The Moon landings are a fact

[cosmic]

Really? It's three letters, dude. Three letters that spell something. Are you seriously suggesting what those three letters spell is an 'accident' or something? Why are YOU suggesting the acronym is PAN?

There's no reason to assume it's a "shout-out". All we see in reality is a classified communications satellite delivered by the ULA. Just because something launches from the Cape doesn't mean it's automatically under NASA or JPL oversight, or that there's any connection to a long-deceased guy from JPL. You're strongly asserting something to be true which you're unable to demonstrate. That's really all there is to it.

I used that experiment as an example because it's the most successful test of the prolonged exposure of animals to high orbit that I'm aware of, and was a rather recent experiment. As in that seems to be an accomplishment for us now, getting as many animals to survive as they did, in spite of the technology failures.

You didn't actually address the issue I raised. Lab experiments with mice and whatnot are in no way equivalent to the mission designs, engineering and systems we see for human spaceflight, let alone for Apollo -- which not only put astronaut safety at the top of the priority list, but also had the luxury of a blank check to work with. What you put forth is simply invalidated by the fact that it attempts to directly compare unlike things.

Yeah, I mean, when have a lab rats ever been used as a means through which to measure potential health effects on people?

No, you either missed my point or opted not to tackle it directly.

Has another living thing been documented to have survived them since the moon-landings? Get something 1/5th of the way to the moon and back alive and any doubts I have about the ability to just 'blow on through' the Van Allen belt will be gone.

Perhaps, they'd be alleviated already if you'd take the time to improve your understanding of the issue. You can accomplish that at Clavius.

I just find it odd that, after all this time, we still have so much trouble keeping things alive in space, and that's nowhere remotely close to as far out as we had to go for the moon landings.

We don't have trouble keeping things alive in space. All the Expedition crews that have rotated on and off the ISS should attest to that. Note the cumulative crew time.

 

[cosmic]

There are many cases of mythological figures being used to name satellites.

All the bodies in our solar system* are named after mythological figures. That still doesn't validate Grieves's claim.

(* = the significant ones, anyway)

 

[MikeC]

The international "urgency call" of "Pan-pan, pan-pan, pan-pan" would seem a better fit for occult chanting.....

 

[Pete Tar]

A classical education and familiarity with ancient mythology and texts used to be the norm, not evidence of sympathy for occult practices.

 

[Cairenn]

Except that it seems that you missed my point.

They are used because they are easy to remember, they are names that folks KNOW before. Take the naming of the moons of Pluto. They didn't really NEED names, they had proper designations already, P4 and P5 of dwarf planet 134340 Pluto.

I still remember when phone numbers had names like WHitehall 9-1235 instead of 959-1235.

Names are used because they are easier for most folks to remember.

 

[Pete Tar]

..

Crowleyesque junk as in Thelema/The Mysteries/all his druggy sex 'magic' will-to-power crap. And no, I'm sure the guy wasn't alone in his fan-club, but I doubt NASA itself is in any way 'deeply rooted' in that stuff.

Excuse me, but the term is 'magicK'.

 

[Joe Newman]

Shout-out or joke. I think one thing that theists and atheists both often misunderstand is the degree to which their opposites take things like the occult seriously.

For some theists, it's deadly serious, the work of Satan in the world.

For most atheists, it's a joke. Just another silly superstitious religion.

This leads to cultural clashes. Like Heavy Metal music for example. The satanic imagery there is almost entirely tongue-in-cheek, purely stylistic. The "devils horns" hand sign used by rockers is no more satanic than a thumbs up. Yet deists take it very seriously.

They take it very seriously indeed, and there's a reason for that. Yet you say it's nothing serious, purely stylistic, and I'm sure you are convinced of that. Which is precisely why they take it so seriously.

This may seem off topic since there isn't any footage to debunk and you are so sure of your assessment re NASA and have dismissed what I was seeking to get at by saying it was just "something they would do."

Perhaps, but the link that brings it into focus is Mr. Crowley.

 

[Joe Newman]

Excuse me, but the term is 'magicK'.

Do you have evidence for that?

 

[Joe Newman]

A classical education and familiarity with ancient mythology and texts used to be the norm, not evidence of sympathy for occult practices.

The two are not mutually exclusive, huh?

