Of "Negativism", Moonwalks, and the Nature of the Plausible

;)

nora wrote: "...Since the JFK Assassination, ASKING QUESTIONS about incongruent, carefully packaged national information has become construed as foolishness and is branded with the attempted epithet "conspiracy theorist" (and I have a theory about that, which is mentioned below). The use of epithets is unfortunate and short-sighted, imo, but so be it..."

Bait: The term "conspiracy theorist" is no more an 'epithet', no more unfortunate and no more short-sighted than the terms oligarch, corporatist, main stream media, and dozens of others that dominate your daily vocabulary.

nora wrote: "...I'm finding I'm mostly interested in:
1.) how society perceives stuff (accepts frames);
2.) how information that's new or contrary to the enforced frames gets into the group awareness;
3.) why so few are concerned/alarmed with the Corrupt Oligarchy; and
4.) the fact that the Oligarchy literally affects, even manipulates, number 1.)..."

Bait: I call bullshit. You focus on the conspiracies themselves, not the phenomenon of conspiracies.

You focus on castigating members of society for being blind fools (unlike yourself), not on the process leading up to the existence of an item of generally-accepted wisdom (regardless of whether it is true or not...true items of belief exist through the same process that false items come to exist).

You could easily restate #3 as "I am interested in why so few people believe as I do." The original #3 question can be answered easily and quickly by any frequenter of this blog and, as a bonus, the same person can explain to you the history of human societies in which large numbers of people have lived their lives while small numbers of people were governing those lives.
-------------
nora,

If you were interested in studying the broad scope of societies, their governance and the generally-accepted wisdoms within them, you wouldn't be wasting so much ink on the conspiracy theories themselves. Their existence would be the key to your curiosity, not their construction nor their ultimate truth or falsehood.

The viral aspect of information within a society, regardless of whether the information is true or false, and the modes of transfer of that information would hold far more importance to someone claiming to have your interests.

How is it that someone with a broad interest (as you claim to have) and not a specific interest in the titillating aspect of conspiracy theories (as I claim you have) never mentioned the resurgence of the No Moon Walk conspiracy theory after the broadcast of a Fox television program that is weighted toward the theory? The resurgence of an all-but-dead 20th century theory in the 21st century is an important aspect to someone claiming to be studying the media/society/information phenomenon.

It would be more noteworthy and of much greater interest to a student of the conspiracy phenomenon than repeating the falsehoods of the theory itself absent the debunking of the falsehoods.

Further, you make no mention of the Birther conspiracy theory, which is a news item as current as the 40th anniversary of the first moon walk. A student of the phenomenon of controlled information would be very interested in the Birther conspiracy theory as well as the Obama Is A Muslim conspiracy theory.

I repeat, I call bullshit. You discuss conspiracy theories on this blog to support them while you ignore conspiracy theories that you do not support.

If you ever study and discuss the Kennedy/Kopechne theories and the Vince Foster murder theory and Swiftboaters and UFO's and George W. Bush's Texas Air Guard tenure with the same zeal that you devote to the conspiracy theories with which you are (obviously) sympathetic, then I'll know that it is the phenomenon of conspiracy theories and their genesis and the control and spin of information that interests you, not the self-aggrandizing feeling that you know something that the rest of us are too brainwashed to understand.

Regarding NASA and your obsession with linking NASA with the weaponization of space: The weaponization of space would have happened in the recent geopolitical and economic climate regardless of the existence or non-existence of NASA and regardless of whether JFK had suggested a national effort to land on the moon.

Read up on Sputnik.

Then read up on the history of TNT.

Then read up on gunpowder. And hardened steel. And petroleum.

Either you will learn that everything of value to mankind can (will) be turned to ignoble purpose or you will solidify your fruitcake belief that all evil on earth is elaborately and secretly planned and executed by an elite few and only recognized by an even smaller elite group that includes yourself.

You're Still Sellin' And I Still Ain't Buyin'
Submitted by Crank Bait on Fri, 07/24/2009 - 11:47am.

================================

I'm not selling anything; I have only what I'm learning and compiling at the moment to offer and share, which is totally unlike your All-Knowing Product.

