forthcoming for why the scene was included. There are also a few vague references from James Bond regarding radiation shielding.


In the movie, Bond comes across a secret simulation training exercise which foreshadows Specter's more sinister lunar intentions. In some other later Bond film, there's an entire orbiting space station, which would have required a lot of secret Specter launches and money. Funny how movies seem to predate hokum and mumbo jumbo beliefs. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

johnwitts
2002-Feb-08, 10:58 PM
James Bond. What a man. There are so many contrived scenes in these movies just because things are current news that JB usually ends up somewhere groovy. There's no need for him to slide down the Millenium Dome in London in his last(?) film, but it was there at the time, so they made it fit the film. Why did JB wander around the pyramids in one of his films? Why does he go anywhere? Because it makes interesting viewing.

The radiation shields mentioned in the film and jumped upon by DP (cool) were never meant to be regarded as spacecraft radiation shields. In laboratories where X-rays or radiation is used, everyone wears a little yellow badge called a 'radiation shield'. Every few months, they are all collected and checked to see what dose everyone has been exposed to. This is called 'checking the radiation shields'. I've worn one for a while. No big deal. It's even obvious that it's the little badges that they are talking about in the film. The lab tech even gives one to JB. DP has just taken a single line of dialogue completely out of context and turned it into a global conspiracy.

Squirm
2002-Feb-09, 12:43 PM
Well, it must seem quite petty arguing over the likes of James Bond, especially to those who don't much care for this topic, but..

John: Every few months, they are all collected and checked to see what dose everyone has been exposed to. This is called 'checking the radiation shields'.

I think you may be missing the point, John. If this was a whistle blow then it is only natural that the message is going to be slightly obscure. Wouldn't you agree?

The message is, of course "You can't be too careful about radiation. Where is your radiation protection?".

Like I said earlier, I do find this interesting, especially as there is quite some emphasis when he challenges him on this issue. Of course, this could be nothing, but then again..

And from his commentary I think DP (cool?) is more interested in the fact that these two scenes feature so close together, and that someone was animated enough to do this as early as 1971.

Radiation.mp3 (http://www.night-sun.co.uk/audio/radiation.mp3) [254 KB]

http://www.night-sun.co.uk/images/fun/daf.jpg


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Squirm on 2002-02-12 13:39 ]</font>

2002-Feb-09, 02:42 PM
<a name="20020209.8:03"> page 20020209.8:03 aka " A.B.C. "
On 2002-02-08 17:58, johnwitts wrote: To: JD2452315.8:03
8: Reacll there are many Many ways to COUNT radiation
7: personally i use the click methode
The radiation shields mentioned in the film and jumped upon by DP (cool) were never meant to be regarded as spacecraft radiation shields. In laboratories where X-rays or radiation is used, everyone wears a little yellow badge called a 'radiation shield'.6:
5: {it wind up as a COUNT of clicks{events} per time unit
4: usually per second anyway my poit here was
3: recently on TV the A remained Atomic
& the Bremained Biological but it seamed to me,
{I wasn't paying much attention} that the 3rd changed From Chemical to Radiation? No I dont understand. 4get it.

johnwitts
2002-Feb-09, 09:15 PM
The message is, of course "You can't be too careful about radiation. Where is your radiation protection?".

I assume this is a quote from the film. The badge is the protection. It protects by measuring the total amount of radiation recieved by the wearer. There's a piece of photographic film in there, and how cloudy it gets depends upon the exposure to radiation. It's not some magic device that stops exposure, just a check of accumulated dose. If a wearer is found to have recieved a particularly high dose, they can be checked out medically or their post changed. There's only a mystery here if you don't understand how these things are managed.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-10, 01:53 PM
I think I read somewhere that the scene in question was introduced much later for the screenplay. Perhaps Jay can shed some light on that.

I don't have any specific knowledge about how and when that scene was introduced, but I know the screenplay was written by the end of 1970.

The interpretation of the scene -- i.e., what it intends to depict -- is still an open question. It's certainly possible it was intended as a whistle-blow, but by Broccoli, Salzman, and Maibaum (the creative forces behind it).

The question I attempt to answer on Clavius is merely whether or not Fleming had any involvement in it. Fleming was involved in covert operations during WWII and is properly considered an "insider" in the British intelligence community, although probably not to the extent generally believed by Britons. This makes him an attractive character for David Percy to weave into a conspiracy theory. Percy can argue that his contacts in British Intelligence informed him of their knowledge of the American plans to falsify the moon landing.

Richard Maibaum is simply a Hollywood screenwriter with no such inside knowledge. He cannot be expected to have inside knowledge. Therefore it makes far less sense to claim this is a whistle-blow if Maibaum wrote it. The scene doesn't appear in the book.

But it does demonstrate just how poorly David Percy researches his claims. He promised us incontrovertible proof, and instead he delivers offhand assertions which are easily shown to be in contrast with well-established fact.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-02-10 09:23 ]</font>

2002-Feb-10, 02:26 PM
<a name="20020210.7:51"> page 20020210.7:51 aka Lu HUb' D'b Aga HUb'
On 2002-02-10 08:53, JayUtah wrote: To: Temp 2 BEN 11 PAX
1:Chances are the chances are AWFully good
2:that i'll just wind up D'baiting self
3:as to just how far the Moon was away
4:from Earth at any given time
5: "USING" data coming out of Texas
6: and the University down there
Undoubtedly WELL FUNDED.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-10, 02:31 PM
If this was a whistle blow then it is only natural that the message is going to be slightly obscure. Wouldn't you agree?

I certainly don't agree. This notion of subtle sabotage intended as whistle-blowing is an invention of conspiracy theorists. It's not how whistle-blowing works in the real world. By definition whistle-blowing is substantial, unmistakable, and overt. "Sneaky" whistle-blowing would be far more dangerous and ineffectual. The whistle-blowing process described by Percy and others is a fabrication to explain the vast gulf between their conclusions and observed fact, not to describe how people actually behave.

Compare the story of the prisoners who were forced to forge "white fivers" during WWII. They thought about introducing subtle "whistle-blows" into the notes but decided against it. They knew that the Nazis would be inspecting the notes with far greater scrutiny than a British banker whom the prisoners hoped would be the one to see the intentional flaws. They saw that sort of subtle whistle-blowing as a good way to get themselves killed without accomplishing anything.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-11, 03:22 AM
The badge is the protection. It protects by measuring the total amount of radiation recieved by the wearer.

We should also at this point differentiate between emission and dosage. Geiger counters attempt to measure emission, which is the amount of radiation given off by a source. Dosage is the amount of radiation trapped by an object or organism, and that is the important measure.

It is also important to differentiate skin dose, which is that measured by the film dosimeter, and dose in various organs and bone, which is where the damage is done. Skin dose is converted to internal dose by a complex statistical model. In the 1950s test subjects would swallow film capsules on a string to calibrate internal doses in comparison to skin doses.

For particle dosages it's not uncommon to have a high skin dose but relatively little internal dose.

The real point, I guess, is that it's impossible to accurately measure internal dose, and darn near impossible to compute it according to a theoretical model. Models of irradiation exist, of course, but they are very difficult to apply to any given situation since there are so many variables involved.

Rule of engineering: Never compute what you can measure; never measure what you can look up.

Peter B
2002-Feb-11, 05:01 AM
Squirm said: "...they had the whole slow motion thing going on. If it was aboveboard they would have instinctively grabbed him as he raced across the set. As it was the astronauts continued to glide as he made his escape, indicating they were being filmed or suchlike."

Well, sorry old chap, but that doesn't make sense.

Think about it.

The astronauts are being filmed as part of some hoax. They're doing the whole slow motion thing. Then James Bond runs across the set. So the astronaut-actors grab for him in slow motion.

Why the ... would they do that?

Don't you think they'd figure that scene is going to have to be filmed again? So they don't really need to keep up the pretence, do they?

JayUtah
2002-Feb-11, 06:33 PM
So they don't really need to keep up the pretence, do they?

Actors almost always break character the moment a scene becomes "unusable".

Bond films of the 1960s and 1970s are rarely shining examples of consistency and accuracy. The enormous cost of the sets and special effects translates into accepting a take and moving on quickly.

I agree it makes no sense for actors to remain in character at the point Bond interrupts them. But this applies to whether they are actors filming a moon hoax scene, or astronaut stand-ins participating in a simulation. Either way it makes no sense for them to try to grab Bond while remaining in character, especially when "in character" means moving in slow motion and diminishing their ability to catch him.

I would rather chalk this up to the fact that in many Bond films, lots of things don't make sense.

The more I watch Diamonds, the more I am convinced this scene is not intended to depict a hoax, either overtly or subtextually. Since writing my Clavius article I have learned a great deal more about Apollo astronaut simulation and training, and how the media covered it in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The astronauts complained about how much access the press was given to their training areas, even to the extent of setting up elaborate equipment and getting within a few feet of them while training in order to take photos and shoot film. This degree of coverage would have produced fine results, which would have also been familiar to television audiences of the time. I believe the Diamonds scene is intended to show astronaut training.

Unfortunately Broccoli and Maibaum are dead and can't answer to their motives. The only surviving member of the creative staff for Diamonds is Tom Mankewiecz, and I have no idea how to get in touch with him.

DaveC
2002-Feb-11, 07:54 PM
I suspect the scene was included in the final screenplay for the simple reason that it was topical, especially for Americans. It's all about marketing and has nothing to do with conspiracies.

Squirm
2002-Feb-12, 06:35 PM
John Witts: The badge is the protection.

Again, it is possible that you are missing the point. Even so, checking the shields "every few months" isn't going to be much use if you are unwittingly being exposed to heavy dosages on a daily basis.

And another observation. Is that a touch of sarcasm from Bond at the end of his first conversation? "I feel much safer with this on!"

Recall that he then proceeds into another room and brings up the issue of radiation a second time.

Jay: The interpretation of the scene -- i.e., what it intends to depict -- is still an open question. It's certainly possible it was intended as a whistle-blow, but by Broccoli, Salzman, and Maibaum

The word possible is fair. And I think that's about as far as any of us can get now that the author of this scene is no longer with us.

Squirm: If this was a whistle blow then it is only natural that the message is going to be slightly obscure. Wouldn't you agree?

Jay: I certainly don't agree. This notion of subtle sabotage intended as whistle-blowing is an invention of conspiracy theorists. It's not how whistle-blowing works in the real world. By definition whistle-blowing is substantial, unmistakable, and overt. "Sneaky" whistle-blowing would be far more dangerous and ineffectual. {snip} Compare the story of the prisoners who were forced to forge "white fivers" during WWII. They thought about introducing subtle "whistle-blows" into the notes but decided against it.

But surely, as this case itself shows us, the form of the intended whistle-blow is often dictating by extenuating circumstances. The very fact that these men considered an obscure message instantly dispels the idea that subtle whistle-blowing is a figment of our imagination, or an "invention of conspiracy theorists". One can fully understand why those men ultimately chose not to embed an obscure message as their lives were in immediate danger and there was very little chance of their ingenuity ever seeing the light of day. But what of someone who is far removed, and who is just wanting to hint at the truth? Surely that is not such an impossible scenario.

Squirm: If it was aboveboard they would have instinctively grabbed him as he raced across the set

Peter B: Don't you think they'd figure that scene is going to have to be filmed again? So they don't really need to keep up the pretence, do they?

Fair call. I guess the point I am making is that if this were a simple training exercise then why such an emphasis on reduced gravity? Sure, such a simulation would be helpful, but then if they were going to do that it would be something individually focused. Yet we clearly see the astronauts doing a few different things besides, like picking up lunar rock with Apollo type equipment. And then there is the startled command from the gantry when Bond makes his way on to the set: "STOP HIM!..", which also suggests that this is not any ordinary training session. The whole scene depicts something more, if my honest opinion.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Squirm on 2002-02-12 13:38 ]</font>

AstroMike
2002-Feb-12, 07:02 PM
Squirm: Again, it is possible that you are missing the point.

No, Squirm. You seem to be missing the point. Have you been paying attention to what Jay has wrote?

JayUtah
2002-Feb-12, 07:41 PM
if you are unwittingly being exposed to heavy dosages on a daily basis.

Heavy dosages would be detected immediately by other equipment in the various rooms. You have counters in different locations to tell you how much radiation is being emitted in a particular place. You have badges on people to tell you how much they've absorbed, which is a more sensitive and applicable measure since it's accumulated dose. It's a multitiered system.

... now that the author of this scene is no longer with us.

I'm endeavoring to get in touch with Tom Mankewiecz, the co-writer of Diamonds Are Forever. He may be able to shed light on the intent of this scene.

But Percy's claim that Fleming, with insider knowledge, is trying to blow the whistle is patently, unequivocally false. The point is that Maibaum and his employers can't be assumed to have insider knowledge. Only insiders can blow the whistle, therefore the Diamonds theory is set back a step because it now must be established that the creators of the Diamonds movie had inside knowledge, which can be assumed only in Fleming's case.

The very fact that these men considered an obscure message instantly dispels the idea that subtle whistle-blowing is a figment of our imagination, or an "invention of conspiracy theorists".

No, Squirm, again you're arguing what you wish to be so, not what is so.

Someone forced to do something contrary to his ideals will naturally desire to undermine the forced objective. That is basic human nature. But that very fact is why those who are compelling the activity will very carefully monitor the work. They will expect their conscripts to attempt sabotage and therefore put safeguards into effect.

The question is not whether the desire is there, but whether it's wise to act on that desire.

One can fully understand why those men ultimately chose not to embed an obscure message as their lives were in immediate danger and there was very little chance of their ingenuity ever seeing the light of day.

But this is exactly Percy's hypothesis. He has argued subsequently that those who have personally contacted him, whom he characterizes as whistle-blowers, are indeed in mortal danger. This is his excuse for not revealing their names or positions so that their stories can be confirmed or corroborated. He argues they are still in danger of being killed.

The notion that his alleged whistle-blowers believed themselves to be in mortal danger, therefore chose to act in very subtle ways rather than overtly, is the core of Percy's hypothesis, and it is exactly what makes his hypothetical situation identical to the forging of the white fivers, at least in terms of motives and second-guessing.

Percy's theory is a scenario which has been acted out in real life, and with results diametrically contrary to Percy's hypothesis. And you even agree that the real-life scenario -- in which whistle-blowing was specifically avoided -- makes sense.

You seem to have departed from Percy's hypothesis by claiming there was no real mortal danger and the whistle-blowers just did this as a lark, much as software engineers put "Easter eggs" into software products. This makes absolutely no sense from the point of view of the central conspirators who are trying to fool the world and allegedly possess a very large budget in which to do so.

The whistle-blower hypothesis fails on two more points.

First, it was originally formulated to overcome the shortcomings of the hypothesis that all the observed anomalies were mistakes. To believe in that hypothesis required us to believe that NASA was monumentally stupid and couldn't even get basic things right with a budget of billions.

These "mistakes" were so gargantuanly stupid that nobody could believe a hoax would be attempted so poorly. So then the notion evolved that they were intentional. They were simply too blatant to be accidental. But then a motive and conflict had to be devised, and therefore this scenario of whistle-blowers arose. Unfortunately the scenario is simply not plausible, as history has demonstrated.

But more importantly is the persistence of this allegedly large number of anomalies. Nearly every photo, say the conspiracy theorists, contains at least one anomaly. Instead of thousands of mistakes, we now have to believe in thousands of intentional whistle-blows, carried out under the watchful eyes of NASA inspectors who -- like the Nazis -- don't necessarily trust those who are working under them.