 

[cosmic]

This may seem off topic since there isn't any footage to debunk and you are so sure of your assessment re NASA and have dismissed what I was seeking to get at by saying it was just "something they would do."

Perhaps, but the link that brings it into focus is Mr. Crowley.

I like that song.



Do you have any intention of offering the slightest hint of an explanation or argument?

 

[Pete Tar]

The two are not mutually exclusive, huh?

No, but as modern people tend to be less familiar with the references they take on a rather more mysterious, gnostic or esoteric connotation than is necessarily warranted.

Excuse me, but the term is 'magicK'.​

Do you have evidence for that?

If you're interested...

Magick is an Early Modern English spelling for magic, used in works such as the 1651 translation of Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa's De Occulta Philosophia, Three Books of Occult Philosophy, or Of Magick. The British occultist Aleister Crowley chose the spelling to differentiate the occult from stage magic and defined it as "the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will", including both "mundane" acts of will as well as ritual magic. Crowley wrote that "it is theoretically possible to cause in any object any change of which that object is capable by nature".

Magick

 

[mynym]

Now you were saying that some of the moon footage was faked. What part of it? and why do you think it was faked?

The view from the moon was apparently faked by holding something over a window of the space shuttle while still in earth orbit in order to change the perceived size of the earth to look like they were closer to the moon. Ironically, this shot apparently appeared in the Youtube video of the video expert. It's interesting that an expert in film would go on and on about the production of illusions... while apparently missing a relatively simple magic trick.

 

[Soulfly]

The view from the moon was apparently faked by holding something over a window of the space shuttle while still in earth orbit in order to change the perceived size of the earth to look like they were closer to the moon. Ironically, this shot apparently appeared in the Youtube video of the video expert. It's interesting that an expert in film would go on and on about the production of illusions... while apparently missing a relatively simple magic trick.

Except the Space Shuttle didn't have its first flight until April 12, 1981.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter12.html

 

[mynym]

Shout-out or joke. I think one thing that theists and atheists both often misunderstand is the degree to which their opposites take things like the occult seriously.

For some theists, it's deadly serious, the work of Satan in the world.

For most atheists, it's a joke. Just another silly superstitious religion.

Yet apparently "Mr. Crowley" himself took it seriously:

...there is one other occult authority we must meet, one who considered the number 11 as "the number of Magick in itself…[and] therefore suitable to all types of operation," as well as "the sacred number par excellence of the new Aeon [the Aeon of Horus]." This person is Aleister Crowley. In his best known writing, entitled The Book of the Law, Crowley states "My number is 11, as all their numbers who are of us." (Crowley used the spelling "magick" to distinguish ceremonial magic from ordinary sleight-of-hand trickery.) The repeated use of the number 11 (and it will make further appearances throughout the script), then, not only characterized the nature of the act, but also signaled the commencement of a magical operation.
"I was not content to believe in a personal devil and serve him, in the ordinary sense of the word," Aleister Crowley once said about Satan. "I wanted to get hold of him personally and become his chief of staff."
(The Most Dangerous Book in the World: 9/11 as Mass Ritual Bain, S. K. (2012-09-11))

After all, most artists seem to take the left hand path seriously.... even if it is a joke. I wish that they'd cover up the right eye, though.

 

[mynym]

Except the Space Shuttle didn't have its first flight until April 12, 1981.
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter12.html

Right, the view of the moon was apparently faked from within the space craft and the video expert apparently missed that despite all his expertise with respect to technicalities.

Maybe if he spent more time investigating and seeing things from the perspective* of the conspiracy theorists that are presumably his subject and less time talking about his technical expertise and his vast technical knowledge of producing films he wouldn't have missed a detail like that, huh? A detail having to do with how at least some of NASA's films were apparently produced, for whatever reason.

*Never fear, you can usually come full circle back to your own conclusions... and imagine people landing on the moon and your government loving you and so forth if you want to. But seriously, if you're going to criticize others then try to know their perspective on things and what seems like evidence to them and so forth. He should have said, Bart Sibrel says this... but I say such and such. Because that's his opponent and one of the main sources of this stuff, right? So do that and not something more like: "I'm an expert about things, so I already know everything there is to know about it. Never mind the faked image I included in this video about my official expertise on this. Nothing to see there, move along!"

