http://www.theonion.com/content/news/conspiracy_theorist_convinces_neil

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://www.theonion.com/content/news/conspiracy_theorist_convinces_neil

  Wanna bet how many conspiracy theorists are going to completely ignore
the reliability of the source and quote that article as fact?-)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Wanna bet how many conspiracy theorists are going to completely ignore
> the reliability of the source and quote that article as fact?-)

Umm... Most?

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>>   Wanna bet how many conspiracy theorists are going to completely ignore
>> the reliability of the source and quote that article as fact?-)

I'm of the opinion that the landing was real, but that portions of the
footage were faked, and others staged, for cold-war PR reasons.
I was three years old when it happened, I watched it on my uncle's
TV. I also saw coverage of Apollo 12 and 13. I saw some of the 
launches from 14-17, but by then I was mostly in pre-school, and 
in places without TV.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood <tim### [at] anti-spamcomcastnet> wrote:
> I'm of the opinion that the landing was real, but that portions of the
> footage were faked, and others staged, for cold-war PR reasons.

  And what makes you think they were faked? Do you have any evidence?
(Something better than the old tired "there are no stars" style "evidence".)

  There's not a single piece of evidence to insinuate that the footage was
faked. I don't understand why one would even think that they were.

  Before you present all the old, tired arguments, read this first (in its
entirety, preferably): http://www.clavius.org/

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  And what makes you think they were faked? Do you have any evidence?
> (Something better than the old tired "there are no stars" style 
> "evidence".)

The lack of testable evidence is one of the reasons I think there
is some deception going on. It's my estimation that the people at
NASA and JPL aren't really dumb enough to have misplaced the
records of their biggest achievement.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:58:03 -0700, Tim Attwood wrote:

>  It's my estimation that the people at
> NASA and JPL aren't really dumb enough to have misplaced the records of
> their biggest achievement.

Well, similarly, the people in the Pentagon shouldn't have lost records 
from WWII in a fire, but they did.

The BBC shouldn't have overwritten or otherwise lost early footage of 
many now cult classics, but they did....

Records get lost, especially when you have *lots* of them and no way of 
storing them digitally (and digital storage is no prevention for the loss 
of records, either....)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood schrieb:
>>  And what makes you think they were faked? Do you have any evidence?
>> (Something better than the old tired "there are no stars" style 
>> "evidence".)
> 
> The lack of testable evidence is one of the reasons I think there
> is some deception going on. It's my estimation that the people at
> NASA and JPL aren't really dumb enough to have misplaced the
> records of their biggest achievement.

NASA is a bureaucracy after all. Stuff like that does happen in a 
bureaucracy.

Someone head guy decided that they needed more telemetry tapes, but hey 
- the archives are full of old telemetry tapes nobody has ever bothered 
to look at ever since. I mean, who would care about the telemetry tapes 
of some obscure spacecraft from 30, 40, maybe 50 years ago?

Head guy gives orders to some intermediate guy #1, "go ahead and recycle 
some of those old telemetry tapes from the archive nobody will miss".

Intermediate guy #1 gives orders to some intermediate guy #2, "recycle 
some of those old telemetry tapes from the archive; nobody will miss them".

...

Intermediate guy #N gives oders to some poor bloke working in the 
archives, "find some old telemetry tapes and prepare them for recycling".

That poor bloke, maybe 25 years of age, finds the Apollo telemetry 
tapes, and /does/ prepare them for recycling. After all, who would still 
care about that endless bulk of biomed and technical sensor data being 
streamed 24/7 to the earth? The glitches have been analyzed decades ago 
already, and nobody will ever bother about the rest.

How should that poor bloke, having started his work at NASA decades 
after the events, happen to know enough details about the Apollo mission 
to know that these very telemetry data reels also contained the original 
video footage from up there?


Don't assume bad intent where incompetence will do. And don't assume 
incompetence in individuals where flaws in a system will suit just as well.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood <tim### [at] anti-spamcomcastnet> wrote:
> The lack of testable evidence is one of the reasons I think there
> is some deception going on. It's my estimation that the people at
> NASA and JPL aren't really dumb enough to have misplaced the
> records of their biggest achievement. 

  I really find it illogical that from two alternative explanations you
are convinced that the most implausible one must be the truth.

  Let's consider the two possibilities:

1) NASA faked the footage of the Moon landings. This means that all the
people who were involved in one way or another with this footage have been
keeping quiet for the last 40 years. Nobody who was aware of the fakery
has come forward, and nobody else who was working at NASA ever suspected
that the footage was fake. The astronauts themselves have kept quiet for
40 years, the people who were directly involved in creating the fakes have
been quiet for 40 years, people who decided that the fakes have to be
created have been quiet for 40 years, the people who knew the alleged
technical problems in creating the genuine footage have been quiet for
40 years, people working at NASA who may have had any suspicion that the
footage was faked have been quiet for 40 years. The people who were
involved in deliberately destroying the original material have been quiet
for 40 years.

  Moreover, the engineers who designed the cameras either knew that they
won't work and have been quiet for 40 years, or were somehow fooled that
they would work even though the couldn't, and they never suspected a thing.

