'pars pro toto': when one element is, literally, unbelievable, then the whole shebang must be fake. << could be....; might very well be...; will probably be...; would be... (etc).
when truth begins to depend on conditionals, we're a looong way from home.
Thanks, mary-lou, you've hit the nail on the head. The disbelievers, in possesion of extremely limited knowledge, perceive a small number of things to not match their expectations of reality and bingo! it's all fake ... without lifting a finger to check if what they think determines fakery really does. The trouble with being lied to all the time is that it can distort one's sense of reality so that you think things can be faked which actually cannot such as 1000 hours of audio communications.
I'll mention the Apollo 13 thing below but in the Wiki entry there's a bit where it says they had around 1000 hours in the simulator before they even got to launch day...
This strikes me as the same principle as Popper's 'hierarchy of evidence'. That's to say if we have a piece of evidence at the top of the hierarchy, then it doesn't matter what, or how much, there is at lower levels. Also the concept of a 'killer argument'.
Example: suppose I find a million witness statements saying 'the moon is made of blue cheese' and they swear they saw it, even ate some of it. But then I get a single piece of evidence from the immutable laws of physics that says 'no, it's a big rock'. The laws of science here are ranked higher on the hierarchy, and so if that contradicts my million witness statements then we can summarily dismiss every single one of them.
False, or biased, witness statements are at the bottom of the list. We could add 'faked footage' or 'fake images' to that too. Ultimately, immutable, non-human laws of science are overriding.
Once we have that 'killer argument' and we've dismissed the veracity of all the lower level evidence, our task is then a bit more psychological - how to explain why people believe in all that lower level BS.
Likewise, in order to 'debunk' something, I only need that one killer piece of evidence at the top of the hierarchy. I do not need to laboriously go through every piece of lower level evidence (obviously the cognitive infiltrators want people to focus on all the lower level stuff, and miss the big picture).
The danger of the "killer argument" though is that you can THINK you have a killer argument but be mistaken. This is exactly the way the moonhoaxers think, notably my sister. I mean I honestly think the woman is mad. She thinks can just pull out some ridiculously weak argument such as Buzz Aldrin saying "Because we didn't go" and think that's significant. She just cannot get that it has no evidentiary value.
Essentially, the nature of reality is that if something's true everything - big, small or medium - will be consistent with its being true, that is the nature of reality. So the thing is you need to take a very good look, aka, do due diligence and not just arrogantly think that you've identified something that shows fakery and for the rest "it can all be fake" because the nature of reality is that some things cannot be faked without detection and you cannot apply those words to them.
That is certainly true that one can 'think' one has a killer argument which trumps everything else but be mistaken. And I also agree your sister's Buzz thing is right down at the bottom of the list of Popper's hierarchy.
I would however say that some of your arguments in favour of the ML are also fairly low down, simply because 'they could be faked' - the 1000 hours of audio for example.
But we quibble there. Ultimately the immutable, non-human laws of science are decisive. Thus - that's what analysts need to focus on. So we have a statement like 'if piece of evidence X can be faked, however unlikely that may be, then we put X aside for now; then we gather together all the bits that can't be faked and only analyse those bits'.
Evelyn, when you say that 1,000 hours of audio could be faked without detection you're doing what I call the bad modal thinking I speak of in my article.
Where is the "could" factor? When has such a thing ever been faked without detection? How would it be done? There is no precedence of such a thing so the "could" is wildly hypothetical and has no basis in reality. It's like saying that one day we might see pigs with wings.
This is not quibbling - when people talk in possibility there needs to be some genuine sense of it.
Before anyone says that those 1,000 hours of audio could be faked they first need to listen to it for a bit and if they listen to it for a bit and still insist it could be faked then what I say to them is they have no sense of reality.
Here's an interesting side-thought. How many hours, in total, between all the NYFD guys, of audio are there for 9/11? I reckon, given 1000 firefighters, there's definitely around 1000 hours worth.
In fact, come to think of it, for me this is one of the killer arguments against 9/11 being purely staged. You'd have to involve the NYFD (along with a whole load of other normal, mainly working class New Yorkers). So they would need a reason. Like 'why Mr. CIA/cabal person, do you want me to help you stage a terrorist attack in my hometown that's clearly going to scare the shit out a lot of folks?' 'Oh, well, it's because we want to commit genocide in the middle east and give our security services sweeping draconian powers against you, that sort of thing'. 'Oh, ok then Mr. Rothschild, I'm perfectly fine with that. Let's roll.'
A smaller event, like say Manchester, fine, only 50 people or whatever. Well within the social cognition number (Dunbar's number). But something involving thousands? Of normal people? No. See this is objective psychology.
Besides, faking something as big as 9/11 is far too complex and messy and difficult to control the aftermath. There would be evidence of the fakery, mainly in the form of witness statements (which there isn't - what we expect to see just isn't there). Better to just do it simply, remote control some planes into buildings then demolish them. Job done.
Plus we're talking about monsters here who get off on real death and destruction and suffering. Faking stuff doesn't give them the necessary hit. It's why they rape children and torture them to death in snuff movies.
You know that that the 118 FDNY so-called "oral" histories are only presented in the transcript form, don't you, Evelyn? There's no recordings ... but if there were we could pick immediately that they were scripted. I mention this in my article.
I have no idea what they did with all the firefighters - they surely couldn't have all been in on it but some of them definitely were. In the comments on my post I actually have a discussion with an FDNY firefighter who joined after 9/11 but is friends with one of the guys whose name is attached to one of the 118 histories, Mike Morabito. He's like "Well, Mike's story doesn't really add up but I can't believe it was fake." Well, it was. 100%.
Just a query here, Petra. Leaving aside the 'landings', I am intrigued to know if you think Apollo 13 was a real event (as described in the official narrative) or a faked/staged event? Either way, if so why?