Shrug. Maybe he's correct. But apparently he missed that, officially.

Debunked!

 

[Mick West]

The view from the moon was apparently faked by holding something over a window of the space shuttle while still in earth orbit in order to change the perceived size of the earth to look like they were closer to the moon. Ironically, this shot apparently appeared in the Youtube video of the video expert. It's interesting that an expert in film would go on and on about the production of illusions... while apparently missing a relatively simple magic trick.

Except it was not faked at all. The earth is the correct size in that video. You can tell by the size of the continents. Or look at the full original video:

 

[mynym]

Except it was not faked at all. The earth is the correct size in that video.

No it isn't. Also, your Youtuber claims that the camera was against the glass. But if that was the case for all the videos, then why can an astronaut's arm apparently be seen coming between the camera and the window in one of the outtakes? I thought that they and apparently your Youtuber had both claimed that the camera was against the window the whole time video of the earth was being shot and so forth.

You can tell by the size of the continents.

You can see that the continents are the correct size?

Or look at the full original video:

I watched it. Is that where you're "seeing" that the continents are the correct size?

 

[Mick West]

Yes. See North America in the upper left.

Also the size and distribution of the weather systems is entirely consistent with a full sized view.

 

[mynym]

See North America in the upper left.

Hard to see. I can imagine that it's there, though. So you think that is evidence that the camera was pressed up against the glass of the shuttle... I mean, space craft?

Where did the second image come from and why does the earth seem to be a different shape?

 

[mynym]

I don't know if anyone with a debunking mentality is even taking the time to actually watch Sibrel's documentary like I just took the time to watch that "debunking." (What's worse, taking the time to watch a conspiracy theory about that or its debunking? Only time will tell, I'd imagine.) But it basically looks like a continuous reel where they turn the lights on within the space craft and the camera is, indeed, far away from the window.

If that's authentic, then there's no need to try to imagine things about the correct size of continents that you can hardly even see and so forth. Instead it would seem that unless Sibrel faked a video, NASA faked a video. Whoever faked something, one could still probably imagine a way that people made it through the Van Allen Belt and went to the moon anyway. So there is that.

 

[Mick West]

Hard to see. I can imagine that it's there, though. So you think that is evidence that the camera was pressed up against the glass of the shuttle... I mean, space craft?

Where did the second image come from and why does the earth seem to be a different shape?

What does it matter if it was pressed up against the glass? The point is that it's the correct size.

The second image is a composite of Terra satellite images. The Earth looks a different shape because of the different position of the terminator (day/night shadow delimiter). This varies by season and time of day.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Earth_Pacific_jul_30_2010.jpg

 

[mynym]

What does it matter if it was pressed up against the glass?

Why do you suppose that your Youtube debunker tried to argue that it wasn't pressed against the glass if it doesn't matter? Did you watch the video that you cited?

The point is that it's the correct size.

Based on a composite of images from satellites orbiting around the earth?

 

[cosmic]

The view from the moon was apparently faked by holding something over a window of the space shuttle while still in earth orbit in order to change the perceived size of the earth to look like they were closer to the moon.

Sibrel's claim is egregious. If the spacecraft was in reality 100 times closer to Earth than in those video sequences, and at a typical velocity to remain in LEO (over 17000 mph), you would conspicuously see movement in the backdrop of Earth. There's no way you're not going to notice such a thing over the course of ten minutes or more. Orbital sunrises/sunsets occur at a rate of one every 45 minutes.

Real-time views for comparison are available in this clip of Smithsonian's Oasis Earth:

 

[cosmic]

No it isn't. Also, your Youtuber claims that the camera was against the glass. But if that was the case for all the videos, then why can an astronaut's arm apparently be seen coming between the camera and the window in one of the outtakes?

That's not an arm, it's the edge of a window. You have to remember, Sibrel's knowledge of Apollo vehicles isn't any better than his understanding of spaceflight. (Pay special attention to the pictures.)

Mr. Sibrel claims that both the inner and outer round bezels of the hatch window, of different diameters, were used to create the rounded borders of the Earth image. Unfortunately only the inner hatch window bezel is round; the outer one is trapezoidal. It is unfortunate that Mr. Sibrel did not confirm this easily checked fact before making his claim. None of the other spacecraft windows is round.

