|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 16, 2009 16:49:29 GMT -4
Not everyone groks Heinlein.
He agrees that they must be in the right places at the right times, and the plot credibly provides that. Fair Witnesses function as notaries public for important events where an ubiased and complete record is anticipated. They don't simply appear where needed for happenstance events.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Sept 17, 2009 6:22:11 GMT -4
I don't think it's a case of the Fair Witness not being sure of what colour the house is, just unwilling to go beyond what can be directly witnessed at the time of her statement...
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Sept 17, 2009 7:41:51 GMT -4
I understand what people are saying, but he is being accurate. He can't say for certain because he himself did not go. The overwhelming evidence is that we did go but...
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Sept 17, 2009 11:06:05 GMT -4
There is a dynamic around this moon hoax situation I have not seen dealt with before, but I have seen it more than once during my journey. The Space Race was a quasi-military effort. My father was recruited from the military to go work in Mission Control, with his top secret clearance. www.ahealedplanet.net/paths.htm#olearyVirtually all of the Mercury/NASA/Apollo astronauts had military backgrounds (even a civilian like Brian had to go through top-secret-level security checks). Most of the Disclosure Project witnesses are from the military. www.ahealedplanet.net/journey.htm#greerThe black ops world is heavily military, but a lot of it is also privatized, like with my relative who was a CIA contract agent: www.ahealedplanet.net/paradigm.htm#ciaIn fact, the most important parts are privatized. There is a great deal of black ops activity around high technology and space activities (which is, of course, also grist for the conspiracy theory crowd’s mill). One of the moon hoax “nuts” that is very high profile acted like he had the goods on some black ops activities when he was pursuing Apollo landing evidence, when he really did not have anything. However, they THOUGHT that he did, and he suffered some pretty harsh treatment because of it. Because of his treatment, he thinks he found the goods on hoaxing the moon landings, and I doubt that he will ever be convinced otherwise. If they THINK that you have something, even if you do not, your treatment will be the same. When our offices were raided during my free energy days, and the police stole all of our technical material: www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#mrThey did not steal the secrets of free energy, but they THOUGHT that perhaps they were. The Apollo program is not that far removed from genuine black ops, and people can stumble into them and confuse their experience, where the black ops people are keeping the lid on disruptive technology and the like, with covering up the hoaxing of the moon landings. It helps explain some of Brian’s skepticism, and the behaviors of some of the moon hoax theorists. I am not saying that their doubts reflect the Apollo reality, but their attitudes can be influenced by witnessing and bearing the brunt of black ops activities. The moon hoax attitudes are not merely the result of hyperactive imaginations and other foibles, but are partly the result of the milieu around the Apollo shots overlapping the black ops world.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 17, 2009 12:03:32 GMT -4
One of the moon hoax “nuts” that is very high profile acted like he had the goods on some black ops activities when he was pursuing Apollo landing evidence, when he really did not have anything. However, they THOUGHT that he did, and he suffered some pretty harsh treatment because of it....If they THINK that you have something, even if you do not, your treatment will be the same. When our offices were raided during my free energy days, and the police stole all of our technical material... They did not steal the secrets of free energy, but they THOUGHT that perhaps they were. Who exactly is "they"?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 17, 2009 13:15:37 GMT -4
I understand what people are saying, but he is being accurate. He can't say for certain because he himself did not go. The overwhelming evidence is that we did go but... Yeah, but I don't have to say that there's a possibility I'm wrong, because the doubt is so small and the evidence is so great. If I said that there was a possibility I was wrong, frankly, it would be because I think it's reasonable to expect that I could be. I'll agree to it if it's relevant, but it's seldom relevant.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Sept 17, 2009 13:34:09 GMT -4