The third option is of course deliberate sabotage (which was my original hunch), but we'll leave that one aside for now (partly because it results in the same version as the official dramatic story - also filmed by Ron Howard who did Flight 93 of course). An interesting and crucial historical aspect to all this is that the Apollo 13 event led to the cancellation of Apollos 18-20, which were supposed to look for somewhere to have a permanent base/presence on the moon. Seems very convenient that this didn't happen (they were turned into Skylab). There are much deeper implications of this 'haven't returned in 50 years' thing which I won't go into, but you are right in that this issue has nothing to do with whether or not the landings actually happened. Logically or modally or otherwise.
Anyway - does the Apollo 13 story fit your definitions of a psy-op (look at the metadata numbers for a start of course)? Personally I would rather say it does.
I haven't looked at Apollo 13, Evelyn, and I'd never only judge by numbers - no doubt they wanted Apollo 11 to be the one that landed first but that doesn't make it fake - could the reason they skipped missions 2 and 3 be something to do with wanting 11 to be the first to land I wonder? While we can see they use their numbers for fakery, on the very odd occasion such as the moon landings they might use their numbers in other ways.
So have you got anything of solidity that says Apollo 13 was a psyop? Even if you haven't I guess I'll have to take a look myself but just asking first. There aren't really aficionados of building destructions looking at the twin towers to argue for them coming down by fire, it's more a case of the indoctrinated arguing for it whereas I think it would be very, very tricky to fake Apollo 13 when you have enthusiasts who just love every single detail. I know propaganda has magical qualities but even so ... however, nothing would surprise me, they just love a terror story so ...
Now you've got me thinking, Evelyn, and I wonder if Apollo 1 was a fake - the one involving the supposedly "suspicious" death of Gus Grissom.
Whether Apollos 1 and 13 were psyops I have no reason to doubt the reality of the others.
Yeah - I don't think the Apollo 1 fire was a psyop though, I think it was deliberate murder, mainly because Grissom wouldn't have gone along with any fakery etc. He would've been, as the senior astronaut by then, the eventual commander of the first landing.
First, the 'accident' happened at precisely 55:54:53 hours into the mission. Hmm.
Second, the CSM was named 'Odyssey' by Lovell (the commander) because it was about 'a long voyage with many changes of fortune'.
The LM was called 'Aquarius' (the water bearer - and there was indeed a lot of water/condensation involved in the story). Given I am an Aquarius, this must've been brought out my romantic side when I first heard the story, so gave me something of a cognitive bias, shall we say. Because my original opinion was that the landings were real, but 13 was sabotage - I got especially suspicious because none of the ML sceptics ever focussed much attention on 13, despite it being, IMO, one of the most important parts of the whole Apollo story (your 'agents' that is - deliberate misdirection).
Anyway, the big thing that activated my BS detector was the effects of the 'accident' itself. Briefly, an oxygen tank exploded because of teflon and some other faulty insulation or something, which caused a short circuit and ignited the pure oxygen. Anyway - pretty much the same cause as for Apollo 1 is the point (faulty wiring and pure oxygen).
But that's not the real issue. The real issue is the effect on the motion and the trajectory and so on of the spacecraft. The Wiki entry later states they weren't even allowed to eject their urine from the craft because it would alter the trajectory (action and reaction etc. providing propulsion). But there's no indication whatsoever of this explosion, or the venting oxygen, having any effect like that. In particular, there's no rotational motion caused by the explosion/venting. This angular momentum/spin would've created centrifugal force, which would've further increased the effect of the venting oxygen, further increasing the centrifugal force, and so on. (see also Gemini 8). This would almost certainly have been fatal. But I can't find anything in the records (you'd think Wiki would mention it) that suggests the explosion or venting had any effect whatsoever. This is the venting from tank 1 (following tank 2, which blew up), which apparently continued for a few hours.
With the stars issue, by the way, it does mention they were using stars for navigational purposes, but in this instance the explosion caused loads of debris which accompanied the craft and distorted the stars (??!!). They were also supposed to photograph the Gegenschein (the bright bit at the antisolar point). So clearly one can see stars. Even if you can't see them on the moon, Collins should've been able to see them (obviously I'm talking about that press conference - although admittedly they may simply have been bored - they didn't look like happy bunnies for sure).
Anyhow - these apparent anomalies make me prone to thinking the whole thing was a psyop. Notice however - to be fair - it doesn't need to have any bearing whatsoever on a person's view of the landings themselves. We can look at 13 in isolation and continue to hold one's point of view about the landings (belief or non-belief, I mean).
Re Collins, that is all explained by Dave McKeegan. The stars that were being referred to in the press conference were stars in the corona of the sun when it was eclipsed by the moon which all three astronauts saw from the spaceship. Patrick Moore asked if they could see stars in the corona and Neil said he didn't recall WHAT stars they could see in the corona and Michael Collins just added "I don't remember seeing ANY."
Ah - this is wrong. Patrick actually says 'and' the solar corona, not 'in'. You have to listen to it a few times if you're not sure. It also helps if you are familiar with Patrick's quintessential voice (I am, from being a bit of a nerdy fan of 'the sky at night', the BBC astronomy programme he used to do).
If you think about it, why would he say 'in'? Makes no sense.
The only thing I might grant is that the astronauts, being American and almost certainly not at all used to Patrick's voice, may have misheard him.
But I do think Dave is being somewhat disingenuous here.
I don't think he's being disingenuous. While I agree that Patrick sounds as though he's saying "and" rather than "in" I don't really understand how his question makes sense either way so it's perfectly understandable to simply hear it as "in". Obviously, they could only see the eclipse of the sun by the moon from the spaceship not from the moon so where would the glare he mentions be coming from?
