On Jul 5, 10:02 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Ian Parker" wrote in message

oups.com...
: On 5 Jul, 01:38, wrote:
: http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
:
: Those who were deceived by the Apollo Hoax will be remembered, for
: eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
: this planet.
:
: There is a conspiracy theory calculus. Basically the more people who
: conspire the greater the possibility of a leak. With the large number
: of people who participated in Apollo a leak would be virually certain.
:
: Conspiracies are posible iff (2 fs deliberate) you have a very small
: tightly knit group of people.
:
:
: - Ian Parker

Or to put it another way, two people can keep a secret iff one of
them is dead.



The film "Alien Autopsy" claimed to be based
on actual footage that had
gone astray.
It was deemed a hoax. The film approached
it from the angle of 'could anyone hoax this autopsy?'

The consensus was it shoulda got an Oscar, if it
was a hoax, cause it sure looked absolutely real.

In the more current happening, the film
"A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon",
an amount of footage got into the moon videos that wasn't
supposed to. It shows Armstrong with the camera
set up to make the Earth appear to be as far away
as possible (shooting Earth through the porthole from the
*opposite* side of the capsule with all the lights off.)
We get to see Armstrong himself (unless its a hoax and
someone used a stand-in double- YOU look at
the film and decide) as the lights come back on, adjusting the
camera. The other astronaut
is adjusting the tape that stretches across part
of the porthole that is making this shot look
like "Earthrise". The date on the tape is exactly when
they were supposed to be approaching the moon and
they are obviously still in low earth orbit.

**********WAS********** it Armstrong?

Watch that movie- it's easily available
on the web- if you're scared to,
it just means you have too much invested in
the fantasy.

Warning, jumping ship earlier is better than later
when the ship is going down.
And this one is going down.

John
Galaxy Model

Every atom has at least ONE of you.
And me.

"malibu" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On Jul 5, 10:02 am, "Androcles" wrote:
: "Ian Parker" wrote in message
:
: oups.com...
: : On 5 Jul, 01:38, wrote:
: : http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
: :
: : Those who were deceived by the Apollo Hoax will be remembered, for
: : eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
: : this planet.
: :
: : There is a conspiracy theory calculus. Basically the more people who
: : conspire the greater the possibility of a leak. With the large number
: : of people who participated in Apollo a leak would be virually certain.
: :
: : Conspiracies are posible iff (2 fs deliberate) you have a very small
: : tightly knit group of people.
: :
: :
: : - Ian Parker
:
: Or to put it another way, two people can keep a secret iff one of
: them is dead.
:
:
:
: The film "Alien Autopsy" claimed to be based
: on actual footage that had
: gone astray.
: It was deemed a hoax. The film approached
: it from the angle of 'could anyone hoax this autopsy?'
:
: The consensus was it shoulda got an Oscar, if it
: was a hoax, cause it sure looked absolutely real.
:
: In the more current happening, the film
: "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon",
: an amount of footage got into the moon videos that wasn't
: supposed to. It shows Armstrong with the camera
: set up to make the Earth appear to be as far away
: as possible (shooting Earth through the porthole from the
: *opposite* side of the capsule with all the lights off.)
: We get to see Armstrong himself (unless its a hoax and
: someone used a stand-in double- YOU look at
: the film and decide) as the lights come back on, adjusting the
: camera. The other astronaut
: is adjusting the tape that stretches across part
: of the porthole that is making this shot look
: like "Earthrise". The date on the tape is exactly when
: they were supposed to be approaching the moon and
: they are obviously still in low earth orbit.
:
: **********WAS********** it Armstrong?
:
: Watch that movie- it's easily available
: on the web- if you're scared to,
: it just means you have too much invested in
: the fantasy.
:
: Warning, jumping ship earlier is better than later
: when the ship is going down.
: And this one is going down.
:
: John
: Galaxy Model
:
: Every atom has at least ONE of you.
: And me.
:
I don't need to watch any movie, I was alive and sentient in 1969.
Since then I've watched shuttles launch from Cape Canaveral. Live.
Any idiot that hallucinates a launch is not for real has to be a complete
and total ****head. Scepticism is healthy, blind stupidity is sick.
But then, that's just what you are. Sick.

Ian Parker wrote:

There is a conspiracy theory calculus. Basically the more people who
conspire the greater the possibility of a leak. With the large number
of people who participated in Apollo a leak would be virually certain.