So the theory shifts from NASA being so monumentally stupid that it can't pull off a hoax without thousands of mistakes, to NASA being so monumentally stupid that it can't carry out a covert operation without thousands of breaches of security. The whistle-blower theory does not improve over the mistakes theory, and is in fact even less plausible.

Second, the alleged anomalies are rarely anomalous. In almost all cases they are a legitimate manifestation of what would be expected in bona fide Apollo photographs. The accusations of anomaly are coming largely from people who have no demonstrable expertise in the things they are commenting on. In short, they're not evidence of malfeasance or negligence, they're compelling evidence of the ignorance or malice of those making the accusations.

I guess the point I am making is that if this were a simple training exercise then why such an emphasis on reduced gravity?

I like my answer best: not a lot of practical experience went into the performances in early Bond films.

if they were going to do that it would be something individually focused. Yet we clearly see the astronauts doing a few different things besides, like picking up lunar rock with Apollo type equipment.

Well, actual Apollo simulations rehearsed the entire mission from beginning to end during the final weeks of preparation.

Further, we are seeing this through the eyes of a film director who wants to give us space-age eye candy, not necessarily accurately represent an Apollo LEVA simulation. Movies today still do this; they sacrifice accuracy for what looks good in the scene.

And then there is the startled command from the gantry when Bond makes his way on to the set: "STOP HIM!..", which also suggests that this is not any ordinary training session.

I don't agree. If you were in charge of a simulation you'd spent days or weeks planning, and some idiot runs out there among the astronauts during the middle of it, would you not also call for him to be stopped and removed?

The whole scene depicts something more, if my honest opinion.

Well, in my honest opinion you're arguing as if you really, really want to believe this is a whistle-blow. You're simply not thinking rationally. You're grasping at straws to reach the predetermined conclusion.

It has been conclusively proved that what Percy believed to be the key evidentiary point of this scene -- i.e., that it was "insider" Fleming tipping his hand -- is wrong. Percy's hypothesis makes sense only because Fleming was an intelligence insider. Maibaum is nobody, but the scene was his invention, not Fleming's.

Nothing about the scene can't be answered by the hypothesis that it intends to depict a simulation, while the whistle-blow theory requires believing the unproven (and likely unprovable) hypothesis that Richard Maibaum had inside knowledge and is blowing the whistle. Parsimony screams bloody murder here.

As we've seen, the entire conspiracy theory phenomenon tends toward trying to tie together apparently unrelated events and causes with purely conjectural scenarios. I believe that's what's happening here.

Unfortunately the alleged link just ain't there.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-02-12 15:05 ]</font>

odysseus0101
2002-Feb-12, 08:05 PM
In reference to the moon training scene:


I like my answer best: not a lot of practical experience went into the performances in early Bond films.


Even if Fleming had written this scene (which, as we know thanks to Jay, he didn't) I can't imagine how anyone would argue that it was a whistle-blow. This is a BOND MOVIE! Cars hit curbs and explode into huge fireballs - a Fleming whistle-blow on the Pinto? Bond drives a tank through a Perrier Water delivery truck - veiled reference to recent reports that bottled water is usually no safer than tap water? Patrick McGoohan gave Fleming Sean Connery's name, and McGoohan was working on a series about being trapped in an interrogation village - maybe the village was real and Fleming was scared of being put there? And I won't even start on Moonraker.

Chip
2002-Feb-12, 08:18 PM
On 2002-02-12 15:05, odysseus0101 wrote:
"...I can't imagine how anyone would argue that it was a whistle-blow. This is a BOND MOVIE!"


Right. As for who would believe that - the same people who believe that all science fiction movies and TV - (I won't include books as they don't read much) - are actually designed by a secret group somewhere as veiled attempts to lull the population into accepting aliens among us. (I actually heard someone say that once!) /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Donnie B.
2002-Feb-12, 08:30 PM
On 2002-02-12 13:35, Squirm wrote:
John Witts: The badge is the protection.

Again, it is possible that you are missing the point. Even so, checking the shields "every few months" isn't going to be much use if you are unwittingly being exposed to heavy dosages on a daily basis.

And another observation. Is that a touch of sarcasm from Bond at the end of his first conversation? "I feel much safer with this on!"


Yes, it is sarcasm... aimed at a relatively unsophisticated general audience who don't understand the concept of dosage management. "Ha ha! How can those little badges protect them from anything? Good one, JB!"

Depending on the environment and expected levels of exposure, film badges might be processed as often as every few hours, or daily, or every few days. "Every few months" might be true in a case where little or no dosage is expected at all, such as the control room of a nuclear power plant where no known abnormal radiation releases have occurred.



Recall that he then proceeds into another room and brings up the issue of radiation a second time.


Of course he does! He has knocked out the radiation inspector and is impersonating him! What's he supposed to talk about, stock prices?

Come on, Squirm, it's only a movie! If the producers had imagined in their wildest dreams that people would be debating this issue seriously, they might have shot or edited the scenes a little differently. Then again... probably not; they've just had a good laugh and gone on to the next setup.

johnwitts
2002-Feb-12, 10:11 PM
Is it just me, or do the rest of the world regard James Bond films as being just a little bit tongue in cheek. 'My name is Pussy Galore'. 'I must be dreaming'. Little Nelly, Aston with ejector seat, underwated Lotus Esprit, Oddjob? It's all not a million miles from the Batman TV series. It's not meant to be taken too seriously. I find more anomolies in 'Kindergarten Cop'. No way would he be able to do what he does with that bunch of kids, they'd have eaten him. Still, it's good entertainment.
I'm surprised that no one has brought up the reference to the Moonlanding Hoax in 'Dragnet'. The character played by Dan Ackroyd says 'That's where they hoaxed the Apollo Moon landings'. A clear reference, in a film, to NASA's wrongdoing. Why isn't this mentioned in 'Dark Moon'?

AstroMike
2002-Feb-12, 10:24 PM
johnwitts: Why isn't this mentioned in 'Dark Moon'?

Well, I have never heard that before because I have never seen Dragnet, and probably David Percy hasn't either. But if he had, of course he will make a big deal out of it.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Feb-12, 11:14 PM
On 2002-02-12 17:11, johnwitts wrote:
I'm surprised that no one has brought up the reference to the Moonlanding Hoax in 'Dragnet'.

That was "Sneakers". Dan Akroyd said it in the movie, and he also was in a short-lived show called "The Psi Factor" about paranormal investigators. He was supposed to host a show called "Out There' on the Sci-Fi channel, but it was cancelled. It was a bit like Conspiracy Zone. One episode was going to be on the Moon Hoax, but alas.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-12, 11:26 PM
Dan Aykroyd's character in Sneakers specifically mentions the moon landing hoax theory. Is this whistle-blowing? Of course not. Ayroyd and Sidney Poitier are the classic comedic diad in that film. It's a far more overt reference than in Diamonds, but in this case it's just part of the character.

I think we're expanding beyond the normal understanding of whistle-blowing. A whistle-blower is someone on the inside who has been entrusted with a secret, but who reveals it instead, ostensibly for ethical reasons. The sine qua non for a whistle-blower is that special, inside knowledge, not just what that person says. Someone who merely makes a reference but has no demonstrable "insider" knowledge is not a whistle-blower.

I believe Diamonds Are Forever is not a reference to the moon hoax theory. But it doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. There is no evidence that the creator of that scene could have had any inside knowledge. That kills the hypothesis right there. Ian Fleming is a plausible whistle-blower at prima facie. Richard Maibaum is not. Therefore there is no whistle-blow. Full stop.

All we have is an ambiguous scene in a somewhat campy film written by an unremarkable Hollywood screenwriter during the height of Apollo popularity three years before the first published moon hoax book. It's not clear that this scene even refers to the moon hoax theory, much less is trying to expose it. The holes in this hypothesis are big enough to fly a space shuttle through.

DaveC
2002-Feb-13, 03:07 PM
"The holes in this hypothesis are big enough to fly a space shuttle through."

Ah but not for a committed HB. The "holes" are just a smokescreen created by a bunch of NASA stooges. Haven't you been paying attention, Jay? It's just not helpful when you keep hauling out facts - like Ian Fleming's death in 1964 - that are inconsistent with a big conspiracy (so big in fact that virtually everyone is in on it except a small portion of the American public).
So lets see - the Russians are in on it, as are a bunch of Hollywood screenwriters and producers , Disney, Kubrick, a good portion of the world's geologists, probably the Japanese (got them in line for Selene), the aerospace industry, Congress, the Senate, astronauats, NASA ground employees, amateur and professional astronomers the world over, etc etc.
It seems there are only a few of us left that weren't part of the conspiracy. I have to wonder why I'm being kept in the dark. What harm does NASA, or the US government think I could cause by being included with the other billion or so who were part of pulling this off?

Thumper
2002-Feb-13, 03:50 PM
On 2002-02-13 10:07, DaveC wrote:
"The holes in this hypothesis are big enough to fly a space shuttle through.".....

.....It seems there are only a few of us left that weren't part of the conspiracy. I have to wonder why I'm being kept in the dark. What harm does NASA, or the US government think I could cause by being included with the other billion or so who were part of pulling this off?


Now that's funny. Could we just get the short list of the few people who were not involved?

Squirm
2002-Feb-13, 04:29 PM
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Squirm on 2002-02-13 11:30 ]</font>

Squirm
2002-Feb-13, 04:30 PM
Jay: Heavy dosages would be detected immediately by other equipment in the various rooms.

We are getting sidetracked and so, if you don't mind, I will just stick to the main points.

Jay: But Percy's claim that Fleming, with insider knowledge, is trying to blow the whistle is patently, unequivocally false.

Aye, and I immediately acknowledged that in my first posting to this thread. You will find no argument from me here.

Jay: Only insiders can blow the whistle, therefore the Diamonds theory is set back a step because it now must be established that the creators of the Diamonds movie had inside knowledge,

Could they not have been provided with insider information, alerted to untoward goings on or used by other persons to put across a subtle message, perhaps?

Squirm: The very fact that these men considered an obscure message instantly dispels the idea that subtle whistle-blowing is a figment of our imagination, or an "invention of conspiracy theorists".

Jay: No, Squirm, again you're arguing what you wish to be so, not what is so. Someone forced to do something contrary to his ideals will naturally desire to undermine the forced objective.

Agreed. The Thai-Burma railway is a good example of that. The workmanship of many enslaved POW's was deliberately shoddy in the hope trestles and embankments would collapse and erode when significant weight happened to be passing over it.

Jay: But that very fact is why those who are compelling the activity will very carefully monitor the work. They will expect their conscripts to attempt sabotage and therefore put safeguards into effect.

The question is not whether the desire is there, but whether it's wise to act on that desire.

And I don't disagree with that, but was it not yourself who questioned that "desire" by earlier stating "subtle sabotage intended as whistle-blowing is an invention of conspiracy theorists"? You are now slightly contradicting yourself. It was actually this which spurned my response -- a response that I maintain is still valid.

As to whether an obscure message is sensible or not is some thing I am in agreement with, thus my statement: "... the form of the intended whistle-blow is often dictating by extenuating circumstances". There would be many things to take into account when making such a decision, even as to whether a blow is viable at all.

Subtle whistle-blowing may be less effective, but it is certainly not a figment of our imagination.

Squirm: One can fully understand why those men ultimately chose not to embed an obscure message as their lives were in immediate danger and there was very little chance of their ingenuity ever seeing the light of day.

Jay: But this is exactly Percy's hypothesis.

I'm not Percy and I'm not interested in his entire hypothesis. It may look like I am arguing his case but, as I have stated on ApolloHoax.com, I don't actually subscribe to his full-blown "whistle-blowers" theory. In essence I am not arguing against whistle-blowers either, but Percy believes many insiders were actively encoding such messages for future generations to unravel. Whereas I do not.

Jay: He has argued subsequently that those who have personally contacted him, whom he characterizes as whistle-blowers, are indeed in mortal danger.

The question here is are they in immediate danger? Could they be led out into a court yard and lined up against a firing wall within minutes, like those prisoners you have made reference to? The point I was making is that those prisoners could end up losing on both counts. The intended message in all likelihood would be intercepted and those men could be executed as a result. Nil points! In the case of Percy anybody contacting him would at least have the opportunity to pass on vital information, so to this end a whistler-blower would be successful.

Jay: The notion that his alleged whistle-blowers believed themselves to be in mortal danger, therefore chose to act in very subtle ways rather than overtly, is the core of Percy's hypothesis, and it is exactly what makes his hypothetical situation identical to the forging of the white fivers, at least in terms of motives and second-guessing.

To which whistle-blowers are you now referring. Those who have contacted Percy or those whom he claims have left deliberate message in the Apollo media?

Jay: Percy's theory is a scenario which has been acted out in real life,

Well, there are other circumstances to be taken into consideration. In relation to alleged on-set stagehands, I have argued elsewhere that anyone willing to go along with forgery of this scale would not be doing so against their will. For the most part they would have recognised the vast importance of their work (in relation to International Politics). Some may not have like it and had second thoughts, but I very much doubt they would be forced to do things at gun point.

Anyway, I'm not really here to defend someone else's hypothesis, I'm here to defend my own.

and with results diametrically contrary to Percy's hypothesis. And you even agree that the real-life scenario -- in which whistle-blowing was specifically avoided -- makes sense.

Yes, it makes sense in this particular instance.

Jay: You seem to have departed from Percy's hypothesis by claiming there was no real mortal danger and the whistle-blowers just did this as a lark, much as software engineers put "Easter eggs" into software products.

I wasn't biding by Percy's hypothesis in the first place so how on Earth could I depart from it? And more to the point, if someone felt the truth was important enough to be known -- because of ethical reasons, of course -- why is he suddenly seen to be "larking about" if he manages to reveal and propagate the message of wrongdoing behind NASA's back?

Jay: This makes absolutely no sense from the point of view of the central conspirators who are trying to fool the world and allegedly possess a very large budget in which to do so.

What make no sense is your attempt to undermine my argument. If I was proper skeptical I would say you are intentionally blurring the line between my hypothesis and David Percy's, so that your rebuttal appears to carry more weight then it otherwise would.

I am arguing about a possible whistle-blow in a movie scene. This was not something produced by NASA and made available through NASA.

Jay: The whistle-blower hypothesis fails on two more points. {considerable portion snipped!}

And this is largely irrelevant to me as I don't subscribe to exactly the same theory as David Percy. If I did I would be cataloguing all of these so-called intentional flaws on my web site this very day. But I'm not.

The case which you go on to make here clearly highlights a partially faulty path of reasoning but it has no bearing as to what I myself am asserting. However, considering AstroMike's response, I wonder if anyone will take notice of that.

Squirm: I guess the point I am making is that if this were a simple training exercise then why such an emphasis on reduced gravity?

Jay: I like my answer best: not a lot of practical experience went into the performances in early Bond films.

That's certainly the easy answer. But I'm not so sure. I still find that bit where he attempts to block his escape quite odd and very possibly intentional. It's as though he was told to stay "in character".

You mentioned earlier that the astronauts ended up complaining as much of their training was performed publicly, to a larger or lesser extent. This whole sequence was far from public. Notice the sign on the security locked doors.