  The engineers who designed the lunar lander and the lunar rover (who were
not NASA employees, btw) were also completely fooled by the fake footage
and never suspected their product was not really being used in vacuum in
1/6th of Earth's gravity, that the footage was so well done, that it fools
even the experts. Or, alternatively, they have been keeping quiet for 40
years.

  The fakes are so well done that photography experts can find no sign of
fakery in the photographs, which is a rather impressive feat, especially
taking into account they were made in the 60's.

2) NASA did lose some original footage of the first landing due to
oversight, carelesness or a mistake. Nobody working at NASA seems to have
a problem with this claim, and it's not unprecedent.

  Which possibility seems more plausible?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Which possibility seems more plausible?

He *did* say "portions" of the footage were faked. That's far more plausible 
than everything being faked, and far easier to cover up.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>>   Which possibility seems more plausible?
> 
> He *did* say "portions" of the footage were faked. That's far more 
> plausible than everything being faked, and far easier to cover up.
> 

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/conspiracy_theorist_convinces_neil

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> He *did* say "portions" of the footage were faked. That's far more plausible 
> than everything being faked, and far easier to cover up.

  I still don't see too much difference from what I wrote.

  The astronauts would have to either be involved directly in the fakery,
or some other people would have to be put in suits to fake the photos.
Even if the fakery did not require actually taking photos, only manipulating
existing material, the astronatus would notice some of the photos not
matching anything they did. In either case I find it implausible for all
these people to keep quiet about it.

  Some people have to make the decision to create the fakes and arrange
for making them. Some people need to do the actual faking. Some people
would notice that some of the photos were not in any of the films in
the actual cameras, and would certainly start asking questions about
where those photos came from. All of these people would have to be kept
quiet about these issues for the past 40 years.

  And what would be the point? Why fake some photos while still having
some genuine photos? Why take the risk of this information leaking?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  I still don't see too much difference from what I wrote.
>
>  The astronauts would have to either be involved directly in the fakery,
> or some other people would have to be put in suits to fake the photos.
> Even if the fakery did not require actually taking photos, only 
> manipulating
> existing material, the astronatus would notice some of the photos not
> matching anything they did. In either case I find it implausible for all
> these people to keep quiet about it.
>
>  Some people have to make the decision to create the fakes and arrange
> for making them. Some people need to do the actual faking. Some people
> would notice that some of the photos were not in any of the films in
> the actual cameras, and would certainly start asking questions about
> where those photos came from. All of these people would have to be kept
> quiet about these issues for the past 40 years.
>
>  And what would be the point? Why fake some photos while still having
> some genuine photos? Why take the risk of this information leaking?

Think about it this way, the crew has just had hairy landing almost
out of fuel, they call back "the eagle has landed", on earth everyone is
elated, they've made it. Armstrong is going down the ladder when
the video feed breaks up, having planned for every contingency
"they" cut in a video portion of "Armstrong" descending a ladder,
after the delay everyone on earth hears and sees what is really going
on, the USA has beaten the USSR to the moon. Soon after the
video breaks up again... "they're" done with the clip. The astronauts get
the camera from inside and set it up, they get the rover camera working,
who knows about the edit? The astronauts obviously don't, the
video went thru JPL, so it's likely no one at mission control knew,
it's the sort of secret that some military type might take to the grave
with them. Is there proof? No... just a few inconsistencies in what
remains of the footage. The original is gone, so there's no way to
look for a definitive forensic video fingerprint proof.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood wrote:
> "they" cut in a video portion of "Armstrong" descending a ladder,

I went to a lecture where Armstrong (Or Aldrin?) explained why they went 
around out of sight while descending. Apparently, he couldn't see his boots, 
he slipped of the ladder, and he thought "I sure as hell don't want to fall 
off the ladder with everyone in the world watching me live on TV."  Now you 
know.

Then he went on to talk about how God showed him where to find the white 
rocks he was looking for. Kind of an odd lecture.

> just a few inconsistencies in what
> remains of the footage. 

And what inconsistencies are you seeing?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

> And what inconsistencies are you seeing?

It's not my project (who cares as long as they really
were on the moon?) but from what I understand there
were reflections of lights showing in the helmet
visor.

Post a reply to this message

On 09/02/09 18:58, Tim Attwood wrote:
> with them. Is there proof? No... just a few inconsistencies in what
> remains of the footage. The original is gone, so there's no way to

	All that you described does not constitute an inconsistency.


-- 
Whose cruel idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have a "S" in it?

Post a reply to this message

> Armstrong is going down the ladder when
> the video feed breaks up, having planned for every contingency
> "they" cut in a video portion of "Armstrong" descending a ladder,

As Warp said, if this really was the case, there would be a huge number of 
people who knew about it, and it is *really* unlikely that many people could 
keep their mouths shut for so long.  I don't see how you could do such a 
thing with only 1 or 2 people knowing about it.  It's not like some senior 
NASA person could come in one night with a friend and shoot the fake video 
to exactly match what hadn't even happened yet.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood <tim### [at] anti-spamcomcastnet> wrote:
> Think about it this way, the crew has just had hairy landing almost
> out of fuel, they call back "the eagle has landed", on earth everyone is
> elated, they've made it. Armstrong is going down the ladder when
> the video feed breaks up, having planned for every contingency
> "they" cut in a video portion of "Armstrong" descending a ladder,
> after the delay everyone on earth hears and sees what is really going
> on, the USA has beaten the USSR to the moon. Soon after the
> video breaks up again... "they're" done with the clip. The astronauts get
> the camera from inside and set it up, they get the rover camera working,
> who knows about the edit? The astronauts obviously don't, the
> video went thru JPL, so it's likely no one at mission control knew,
> it's the sort of secret that some military type might take to the grave
> with them. Is there proof? No... just a few inconsistencies in what
> remains of the footage. The original is gone, so there's no way to
> look for a definitive forensic video fingerprint proof.

