.
.
Pour yourself a glass of wine, Peoples,
‘cause dis gonna be a long and overdue (and shocking) dinner party...
It was way back in my BigBitch.com years
that I learned to love receiving and replying to blog comments. It was the
rapport with my buddy Aaron that instilled this love in me. Aaron and I had something
really special going on; I have likened it to Jimi Hendrix and Eddie Van Halen
trading licks and improvising based on what the other person offered.
I’ve not quite found that same level of
creative give-and-take again in the Blogosphere, but I’ve gotten close enough
to it with some of my wonderful regular readers – my “Magnificent Seven” – who
have been a blast to interact with.
This is the reason why I have usually
thought of my blog bits as just a jumping off point, a place to start a
dialogue where hopefully everyone (myself certainly included) will learn
something new. And this is the reason that I very nearly ALWAYS reply to every
blog comment left for me.
I am attempting to compose this blog bit
with 3 kinds of hangovers: 1) A foggy-minded ‘Sleep Aid’ medication hangover,
2) a hangover of sadness (having just learned that one of my Magnificent Seven
won’t be coming around to my blog much anymore, and 3) possibly a very slight
‘Lagunitas SUCKS’ hangover. I hope that, despite the three-fold hangover, this
blog bit will come out reasonably OK.
First up, I want to tell you that on
January 12th, my Blog Buddy Robin posted a very good and
extra-popular blog bit at her site ‘Your Daily Dose’. I encourage everyone to
visit, read it, and comment on it.
.
The overall theme of her blog bit is that “...your favorite TV show (and characters) are trying to
manipulate your thinking about the world.”
I’ve
already commented there, but I have a follow-up comment to add. Ordinarily, I
would post this comment in the Comment Section of the blog in question. But I
have decided to post it here instead, primarily in the hope that it will
inspire you to go check out Robin’s original post. (If I posted the following
comment at ‘Your Daily Dose’, none y’all would be aware of it.)
Regarding
my original comment at Robin’s ‘INTELLIGENCE’ post... I want to say that being
sleep-deprived as I am (due to 4 months of “graveyard” shifts), I used the word
“control” when arguably a better word choice might have been “influence”.
Otherwise I stand firmly behind what I wrote.
Additionally,
I want to point out that not only is the mainstream media used to condition the
mASSES to accept and even embrace their servitude and shackles in the ‘New
World Order’ design, but it is used by “social engineers” to manipulate the
thinking and beliefs of the mASSES when it comes to basic social structures.
And when
I refer to the mainstream media, I am NOT only thinking of the audio/visual
facets, but also arts and letters. Book publishing is a BIGGIE! Fictionalized
stories of the printed word have long been used to condition you to accept
certain false realities as nonfiction. And one of the most significant concepts
that has been promoted for a very long time now, in movies, TV shows, TV
commercials, book and periodical publications is ‘FEMINISM’.
That
‘Feminism’ plays such a vital and prevalent role in the social conditioning of
We The People should come as no surprise, since the ‘New World Order’ is, to
some degree, based on Marxism (the ‘Dictator’ phase of it), and one of the primary
tactics in establishing Marxism, as stated in 'The Communist Manifesto', is this:
"Communists everywhere SUPPORT EVERY REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT
AGAINST THE EXISTING SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ORDER OF THINGS. Communists … openly
declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible OVERTHROW OF
ALL EXISTING SOCIAL CONDITIONS."
I don’t
want to spend a lot of time dissecting this Feminism fact (as I have other
comments to get to shortly), so I will give you just one example, while
assuring you that once you open your eyes and mind to this, you will find
countless thousands of examples ranging from movies to TV shows to TV
commercials, and every genre of the printed word. We are daily being bombarded
by ‘Feminism’ as it is one of the most prevalent ideas being spoon-fed to the
mASSES everywhere you turn, and one of the principal goals of Feminism is the
symbolic emasculation of men – attempting to downplay their masculine traits
while portraying women as being men’s equal (more often, men’s superior) when
it comes to physical aggression and the ability to defend and to make war –
individual war and organized, group war. Once you become cognizant of this
fact, you cannot escape seeing this EVERYWHERE, even in cartoons!
