THE TRUTH ABOUT TRUTH:

All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.



Monday, January 27, 2014

THEY CAN PUT A MAN ON THE MOON BUT THEY CAN’T... PUT A MAN ON THE MOON (A Short Part Two, Because Part One Was Too Short)


.
“I seen it [the Apollo Moon landing] on TV! ... Once you see it on television, you know that’s the way it is, you know?”
~ Big Daddy
Cigar store owner in Cocoa Beach, Florida

A week ago I posted the blog bit titled ‘CAVALCADE O’ COMMENTS’ (Or, ‘THEY CAN PUT A MAN ON THE MOON BUT THEY CAN’T... PUT A MAN ON THE MOON’). It seems the one thing everyone agreed on was that it was too long.

Well, guess what. I feel it wasn’t quite long enough, so here’s a (relatively) much shorter addendum.

I get on these kicks – been doing it for decades. For a period of time I will simply immerse myself in one thing or another until I wear it out... for awhile (before returning to it again some years later). It can be almost anything, like, Gene Tierney, W.C. Fields, Laurel & Hardy, William Holden, Hitchcock, or Film Noir movies. Frequently the kicks pertain to movies and actors. But they can also revolve around music, like the Beach Boys, Van Morrison, or Big Band music. Even foods – perhaps avocados, ice cream, soy-based hot dogs, or Chile Relleno burritos.

Currently, my kick is the Kroger brand of smoked string cheese and the fake Apollo Moon landings (the mother of all hoaxes!) The Fake Moon Landing kick is one I’ve gotten on and off of every few years for about a decade and a half. Ironically, when my friend Brother Beer Boy Bryan (Bodyguard Betty) wrote on January 1st  in one of my comment sections “We didn't land on the moon”, as an example of a crazy conspiracy theory, I was already about two weeks into ‘The Return Of My Fake Moon Landing Kick’. Timing is everything!
.
I think I’m done with it again... for another few years. But I did watch a couple more movies very recently and wanna yak ‘em up to ya here... briefly. (As I type these words I am listening to Pink Floyd’s ‘Dark Side Of The Moon’ – always amongst my favorite Rock albums! One of these days I need to try out that ‘Dark Side Of The Moon’ synchronization bit with the movie ‘The Wizard Of Oz’ that I’ve often heard about.) 

I saw CAPRICORN ONE once before, long ago, and probably in a movie theatre the year of its release – 1978. I couldn’t remember much about it other than its basic premise. So, Brother Nappy and I got it from NetFlix. The movie contains several really stupid, bonehead scenes, and Elliott Gould is truly an atrocious actor – I mean, a seriously “bad actor”. The movie also features James Brolin and O.J. Simpson... before he had become a murderer (and then invented the "slow-speed chase", which I saw live on TV, so I know it was real!).

For me, the movie’s highlight is a small but funny part played by Telly Savalas late in the story. Yeah, you heard me right: Telly Savalas was FUNNY! [“Perverts!”] Despite a few truly nonsensical moments, Nappy and I enjoyed the movie overall.

But here’s what blew my mind about it...

1978 - 123 minutes
Seconds before launch, the first NASA astronauts bound for Mars are pulled from the capsule and asked to fake the Mars landing instead. The astronauts agree, but as a reporter starts uncovering the truth, NASA turns its three heroes into martyrs.
.
.
Do you get it? Can you believe it? With a plot like that, can you believe that NASA actually allowed its name and official emblem to be used in the movie ‘Capricorn One’? NASA fakes a Mars landing, and then seeks to kill the astronauts in order to keep the hoax a secret? Wouldn’t you think a storyline like that would ordinarily inspire NASA to send a ‘Cease and Desist’ order? And if not complied with, NASA would have sued the filmmaker for Slander and Defamation Of Character?!

But instead, NASA, at the very least, gave its tacit approval. Ya ‘spose maybe it was a sideways confession that their Apollo Moon landing story was also a hoax? Isn’t that a little too close for comfort?

3 minute movie trailer:



Below are a couple of speeches in the movie that also seem to be somewhat “confessional” to me:

Okay, here it is. I have to start by saying that if there was any other way, if there was even a slight chance of another alternative, I would give anything not to be here with you now. Anything.

Bru, how long have we known each other? Sixteen years? ... Sixteen years. You should have seen yourself then. You looked like you just walked out of a Wheaties box. And me, all sweaty palm and deadly serious. I told everybody about this dream I had of conquering the new frontier, and they all looked at me like I was nuts. You looked at me and said, "Yes."

I remember when you told me Kay was pregnant. We went out and got crocked. I remember when Charles was born. We went out and got crocked again. The two of us. Captain Terrific and the Mad Doctor, talking about reaching the stars, and the bartender telling us maybe we'd had enough. Sixteen years.

And then Armstrong stepped out on the Moon, and we cried. We were so proud. Willis, you and Walker, you came in about then. Both bright and talented wise-asses, looked at me in my wash-and-wear shirt carrying on this hot love affair with my slide-rule, and even you were caught up in what we'd done.

I remember when Glenn made his first orbit in Mercury, they put up television sets in Grand Central Station, and tens of thousands of people missed their trains to watch.

You know, when Apollo 17 landed on the Moon, people were calling up the networks and bitching because reruns of I Love Lucy were cancelled. Reruns, for Christ's sake! I could understand if it was the new Lucy show. After all, what's a walk on the Moon? But reruns! Oh, geez!