This fact is especially important when you view the entire downlink video, where the lights in the cabin are turned on to reveal that the earth photography wasn't shot through the hatch window! It was shot through one of the squarish side windows. Sibrel's understanding of the command-module layout is rudimentary. But not only does he fail to interpret the video correctly, he doesn't give the viewer enough information to confirm or dispute A Funny Thing's conclusion.

It makes no sense to keep taking incorrect claims (like Sibrel's) at face value when they're demonstrably wrong.

Edit: Fixed typo.

 

[Mick West]

Why do you suppose that your Youtube debunker tried to argue that it wasn't pressed against the glass if it doesn't matter?

Because someone claimed it was, or claimed someone said it was. He's just debunking stuff.

Based on a composite of images from satellites orbiting around the earth?

Yes, exactly.

 

[mynym]

That's not an arm, it's the edge of a window. You have to remember, Sibrel's knowledge of Apollo vehicles isn't any better than his understanding of spaceflight. (Pay special attention to the pictures.)

Mr. Sibrel claims that both the inner and outer round bezels of the hatch window, of different diameters, were used to create the rounded borders of the Earth image. Unfortunately only the inner hatch window bezel is round; the outer one is trapezoidal. It is unfortunate that Mr. Sibrel did not confirm this easily checked fact before making his claim. None of the other spacecraft windows is round.

Edit: Fixed typo.

Thanks. I'll be able to debunk that myself now.

 

[cosmic]

Thanks. I'll be able to debunk that myself now.

The real hilarity ensues a bit farther down, and is directly relevant to the segments you linked earlier. As Windley writes:

"ONLY ABOUT TWENTY SECONDS..."

Here Mr. Sibrel makes his most colossal mistake.

According to his theory, the footage NASA mistakenly sent him was the "raw" footage -- about an hour's worth -- made in low Earth orbit and transmitted back to Houston where the best bits of it would be edited together like a motion picture to form a convincing clip of life on the way to the moon.

Except that's not what happened.

In his eagerness to reveal his "secret" footage, Sibrel neglected to verify just how much of it actually did make it to broadcast. Had he done so, he would have discovered that 30 minutes' worth -- fully half his "secret" footage -- is actually the live telecast that took place some 34 hours into the mission and was carried live for half an hour on television. This half-hour telecast includes many of the shots A Funny Thing claims are backstage trial-and-error that was supposedly never to be seen by anyone.

Unbeknownst to Sibrel they were seen literally by millions.

(Emphasis mine.) That's one hell of an error. I'm frankly stunned that Sibrel was so oblivious to these details, even in his unwavering zeal to promote an alternative history.

 

[Pete Tar]

The cloud patterns of the earth taken at the time were matched to the recorded weather systems.
You can watch the whole sequence of pictures taken from Apollo of earth receding until they arrived at the moon.
eg... from HERE

to HERE...

To maintain a claim of fakery at this point in history is so beyond [...]. (sorry Mick, but JESUS!)

 

[Mick West]

To maintain a claim of fakery at this point in history is so beyond [...]. (sorry Mick, but JESUS!)

I know. But remember, that's also how they feel about us.

Also remember we are dealing with concepts and science that not everyone is familiar with, nor can they necessarily grasp it quickly. Witness the question about if a composite of satellite images would accurately represent the size of the Earth. Not everyone's brains are wired the same way. Some people are more textual than visual, and when visual more 2D than 3D, and when 3D limited to a range of scales.

 

[Joe Newman]

[snipped clip of Ozzy's Mr. Crowley--with Rhodes, no less.]

I like that song.

Heh. Truly, that was the plan, according to Mr. C.

I left the Ozzy ref out at the last moment since I didn't think it would be recognized, so I'm glad you got it.

Do you have any intention of offering the slightest hint of an explanation or argument?

That was a slight hint right there, the bit about the Uncle Al's plan. I know you'll think it vague, but it would be a lot clearer if you had the libretto. Honest.

That's where I screwed up. I assumed that you and others were aware of this part of the tale, given that you were so into the space stuff. My bad.

Now that this thread had finally got to tech stuff you guys excel in, I'll just leave ya to it because I'm not a nuts and bolts guy; I'm more interested in what the nuts and bolts hold together. Instead of how they fly, I'm more interested in why they fly and for who.