I guess we could argue what these scenes were meant to depict all day long. It just irritates me slightly when everybody instantly affirms the positive without giving any meaningful consideration.

Squirm: The whole scene depicts something more, if my honest opinion.

Jay: Well, in my honest opinion you're arguing as if you really, really want to believe this is a whistle-blow.

That is not the case, it really isn't. Read over my messages from the beginning. I just thought this scene was very interesting. I kind of knew there was no way of getting to the bottom of it all. What has kept this going is that what I just touched on a second ago: people jumping straight into defensive and scoff mode! When people start scoffing I feel the need to illustrate my case further still.

Jay: You're simply not thinking rationally. You're grasping at straws to reach the predetermined conclusion.

Codswallop!

Jay: As we've seen, the entire conspiracy theory phenomenon tends toward trying to tie together apparently unrelated events and causes with purely conjectural scenarios.

They are not always unrelated events, but often the ultimate theory is conjectural. Unless we are given access to secret (black) government files we can't prove anything.

Sigh.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Squirm on 2002-02-13 11:46 ]</font>

Valiant Dancer
2002-Feb-13, 04:31 PM
On 2002-02-13 10:50, Thumper wrote:


On 2002-02-13 10:07, DaveC wrote:
"The holes in this hypothesis are big enough to fly a space shuttle through.".....

.....It seems there are only a few of us left that weren't part of the conspiracy. I have to wonder why I'm being kept in the dark. What harm does NASA, or the US government think I could cause by being included with the other billion or so who were part of pulling this off?


Now that's funny. Could we just get the short list of the few people who were not involved?


Sure.

1) The person who refers to him/herself as "SeeThruArt"
2) Art Bell
3) The producers at FOX
4) The myriad HBers who go forth everyday to "show the TRUTH(TM)" Much like Miss Cleo.

odysseus0101
2002-Feb-13, 04:48 PM
Now that's funny. Could we just get the short list of the few people who were not involved?


I am not now, nor have I ever been, involved with any government conspiracy. Nor do I have any knowledge of such conspiracy, other than that publicly available, and if I did have knowledge that is not publicly available I would not be at liberty to discuss it.

odysseus0101
2002-Feb-13, 05:00 PM
That is not the case, it really isn't. Read over my messages from the beginning. I just thought this scene was very interesting. I kind of knew there was no way of getting to the bottom of it all. What has kept this going is that what I just touched on a second ago: people jumping straight into defensive and scoff mode! When people start scoffing I feel the need to illustrate my case further still.


I don't think any of us jumped into scoff mode immediately. We gave the idea that this scene could be a subtle whistle-blow the .05 seconds of consideration it deserved, then we carefully and rationally entered scoff mode. Just to make sure I'm following things here: We are in fact talking about a James Bond movie, right?! This whole argument seems like that game in which one connects Kevin Bacon to anybody through a maximum of seven people. Screenwriter X worked for Producer Y who knew Ian Fleming who worked for Mr. Z at MI6 who worked with Dr. N at NASA who was involved with the Apollo program. By this sort of logic any one of us could easily claim to be within the direct line of succession to several European monarchies.

Squirm
2002-Feb-13, 05:12 PM
Donnie B: Come on, Squirm, it's only a movie!

Yes, it's only a movie. But please understand that my current conclusion isn't based on a single questionable scene in a James Bond movie.

Squirm
2002-Feb-13, 05:13 PM
Jay: There is no evidence that the creator of that scene could have had any inside knowledge. That kills the hypothesis right there.

But have we even looked for suitable evidence? Do we even know what sort of acquaintances the author had?

Jay: Ian Fleming is a plausible whistle-blower at prima facie. Richard Maibaum is not. Therefore there is no whistle-blow. Full stop.

Have you received a responce from Richard Maibaum? Your unequivocal statement would seem to suggest so.

AstroMike
2002-Feb-13, 06:17 PM
Squirm, I'm somewhat disappointed. It seems you're trying to defend the whistle-blower hypothesis, but not defending Percy's. Once again, I don't think you have been paying attention on why the whistle-blower theory simply doesn't work.

Squirm: Subtle whistle-blowing may be less effective, but it is certainly not a figment of our imagination.

Unfortunately, it's a figment of Percy's imagination, which he concocted to seem more plausible, but it doesn't work in the real world. NASA is highly secured, and that thousands of breaches of security doesn't seem plausible. So, as of Jay pointed out, the whistle-blower theory doesn't really change anything. The basic assumption is still that NASA is very careless and lazy.
Other conspiracy theorists such as Bill Kaysing and Bart Sibrel don't believe in the whistle-blower theory.

johnwitts
2002-Feb-13, 08:36 PM
Ok, the film was 'Sneakers'. They both had Dan Ackroyd in didn't they? That's quite good for me! Thanks for the correction. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Isn't there a Moon scene in Superman, where one of the Astroactors gets kicked into orbit? Is this an intentional Whistle-Blow?

JayUtah
2002-Feb-13, 08:41 PM
Aye, and I immediately acknowledged that in my first posting to this thread. You will find no argument from me here.

Except that you're still trying to argue that Diamonds Are Forever contains a whistle-blow, and you seem oblivious to why it's not likely to be.

You're trying to borrow Percy's argument, and you seem oblivious to why it doesn't work in your case. To wit:

Could they not have been provided with insider information, alerted to untoward goings on or used by other persons to put across a subtle message, perhaps?

Completely specious. The point is not whether they could or couldn't have insider information. The point is that you have to prove that they did have it. You can't assert your point on the basis that I can't disprove it.

Ian Fleming is widely known to have been involved in the intelligence community. His experience forms the knowledge base on which the Bond novels were written. Thus without needing to prove it, you or Percy can say it's plausible Fleming had some kind of inside knowledge.

Richard Maibaum is a screenwriter. It is not common knowledge whether he was an intelligence insider. It is likely that he was not, since nothing that is commonly known about him steers us in that direction. He may have been, but since your hypothesis is the one that rests on his being an insider, it's your responsibility to prove that he actually was. You can't simply assert it on the grounds that someone is unwilling or unable to prove that he wasn't an intelligence insider.

And I don't disagree with that, but was it not yourself who questioned that "desire" by earlier stating "subtle sabotage intended as whistle-blowing is an invention of conspiracy theorists"? You are now slightly contradicting yourself.

No, you're misunderstanding me. Or perhaps we're misunderstanding each other.

I don't question the desire to undermine a coerced objective. In fact, my principal objection to the whistle-blower theory is based on that being a universal desire. So universal, in fact, that the people doing the coercing know about it and are watching for it.

What I question, then, is the assertion that the hypothetical Apollo whistle-blowers went ahead and did the obvious -- undermining the accuracy of the record by intentionally introducing flaws. What I argue to be an invention of the conspiracy theorists is the notion that such a well-known (albeit subtle) form of sabotage should actually be attempted.

The railway example doesn't really apply. You can't usually tell by looking that a bridge abutment is weak. In fact, testing construction is a hard thing to do. Lots of things look strong until x-rays of the welds or partial load tests prove otherwise. So the point you're alluding to -- the immediacy of punishment -- applies here. Once a train derailment had been attributed to poor construction, the workers would be long gone and untraceable.

Forging five-pound notes or Apollo photographs is purely a visual endeavor. And just as the people charged with forging the fivers knew that their sabotage could be easily detected by their captors, the hypothetical Apollo whistle-blowers would know that sabotaged photographs would be easily detected by those in charge of running the hoax. The immediacy of detection and punishment is assured. Plus, an Apollo hoax would not be a chaotic enterprise. Records would be kept of who did what.

Subtle whistle-blowing may be less effective, but it is certainly not a figment of our imagination.

The issue is not whether it was contemplated, but whether it was carried out. If it's unlikely that your subtle whistle-blowing will have any beneficial effect, but it places you in personal danger simply to attempt it, then efficiency is irrelevant. You're talking about mortal counterproductivity. You don't risk your life on a whim. Arguing that hundreds or thousands of people did just that is what makes the whistle-blower theory a figment of the conspiracy theorists' imagination.

It so squarely violates the rules of risk-benefit analysis that it's considered intuitively foolish. The consequences of failure are enormous, the likelihood of failure is great, and the probable benefit of success is very low.

I'm not Percy and I'm not interested in his entire hypothesis.

Then stop using his arguments. His arguments fit his conclusions, not yours.

Percy believes many insiders were actively encoding such messages for future generations to unravel. Whereas I do not.

What, exactly, then is your hypothesis? You seem to have developed a habit of making arguments that seem to go nowhere. Is it your hypothesis that this scene is the only whistle-blow? How many other alleged anomalies do you believe are whistle-blows?

The question here is are they in immediate danger? Could they be led out into a court yard and lined up against a firing wall within minutes, like those prisoners you have made reference to?

No, that is not the question. The question is whether these people had reason to believe their actions would have fatal consequences. Whether an execution occurs summarily or months hence is irrelevant. If people's actions are believed to be punished by death (immediate or otherwise), you must expect those people to behave as if that was their belief.

It is argued that the alleged whistle-blowers are still afraid today of behind killed for speaking out. Under that allegation, it makes no difference whether the alleged whistle-blowers believed the danger of death was immediate or deferred. The conspiracy theory says both apply.

If your argument differs then please clearly state it.

This also clearly distinguishes the railroad example from the Apollo whistle-blower theory. The conspiracy theory argues that the threat of punishment still exists for Apollo hoaxsters today. It does not exist for those who worked on the railroad, and likely stopped existing once they were moved to another project.

This clearly establishes different motives for the two groups of workers. The railroad workers could take an additional risk because they correctly believed the detection interval was short-lived. The conspiracy theory states that the detection interval for Apollo whistle-blowers is still in progress; they can still be caught and punished. You don't take a risk if you will spend the rest of your life fearing the consequences.

In the case of Percy anybody contacting him would at least have the opportunity to pass on vital information, so to this end a whistler-blower would be successful.

No. If they could contact Percy now, they could have contacted Sen. Mondale or any of NASA's other powerful enemies back then. The entire basis of trying to explain alleged anomalies as whistle-blows is the notion that this was the only way they could get their message across. All other avenues were cut off by fear of death.

I can't believe you're so blindly devoted to Percy's way of thinking. You may reject various elements of his hypothesis, but you're falling into the same broad pitfalls of reason that he does.

It is no longer a matter of much debate whether Percy is a genuine researcher. His behavior during the past two years has clearly shown him to be a flim-flam man. His references to anonymous whistle-blowers whom he refuses to name, yet from whom he publishes testimony which appears to support his conclusion, are anonymous because they don't exist. In fact, David Percy has provided absolutely no evidence that any of his hypothetical whistle-blowers exists.

To which whistle-blowers are you now referring. Those who have contacted Percy or those whom he claims have left deliberate message in the Apollo media?

To both, but since you say you're not defending Percy, it doesn't much matter why I say this. Instead of invoking Percy when he's convenient and running from him when he's inconvenient, you owe us a clear statement of your hypothesis. It's not enough to simply claim you don't subscribe to Percy.

I very much doubt they would be forced to do things at gun point.

But that brings up another material objection to the whistle-blower theory. We can gladly concede that someone might consider subtle sabotage. We might also consider that they'd be foolish enough to attempt it at the risk of getting caught and punished by death.

But how to go about doing it is a different matter. Many of these alleged whistle-blows would have occured on a stage filled with people. A potential whistle-blower won't know who's sympathetic to his ideals. He can't trust anyone else. Yet the whistle-blower theory says he was able to carry out his sabotage under just such circumstances.

As you say, codswollop.

I'm not really here to defend someone else's hypothesis, I'm here to defend my own.

Then before we go much further you need to write a nice long post telling us just what exactly your hypothesis is. If you keep referring to Percy's arguments, how else are we to know you're not subscribing to his conclusions?

Yes, it makes sense in this particular instance.

I don't buy your argument that the white fiver example is materially different from the alleged Apollo whistle-blowers. I don't buy your argument that the subverted railroad is materially similar to the alleged Apollo whistle-blowers.

why is he suddenly seen to be "larking about" if he manages to reveal and propagate the message of wrongdoing behind NASA's back?

I'm trying to understand your argument. You seem quite anxious to tell me what your argument isn't, but reluctant to tell me what it is.

You appear to be backing away from the notion that the alleged Apollo whistle-blowers were laboring under the threat of imminent death. If the threat didn't exist then the driving force behind the sabotage evaporates. If there is no express or implied consequence for spilling the beans, then a conscientious whistle-blower could just march up the hill and tell Congress, or get an appointment with Walter Cronkite.

Without the imminent threat of punishment there is no reason to subvert the hoax in the way it is claimed was done. Putting subtle "anomalies" into photographs would be just a diversion or a game, not a well-disguised cry for help.

What make no sense is your attempt to undermine my argument.

I am your opponent. It's my job to undermine your argument where I believe it to be logically flawed.

If I was proper skeptical I would say you are intentionally blurring the line between my hypothesis and David Percy's, so that your rebuttal appears to carry more weight then it otherwise would.

I am intentionally blurring nothing. You invoke Percy's evidence and it's only now after your indignant objection that we learn you don't subscribe to Percy's conclusions. It is not I who am deliberately confounding your argument, I believe it is you who are deliberately concealing it.

Just as with the moon rock argument on ApolloHoax, your conclusion seems to change with every post. Please just write a post that gives your argument. Then we won't have to irritate you by guessing at it.

Now I restate the question I asked, to which you responded with this dodge. Please explain how whistle-blowing of any type could occur in a well-funded, highly secure enterprise.

It's as though he was told to stay "in character".

Toward what end? What good would it do in any scenario to have the astronaut remain in character and pantomime reduced gravity? It's well established that the Bond films were poorly written, poorly directed, and poorly acted. The money went to build the sets.

You're affirming the consequent. You must deal with the notion that not everything an actor does is oriented toward the plot. It's more plausible to believe the actor was told once by the director that he was playing an astronaut in a simulation and that he should mimic reduced gravity. He may not have been directed to behave otherwise while reaching for Bond, so he followed the direction he'd been given. Movie directors don't always adjust every detail, especially in Bond films where other pressures apply.

This whole sequence was far from public. Notice the sign on the security locked doors.

Irrelevant. Actual Apollo training was well documented and thus familiar to audiences in 1971, which is likely why the scene was included -- eye candy to Apollo enthusiasts. If Broccoli wanted to depict a closed-set simulation contrary to NASA's practice, that's his business. You need to separate why things might have been done for film marketing purposes from why things might have been done for dramaturgical purposes.

I just thought this scene was very interesting.

But you've gone on at length to develop "interesting" into a whistle-blow.

They are not always unrelated events, but often the ultimate theory is conjectural.

Often? Try "always".

Unless we are given access to secret (black) government files we can't prove anything.

But conspiracy theorists don't generally do well with the facts that are already available. You can't build a case on selective examination of public information and then say that you can't be sure until you have access to more information. Deal first with all the information that's already available.

The complaint that confirmatory evidence isn't (and will never be) forthcoming is just a red herring to distract from a poor handling of the existing evidence.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-13, 09:09 PM
But have we even looked for suitable evidence?

Who's "we"? You're the one making the argument, therefore it's up to you to prove Richard Maibaum had the kind of inside knowledge that would make him a whistle-blower.

Do we even know what sort of acquaintances the author had?

No, and that's precisely why your argument fails. We know what kind of acquaintances Ian Fleming had: his colleagues in the intelligence trade. The same argument will work for Maibaum if you can show that he had similar colleagues. But you can't simply co-opt the Fleming argument and make it work for Maibaum without establishing for Maibaum the things that make it work for Fleming.

