23-11-2010, 05:23 PM
Peter Dawson Wrote:Malcolm Pryce Wrote:David Guyatt Wrote:I harbour a mild suspicion that the throaty muffler sounds apparently coming from the Rover may have been dubbed on at a later date.
Yes, sorry, the 'engine roar' is nonsense, I didn't realise the guy had added that at the end. I was pointing to the section at the beginning in which they are talking about 'it' getting low and 'did you get the fuel yet' then the camera focuses on what looks very much like a jerry can and they call it a 'football-sized rock'. Then one of them picks it up by the handle and hurls it away. It just looks look they are taking the piss.
I think the guy has edited the NASA sound to suit his own purposes throughout the whole thing, because the NASA transcript matches the part where Cernan throws the object, but the words spoken by the astronauts on the clip aren't the same single flowing piece in the transcript. I haven't been able to locate the "fuel can" part in the transcript - it's definately seperate from the "Are you through with this (gravimeter)?" part, even though youtube guy makes us think we're listening to unadulterated footage.
Should we be inclined to trust the arguments of people who present their side of the case in this kind of deceptive manner?
The problem Peter, is that there is far too much mud swirling in the waters of various conspiracy subjects. This invariably leads me to wonder who is holding the swirling stick releasing the sediment. And why.
Not always, but often, this is an indicator that there is some force of argument about the proposed theory that needs to be cunningly demolished for fear that it will open bigger secrets.
There are any number of conspiracy theories that clearly don't have an ounce of common sense to commend them, and which gain no momentum simply because common folks have sufficient common sense to see right through them. It is those that endure that often enough have a grain (or a lot more than one!) of truth that attract the attention of the psyops teams whose job it is to engender doubt, via the "bullshit beats brains" technique.
In the case of the moon hoax, it is interesting to say the least, that within just a few short years Hollywood had made and released Capricorn One. Was it just a movie for movie's sake or did it reflect inside information circulating in Hollywood? The argument that film director, Stanley Kubrick, may have filmed a film set of the moon landing has some merit in my view. There is no direct evidence to support this, but it is not that uncommon (indeed it is an accepted procedure) for secrets and suppressed truths to manifest in popular fiction.
The point I am making here is that this particular "hoax" has been bubbling away on the boiler since 1978 - 32 years thus far. That for me suggests the hoax theory has some legs.
Just my tuppence worth of course.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14