For my
one example I am going to select the 1994 Walt Disney movie ‘THE LION KING’,
only because it was hugely popular, so most people have seen it (and most have
enjoyed it). I’m also selecting this example because it’s one I myself noticed
immediately, but it seems no one else has. (Actually, I’m certain that other
observers of social engineering have discovered this particular example, but I
have never encountered anyone but myself publicly yakking about it. I’ve never
heard it mentioned or seen it referred to in print.)
The
Disney Company is one of the most powerful and successful “social engineers” in
the world today, and in their hugely popular movie ‘The Lion King’, Disney made
sure to slip in a little Feminist propaganda... and I’ll bet most (mindlessly
entertained) Americans never even noticed it and contemplated it.
When
Simba and Nala were young cubs, they got into a playful wrestling match. Here’s
how it turned out:
Alright, that’s cute, right? Two little
cubs playfully wrestling, and the little lioness wins and the future king of
the realm loses. No big deal, right?
But look what happens later on in the
movie...
When Nala – who hasn’t seen Simba since he
ran away as a little cub – goes hunting Simba’s pig pal Pumbaa, Simba comes to
rescue his pal. Now, Simba, the male future king, and Nala, the female, are
fully grown. The results of their wrestling match ought to be quite a bit
different, right? Let’s see:
So, according to Disney, Nala is still
superior (in every way - intellectually, morally and even PHYSICALLY) to Simba.
One might ask the question, “If Nala can still whoop Simba’s ass, why was it
necessary for Simba to fight his uncle Scar in order to save the African
kingdom? Why wasn’t a 'superior' fighter, like Nala, sent to confront the evil
lion Scar?"
Well, the ONLY answer one can really come
up with is this: It was the job of the rightful heir to the throne – the male
lion and would-be king, Simba – to wrest the leadership role away from the
usurper, Scar.
In other words, Nala could have defeated
Scar and saved the kingdom long ago, but the nonsensical Patriarchal social
structure dictated that the weaker male lion, Simba, was obligated to try to
win the kingdom back for the good of all.
You see, people? This is the sort of
conditioning and social engineering that the entertainment industry and the
media (all forms of it) slip into your subconscious minds while you are
drinking Coke (or the Kool-Aid) and eating popcorn (or flipping through the
pages of Time magazine). Only when you become conscious of these techniques and
learn to look for them will you find them popping up EVERY-phu#king-WHERE!
.
And by the way... The modern-day Disney
Company’s evil is hardly restricted only to the promotion of Feminism; Disney’s
wickedness is varied and constant. I used to love Disney and I’ve been to Disneyland
more times than you have (whoever you are), unless you once worked there. But I
went into full-on ‘Disney Boycott’ mode many years ago when I first read the
book ‘DISNEY – THE MOUSE BETRAYED: Greed, Corruption, And Children At Risk’.
.
.
I’ve read that book a couple of times. I
recommend that YOU read it at least once.
.
.
But while
having the computer issues, two comments submitted to the aforementioned blog
bit were somehow automatically published, despite the fact that I employ
‘Comment Moderation’. Because they didn’t appear in my Dashboard for my
approval to post, bypassing my eyesight, I had no idea these two comments, from
two of my ‘Magnificent Seven’, even existed until I randomly stumbled upon them
later and was shocked to see them there.
Although
I’m very late, I still want to reply to them so my friends won’t think they had
been ignored by me. (Brother Beer Boy Bryan, as a minister of The Gospel now,
surely you are aware of the importance of forgiveness.)
The first
comment was from my friend DiscConnected of the political blog ‘BACK IN THE
USSR’. He wrote the following:
Stephen-
A little off-topic but something I have always wondered....
At the beginning of your blog where you parathetically typed
"Read: Hoax"....
I know what's being said there, but have always wondered, why
use the word "read" instead of "i.e."?
Is it the same thing?
The "read" usage seems somewhat recent, and I always
wonder what triggered it.
And are you suggesting that our government would lie to us?
Even if people do not want to believe that Sandy Hook is a hoax, doesn't
it make it even worse that the liberal side of our government would use a
tragedy to further their gun agenda?