Have you received a responce from Richard Maibaum?

Of course not. He died in the mid 1990s and I don't trust seances.

But I find it disappointing that you didn't seem interested in finding Maibaum's co-writer and trying to get the story from him. That's what I'm doing. That's what you should be doing.

I can't stress enough that if you want it to believed that Richard Maibaum had the same kind of intelligence contacts that Fleming had, it's your responsibility to prove it, not our responsibility to prove he did not. (In fact, it cannot be proved that he did not.)

Your unequivocal statement would seem to suggest so.

My statement was not unequivocal. It was qualified with "prima facie", meaning that I can accept it as plausible -- without examining additional evidence -- that Fleming had insider intelligence information. I know he worked in the intelligence trade and maintained his contacts there throughout his life. Since I have no such information for Maibaum I cannot accept it as plausible -- without additional evidence -- that he too was an intelligence insider. I know that Maibaum worked as a screenwriter. There is no natural connection between screenwriting and intelligence.

Far from being unequivocal, my statement correctly identified the difference between the insider argument applied to Fleming and the same argument aplied to Maibaum.

It now falls to you to prove the proposition that Richard Maibaum likely had, or actually had (not simply may have had) insider intelligence information that would have made him a genuine whistle-blower.

johnwitts
2002-Feb-13, 09:14 PM
So, according to the Whistle Blow hyposisis, the technicians who introduced all those 'mistakes' into the Apollo record must now be being identified, hunted down and killed, now that their deliberate sabotage has been unearthed. David Percy has a lot of blood on his hands.

AstroMike
2002-Feb-13, 09:24 PM
Squirm: I am not promoting the Ian Fleming angle. Quite the opposite, in fact. So your dismissal is completely uncalled for.

Then why are you promoting the David Percy angle when you have admit you're not really interested in him? You're trying rip off his arguments and claim their your own. But Percy says Ian Fleming has inside knowledge for the whistle-blow. Jay and I have already proven that he didn't. You're basically using his argument and leaving Fleming out.

Percy has zero evidence for his mythical whistle-blowers (as Jay has mentioned), and so do you.


_________________
"The contemplation of celestial things will make man both speak and think more sublimely and magnificently when he descends to human affairs." -Marcus Cicero

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-02-13 16:30 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Feb-13, 11:34 PM
David Percy has a lot of blood on his hands.

If they were real people he would.

Remember when Percy argued that his unnamed "insider" at Grumman had told him the LM simply could not be landed if the pilot couldn't see the surface? From that Percy argued that the landing films were thus obviously falsified because they showed blowing dust that obscured the surface, making a successful landing impossible according to the supposed VFR limit.

But of course the detailed design documents for the LM clearly show an intertial attitude indicator (the "eight-ball"), radar altimeters, and differential radar drift indicators. These are the tools a pilot requires to land solely on instruments.

Further, we have the testimony of LM designer Tom Kelly who unmistakably states that the LM design criteria established by NASA called for instrument landing capability.

We also have the testimony of simulation supervisors who drilled the astronauts on landing the LM on instruments.

And finally we have the testimony of Apollo astronauts who clearly stated they had landed the LM using the instruments.

Okay, so who cares?

It matters because every piece of evidence we can hope to examine for ourselves universally points to the right answer: The LM was capable of landing on instruments. There is a gargantuan amount of evidence that establishes this.

The only "discrepancy" in this whole issue is that which Percy introduces himself by means of his unnamed, unverifiable "whistle-blower". Why aren't we allowed to question Percy's witness? Because, says Percy, his life would be in danger if his identity were known. But Percy wants us to believe him anyway, despite the fact that we don't know who he is or what his qualifications are, that his testimony runs squarely counter to every other bit of testimony whose authenticity is not in question, and that he just happens to be telling the story Percy wants told.

David Percy, like every other conspiracy theorist, is an expert at evading tests of his evidence.

But this raises two important questions, one of which is relevant to the current topic.

First the less relevant conclusion. This whole episode smacks of being manufactured. It's far more parisomonious to believe that Percy simply fabricated this "expert" out of thin air; that he really does not exist and that's why his testimony is so favorable to Percy, so contrary to all other evidence, and why we're not allowed to question him. If this is true, it means that Percy is quite willing to make up out of whole cloth whatever "expertise" he needs to push the argument into impasse. It also means we cannot implicitly trust Percy and his "experts". If he is willing and able to fabricate one witness, then all his witnesses must be verified and corroborated; we can no longer assume they really are experts.

Second, we now wonder why an erstwhile whistle-blower would bother with David Percy. With all due respect, nobody knows who he is. He can't protect them. Why don't they go to Mondale (who still hates NASA)? Or to Ralph Nader, who is a powerful non-governmental figure? Or to a foreign media? Why would they bother with an obscure filmmaker in Great Britain?

Is their cause advanced? Do they get more information out that way? Sure, you could argue that they want to encourage Percy, to confirm that he's on the right track. But what does Percy do in return? He says, "I've been contacted by these whistle-blowers and they tell me I'm on the right track."

Now if you're a devious NASA official and you read that, and you know who was working on the project, the very first thing you're going to do is go out and see where all your former collaborators are. You know someone is leaking the story, and you're strongly motivated to find out who it is and plug the leak.

If you're a former conspirator, are you going to trust your life to David Percy, who's telling everybody he can find that you're there and talking to him? Percy seems to know nothing about how to protect a journalistic source, yet he asserts that people are trusting him with their testimony.

Thus the alleged whistle-blowers don't stand to gain much by talking to Percy. Their evidence given through Percy is meaningless unless it can be corroborated or attributed. And because Percy tells the whole world every time some alleged whistle-blower talks to him, talking to him would increase their exposure and chances of being caught and punished.

Percy, on the other hand, stands to gain much by having the world believe his alleged whistle-blowers are talking to him. The evidentiary value for Percy is not what the alleged whistle-blowers say. If they were real and were feeding him good inside information, he'd protect them by not mentioning how he acquired the information. But since he overtly tells everyone he's getting information from insiders, the evidentiary point for Percy is that he can point to something which ostensibly establishes the existence of whistle-blowers. It's not what they tell him, it's that he can say, "I have spoken to whistle-blowers, therefore they exist." Percy breaks the rules of journalistic confidentiality because the only thing he's interested in is being able to say these people exist.

Another nail in the coffin is the fact that Percy is a latecomer. If these conscientious conspirators really exist, then they would have existed back in 1974 when Kaysing wrote his book, or in the 1980s when Rene wrote his book, or in the 1990s when Collier and Percy wrote. All these people were saying, "It was faked, it was faked." Yet none of these alleged whistle-blowers seems to have walked up to Kaysing or Collier and said, "Well done, old chap, you're on the right track."

Funny, isn't it, how the alleged whistle-blowers only come out when someone writes a book specifically mentioning whistle-blowing, and in such a way and at such a time and with such stories that benefit that author and none of the others.

How convenient that these people come forward at exactly the right time to exactly the right person -- to Percy and no one else -- to corroborate Percy's story and be visible just to the point of helping him out, but not quite to the point of being examined and therefore disproven. How convenient that they say what Percy needs to be said, regardless of all other fact. How convenient that they do all this at considerable risk to themselves with nothing apparently to gain.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-14, 12:03 AM
Percy has zero evidence for his mythical whistle-blowers (as Jay has mentioned), and so do you.

Well, it's even worse than that.

I tried to bring up the idea of subverted support, but Squirm just dismissed it as being relevant to Percy but not to him. While we're waiting with bated breath for Squirm to elucidate exactly what he believes about Apollo whistle-blowers, I'll elaborated on the concept of subverted support.

Basically it's the fallacy of trying to explain something that isn't there.

In order for there to be a whistle-blower, there must be something about which to blow the whistle, i.e., a conspiracy to falsify the moon landings. We need to know first that there was a falsification before we can quibble about what form that falsification took.

Most conspiracy theorists argue that an actual landing was impossible for various reasons. Percy and Rene argue that the radiation was too strong. That's preposterous; neither of them knows enough about radiation to even understand the argument much less defend it.

In Squirm's case that's a red herring. I believe I can fairly summarize his opinion. He believes that the engineering infrastructure never adequately recovered from the Apollo 1 fire, hence NASA invoked a sort of Plan B by which the landings would be falsified. Okay, that's a separate and lengthy argument. If someone wants to start a thread on it, I'll discuss it. Or you can all visit apollohoax.com where it's an open topic.

Needless to say Squirm's argument doesn't convince me. Thus I don't agree there is a reason why the Apollo landings needed to have been falsified. No reason, ergo no conspiracy. Ergo no elaborate scenario is required to explain the conspiracy.

More subverted support.

Squirm is talking about a whistle-blow he believes is in Diamonds Are Forever, and he's careful to point out that it's not attached in any way to the official Apollo record.

Others point to alleged anomalies in the record itself which are supposedly the work of people hired or contracted by NASA. It is argued that these are intentional mistakes to alert people that something is amiss. But the problem is that they're only "anomalous" because the expectations of the conspiracy theorists are scientifically wrong. The "mistakes" are actually what we should expect to see in bona fide lunar photographs.

No anomalies, ergo no need to explain anomalies, ergo no whistle-blowers.

But since Squirm doesn't necessarily believe in anomalies in the record, or in whistle-blowers as the cause of those anomalies, we'll just have to wait for his more lucid expostulation.

johnwitts
2002-Feb-14, 12:06 AM
Another example of a film meant to portray a real event is 'The Dambusters'. There was a bit of 'unwhistle-blowing' in this film. The scenes where the bombs bounce look to have 'superimposed' bombs, yet the water splashes look like the real thing. This puzzled me because the shape of the bomb was also wrong in the film. The Dambusters raid used a cylindrical bomb, yet in the film the bombs look spherical. I found the reason for this on IMDB. The footage was actual RAF footage of real bomb tests, using cylindrical bombs. The filmakers had to superimpose the spherical bomb shape over the top of the real bombs because the whole thing was still classified at the time of making the film. Hence the real water splashes.
Another little known fact. Origionally the bombs were cylindrical depth charges with a wooden sphere built up around them held with steel bands. They had trouble dropping the bombs from the origional low height, as the splash created could tear the tailplane off the bomber. When they tried dropping from a greater height, the wood and steel just smashed to peices and dropped off. They thought they had a real problem until they noticed that the cylindrical bomb just kept on going and bounced just at well as the spherical one. They just went ahead and used the unmodified cylinder shape to great effect. This example goes to show that all the predictions in the world won't make up for a bit of practical experience.

Squirm
2002-Feb-14, 04:54 PM
Squirm: Aye, and I immediately acknowledged that in my first posting to this thread. You will find no argument from me here.

Jay: Except that you're still trying to argue that Diamonds Are Forever contains a whistle-blow,

No. I am arguing that 'Diamonds Are Forever' could contain a whistle-blow. There is a difference. A difference you all seem to have missed.

Jay: You're trying to borrow Percy's argument,

No, I am not. With you being well acquainted with Dark Moon, I would say you have misconstrued my argument and dealt with it in much the same way as you have addressed David Percy's hypothesis. This goes for AstroMike and John Witts, too.

Squirm: Could they not have been provided with insider information, alerted to untoward goings on or used by other persons to put across a subtle message, perhaps?

Jay: Completely specious. The point is not whether they could or couldn't have insider information. The point is that you have to prove that they did have it.

A moment ago such possibilities were swept aside as though they were utterly ridiculous. Now it is plausible but invalid, as I am unable to prove that this was the case. But seeing as I'm not looking to prove this was the case I will accept that.

Jay: You can't assert your point on the basis that I can't disprove it.

I don't mean to state anything as a matter of fact, merely provide an avenue of possibility.

I'm not selling anything here. I'm not saying this is how things were. In this particular thread all I am doing is keeping you people honest. Think about it. I'm not trying to change minds here. That's never going to happen.

Jay: Richard Maibaum is a screenwriter. It is not common knowledge whether he was an intelligence insider. {snip} You can't simply assert it on the grounds that someone is unwilling or unable to prove that he wasn't an intelligence insider.

But I am not asserting anything. At no point have I stated categorically or declared Maibaum to be an intelligence insider. I have merely presented an alternative avenue of thought with: "Could he not have been provided with insider information, alerted to untoward goings on or used by other persons to put across a subtle message."

I am not stating anything with absolute authority.

Squirm: And I don't disagree with that, but was it not yourself who questioned that "desire" by earlier stating "subtle sabotage intended as whistle-blowing is an invention of conspiracy theorists"? You are now slightly contradicting yourself.

Jay: No, you're misunderstanding me. Or perhaps we're misunderstanding each other.

Well, I certainly feel that I am being misunderstood, that is for sure.

Jay: What I question, then, is the assertion that the hypothetical Apollo whistle-blowers went ahead and did the obvious -- undermining the accuracy of the record by intentionally introducing flaws.

This relates to Percy's theory and this is almost certainly where wires have been crossed over. You are tackling my arguments with this very much in mind, whereas my focus has simply been on a possible whistle-blow in 'Diamonds Are Forever' by someone who has gone unobserved.

Jay: What I argue to be an invention of the conspiracy theorists is the notion that such a well-known (albeit subtle) form of sabotage should actually be attempted.

Well, that's different from what went before and I don't think I would have argued as vigorously as I did if you phrased it like this from the outset. We are actually in agreement on a number of things, although I do have a theory which takes into account a number of other possibilities but I'm not looking to expand on them until it's clear you know where I've been coming from all along.

Jay: The railway example doesn't really apply. You can't usually tell by looking that a bridge abutment is weak In fact, testing construction is a hard thing to do. Lots of things look strong until x-rays of the welds or partial load tests prove otherwise.

The railway example wasn't meant to substantiate any part of my argument, I merely mentioned it in agreement with your point that people forced to work against their wish will attempt to undermine the work they are carrying out.

Squirm: I'm not Percy and I'm not interested in his entire hypothesis.

Jay: Then stop using his arguments. His arguments fit his conclusions, not yours.

I'm not using his arguments, I'm using mine. I will put it to you again that I have been misunderstood and that I am unjustly being tarred with the same brush.

With this in mind I will ask you once again to go over my contribution from the beginning, now that I have attempted to clarify my position.

Squirm: Percy believes many insiders were actively encoding such messages for future generations to unravel. Whereas I do not.

Jay: What, exactly, then is your hypothesis? You seem to have developed a habit of making arguments that seem to go nowhere.

This is certainly a storm in a teacup, but it's not exactly my fault. I have tried to highlight a distinction and I have even highlighted the fact that I tried to highlight a distinction. Yet you all seemed to have missed it. To quote myself:

"One can fully understand why those men ultimately chose not to embed an obscure message as their lives were in immediate danger and there was very little chance of their ingenuity ever seeing the light of day. But what of someone who is far removed, and who is just wanting to hint at the truth? Surely that is not such an impossible scenario."

Jay: Is it your hypothesis that this scene is the only whistle-blow?

It is my hypothesis that this scene is possibly a whistle-blow.

Jay: How many other alleged anomalies do you believe are whistle-blows?

I believe Neil Armstrong may be alluding to something with his "there are places to go beyond belief" speech. And there are a few other comments by astronauts which are open to interpretation.