Notice also how Armstrong answers those last two questions separately. 1/ 'We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the moon by eye without looking through the optics'.
And then the separate question about the corona gives a separate answer: 2/ 'I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the corona what stars we could see'.
So in question 1 he distinguishes between 'lunar surface' and '[orbiting] on the daylight side'; then part 2 is very specifically about the corona. Unless they spent their entire time on the surface, and on the daylight side, looking at the corona, then clearly these are separate events.
Evelyn, I think you too easily accept at face value what may well be disbeliever-targeted propaganda. I haven't looked into it so it may well be that Gus Grissom was murdered but I wouldn't believe it just because that's the rumour because the rumour could all be part of the anti-moon landing propaganda campaign. And perhaps it was all staged anyway.
OK, so 55:54:53, Odyssey and Aquarius is a bit too much ... hmmmm. So it may have been a deliberate test and they dressed it up as a mission gone wrong. Actually, it would be really interesting to look at the audio for that because if it seems very real then perhaps I'll have to eat my words. Actually, though, it was probably a real mission but instead of the mission being to go to the moon it was to simply to take off and do an emergency return so the dialog could still sound pretty real just as it would for a normal mission. It's not as if it was all known exactly what to do in advance. It was still, essentially, a real mission, just with a different object.
I know what you are saying about Grissom, but I for one can't think of a single reason why they would fake his death, or him to agree to it (especially not if, as you suggest, the moon landings were all a real event, with no suspicion of anything). There does, after all, need to be a reason for faking something.
So either it was murder, or a genuine accident. For it to be a genuine accident the NASA engineers/technicians would have to be monumentally stupid and inept, to stick three of your top astronauts in a sealed capsule with 100% oxygen surrounded by exposed wiring. So I call that deliberate.
Your thoughts about 13 are intriguing as it happens. So if we think it was a real mission, but the accident aspect was fake, then sure, we are looking at them looping around the moon and faking the (presumably rehearsed) dialogue (much less than 1000 hours though - I grant you - I think it was around 120 or so in the case of 13). Interest was waning in Apollo already by that time, after all. Then there's Nixon and Vietnam and all that (ironically I think our notorious friend Dave McGowan mentioned that).
Or maybe there's a far more sinister reason for it (to stop a permanent base on the moon), perhaps because they have secret space tech etc. which they can't reveal. Likewise space travel gives people hope, and they can't be having that. Similarly, the idea that 'they did go to the moon, but not with that technology'. (also ties in with the UFO stuff, which is partly testing of advanced forms of propulsion (electrogravitics/foo fighters) and alien abduction as cover for MKULTRA experiments on unwitting American hillbillies).
Then there's the extraterrestrial issue (see also Mars). So yeah, the mind boggles and it's all very fascinating stuff. One might even suspect that all the 'moon landing conspiracy kerfuffle' is a grand misdirection away from all this really sinister stuff...
It does not matter what I think about any of this. I run across some local newspaper articles from 1969 and the moon landing that I had saved. I also had many saved articles from 9/11. I pitched the 9/11 stuff and might have kept the moon landing things. Or not.
The entire government does nothing but lie, lie and lie again and has since before the Civil War. I am not listening to anything it ever says again. It is a complete waste of time and energy paying any attention to these fools.
But many of their lies take a particular form - the psyop - which always employs Revelation of the Method so when it's a psyop we know for sure it's a lie and if we have a good understanding of psyop MO we should be able to work out the fundamental truth. Sure, there's so many things we can't know but then there are things such as the moon landings for which there is evidence by the bucket-load and we can work out really happened. There isn't really any reason to doubt the moon landings, people simply see anomalies where there aren't any and decide that if they don't understand how something happened, eg, the lunar module rejoining the command module in the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous process then it couldn't have happened.
Just to say, PM, your response to the photo tends to exemplify the point I'm trying to make. Independent thinkers are vulnerable to applying the knowledge they have to determining what they think must be true rather than recognising that their knowledge is limited and they might need to ask some questions first.
You knew that there's no atmosphere on the moon so already you were thinking that stars should be visible but what you didn't know was that the astronauts were on the moon during lunar day and just as on earth we don't see stars in the sky nor did they on the moon.
When I first started looking at the moon landings, I thought of my mind as pretty much blank and all I did initially whenever I saw an anomaly put forward was look it up to see if there was a reasonable explanation ... and there always was. And in this manner I learnt a reasonable amount too - still pretty ignorant but the more you know the more you can see the reality.
Of course, for certain things I don't understand the explanations, however, as the given explanation isn't addressed by the person putting forward something as an anomaly I have no reason to believe "anomaly" over "non-anomaly" and what I found was that things that were easy to perceive such as the vast moonscape lit by a single light source, ie, the sun, and the authentic quality of the audio communications, all supported the reality of the moon landings.
Interestingly, I selected the photo pretty randomly and didn't even notice the shadowy ball let alone streaks. What I did notice though only after posting I think is all the craters ... which support reality of course because we don't have craters like that on earth. I was a little puzzled how when you see the moon surface as the astronauts land it looks so different from earth but from the surface view it doesn't really look so different, as if it could be a deserty place but the craters in this photo give a better sense of why the moon surface looks so different from a more distant view. Also, I guess it's what the surface is made from - it's not made from sand and it's not made from soil so it just looks different.
Interestingly, I have a very strong recollection of when my sister first put forward the moon landings and 9/11 were hoaxes at separate times. For the moon landings her arguments were "never gone again" and "the shadows aren't parallel". Even then before I had a clue about anything I responded, "I don't find the first argument compelling" and "I don't know enough about shadows to have an opinion." In both cases, my responses were appropriate. On the other hand, when she tried to tell me the buildings came down by controlled demolition my response was, "They wouldn't have had the confidence they could get away with it." Of course, DEAD WRONG there :)
Thanks. My comment noted a question about "what are those streaks", otherwise, guessing what they wanted to portray, that is free musing. On the stars, well that doesn't make or break yes or no to the ML.