Despite this I will say to you: Let's leave it right there.

And if that isn't enough, I will add: I don't cultivate abusive-bullying relationships once they are so obvious there's no missing the signs. And your outbursts are just not something that is kind or nourishing or productive for us individually (unless you find them satisfying?) (or healthy for the blog as a whole?), imo.

If your grandiose desire is to slay the "conspiracy theorist" dragon of your imagination (as if all conspiracy trackers were the same) by symbolicly pretending I represent that dragon, I'm not interested. Maybe you can find another symbolic target who wishes to engage with you non-stop.

nora,

I find it healthy for the blog when someone tells Sunshine Jim that his Peace, Love and Tolerance theory of revolution is a wonderful idea that has never, or rarely, worked.

I find it healthy for the blog when someone tells air-ono that he has overstepped the bounds of decorum.

I find it healthy for the blog when someone tells Alice that her appreciation for the human body is likely to scare off more provincial and Victorian-minded visitors.

I find it healthy for the blog when someone calls "Bullshit" after nora posts bursts of pseudo-documentation supporting the No Moonwalk conspiracy theory.

If everything is subject to suspicion of an organized conspiracy, all of the time, regardless of supporting evidence to the contrary, then nothing is true. Ever. Everything is a tree falling in the forest with, at best, one witness.

It is remarkable to me that you readily accept the science behind the weaponization of space (because it obviously suits your end-game), while simultaneously accepting the possibility that the moonwalk was faked in an effort to surreptitiously weaponize space.

The science involved for both the effort to place humans on the moon and the effort to control outer space with weaponry is damned-near identical. If one can be accomplished, then both can be accomplished. While it is true that the moonwalk could be construed as a public relations effort to garner support for the weaponization of outer space, it was hardly a necessary ruse for the same conspirators to weaponize space without public support for NASA.

The U.S. has a huge defense budget. Money has been diverted to chemical and biological warfare research and production (which is illegal) and LSD studies and disease testing on Negroes and a myriad of other secret efforts, so it's not like a secret program needs a cover story to acquire adequate funding and support.

Further, the communications and weather satellites on which you rely every day are part and parcel to the same set of scientific skills and technology devoted to a moonwalk.

Why not deny that National Weather Service information is real? Why not cite the fakery as a key element in the anti-global warming conspiracy theory?

Here is why: It does not suit your purpose. It suits your purpose to believe that a spy satellite can read your license plate in clear weather, so you don't search for nits to pick to prove it false.

And what is your purpose? Your purpose is to find ways to illustrate that power and wealth consolidates itself and is capable of disinformation.

Guess what? Everyone on this blog knows that disinformation is a reality in every society and that it tends to eminate from people attempting to amass wealth and power.

But here is the deal; not everything is a conspiracy. Further, the more complex the conspiracy, the less likely it will remain unexposed.

Pet Rocks were a blatant effort to transfer wealth to the people who invented the idea. Credit Default Swaps were the Pet Rocks of the financial investment world. Both were worthless products and neither were the result of a conspiracy. Somebody came up with the ideas to sell their versions of a pig in a poke and it worked.

Incidentally, pigs in pokes were not conspiracies either, but they were successful in a caveat emptor environment of capitalism. So is snake oil. The examples of one group of people being scammed by another group of people are endless.

If you want to examine a real conspiracy, you need look no further than Cheney's attempt (and short-lived success) to secretly amass power outside of the legal bounderies of the Executive.

You will note, however, that Cheney's conspiracy has been exposed, never mind whether he will pay a judicial price for having attempted, unsuccessfully, to keep knowledge of the conspiracy confined to a select few.

The knowledge of Cheney's conspiracy was confined to as few people as he was able to manage. Since Dick Cheney could not control the release of information within his tiny cabal, it is a fantastical notion that NASA could control the release of information exposing its version Milli Vanilli walking on the moon.

Finally, you created this Open Mic to defend the veracity of your comments posted in the daily threads of this blog after having seen a negative response to them by more persons than myself. You created the kitchen and this is the heat.

Either you can spar on your own behalf here, or you can tell people such as myself that we are not welcome to spar with you here, there, or anywhere which is apparently your position.

