HB Contradictions

[greigdempsey]

nomuse said:

How is it HB's can only make an argument by saying "Here, watch this 40-minute, badly-compressed video with swarmy commentary and lots of unlabeled, uncredited footage?"

I dunno, if I walked into a forum and started trumpetting about how many Phd's I'd worked with, I'd maybe come up with something better than links to Google videos...

It is a NASA video obtained by the film maker from a senior employee at NASA who was designated to assist him in making the film.

[nomuse]

No such animal. There is no part of the Apollo surface record that is not available to the public -- although you may need to purchase from commercial compilers. It is unacceptable to point to any "smoking gun" in the surface record and not be able to quote mission and time -- and in the case of stills, the actual reference number.

The track record of the various videos we've been exposed to is one of unattributed clips, compression artifacts, undocumented edits...and far too much meaningless blather by people with an interest not in truth or accuracy but in selling more video.

These are not a source most of us go to eagerly.

[greigdempsey]

nomuse said:

No such animal. There is no part of the Apollo surface record that is not available to the public -- although you may need to purchase from commercial compilers. It is unacceptable to point to any "smoking gun" in the surface record and not be able to quote mission and time -- and in the case of stills, the actual reference number.

The track record of the various videos we've been exposed to is one of unattributed clips, compression artifacts, undocumented edits...and far too much meaningless blather by people with an interest not in truth or accuracy but in selling more video.

These are not a source most of us go to eagerly.

I hope you aren't suggesting the video was faked on earth, whatever next !!

[nomuse]

I suggested nothing.

Here's the analogy. "There is satanic symbolism in the design of the Campbell's soup can," I say. So shall we look at a Campbell's soap can, perhaps? No.....let's go look at one of Andy Warhol's famous artworks incorporating manipulated images of one of those cans.

You want to point "here, here, look at this obvious fake," why not point to that video or photograph that is of highest quality and the least number of intermediate handlers?

Going to a ripped copy of a video make by a hoax believer will always generate the question "Was this in the original record, or is this something added in the intermediate stages?" Note I do not mean it must be intentionally; an unfortunate edit or one of the many artifacts of processing can also mislead.

[Apollo Gnomon]

The "documentary" was faked on earth, edited without providing provenience.

I'm watching it now (slowly and in chunks, it's taking forever to download) and so far every time this Collier guy opens his mouth, something stupid comes out.

I'm hoping that your knowlege base of the Apollo program is deeper than just this one "film."

[Count Zero]

greigdempsey said:

The Pentagon admitted to losing 2 trillion dollars in 2001.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, the outlay for the Department of Defence in 2001 was $290.34 billion, which is less than 1/6th of the money you claim they "lost".

Please provide evidence for your claim.

[greigdempsey]

nomuse said:

I suggested nothing.

Here's the analogy. "There is satanic symbolism in the design of the Campbell's soup can," I say. So shall we look at a Campbell's soap can, perhaps? No.....let's go look at one of Andy Warhol's famous artworks incorporating manipulated images of one of those cans.

You want to point "here, here, look at this obvious fake," why not point to that video or photograph that is of highest quality and the least number of intermediate handlers?

Going to a ripped copy of a video make by a hoax believer will always generate the question "Was this in the original record, or is this something added in the intermediate stages?" Note I do not mean it must be intentionally; an unfortunate edit or one of the many artifacts of processing can also mislead.

Collier's version on Youtube is bigger than the NASA's online version.

[greigdempsey]

countzero said:

greigdempsey said:

The Pentagon admitted to losing 2 trillion dollars in 2001.

According to the Office of Management and Budget, the outlay for the Department of Defence in 2001 was $290.34 billion, which is less than 1/6th of the money you claim they "lost".

Please provide evidence for your claim.

Rumsfeld said he couldn't account for $2.3 trillion - not all in the same year.

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

[nomuse]

greigdempsey said:

nomuse said:

I suggested nothing.

Here's the analogy. "There is satanic symbolism in the design of the Campbell's soup can," I say. So shall we look at a Campbell's soap can, perhaps? No.....let's go look at one of Andy Warhol's famous artworks incorporating manipulated images of one of those cans.

You want to point "here, here, look at this obvious fake," why not point to that video or photograph that is of highest quality and the least number of intermediate handlers?

Going to a ripped copy of a video make by a hoax believer will always generate the question "Was this in the original record, or is this something added in the intermediate stages?" Note I do not mean it must be intentionally; an unfortunate edit or one of the many artifacts of processing can also mislead.