Conspiracies are posible iff (2 fs deliberate) you have a very small
tightly knit group of people.

Yes, there is a "conspiracy theory" but clearly you have no idea what
it is. Instead you have cleverly (or perhaps stupidly) substituted the
old "The more people who know a secret the greater the probability of
a leak" saw, which is perhaps OK since it tends to be true. It's why
secrets are usually limited to as few as possible who "need to know".

But then comes the "bait and switch". It's like the trick currently
being used on global warming, where first you say global warming is
real (true) and temperature and CO2 levels are both rising (also true)
and then pull the fast move of "CO2 CAUSES global warming" (NOT
true). Same thing here. You jump from leak theory to a conclusion
that given a reasonably large number of people involved, a secret
COULD NOT be kept. This is clearly nonsense. The Manhattan project
was IMMENSE! The people, the money, the materials, the bureaucracy,
etc. should have guaranteed exposure. Yet the only leak was from the
inside to the Russians by one of the scientists and of course that
wasn't even known until the Russian bomb exposed it.

And let me point out that even if there is a leak, that doesn't mean
exposure. The fact that there are people agitating about an Apollo
hoax, COULD mean that there was a leak. But a carefully contained leak
insures a leak never leads to any kind of proof.

Anyone who says the government (or those in power) can't keep a secret
is either lying or ignorant. I point you to the UFO secret. Yes, there
are MANY people who can know a secret, but the catch is those in power
have almost limitless resources. And as an additional factor have
absolutely zero moral scruples. This means that should someone
actually leak information, massive efforts can and will be made to
cover it up. And that is not only paid journalists and authors to
throw chaff in the wind and cleverly use disinformation to lead any
serious investigators away, but also includes the gathering of any
physical evidence and its disappearance as well as the actual murder
of the leakers should that become necessary when simple intimidation
won't work.

The point is that in conspiracy theory, you don't have a free wheeling
system going along on its own. You have an active, tightly controlled,
system of oppression and disinformation designed to immediately
squelch even a SUGGESTION that anyone investigate a given area.

So when someone says on the Internet, hey, look at this! Instantly,
posters arise spouting all manner of "debunking" theories ridiculing
and "proving" the given suggestion is unreasonable. Only they aren't
real discussions at all. These are only "plausible" explanations that
really can't stand up to real investigations. But those involved with
secrets have discovered long ago that for the public a "possible"
explanation isn't required. The public is more than satisfied with
merely a "plausible" one. Hence even with the possibility of leaks,
most people are fooled and even the ones who still have suspicions
will not have any evidence available with which to prove anything.

Yes, children. With enough money, control and effort conspiracy can
work. If you doubt that simply ask any REAL historian! Where do you
think the statement "History is bunk" came from? The history most of
us were taught and most people accept is FILLED with "plausible"
events, none of which were really true.

Androcles wrote:
I don't need to watch any movie, I was alive and sentient in 1969.
Since then I've watched shuttles launch from Cape Canaveral. Live.
Any idiot that hallucinates a launch is not for real has to be a complete
and total ****head. Scepticism is healthy, blind stupidity is sick.
But then, that's just what you are. Sick.

"Androcles" calling someone else "sick" THAT is a good one!!!

I presume I'm speaking to a government spokesman here, right?

That's the way I am too. When I hear about a new idea I never go read
the original paper. I'm PROUD that I never read it! I simply point out
that the idea is clearly ridiculous and the author must be totally
stupid, insane and a complete "****head". Usually that is all the
"proof" anyone needs that the new idea should be rejected. Debate?
Discussion? We doan need no stinkin' scientific debate!

You know, Androcles, I love recess as much as anybody, but you really
are a poopy-face!
In other words, you DID notice that these are newsgroups given to
scientific discussions and not grade school play periods. Right?

On Jul 5, 11:07 am, Benj wrote:
Androcles wrote:
I don't need to watch any movie, I was alive and sentient in 1969.
Since then I've watched shuttles launch from Cape Canaveral. Live.
Any idiot that hallucinates a launch is not for real has to be a complete
and total ****head. Scepticism is healthy, blind stupidity is sick.
But then, that's just what you are. Sick.

"Androcles" calling someone else "sick" THAT is a good one!!!