Mick obviously doesn't want me going there and appears itching to ban me, so I'll just leave you this last "slightest hint" and you can decide if you want to go further with it.

That was not just a shout out and PAN wasn't only an acronym. Grieves was on the mark there, even if he minimized the import of Mr. C. and his "junk." I'm not pretending to know what it was; just saying what it wasn't--an accident or coincidence.

And it most certainly is connected to Ozzy and the stuff Mick deems of no substance re the music biz. That's why I almost choked when I saw your post. I figured it was either masterfully played or the most amazing coincidence.

Either way, there was more going on at Jack Parsons Labs, as it was referred to by some, than is commonly recognized, so you might find it interesting.

"But I say that that perfect image in the heart of man is patterned by the awful lust in space-time that shapes all women, the insatiable and eternal lust of Pan that is BABALON."
-J.W. Parsons

From the Intro of the winner of The 1998 NASA-Ames Space Settlement Design Contest:

The authors chose Babylon as the name for the space settlement. Babylon was chosen for two reasons. First, Babylon means "gate of the heavens." The first step to exploring the stars, the heavens, is a colony in orbit. The second meaning is more metaphoric. The biblical Babylon Project was the construction of the tower of Babel. This construction required the cooperation of thousands of people over a great span of time. They didn't have to challenge the linguistic, national, and cultural barriers that humanity faces today. Since this legendary project, all humanity has never worked together towards one common goal. It is our hope that when a colony is built, it will be the result of the cooperation of the entire human race. If such cooperation could be set in motion, and maintained, nothing would stop the colony from being built.

Conclusion:
Humanity stands on the edge of a new frontier. Nothing in this proposal is impossible. Indeed, all that is really necessary is the ambition, the vision, and leadership. The authors believe that their generation has these qualities. As in ancient Babylon, humanity may once again unite together into a project of epic proportions "Look, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them" Genesis XI, 6 http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/Contest/Results/98/winner/

 

[Mick West]

I'm itching for you to make a clear point, is all.

Regarding the symbolism of the 1998 contest. What about all the other years?

http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/Contest/

• Maui [5.5 MB] 2013
• The Kon Tiki [3.7 MB] 2012 (tie)
• Aurora: Earth Orbiting Settlement [10.3 MB] 2012 (tie)
• Hyperion Space Settlement [11 MB] 2011
• Aresam [10.5 MB] 2010
• ASTEN [12 MB] 2009 (tie)
• Orissan Design Inspired Sytems and Aerovehicles [ODISA]: A Concept 2009 (tie)
• DACIA'S 2008 [8 MB]
• APIS 2007 (tie)
• EVA Project 2007 (tie)
• PINTA 2007 (tie)
• Vademecum (2006)
• Temis (2005)
• LEDA (2004)
• Teba 1 (2003)
• Æther (2002)
• Avalon (2001) tie
• The Centurion Space Settlement (2001)
• DaedalusaL4 (2000)
• ClC1 (1999)
• The Babylon Project (1998)
• SCORE: Self Contained Off-world Residential Environment (1997)
• Tango III : A Space Settlement Design (1996)
• Well, you start with a Rock ... (1995 technical merit)
• Princess Ishtar (1995 artistic merit)

Sometime a Babylon reference is just a Babylon 5 reference.

 

[cosmic]

What is any of that supposed to mean, Joe? I see you stringing together numerous vague ideas but you're not coherently presenting what you're actually thinking, let alone an underlying rationale. It reads like gibberish. Seriously.

Even if we were to accept at face value that Parsons said or wrote that statement (and ignoring any possible context), why do you think there's a relationship between the quote and a title some 9th grade kids gave their contest project some fifty years later?

Are you ever going to be specific, or is this destined to be a perpetual guessing game?

If you're honestly interested in a discussion, prove it.

 

[JRBids]

Crowleyesque junk as in Thelema/The Mysteries/all his druggy sex 'magic' will-to-power crap. And no, I'm sure the guy wasn't alone in his fan-club, but I doubt NASA itself is in any way 'deeply rooted' in that stuff.

Can you back up ANYTHING you say? You just throw statements out there. Obviously no one else is on the same page as you. Explain.

 

[Joe Newman]

What is any of that supposed to mean, Joe?

