Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Conspiracy Theories · New blog on the kid : Some People Seem to Stamp me as a Conspiracy Theorist
Back when I was arguing at helgon.net, I was more than once attacked verbally by one "J. Strauss" who systematically went about reducing what I actually said to a conspiracy theory and who then proceeded to rip apart that conspiracy theory.
This left me at a double disadvantage:
- 1) it took attention away from the line of argument I was actually pursuing.
- 2) his ripping apart of what he conceived as a conspiracy theory of mine (or pretended to do so) was not water tight, so I argued what conspiracies would after all actually be possible. This may have given some (and if he was not dishonest and theatrical did leave him) with the impression I was into the conspiracy theory in question.
I am - with some caution - into the conspiracy theories of Lyndon LaRouche and of Henry Makow.
I am not in, but also not against, the moon landing conspiracy theory.
It so happens, whether by chance, by algorithms of quora (very probable), by prayer by someone praying for me to be "healed from" conspiracy theories (I am not considering "delusion" as a medical symptom, unless you believe you are God - this is not adressed to Our Lord - or you believe you are a poached egg, I believe the opposite view is part of a medical conspiracy, which is trying to dominate the world by chosing certain ideologies and memes to stamp as "delusions", and I believe it is heresy to accept that kind of definition) (not improbable either and not diminished by probability of previous, since efficacy of prayer and of natural or mechanical circumstances are not rivals, but concur through God's providence to same events), or even by a conspiracy of some computer admin (less probable, but far from impossible), I DID get across the moon landing conspiracy and a supposed debunking of it.
Here is a link to the debunking:
Clavius : Scale
Now, I will copy paste quotes from two arguments of theirs, the first of which I agree with (there was no LARGE conspiracy, arguably), the second of which I disagree with (the equipment being good does not equate the moon landings were actually made).
I will comment on each in detail.
- Against large scale
- The problem of scale. At the height of the Apollo project almost half a million people were working on it. Yet in over thirty years, not one of these half million people has come forward to say he was part of the conspiracy and provide incontestable evidence for it.
- My agreement
I find it very improbable that thousands of people were in a scam and no one actually lost interest or was clumsy.
- Against small scale
- At the other end of the spectrum we consider the possibility that only a few top people at NASA knew of the conspiracy. And so all of the contractors and most of the folks working at NASA truly believed the lunar landing was a fact.
In short, this scenario will produce equipment capable of going to the moon. But our cardinal premise is that NASA couldn't do it. So if the equipment worked, then what was to prevent NASA from actually performing a lunar landing? Remember, the most airtight scam is the one that's not really a scam. If they wanted people to believe they had landed a man on the moon, and they had the machinery to do it, the smart thing to do would be to actually accomplish the landing.
- My disagreement
- The reply presupposes that the conspiracy theory is adequately analysed by a claim the only motive for a scam is lacking equipment for a moon landing.
Let's give a few alternatives.
- 1 "they had no equipment for landing"
- disposed of. With a small scale, minimal scenario, the contractors needed to be producing good equipment.
- 2 "they had no equipment for passing Allen Belt"
- I have heard this has been debunked by a study in how much radiation the Allen Belt would involve and what screening the back then equipment would provide.
I have not yet seen the study.
- 3 "actual lack of equipment was not the issue at all"
- Here we come to some interesting alternatives:
- a) secret geocentrics or not, they wanted to prove heliocentrism
- This touches on one motive very common among Moon Truthers, these being also Geocentrics.
I believe that as a motive for a Geocentric to be Moon Truther, this is inadequate. Why? Because the Moon Landing and seeing Earth turn around its axis from Moon does not prove heliocentrism true. If the Heliocentrics can say that the ordinary view, shared by billions according to God's providence, can be a misleading and parallactic one, seeing sth else move because of real movement being in observer or in his point of observation, obviously a real landing on the Moon, a real film of Earth turning around its axis taken from Moon in time lapse, is not a proof of this, since we as Geocentrics can say that the view shared only by some very few was a parallactic one.
If you photograph the Eiffel Tower from a chopper flying around it, you will see a film of an Eiffel tower turning around its own axis. This means that such a film is NOT proof the Eiffel Tower is not fixed in the ground, and similarily a film with Earth turning, taken from the moon is NOT proof Earth is turning.
This is why a solid refutation of all Moon Truther claims, if available, would not shock me in the least : it is no argument against Geocentrism, which I am defending - as here I am defending it, and me, from the charge of depending on Moon Trutherism.