While your readers are investigating, they should save some time
to look at some of the finer examples of what happens when a strong Federal
government disarms it's subjects (like those halcyon days of early 190's Germany, for example).
LC
DOCTOR DISCDUDE ~
That’s an interesting question, and I’m not
edgeukated enough to give you an “official, take-it-to-the-bank” answer.
However, I personally definitely differentiate between the use of
“i.,e.” and “read:” and always have a reason for choosing one or the other.
The specific use that you cited is not
really a good example for me to use in explaining my selection process because
that was actually a kind of unusual use of the word “read:” in that I was
engaging in a bit of wordplay, insinuating that people ought to begin thinking
of Sandy Hook as “Sandy Hoax”, just as I altered the name in the title of that
particular blog bit.
[Those propagandists at the MSN
News website are at it again. In the last few days they’ve posted two stories
about the Sandy Hook (read: “Hoax”) Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.]
But
generally, this is how I decide which to use...
As I’m
sure you know, “i.e.,” is an abbreviation of “id est” which translates to “that
is”, as in “that is to say...” [And by the way, although it’s never been one of
my many writing failures, a lot of people wrongly use the abbreviations “i.e.,”
and “e.g.,”. Somewhere in her book ‘Missed Periods And Other Grammar Scares’,
Jenny Baranick addresses the correct usage of those two abbreviations: The
Most Sex You Can Have While Improving Your Grammar.]
So, I use
“i.e.,” in the standard way, when I want to add another word for clarification
of something I’ve just written. Below are a few examples of my use of “i.e.,”
which appear in various F-FFF blog bits:
Peter
Schiff uses fish instead of dollars to explain sound economics as well as the
opposite of sound economics (i.e., The Federal Reserve System).
[Oil] consumption is presently [i.e., 2006] growing 11 percent per year; doubling every 6.5 years. A
crisis is inevitable by 2010 to 2015.
~ Dr.
Chuck Missler
[2013
Update: I actually read this book... in the spirit of “know your enemy”.
At one point in her book, HELLary Clinton praises the late Senator Margaret
Chase Smith for standing up against the devil (i.e., Senator Joe McCarthy) and
composing her ‘Declaration Of Conscience’ against him - which seven other
senators signed. McCarthy was soon referring to Smith and her friends as “Snow
White and the Seven Dwarfs”. McCarthy was great!]
Those
occasions when I use “read:” I am not just attempting to clarify what came
before it, but I’m also implying that there is some sort of deception or mass
misunderstanding connected with the subject. In other words, I’m saying that
for greater understanding you should “read: THIS word” instead of the original
word or expression that was used.
Following
are a few more examples of when I employed the “read:” rather than the “i.e.,”:
[SH!T!
You wouldn’t believe the trouble I’m having trying to find examples of my use
of “read:”. After about 25 minutes of searching, I finally found one, BUT not
even on MY blog! I found the one just below on someone else’s site, where he
had copied and pasted one of my old blog bits: http://www.skeptive.com/sources/89143/source_urls/216761.]
(And, of course, when USAP
finally did produce [read: "create"] a birth certificate, it
turned out to be a phony, proving that Lt. Col. Lakin was RIGHT not to follow
the orders of a phony commander in chief!)
Well, my
friend, that’s going to have to do because I can’t spend the rest of my life
trying to find mo’ examples. But you get the idea from these examples, I’m
sure. Notice in the above usage I was using “read:” to imply a deception.
Barack Obama didn’t just “produce” his long-form birth certificate, he had
someone “create” a bogus one in order to continue keeping the REAL one hidden
from public view.
>>... And are
you suggesting that our government would lie to us?
Oh, HELL NO,
DiscDude! I would NEVER “suggest” that when it is much more appropriate
(and honest) to come right out and loudly state it blatantly! And if you want
to read more of that “loud, blatant stating”, be sure to read my reply to 6-B’s
(Brother Beer Boy Bryan Bodyguard Betty) comment just below.
.
.
.
Great blog bit, and while the New Year celebrations got away
from me, this was a great video. I really like the way that woman presents. I
know you like Alex Jones (and you know I'm not big on his YELL EVERYTHING line
of talking), but this is how I like to hear information. She's soft spoken and
more presenting things as 'see for yourself why it's not adding up.' But she's
not completely devoid of life. I think the part where she says (paraphrasing
here):
Here's the doctor, at the scene, running in a t-shirt and jeans.