Jay: I can't believe you're so blindly devoted to Percy's way of thinking. You may reject various elements of his hypothesis, but you're falling into the same broad pitfalls of reason that he does.

I disagree. I simply try to take into consideration as many different scenarios as possible. You have identified a major concern in the field of whistle-blowing, but I see that you tend to get stuck and quite often your hypothesis doesn't allow much room for other possibilities. I could address the points you've just made by doing just that, introducing other possibilities, but then I would need more information from Percy as to the relative importance of the information he received and at exactly what point.

Squirm: To which whistle-blowers are you now referring. Those who have contacted Percy or those whom he claims have left deliberate message in the Apollo media?

Jay: To both, but since you say you're not defending Percy, it doesn't much matter why I say this. Instead of invoking Percy when he's convenient and running from him when he's inconvenient, you owe us a clear statement of your hypothesis.

My argument has been clear all along. It was really quite simple one too. It's there for all to see on page 1 (Posted: 2002-02-12 13:35).

If things have gotten complicated then that is because you lot are obsessed with David Percy!

Squirm: why is he suddenly seen to be "larking about" if he manages to reveal and propagate the message of wrongdoing behind NASA's back?

Jay: I'm trying to understand your argument.

You may be trying too hard.

Jay: You seem quite anxious to tell me what your argument isn't, but reluctant to tell me what it is.

I'm not reluctant, I just thought it was plain for all to see.

Jay: You appear to be backing away from the notion that the alleged Apollo whistle-blowers were laboring under the threat of imminent death.

I'm not backing away. It has been my belief for some considerable time that the people working towards such a goal would be doing so willingly.

Here is one of my earlier postings to this board (scroll down to post 33):

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=440&forum=3

This affirms what I have not long echoed in this very thread.

Squirm: If I was proper skeptical I would say you are intentionally blurring the line between my hypothesis and David Percy's, so that your rebuttal appears to carry more weight then it otherwise would.

Jay: I am intentionally blurring nothing. You invoke Percy's evidence and it's only now after your indignant objection that we learn you don't subscribe to Percy's conclusions.

When did I invoke Percy's evidence? It appears to me as though you have assumed that I subscribe to Percy's conclusions. It also seems that you folks are so repulsed by previous whistle-blowing allegations that there is no room for any other discussion on the subject. And I get the feeling that I am an outlet for your distaste and being pummeled through no fault of my own.

I am not David Percy, I am a free man!

Just as with the moon rock argument on ApolloHoax, your conclusion seems to change with every post.

No, my conclusion there remains the same, but I later shared some of my other observations with you. Are you mistaking the two?

Jay: Please just write a post that gives your argument.

I do! It's just that I often discuss other areas of contention at the same time. I'm not cryptoman. Am I?

Jay: Now I restate the question I asked, to which you responded with this dodge. Please explain how whistle-blowing of any type could occur in a well-funded, highly secure enterprise.

You are asking me to uphold David Percy's theory, right? I'm not sure I want to do that. I could elaborate as to other means of getting a message across behind their back, but under the conditions you have painted it wouldn't be so easy, and as we have both agreed any efforts are most likely to be met with failure.

Jay: Toward what end? What good would it do in any scenario to have the astronaut remain in character and pantomime reduced gravity?

It's curious and suggestive for starters.

Squirm: I just thought this scene was very interesting.

Jay: But you've gone on at length to develop "interesting" into a whistle-blow.

I've gone on at length why it could be a whistle-blow.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Squirm on 2002-02-14 12:03 ]</font>

odysseus0101
2002-Feb-14, 05:41 PM
I've gone on at length why it could be a whistle-blow.


After all this it seems that you are merely claiming that there is no Law of Physics against the theoretical possibility that the scene in "Diamonds are Forever" could be a whistle-blow. On that I think we can all agree.

I suggest that this argument could be continued in a clear and distinct manner if we all examine this matter in the following way:

1) Agree that there is no Universal Law against the theoretical possibility that this scene is a whistle-blow. As I said, I think we can all agree on that. There can be no a priori determination regarding the intentional character of this scene (and I mean a priori in the strict philosophical sense, as in before all experience, as a pure pre-reflective cogito).

2) Go back to the facts on which such a hypothetical whistle-blow could be based, as Jay indciated earlier. There can be no whistle-blow if there is no hoax. What is your stance on the moon hoax in general? That is what must be decided before we argue about this scene.

3) If you think that the moon landings were faked, then we can get into the intentional character of this scene.

Squirm
2002-Feb-14, 05:57 PM
Jay: I believe I can fairly summarize his opinion. He believes that the engineering infrastructure never adequately recovered from the Apollo 1 fire, hence NASA invoked a sort of Plan B by which the landings would be falsified.

I'm convinced they were behind schedule, most definitely. I belive the early landings were staged to appease almost everybody and to acquire that much needed preeminence in space. I am willing to concede that man has perhaps landed on the moon. In any case, I don't believe Neil Armstrong was the first man.
"When I ask HBs (we have a couple here at work) what additional evidence NASA should have collected in order to convince them that the moon landings were real, they have no answers. Basically, they acknowledge that the record was as complete as could reasonably be expected - but they still maintain that it was all fake. My position is that the planning and execution of 6 faked landings, with all the detailed evidence that can withstand (and has witstood) every challenge, would involve many years and require thousands of people with inside knowledge. Surely that reality would have forced NASA to scope the evidence to a few bits and pieces that could be perfected if the intent was to provide a fake record. Camera failures, missions cut short for technical reasons and reentry burnups are just a few of the things that NASA could use to limit the evidentiary record to a controllable quantity. But they didn't do any of that .."
-- DaveC
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

RE: Dambusters:

Did you know that within official circles this mission was actually far less successful than we were led to believe? The powers that be totally exaggerated the damage and turned the whole thing into a propaganda victory!



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Squirm on 2002-02-14 13:01 ]</font>

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Feb-14, 06:38 PM
On 2002-02-14 12:57, Squirm wrote:
I'm convinced they were behind schedule, most definitely. I belive the early landings were staged to appease almost everybody and to acquire that much needed preeminence in space.

But then you need to tell just what it is that leads you to that belief. Being behind schedule at some point does not mean they couldn't make the 1969 deadline, and does not necessarily mean they had to fake the missions.

So what evidence leads you to suspect the early missions were faked?

AstroMike
2002-Feb-14, 07:09 PM
Squirm: No. I am arguing that 'Diamonds Are Forever' could contain a whistle-blow. There is a difference. A difference you all seem to have missed.

Where have you been Squirm? You're still hung up on why Diamonds Are Forever could contain a whistle-blow, despite the fact Jay says there is no evidence that the creators of this scene had inside knowledge for a whistle-blow. You're haven't been attention again.

I would say you have misconstrued my argument and dealt with it in much the same way as you have addressed David Percy's hypothesis. This goes for AstroMike and John Witts, too.

I don't understand you. You're basically using the premise of Percy's hypothesis with not including Fleming.

But I am not asserting anything.

But you're still asserting that Diamonds has a whistle-blow. You're speculating a bunch of conjecture which goes nowhere.

I'm not using his arguments, I'm using mine.

No, you're using Percy's arguments and claim their your own. That's plagiarism. If you want present something that is your own, don't include Diamonds Are Forever. That's Percy's.

It is my hypothesis that this scene is possibly a whistle-blow.

Once again, you're lost.

I've gone on at length why it could be a whistle-blow.

But that doesn't matter. Jay has gone on length on why this couldn't be a whistle-blow, and more, such as Maibaum's co-writer, which he trying to get in touch.

_________________
"The contemplation of celestial things will make man both speak and think more sublimely and magnificently when he descends to human affairs." -Marcus Cicero

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-02-14 15:18 ]</font>

AstroMike
2002-Feb-14, 07:23 PM
Squirm: I belive the early landings were staged to appease almost everybody and to acquire that much needed preeminence in space.

Which early landings specifically? You can't argue the early landings didn't occur and that later ones did. It doesn't work that way. Once you take out one link, the others become disturbed.

In any case, I don't believe Neil Armstrong was the first man.

Then who do you suppose was the first man? You think Neil went under four years of intensive training for nothing?

_________________
"The contemplation of celestial things will make man both speak and think more sublimely and magnificently when he descends to human affairs." -Marcus Cicero

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-02-14 15:23 ]</font>

Squirm
2002-Feb-14, 08:34 PM
The Bad Astronomer: But then you need to tell just what it is that leads you to that belief. Being behind schedule at some point does not mean they couldn't make the 1969 deadline, and does not necessarily mean they had to fake the missions.

So what evidence leads you to suspect the early missions were faked?

This is something I am doing now for presentation on my site. I am putting everything down on paper and arranging it so it makes sense. Structuring things is actually tuning out to be harder than I thought. I am also waiting on a friend so I can upload various bits of video to better state my case (but he's just been locked up for 6 months!).

I'm not trying to dodge your question, it's just that it would be considerably easier for me to finish this off first and then point you to it than start pasting dribs and drabs here.

Squirm
2002-Feb-14, 08:35 PM
Squirm: No. I am arguing that 'Diamonds Are Forever' could contain a whistle-blow.

AstroMike: Where have you been Squirm? You're still hung up on why Diamonds Are Forever could contain a whistle-blow, despite the fact Jay says there is no evidence that the creators of this scene had inside knowledge for a whistle-blow. You're haven't been attention again.

Are you under of the influence? You sound like it!

Yes, I have been paying attention. Jay may well have said that there in no evidence that the creators of this scene had insider knowledge, but in response I briefly questioned what he had done to ensure that he had no insider knowledge. I take it you missed that bit, then?

Squirm: I would say you have misconstrued my argument and dealt with it in much the same way as you have addressed David Percy's hypothesis. This goes for AstroMike and John Witts, too.

AstroMike: I don't understand you. You're basically using the premise of Percy's hypothesis with not including Fleming.

LOL. You're cracking me up.

Squirm: But I am not asserting anything.

AstroMike: But you're still asserting that Diamonds has a whistle-blow.

Assert vb: To state categorically; to insist upon; to declare or affirm as true.

Now please tell me, where am I doing any of that?

AstroMike: You're speculating a bunch of conjecture which goes nowhere.

I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I was going to present the smoking gun which would prove once and for all that the moon landings were fake.

Squirm: I'm not using his arguments, I'm using mine.

AstroMike: No, you're using Percy's arguments and claim their your own.

For heavens sake, not only have I acknowledged Percy's argument but I have clearly stated that I want nothing to do with it. How much clearer can I make that?

AstroMike: That's plagiarism.

Admit it. You're intoxicated. Aren't you.

If you what present something that is your own, don't include Diamonds Are Forever. That's Percy's.

I'm sorry, I didn't know Percy had copyrighted that questionable sequence and all resulting controversies.

Squirm
2002-Feb-14, 08:36 PM
AstroMike: Which early landings specifically?

Apollo 11, 12 and I even think Apollo 13 is suspect.

AstroMike: You can't argue the early landings doesn't occur and that later ones did. It doesn't work that way. Once you take out one link, the others become disturbed.

I don't follow.

Squirm: In any case, I don't believe Neil Armstrong was the first man.

AstroMike: You think Neil went under four years of intensive training for nothing?

Not for nothing, no. This man was still going into space. WHOA! Space. Just think about it. This man was still very privileged, indeed more so in 1969.

More to the point, I believe the early crews actually carried out phases and exercises that would assist the later mission(s). They didn't just go up there and say "Run VT".

____________________________________________
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur."

AstroMike
2002-Feb-14, 09:53 PM
Squirm: Are you under of the influence? You sound like it!

No, I am not. I make my decision after I have read your hypothesis and Jay's.

I take it you missed that bit, then?

I have not missed anything. You have misrepresented my points.

You're cracking me up.

Then I suggest you look over your hypothesis, and compare it with Percy's.

Now please tell me, where am I doing any of that?

You name it. Have you put much thought into your posts?

I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I was going to present the smoking gun which would prove once and for all that the moon landings were fake.

You have not proven anything. You're back to the same old trick of speculative conejecture. Jay has already give detailed points on why the whistle-blower theory fails and yours.

For heavens sake, not only have I acknowledged Percy's argument but I have clearly stated that I want nothing to do with it. How much clearer can I make that?

Then why does you arguments have a striking resemblance to Percy's?

Admit it. You're intoxicated. Aren't you.

No, I am not. I have never touched alcohol before, and I'll never will. You're being downright insulting, and I must remind you that this is a great way to get banned from this forum.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Feb-14, 10:10 PM
On 2002-02-14 15:36, Squirm wrote:
AstroMike: Which early landings specifically?

Apollo 11, 12 and I even think Apollo 13 is suspect.


If you have evidence for an Apollo 13 landing, then I will assert it was faked.

johnwitts
2002-Feb-14, 10:12 PM
RE: Dambusters:

Did you know that within official circles this mission was actually far less successful than we were led to believe? The powers that be totally exaggerated the damage and turned the whole thing into a propaganda victory!

Yes I did. The real damage was minimal. The German industry in the area was back up and running within a few weeks. However, the propaganda was worth it, as well as the resources the Germans had to divert to defend the dams against further attack.

With this Diamonds are Forever thing, yes, it could be a whistle-blow. However, it's not very likely. James Bond films have always been a bit 'Minxy' in their approach. They tend to poke fun at current serious events. It's just the British sense of humour. I still regard James Bond films as comedy dramas, rather than serious pieces of theatrical genius. It's a big like all those seriously implausible gadgets, really cool, yet totally unbelievable. I suspect they are meant to be taken as seriously as Star Trek, or Indianna Jones.

AstroMike
2002-Feb-14, 10:15 PM
I don't follow.

Allow me to explain. Your hypothesis suggests NASA couldn't make 1969 deadline, so they fake the first two landings. If they fake the first two landings, how can they bulid on experience by later ones? You probably should read the story of Apollo 10 before making your assumption.

This man was still going into space. WHOA! Space. Just think about it. This man was still very privileged, indeed more so in 1969.

Completely irrelevant. I should of specify that Armstrong's intensive training was for Apollo 11 specifically. Previous achievements from Gemini and later things after Apollo are not relevant in this case.

More to the point, I believe the early crews actually carried out phases and exercises that would assist the later mission(s).

Irrelevant. You may believe, but do you have any historical evidence? Until you do, I reject your argument.

_________________
"The contemplation of celestial things will make man both speak and think more sublimely and magnificently when he descends to human affairs." -Marcus Cicero

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AstroMike on 2002-02-14 17:35 ]</font>

Squirm
2002-Feb-14, 10:37 PM
Squirm: I take it you missed that bit, then?

AstroMike: I have not missed anything. You have misrepresented my points.

I don't know how. {shrugs shoulders}

Squirm: Now please tell me, where am I doing any of that?

AstroMike: You name it.

I can't, that is why I am asking for direction.

Squirm: I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I was going to present the smoking gun which would prove once and for all that the moon landings were fake.

AstroMike: You have not proven anything.

Yes, I know that. I was being a little sarcastic.

AstroMike: Jay has already give detailed points on why the whi...

No, please forget Jay for one moment. If you are going to point fingers then it's quite improper to do so while hiding behind somebody else.

AstroMike: why does you arguments have a striking resemblance to Percy's?

If you reappraise my contribution you will find that there are major differences between what I believe and that which David Percy believes.