  Your mistake is to think that NASA was in direct line-of-sight to the
Moon for the entire mission, and that all video feed was received and
relayed forward solely by the NASA mission control center and nobody else.

  If you think about it, you'll find some problems with that idea. As you
know, the Earth rotates. This means that one point on the surface of the
earth is in direct line-of-sight to the Moon for an average of 12 hours
per day. It's physically impossible for the NASA mission control center
to have a 24-hour direct link to the signals sent from the Moon.

  Of course everybody knows this, and it wasn't a problem. NASA mission
control center was certainly not the only place on Earth which was
receiving and relaying those signals.

  (Also, do you *seriously* think that eg. the USSR was not watching
closely every single transmission? The USSR would have loved nothing
more than to expose a hoax and ridicule the USA.)

  If instead of living in an illusion you *really* want to know the truth,
then please do some research. See how they managed the missions, the
transmissions and everything. You'll see that many of the conspiracy
theory accusations will crumble solely by doing that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood <tim### [at] anti-spamcomcastnet> wrote:
> It's not my project (who cares as long as they really
> were on the moon?)

  Why shouldn't we care? If NASA created fakes, we should know about it.

> but from what I understand there
> were reflections of lights showing in the helmet
> visor.

  Do you honestly and seriously think that nobody has ever thought about
that?

  Let me ask you a question: Do you know the mechanics and physics behind
the so-called photographic lens flare effect?

  I warmly recommend you to read some debunking websites besides those hoax
theory websites. Then make an informed decision on whether the explanations
make sense and which possibility is more plausible.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 09/03/09 03:31, Warp wrote:
>    If you think about it, you'll find some problems with that idea. As you
> know, the Earth rotates. This means that one point on the surface of the
> earth is in direct line-of-sight to the Moon for an average of 12 hours
> per day. It's physically impossible for the NASA mission control center
> to have a 24-hour direct link to the signals sent from the Moon.

	Satellites?

>    (Also, do you *seriously* think that eg. the USSR was not watching
> closely every single transmission? The USSR would have loved nothing
> more than to expose a hoax and ridicule the USA.)

	That's the kind of logic conspiracy theorists use.


-- 
"Biplane"  ...last words a pilot says before bailing out.

Post a reply to this message

>Do you honestly and seriously think that nobody has ever thought about
>that?

Of course, both sides have gone over every detail, and while
I haven't followed the conspiracy wesites, I remember having
watched a TV special about it, and most of the portions they
discussed seemed to have simple RL debunks. It really makes
the hoax theorists look like idiots.

>Let me ask you a question: Do you know the mechanics and physics behind
>the so-called photographic lens flare effect?

Yeah, light bounces beween the lens front and back.
There was quite a bit of glass in the moon rocks too,
so it's possible that there was sparkle from rocks.

>I warmly recommend you to read some debunking websites besides those hoax
>theory websites. Then make an informed decision on whether the explanations
>make sense and which possibility is more plausible.

I'm not sure it's really worth my time, there's not going
to be any proof that misplacing the tapes is incompetence
as NASA claims, vrs intentional as I suspect.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> He *did* say "portions" of the footage were faked. That's far more plausible 
>> than everything being faked, and far easier to cover up.
> 
>   I still don't see too much difference from what I wrote.
> 
>   The astronauts would have to either be involved directly in the fakery,
> or some other people would have to be put in suits to fake the photos.
> Even if the fakery did not require actually taking photos, only manipulating
> existing material, the astronatus would notice some of the photos not
> matching anything they did. In either case I find it implausible for all
> these people to keep quiet about it.
> 
>   Some people have to make the decision to create the fakes and arrange
> for making them. Some people need to do the actual faking. Some people
> would notice that some of the photos were not in any of the films in
> the actual cameras, and would certainly start asking questions about
> where those photos came from. All of these people would have to be kept
> quiet about these issues for the past 40 years.
> 
>   And what would be the point? Why fake some photos while still having
> some genuine photos? Why take the risk of this information leaking?
> 

But.. The same people that "think" they managed to do this also thing 
that a Florida man who once worked as a janitor at a lab, by the name of 
Lazar, is actually a physicist who had every scrap of evidence, 
including his own SSN, school records, birth records, etc. **all** 
erased by the NSA and CIA, and replaced by ones showing he was a 
clueless, uneducated fool, to hide the fact that he worked on the secret 
projects to reverse engineer alien space craft. You know.. The stuff 
that we came up with, like gravity drives (oh, wait, no, we haven't 
managed that one) or micro chips, the later of which work so well, that 
there are dozens of research projects trying to replace them with light 
based chips, quantum computers, and even, in some obscure circles, new 
classes of analog systems... None of which work *anything* like a 
transistor, but I am sure the same people think where "reverse 
engineered" from the same glowy flying space ships, in a secret 
building, that Mr. Lazar worked with.

