As usual, Patrick ignored the point and chose to write about something else. The topic at hand is the "reset" behavior Patrick exhibits so well: when painted into a corner on some point, he'll change the subject for a while and then come back some time later to pick up the point as if none of the previous rebuttals had ever happened. The conspiracy theorist hopes his critics and lurkers will forget the previous state of the argument. That is Patrick's individual behavior irrespective of any claims to cross-pollination from other hoax proponents.
I suspect that's why Patrick hasn't addressed any of the responses I made to the laundry list of claims he posted specifically for me -- I showed him how the state of the argument in each case was waiting for him to show accountable knowledge on some particular point. Critics of conspiracy theories have long memories.
I never did CT before, never read another's views until mine were wholly formed...
No. You admit your theory isn't wholly formed. You say it's a theory in outline form only, and that you have to go back and do the research. And we observe you changing horses on a daily basis in that process. Some notable examples include:
- First cllaiming Apollo 8 should have been aborted immediately upon discovering Frank Borman's illness, then later saying that NASA should have just "fixed the toilet" for later missions.
- First claiming Apollo 12 should have been aborted mid-boost, then later saying it should have been aborted after orbital checkout.
- First claiming the Apollo lunar module could be landed automatically off-the-shelf, then later saying it was secretly modified by the military to make it unmanned.
Whether I am proven wrong , or ultimately vindicated, no one will ever be able to say my ideas were borrowed/copied/stolen.
Your overarching claim is that Apollo was a series of fake missions as a cover for military operations. That was first proposed by David Percy and Mary Bennett almost 15 years ago. And since you mentioned Percy's name in a previous post, we can assume you're aware of his claims. The rest of your propositions are merely appendages to that one claim. Yes, you can claim credit for a certain amount of originality in the finer points, but that depends on how one chooses to approach your overall argument.
The claim that stars should or shouldn't be visible is the oldest claim in the book, going back to Bill Kaysing, who you claim to have read. The claim that the stars would appear in different locations from the cislunar vantage point is one of his particular claims -- and one of the more laughable ones, both from a logical and an astronomical standpoint. It is interesting that you would repeat that unique Kaysing claim while claiming originality.
The claim that various "difficulties" were staged in order to make the fake Apollo missions seem more real is also a staple of every hoax proponent. All the proponents claim, in one way or another, either that such a difficulty would be unheard of in a real mission since "all precautions were taken," or that had the incident been real, it would have unfolded entirely differently than reported. While you may not have explicitly copied your Borman Illness claim from someone else, it's by no means a unique way of trying to beg the question of a hoax.
Other hoax advocates have made a big deal about Apollo 11 landing off target and tried to argue that this would keep it from rejoining the CSM successfully. You're the only one I've heard try to say that they "really" knew where it was all along.
The claims of unmanned ships and elaborate communications relays to fool radio eavesdroppers are also very worn.
Please don't flatter yourself. You have a few claims that no one else seems to have made, but your overall theory and approach are right down the middle of the Conspiracy Theorist fairway.
...Bill Kaysing. A real innovator, but an atrocious, an absolutely horrendous writer.
Do you really think you're the right person to be criticizing another person's writing talent? I'd much rather read his prose than the OVER-CAPPPED, VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY UNNECESSARILY REPETITIOUS AND PUNCTUATED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! nonsense that you inflict upon us.
Most of us acknowledge Bill Kaysing as the father of the Apollo hoax theory and the originator of many of the claims still repeated today by others -- including by you. However, I don't think the author of a fairy tale really gets credit as an "innovator" when he's alleging it to be true. One should think not of inventing history but rather reporting it.
There is a video clip of Kaysing admitting he made up the whole Apollo hoax theory in order to embarrass the U.S. government for its treatment of Vietnam War veterans. Thinking perhaps that it may have been an unfortunate slip, I wrote to him, identified myself, and asked him to confirm it. In response he sent me his press kit in which he reiterated the same disclaimer --
he made it all up.
You're very like Kaysing in your propensity simply to make stuff up, such as his claim that Dutch newspapers reported the alleged Apollo fraud.
Ralph Rene was extremely talented, but Rene focused pretty much solely on Fraud per se and not at all on context/motive and so forth.
Ralph Rene was a construction worker who went around telling people he was a physicist or engineer. Sound like familiar game plan? The "physicist" couldn't figure out how the denser airflow from a leaf-blower would outblow a rocket exhaust. He couldn't figure out why electrical lineman's gloves didn't perform as well in a vacuum as space suit gloves. In other words, just like you, he made claims to expertise that he refused to substantiate, and which he undermined at nearly every step with his egregious misunderstandings and errors.