He doesn't even look like a doctor. He looks like he's running a 10k.
I actually laughed out loud at that, maybe if only because I was
thinking the same thing.
I've seen a few of these parts, like the laughter turning to
sobbing just 5 seconds before an interview, but quite a bit of this was new. And
really, really interesting.
First off, the class picture photoshop thing. Not just that the
pictures are extremely low quality and lack any detail (who, in 2012, didn't
have a camera that took at least somewhat decent resolution pictures? Even the
camera on my cellphone will take pictures good enough to show you my pores and
gray hairs). But that they might possibly be from another time period to make
it harder to identify anyone... that was unreal.
I kid you not when I tell you this. Go to 1:29:00 in the video when she's showing the class
picture. Look at the top row, dead center, the kid with the brown hair and the
awful blue, green, and yellow striped polo. See him? That looked exactly like
me circa 1989. Not just the awful 'my dad cuts my hair' hairstyle, but I had
that polo. Literally THAT polo. That was THE cool shirt to have in 1989, and
I'd recognize it anywhere. Nowadays you'd never see a kid wearing a shirt like
that. Or clothes like those. Those all look like the kind of clothes I'd have
seen growing up in the nineties. Again, I'd recognize them anywhere - those
look identical to my own class pictures.
This is what a class picture looks like now.
Notice how different the clothes are. The hairstyles. And also
notice that the picture is huge, good resolution, and you can see everything in
great detail. None of the faces are mysteriously washed out.
Brother, I live in the suburbs, a place that's nice but not
nearly as nice as Newtown; I know 8 year old
children that have iPads with cameras that can take pictures like the one I
posted above. So... they're telling me the school doesn't have a camera capable
of taking an even mid-resolution picture? All they have, in this rich town, is
a grainy camera from the 90s that uses poor quality film and washes out faces?
Brandon's now-fiancee (this
whole fiancee thing just happened yesterday and thus my lack of response until
now, but that's another story for another day) is a teacher in one of the
poorest school districts in Denver. Gang-related inner
city type of stuff. And you'd better believe even they have a camera that'll
take pictures in crystal clear, high resolution for class picture time.
PART DEUX:
Another part I found interesting, as you mentioned, is the
walking in a circle around the firehouse. Another story for you. The two of us
were both in drama in high school, and one of the things I always remember was
a lesson in training the 'extras.' The kids in the background just there to act
natural.
Well, the drama teacher always made the mistake of using that
term. Just act natural. That almost seems as if to be the one command that
makes people most likely to freeze up and act incredibly awkward.
So kids would just be up on stage walking in circles. The
teacher asked, "What are you doing?" And of course they said, "I
don't know, just trying to act natural."
If you don't pay attention very closely, it just looks like
people are bustling about. But if you focus in on the things she points out in
the video, well, it's just a bunch of people wandering around aimlessly, with
no real purpose, trying to "act natural."
You know, I'm glad to see your answer to your new reader there,
and I'll be completely honest, when I first glanced upon your blog I thought
you might be a conspiracy theorist. We didn't land on the moon, lizard people
are among us, aliens are brainwashing us stuff. It's easy to mistake that at
first glance. But after you do some reading it's really a lot of, "Huh,
that's a pretty big hole in (big government related story)." And it's
also, "Wait, this guy's pretty damn smart and actually knows what he's
talking about."
I'm no conspiracy theorist either, but you watch a full hour and
a half video of stuff like this and you just see that the facts don't add up.
And unlike conspiracy theory lalaland, it's not saying that every school
shooting was faked. That's just crazy. Hell, I was in high school when Columbine
happened and we knew a few of the people who were there; Columbine's only like
20-25 minutes away.
But hey, it's easy to be mistaken for a loon when you uncover
things that go against the grain of what we're told en masse. Remember,
Stephen, just act natural. Just like this extra in a James Bond movie.
~B-Sixer
6-B,
first of all, I want to say, THANK YOU!! That was a fabulous 2-part comment and
I am SO SORRY it has taken me this long to reply! But, I know you understand my
circumstances (i.e., computer viruses, ‘SUCKS’ addiction, and all these voices
vying for prime position in my head).
