View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Men in Black- Documentaru movie

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Men in Black- Documentaru movie

Postby SydneyPSIder » 10 Jan 2013, 08:33

Arouet wrote:I must admit to being a little frustrated at the response to my radiation thread- or the lack of response actually.

Diddums. There, there.

I passed the link on to JW, what more can I do. I don't have a lot of time just now to dissect stuff, just browsing and making a few quick posts from time to time.

Re the radiation thing and whether I read various sources critically, yes, I do. When JW bluntly suggests astronauts would have been 'as dead as spam in a can' after a moon trip, I don't necessarily accept that claim at first sight, but I have strong suspicions that NASA didn't know what it was doing with respect to radiation levels, as it didn't have good readings for solar flares etc, but that it seems remarkably dangerous and risky due to the unknowns -- the precautionary principle would suggest you wouldn't go, as the Russians apparently decided. I don't believe they wanted astronauts to get sick and die within a year of a mission, for instance. Or even 10 years. So that presented some obstacles in the space race with the Russians and JFK's bold stated and potentially embarrassing and unachievable goals.

Don't mistake my posting of a statement by JW or anyone as a quote as rock solid endorsement of the quote on my part, I'm just re-presenting what they're saying. It's fine to pick it apart because that's what needs to happen. It's a Socratic dialogue. I'm presenting a 'thesis' not necessarily as my full belief, researched or otherwise, but as a claim someone has made that either stands, can be refuted, or needs to be modified to produce the 'synthesis'.

However, the radiation consideration IN CONJUNCTION WITH other compelling evidence of model construction, computer analysis of 'black space' showing touch ups and shimmering screens and I believe in one case a lighting scaffold, video and photo fakery generally, a convincing stereoscopic analysis showing a set was used, the strong probabilistic unlikelihood that 60s technology would have achieved 6 successful flawless missions, the cavalier behaviour of the astronauts on the 'moon', the mangled hands evidence and the very wrong psychology of the astronauts tends to suggest to me fakery was involved, and that on further consideration it's unlikely any astronaut ever left low earth orbit, and in some cases may not have taken off at all.

I have posted several pics and videos demonstrating flaws from NASA themselves of the missions, and there are still plenty more to come when I have some more time to post and scrape from sources etc. While you still talk about 'radiation', a relatively unknown and unknowable area, there is plenty of evidence of video and photo fakery you haven't looked at for some reason. I hope you get over this odd, profound radiation disappointment soon...

Re somewhat wackier claims in various docos that really don't have any good evidence that we can dissect, I agree completely -- they're beyond the pale and seem inspired by wishful thinking more than anything, and interviews of people with vivid imaginations who can lie with a straight face. However, if there is compelling evidence that passes basic tests of credibility I too would like to see it -- my evidentiary standards are as high as your listed ones, and I know that you appreciate that I am a sceptical thinker on these matters, possibly unlike some other posters. However, your nit-picking at other pieces of evidence, and refusal of a few regs here to even consider some pieces of hard evidence, and in your case simple cherry-picking which pieces of circumstantial evidence to study in order to focus on the least conclusive evidence, of course leads one to suspect or believe that another agenda is afoot, a pseudosceptical one.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24






Re: Men in Black- Documentaru movie

Postby Arouet » 10 Jan 2013, 10:22

SydneyPSIder wrote:I passed the link on to JW, what more can I do. I don't have a lot of time just now to dissect stuff, just browsing and making a few quick posts from time to time.


Wow. You have done so much trash talking. So much taunting to debate. So much accusing of pseudoskepticm. But it was all bluffing wasn't it? You can't do much more than regurgitate stuff you've read from others. When it comes to actual analysis - you bow out.

Re the radiation thing and whether I read various sources critically, yes, I do. When JW suggests astronauts would have been 'as dead as spam in a can' after a moon trip, I don't necessarily accept that claim at first sight, but I have strong suspicions that NASA didn't know what it was doing with respect to radiation levels, as it didn't have good readings for solar flares etc, but that it seems remarkably dangerous and risky due to the unknowns -- the precautionary principle would suggest you wouldn't go, as the Russians apparently decided. I don't believe they wanted astronauts to get sick and die within a year of a mission, for instance. Or even 10 years. So that presented some obstacles in the space race with the Russians and JFK's bold stated and potentially embarrassing and unachievable goals.