Collier's version on Youtube is bigger than the NASA's online version.

Whooptee whoo. The original scan is bigger than both. And available full-length via SpaceCraft films or a bunch of letters to the PAO.

Also, I look at it this way. The videos and stills are in the nature of "NASA claims...." So why would you go to hearsay? If Peter has a story you aren't sure you believe, why ask Paul to tell it for him?

Consider this pair of alternatives; we see something that is obviously hoaxed in a video with no good provenance. How do we know it isn't a clip from Capricorn One? Or, we see something that is obviously hoaxed in a video that NASA has vouched for. Would that be, perhaps, a little more intriguing?

The obvious counter is that NASA could be faking everything, so why get any evidence from them at all? But this is a poor argument. One looks not at the record to blindly accept it; "Oh, look, people on the Moon -- must have been real." One looks to see if the record is A) internally consistent, B) consistent with external observation, and C) consistent with physical reality.

[PhantomWolf]

Rumsfeld said he couldn't account for $2.3 trillion - not all in the same year.

Exactly, it's been over a very, very long time. Even using the figure suggested of 25% of their budget spent on unknown things and keeping the past budgets the same as 2001's (which they weren't) that'd work out as being lost over 44 Years!!!! In reality the money was likely spent over a much longer period of time.

[pzkpfw]

This contradiction (?) just struck me as I was doing the dishes:

HB: "NASA = Nazi", "Werner von Braun" etc.

HB: "You'll get yours when the truth comes out".

I know it's not specifically about Apollo (or the supposed Moon hoax) itself, but I'm amused by the irony of the "Nazi" claim being made by someone who then threatens this kind of retributative "justice".

[Do they imagine (want?) a day when school children are encouraged to rat-out their parents for believing in the moon-landings?]

[bazbear]

phantomwolf said:

Rumsfeld said he couldn't account for $2.3 trillion - not all in the same year.

Exactly, it's been over a very, very long time. Even using the figure suggested of 25% of their budget spent on unknown things and keeping the past budgets the same as 2001's (which they weren't) that'd work out as being lost over 44 Years!!!! In reality the money was likely spent over a much longer period of time.

I believe that figure represents unjustified transactions (internal transfers of all sorts as well as payments to outside contractors) ie. bad accounting practices, DoD wide, and IIRC may indeed represent one fiscal year (obviously the same money get misaccounted for several times). I must be off to work, but I'll try to remember tonight to find the documentation about this.

[grashtel]

bazbear said:

]I believe that figure represents unjustified transactions (internal transfers of all sorts as well as payments to outside contractors) ie. bad accounting practices, DoD wide, and IIRC may indeed represent one fiscal year (obviously the same money get misaccounted for several times). I must be off to work, but I'll try to remember tonight to find the documentation about this.

Considering that the total budget of the US DoD for 2006 was just $419.3 Billion I think that is unlikely, if they have managed to loose track of every dollar an average of about five times bad accounting doesn't quite cover it.

[bazbear]

grashtel said:

bazbear said:

]I believe that figure represents unjustified transactions (internal transfers of all sorts as well as payments to outside contractors) ie. bad accounting practices, DoD wide, and IIRC may indeed represent one fiscal year (obviously the same money get misaccounted for several times). I must be off to work, but I'll try to remember tonight to find the documentation about this.

Considering that the total budget of the US DoD for 2006 was just $419.3 Billion I think that is unlikely, if they have managed to loose track of every dollar an average of about five times bad accounting doesn't quite cover it.

Okay, the figure I had seen was $1.1 trillion USD in unjustified transactions, for FY 2000. The information came from "Department of Defense Independent Auditors Report on the FY 2001 DoD
Annual Financial Report and Report on Internal Controls and
Compliance with Laws and Regulations" www.dodig.osd.mil/Audit/reports/fy02/02-055.pdf
on page 6 (of 12).

[bazbear]

While I can't find a definitive document to back up that $2+ trillion dollar/one FY accounting fiasco, such credible watchdogs as Chuck Spinney (if you don't know who he is, check him out) have used this figure for the FY 2002 budget in interviews. So I guess the moral of this story is the 5 sided puzzle palace really can lose a dollar five times; as hard as it is for me or any of us to believe.

Now do I think there is rampant fraud and waste? I'd like to think not; but if the system is utterly unauditable, how can anyone really be sure?

'Nuff said, I've already taken this thread WAY off track.