Applying a
“the Moon is half FULL” spin to this, I can counter with: At least your excellent
comment(s) got transformed into a front-and-center blog bit, rather than just
buried in an old Comment Section. Eh?
Secondly,
I want to say that you NAILED DOWN a few spot-on points in your 2-part comment.
I love the fact that, although I have few readers, the comments I do receive
are from very bright, thinking people who are well above the mass of ‘American
Sheeple’ when it comes to intelligence and critical thinking ability. (It was
not without good reason that I named you amongst my blog’s ‘Magnificent Seven’
way back when.)
Thirdly...
>>... And it's
also, "Wait, this guy's pretty damn smart and actually knows what he's
talking about."
I thank
you for the A-list compliment. To be honest, I was a straight “C” student in
high school and have NEVER thought of myself as being “pretty damn smart”. What
I am, however, is (truly) a voracious reader; I definitely do my homework and
apply a decent “critical thinking capacity” to what I read. I read, I check,
and I re-check before I make bold public pronouncements.
That’s
the reason Liberals (and pseudo-Conservatives) have never gotten the best of me
in debates. I’ve already deeply examined their evidence; I know EVERYTHING
they’re going to say to me even before they say it, and I already have a better
reply waiting for them when they eventually spew their garbage. Aside from
that, no one – and I mean, NO ONE – can be snarkier than I can be. Even Ann
Coulter would be sorry if she ever tried to tangle with me in an
insult-for-insult exchange. And since ad hominem attacks are the only thing
Liberals do semi-well (sure as hell they can’t think well!), I am ready for the
Libidiots on every conceivable battle front.
Alright
now, to quote Honest John: “On to the theater!”
>>... You
know, I'm glad to see your answer to your new reader there, and I'll be
completely honest, when I first glanced upon your blog I thought you might be a
conspiracy theorist. We didn't land on the moon, lizard people are among us,
aliens are brainwashing us stuff.
*GULP!*
Uhm...
er... that is... hmmm...
Well,
let’s leave the “lizard people” and the “aliens” off the table... for now,
anyway. And... well... Beer Brother Bryan, I don’t exactly know how to break
this to you but (fasten your seatbelt,
Bro, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!)... uh... if, as they say, “a picture is worth a thousand words”,
here’s 1,001 words:
.
.
.
Don’t
give up on me too soon, 6-B; I haven’t led you astray before, have I? Here’s my
story, and I’m sticking with it:
I realize
you weren’t anywhere near born yet when Man first stepped on the Moon in 1969,
but I was about 10 years old and I still remember watching that amazing feat on
my Grandparents’ TV set with my entire family gathered around. It was an
ASTOUNDING thing to view, and I had no reason to doubt what my eyes were seeing
– after all, I was only about 10 and all the adults around me were seeing it
and buying into it too.
For years
afterward, I would occasionally look up into the night sky, stare at the Moon
while thinking: Wow! Men have walked around on that!
Without
having ever encountered any skeptics or anti-Moon-Walking articles, I myself,
intuitively began to have little bothersome doubts beginning circa 1980 or so.
The source of my slight doubts was this: I could remember only too well what
American society was like, technologically speaking, in 1969-1972. Granted, the
brilliant minds at NASA (read: wacky brains at ‘Never A Straight Answer’) were
thinking well beyond middle class American society in that era, but I couldn’t
help wondering if we REALLY could have had the necessary technology –
ANYWHERE in the USA – to land men on the Moon and return them to Earth again at
that time.
Over the
next few years, I would occasionally run across some articles written by one skeptic or another. I’d make a mental note of it and move on, still carrying a little
doubt (although no set-in-stone opinion) about Moon-walkin’ Americans.
Always
the inquisitive type, it was probably about 12 or 13 years ago that I read the
book ‘DARK MOON: Apollo
And The Whistle-Blowers’ by David Percy and Mary
Bennett. Although it’s certainly not a flawless book, it was damn sure good
enough to convince me that the Apollo Moon landings were a government-funded
(read: taxpayer-funded) hoax.