In his book he claimed that the frontispiece to
Carrying the Fire was supposed to be Michael Collins on his Gemini flight when it was, in fact, an edited photo from the KC-135 training. He said this proved fraud. What he didn't say is that nowhere did Collins claim the frontispiece was from Gemini. There is no caption or reference anywhere purporting it to be
anything. Rene claimed
his edition of the book identified it as a Gemini mission photo. Author James Oberg offered Rene $10,000 for that edition, but Rene declined to produce it, and abandoned the debate. Honest scholar?
Yes, he believed
pi had a bounded decimal representation, and a whole bunch of other nutty things. In about 2002 he was a guest on National Public Radio, but they had to cut him off halfway through the program because he basically ranted incoherently at length.
A year before Rene committed suicide, I helped a producer prepare a pilot for a show to be aired on The History Channel (before they went all woo-woo). The producer attempted to interview Rene at his house where he had a homemade "water de-fluoridator" and a loaded revolver placed prominently on the table next to him during the interview. His interview was mostly his complaints about how Bart Sibrel and David Percy had stolen his ideas and were making money that was rightly his. The producer deemed it unusable material.
Where does Rene's "talent" lie, precisely? I'd really like to know.
Ditto for Jarrah White. I think he is very talented, gifted gifted gifted, but Jarrah is a modern Rene.
What exactly is White's "gift?" He refuses to step outside his tightly controlled environment for very long, if ever. And from there he preaches to a crowd of faithful sycophants sermons based largely on personal obsession with his individual critics.
You bear a striking resemblance to White in your inability to comprehend even the simplest things about the sciences that pertain to the hoax claims, and to do basic arithmetic. Neither one of you seems to understand anything about orbital mechanics. I don't really think you can distance yourself much from him.
We all want to know not only whether or not that is was fraud but also WHY it was fraud, HOW it was fraud, WHO were the men and women perpetrating the fraud.
No, you're not even original on that count. Most conspiracy theorists want to argue motives because those can be debated
ad nauseam without clear resolution -- it's all second-guessing. Questions about facts, on the other hand, tend to quickly find right and wrong answers that can't be weaseled out of. The abstract notion that the motive to do something is proof that it "must" have been done is one of the pillars of conspiracy theorist mis-reasoning.
Your Apollo hoax mentors also argue motive. But they go further than you by also trying to cover more of the observed facts. You are actually less robust than they because you admit there are gaping holes in your motive-only approach to handling evidence. You simply sidestep huge segments of the Apollo record because you don't want to mess up your theory with the "dirty" details. You want to stay at the high-level "handwaving" altitude where you can present lofty ideas without having to muck about with proof.
Bart Sibrel is a joke. Matter of fact, I believe him to be a pro official story plant.
Sibrel doesn't. He wants to make a living out of this racket. His company that markets
only his Moon hoax stuff reports revenues to the IRS amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. I think it's obvious where his motivation may lie.
Where does your motivation lie? How often have you told us you want to be written into the history books? How often have your crowed about being the man who will undo Apollo? Even this very post is thesis arguing that you're the king of Apollo "fraud studies." Are you motivated purely by a desire to know the truth? Or are you more motivated to make up something that makes you famous?
You're not so different from any of these guys, Patrick.
I look at the work of these guys at times, though it is VERY RARE that I do.
Equivocation. On the one had you only rarely pay attention to other conspiracy theorists, but on the other hand you imply that you know enough about them to inform your dismissal of them. Which is it?
I am the first Apollo researcher to propose a motive...
Not at all. Previously claimed motives include
- Intimidating the Soviets
- Pretending to beat the Soviets, for world prestige
- Distracting from the Vietnam War
- Conducting military space surveillance
- Retrieving alien technology left on the Moon
- Visiting Nazi Moon bases
- Bailouts for the U.S. aerospace industry
- NWO/Freemason "bread and circuses" plot.
Also, I am the first Apollo researcher to name name and single out the fraud perps, guys like Bales, Aaron, Phillips and the others mentioned above.
Not even remotely the first. Percy has a whole index of people that he accuses of being parties to a cover-up. The anti-Semites publish lists of Jews associated with Apollo, as part of their claim that it's a Zionist plot. Still others publish lists of ex-Nazis associated with Apollo as part of their claim that it's a neo-Nazi plot. (I want to get those two groups in a room together sometime.) You're not the first to show the military connections of various participants. And some of the R.C. Hoagland crowd publish lists of Freemasons.
There are routine accusations against Walt Disney, Stanley Kubrick, and even Eric Jones.
You boast of corresponding with Apollo insiders, but when I suggest that you contact the people you accuse of fraud, if still living, you run away. Why is that? Are you that unsure of the strength of your accusations? Even though he misrepresented their claims, at least Bart Sibrel (the man you called a joke) had the fortitude to meet face-to-face with those he accused of fraud. Sadly he didn't duck fast enough, but the point should be clear -- people who howl from the shadows are quickly forgotten.
