|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 30, 2007 20:12:56 GMT -4
Somebody should archive this archived page in case the archived page is no longer archived. This video is ALL over YouTube as evidence of a Moon Hoax. And judging from viewers comments, is believed by a lot of people to be genuine...
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 30, 2007 20:30:49 GMT -4
As soon as the holidays are over, I plan to ask a representative of The Viral Factory to speak on the record about its authenticity.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 30, 2007 23:33:19 GMT -4
Now that I've seen the clip - people actually believed that was authentic? It doesn't look anything like the real Apollo footage.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Dec 31, 2007 6:16:59 GMT -4
IIRC didn't the fellow who m ade the clip appear on BAUT to explain the whole background of the video? Or have I got my wires crossed?
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Dec 31, 2007 11:12:26 GMT -4
Thanks Jay, and the rest of you.
Glad to see that Ted has been engaged on this and is confronted with the evidence. Years ago, I tried to get Rense to stop barking up the “we never went to the moon” tree. I hope an episode like this will not only help discourage this line of “analysis,” but raise the bar for people like Ted trying to tackle these kinds of subjects.
An article at Clavius may help, but I’ll leave it up to the experts.
Thanks again,
Wade
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Dec 31, 2007 11:43:32 GMT -4
Hi, Wade. The point of a Clavius article would be to show that Ted has been confronted with the evidence. If the conversation is private, each participant can spin it his way in public. In general I prefer debates over claims and evidence to take place in public.
I believe Ted hopes to gain some degree of notoriety from this, and part of being noted in that way is to answer one's critics (or to be seen suspiciously ignoring them).
Using N-th party evidence without verification is sloppy and inexcusable. Knowing so little about the LM as to believe LM-2 and LM-5 ought to be identical marks one as impossibly unfamiliar with the topics relevant to one's claims. Things like that ought to be known to people who contemplate whether Ted's claims have authority and strength.
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Dec 31, 2007 16:37:24 GMT -4
Hi Jay:
I get it. If that article is done, it will be easy to refer people to it who want to challenge the official Apollo narrative, as it is for the others who make a name for themselves challenging the narrative (not a very respected name, BTW), so would-be challengers can see if they really want to end up on that reef.
This thread is a little untidy, but gets the point across regarding Ted’s analysis. Amateurs CAN fruitfully investigate such issues, but the “we never landed on the moon” issue is obviously rife with amateurs who do not even do their basic homework. I am glad Clavius is out there.
Best,
Wade
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 1, 2008 14:02:04 GMT -4
If that article is done, it will be easy to refer people to it who want to challenge the official Apollo narrative...
Exactly. That's the whole point of Clavius. I present the conspiracy arguments and an educated analysis side by side to allow readers to see honestly which is more carefully reasoned and makes the most sense. The conspiracist approach is based on carefully controlling what the reader sees, making sure that no credible criticism of the theory is allowed. The honest approach doesn't shy away from ideas that seem contrary to the proposal.
Ted strikes me as someone who isn't about to let the facts stand in the way of a good story -- and more particularly, in the way of his being seen as a storyteller. Unfortunately you don't get to trample innocent people and true ideas in your rush to glory.
This thread is a little untidy, but gets the point across regarding Ted’s analysis.
There's a lot of stuff I could cover. The more I read Ted's articles, the more convinced I am he really doesn't know what the heck he's talking about. He really has not studied the Apollo missions in any substantial depth, and his photo "analysis" skills lack even the basic foundation of knowing which side of the ladder he's looking at. Elementary spatial reasoning errors cannot be tolerated in an essay that ends, "Case closed."
Amateurs CAN fruitfully investigate such issues...
Amateurs frequently educate themselves to very high levels of erudition and competence. However, the honest amateurs are always aware of where their self-education might fall short of the mark. Hence when they drift into uncertain territory, they go tentatively.
Conspiracy theorists -- all of whom are amateurs -- don't police themselves in this way. Those very few who make any effort at all to understand the facts (and there have been some on this forum) soon find those basic facts insufficient. Instead of backing away and asking questions, they bluster through into advanced topics using only their intuition, thinking it to be as useful and authoritative as any expert's.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 1, 2008 19:19:57 GMT -4
Concerning Grissom, his complaints were with the simulator, which often did not keep up with changes done to the real craft.
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Jan 2, 2008 11:42:06 GMT -4
Hi Jay: Thanks. It can be perilous to generalize on “conspiracies.” On the moon landings, yes, all the “conspiracy theorists” are amateurs, at least those who argue that the moon landings were faked. If that is what you meant, I agree. In other “conspiracies,” there are professionals, such as Gaeton Fonzi on the JFK hit. On JFK, if we are to believe the official narrative (which I do not), an amateur overturned the entire technical basis the second JFK official investigation’s findings. There is a Warren-Commission-defending documentary narrated by Walter Cronkite that lauds a drummer in a rock band who came up with the evidence that debunked the acoustic analysis performed by the experts, which showed several shots being fire at JFK. There have been further analyses by professionals of the acoustic evidence since then, and they still support the “several shots” theory, but the establishment draped an amateur in laurels for proving the experts wrong. I have been dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist” by engineering and scientific types when describing my EXPERIENCES in alternative energy, and it amazed me that they could not distinguish between reporting one’s “EXPERIENCES” and concocting a THEORY. www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#naiveThey could call me a liar, but not a theorist. Best, Wade
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 2, 2008 14:19:44 GMT -4
Yes, I meant my comments to apply to the moon hoax theory, although I believe they would also apply to the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I should have emphasized that I'm aware the JFK issue, in contrast, involves people with actual expertise. Joe Durnavich brought that up in a discussion elsewhere.
As someone reasonably trained in investigation I can appreciate the difference between experience and theory. The investigator knows that witnesses habitually confuse the two, and so is predisposed to consider testimony that way even when the witness has been careful to be objective.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 2, 2008 16:35:22 GMT -4
While not to try and derail the topic, which seems pretty much done to death, the audio in question should have been debunked at the HSCA hearings in the first place except that it was added late in the peice, and they refused to accept the testimony of the motorcycle rider who stated unequivically that he wasn't where the audio scientists claim he had to have been. Had the audio be decredited on that fact (and on the fact that subsequent checking of the recording has found radio calls in it that place the timing outside of the shooting window anyway) the HSCA would have returned a lone gunman result the same as the Warren Commission. The entire reason they didn't was because they were told that there was absolute proof of a fourth shot from the grassy gnoll, something that has since been shown to be wrong.
I'm sure that a deeper discussion can be undertaken in the correct forum though (Other Conspiracies)
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 2, 2008 17:30:00 GMT -4
I read about a grassy gnoll in Jingo, by Terry Pratchett; it is assumed that it's an intentional pun. (In JFK mythology, it's "grassy knoll"; a gnoll is a kind of humanoid creature whose nature is very different depending on whether you're reading about them in Pratchett or D&D.)
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 2, 2008 23:07:29 GMT -4
A gassy gnoll would have been funnier.
From upwind, of course.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 2, 2008 23:30:14 GMT -4
Blame it on my sense of humor. I used to introduce all sorts of fun monsters into my D&D games, the favorite was the Gazebo riding a Grassy Gnoll. (Though Hopgoblins and wild bores work well too.) Since then I always refer to the Grassy gnoll insteadof Knoll. Sort of an in joke.
|
|