Wouldn't you agree that putting forward opinions as forcefully as you have on the basis of your "strong supicions" is an intrinsically pseudo-skeptical endeavour?

Don't mistake my posting of a statement by JW or anyone as a quote as rock solid endorsement of the quote on my part, I'm just re-presenting what they're saying.


Shall we look at some of your quotes?

SydneyPSIder wrote:White's re-analysis of moon rock data also tend to refute ProfWag's thesis, but of course PW is too uninterested to actually canvass real research and analysis that has been done in this area, preferring to justify the hoax on no research and his unique and peculiar idea of 'the application of pure logic' instead. Aka living in denial.


SydneyPSIder wrote:With reference to the 'mathematical and scientific data', Jarrah White has gone out of his way to analyse radiation levels in the van Allen belt, and solar flare and solar wind data, and his analysis is available for viewing at http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html Actual astronauts who supposedly went to the moon report no untoward effects or visual effects while travelling through the belts, whereas we now know they would have seen a lot of retinal images from space shuttle accounts, so their testimony is highly suspect. The moon rock analysis conducted by White also suggests the moon rocks are faked and that the mineral type of dust and rocks you would expect to be in abundance from the moon from spectrographic unmanned probe analyses was not returned in samples. However, many of the samples match petrified wood or terrestrial rocks while others may be harvested meteorites. A simple undoctored snap from Hubble would serve to show whether there was a manned landing site -- however, NASA has already been caught out doctoring pictures from orbiting lunar probes. It's tricky dealing with unreliable witnesses, isn't it?


SydneyPSIder wrote:Jarrah White makes a very good point re the evidential standard required to satisfy any reasonable person of the trip -- he insists that he be allowed to view the sites from earth from an optical telescope -- only then will he be satisfied. This would appear to be a very good evidential test that cannot be photoshopped. Pseudosceps with their constant pseudoscientific demands and poor experimental methods take note. The other test he will accept is a seat on a manned lunar landing for I think it's $150 million, where he will be able to both check at least one site and find out just how harmful van Allen and solar radiation is in person -- dying of radiation sickness would be worth the trip of a lifetime regardless. When you think about it, these are pretty much the only tests worth talking about. Assuming NASA hasn't tried to crash-land some space junk up there with a probe just in case.


There's plenty of published evidence, and I've already linked to a source of further info in a previous post. Supremely lazy and diversionary again, another pseudoscep play, it gets tiring. A number of things seem to have happened -- meteorites taken from Antarctica, rocks taken from WA, other basalts from elsewhere -- which are therefore no different than rocks on earth, and have lead to some erroneous and false theorising by some geos about how the moon formed etc, attempts at scientific theories which unfortunately can be dismissed out of hand due to shameless political hoaxing by the US.

The basic analysis and further links at http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html


I dunno, looks like you're presenting him as more than just an opinion, not to mention challenging us to refute him. You didn't mention what you really meant was: if you criticise White I'll have no response other than to forward your comments onto him.

It's fine to pick it apart because that's what needs to happen. It's a Socratic dialogue. I'm presenting a 'thesis' not necessarily as my full belief, researched or otherwise, but as a claim someone has made that either stands, can be refuted, or needs to be modified to produce the 'synthesis'.


Well, aside from the fact that you've given no indication that you were just presenting these things in a devil's advocate kind of way, and in fact directly stated it was strong evidence in favour of your position, a Socratic dialogue (of which I'm a fan - I actually wrote two philosophy papers in university in the form of Socratic dialogues) has as its key component actual dialogue. Socrates didn't just taunt and mock and when someone actually responded said he was out of time.

However, the radiation consideration IN CONJUNCTION WITH other compelling evidence of model construction, computer analysis of 'black space' showing touch ups and shimmering screens and I believe in one case a lighting scaffold, video and photo fakery generally, a convincing stereoscopic analysis showing a set was used, the strong probabilistic unlikelihood that 60s technology would have achieved 6 successful flawless missions, the cavalier behaviour of the astronauts on the 'moon', the mangled hands evidence and the very wrong psychology of the astronauts tends to suggest to me fakery was involved, and that on further consideration it's unlikely any astronaut ever left low earth orbit, and in some cases may not have taken off at all.