But as an explanation on why NASA would have faked a landing, this starts to gain some ground.
Since films of Earthy turning on own axis, taken from moon, have been so good at promoting the idea that Earth is turning on its axis, NASA would have had a motive for faking the landings, even if thinking landings could not be made.
Also - if landings were made, this could have been a motive for actually making them. But if for some reason NASA did not dare, well, then NASA could have faked them too.
- b) they wanted to prove Newtonian physics, spec. gravitation
- One of my earlier reactions against Heliocentrism back 15 years ago involved the observation that certain parts of Newton cannot be proven exclusively from Earth.
Continuation of uniform movement has not really been proven even by Moon Landing and the rest of the space program.
Newtonian gravitation, heaviness being equal to substantiality - a thing I consider blasphemous - has however some support if the heaviness of the astronauts was attracted to the heaviness of the subjacent Moon and this kept them from falling down to Earth as the locus of heavy things.
While the acceptance of Moon Landing and Space Program as factual has not involved a full fledged acceptance of Newtonian view, it has involved some modifications, and only by claiming Moon Fake could I return to a completely Aristotelic theory of gravity, of Earth as centre of all heavy things.
So, suppose some Geocentric in the years previous to launching of rocket and landing (fake or real) had claimed somewhere (even in a mental hospital) "Heliocentrism in the modern form builds on Newtonian gravitation, but our experience on Earth uniformly supports Aristotelic gravitation" (which it does), someone eager (in a Masonic way) to vindicate Galileo and Newton against Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas could have come up with an idea of faking a moon landing in which astronauts' positions are maintained at least 362 600 km above Earth* without falling down, as a proof that heavy bodies like those of the astronauts are attracted to nearest body which is much heavier rather than to Earth, and being afraid of being wrong and not just risking lives but exposure by a real try, might have preferred a fake success.
This is not what I believe, I have other ideas on how to avoid the blasphemy of identifying heaviness and substantiality, lightness and absence of substance, namely considering heaviness to be a quality of nucleic matter and lightness of the much more massive surrounding etheric matter. So, I have not accepted taking lightness as absence of susbtance.
But while I do not believe Moon Landing is necessarily false, I find a belief such as my previous one, if expressed anywhere everso discreet, could have promoted a faked refutation. By people at NASA who could not foresee how one successor of such, namely me, would get around the intellectual challenge.
Some people really are in deep hatred of all aspects of Catholicism, including Scholasticism, and top men at NASA are likelier to be Anti-Scholastics than Pro-Scholastics or even Thomists.
- c) they wanted to hide some other Moon Landing
- In Space Trilogy, C. S. Lewis speculates about a landing of men not on Moon, but first on Mars, then on Venus. In the final part, there is a kind of note of spiritual powers - of evil - being at the moon.
What if a real moon landing has already happened by witchcraft, or in ways where landing place was likely to reveal spiritual powers, this is known to a few, and this needed "debunking" in advance of any leak, even if a fake debunking, by arranging an alternative, heavily promoted and popularised, view of what a Moon Landing really would look like.
- d) they had the equipment but didn't trust it
- And so they faked a landing rather than did a real one they could have made.
So, of the possible motives 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, the Clavius team have exposed motive 1 as incompatible with a very small conspiracy.
They are free to provide - and I will also promote, if remaining in freedom - their refutations, if any, of possible motives 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d. So far and on that page, they have not done so yet.
There is another, somewhat disturbing, aspect of the refutatation of a big conspiracy, as given by Clavius:
- No evidence of threat.
- Recall that the notions of death threats are purely conjecture. There is no evidence whatsoever of anyone being threatened with life or limb for spilling the beans. Nevertheless this is something that has to be believed in order for the conspiracy theory to work. See the discussion of Occam's Razor to understand why we must then dismiss theories than involve death threats.
- No posthumous revelations.
- Death threats don't work on people who are already dead or about to die. A substantial number of people who worked on the Apollo project have died. Yet among these, we find no safe deposit boxes with incriminating photos or documents, no accounts of deathbed confessions.
- No Boy Scouts.
- Where is NASA's Frank Serpico? Serpico was given considerable financial inducement to keep secret the corruption of the New York police. When that failed, he was nearly killed. Yet none of this prevented Serpico from doing what he felt was his duty.
- There is another threat than death, which will take care of very many, and be more chilling than death to many : psychiatry.