I presume I'm speaking to a government spokesman here, right?

That's the way I am too. When I hear about a new idea I never go read
the original paper. I'm PROUD that I never read it! I simply point out
that the idea is clearly ridiculous and the author must be totally
stupid, insane and a complete "****head". Usually that is all the
"proof" anyone needs that the new idea should be rejected. Debate?
Discussion? We doan need no stinkin' scientific debate!

You know, Androcles, I love recess as much as anybody, but you really
are a poopy-face!
In other words, you DID notice that these are newsgroups given to
scientific discussions and not grade school play periods. Right?


No, really, Neil Armstrong in obviously
near earth orbit at exactly the time he was
supposedly nearing the moon with the camera
set up on the opposite side of the capsule and
the other astronaut duct-taping one side of
the porthole.
"Earthrise, suckers."

John

"malibu" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On Jul 5, 11:07 am, Benj wrote:
: Androcles wrote:
: I don't need to watch any movie, I was alive and sentient in 1969.
: Since then I've watched shuttles launch from Cape Canaveral. Live.
: Any idiot that hallucinates a launch is not for real has to be a
complete
: and total ****head. Scepticism is healthy, blind stupidity is sick.
: But then, that's just what you are. Sick.
:
: "Androcles" calling someone else "sick" THAT is a good one!!!
:
: I presume I'm speaking to a government spokesman here, right?
:
: That's the way I am too. When I hear about a new idea I never go read
: the original paper. I'm PROUD that I never read it! I simply point out
: that the idea is clearly ridiculous and the author must be totally
: stupid, insane and a complete "****head". Usually that is all the
: "proof" anyone needs that the new idea should be rejected. Debate?
: Discussion? We doan need no stinkin' scientific debate!
:
: You know, Androcles, I love recess as much as anybody, but you really
: are a poopy-face!
: In other words, you DID notice that these are newsgroups given to
: scientific discussions and not grade school play periods. Right?
:
:
: No, really, Neil Armstrong in obviously
: near earth orbit at exactly the time he was
: supposedly nearing the moon with the camera
: set up on the opposite side of the capsule and
: the other astronaut duct-taping one side of
: the porthole.
: "Earthrise, suckers."
:
: John
Does the idiot "Benj" wildly imagine he's not on my killfile,
hallucinating I'd read anything he wrote?
Never mind, rhetorical question...

Play with Google Earth, they have the math correct and
you can download it for free.
Obviously you have no understanding of parallax, but to make
it easy for you, this is a picture Earth from near Earth orbit.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070610.html
Obviously you don't realise you can't fit a continent into that picture.
Obviously you and "Benj" are ****heads.
Obviously you don't know the meaning of "obvious", no really.
Imbecile.

On Jul 4, 8:38 pm, wrote:
http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html

Those who were deceived by the Apollo Hoax will be remembered, for
eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
this planet.

Just as long as they didn't try to land on the sun at night. It would
be way too dark and they would have trouble seeing where they were
going.

On Jul 5, 12:24 pm, malibu wrote:
On Jul 5, 10:02 am, "Androcles" wrote:





"Ian Parker" wrote in message

roups.com...
: On 5 Jul, 01:38, wrote:
: http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
:
: Those who were deceived by the Apollo Hoax will be remembered, for
: eternity, as the greatest fools ever to have walked the surface of
: this planet.
:
: There is a conspiracy theory calculus. Basically the more people who
: conspire the greater the possibility of a leak. With the large number
: of people who participated in Apollo a leak would be virually certain.
:
: Conspiracies are posible iff (2 fs deliberate) you have a very small
: tightly knit group of people.
:
:
: - Ian Parker

Or to put it another way, two people can keep a secret iff one of
them is dead.

The film "Alien Autopsy" claimed to be based
on actual footage that had
gone astray.
It was deemed a hoax. The film approached
it from the angle of 'could anyone hoax this autopsy?'

The consensus was it shoulda got an Oscar, if it
was a hoax, cause it sure looked absolutely real.