As I've opined strongly to you before, the ML is and event not an object. There is no way to prove or disprove it factually only conceptually as long as there are retorts. One can only experience an event and make their own mind as to whether what they experienced was actual or some kind or simulated virtual reality or some mind trick. So the yes and no ML people can argue forever there will never be any slam dunk conclusion as long as argument is possible.
The ML is similar in logic to alien abduction. It is an event. Some persons swear they experienced this, but no one can prove or disprove an event only experience it. Virus is defined as an object that is all over millions of persons, that is easy to prove never found.
So, bravo you keep different angles and education on ways to perceive things, and people can make their own conclusions. Keep going.
I know you've opined strongly to me, PM, but I also have a very strong opinion about the ability to determine the truth about things and obviously it's different from yours. If someone experienced alien abduction and in that process the aliens left artefacts with that person never encountered on earth I'd say that would argue pretty strongly for the reality of that person being abducted by aliens ... and especially, of course, if it happened in a few cases, however, I'm not sure that's ever happened. The massive difference between alien abduction and the moon landings is that in the first case there is no hard evidence while in the second there is absolutely masses.
To me, it's just so simple: if there's sufficient evidence to say X is X and it cannot be Y or anything else (whatever the phenomenon) then X is X and when we apply that basic principle to the moon landings we have an X is X situation - masses of evidence say they happened and zero says they didn't.
It looks like they are trying to portray meteor streaks which can't be seen on the moon, there is a haze around the earth, and there are no stars though there is no atmosphere. Whatever the streaks are the photo looks altered to me.
OK, I can see it now. I do not perceive any anomalies and even if something seemed odd I tend to allow that my knowledge is so minimal I'm not in a position to judge and if you are expecting stars, PM, then ...
So many seeming anomalies have been explained by people much more knowledgeable than both you and I.
I have always loathed Wittgenstein. In fact, if there is one (anti-)philosopher I hate the most in the whole history of philosophy then I'd say it's definitely fucking Wittgenstein.
So how does Wittgenstein relate to this post? I only did a few courses in philosophy at university, none of them very hardcore, and I only have a very vague familiarity with his work.
I was admittedly being a little facetious. Partly because I had a bad experience with a Wittgensteinian once (my supervisor). It's why I had to give up my PhD, which is a longer story. Interestingly though she got me writing an essay about a paper in moral philosophy which explored the use of the word 'ought' (i.e. a sort of modal). So rather than 'thou shalt not do X' it would be 'thou ought not do X'.
Except even that is just word games. Because you can still formulate the 'shalt' version by adding conditionals, like 'thou shalt not do X... unless such and such'. Like 'thou shalt not kill... unless in self-defence'.
Anyway. Wittgenstein was a bastard. He was also a purveyor of 'analytical' philosophy (started by Russell mainly - both Cambridge Apostles of course). IMO, analytical philosophy is intended to destroy the possibility of truth within philosophy (why I call him an 'anti' philosopher). Wittgenstein famously said philosophy is just 'language games', and that 'language is an inadequate tool to discern the truth'. I think that's rubbish.
Having studied linguistics, and the evolution of language, and neuroscience, I can safely say it's bullshit. One only needs to understand that all the parts of speech are based on sensory input and evaluation. So when Wittgenstein also says 'if a lion could speak, we wouldn't understand it' this is also rubbish.
I'll explain - you start with nouns and verbs. 'objects' and 'actions'. You then distinguish between nouns with 'subject' and 'object'. Example: Lion (subject/noun) sees (verb - i.e. a physical sense-input) antelope (object/noun).
We then have adjectives which distinguish between objects. 'big' antelope or 'small' antelope'. We then have prepositions, which distinguishes the spatial location of nouns. Then finally adverbs, which qualify verbs.
So, here's your logical statement: Lion hungry so must (modal) chase antelope. Lion sees (nicely sized) antelope. Lion calculates intercept trajectory (that's the real modal construction that one - 'if I run to this point, antelope will be at that point when I am'. Course corrections may need to occur - thus 'if I run to point A, antelope 'ought' (modal) to be at point A. Then there's the adverb - run 'fast' or run 'slow'.
In other words, the lion's brain has all the faculties of the parts of language/grammar. The only difference is that it doesn't express all that in a language. My point being, language is ultimately based on the experience of the physical environment. Which isn't unique to humans.
Thus, Wittgenstein is talking bollocks.
He was also a fucking psychopath. Speaking of his experiences as a machine gunner in WW1, he said he enjoyed it. Right, so there you were, Ludwig, mowing down hundreds of human beings as they came over the top towards you, and you 'enjoyed it'?!!
'pars pro toto': when one element is, literally, unbelievable, then the whole shebang must be fake. << could be....; might very well be...; will probably be...; would be... (etc).
when truth begins to depend on conditionals, we're a looong way from home.
squirrels all the way down ;-))
Thanks, mary-lou, you've hit the nail on the head. The disbelievers, in possesion of extremely limited knowledge, perceive a small number of things to not match their expectations of reality and bingo! it's all fake ... without lifting a finger to check if what they think determines fakery really does. The trouble with being lied to all the time is that it can distort one's sense of reality so that you think things can be faked which actually cannot such as 1000 hours of audio communications.
I'll mention the Apollo 13 thing below but in the Wiki entry there's a bit where it says they had around 1000 hours in the simulator before they even got to launch day...
This strikes me as the same principle as Popper's 'hierarchy of evidence'. That's to say if we have a piece of evidence at the top of the hierarchy, then it doesn't matter what, or how much, there is at lower levels. Also the concept of a 'killer argument'.