Oh, and the real fun thing.. The moron insists that the almost instantly 
decaying, Ununium 115 is the power source for these ships, and that its 
"natural" form is neither radioactively toxic, nor unstable (never mind 
the fact that the stuff made by us in particle accelerators *is* the 
natural kind, and you would have to strip off like 30+ electrons (this 
is an estimate, since I have no idea what the next stable "downward" 
element would be), or add 69 of them, to get a "stable" configuration of 
184 electrons. Pretty sure, though its been a while, that isotopes have 
only +/- 1 electron, maybe 2, but nothing I have ever seen suggests you 
could add, or remove 30-70 of them to get a "stable" form. For one, I 
doubt the core would sustain that many lost, or gained, without them 
flying off, or causing a collapse of the structure. The 184 element 
*might* be feasibly worth something, if anyone ever made any, which we 
haven't, and I suspect its properties are probably not anything like "fuel".

Oh, yes, and the local wacko that believes Lazar *and* the moon landing 
being a hoax, also thinks that 9/11 was "staged".

The way I figure it, if all the shit they think people faked over the 
years where faked, the amount of power such people would have to have 
would make it **easier** for them to simply arrange for inconvenient 
people like Lazar to die in a car accident, *before* they write a dozen 
fracking books, then erase anything they might have written down, 
instead of wasting decades erasing documents to make the guy look like a 
quack. Basically, anyone able to cover up the shit they are accused of 
could make the population of an entire state vanish, if they where 
"inconvenient" and be similarly *never caught at it*. Yet, somehow, all 
these people who "know the truth", these thousands of walking corpses, 
these inconvenient people that, if they just dredged up one single 
document some place, could bring the whole thing down, are amazingly 
alive, loud, prolific in whining about the conspiracies, and, in many 
cases, making a damn good living off of selling stuff that any *sane* 
conspiracist would have had burned, along with their bodies, before the 
first book hit the printers, never mind a book shelf.

These people make my head hurt...

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 09/03/09 03:31, Warp wrote:
>>    If you think about it, you'll find some problems with that idea. As 
>> you
>> know, the Earth rotates. This means that one point on the surface of the
>> earth is in direct line-of-sight to the Moon for an average of 12 hours
>> per day. It's physically impossible for the NASA mission control center
>> to have a 24-hour direct link to the signals sent from the Moon.
> 
>     Satellites?
> 
Of which there where what.. Maybe 5 at the time, all stationary *over* 
the US, not in the least because people in other countries would have 
been less than happy to know they where being potentially spied on. On, 
and.. Unless you missed the point of how they are built, they have two 
systems on them, both aimed *at* what they are dealing with, one to 
receive, the other to transmit, and both at pointed *down*, at the 
earth. As a rule, most satellites, especially from that period, could 
only relay information from the ground, to other satellites, or back to 
the ground, and then only in line of site, and then only on the same 
plane, if the moon was *behind* the damn thing, it would be worthless, 
as it would be on almost any angle to the moon from it. We still have 
the same issue talking to orbital systems and space craft today. 
*Something* has to be pointed at what you plan to receive.

Now, I suppose, if you where taking a long approach, you could have shot 
up a dozen satellites, all specifically *designed* to receive data from 
the "opposite" direction of the earth, but that would have taken more 
launches, before we put people into space. Fact is, even today, we 
*still* have our space craft talk to ground stations, then *those* 
stations relay the data up to a satellite, which shoots it across to 
another one, and finally back down to the ground. The shuttle/ship never 
"talks" directly to the satellites.

>>    (Also, do you *seriously* think that eg. the USSR was not watching
>> closely every single transmission? The USSR would have loved nothing
>> more than to expose a hoax and ridicule the USA.)
> 
>     That's the kind of logic conspiracy theorists use.
> 
Uh, no. Conspiracy theorists make up implausible secret agencies, then 
claim that *those* are watching everyone. We know the USSR existed, we 
know they spied on us, we know they watched our TV, we even have 
documentation indicating they listened in on a lot of stuff we did in 
the space program. Its hardly implausible, or only supported by some 
random wacko with a book, who insists he once worked for some secret 
project to paint rocks for a fake landing, or the similar BS you get in 
conspiracy theorist thinking.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> http://www.theonion.com/content/news/conspiracy_theorist_convinces_neil
> 
>   Wanna bet how many conspiracy theorists are going to completely ignore
> the reliability of the source and quote that article as fact?-)

You win.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?from=rss_News&set_id=1&click_id=79&art_id=nw20090903102100719C618601


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 08:57:43 -0500, Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:

>On 09/03/09 03:31, Warp wrote:
>>    If you think about it, you'll find some problems with that idea. As you
>> know, the Earth rotates. This means that one point on the surface of the
>> earth is in direct line-of-sight to the Moon for an average of 12 hours
>> per day. It's physically impossible for the NASA mission control center
>> to have a 24-hour direct link to the signals sent from the Moon.
>
>	Satellites?