I simply called attention to what I considered to be the earliest possible reference to the hoax conspiracy, and what may be a subtle whistle-blow. Whistle-blowing features heavily in David Percy's book, thus it's subtitle -- Dark Moon: Apollo And The Whistle-Blowers. As I stated earlier, in this particular case, I believe that it is conceivable for someone to have propagated the message of wrongdoing behind NASA's back. Percy's hypothesis is that the message of wrongdoing not only was encoded but accomplished right under the noses of clandestine forces. I let it be known very early on that, in the circumstances Jay cited, you would be hard pushed to achieve such an aim.

My points have been quite simple, really, and in my opinion people have over reacted to them.
Now, I challenge to go to bed tonight and not dream of David Percy!

Squirm: Admit it. You're intoxicated. Aren't you.

AstroMike: No, I am not. I have never touched alcohol before, and I'll never will. You're being downright insulting, and I must remind you that this is a great way to get banned from this forum.

Oh, lighten up, man.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Squirm on 2002-02-14 17:39 ]</font>

Squirm
2002-Feb-14, 10:50 PM
The Bad Astronomer: If you have evidence for an Apollo 13 landing, then I will assert it was faked.

You know what I mean. I don't believe Apollo 13 unfolded as it is said to have unfolded. For the record, nor does Jerry Woodfill, the warning system engineer who was first alerted of the explosion.


John Witts: Yes I did. The real damage was minimal. The German industry in the area was back up and running within a few weeks. However, the propaganda was worth it, as well as the resources the Germans had to divert to defend the dams against further attack.

I guess one of the underlying points I was attepmting to make is that governments will tell tales to futrther their cause.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Squirm on 2002-02-14 17:50 ]</font>

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Feb-14, 11:06 PM
On 2002-02-14 17:50, Squirm wrote:
The Bad Astronomer: If you have evidence for an Apollo 13 landing, then I will assert it was faked.

You know what I mean.

Yes, I was making a joke. I didn't put in a smilie, for some reason. I usually do.

But I'll note that there is a chill in the air in this thread. I'll remind all those involved, regardless of which side they're on, to take it easy. When tempers flare, I get upset. You don't want me upset.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-14, 11:21 PM
No. I am arguing that 'Diamonds Are Forever' could contain a whistle-blow. There is a difference. A difference you all seem to have missed.

We don't miss it at all. The difference is the heart of the debate. You can only provide conjecture, not proof of any kind. There is no limit to the number of things that scene could mean. An infinite number of interpretations is possible.

A number of posts have demonstrated this, that any number of scenes in any number of movies may be interpreted in any number of ways depending on the viewer's preconceptions and interests. It simply doesn't matter what it "could be". Since there are infinite "could be's" it only matters what you can prove.

No, I am not (borrowing Percy's
argument).

But most assuredly you are! You may not realize it, but the infinite number of possibilities available, for you to offer a whistle-blower theory nearly identical to Percy's -- simply substituting Maibaum's name for Fleming's -- and which is found nowhere else, has only one rational explanation.

It's not a misconstrual. Your argument differs from Percy's unique argument in only one particular. It just happens to be a very important particular as far as the validity of the argument is concerned.

Percy argues that the Diamonds scene may be a whistle-blow orchestrated by writer Ian Fleming. You argue that the Diamonds scene may be a whistle-blow orchestrated by writer Richard Maibaum. This isn't a common argument. You two are the only ones making such an argument. Percy wrote it first, and you've read Percy. By what stretch of credulity are we to understand you're not borrowing it?

Now it is plausible but invalid, as I am unable to prove that this was the case.

It is plausible at prima facie in Fleming's case, for reasons I've explained half a dozen times. It is not plausible at prima facie in Maibaum's case. I have provided evidence beyond prima facie which demonstrates that the Fleming argument is invalid. The Maibaum argument never was plausible.

But seeing as I'm not looking to prove this was the case I will accept that.

Are you conceding that you are unable to prove that Maibaum intended the Diamonds scene as a whistle-blow?

You must understand that we have no interest in idle conjecture. Either provide evidence or withhold the proposition. To do otherwise reflects badly on you, not on us.

I don't mean to state anything as a matter of fact, merely provide an avenue of possibility.

But there are countless such avenues. Thus only those which show promise interest us. You have, in fact, been endeavoring to show that your proposed avenue has some merit, but you are oblivious to why it is essentially unlike any of the countless other fanciful avenues. I might just as well suggest Maibaum was involved in the current Olympic judging scandal, for there is just as much evidence in favor of that as there is for your proposition.

I'm not trying to change minds here. That's never going to happen.

It would happen with well-reasoned arguments. We haven't seen any yet.

You say, essentially, "It's just a possibility; I'm not asserting anything." But you seem oblivious to the impliciations of your "possibilities", i.e., that lots of very talented an eminent people would have to be consummate liars if your possibility was true.

If I were to pick some eminent historical figure to whom you felt sympathy and say it's "possible" he was a child molester, but provided no evidence, I would be lynched.

But I am not asserting anything. At no point have I stated categorically or declared Maibaum to be an intelligence insider.

No, you're just weaseling around it but implying that he "might" be because no evidence has been presented that he wasn't. Conjecture is pointless.

I am not stating anything with absolute authority.

Maybe you should. "Soft" conjectural arguments are pointless. If there is indeed no evidentiary reason for us to travel down your avenue of thought, why not one that involves drug smugglers or space aliens? None of these has any evidence for it, but they're all more fun to talk about.

This relates to Percy's theory and this is almost certainly where wires have been crossed over.

Okay then. If, hypothetically, Maibaum had been given inside information, why would he reveal it in such a public way?

I believe Neil Armstrong may be alluding to something with his "there are places to go beyond belief" speech.

A matter of interpretation. There are countless avenues of interpretation open to you on this point.

What would Armstrong have to gain by having said what he said in the context in which you claim he said it?

And there are a few other comments by astronauts which are open to interpretation.

Again, interpretation. With countless avenues open, you rush immediately for the interpretations that favor a hoax. There's a trend.

I simply try to take into consideration
as many different scenarios as possible.

No, that is precisely what you are not doing. You are taking every opportunity for interpretation and applying a conspiracist preconception to it. You freely admit that you have no evidence for any of this, but that they are just "possibilities". But the common thread running through your "possibilities" illustrates your agenda.

In fact, each of your "possibilities" is very, very far down the list of probable explanations for each of these occurrences, yet these are the ones to which you are drawn time after time. How can we be assured you aren't simply trying to justify a conclusion you've drawn prior to examining the evidence?

If things have gotten complicated then that is because you lot are obsessed with David Percy!

Well, no, you have clearly presented Percy's argument with only very minor changes, and far more tentatively than he. One of us may have been the first to mention Percy by name, but the notion that Diamonds is a whistle-blow is Percy's argument. It's right there in black and white, and we know you read it.

I'm not reluctant, I just thought it was plain for all to see.

Your words are plainly visible, but their meaning and intent are not. You present an argument which differs from another well-known one by only one detail, then when appropriate responses are given you say we have not answered your argument. We are quite justified in asking where the dissimilar argument is.

It has been my belief for some considerable time that the people working towards such a goal would be doing so willingly.

Do you believe there was any threat of death given at any time to any of the hypothetical hoax workers?

People who are happy with engineering a hoax obviously need little or no oversight. But those who organize and plan hoaxes can't always be sure that those they engage to create the hoax are happy doing it, even if they seem to be.

Again, the nature of whistle-blowing requires that whistle-blowers operate under some material threat of punishment. Otherwise there is no whistle-blow.

When did I invoke Percy's evidence?

When you hypothesized that the creator of the scene in Diamonds did so with insider knowledge of a postulated moon hoax, and when you continued to imply that Maibaum "may" have had such insider knowledge despite the lack of any evidence to prove it.

I do! It's just that I often discuss other areas of contention at the same time.

Then that's not a clear expostulation. How are we to know what is relevant to your argument and what is verbal candy?

You are asking me to uphold David Percy's theory, right? I'm not sure I want to do that.

Then don't. It's sufficient to say, "I don't believe it's possible; I agree with you."

It's curious and suggestive for starters.

Curious why, and suggestive of what?

I've gone on at length why it could be a whistle-blow.

And finally admitting that it's only one of countless avenues of possibility, none of which has any evidence in favor of it.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-14, 11:36 PM
I'm convinced they were behind schedule, most definitely. I belive the early landings were staged to appease almost everybody and to acquire that much needed preeminence in space.

But you also freely admit that you are not an engineer, that you have no particular experience or expertise in the creation of aerospace technology or any sufficiently complex engineering enterprise.

People all over the world with eminent degrees and considerable industry experience have no problem believing that the Apollo program progressed beyond the Apollo 1 issues and toward a successful landing. What experiential or educational basis can you bring to bear on the issue? Your opinion differs from most others. Why is yours right and theirs wrong?

I'm an engineer. I hold a degree in engineering. I have worked in the industry for a number of years. In other words, I am prepared to entertain a discussion of any degree of complexity on this topic that you choose to offer. Can you provide an argument sufficient to convince engineering experts that your assessment of the Apollo endeavor is credible?

JayUtah
2002-Feb-15, 12:03 AM
<font color="ff0000">B.A.:</font>Being behind schedule at some point does not mean they couldn't make the 1969 deadline

One has to understand the complex relationship between the Block I and Block II spacecraft and where each was in its development in order to understand why the Apollo 1 failure had a limited effect on the program.

About 700 ECOs (Engineering Change Orders) were applied to the Block II spacecraft pursuant to recommendations following the Apollo 1 fire. Is that a large number? Non-engineers wouldn't know for sure.

In fact an Apollo command module contains about 1 million parts, comparable to a Boeing 757 airliner. It would not be uncommon on a project of that size at that time to have thousands of ECOs during development, and a hundred or so per year during producting and deployment.

So if we wish to answer the question, "How much did the Apollo 1 fire affect the design of the Block II spacecraft?" the answer would be, "Not all that much," compared to how much such a design changes normally during development, without the changes suggested by catastrophic failure.

In short, the Block I simply wasn't all that essential to the Apollo program, and therefore its failure didn't set back the development.

So what evidence leads you to suspect the early missions were faked?

It's very important to clearly understand this question.

First, we must have epistemological falsifiability. That is, the evidence which is given in favor of a hypothetical staged landing must be explainable only by such a hypothesis, and not also by any other.

Second, if one claims, for example, that all landings prior to Apollo 14 were staged, but all landings from Apollo 14 on were authentic, then the evidence one gives in favor of fraud must be there for the faked missions but not there for the authentic ones. You can't point to the same "anomaly" and say that one explanation applies in the fake missions and another one applies in the authentic ones.

I happen to know something about epistemology, so this could be fun.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-02-14 19:06 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Feb-15, 12:39 AM
<font color="ff0000">AstroMike:</font>You can't argue the early landings didn't occur and that later ones did.

It's important to understand why this argument doesn't work. Each Apollo mission built on the achievements of its predecessor.

The missions were divided up into categories, among which: F (dress rehearsal), G (first landing), H (initial exploration), and J (extended exploration). A category would not be "closed out" until its objectives had been accomplished, no matter how many actual missions it took. This was to ensure that the necessary skills had been acquired before moving on.

Apollo 10 was the F mission. Apollo 11 was the G mission, although it was not expected to succeed. NASA believed the G mission attempts might extend to Apollo 13 or 14. Had Armstrong aborted the landing, which almost happened, Apollo 12 would have been the G mission and Pete Conrad would have gone down in history as the first man on the moon.

As it was, Apollo 14 was the last H mission. As such it had additional mission requirements that didn't exist for the G missions: pinpoint landing, two EVAs, hybrid trajectory. All these things were possible only because prior missions had had easier objectives and had accomplished them. The G mission used a free-return trajectory, had no pinpoint landing requirement, and no EVA requirement. Yes, no EVA. The primary objective of the G mission was, quote, "To perform a manned lunar landing and return."

If it is argued that Apollo 14 was the first genuine landing, then we have to ask why a mission with H-level requirements succeeded without any valid prior successes?

Apollo 13 failed to meet its objective. Therefore Apollo 14 was tasked to duplicate its mission. That's how the system worked. The beauty of the Apollo program was this escalation of requirements, the notion that one mission built on top of the other.

In my opinion, Squirm's hypothesis is less probable given his asserted premise of unreadiness. To say they would have failed in a modest mission in 1969, but succeeded in a much more ambitious mission in 1971 doesn't make sense. To fly in 1971 they would have needed the data from easier flights.

You think Neil went under four years of intensive training for nothing?

Indeed a salient question. Armstrong clearly wasn't in it for the fame or the publicity. He doesn't want any of that.

Armstrong was a pilot. His passion was flying, not grabbing headlines. Why would he be attracted to a scenario in which he merely pretended to fly, when all around him qualified pilots were flying X-15s and high-performance aircraft?

Most of the astronauts quit after their flights because they couldn't take the pressure of training for more than a few years. That's how intensive it was. And it was pretty public, too. It's not as if they trained in secret. Why would anyone go through that knowing there was no point to it?

JayUtah
2002-Feb-15, 12:48 AM
Not for nothing, no. This man was still going into space. WHOA! Space. Just think about it.

I already have. This man had already been in space. Neil Armstrong had already earned astronaut wings before joining the Apollo program. He was an X-15 pilot.

He joined the Apollo program to enjoy the challenge of learning how to fly to the moon and land on it. Orbital flights would have given him nothing beyond the X-15, which was a more exciting spacecraft according to most.

I believe the early crews actually carried out phases and exercises that would assist the later mission(s).

What "phases and exercises"? Using what equipment? In what state of development? If, for example, you want to argue that lunar orbit rendezvous wasn't attempted until Apollo 12 or 13, then you have to answer why all the pertinent data suddenly became available after Apollo 10.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-15, 01:10 AM
Jay may well have said that there in no evidence that the creators of this scene had insider knowledge, but in response I briefly questioned what he had done to ensure that he had no insider knowledge.

Irrelevant. I have no obligation to do so. You, however, have an obligation to provide evidence that Maibaum did have such knowledge.

To answer your question, I have read everything I can find on Maibaum, which isn't much. I have read somewhat more on Broccoli and Mankiewicz. Nothing I have yet read mentions anything about involvement in the intelligence community. However, when I read about Fleming I can't get past the second paragraph without being told about Fleming's adventures in the intelligence trade.

Now I could do this forever. I could interview everyone who ever knew Maibaum. I could meticulously research his life and work. But unless I could prove to myself that I had exhaustively studied his life, without possibility of exception, I could not assert that he had no connections to intelligence. In short, it is not possible to prove that no such connection exists.

It is, however, possible to prove that one did exist, simply by finding evidence of it.

And what of prima facie? Pick a hundred people from different professions other than intelligence. See how many of them have prior experience in intelligence, or connections to the field. Few, if any I'll wager.

Thus it is quite appropriate to presume that someone does not have connections to the intelligence community until such a connection can be established by evidence. It's a reasonable supposition, and it provides an epistemologically sound scenario for investigation.

In short, I have no responsibilities here. If you wish us to believe that Maibaum had insider knowledge, then you must prove it. No one has the obligation to disprove it.

If you prefer simply to rest on the notion that Maibaum "may" have had insider knowledge, then it's simply a waste of time. It's equally valid and useless to say that Maibaum "may" have been a space alien, that he "may" have been a child molester, or that he "may" have been Billie Holiday's love child.

You're asking us to take absurdity seriously.

I have clearly stated that I want nothing to do with it (Percy's argument). How much clearer can I make that?