You know
me, Bro, I let the evidence dictate my beliefs, NOT my emotions or my
desires. I have the identical outlook that Patrick Henry did: “For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I
am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it.”
.
 |
| SIX-PACK O' GOOD STUFFS: BOOKS 'N' BEER |
.
6-B,
before you remove me from your will (Ha!), or even deny you know me (don’t be a
Peter [read: “dick”] when The Lord is on trial!), please do the necessary
research and critical thinking and determine FOR YOURSELF whether
or not Uncle Sam’s story stands up. You’ll find that there are 1,001 details
that don’t add up to 100%. I am now (approximately) 666.99% sure that no man
has ever stood on the Moon and returned to Earth. That is to say, I am HIGHLY
doubtful (pun intended) about Uncle Sam’s veracity, and I am positive that
objective research on your part will leave you unencumbered from the false
belief that Uncle Sam once put Americans on the Moon. (Ordinarily, I
deliberately avoid using ten-dollar words like “veracity” and “unencumbered”,
choosing instead to nickel and dime my way through blog bits [thanks for the
wise advice, Douglas Hyde!] but in this case, I wanted to remind you that I’m
not a TOTAL maroon, so I cashed in my change for two ten-dollar bills [read: "words"].)
Question:
Would the government that deliberately sent innocent Americans to their deaths
to further a political objective (e.g., the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, Oklahoma City, 9/11, Boston Marathon)
refuse to fake Moon landings even if it thought it could gain something by the hoax?
In
studying this subject, you will find a lot of pseudo-scientific,
off-the-charts-and-over-the-wall Moony Loonies attempting to defend Uncle Sam’s
hoax on various websites. Don’t let them buffalo you! Think for YOURSELF! Some
of them are government-paid propagandists, and some of them are just fearful
Americans who refuse to face the truth because of the Pandora’s Box it would
open should they acknowledge their deepest fear (i.e., that the Good ‘N’ Godly
Uncle Sam would commit such a massive LIE against the “Americonned Sheeple”).
Don’t let their paid work or their desperate (pseudo-religious) fears turn you away from discovering the
truth – whatever it may be.
Where to
start? Well, aside from the previously mentioned book ‘DARK MOON’, there’s a
three-and-a-half hour, 2-part documentary titled ‘WHAT HAPPENED ON THE MOON’,
which is based on the first part of the book ‘Dark Moon’. NetFlix has it, but
it might even be available for free viewing at YouTube – I don’t know.
But a
time and dollar-saving place to start might be the lengthy but HIGHLY
entertaining (pun again intended), uproariously sarcastic 13-part blog bit by
David McGowan titled ‘WAGGING THE
MOONDOGGIE’.
You can
get to ‘WAGGING THE MOONDOGGIE’,
Part 1 by clicking HERE. But be forewarned that
this blog series is no longer up-to-date. For instance, NASA no longer claims
that the original footage of the Moon landing is “lost”. Nowadays they’re
sticking to the story that they taped over the original footage. [Much
smarter’n losing it, eh?] However, NASA still claims that the blueprints of the
astronaut “backpacks” and the Moon Buggies are lost [presumably just misplaced
all these years later]. Frankly, in my opinion, one needs to be “a lunatic — on
the level with the man who says he is a poached egg” to believe NASA’s story.
.
Below are
some excerpts from that blog series:
WAGGING THE
MOONDOGGIE, Part 5:
.
A NASA statement released in July of this year contained a
rather curious assertion: “Conspiracy theories are always difficult to refute
because of the impossibility of proving a negative.” It is not, of course, NASA
that is being asked to prove a negative, but rather those pesky ‘conspiracy
theorists.’ NASA is merely being asked to prove a positive, which should be a
relatively easy task. All they have to do is produce some actual evidence,
beginning with all those reels of tape containing the telemetry data, the
biomedical data, all voice communications, and all the original videotape. They
could also release the plans and specifications for all that fancy space
hardware. And maybe offer some kind of reasonable explanation for why so many
of the official photographs are demonstrably fraudulent.
Alternatively, they could just send some guys back there, to
prove that it can be done. It’s been thirty-seven years and counting since the
last guests on the Moon checked out. NASA allegedly filmed that final lift-off
from the Moon, by the way. In case you haven’t seen the historic film footage,
you can view it here. It’s a very short clip and it’s actually quite funny,
so be sure to check it out.