I understand what people are saying, but he is being accurate. He can't say for certain because he himself did not go. The overwhelming evidence is that we did go but... Yeah, but I don't have to say that there's a possibility I'm wrong, because the doubt is so small and the evidence is so great. If I said that there was a possibility I was wrong, frankly, it would be because I think it's reasonable to expect that I could be. I'll agree to it if it's relevant, but it's seldom relevant. Also while accepting that small uncertainty is good in a scientific sense when dealing with some of the HB's whose posts I've been reading it would be disastrous, admit there's a one in billion chance they might have some sort of point and it will be transmuted into; 'the Apollogists admit they don't know the truth!'.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 17, 2009 14:12:21 GMT -4
If I said that there was a possibility I was wrong, frankly, it would be because I think it's reasonable to expect that I could be. I'll agree to it if it's relevant, but it's seldom relevant. The importance to me of the Fair-Witness distinction is the crucial difference between deduction and observation. For most practical concerns it's not relevant. Common-sense deduction works in most cases. If you see that the front of the house is white and then you walk around to the back, you can safely believe that the front of the house hasn't changed colors in the few seconds since it passed out of sight. You have no reason to expect such a change should occur, and probably no idea of a means by which it could occur ordinarily. But in certain engineering contexts that sort of deduction isn't rigorous enough. It's not sufficient (especially in life-safe circumstances) to say that things must be okay because you can't imagine a way in which they could not be. You can't say that a part must be working because you don't know of any way it could fail. It happens often enough that things fail for reasons that weren't imaginable. In that case you must not deduce that it's working; you must observe whether it is, before you commit to risk. That's one of those situations when common-sense thinking that works in ordinary life spills over inappropriately into places where it doesn't belong. A Fair Witness only observes and never deduces, even when it would be reasonable to do so. Hence she maintains the qualitative difference between deduction and observation. I tend to lead by aphorism, and the one that fits is "Don't deduce something you can look up, and don't look up something you can measure."
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Sept 27, 2009 14:31:17 GMT -4
Hi Jason: On the subject of who “they” are, that is part of the problem with black ops, or when powerful individuals/groups begin swinging the sledgehammer. There is often no paper trail, and usually little physical evidence. You generally only have the testimony of the victims, if they survive and eventually figure out that they WERE the target of black ops. Also, people like O’Leary DO know the names of people who subjected them to black ops, but as you can see in that video, Brian will not name them, because they are alive and can wreak vengeance on those who expose them (and those black ops folks’ identities and why they approached Brian provide some of the evidence of why Brian has some residual skepticism about the moon landings). If you survive the black ops experience, and those who inflicted it on you are high ranking officials in the U.S. government, for instance, who the hell can protect you if you expose them? That is part of the problem with whistleblowers. For instance, the Bush the Second administration was infamous for not protecting any whistleblowers, and even retaliating against them, such as with Valerie Plame. There are other reasons for the “they.” My relative who was a CIA contract agent: www.ahealedplanet.net/paradigm.htm#ciaworked for a household name diplomat who is still alive and still has a high profile. Also, my relative’s family likely does not know much, if anything, about his black ops secret life, and it is not my place to expose that. Similarly, my friend who got an underground exotic technology show from the black ops crowd: www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#undergroundis not publicly talking about it, to my knowledge, so I won’t identify the person who got the show, nor will I reveal too many details about it publicly. In a similar vein, we do not know who the deputies stole our technical material for in the raid: www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#deputybut I highly doubt that they stole it for their own perusal. We do not know who called us up late at night, to encourage our free energy efforts. These are some of the problems with black ops. Some have gone public, named names (or were about to) and stirred up dirt. Those kinds of behaviors can drastically shorten one’s life expectancy, as it did for Paul Wilcher: www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#wilcherDanny Casolaro: www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#casolaroand others like them. When William Colby approached Steven Greer www.ahealedplanet.net/journey.htm#greerthrough intermediaries, and tried to get some of that exotic technology under black ops control (free energy, at a minimum) to Greer, and Colby was found floating in the Potomac a few days later, it showed that nobody is safe from the black ops boys, if they become a target. The so-called radical left generally ignores/dismisses black ops because they do not leave documentary archives that they can dive into, and it also conflicts with their ideology of an anarchic world scene, where nobody is really in control and there is no conscious manipulation of world-stage events though surreptitious means. www.ahealedplanet.net/paradigm.htm#conspiracismThat is like discarding evidence that falls outside one’s paradigm. They won’t see the big picture of what is happening by taking that position. It IS possible to investigate the situations, although it can be perilous. So far, however, almost nobody has, which is part of the conundrum. Again, not everybody who looks into the moon landings or has doubts about them has an overactive imagination. Many have experienced black ops, or been in close proximity to them, and quite a few black ops are related to space activities, so the Apollo missions can come up for questioning. Until you dig into the evidence, many of the moon hoax claims can appear valid, to one degree or another. But, when you dig into them, as I did, the moon hoax claims begin falling apart. But it takes a lot of time to do that. So, doubts about the moon landings can be quite legitimate, but when one digs into the evidence, the doubts begin to vanish, as far as the notion that the moon landings were faked. The Jarrahs of the world are barking up the wrong tree, which really muddies the milieu. Because people like him are headed in the wrong direction, and will doggedly never change their tune, it becomes easy to smear anybody looking into black ops and related cover-ups with that tinfoil hat crowd. Wade
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 27, 2009 15:46:56 GMT -4
Until you dig into the evidence, many of the moon hoax claims can appear valid, to one degree or another. But, when you dig into them, as I did, the moon hoax claims begin falling apart. But it takes a lot of time to do that. I would say that few individual claims, at least of the most frequently used ones, take that long to look into and find to be wrong. There are more complicated ones which do, but I think they're in the minority. And I think that, as you take the five or ten minutes to realize that each one is wrong, you will, if you're really looking at it objectively, kind of start assuming that all the others will be just as flawed. Of course, if you've taken pretty much any math at all, your trust of Jarrah White should fall apart when he starts talking about pi.
|
|
|
Post by wadefrazier3 on Sept 27, 2009 16:23:20 GMT -4
Yes, I have not looked at Jarrah's claims much, but his cred is miniscule. I have found few of the moon hoax claims that I looked at to be dismissible in ten minutes. www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#apolloBut maybe we are referring to different anomalies. Jay and his pals, for instance, have put in a lot of time dealing with the lines of evidence. While some claims can look shaky rather quickly, to put the nails in their coffins can take quite some time (such as no visible exhaust from the LMs as they took off from the moon, or the reticles disappearing, or all the faked photo claims – many HAVE been altered, but those alterations do not mean fakery – the “C” rock, Aldrin’s antenna disappearing, etc., or a lack of lunar low-gravity feats).
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Sept 27, 2009 17:58:05 GMT -4
The following lines have made me wonder: The Landing Module was never tested in a “real” landing and takeoff situation until Armstrong and Aldrin supposedly landed on the moon and took off. When Armstrong tried flying a stripped down version of the LM on earth, he crashed it, nearly getting killed. The LM supposedly made six perfect landings and take offs from the moon.You use the word "supposedly" twice. I thought you considered the landings and take offs a fact? "When Armstrong tried flying..." sounds to me like he did that once more or less at random. But according to www.xmission.com/~jwindley/techlltv.html he flew it with success more than a hundred times. "..he crashed it,..." sounds like he made a mistake, while the crash was in fact due to technical failure according to the above mentioned link and had nothing to do with what Armstrong did or did not do. I can't believe, you are not familiar with that?
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Sept 27, 2009 18:40:15 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Sept 28, 2009 0:01:22 GMT -4
Another point about the LLTV is that its not a stripped down version of the LM. In fact in terms of technologies used and the general design it has very little in common with the LM and much more in common with a Harrier jump jet, they were simply intended to mimic the performance of the LM for training purposes rather than being part of the actual development of it.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Sept 28, 2009 18:36:03 GMT -4
|
|