Example: suppose I find a million witness statements saying 'the moon is made of blue cheese' and they swear they saw it, even ate some of it. But then I get a single piece of evidence from the immutable laws of physics that says 'no, it's a big rock'. The laws of science here are ranked higher on the hierarchy, and so if that contradicts my million witness statements then we can summarily dismiss every single one of them.
False, or biased, witness statements are at the bottom of the list. We could add 'faked footage' or 'fake images' to that too. Ultimately, immutable, non-human laws of science are overriding.
Once we have that 'killer argument' and we've dismissed the veracity of all the lower level evidence, our task is then a bit more psychological - how to explain why people believe in all that lower level BS.
Likewise, in order to 'debunk' something, I only need that one killer piece of evidence at the top of the hierarchy. I do not need to laboriously go through every piece of lower level evidence (obviously the cognitive infiltrators want people to focus on all the lower level stuff, and miss the big picture).
The danger of the "killer argument" though is that you can THINK you have a killer argument but be mistaken. This is exactly the way the moonhoaxers think, notably my sister. I mean I honestly think the woman is mad. She thinks can just pull out some ridiculously weak argument such as Buzz Aldrin saying "Because we didn't go" and think that's significant. She just cannot get that it has no evidentiary value.
Essentially, the nature of reality is that if something's true everything - big, small or medium - will be consistent with its being true, that is the nature of reality. So the thing is you need to take a very good look, aka, do due diligence and not just arrogantly think that you've identified something that shows fakery and for the rest "it can all be fake" because the nature of reality is that some things cannot be faked without detection and you cannot apply those words to them.
That is certainly true that one can 'think' one has a killer argument which trumps everything else but be mistaken. And I also agree your sister's Buzz thing is right down at the bottom of the list of Popper's hierarchy.
I would however say that some of your arguments in favour of the ML are also fairly low down, simply because 'they could be faked' - the 1000 hours of audio for example.
But we quibble there. Ultimately the immutable, non-human laws of science are decisive. Thus - that's what analysts need to focus on. So we have a statement like 'if piece of evidence X can be faked, however unlikely that may be, then we put X aside for now; then we gather together all the bits that can't be faked and only analyse those bits'.
Evelyn, when you say that 1,000 hours of audio could be faked without detection you're doing what I call the bad modal thinking I speak of in my article.
Where is the "could" factor? When has such a thing ever been faked without detection? How would it be done? There is no precedence of such a thing so the "could" is wildly hypothetical and has no basis in reality. It's like saying that one day we might see pigs with wings.
This is not quibbling - when people talk in possibility there needs to be some genuine sense of it.
Before anyone says that those 1,000 hours of audio could be faked they first need to listen to it for a bit and if they listen to it for a bit and still insist it could be faked then what I say to them is they have no sense of reality.
Here's an interesting side-thought. How many hours, in total, between all the NYFD guys, of audio are there for 9/11? I reckon, given 1000 firefighters, there's definitely around 1000 hours worth.
In fact, come to think of it, for me this is one of the killer arguments against 9/11 being purely staged. You'd have to involve the NYFD (along with a whole load of other normal, mainly working class New Yorkers). So they would need a reason. Like 'why Mr. CIA/cabal person, do you want me to help you stage a terrorist attack in my hometown that's clearly going to scare the shit out a lot of folks?' 'Oh, well, it's because we want to commit genocide in the middle east and give our security services sweeping draconian powers against you, that sort of thing'. 'Oh, ok then Mr. Rothschild, I'm perfectly fine with that. Let's roll.'
A smaller event, like say Manchester, fine, only 50 people or whatever. Well within the social cognition number (Dunbar's number). But something involving thousands? Of normal people? No. See this is objective psychology.
Besides, faking something as big as 9/11 is far too complex and messy and difficult to control the aftermath. There would be evidence of the fakery, mainly in the form of witness statements (which there isn't - what we expect to see just isn't there). Better to just do it simply, remote control some planes into buildings then demolish them. Job done.
Plus we're talking about monsters here who get off on real death and destruction and suffering. Faking stuff doesn't give them the necessary hit. It's why they rape children and torture them to death in snuff movies.
And then commit genocide in the middle east.
You know that that the 118 FDNY so-called "oral" histories are only presented in the transcript form, don't you, Evelyn? There's no recordings ... but if there were we could pick immediately that they were scripted. I mention this in my article.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/nonsensicalities-in-the-911-firefighter
I have no idea what they did with all the firefighters - they surely couldn't have all been in on it but some of them definitely were. In the comments on my post I actually have a discussion with an FDNY firefighter who joined after 9/11 but is friends with one of the guys whose name is attached to one of the 118 histories, Mike Morabito. He's like "Well, Mike's story doesn't really add up but I can't believe it was fake." Well, it was. 100%.
Just a query here, Petra. Leaving aside the 'landings', I am intrigued to know if you think Apollo 13 was a real event (as described in the official narrative) or a faked/staged event? Either way, if so why?
The third option is of course deliberate sabotage (which was my original hunch), but we'll leave that one aside for now (partly because it results in the same version as the official dramatic story - also filmed by Ron Howard who did Flight 93 of course). An interesting and crucial historical aspect to all this is that the Apollo 13 event led to the cancellation of Apollos 18-20, which were supposed to look for somewhere to have a permanent base/presence on the moon. Seems very convenient that this didn't happen (they were turned into Skylab). There are much deeper implications of this 'haven't returned in 50 years' thing which I won't go into, but you are right in that this issue has nothing to do with whether or not the landings actually happened. Logically or modally or otherwise.
Anyway - does the Apollo 13 story fit your definitions of a psy-op (look at the metadata numbers for a start of course)? Personally I would rather say it does.