You must make it abundantly clearer.

David Percy argues that the scene in Diamonds Are Forever may be a whistle-blow. You argue that scene in that film may be a whistle-blow. How can you possibly not want anything to do with it when your claim is substantially the same?

I'm sorry, I didn't know Percy had copyrighted that questionable sequence and all resulting controversies.

Then you had better review Percy's arguments, the forms in which they are given, and the copyright notices which are attached to them. "All resulting controversies" is not the issue. The fact that you have argued Percy's argument with only one difference is hardly mistakable.

johnwitts
2002-Feb-15, 01:26 AM
Squirm, I have never worked for the Intellegence Services, yet I could never prove this fact. I could never prove I don't know the words to the Japanese National Anthem. If you suspect that I have and I do, then it's up to you to prove it. I can't prove the negative. In fact, it's impossible to prove a negative in general. No two snowfalkes are the same shape. This is regarded as true, but it can never be proved without checking every snowflake that ever fell with every other. Clearly an impossible and impractical task. It would be possible however to prove this statement is wrong. Just find two snowflakes the same. Any two would do, and the statement is falsified. All you have to do is find a connection between the writers of Diamonds are Forever and the intellegence services. Easy. Then we'd all shut up.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-15, 03:23 AM
For the record, nor does Jerry Woodfill, the warning system engineer who was first alerted of the explosion.

For the record, hundreds of other experts who were also there and who are more qualified than Woodfill on the particular systems involved, disagree with him. There are plausible reasons for why Apollo 13 happened the way it is said to have happened.

Woodfill's web page is

http://www.ghg.net/woodfill/TRACT13.html

I urge you to read it carefully, because it's not necessarily what you think.

Woodfill's first point: The oxygen tank could have exploded at any time. Well, yes and no. Some of the conditions which caused the fire were present at launch -- even prior to launch. Other contributing factors such as the degree of tank depletion and stratification of contents took time to develop.

His point is that had the explosion occurred earlier, it would have been fatal because they didn't have enough consumables to get back. Had it occurred later, it would have been fatal because the LM would have been used for its intended purpose. Thus the time of the accident is somehow "convenient".

Codswollop.

The tank had to deplete to the point where it would stratify, then the bare wires could have arced. Prior stirs occurred before the tanks had fully stratified. That explains why it didn't occur earlier.

Once that condition had developed, we would expect the next instance of the initiating event -- the arc -- to cause the accident as soon as the conditions were right, not several stirs down the road. Tank stirs don't occur all that often. That explains why it didn't occur later.

But now Woodfill makes this great leap of faith and says that because this (and subsequent items) are so improbable and suspicious, Apollo 13 was meant to have a different outcome. It should have had a different outcome. Therefore the sequence of events in the mission was not due to chance, but according to some plan.

More on this down the page.

Woodfill's second point: The hatch would not close. His analysis is based on the unsupported assertion that the hatch was "perfectly designed". Nothing on a spacecraft is ever "perfectly" designed. We could argue that lots of things on a spacecraft ought to be "perfectly" designed, yet every mission has a discrepancy list. Apollo 14's docking mechanism was supposed to be "perfectly designed" too, yet it failed. Apollo 16's engine gimbal was a Criticality 1R component, yet it failed too. The notion that critical components should never fail (especially under exceptional conditions) is absurd.

Postulate a somewhat alarmed astronaut fumbling with a hatch in zero gravity, when the hole in which that hatch goes is fluctuating under mechanical stress pursuant to O2 venting and RCU corrections in degraded performance.

Says Swigert, "While Jim and I were trying to do this , I misaligned it in the tunnel and we didn't get it in the first time." (Apollo 13 Technical Crew Debriefing, item 8.0)

In fact the problem was not that the hatch did not close, as Woodfill argues, but that the hatch was not being operated correctly, and understandably so. When it was dogged later in the flight, under less urgent circumstances, it worked perfectly.

Analogously, if you were being chased by a vicious dog and you fumbled with the key to your front door and couldn't properly align it because you were panicked, would you say that the key or the lock malfunctioned? Would you say this was a "suspicious" failure?

Point three: The power system simulation failed when the proposed LM-to-CM jump was simulated. But the jump actually succeeded.

Simple answer. The simulation is unfaithful. Lots of simulations fail when presented with extraordinary circumstances. Simulations can only represent what they are designed ahead of time to represent.

Point four: An unexplained drift in the CLSM stack which mysteriously went away.

An injured spacecraft vents. A spacecraft that vents, drifts.

Since spacecraft don't normally vent uncontrollably, they don't normally drift. Hence none of Apollo 13's guidance behavior can be considered normal. Therefore the cessation of venting and drifting can't be regarded as "mysterious".

If you're reading the web page, and the rest of Woodfill's site, you're probably getting the picture. The "unseen author" Woodfill credits with changing the "natural" flow of events for Apollo 13 is God. Woodfill found religion as a result of his involvement with Apollo 13, not an odd thing to have happen.

So my response sounds like I'm pitting science against religion and stomping all over this man's faith. Not in the least. If Woodfill wants to hypothesize that a little girl's prayer stopped Apollo 13 drifting, I certainly can't provide any counterevidence which disputes that.

No, we have to consider the evidence in the way I believe Squirm intended it. While he may or may not agree with Woodfill's conclusion regarding divine intervention, he likely agrees with the premises of Woodfill's argument, and instead applies them to the conclusion that Apollo 13 did not unfold as it "should" have and therefore may have been falsified.

Unfortunately, examining Woodfill's points from a purely scientific and engineering point of view, they don't necessarily present an implausible scenario. There are quite credible reasons for why these supposedly "improbable" things happened.

Improbability is a difficult thing to deal with in failure analysis. Part of my design engineering training is in failure analysis. I'm not one of the world's experts on it, but I do happen to know one of the world's experts on it: Charles Perrow.

The essence of system failure is precisely the combination of improbable events. You can say that an improbable chain of events led to the safe return of the astronauts. And I can turn right around and say that an improbable chain of events led to the accident in the first place. You can say that had one little thing been different, the astronauts would have been doomed. And you'd essentially be right. But I can turn around and say that if one little thing had been different, they wouldn't have been in danger in the first place.

So if you want to try to explain the improbable, you have to deal with [i]all the improbables, not just the ones that fit your pet theory. Woodfill's hypothesis fails scientifically (even given the existence of God as an axiom) because while it suggests that God effected an "improbable" rescue, it fails to account for an equally or more improbable failure.

Okay, back to Perrow and Squirm.

We have contested the notion that the elements of the mission recovery were improbable.

The creation of a single downmoded spacecraft from the functional elements of two spacecraft actually resulted in a somewhat less complex system. Simpler systems have less chaotic function and are more deterministic and predictable. Perrow notes that the downmoding of the mission was supported by four complete expert teams working around the clock with intimate knowledge of the systems involved.

The downmoded spacecraft was optimized for one thing: crew survival. All the other objectives were rescinded. Therefore the improvisation of a new mission with a new spacecraft system concentrated only on a few critical systems.

The resulting engineering construct was loosely coupled and linear, two very desirable characteristics for a complex system. Although the complexity was increased by operational unknowns and the lack of redundancy, it was decreased overall by the omission of noncritical subsystems.

Although it seems counterintuitive, Apollo 13 after the accident was a lean, mean, survival machine.

Perrow goes on to note that redundancies reappeared as the downmoded mission progressed, decreasing overall system complexity.

Okay, so what does all this engineering-speke mean? A system which is loosely-coupled, linear, and simple is better understood and more tolerant of (subsequent) failure. That means mission controllers and astronauts can more easily grasp the meaning of new failures and have more slack in which to devise solutions.

The versatility of the Apollo spacecraft is legendary. The "spares in place" paradigm meant there were many ways to configure the spacecraft to accomplish any given task. The contingency planning is also legendary. We don't do much contingency planning anymore, but Apollo contingency plans were elaborate and exhaustive. Although the LM Lifeboat scenario was a bit dusty, the fact that it had been studied, simulated, and had procedures written for it is fortunate.

(cf. Perrow, Normal Accidents, pp. 271-281.)

AstroMike
2002-Feb-15, 04:22 AM
Squirm: I don't know how.

You have misrepresented my points because you think I have not read your hypothesis and I don't know what talking about.

I can't, that is why I am asking for direction.

Then perhaps we should go back to the top.

Assertion #1: I am arguing that 'Diamonds Are Forever' could contain a whistle-blow.

Assertion #2: It is my hypothesis that this scene is possibly a whistle-blow.

Assertion #3: I've gone on at length why it could be a whistle-blow.

Does this help?

Yes, I know that. I was being a little sarcastic.

Then why are you insulting me when have you admit that?

No, please forget Jay for one moment. If you are going to point fingers then it's quite improper to do so while hiding behind somebody else.

All right, I'll forget about Jay. But you're still pointing fingers at Diamonds to cover yourself. I'm not trying to hide behind somebody else on purpose.

If you reappraise my contribution you will find that there are major differences between what I believe and that which David Percy believes.

All right, your hypothesis is different than Percy's, but not that different. The foundation for it is basically the same layout as his.

Now, I challenge to go to bed tonight and not dream of David Percy!

I'm not trying accuse you of being obsessive with David Percy, but you seem intrigued by his theories.

Oh, lighten up, man.

No, you lighten up. You think I don't appreciate your hypothesis. Well, I don't, but I do not think it is a joke. You should put more thought into it, with a lot more originality.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-15, 05:58 AM
All right, your hypothesis is different than Percy's, but not that different. The foundation for it is basically the same layout as his.

I think Squirm believes he's thinking substantially differently from Percy because Percy's allegation regarding Diamonds Are Forever is supposedly offered in the larger context of alleged whistle-blowers from inside NASA. Squirm, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily subscribe to the NASA whistle-blower theory and so isn't necessarily equating his version of the argument to Percy's version.

Unfortunately the context is largely irrelevant. Percy's Diamonds argument doesn't have much to do with the context of NASA whistle-blowers, so it really doesn't matter that Percy believes in NASA whistle-blowers and Squirm doesn't. And so it doesn't matter that Squirm might believe his hypothesis is different enough from Percy because the putative context is different. The argument is the argument, and the context -- in either case -- doesn't matter.

But it does mean that the argument against general whistle-blowing is not very applicable to this topic. If the context is indeed irrelevant then the debate on the context is commensurately distracting. It made sense when it appeared Squirm was subscribing fully to Percy, but not anymore.

So we have the following:

1. The lunar surface facsimile scene in Diamonds Are Forever. It comes down to: (a) second-guessing the dramaturgical or subtextual intent of the scene, (b) demonstrating the writers' insider knowledge, and (c) interpreting the behavior of the actors in the scene. (a) is most likely answered by (b), while (c) may be lost to us forever. In any case, it's Squirm's ball on that point.

2. The radiation-related dialogue in Diamonds. We have to examine the juxtaposition of that dialogue as well as the same interpretational issues as in (1) above. However, we know that the radiation argument in the moon hoax theory is a red herring. It's based on a completely broken notion of radiation. Therefore I plead subverted support here. The interpretation of the scene as a whistle-blow on radiation presumes some conceptualization of radiation on the part of the writer/insider that is congruent with the conceptualization in the moon hoax theory. Unfortunately we know the latter to be wrong, so it's unlikely that a knowledgeable insider will have the same broken conceptualization as the moon hoax. Insider knowledge and scientifically flawed knowledge are somewhat mutually exclusive.

3. Changing horses, we have statements by Neil Armstrong and as yet unnamed others which can supposedly be interpreted as whistle-blows. This, however, constitutes a NASA whistle-blow, so all the arguments against general NASA whistle-blowing return, along with specific arguments in each of these cases. Again we deal with interpretation, and again other interpretations not only exist, but are more plausible. Armstrong's statement is the common metaphor of scientific discover as a process of "uncovering" what is "hidden". As soon as we are told what other astronaut statements are in question and the context in which they were made, we can examine them.

Squirm
2002-Feb-15, 01:56 PM
Jay: We don't miss it at all. The difference is the heart of the debate. You can only provide conjecture, not proof of any kind.

I must say that I am a little surprised that you were all expecting so much of me. I am sorry if I have somehow led you all to believe that I could deliver something more substantial than my own hypothesis.

Jay: It simply doesn't matter what it "could be". Since there are infinite "could be's" it only matters what you can prove.

I can't prove anything. I just thought I would present a different spin on things. At no point did I promise anything more.

Squirm: No, I am not (borrowing Percy's argument).

Jay: But most assuredly you are! You may not realize it, but the infinite number of possibilities available, for you to offer a whistle-blower theory nearly identical to Percy's -- simply substituting Maibaum's name for Fleming's -- and which is found nowhere else, has only one rational explanation.

I can assure you I didn't enter into this with the intent of borrowing or hijacking some previous deliberation while just substituting one persons name for another. I actually thought that my own opinion was defined enough to be distinguishable. I wasn't aware either that once a topic had been put forward you must first, as a prerequisite, distance yourself from what you find erroneous about it, acknowledge who has made that argument before, and clearly define your own belief before you could submit any other points of view.

Jay: Your argument differs from Percy's unique argument in only one particular.

One particular is quite unfair.

Jay: Percy argues that the Diamonds scene may be a whistle-blow orchestrated by writer Ian Fleming. You argue that the Diamonds scene may be a whistle-blow orchestrated by writer Richard Maibaum.

It was never who authored the scene that interested me. It was the very fact the scene did exist that interested me. The author is of almost of no consequent. So if that is one departure it is merely secondary.

Jay: Percy wrote it first, and you've read Percy. By what stretch of credulity are we to understand you're not borrowing it?

I guess it's much the way in which you accuse me. In every post (bar your last) you didn't acknowledge where my argument is different. You didn't acknowledge where my belief was different. I have spelt it out to yourself and even defined it but yet you didn't acknowledge it. I acknowledge that people being observed will likely fail in their attempts, you ignore this and accuse me of ripping off Percy! I make a distinction early on that this case is somewhat dissimilar in that any message passed on would have been done so behind NASA's back. Yet you ignore this, accuse me and tar me with the same brush you would Percy!

Jay: Are you conceding that you are unable to prove that Maibaum intended the Diamonds scene as a whistle-blow?

Did at any point I claim I could prove otherwise? Again, I'm sorry if I have given anyone the impression that I could. If you were wanting me to concede this point earlier I would have done so.

Jay: You must understand that we have no interest in idle conjecture.

Well, this has gone on longer than even I would have liked. The thread would have died a death if so many garbled arguments didn't break out.

Jay: Either provide evidence or withhold the proposition. To do otherwise reflects badly on you, not on us.

Gladly.

Jay: You have, in fact, been endeavoring to show that your proposed avenue has some merit, but you are oblivious to why it is essentially unlike any of the countless other fanciful avenues.

Well, I thought there was some merit to those areas that had particular emphasis. Their ultimate meaning -- as to what it is depicting -- is still something I can't be certain of.

Jay: You say, essentially, "It's just a possibility; I'm not asserting anything." But you seem oblivious to the impliciations of your "possibilities", i.e., that lots of very talented an eminent people would have to be consummate liars if your possibility was true.

The lying would be justifiable in the eyes of those who knew the chief objective of the Apollo programme. That's one of many reasons why I have temporarily uploaded this document (http://www.night-sun.co.uk/loveandwar.htm).

In my hypothesis they would have to live with the lie, of course, but I believe it could be managed.