That's exactly what I'm trying to find out. That's why I want to discuss it. It's a crazy story and I want to explore what it means. It's why I'm here. I found this place by accident, but I stayed because if there's any place where I am going to get the necessary data, this is it because you all know a lot more about the stuff you know than I do.

Things got off to a bad start and it's my fault. I never should have gotten into the moon thing because it was an off-topic aside and I had no idea it would lead to this.

I fucked up. I own it.

I see you stringing together numerous vague ideas but you're not coherently presenting what you're actually thinking, let alone an underlying rationale. It reads like gibberish. Seriously.

I know, Cos. It does sound like gibberish and it is just word salad. But it's also clear as a bell. Let's turn it around and maybe it will make more sense. You said this elsewhere:

"Mr. Sibrel claims that both the inner and outer round bezels of the hatch window . . ."

Now, imagine getting this in reply: What is any of that supposed to mean, Cos? I see you stringing together numerous vague ideas but you're not coherently presenting what you're actually thinking, let alone an underlying rationale. It reads like gibberish. Seriously.

You would think I was a complete dolt. And maybe I am, because it's exactly how I see it. Complete gibberish. It isn't even wrong, as Pauli put it. It's incomprehensible to me because I lack the necessary context to decode it, but you and Mick and others understand it completely.

I wouldn't think of jumping in and accusing you both of being vague or difficult because you are talking about something I'm not familiar with.

So, please, Cos. If you want to go here, I'm all good. But you need to know a little about bevels and who Sibrell is, so to speak. I'm happy to provide all the info I can, and I do have a lot. But ya gotta step back a bit and let me do it, ok?

I really can clear up your confusion about what I'm saying if you would only let me assemble the case before tearing into it. After it's assembled, go at it hammer and tong. That's exactly what I'm looking for.

Even if we were to accept at face value that Parsons said or wrote that statement (and ignoring any possible context), why do you think there's a relationship between the quote and a title some 9th grade kids gave their contest project some fifty years later?

That's precisely it, Cos. Without the context there is no reason to believe there is a relationship. With the context, however, the picture changes completely. That's my point and exactly what I want to talk about. Trust me, with more context, your statements here sound like, well, whatever I might have to say about Sibrell's bevels. What I put there about Pan and the high school stuff is only the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

Maybe it's all utter bullshit. I'm hoping it is. But without seeing the edifice, there's no way to tell, and insisting that edifice isn't there doesn't get the job done because a whole lot of people who are smarter and more informed than me have been pointing straight at it.

I see what they are talking about now, but I didn't see it before because I routinely dismissed both the issues and the folks talking about them because I didn't subscribe to their views and thought they were exaggerating. Well, after looking into it in far greater detail, I couldn't have been more wrong. I didn't have the full picture, so I was basing all of my conclusions on an incomplete data set.

Are you ever going to be specific, or is this destined to be a perpetual guessing game?

Yes.

Seriously. If you won't let me add the context, or refuse to admit the existence of that context,
it will be a perpetual guessing game. If you let me add the context, you will see that I actually am being quite specific.

That's just it. I may be right or I may be wrong. But either way, the points are crystal clear--if you know about the bevels.

But I don't want to munge up this thread any more than I have, so if we go there, it should be in a new thread so as not to munge up this one.

 

[Mick West]

Aim for brevity Joe.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/pascal/letters-c.html#LETTER XVI

The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter.

You don't have that excuse

 

[cosmic]

That's exactly what I'm trying to find out. That's why I want to discuss it. It's a crazy story and I want to explore what it means.

You're not even presenting a story. What you're typing out is so nondescript that I don't have a clue what you're trying to convey. Please don't waste more time posting excuses. Type out thorough explanations so that readers can clearly understand what you're thinking, and why. If you're unwilling to do so, no actual discussion will ever take place.

It does sound like gibberish and it is just word salad. But it's also clear as a bell. Let's turn it around and maybe it will make more sense.

No, the statement I made in response to Sibrel's claims is nothing like your waffling. In that segment of the thread we already had explicit claims stemming from Sibrel's interpretation of events, never mind the fact that they're wrong. They were clear. My responses are properly focused and include specific technical information directly refuting Sibrel's claims. You have no justification for attempting to suggest my replies are remotely nebulous like yours.