I haven't looked at Apollo 13, Evelyn, and I'd never only judge by numbers - no doubt they wanted Apollo 11 to be the one that landed first but that doesn't make it fake - could the reason they skipped missions 2 and 3 be something to do with wanting 11 to be the first to land I wonder? While we can see they use their numbers for fakery, on the very odd occasion such as the moon landings they might use their numbers in other ways.
So have you got anything of solidity that says Apollo 13 was a psyop? Even if you haven't I guess I'll have to take a look myself but just asking first. There aren't really aficionados of building destructions looking at the twin towers to argue for them coming down by fire, it's more a case of the indoctrinated arguing for it whereas I think it would be very, very tricky to fake Apollo 13 when you have enthusiasts who just love every single detail. I know propaganda has magical qualities but even so ... however, nothing would surprise me, they just love a terror story so ...
Now you've got me thinking, Evelyn, and I wonder if Apollo 1 was a fake - the one involving the supposedly "suspicious" death of Gus Grissom.
Whether Apollos 1 and 13 were psyops I have no reason to doubt the reality of the others.
Yeah - I don't think the Apollo 1 fire was a psyop though, I think it was deliberate murder, mainly because Grissom wouldn't have gone along with any fakery etc. He would've been, as the senior astronaut by then, the eventual commander of the first landing.
Anyway, leaving that aside, I was looking at the Wiki entry for 13, which is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13
My BS detector activated a fair few times.
First, the 'accident' happened at precisely 55:54:53 hours into the mission. Hmm.
Second, the CSM was named 'Odyssey' by Lovell (the commander) because it was about 'a long voyage with many changes of fortune'.
The LM was called 'Aquarius' (the water bearer - and there was indeed a lot of water/condensation involved in the story). Given I am an Aquarius, this must've been brought out my romantic side when I first heard the story, so gave me something of a cognitive bias, shall we say. Because my original opinion was that the landings were real, but 13 was sabotage - I got especially suspicious because none of the ML sceptics ever focussed much attention on 13, despite it being, IMO, one of the most important parts of the whole Apollo story (your 'agents' that is - deliberate misdirection).
Anyway, the big thing that activated my BS detector was the effects of the 'accident' itself. Briefly, an oxygen tank exploded because of teflon and some other faulty insulation or something, which caused a short circuit and ignited the pure oxygen. Anyway - pretty much the same cause as for Apollo 1 is the point (faulty wiring and pure oxygen).
But that's not the real issue. The real issue is the effect on the motion and the trajectory and so on of the spacecraft. The Wiki entry later states they weren't even allowed to eject their urine from the craft because it would alter the trajectory (action and reaction etc. providing propulsion). But there's no indication whatsoever of this explosion, or the venting oxygen, having any effect like that. In particular, there's no rotational motion caused by the explosion/venting. This angular momentum/spin would've created centrifugal force, which would've further increased the effect of the venting oxygen, further increasing the centrifugal force, and so on. (see also Gemini 8). This would almost certainly have been fatal. But I can't find anything in the records (you'd think Wiki would mention it) that suggests the explosion or venting had any effect whatsoever. This is the venting from tank 1 (following tank 2, which blew up), which apparently continued for a few hours.
With the stars issue, by the way, it does mention they were using stars for navigational purposes, but in this instance the explosion caused loads of debris which accompanied the craft and distorted the stars (??!!). They were also supposed to photograph the Gegenschein (the bright bit at the antisolar point). So clearly one can see stars. Even if you can't see them on the moon, Collins should've been able to see them (obviously I'm talking about that press conference - although admittedly they may simply have been bored - they didn't look like happy bunnies for sure).
Anyhow - these apparent anomalies make me prone to thinking the whole thing was a psyop. Notice however - to be fair - it doesn't need to have any bearing whatsoever on a person's view of the landings themselves. We can look at 13 in isolation and continue to hold one's point of view about the landings (belief or non-belief, I mean).
And yeah - they do like a good drama.
Re Collins, that is all explained by Dave McKeegan. The stars that were being referred to in the press conference were stars in the corona of the sun when it was eclipsed by the moon which all three astronauts saw from the spaceship. Patrick Moore asked if they could see stars in the corona and Neil said he didn't recall WHAT stars they could see in the corona and Michael Collins just added "I don't remember seeing ANY."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLXHrQ1Keac&t=1624s
Ah - this is wrong. Patrick actually says 'and' the solar corona, not 'in'. You have to listen to it a few times if you're not sure. It also helps if you are familiar with Patrick's quintessential voice (I am, from being a bit of a nerdy fan of 'the sky at night', the BBC astronomy programme he used to do).
If you think about it, why would he say 'in'? Makes no sense.
The only thing I might grant is that the astronauts, being American and almost certainly not at all used to Patrick's voice, may have misheard him.
But I do think Dave is being somewhat disingenuous here.
I don't think he's being disingenuous. While I agree that Patrick sounds as though he's saying "and" rather than "in" I don't really understand how his question makes sense either way so it's perfectly understandable to simply hear it as "in". Obviously, they could only see the eclipse of the sun by the moon from the spaceship not from the moon so where would the glare he mentions be coming from?
Notice also how Armstrong answers those last two questions separately. 1/ 'We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the moon by eye without looking through the optics'.
And then the separate question about the corona gives a separate answer: 2/ 'I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the corona what stars we could see'.
So in question 1 he distinguishes between 'lunar surface' and '[orbiting] on the daylight side'; then part 2 is very specifically about the corona. Unless they spent their entire time on the surface, and on the daylight side, looking at the corona, then clearly these are separate events.
Anyway - this is another straw man, clearly.
The corona was surely only visible from the spaceship, no?