Jay: If I were to pick some eminent historical figure to whom you felt sympathy and say it's "possible" he was a child molester, but provided no evidence, I would be lynched.

That's a very serious charge and, unlike the hoax theory, one anybody is likely to take seriously whether it be true or not. If you were found to be making the allegation up for the sake of it then, then yes, you would likely be lynched, and justifiably so in my opinion. But I'm not making these charges up for some malicious reason. I'm not saying this because I am board, or that I enjoy chatting with people. I'm saying it because I genuinely believe something is amiss. I am hugely skeptical.

Okay then. If, hypothetically, Maibaum had been given inside information, why would he reveal it in such a public way?

I'm not sure I understand your point.

Squirm: I believe Neil Armstrong may be alluding to something with his "there are places to go beyond belief" speech.

Jay: A matter of interpretation. There are countless avenues of interpretation open to you on this point.

I can think of two main postulations. He is either talking about the exploration of space in an oracular manner or he is hinting at a higher truth. His emotions are worthy of note, I feel.

Jay: What would Armstrong have to gain by having said what he said in the context in which you claim he said it?

Nothing forthwith. A committed audience is not going to think any other way. It's something they are sure to interpret one way only. But I can't help but feel he is laying down a foundation for future meaning. You can live with a lie if the truth you are protecting is a justifiable one, and you can manage your life around it, but you may not always like it.

That's my take, anyway. I have no proof that this is the meaning of his words.

Squirm: And there are a few other comments by astronauts which are open to interpretation.

Jay: Again, interpretation. With countless avenues open, you rush immediately for the interpretations that favor a hoax.

I weigh these things up in my mind. I don't just rush in and blindly grab what I can, smash and grab style. I have dropped many things after due consideration.

Jay: There's a trend.

I won't deny that I look at things in a different light than most people otherwise would, but that doesn't mean I ignore every other likelihood. I don't. Although I have fallen into the trap of not being exhaustive enough when examining the evidence, that's another reason why I'm less vocal elsewhere now.

Jay: each of your "possibilities" is very, very far down the list of probable explanations for each of these occurrences,

I would perhaps accept that if it came from an outsider and somebody less passionate about space exploration.

Jay: yet these are the ones to which you are drawn time after time. How can we be assured you aren't simply trying to justify a conclusion you've drawn prior to examining the evidence?

I initially made that mistake. I even admitted as much on ApolloHoax.com. All I can say about the same time you I bumped into you I had already started to remove the chaff from the wheat.
I don't think anyone can remain in a state of ignorance after corresponding with yourself for the best part of a year. In one sense that should be proof enough.

Jay: Well, no, you have clearly presented Percy's argument with only very minor changes, and far more tentatively than he. One of us may have been the first to mention Percy by name, but the notion that Diamonds is a whistle-blow is Percy's argument. It's right there in black and white, and we know you read it.

I have read very few pages of Dark Moon. I know the scene features in his video. Yet I have seen references to this scene -- in the hoax context -- elsewhere along with references to Capricorn One. Like I said somewhat sarcastically earlier, I didn't know David Percy had copyrighted that sequence and all resulting controversies.

I'm not the cheer leader you are trying to make me out to be. I recalled this sequence and simply argued what I thought was a plausible scenario. My scenario lacked any proof, I accept that. I can accept that this is perhaps why things escalated out of control early on. I will be more wary of that in future.

Jay: People who are happy with engineering a hoax obviously need little or no oversight. But those who organize and plan hoaxes can't always be sure that those they engage to create the hoax are happy doing it, even if they seem to be.

I would envisage a similar scenario to that of many other secret facilities/projects. The CIA or NSA aren't going to pick Joe Bloggs up off the street and say "Come on, let's go make an Atom Bomb!". The people at the core would have been privy to decision making from an early stage. Reminders of why they would be taking the action they were would be incessant. As would be the need for none disclosure. Something like this would shape their lives. I know people find such a scenario hard to imagine -- let alone accept -- but that's quite often because they are taking this theory and playing it out in this current day and age. Back in the 60's loyalty wasn't so much an uncertainty back then, it was almost a given! I myself don't believe that anybody engineering a hoax would have done so if they did not believe they would be making a genuine attempt sometime after.

But to answer your question -- what was your question? -- er, yes, the threat of death would be something not far very far away. As it always is with clandestine forces.

Squirm: I've gone on at length why it could be a whistle-blow.

Jay: And finally admitting that it's only one of countless avenues of possibility, none of which has any evidence in favor of it.

I thought I made that obvious from the start.

I will state it again as to be sure. I didn't mean to dither and waste everybody's time. I could offer no proof to corroborate the whistle-blower hypothesis, I thought that was obvious. I feel that this thread deteriorated for a number of reasons and I explained why I went on longer than I perhaps should, after people immediately started to knock me. I'll be careful to avoid that pitfall and try not to participate in idle conjecture, even if the nature of the forum tends to lean that way in future.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Squirm on 2002-02-15 09:21 ]</font>

odysseus0101
2002-Feb-15, 02:51 PM
Jay: each of your "possibilities" is very, very far down the list of probable explanations for each of these occurrences,

Squirm: I would perhaps accept that if it came from an outsider and somebody less passionate about space exploration.


Squirm, I'm a humanities guy and a complete outsider to space exploration. It does seem reasonably clear that the possibilities you have proposed are very far down the list of probable scenarios.

Please allow me to attempt to re-state your position, just so I'm sure I know what you are saying: You do not claim to have any proof that the "Diamonds" scene is a whistle-blow. You simply suggest that the possibility that it is a whistle-blow is not outside the realm of the possible (just as it is possible, but radically unlikely, that Cambridge U Press will pick up my first book, or that the International War Crimes Tribunal might find Milosevic not guilty on all counts). As I said earlier, I agree completely with you that there is no a priori impossibility of the scene constituting a whistle-blow. I don't really think we need to be arguing about this, because it seems that we all agree on this matter.

Squirm
2002-Feb-15, 03:48 PM
odysseus0101: I'm a humanities guy and a complete outsider to space exploration. It does seem reasonably clear that the possibilities you have proposed are very far down the list of probable scenarios.

When Jay said "each of your possibilities" I took him to mean everything I have argued out with him, here and elsewhere. The interpretation of various astronauts comments, Thomas Ronald Baron, the Apollo 1 recovery, etc etc.

You do not claim to have any proof that the "Diamonds" scene is a whistle-blow. You simply suggest that the possibility that it is a whistle-blow is not outside the realm of the possible

That's it in nutshell.

As I said earlier, I agree completely with you that there is no a priori impossibility of the scene constituting a whistle-blow. I don't really think we need to be arguing about this, because it seems that we all agree on this matter.

Well, that much is clear now. But it was less so at the beginning. Like I said, this is a storm in teacup. I no longer wish to argue what the 'Diamond Are Forever' scene is or is not meant to depict. It wasn't pivotal to my larger hypothesis anyway. The whole thing has been a massive headache.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-15, 08:53 PM
I must say that I am a little surprised that you were all expecting so much of me.

It's surprising to expect someone to stand by his statements?

Tell you what. Next time you get an urge to mention an improbable hypothesis that has no proof, just preface it with, "I don't have any evidence for this, but ..." It works for me.
I just thought I would present a different spin on things.

Granted, but the mere act of mentioning something is advocating it to some degree. Your hypothesis is tantamount to an accusation. It's in poor taste to level accusations without evidence.

I can assure you I didn't enter into this with the intent of borrowing or hijacking some previous deliberation ...

Okay, but do you realize now why people were invoking counterarguments against Percy to deal with your arguments?

One particular is quite unfair.

It depends what you understand your argument to be. Percy, for example, doesn't discuss the radiation dialogue.

In one sense your argument differs only superficially from Percy's. In another sense it differs substantially. Percy's is more plausible, even though it's known to be wrong.

It was never who authored the scene that interested me. It was the very fact the scene did exist that interested me.

Granted, but it was the known characteristics of the author which made Percy's argument more credible. You essentially retain everything from Percy's argument, but you change (or ignore, if you prefer) the one point that makes his version of the argument even remotely plausible.

How you want to approach the argument for your own purposes is your business. Just understand that there's no reason to believe the scene has to depict a hoax staging, and no reason to believe the author of the scene had appropriate insider knowledge. These are premises that you must establish if you want to assert your conclusion. Which, apparently, you don't want to do, so logical analysis is academic at this point.

In every post (bar your last) you didn't acknowledge where my argument is different.

It didn't seem that different because you've spent most of the subsequent time arguing the parts that are the same.

You didn't acknowledge where my belief was different.

I did once you clarified your belief.

The thread would have died a death if so many garbled arguments didn't break out.

True. That's why a clearly stated argument up front -- prefaced, if necessary, with qualifiers -- is a very good way to introduce oneself into a thread.

The lying would be justifiable in the eyes of those who knew the chief objective of the Apollo programme.

Irrelevant. Those whom you accuse indirectly of lying may not, in fact, be liars and may resent the implication. And others may resent it on their behalf. Whether lying is justified is not at issue. We're still laboring over whether the lying actually occurred.

First establish that it did happen, then try to explain why it may have happened.

That's a very serious charge and, unlike the hoax theory, one anybody is likely to take seriously whether it be true or not.

You're exceptionally foolish and historically ignorant if you believe conspiracy theories lack the power to harm. Millions of Jews were exterminated because of a conspiracy theory.

Yes, child molestation is a serious crime, and it's a crime against a person. But misappropriation of public funds to the tune of billions and lying to Congress about it is also a serious crime, notwithstanding it would be against property.

The point is not whether the crimes are comparable or serious. The point is that an unsupported accusation is not something easily tolerated.

If you were found to be making the allegation up for the sake of it then, then yes, you would likely be lynched, and justifiably so in my opinion.

And in mine.

If you say you are skeptical, I agree that you behave as if you were skeptical. But your conclusion isn't supported by anything except your interpretation of events. And when we look at how you interpret various events, there's a common thread running through it. And that thread is imposed on all the events and circumstances you bring up.

It doesn't look like you have genuine concerns. It looks like you have a pet theory and you're trying to spread it on everything which, to you, looks amiss.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

Let's suppose the screenwriter of Diamonds, whoever he may be, were known to have possessed insider knowledge. What would have motivated him to reveal that information in the film by writing a scene that parallels it?

I can think of two main postulations. He is either talking about the exploration of space in an oracular manner or he is hinting at a higher truth.

Either of these can refer to scientific inquiry. We discussed this at length elsewhere. You were not really able to convey any reason for why this statement is best interpreted as Armstrong saying there was a deep dark secret to the Apollo program.

You try like hell to impose a certain mindset on Armstrong's speech regardless of how ill-conceived it is. There is nothing obscure or hidden about Armstrong's opinion on the hoax theory. He says he thinks it would have been harder to fake than to actually accomplish, and I agree. He also says he is "materially offended" at the accusations implied by the hoax theory.

His emotions are worthy of note, I feel.

Worthy of note isn't impressive unless you can do more than guess at the reasons behind emotional displays. It's consummate affirmation of the consequent.

I have no proof that this is the meaning of his words.

It's obviously impossible to prove what the meaning behind someone's words is. Even if you go to Armstrong and ask him, he can always lie.

But there is a happy medium between saying his words mean exactly this or that, and saying that they could mean almost anything. Based on what we know about the context of his statements and his life and personality, we can rule certain hypotheses to be relatively plausible or implausible.

I won't deny that I look at things in a different light than most people otherwise would, but that doesn't mean I ignore every other likelihood.

It's not that you look differently at things. It's that you appear to look exactly the same way -- i.e., with a conspiracist preconception -- at these various things, whether the imposition is justified or not.

I would perhaps accept that if it came from an outsider and somebody less passionate about space exploration.

Who says I'm passionate? I'm knowledgeable, not passionate.

And if you look at my treatments of your interpretations, I don't really invoke space exploration. You talk about why actors do what they do, I talk about what I've observed actors to do. Nothing space-related there. You talk about Armstrong's speech, I talk about the nature of scientific inquiry.

In other words, I approach each of your interpretations with an argument appropriate to the context: filmmaking, science, etc. I'm not pushing the space exploration agenda. I'm simply examining your interpretations in a manner that seems suited to the context.

Few people believe in the moon landing hoax theory, and few people would entertain it as a premise for interpretation. I believe I'm justified in saying that the many ways of interpreting the points you've raised don't put hoax theories at the top of the list.

I don't think anyone can remain in a state of ignorance after corresponding with yourself for the best part of a year.

Thanks for the compliment. My approach has been exactly that: I aim to educate people to the point where they can weigh the evidence with clear thought and reasonable cross section of the applicable evidence.

Back in the 60's loyalty wasn't so much an uncertainty back then, it was almost a given!

No, it most certainly was not. Do you remember the 1960s? Good grief, the FBI had agents inside Grumman and other contractors posing as workers. Nobody was trusted.

The entire basis of institutional security and secrecy has been based on distrust -- even of one's own colleagues -- since the (U.S.) Civil War. There are several excellent books written by ex-CIA and ex-FBI agents.

I very strongly dispute the notion that the intelligence community of the 1960s was based on loyalty and thus precluded friendly surveillance.

But to answer your question -- what was your question? -- er, yes, the threat of death would be something not far very far away. As it always is with clandestine forces.

Then that raises the question why any whistle-blower, whoever he worked for and however his knowledge was obtained, would endanger his life by using subtle means of disclosure. The threat of death is either palpable, or it is not.

I didn't mean to dither and waste everybody's time.

It's not so much a waste of time. None of us is compelled to be here. But it's more a waste of intellectual effort. There was a debate where there should have been a discussion, and lengthy tangents interfered with a straightforward analysis.

JayUtah
2002-Feb-15, 09:07 PM
When Jay said "each of your possibilities" I took him to mean everything I have argued out with him, here and elsewhere. The interpretation of various astronauts comments, Thomas Ronald Baron, the Apollo 1 recovery, etc etc.

That's not what I intended. I meant only those which have arisen in this thread: Diamonds, Armstrong's statement, and what I understand you mean about other astronaut statements.

I wasn't necessarily including Baron, Apollo 1, or anything else in that statement.

We've discussed those points at length elsewhere.

Baron, I believe, committed suicide, and I based that belief on my interpretation of his work up to and including his testimony before Congress, and upon the fact that he exhibited at least two known risk factors for suicide.

We disagree on the meaning and scope of Baron's report and Gen. Phillips' report. I believe they are not proof that the project could not have succeeded by 1969.

And we disagree on the nature, scale, and pace of the recovery from Apollo 1. I maintain that the success of a Block I spacecraft was not essential to the development of a working spacecraft and program. On this and the previous point, you (Squirm) are limited by your relative inexperience with the engineering industry. This is why you will have an uphill battle, because many people eminently qualified to address the evidence you've presented so far have already reached different conclusions.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Feb-15, 10:51 PM
I think this thread has gone on long enough.

I have read through it, and I think that nothing more can be gained by pounding the same arguments.

Squirm: clearly, from the replies you have generated, you need to realize that any claim you make about Apollo will be met with a call for evidence. The people with whom you will be arguing have the bar set very high for these matters. A vague feeling or unsubstantiated claims won't fly. If and when you feel you have your thoughts in order, as well as your website, please come back and post again. And let me add that I am pleased that all parties involved kept the tone pretty civil. That is not always the case with these topics.

This thread is locked.