IIRC Goonhilly in Cornwell (UK) was used as a relay. I've got a vague memory of
an American military base somewhere in Turkey being used too.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
>>   Wanna bet how many conspiracy theorists are going to completely ignore
>> the reliability of the source and quote that article as fact?-)
> 
> You win.

Google too.
http://picturehost.net/b0b/OnionOnGoogleNewsPage.jpg

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood <tim### [at] anti-spamcomcastnet> wrote:
> >I warmly recommend you to read some debunking websites besides those hoax
> >theory websites. Then make an informed decision on whether the explanations
> >make sense and which possibility is more plausible.

> I'm not sure it's really worth my time, there's not going
> to be any proof that misplacing the tapes is incompetence
> as NASA claims, vrs intentional as I suspect.

  So because there's no absolute proof either way, you choose to believe
the most implausible explanation rather than the simpler, plausible one?
And this even in the light of everything else (mentioned in this thread
and all those debunkin sites).

  Again, think about the alternatives:

1) Due to bureucracy, carelessnes or whatever, they lost some material.
It's not like this kind of thing has never happened to any big organization.

2) There was a conspiracy and some of the material was faked, and everyone
involved and everyone who ever suspected foul play has kept quiet for the
past 40 years.

  Which explanation is more plausible to you?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> The way I figure it, if all the shit they think people faked over the 
> years where faked, the amount of power such people would have to have 
> would make it **easier** for them to simply arrange for inconvenient 
> people like Lazar to die in a car accident, *before* they write a dozen 
> fracking books, then erase anything they might have written down, 
> instead of wasting decades erasing documents to make the guy look like a 
> quack.

  That's one part of radical conspiracy theorists which I find rather
amusing. (Of course not *all* of conspiracy theorists are so radical,
but many are.)

  A common claim is that the Big Evil, ie. the government secretly controls
everything, performs assasinations of unwanted people, has supersecret elite
forces which perform all kinds of illegal secret activities (such as the
assasinations, as well as kidnapping people, etc), and that they will destroy
anybody who tries to expose the truth about the government secrets.

  The amusing (and at the same time sad) thing is that these people honestly
don't seem to see the contradiction here. *They* are supposedly exposing all
the government secrets, and at the same time they are claiming that the
government is assasinating anybody doing so.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> >>   Wanna bet how many conspiracy theorists are going to completely ignore
> >> the reliability of the source and quote that article as fact?-)
> > 
> > You win.

> Google too.
> http://picturehost.net/b0b/OnionOnGoogleNewsPage.jpg

  What I find amusing is that the satire article at Onion doesn't say that
Armstrong confessed to the hoax. It clearly says that Armstrong "had been
convinced by a conspiracy theorists that it was a hoax" (including his
historic first step on the Moon). Which of course makes absolutely no sense.
(How can he not know at the time he was just participating in a hoax, and
only be convinced later?) Yet some people just bought it without thinking
about it for a second.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:44:19 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
wrote:

>Darren New wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   Which possibility seems more plausible?
>> 
>> He *did* say "portions" of the footage were faked. That's far more 
>> plausible than everything being faked, and far easier to cover up.
>> 
>
>http://www.theonion.com/content/news/conspiracy_theorist_convinces_neil

Not the only one :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8237558.stm
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Not the only one :)
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8237558.stm

I'm just giggling madly. How could you even transcribe that into your own 
publishing system without realizing it's a joke? Are they just 
cut-and-pasting content without even reading it to make up their "newspaper"?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   That's one part of radical conspiracy theorists which I find rather
> amusing. (Of course not *all* of conspiracy theorists are so radical,
> but many are.)

BTW, if you want amusing conspiracy theory, rent the movie "Conspiracy 
Theory" staring Mel Gibson. If you haven't seen it, you should. The acting 
is excellent if nothing else. Listen closely to things going on in the 
background too. :-)

> the government secrets, and at the same time they are claiming that the
> government is assasinating anybody doing so.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
"The fact that this man is alive is proof that Loose Change is bullshit." :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> But.. The same people that "think" they managed to do this also thing
> that a Florida man who once worked as a janitor at a lab, by the name of
> Lazar, is actually a physicist who had every scrap of evidence,
> including his own SSN, school records, birth records, etc. **all**
> erased by the NSA and CIA, and replaced by ones showing he was a
> clueless, uneducated fool, to hide the fact that he worked on the secret
> projects to reverse engineer alien space craft. You know.. The stuff
> that we came up with, like gravity drives (oh, wait, no, we haven't
> managed that one) or micro chips, the later of which work so well, that
> there are dozens of research projects trying to replace them with light
> based chips, quantum computers, and even, in some obscure circles, new
> classes of analog systems... None of which work *anything* like a
> transistor, but I am sure the same people think where "reverse
> engineered" from the same glowy flying space ships, in a secret
> building, that Mr. Lazar worked with.

I always liked, as a kid, the explanation that something was too complex
for us mere humans to create that we had to borrow the technology from
aliens. It makes for interesting stories with really absurd devices.

But to look at the things we have made, and still be able to say "Humans
aren't capable of making that from scratch," seems to be either
intentionally insulting or very egotistical. The first because they know
better and just prefer to think aliens did it, the latter because they
can not understand it themselves so no one else would be able to either.