Evelyn, I think you too easily accept at face value what may well be disbeliever-targeted propaganda. I haven't looked into it so it may well be that Gus Grissom was murdered but I wouldn't believe it just because that's the rumour because the rumour could all be part of the anti-moon landing propaganda campaign. And perhaps it was all staged anyway.
OK, so 55:54:53, Odyssey and Aquarius is a bit too much ... hmmmm. So it may have been a deliberate test and they dressed it up as a mission gone wrong. Actually, it would be really interesting to look at the audio for that because if it seems very real then perhaps I'll have to eat my words. Actually, though, it was probably a real mission but instead of the mission being to go to the moon it was to simply to take off and do an emergency return so the dialog could still sound pretty real just as it would for a normal mission. It's not as if it was all known exactly what to do in advance. It was still, essentially, a real mission, just with a different object.
I know what you are saying about Grissom, but I for one can't think of a single reason why they would fake his death, or him to agree to it (especially not if, as you suggest, the moon landings were all a real event, with no suspicion of anything). There does, after all, need to be a reason for faking something.
So either it was murder, or a genuine accident. For it to be a genuine accident the NASA engineers/technicians would have to be monumentally stupid and inept, to stick three of your top astronauts in a sealed capsule with 100% oxygen surrounded by exposed wiring. So I call that deliberate.
Your thoughts about 13 are intriguing as it happens. So if we think it was a real mission, but the accident aspect was fake, then sure, we are looking at them looping around the moon and faking the (presumably rehearsed) dialogue (much less than 1000 hours though - I grant you - I think it was around 120 or so in the case of 13). Interest was waning in Apollo already by that time, after all. Then there's Nixon and Vietnam and all that (ironically I think our notorious friend Dave McGowan mentioned that).
Or maybe there's a far more sinister reason for it (to stop a permanent base on the moon), perhaps because they have secret space tech etc. which they can't reveal. Likewise space travel gives people hope, and they can't be having that. Similarly, the idea that 'they did go to the moon, but not with that technology'. (also ties in with the UFO stuff, which is partly testing of advanced forms of propulsion (electrogravitics/foo fighters) and alien abduction as cover for MKULTRA experiments on unwitting American hillbillies).
Then there's the extraterrestrial issue (see also Mars). So yeah, the mind boggles and it's all very fascinating stuff. One might even suspect that all the 'moon landing conspiracy kerfuffle' is a grand misdirection away from all this really sinister stuff...
"One might even suspect that all the 'moon landing conspiracy kerfuffle' is a grand misdirection away from all this really sinister stuff... "
Now that's a point.
It does not matter what I think about any of this. I run across some local newspaper articles from 1969 and the moon landing that I had saved. I also had many saved articles from 9/11. I pitched the 9/11 stuff and might have kept the moon landing things. Or not.
The entire government does nothing but lie, lie and lie again and has since before the Civil War. I am not listening to anything it ever says again. It is a complete waste of time and energy paying any attention to these fools.
But many of their lies take a particular form - the psyop - which always employs Revelation of the Method so when it's a psyop we know for sure it's a lie and if we have a good understanding of psyop MO we should be able to work out the fundamental truth. Sure, there's so many things we can't know but then there are things such as the moon landings for which there is evidence by the bucket-load and we can work out really happened. There isn't really any reason to doubt the moon landings, people simply see anomalies where there aren't any and decide that if they don't understand how something happened, eg, the lunar module rejoining the command module in the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous process then it couldn't have happened.
Agreed!
Government should not be listen to nor followed and in fact should be abolished.
What are the streaks going from upper left to slightly lower right to the right of the earth shadow on this photo?
”Rightward of 17430, showing some Rover track…”
Just to say, PM, your response to the photo tends to exemplify the point I'm trying to make. Independent thinkers are vulnerable to applying the knowledge they have to determining what they think must be true rather than recognising that their knowledge is limited and they might need to ask some questions first.
You knew that there's no atmosphere on the moon so already you were thinking that stars should be visible but what you didn't know was that the astronauts were on the moon during lunar day and just as on earth we don't see stars in the sky nor did they on the moon.
When I first started looking at the moon landings, I thought of my mind as pretty much blank and all I did initially whenever I saw an anomaly put forward was look it up to see if there was a reasonable explanation ... and there always was. And in this manner I learnt a reasonable amount too - still pretty ignorant but the more you know the more you can see the reality.
Of course, for certain things I don't understand the explanations, however, as the given explanation isn't addressed by the person putting forward something as an anomaly I have no reason to believe "anomaly" over "non-anomaly" and what I found was that things that were easy to perceive such as the vast moonscape lit by a single light source, ie, the sun, and the authentic quality of the audio communications, all supported the reality of the moon landings.
Interestingly, I selected the photo pretty randomly and didn't even notice the shadowy ball let alone streaks. What I did notice though only after posting I think is all the craters ... which support reality of course because we don't have craters like that on earth. I was a little puzzled how when you see the moon surface as the astronauts land it looks so different from earth but from the surface view it doesn't really look so different, as if it could be a deserty place but the craters in this photo give a better sense of why the moon surface looks so different from a more distant view. Also, I guess it's what the surface is made from - it's not made from sand and it's not made from soil so it just looks different.
Interestingly, I have a very strong recollection of when my sister first put forward the moon landings and 9/11 were hoaxes at separate times. For the moon landings her arguments were "never gone again" and "the shadows aren't parallel". Even then before I had a clue about anything I responded, "I don't find the first argument compelling" and "I don't know enough about shadows to have an opinion." In both cases, my responses were appropriate. On the other hand, when she tried to tell me the buildings came down by controlled demolition my response was, "They wouldn't have had the confidence they could get away with it." Of course, DEAD WRONG there :)
Thanks. My comment noted a question about "what are those streaks", otherwise, guessing what they wanted to portray, that is free musing. On the stars, well that doesn't make or break yes or no to the ML.
As I've opined strongly to you before, the ML is and event not an object. There is no way to prove or disprove it factually only conceptually as long as there are retorts. One can only experience an event and make their own mind as to whether what they experienced was actual or some kind or simulated virtual reality or some mind trick. So the yes and no ML people can argue forever there will never be any slam dunk conclusion as long as argument is possible.
The ML is similar in logic to alien abduction. It is an event. Some persons swear they experienced this, but no one can prove or disprove an event only experience it. Virus is defined as an object that is all over millions of persons, that is easy to prove never found.
So, bravo you keep different angles and education on ways to perceive things, and people can make their own conclusions. Keep going.
I know you've opined strongly to me, PM, but I also have a very strong opinion about the ability to determine the truth about things and obviously it's different from yours. If someone experienced alien abduction and in that process the aliens left artefacts with that person never encountered on earth I'd say that would argue pretty strongly for the reality of that person being abducted by aliens ... and especially, of course, if it happened in a few cases, however, I'm not sure that's ever happened. The massive difference between alien abduction and the moon landings is that in the first case there is no hard evidence while in the second there is absolutely masses.
To me, it's just so simple: if there's sufficient evidence to say X is X and it cannot be Y or anything else (whatever the phenomenon) then X is X and when we apply that basic principle to the moon landings we have an X is X situation - masses of evidence say they happened and zero says they didn't.
I understand you and appreciate your care in replies but I largely disagree with many of the concepts. See you!
I can't actually see streaks but if I could I wouldn't know what they were anyway.
Oh they are quite clear. Try to enlarge it by enlarging your browser zoom.
I did but even if I could see them PM I wouldn't know what they were.
I put it here
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/1f218adc-9d9e-4a8a-b283-67b3040b0857
It looks like they are trying to portray meteor streaks which can't be seen on the moon, there is a haze around the earth, and there are no stars though there is no atmosphere. Whatever the streaks are the photo looks altered to me.
I mentioned the stars "issue", PM - with a link in my article to the explanation.
https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/moon-landing-conspiracy-theories-debunked
OK, I can see it now. I do not perceive any anomalies and even if something seemed odd I tend to allow that my knowledge is so minimal I'm not in a position to judge and if you are expecting stars, PM, then ...
So many seeming anomalies have been explained by people much more knowledgeable than both you and I.
Example: Simon put forward his belief that the footage showing Buzz Aldrin where he looks transparent is fake. https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?t=479
But all you have to do is look it up and hey presto - explanation. I cannot say I understand it I admit but the thing is Simon gives no indication that he is even aware of this explanation. https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/125582/why-can-i-see-through-this-astronaut-on-the-apollo-11-footage
I see them clearly, too....
The 'earth shadow' likewise is totally the wrong size.
I have always loathed Wittgenstein. In fact, if there is one (anti-)philosopher I hate the most in the whole history of philosophy then I'd say it's definitely fucking Wittgenstein.
So how does Wittgenstein relate to this post? I only did a few courses in philosophy at university, none of them very hardcore, and I only have a very vague familiarity with his work.
I was admittedly being a little facetious. Partly because I had a bad experience with a Wittgensteinian once (my supervisor). It's why I had to give up my PhD, which is a longer story. Interestingly though she got me writing an essay about a paper in moral philosophy which explored the use of the word 'ought' (i.e. a sort of modal). So rather than 'thou shalt not do X' it would be 'thou ought not do X'.
Except even that is just word games. Because you can still formulate the 'shalt' version by adding conditionals, like 'thou shalt not do X... unless such and such'. Like 'thou shalt not kill... unless in self-defence'.
Anyway. Wittgenstein was a bastard. He was also a purveyor of 'analytical' philosophy (started by Russell mainly - both Cambridge Apostles of course). IMO, analytical philosophy is intended to destroy the possibility of truth within philosophy (why I call him an 'anti' philosopher). Wittgenstein famously said philosophy is just 'language games', and that 'language is an inadequate tool to discern the truth'. I think that's rubbish.
Having studied linguistics, and the evolution of language, and neuroscience, I can safely say it's bullshit. One only needs to understand that all the parts of speech are based on sensory input and evaluation. So when Wittgenstein also says 'if a lion could speak, we wouldn't understand it' this is also rubbish.
I'll explain - you start with nouns and verbs. 'objects' and 'actions'. You then distinguish between nouns with 'subject' and 'object'. Example: Lion (subject/noun) sees (verb - i.e. a physical sense-input) antelope (object/noun).
We then have adjectives which distinguish between objects. 'big' antelope or 'small' antelope'. We then have prepositions, which distinguishes the spatial location of nouns. Then finally adverbs, which qualify verbs.
So, here's your logical statement: Lion hungry so must (modal) chase antelope. Lion sees (nicely sized) antelope. Lion calculates intercept trajectory (that's the real modal construction that one - 'if I run to this point, antelope will be at that point when I am'. Course corrections may need to occur - thus 'if I run to point A, antelope 'ought' (modal) to be at point A. Then there's the adverb - run 'fast' or run 'slow'.
In other words, the lion's brain has all the faculties of the parts of language/grammar. The only difference is that it doesn't express all that in a language. My point being, language is ultimately based on the experience of the physical environment. Which isn't unique to humans.
Thus, Wittgenstein is talking bollocks.
He was also a fucking psychopath. Speaking of his experiences as a machine gunner in WW1, he said he enjoyed it. Right, so there you were, Ludwig, mowing down hundreds of human beings as they came over the top towards you, and you 'enjoyed it'?!!
Fucker.
You seem like a nice person. What is uranium to you?
What is it to you, Frank?