I wouldn't think of jumping in and accusing you both of being vague or difficult because you are talking about something I'm not familiar with.

It would be truly silly for you to do so, since my posts are clear enough that readers with no knowledge of the Apollo program, Sibrel's conspiracy claims, or spaceflight in general, would still be able to follow and understand what's been written. I've also linked appropriate reference material so that nobody has to take my word for it. They can look it up for themselves. Obviously you're not providing readers with any such tools.

But ya gotta step back a bit and let me do it, ok?

I'm not preventing you from stating anything.

I really can clear up your confusion about what I'm saying if you would only let me assemble the case before tearing into it.

We don't really know what's on your mind, and that won't change unless you spell it out. Why are you making it so unnecessarily difficult?

Without the context there is no reason to believe there is a relationship. With the context, however, the picture changes completely.

Great. Will you ever be providing any?

Maybe it's all utter bullshit. I'm hoping it is. But without seeing the edifice, there's no way to tell, and insisting that edifice isn't there doesn't get the job done because a whole lot of people who are smarter and more informed than me have been pointing straight at it.

If you know what "it" is, you'll need tell the rest of us. Those of us following the thread have no clue what "it" is.

Seriously. If you won't let me add the context, or refuse to admit the existence of that context, it will be a perpetual guessing game. If you let me add the context, you will see that I actually am being quite specific.

You're being deliberately evasive and vague, not specific.

But I don't want to munge up this thread any more than I have, so if we go there, it should be in a new thread so as not to munge up this one.

Why, doesn't it have to do with the Apollo program, or have you changed your mind?

 

[Joe Newman]

Aim for brevity Joe.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/pascal/letters-c.html#LETTER XVI

The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter.

You don't have that excuse

Actually, I spent a lot of time chopping that down.

I'm in a bind here, Mick. You want brevity. I go there. I get jacked for not saying anything. In fact, I've said a ton. But it hasn't been unpacked. I get grief for not being clear, so I start to explain, and then I get popped for being too verbose.

And now after putting all that time into chopping it down, the first thing I see from the person I respond to is I'm still being vague and unclear and not saying anything.

 

[Mick West]

By brevity I don't just mean less words. I mean clearly and concisely stating your point.

For example, instead of this:

They don't? Ah, my bad, then. It's good to get this kind of info because it does help us to sift through the lies and disinformation, which is good for us all, regardless of how we feel about this or that issue, right.

It's about knowing the truth as best we can, so, again, thanks for the tip, because I am not above admitting when I am wrong. And now that I have your assurance of the above, I can now put to rest the false idea I picked up somewhere that an innovative new technology from Halliburton called ProTechCRB involves using an injection molding process to pre-bond ceramic carbon fiber standoffs or centralizers directly to the outer surface of casing.

Thanks for clearing that up. I know it's an old cliche from Planet Tinfoil, but it's still the case that the truth is out there.

Ya just gotta poke around.

write:

Yes they do, see for example:
http://www.halliburton.com/en-US/ps...s-oil/shale-plays/haynesville-challenges.page

Our new ProTech CRB® centralizers use an injection molding process to pre-bond ceramic carbon fiber centralizers directly to the outer casing before the casing is run in the hole.

 

[Joe Newman]

That's what I would have done had I not spent the previous two days getting harassed by a select few here, one of whom routinely posts inaccurate comments and facts.

After all that, when that person once more dismissed something out of hand and made an inaccurate assertion as support, I pointed it out.

I did it sarcastically because I was tired of being pummeled by this person and others. It's hard playing 5 on 1 and getting elbowed constantly and then getting called for the foul when I push back.

 

[Pete Tar]

So this thread is about the reason they went to the moon, presumably sweeping aside the accepted notion of it being part of the political and technological context of the time.
So, do you think
- they went to the moon to consult with our Reptilian Overlords and get their orders for the next phase of the plan for our planet and that's why they had to fake some footage to hide their presence
or
- the whole 10+ year space program was an elaborate Masonic Magick Ritual enacted to symbolise the Illuminati's institution of their official Forth Reich reign which is also why they hired ex-nazi scientists.

Gathering from the hints you drop I suspect it's the latter, but why would they have the need to fake any footage for that?

Or is the fake footage (which you haven't identified yet) to hide the unexpected appearance of intelligent alien presences?