In the more current happening, the film
"A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon",
an amount of footage got into the moon videos that wasn't
supposed to. It shows Armstrong with the camera
set up to make the Earth appear to be as far away
as possible (shooting Earth through the porthole from the
*opposite* side of the capsule with all the lights off.)
We get to see Armstrong himself (unless its a hoax and
someone used a stand-in double- YOU look at
the film and decide) as the lights come back on, adjusting the
camera. The other astronaut
is adjusting the tape that stretches across part
of the porthole that is making this shot look
like "Earthrise". The date on the tape is exactly when
they were supposed to be approaching the moon and
they are obviously still in low earth orbit.

**********WAS********** it Armstrong?

Watch that movie- it's easily available
on the web- if you're scared to,
it just means you have too much invested in
the fantasy.

Warning, jumping ship earlier is better than later
when the ship is going down.
And this one is going down.

John
Galaxy Model

Every atom has at least ONE of you.
And me.-

You seem to be easily convinced about anything, provided that it
requires no real thinking.

ahahahahaha... ahahaha... AHAHAHA.... Good one! ...ahaha...
"Androcles" wrote in message
k...
"malibu" John wrote in message
oups.com...
: Benj wrote:
: Androcles wrote:
: I don't need to watch any movie, I was alive and sentient in 1969.
: Since then I've watched shuttles launch from Cape Canaveral. Live.
: Any idiot that hallucinates a launch is not for real has to be a
: complete and total ****head. Scepticism is healthy, blind stupidity
: is sick. But then, that's just what you are. Sick.
:
: Benj bjacoby at iwaynet.net wrote:
: "Androcles" calling someone else "sick" THAT is a good one!!!
: I presume I'm speaking to a government spokesman here, right?
: That's the way I am too. When I hear about a new idea I never go read
: the original paper. I'm PROUD that I never read it! I simply point out
: that the idea is clearly ridiculous and the author must be totally
: stupid, insane and a complete "****head". Usually that is all the
: "proof" anyone needs that the new idea should be rejected. Debate?
: Discussion? We doan need no stinkin' scientific debate!
: You know, Androcles, I love recess as much as anybody, but you
: really are a poopy-face!
: In other words, you DID notice that these are newsgroups given to
: scientific discussions and not grade school play periods. Right?
:
[Malibu]
: No, really, Neil Armstrong in obviously
: near earth orbit at exactly the time he was
: supposedly nearing the moon with the camera
: set up on the opposite side of the capsule and
: the other astronaut duct-taping one side of
: the porthole. "Earthrise, suckers."
:
[Andro]
Does the idiot "Benj" wildly imagine he's not on my killfile,
hallucinating I'd read anything he wrote?
Never mind, rhetorical question...

[hanson]
.... ahahaha... Andro, that's a "she" and only if she had a
uterine inversion and an ovaryal redirection amongst other
things that turns a she into a "he", could she be a he...
ahahaha... Or, you could label "him" as a ****... ahahaha...
who said to your closest bosom buddy in his River of ****:
== Benj: "Uncle Al, I want to have your love-child!" ==
ahahaha... ahahahaha....

[Andro]
Play with Google Earth, they have the math correct and
you can download it for free.
Obviously you have no understanding of parallax, but to make
it easy for you, this is a picture Earth from near Earth orbit.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070610.html
Obviously you don't realise you can't fit a continent into that picture.
Obviously you and "Benj" are ****heads.
Obviously you don't know the meaning of "obvious", no really.
Imbecile.

[hanson]
IIRC from the many times this issue was discussed here,
the suspicion and consequent conspiracy theories did
root in the original BAD quality of pixs from the moon. NASA
then went into their sandboxes out in Barstow and REfilmed
the scenes to impress the TV audience with a better show.
Unfortunately NASA did not acknowledge right away that
the TV news pix were reenacted and enhanced... and so the
agile mind of the paranoid went into high gear... which is equally
great entertainment...
And Jacoby woman... don't get uptight now! Just stay tight!...
ahaha.. Thanks for the laughs, dudes and dudettes... ahahanson

On Jul 5, 10:55 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"malibu" wrote in message

: No, really, Neil Armstrong in obviously
: near earth orbit at exactly the time he was
: supposedly nearing the moon with the camera
: set up on the opposite side of the capsule and
: the other astronaut duct-taping one side of
: the porthole.
: "Earthrise, suckers."

Obviously you have no understanding of parallax, but to make
it easy for you, this is a picture Earth from near Earth orbit.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070610.html
Obviously you don't realise you can't fit a continent into that picture.

Obviously, you don't know what a wide angle lens does. shrug