If Moon Truthers are widely promoted as being "delusional", one man who really was involved, really knew of a fake, really tried to spill the beans, back in the 70's when psychiatry was stronger (it's trying to regain some strength, I am afraid) could have been stamped as "delusional" about his past activities.
I was born in Vienna, when my mother was "written at" Södertelge. In my earlier passports, it was marked "födelseort : Wien, födelsehemort : Södertälje" and these were translated as place of birth, administrative place of birth. In my latest one, Södertelge is suddenly my place of birth "tout court". Will someone try to stamp me as delusional for claiming to be born in Vienna?
At a process I was at, I mentioned "slutstycke" and "osäkra", things denoting parts of gun and making it ready to shoot, when talking of how I had dealt with hand gun of a policeman. It was questioned how I could know about these things. The answer is, I did military service at the back then regiment Lv4. The medical papers from my service there had somehow disappeared, because it was said by some doctor, "no, he can't have done that, we would have the medical papers" - when will I be stamped as delusional, if it has not already happened, for saying I did military service?
Psychiatry is a very terrible means of silencing opposition, since it is very uncomfortable, discomforts both immediate and by trauma can be protracted over years, and on top of that the victim is discredited.
So, how do we know there was no threat and no one did try to spill the beans?
To this latter one could reply that I have no right to just theorise such a thing, otherwise anyone could make such an abstract claim.
But on the one hand, I am not so much claiming as - so far - giving a possibility. It is Clavius who are set on saying Moon Landings are not a fraud, Moon Truthers are wrong. If they rely on a huge negative, it is perhaps for them to have better proof than just "I haven't heard of anyone trying to spill the beans, at least".
On the other hand, now I will make a claim of one man perhaps trying to spill the beans. There was, but I no longer find it, a youtube clip of a man confronting Armstrong with "you know you didn't go to the moon, you are lying, repent".
I wonder if the clip went down and he went to mental hospital? ***
Well, sorry, our time has the technical capacity of faking the film footages, and also of faking a consensus of no spilled beans, by locking up someone who is trying to do so.
While I am not a Moon Truther per se, I cannot any more just claim they are lunatics who are claiming the impossible.
Even if joining a witch hunt against conspiracy theorists about the moon would land me with, not restored credibility, but being a little less "discredited" in the eyes of people like "J. Strauss", whatever his real name may be. He is anyway lead singer of The Morlocks - and is Anticatholic. Or was last time I checked, which is a while ago.**
Hans Georg Lundahl
St Raymond Nonnatus
* = 225309.1943 miles ** Link to description of The Morlocks, caution, material unsuitable for children and for teens on one of the disc covers. Click here or don't. Or here: http://www.morlocks.net/ (same warning applies). Or wiki. *** Supposing he was not an ex insider, but just a very fanatic Moon Truther pestering one of the guys he considered as bearing false witness to the world, even then such a handling of him would not be justified on my view - at all.
Update: some people seem to amuse themselves by trying to stamp me as generally bad at verifying and falsifying information. I was today - 1.IX, next day from previous - given an information about French President Macron being homosexual, living a double life. As you may know, there has been similar information about Michelle Obama being a tranny. Well, there is a reason I did not used that one before seeing the actress who had said so had died in ways suggesting murder - and even then I cautioned. The reason is not I am for Obama, it is because I am against baseless rumours.
A denunciation which is followed by possibly mysterious death of person denouncing is a base - if the death was really a murder.
And a self denunciation by a defector is a base - if there are no other reasons to doubt Schnoebelen, like his being published, presumably with ordinary and exclusive contract, by Chick Publications. And vague about who ordained him ("Old Roman Catholic" is probably "Old Catholic", but a misnomer if so).
Well, a google in "Macron homosex" is actually giving as first hit a ... denial.
It seems this denial came handy as getting published after he was elected and had to deal with citizens, while the original rumour having been published in same paper before election found an update but no actual denial, when he was competing for among other things homosexual votes (some might have been favourable to Marine, since she is against Islamic degree of homophobia). But that is a far cry from him actually being one sodomite, as was verbally proposed this morning.
Now, Gala has published the denial so Gala has cleared Macron. Perhaps those who try to stamp me as bad at judging reliability would like to take this as occasion of a denial (with proof) by me, and perhaps, instead of going on such rumours, they would like to actually argue over any particular point where they think my judgement has been poor? Or are they of less integrity than Gala?/HGL