> These people make my head hurt...

Mine too. Now, if only I could reverse engineer this mind-control-ray, I
could convince everyone that the moon landing was not faked.

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
> > These people make my head hurt...

> Mine too. Now, if only I could reverse engineer this mind-control-ray, I
> could convince everyone that the moon landing was not faked.

  I have a theory: Maybe the whole Moon landing conspiracy theory was
initiated by NASA itself, to draw attention away from something much
more serious. When people are fighting over whether the landings were
real or not, they will miss the real issue.

  (What the real issue is? I haven't formed a theory about that yet, but
keep tuned...)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:32:17 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> Not the only one :)
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8237558.stm
>
>I'm just giggling madly. How could you even transcribe that into your own 
>publishing system without realizing it's a joke? Are they just 
>cut-and-pasting content without even reading it to make up their "newspaper"?

They probably believe that anything could happen in the West :)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> if only I could reverse engineer this mind-control-ray,

Doing: Vainly attempting to remote control my own mind.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

On 09/04/09 10:35, Darren New wrote:
> BTW, if you want amusing conspiracy theory, rent the movie "Conspiracy
> Theory" staring Mel Gibson. If you haven't seen it, you should. The
> acting is excellent if nothing else. Listen closely to things going on
> in the background too. :-)

	Awesome movie (in the "fun" sense). I think it's seriously 
underappreciated.


-- 
People who don't eat yogurt are uncultured.

Post a reply to this message

On 09/04/09 10:51, Warp wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian<ski### [at] vtedu>  wrote:
>>> These people make my head hurt...
>
>> Mine too. Now, if only I could reverse engineer this mind-control-ray, I
>> could convince everyone that the moon landing was not faked.
>
>    I have a theory: Maybe the whole Moon landing conspiracy theory was
> initiated by NASA itself, to draw attention away from something much
> more serious. When people are fighting over whether the landings were
> real or not, they will miss the real issue.
>
>    (What the real issue is? I haven't formed a theory about that yet, but
> keep tuned...)

	The satellites that cause earthquakes.

	(At least Darren should get this one).

-- 
People who don't eat yogurt are uncultured.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> if only I could reverse engineer this mind-control-ray,
> 
> Doing: Vainly attempting to remote control my own mind.
> 

Are you going to be using the remote control, or will someone else?

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Are you going to be using the remote control, or will someone else?

Ah, I phrased it wrong. The actual quote is "Secretly attempting to control 
my own mind."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> Are you going to be using the remote control, or will someone else?
> 
> Ah, I phrased it wrong. The actual quote is "Secretly attempting to
> control my own mind."
> 

I was thinking along the lines of "Having an out of body experience, but
it's alright, I have this remote control!"

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 08:32:17 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> Not the only one :)
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8237558.stm
>> I'm just giggling madly. How could you even transcribe that into your own 
>> publishing system without realizing it's a joke? Are they just 
>> cut-and-pasting content without even reading it to make up their "newspaper"?
> 
> They probably believe that anything could happen in the West :)

Well, given you can find idiots in places like Florida that actually 
state things like this:

"Obama is a Marxist... What's a Marxist anyway?", and be seriously 
apposed to what they don't even fracking know the definition of...

http://www.youtube.com/v/2wLYgbS8HeA&hl=en&fs=1&

Not sure which is more annoying, the idiots, or the idiot with the drum. 
Video comes from this guy, who has been documenting this insanity:

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> The way I figure it, if all the shit they think people faked over the 
>> years where faked, the amount of power such people would have to have 
>> would make it **easier** for them to simply arrange for inconvenient 
>> people like Lazar to die in a car accident, *before* they write a dozen 
>> fracking books, then erase anything they might have written down, 
>> instead of wasting decades erasing documents to make the guy look like a 
>> quack.
> 
>   That's one part of radical conspiracy theorists which I find rather
> amusing. (Of course not *all* of conspiracy theorists are so radical,
> but many are.)
> 
>   A common claim is that the Big Evil, ie. the government secretly controls
> everything, performs assasinations of unwanted people, has supersecret elite
> forces which perform all kinds of illegal secret activities (such as the
> assasinations, as well as kidnapping people, etc), and that they will destroy
> anybody who tries to expose the truth about the government secrets.
> 
>   The amusing (and at the same time sad) thing is that these people honestly
> don't seem to see the contradiction here. *They* are supposedly exposing all
> the government secrets, and at the same time they are claiming that the
> government is assasinating anybody doing so.
> 
Except when they, of course, for no damn good reason, erase someone's 
entire life history, to discredit their work in UFOs, instead of doing 
the *sane* thing and just arranging for the poor sap to have a car 
accident, *before* he publishes a dozen books claiming the government is 
lying about everything:

http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2009/08/hoaxes-from-space-part-i-bob-lazar.html

Hell, its almost enough to make me shoot them, never mind the "super 
secret, hidden, government within the government, that can do 
*everything* except shut up a few random people that claim they exist."

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Sigh. Already posted some of that.. Too many forums, too little time, 
and too many bloody late night shifts this week. lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:33:51 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
wrote:

>
>Well, given you can find idiots in places like Florida that actually 
>state things like this:
>
>"Obama is a Marxist... What's a Marxist anyway?", and be seriously 
>apposed to what they don't even fracking know the definition of...
>

Surely Marxist/Communist is just a generic insult from the right?