We could look at any of those sub-topics in more detail if you want. You don't really seem keen on it though.

I have posted several pics and videos demonstrating flaws from NASA themselves of the missions, and there are still plenty more to come when I have some more time to post and scrape from sources etc.


Yes, we know your cut and pasting skills are exemplary. How about engaging in some real dialogue and analysis?

While you still talk about 'radiation', a relatively unknown and unknowable area, there is plenty of evidence of video and photo fakery you haven't looked at for some reason. I hope you get over this odd, profound radiation disappointment soon...


I have suggested you start a thread on whatever sub-topic you want. You challenged me to discuss radiation and ran. You started the moon-rock thread and promptly abandoned it. Pick something you want to discuss in more detail. Start a thread. Engage in some back and forth discussion. That's the interesting part. Regurgitating others is pretty boring, isn't it?

By the way, I still get a kick out of you suddenly downgrading the radiation issue to a relatively unknown and unknowable area, when you made such a big deal out of it at the start. Doesn't it embarrass you to do that?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Men in Black- Documentaru movie

Postby really? » 10 Jan 2013, 12:29

Your reply Arouet reminds me of an old maxim. " When the going gets tough, the tough get going".
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Men in Black- Documentaru movie

Postby Misha » 10 Jan 2013, 12:58

really? wrote:Your reply Arouet reminds me of an old maxim. " When the going gets tough, the tough get going".


This one is for you, Really. This quote comes from the film "They Live." A wonderful metaphor:

Frank: Listen, man, I don't like anyone following me if I don't know why they are.
Nada: Well, I don't join up with anyone, unless I know where they're going.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Men in Black- Documentaru movie

Postby SydneyPSIder » 10 Jan 2013, 17:59

Yeah, Arou, it's nice (for you) to play tit for tat games, but for the tenth time, when will you address the stereoscopic analysis and problems with pix and flix? Although I have plenty more to post in, there is plenty of incriminating material you have been too afraid to address. We have done radiation to death and it is both inconclusive but risky to astronauts consequently.

You have consistently run away from the hardest evidence and keep returning to 'radiation' because you know it is circumstantial and hard to prove on either side. You clearly have an evasive agenda.

I don't have time to make infinite posts, unlike you. Either address the stereoscopic analysis and pix and flux and clear signs of model making that have already been posted or go away.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Men in Black- Documentaru movie

Postby Misha » 10 Jan 2013, 20:31

Hi Arouet,

I watched the Russian version of Men In Black. Old material rehashed, much of it anecdotal, for the masses who are not familiar with the UFO/ET phenomena. One point I do appreciate is the nature of secrecy surrounding the topic. That being a need to know within elected governments who do not access. That is accurate, though the clip is very general.

Also, there were inaccuracies by the producers of the documentary such as Charles Halt and Project Mogul. I do not know whether this was done intentionally or because the Russian translation obscures the name. The important thing to take away from this is Russian President Medvedev's comments concerning the phenomena. Whether Medvedev was serious, which he appears to be from my limited point of view, perhaps this may be a tongue in cheek confirmation that we are not alone. So in essence, file it in the back your head and see what else transpires.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Men in Black- Documentaru movie

Postby Arouet » 10 Jan 2013, 21:13

Yeah, haven't gotten around to this one yet. My week with the kids so less time this week. Hopefully I'll get to this over the weekend or next week.

But generally, I wonder your thoughts on this: isn't there a problem with speculation over government secrets? Meaning: I don't think you'd argue that there should be no government secrets, right? There are matters of national security where it would not be in the best interests of the nation for information to be publicly known. I suspect we might also agree that at least some of the time "UFOs" are actually military test projects. What that would mean is that even if no aliens have ever visited the planet, the UFO phenomenon would still be intrinsically linked to government secrecy.

Then there's the fact that the confirmation or strong confidence that the government is keeping secrets or hiding things is not in itself confirmation of any one particular hypothesis about what they may be keeping secret or hiding.