I can’t be 100% certain of this, of course, but I have a very
strong hunch that NASA picked up the footage off the cutting-room floor after
Ed Wood had finished editing Plan 9 From Outer Space. Actually, I probably
shouldn’t joke about the clip because I do feel kind of bad for the guy that
they had to leave behind to operate the camera. I wonder how he’s doing these
days?
Actually, NASA claims that the camera was mounted on the
abandoned lunar rover (even in space, Americans are arrogant litterbugs), and
that the pan and zoom functions were operated remotely by the ground crew back
on Earth. You couldn’t control your television from across the living room in
those days, but NASA could pan and zoom a camera from 234,000 miles away.
Awesome! And there apparently either wasn’t any delay in the signal or NASA had
the foresight to hire a remote camera operator who was able to see a few
seconds into the future.
You really have to hand it to the NASA boys – those guys think
of everything.
.
WAGGING THE
MOONDOGGIE, Part 8
.
It would appear that what was deployed by the mother ship to
shuttle our guys down to the Moon was essentially an oversized Jiffy-Pop
container (with the brainpower of a digital watch). The show’s narrator was
quick to point out that the astronauts had to be very careful while moving
about in their bulky suits lest they puncture or otherwise damage the delicate
skin of the craft. What wasn’t pointed out was that the vacuum of space had to
be very careful as well – careful not to rip the pressurized craft to shreds
the instant it was deployed!
One would logically assume, by the way, that the LEMs would have
been kept safely tucked away within the mother ship until lunar orbit was
achieved. But according to NASA, that’s not the case. The official legend holds
that the lunar modules were deployed shortly after leaving Earth orbit, about
three hours after blasting off, and that they then docked in a nose-to-nose
configuration with the command and service modules while both spacecraft were
flying through the vacuum of space at either 17,000 or 25,000 miles per hour,
depending on the source.
.
WAGGING THE
MOONDOGGIE, Part 11:
.
NASA claimed, by the way, to shoot for 99.9% accuracy in the
manufacture of its Apollo spacecraft, which shouldn’t have been a problem for a
workforce composed of Nazi rocket scientists, bra seamstresses and surfers.
Even if that lofty goal had been attained, however, that would still have left
9,000 defective parts per launch vehicle (6,000 if the figure of 6,000,000
parts is correct).
.
WAGGING THE
MOONDOGGIE, Part 13:
.
“It’s a journey we can’t repeat with today’s technology, but in
1969, a group of astronauts risked everything to walk on the Moon.”
~ ‘When We Left Earth’,
The Discovery Channel, 2010
.
By the
way, 6-B, did you ever see the movie ‘WAG THE DOG’? If not, you needs to put it
on your “To See” list. Once in a Blue Moon (pun still intended), Hollywood actually tells the truth.
Whoever
it was who, long ago, redefined the NASA acronym to mean “Never A
Straight
Answer”,
that dude or dudette was right on target:
.
.
Determining
that NASA lied to us really isn’t that difficult.
I mean,
it ain’t like it’s... [wait for it]...
... “Rocket
Science”.
.
.
Additional Links:
.
POONTANG:
MOONTANG:
.
 |
| "SWEET MOONTANG!" |
.
“Wang
dang, sweet Poontang! Moontang!”
.
.
(Sales of ‘TANG’ [<< link!] were poor until NASA used it on John Glenn's
Mercury
flight, and subsequent Gemini missions. Since then, it was closely
associated with the U.S. manned spaceflight program, leading to the
misconception that Tang was invented for the space program.)
.
Now, Peoples, I reiterate... if you haven’t
already read it, please go check out Robin’s blog bit ‘INTELLIGENCE’
~
Stephen T. McCarthy
POSTSCRIPT:
Dorker
Vibes, if you’re still monitoring my blog... I assure you that I’ve
not forgotten about you. Technical difficulties and time issues have prevented
me from further investigating the availability of that album. However, I
promise that (God willing) I WILL get back to you about it, one way or
the other. I am a man of my word.
YE OLDE
COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem
attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read:
"posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com,
so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.