>http://www.youtube.com/v/2wLYgbS8HeA&hl=en&fs=1&

I could not view it 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:33:51 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
> wrote:
> 
>> Well, given you can find idiots in places like Florida that actually 
>> state things like this:
>>
>> "Obama is a Marxist... What's a Marxist anyway?", and be seriously 
>> apposed to what they don't even fracking know the definition of...
>>
> 
> Surely Marxist/Communist is just a generic insult from the right?
> 

That is a quote from someone in the video.

>> http://www.youtube.com/v/2wLYgbS8HeA&hl=en&fs=1&
> 
> I could not view it 

Guy with video camera goes out to a Teabag Rally, and asks people to
describe what they have against Obama or health care reform. One lady
was debating with herself, in range of the microphone, whether Obama was
a Marxist, Socialist, or Communist. She settles on Marxist, because he
doesn't match all the points of the other two. When asked what those
points were, or what makes a Marxist, she wanders off to find someone to
tell her.

The rest is even stranger, as people with printouts try to poke holes in
"The Health Care Bill". They quote section, paragraph, and line numbers
of one of the many versions of the bill, but manage to cut short most of
what the line says. The shining example was "This tax is not a tax..."
which sounds outrageous, but the line reads more like "This tax is not a
tax for the purposes of determining, via total taxes paid, how much
something costs."

Debate would be lovely, but the video isn't debate. It is funny though.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 03:05:04 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:33:51 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Well, given you can find idiots in places like Florida that actually 
>>> state things like this:
>>>
>>> "Obama is a Marxist... What's a Marxist anyway?", and be seriously 
>>> apposed to what they don't even fracking know the definition of...
>>>
>> 
>> Surely Marxist/Communist is just a generic insult from the right?
>> 
>
>That is a quote from someone in the video.
>

Ah! That shows how much I have learned from these newsgroups :)

>>> http://www.youtube.com/v/2wLYgbS8HeA&hl=en&fs=1&
>> 
>> I could not view it 
>

I still can't see it, all I get is a popup asking if I want to download a
shockwave flash object. <Grrr!>

>Guy with video camera goes out to a Teabag Rally, and asks people to

What's a Teabag Rally?

>describe what they have against Obama or health care reform. One lady
>was debating with herself, in range of the microphone, whether Obama was
>a Marxist, Socialist, or Communist. She settles on Marxist, because he
>doesn't match all the points of the other two. When asked what those
>points were, or what makes a Marxist, she wanders off to find someone to
>tell her.
>

Well at least she has an opinion LOL

>The rest is even stranger, as people with printouts try to poke holes in
>"The Health Care Bill". They quote section, paragraph, and line numbers
>of one of the many versions of the bill, but manage to cut short most of
>what the line says. 

Don't a lot of people do that with your constitution as well? Especially when
talking about the Second Amendment.

>The shining example was "This tax is not a tax..."
>which sounds outrageous, but the line reads more like "This tax is not a
>tax for the purposes of determining, via total taxes paid, how much
>something costs."

Let me guess. A lawyer made that one up or an accountant :)
>
>Debate would be lovely, but the video isn't debate. It is funny though.

I'm loosing my sense of humour when it comes to politics, nowadays :(
(But not my fecking vocabulary ;) )

Thanks, Sabrina. You're up late or early.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 03:05:04 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:
> 
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:33:51 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, given you can find idiots in places like Florida that actually 
>>>> state things like this:
>>>>
>>>> "Obama is a Marxist... What's a Marxist anyway?", and be seriously 
>>>> apposed to what they don't even fracking know the definition of...
>>>>
>>> Surely Marxist/Communist is just a generic insult from the right?
>>>
>> That is a quote from someone in the video.
>>
> 
> Ah! That shows how much I have learned from these newsgroups :)
> 
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/v/2wLYgbS8HeA&hl=en&fs=1&
>>> I could not view it 
> 
> I still can't see it, all I get is a popup asking if I want to download a
> shockwave flash object. <Grrr!>
> 
>> Guy with video camera goes out to a Teabag Rally, and asks people to
> 
> What's a Teabag Rally?
> 

Someone's bright idea of political satire. Some people who are/were
against increasing government spending thought they would hold a modern
day Tea Party. Mimicking the Boston Tea Party, only this time there was
too much Samuel Adams beer and not enough of the politician. At some
later point, someone suggesting mailing tea bags to Washington. And with
outsiders looking on at why they would un-ironically associate their
movement with tea bags, the name just stuck.

>> describe what they have against Obama or health care reform. One lady
>> was debating with herself, in range of the microphone, whether Obama was
>> a Marxist, Socialist, or Communist. She settles on Marxist, because he
>> doesn't match all the points of the other two. When asked what those
>> points were, or what makes a Marxist, she wanders off to find someone to
>> tell her.
>>
> 
> Well at least she has an opinion LOL
> 

 . . . that's a good way of looking at it.