The trick is how to develop high confidence conclusions in that kind of environment: no easy task.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Men in Black- Documentaru movie

Postby Arouet » 10 Jan 2013, 21:20

Again some nice deflection Syd. All you've posted in the moon rocks thread are a couple clips from Jarrah White.

Anything else you want to look at? You vaguely referred to posts in the master thread - why not move over the ones you want to discuss.

How 'bout this: post any evidence you'd like me to directly look at and I promise that I will look at it and respond. Don't just point me to the master thread and tell me its all in there. Paste over the ones you are referring to. I'll do my best to come to an opinion. If its too technical for me to do that I'll say so. (ie: I'm not great at things like photo analysis personally - I don't trust my own judgements on that kind of analysis)
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Men in Black- Documentaru movie

Postby Misha » 10 Jan 2013, 21:42

Arouet wrote:Yeah, haven't gotten around to this one yet. My week with the kids so less time this week. Hopefully I'll get to this over the weekend or next week.

But generally, I wonder your thoughts on this: isn't there a problem with speculation over government secrets? Meaning: I don't think you'd argue that there should be no government secrets, right? There are matters of national security where it would not be in the best interests of the nation for information to be publicly known. I suspect we might also agree that at least some of the time "UFOs" are actually military test projects. What that would mean is that even if no aliens have ever visited the planet, the UFO phenomenon would still be intrinsically linked to government secrecy.

Then there's the fact that the confirmation or strong confidence that the government is keeping secrets or hiding things is not in itself confirmation of any one particular hypothesis about what they may be keeping secret or hiding.

The trick is how to develop high confidence conclusions in that kind of environment: no easy task.


No problem on my waiting for you to see the documentary. Kids come first.

There has to be in place some government secrets. I understand the nature of secrecy and national security. However, is it in the national interest? Is information over classified at the detriment of an informed society? I think this is the conundrum which in my opinion is incredibly lop-sided in favor of oppressive government control.

I appreciate you defining "UFOs." MOST UFOs can be reasonably explained and are of earthly origin (our technology) or misinterpretations of cosmic or atmospheric phenomena. However, there is a small percentage which defies scientific explanation. This is what I am interested in.

As for government hiding things, they are not. Government as we understand it does not have access. There is a whole another paradigm which controls this information. I think you hit the nail on the head, Arouet. "High confidence" is when sanctioned information is released by those who have access to certain government officials concerning the phenomena. This is what I am looking for and you are very correct - It is no easy task.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Men in Black- Documentaru movie

Postby SydneyPSIder » 14 Jan 2013, 21:10

Arouet wrote:Again some nice deflection Syd. All you've posted in the moon rocks thread are a couple clips from Jarrah White.

Anything else you want to look at? You vaguely referred to posts in the master thread - why not move over the ones you want to discuss.

How 'bout this: post any evidence you'd like me to directly look at and I promise that I will look at it and respond. Don't just point me to the master thread and tell me its all in there. Paste over the ones you are referring to. I'll do my best to come to an opinion. If its too technical for me to do that I'll say so. (ie: I'm not great at things like photo analysis personally - I don't trust my own judgements on that kind of analysis)

There's some discussion of the Soviet soil samples in the main thread also. Not posting so much now, as less time, and as you seem to set everything up as a sort of sabotage attempt with strange demands. And read strange things into people's posts.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Men in Black- Documentaru movie

Postby Arouet » 15 Jan 2013, 01:18

I'm not going to trudge through that thread and guess at what you consider the most compelling stuff. Just post the relevant posts in the new thread so its clear (I did that in my thread so I don't think I'm being unreasonable here).

I'm not sure what you mean by "sabotage attempt" or "strange demands"? The only demands I have made is to say that I'm only going to bother analysing this stuff if you guys are going to agree you're actually going to discuss it with me. I spent a lot of time making those posts in the radiation thread and it generated absolutely no discussion. I'm not interested in having a conversation with myself. I think by sabotage you mean: make reasoned analysis.

I understand you being busy. There's no hurry. I'll be here when you're ready.


I understand being busy. Take your time.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Previous

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest