Paid Debunkers and Sheeple

[Retrograde]

One of the things I have learned in my time here is that anyone who doesn't believe Apollo was hoaxed is either a paid government agent or a pathetic flunky of the Bush administration, even if that person has never set foot in the US, or voted against George Bush twice, for example.

However, prior to January 2001, the presidency of the US was held by a member of a political party with a membership that largely despises Bush. Prior to that time, were we all pathetic flunkies of Bill Clinton? What happens if the US presidency changes parties in 2009? Will we all then be shameless flunkies of the Democratic Party? Will the change be retroactive, that is, will we discover that during the period 2001-2009 we were all mindless opponents of the Bush administration? Will the HBs change sides also?

Just wondering...

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

Everybody knows that America has a one party system.
The Democratic party and the Republican party are just the
two faces of a beast called the Demopublican Repucratic Party.

And remember. Don't accept checks.
Checks can be traced.
Small bills in plain brown envelopes, please.

[Retrograde]

halcyondayz said:

And remember. Don't accept checks.
Checks can be traced.
Small bills in plain brown envelopes, please.

Don't bills have serial numbers? Shouldn't I deal only in gold and silver?

N

[dwight]

I use a bartar system myself

[sts60]

At least some of us have serious issues with the current Administration, with NASA's bureaucratic ways, and so on. But that doesn't stop CTs from labeling all of us as Bush apologists, paid NASA lackeys, etc., etc. It's a lot easier than actually looking at facts and doing calculations.

[nomuse]

Or some of our local crop take an even simpler route and call us blind followers of Jay. Or, as we used to call it, Babbling Maggots.

[stargazer]

Everybody knows that America has a one party system.
The Democratic party and the Republican party are just the
two faces of a beast called the Demopublican Repucratic Party.


I agree with this. It doesn't matter whom of the candidates you give your vote, they are handpicked from the beginning, e.g. Kerry vs. Bush (what happened to Dean who was far ahead in the primaries, e.g.?). It's just different rhethorics, arguing about problems of minor importance and in reality the outcome desired by TPTB is long since determined. It's a big simulation for the sheeple so that they might believe they have something to say, some influence on the direction the country is going, to give them the illusion they live in a democracy. I'm just wondering why they always seem to elect leaders who act detrimentally to their best interests.

BTW, I found a nice quote by Ex-president Clinton on the Apollo hoax. Yes, I found it on Sibrel's website and I did not read Clinton's autobiography I would not even think of doing something like that, so if anybody has the book please look, whether Sibrel made that up.

"Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the moon, beating by five months President Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the moon before the decade was out. The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that "them television fellers" could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time."

Again we see that doubt is produced in the reader, however there never is a clear YES or NO concerning the hoax since that would end the confusion about it and that's not what's intended, but disorienting and dumbing down the sheeple ever more...

Sibrel comments on Clinton's remark and I think rightly so:
"[...] Now, exactly what is a former two-term United States President doing wondering about the authenticity of the greatest technological accomplishment in the history of mankind – an event that had marked the legacy of his own boyhood hero, JFK? Obviously, he had seen something as President that now gives him reason to believe that the moon landings could have been falsified. If a former U.S. President is wondering about the authenticity of the claim, does it not make sense that we should wonder too? [...]"

cf. 216.26.168.193/moonmovie/default.asp?ID=12

PS: I think Clinton knows very well that Apollo was a fraud and he did not learn it from TV nor during his 8 years as president but much earlier.

[phunk]

The key words in that quote are "on tv" and he's probably talking about movie special effects. Keep in mind that even today nobody has ever created a sci-fi movie that didn't have obvious flaws, even when they were trying to be realistic. Yet you want us to believe that almost 40 years ago they created thousands of pictures and hundreds of hours of film and video without a single flaw. Oh yeah, and they did it in realtime! Ground crews regularly talked about current events, sports scores, etc with the astronauts.

[stargazer]

Yet you want us to believe that almost 40 years ago they created thousands of pictures and hundreds of hours of film and video without a single flaw. Oh yeah, and they did it in realtime! Ground crews regularly talked about current events, sports scores, etc with the astronauts.

No, I don't want you to believe anything. Take a close look at all those pictures and footage, there are tons of flaws in them, you just prefer to overlook them and instead believe the "debunkers".

[phunk]

Oh sure there are flaws like overexposures and thumb over the lense and such, but I'm talking about flaws that indicate forgery. Haven't seen any of those. You know, like something falling at a speed that indicates the wrong gravity, or behaving like there's an atmosphere when there shouldn't be, etc. None, not one, of the HB claims stands up to even high school science.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

And I thought that I was being sarcastic.

Proud Lying Babb Maggot. ;D

[Kiwi]

phunk said:

...I'm talking about flaws that indicate forgery. Haven't seen any of those.

Perhaps Stargazer could start a new thread and show us the lunar surface photographs that are definitely faked. We will, of course, expect him to give REAL evidence and proof, not just wild speculation based on ignorance like other hoax believers such as Aulis, Kaysing, Sibrel, Margamatix and Moon Man.

Some of us older ex-professional photographers who taught photography could no doubt do with the "expertise" of someone who doesn't even seem to understand the difference in exposure required by sunlit scenes and stars.

[Bob B.]

stargazer said:

(what happened to Dean who was far ahead in the primaries, e.g.?)

Dean was never ahead in the primaries; he was leading in the early polls. Be the time the primaries rolled around people figured out he had no chance to win the election so they dropped him like a hot potato.

stargazer said:

"Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the moon, beating by five months President Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the moon before the decade was out. The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that "them television fellers" could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time."

I read this quote entirely different from Stagazer. I believe Clinton is talking about the authority of television in general, not anything about the moon landings specifically. He never says he doubts the authenticity of the moon landings. Clinton says he’s seen “things” on TV that makes him wonder about the reliability of TV’s reporting. The ‘old carpenter’ may have had a point about television, not about the moon landings specifically.

stargazer said:

Take a close look at all those pictures and footage, there are tons of flaws in them, you just prefer to overlook them and instead believe the "debunkers".

Stargazer, you’ve had about a month to produce evidence of these alleged flaws. We’re still waiting.

[stargazer]

[...]
Perhaps Stargazer could start a new thread and show us the lunar surface photographs that are definitely faked.

[...]
Stargazer, you’ve had about a month to produce evidence of these alleged flaws. We’re still waiting.

No, that would be useless because in your world "real" means "whatever I want to be true". Keep dreaming...

[iamspartacus]

Stargazer, accepting something without evidence is called a belief. This is exactly what you are asking us to do with your claims. Believe what stargazer says. He is the holder of the truth. He doesn't need to provide evidence.

You know very well how it works here. State you case, provide the evidence, don't rant or hand wave.

Spelling