>> The rest is even stranger, as people with printouts try to poke holes in
>> "The Health Care Bill". They quote section, paragraph, and line numbers
>> of one of the many versions of the bill, but manage to cut short most of
>> what the line says. 
> 
> Don't a lot of people do that with your constitution as well? Especially when
> talking about the Second Amendment.
> 

Most of the time, the legal folks argue about the meaning of a few
commas. But yes, there are folks on both sides of that issue that insert
strategic ellipsis to make the words parse the way they want them to.

Completely off topic,

>> The shining example was "This tax is not a tax..."
>> which sounds outrageous, but the line reads more like "This tax is not a
>> tax for the purposes of determining, via total taxes paid, how much
>> something costs."
> 
> Let me guess. A lawyer made that one up or an accountant :)

I suspect so. It makes sense, otherwise some brilliant accountant would
just apply the tax constantly, like continuous compound interest. Call
the fee 10% of what ever tax you pay, and you paid 100 units in taxes.
So the fee is 10 units, but now you have paid 110 in taxes, so the fee
is really 11 units, but now you have . . . and ending up with (e^0.1 -
1)% needing to be paid.

>> Debate would be lovely, but the video isn't debate. It is funny though.
> 
> I'm loosing my sense of humour when it comes to politics, nowadays :(
> (But not my fecking vocabulary ;) )
> 

I have to find humor in it, it would be too depressing otherwise. I mean
if people, on both sides of these issues, really do believe everything
they hear from a few people who talk loudly, and do not even attempt to
research what they are handed as facts, it would just ruin any hope I
could have for the coming generations.

On the other hand, if that is really how people behave, I posit that the
health care bill is so (insert personal feelings here) that everyone
must (protest/support) it by sending $10 US currency to Sabrina Kilian.
This is a must, and will guarantee that the bill (does/doesn't) pass.
Please, think of the (children/budget/future generations).

> Thanks, Sabrina. You're up late or early.

Both.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 08:52:59 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 08:52:59 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote:

>> What's a Teabag Rally?
>> 
>
>Someone's bright idea of political satire. Some people who are/were
>against increasing government spending thought they would hold a modern
>day Tea Party. Mimicking the Boston Tea Party, only this time there was
>too much Samuel Adams beer and not enough of the politician. At some
>later point, someone suggesting mailing tea bags to Washington. And with
>outsiders looking on at why they would un-ironically associate their
>movement with tea bags, the name just stuck.
>

Actually I like it :)
No Taxation without grumbling! ;)

 
>> Well at least she has an opinion LOL
>> 
>
> . . . that's a good way of looking at it.
>

I try to look on the bright side of life.

[sings]
Some things in life are bad,
They can really make you mad…

>> Don't a lot of people do that with your constitution as well? Especially when
>> talking about the Second Amendment.
>> 
>
>Most of the time, the legal folks argue about the meaning of a few
>commas. But yes, there are folks on both sides of that issue that insert
>strategic ellipsis to make the words parse the way they want them to.
>
>Completely off topic,

This is the place for it, ye ken.

>> Let me guess. A lawyer made that one up or an accountant :)
>
>I suspect so. It makes sense, otherwise some brilliant accountant would
>just apply the tax constantly, like continuous compound interest. Call
>the fee 10% of what ever tax you pay, and you paid 100 units in taxes.
>So the fee is 10 units, but now you have paid 110 in taxes, so the fee
>is really 11 units, but now you have . . . and ending up with (e^0.1 -
>1)% needing to be paid.
>

Makes sense to me ;)

>> I'm loosing my sense of humour when it comes to politics, nowadays :(
>> (But not my fecking vocabulary ;) )
>> 
>
>I have to find humor in it, it would be too depressing otherwise. I mean
>if people, on both sides of these issues, really do believe everything
>they hear from a few people who talk loudly, and do not even attempt to
>research what they are handed as facts, it would just ruin any hope I
>could have for the coming generations.
>
>On the other hand, if that is really how people behave, I posit that the
>health care bill is so (insert personal feelings here) that everyone
>must (protest/support) it by sending $10 US currency to Sabrina Kilian.
>This is a must, and will guarantee that the bill (does/doesn't) pass.
>Please, think of the (children/budget/future generations).
>

Well, if you can get to that crock of gold I hid before Jim does then take USD
10 worth as my contribution to keeping the "land of the free" the home of the
healthy. <g>

>> Thanks, Sabrina. You're up late or early.

>Both.

Me too I was having breakfast with the toothache fairy :(
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> Don't a lot of people do that with your constitution as well? Especially when
> talking about the Second Amendment.

Not really. The biggest debate is over the fact that it's poorly worded. 
People argue over whether the wording means

"Because we need an army, people can carry firearms"
vs
"People can carry firearms in order to be in the army."

I.e., the argument is over whether you need to be in the army to carry 
firearms, and it's not worded in a way to make that clear.

>> The shining example was "This tax is not a tax..."
>> which sounds outrageous, but the line reads more like "This tax is not a
>> tax for the purposes of determining, via total taxes paid, how much
>> something costs."
> 
> Let me guess. A lawyer made that one up or an accountant :)

It's basically talking about whether you can charge others for the taxes. 
I.e., if it's like VAT (where you pass it along to the consumer) or whether 
it's like payroll (where your payroll costs don't go directly to the price 
of the product).

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message