HB Contradictions

[PhantomWolf]

I'm still extremely skeptical that they could lose $2.4 trillion when their budget was only a fifth of that, especially when the original article stated that it was 25% of their budget.

[nomuse]

It's a bit a concatenation of previous points, but let me see if I'm rested enough to make it pithy. It's a contradiction tucked into a failure to understand what development and testing is.

To wit; following an open and rigorous program of testing was "too risky," but staking all on work that had to be done perfectly the first time (the hoax) was not.

I think the HB's come to this first because they have no understanding of engineering method or the normal development cycle of _anything_ ; because they have a poor opinion of the talents of other people and can not wrap their minds around the attitude that all problems have solutions (just some of the solutions may not be currently practical); and because they fail to understand the complexities of the hoax effort they describe.

(Probably the last is, again, due to assuming everyone but themselves is a moron and that doing things like making movies, or making spacecraft, is probably a lot simpler than the people getting paid to do it make it out to be.)

[AtomicDog]

Contradiction:

It's inappropriate for Apollo astronauts to be laughing, singing, and joking while they are on the Moon.

It's inappropriate for Apollo astronauts to be quiet and reserved at a press conference being held after being released from isolation.

[gillianren]

Contradiction:

If every last little detail of the Apollo missions (or conspiracy of your choice!) isn't exact and easily explainable to people with no training in any relevant field, it was obviously a hoax.

Conspiracy theories don't have to be detailed or make sense.

[BertL]

Sounds more like a paradox to me.

[nomuse]

A most ingenious paradox!

[bazbear]

phantomwolf said:

I'm still extremely skeptical that they could lose $2.4 trillion when their budget was only a fifth of that, especially when the original article stated that it was 25% of their budget.

You can be as skeptical as you like, but the accounting figures speak for themselves. Whether by design or by chance (personally I think it's some of both), the DoD's accounting system is as arcane and convoluted as anything I've ever seen. Let's just say if they were a Fortune 500 company they'd need a new wing at a federal detention center for all the "executives" (read generals and colonels) they'd convict....and I am NOT saying those officers are at fault, I am saying the system is at fault.

[PhantomWolf]

bazbear said:

phantomwolf said:

I'm still extremely skeptical that they could lose $2.4 trillion when their budget was only a fifth of that, especially when the original article stated that it was 25% of their budget.

You can be as skeptical as you like, but the accounting figures speak for themselves. Whether by design or by chance (personally I think it's some of both), the DoD's accounting system is as arcane and convoluted as anything I've ever seen. Let's just say if they were a Fortune 500 company they'd need a new wing at a federal detention center for all the "executives" (read generals and colonels) they'd convict....and I am NOT saying those officers are at fault, I am saying the system is at fault.

You'd have to have an accounting system weirder than Hollywoods if you can lose 25% of your budget of $500 million and have it come out at $2.4 Trillion.

[bazbear]

phantomwolf said:

You'd have to have an accounting system weirder than Hollywoods if you can lose 25% of your budget of $500 million and have it come out at $2.4 Trillion.

Okay, let's try this again; that number is accounting transactions, internal as well as external, hence lord knows how many times the same dollar(s) were "misplaced". My goodness man, these figures aren't coming out of my rear end, they're coming from GAO reports and (pro-defense) DoD watchdogs. And the accounting system is such a mess, and unauditable (again, from GAO, who are mandated by law to audit all government branches) DoD is forced to ask congress for a waiver of that audit annually. I also never said anything about losing 25% of anything.

BALANCE THE F'ING BOOKS (at least to federal gov't standards)! That's all I'm saying, and all I'm asking for; the rest of the vast bureacracy seems to be able to manage this, why not DoD?

[PhantomWolf]

I also never said anything about losing 25% of anything.

The 25% figure came from the original article I believe, though it's about 6 months since I read it now.

[scooter]

The astronauts are seen with their shaded visors up, bad idea with the blinding glare of the sun and the bright surface.
but...
We can see details in the shadowed area of the astronauts and LM, impossible without an artificial secondary light source...

The secondary light source IS the bright surface...

[aes53]

I'm new here but I guess the rest of you have already realized that Bart Sibrel's initials are B.S.

[echnaton]

Welcome to the board, aes53.

BS's name is occasionally taken in vain as an equivalent for bovine fecal mater. As in, "that is just Bart Sibrel."

[acered]

In the end HBs are just the same 9/11 conspiracy theorists, what they do is exploit any confusion that normally arises from John Doe on the streets lack of Scientific/Engineering/Technical knowledge to plant doubt. This constantly takes place in a number of areas because the general public have that lack of basic understanding about what objective science is, that is the best current model and theory about things that fit observation. If they applied this intellectual exercise to the Apollo missions they would be forced to the conclusion that it is extremely likely (despite paranoia about what government and its associated organisations say/do) that the Apollo missions did take place and man did land on the moon at the date NASA say it happened. The problem for HBs is this, to fake the Apollo Missions would actually be a far greater feat, more expensive and time consuming than actually doing it, that is the major contradiction.

[PhantomWolf]

In the end HBs are just the same 9/11 conspiracy theorists

Why do you think that half the starting 9/11 CT's were HB's prior to 9/11 and the other half were Neo-Nazi? (one or two were both)