And then suddenly everybody started talking about how much everything cost. Was it really worth twenty billion to go to another planet? What about cancer? What about the slums? How much does it cost? How much does any dream cost, for Christ's sake? Since when is there an accountant for ideas?

You know who was at the launch today? Not the President. The Vice-President, that's who. The Vice-President and his plump wife. The President was busy. He's not busy. He's just a little bit scared. He sat there two months ago and put his feet up on Woodrow Wilson's desk, and he said, "Jim, make it good. Congress is on my back. They're looking for a reason to cancel the program. We can't afford another screw-up. Make it good. You have my every good wish." His every good wish! I got his sanctimonious Vice President! That's what I got!

So, there we are. After all those hopes and all that dreaming, he sits there, with those flags behind his chair, and tells me we can't afford a screw-up. And guess what! We had a screw-up! A first-class, bona-fide, made-in-America screw-up!

The good people from Con-Amalgamate delivered a life-support system cheap enough so they could make a profit on the deal. Works out fine for everybody. Con-Amalgamate makes money. We have our life-support system. Everything's peachy. Except they made a little bit too much profit. We found out two months ago it won't work. You guys would all be dead in three weeks. It's as simple as that.

So, all I have to do is report that and scrub the mission. Congress has its excuse, the President still has his desk, and we have no more program. What's sixteen years? Your actual drop in the bucket!

All right. That's the end of the speech. Now, we're getting to what they call the moment of truth. Come with me. I want to show you something.

DUDE GIVING THE EULOGY AT THE MEMORIAL SERVICE:
...My fellow Americans, I came here today to talk of unfinished hopes and of unfulfilled dreams. Charles Brubaker, Peter Willis, and John Walker left this Earth for their dreams a little more than eight months ago; they were never able to return to us.

Their dream was able to grow and flourish because of the support of millions of citizens all across America. At a time when cynicism was a national epidemic, they gave us something to take pride in. It is a dream that should NOT be allowed to die.

A nation is built on the spirit of its people; the test of greatness of any nation is how that nation pulls together in a time of crisis. The only limits on what we can achieve are the limits we place on our hopes. These three men reminded us of the limitlessness of our hopes.

There was a moment these past few days when we were all one people; we were all hoping, we were all a little bit taller, a little bit prouder. We were all feeling the same fears and the same exhilaration. These three men brought us together. We knew, together, that there are no goals we cannot reach if we just reach for them together.

There is no adequate way we can express out gratitude to the men themselves because they are no longer among us. However, we can serve their memory... [the voice trails off as...]

I don’t want to say any more and spoil the movie should you decide to watch it. But... uh... is it just me, or did that not sound like NASA would like to confess something to the Americonned Sheeple?
.
.
Another movie Brother Nappy and I just watched together was this:

2005 - 60 minutes
Filmmaker Aron Ranen's tongue-in-cheek documentary explores the controversial conspiracy theory that asserts that, in 1969, U.S. astronaut Neil Armstrong spoke the famous words "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" from an earthbound film set, not the moon. In investigating the claims of an Apollo 11 hoax, Ranen uncovers a KKK faction at the Kennedy Space Center, slave-owning Nazis, hippies, soused space cowboys and more.

“The most redneck, in-bred town in America!”
~ A Young, White Dude in Wapakoneta, Ohio

DID WE GO? is almost closer to a “mockumentary” than a documentary. In the one-hour program, Ranen sets out (kinda, sorta) to prove that the Apollo space program really did land Americans on the Moon and then returned them safely to Earth.

It seems that most reviewers at NetFlix hated the movie but Nappy and I found it rather entertaining. It starts out funny, then gets pretty serious and grisly during the Nazi section, and then turns funny again later. If you’re an odd duck (like apparently Nappy and I be) you might enjoy the program too. (I believe it’s fully free to see at YouTube.)

5 minutes and 27 seconds clip:



[Never trust a 21st Century man wearing a bow tie! EVER!!]

“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

HUH?! WHA’?! You mean, if only we could somehow recapture, in 2014, the technological advances we had made by 1969, we could again land men on the Moon? Yeah, makes total sense to me! (You telling me some people aren’t trying to “come clean” without actually having to admit to the biggest lie in mankind’s history?)

I was just watching the movie ‘AFTER THE THIN MAN’ with William Powell and Myrna Loy. (Actually, I was watching it with Brother Nappy because, Powell and Loy? They're dead.)

Uh-Oh! 'Dark Side Of The Moon'? Fuhgeddaboudit! I think I feel another Big Band kick coming on again...

DOIN' THE JIVE – The Glenn Miller Orchestra


[Irving Fazola’s clarinet at the 1:41 mark absolutely slays my soul!]


~ Stephen T. McCarthy

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.

.

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

‘CAVALCADE O’ COMMENTS’ (Or, ‘THEY CAN PUT A MAN ON THE MOON BUT THEY CAN’T... PUT A MAN ON THE MOON’)


.
.
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.

You’ll find it here: INTELLIGENCE
.
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 ‘DISNEYTHE 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.
.
.
On December 30, 2013, I posted a blog bit titled ‘Uncle Sam Wants Your Guns By Hook Or By Crook’ (Or, ‘The Continuing Saga Of The Sandy Hoax Elementary School Shooting’). Shortly after that I experienced major computer problems (followed by separate Email problems) which shut me down for a bit and cost me time and money. Both have now been corrected (my wallet is commensurately lighter, too).

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:
.
.
Photo Source HERE
.
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.
.