Sorry, nora. It don't work that way. If I write something that you believe is bullshit, I expect you (or someone) to call me on it. It has happened (in my case) many times, and when I have been wrong I not only admitted to my mistake, I continue to make jokes about how wrong I was.

We don't have to agree but we sure as shit don't have to let bullshit pass without comment. The first time (not the last) it happened to me occurred after one of my first dozen or so posts on this blog many years ago. Fishgrease called me on an error. I researched my claim before responding to discover that, by gawd, I was wrong and Fishgrease was correct. I admitted to it, joked about it, explained how I developed my misconception, then publicly removed my big foot from my even bigger mouth.

In the time following that incident, Fishgrease and I often disagreed on many matters less easily decided than the initial one, but I sure as shit made it a point to have my facts straight before I jutted out my chin and went toe-to-toe with him.

Fishgrease and I agreed more than we disagreed while he participated on this blog, but I like to think that we were cyber-friends who respected one another for our ability to fully explain our positions and, sometimes, to convince the other that he had it wrong.

I don't cultivate abusive-bullying relationships once they are so obvious there's no missing the signs. - Really nora?

That's not entirely true. You have intentionally misrepresented both Crank and myself to further your unfounded reality nora.

And you choose to never take responsibility for your actions.

I don't care but don't pretend like you are without faults. You antagonize constantly when someone has an alternate view. YOu can try to deny it and it won't matter. Most people have figured it out.

I try to scroll past and let you vent your thoughts.

But when you write things about the "weaponization of space" it shows how wrong and ignorant of facts you are. All space faring countries have treaties that make this activity illegal and easily verifiable. You do yourself no service when you talk so completely out of the realm of the plausible.

And when you talk about the realm of the plausible like reaching the moon isn't plausible. Well, that's just (i don't want to say)... Were you born in this century? It's more than plausible. It's been done. Literally, it's insulting to me. I have worked on these programs. You don't have a clue about what's been done and it's obvious beyond discussion.

When you wrote about that fly, let me just say, no one cares about the fly President Obama swatted. How is that worthy of a debate?

The blog will never look the way you want it to, Crank...(or me or anyone wants...)

See how right you are? No such thing as letting someone be...too kind and too loving and all that BULLSHIT you hate...

And if you poke me once more I will nude up the place in no time!

Post on and suck it up people!

and it said as much to me about him, as it does to me when men and women and children spit out of their car window or onto the streets...

as I attempt to calm myself before I get mean...

... I hope to one day have time to explain WHY? (I think I told SJ my reasons as to why ... CUZ HE ASKED (& called) & I didn't have to TYPE a bloody answer!)
;)

... left.

do not go much for conspiracy theories. Things do happen, but they are systemic rather than done by rogue elements. The president would know firsthand about an assassination program, rather than it being planned and organized without his knowledge. With that said, your writing can be terrific, seemingly when not directly linked to a conspiracy theory. This is probably because there is usually some truth in conspiracy theories, and you hit the high points. I will let you know the next time you post some original writing that I find superb.

Lets agree to disagree. That's total bs.

You can't claim that crap then try to relitigate your flimsy draining arguments in open mic. Alice, caring about that fly is in no way a serious topic to anyone including you and you know it. So get off your own high horse.

Like I said, the net effect of this trivial crap is to drive people away. Haven't you figured that out? Or should more leave so you can be happy here.

Alone.

"Hello to our friends and fans in domestic surveillance."

www.marcmaronrules.blogspot.com/

Oh please...
Submitted by Alice on Fri, 07/24/2009 - 11:20pm

*******

LOL..

I've got my fingers crossed.. ;)

"Hello to our friends and fans in domestic surveillance."

www.marcmaronrules.blogspot.com/

Submitted by Alice on Fri, 07/24/2009 - 11:20pm.
The blog will never look the way you want it to, Crank...(
-----
I never made the statement that the blog should look the way that I want it to look.

I made statements indicating that it is healthy for people to post their legitimate disagreements with the content of posts submitted by others.

If you don't like it that way, you are screwed because there are certain to be posts having content with which others disagree.

The first I learned of a non-moonwalk conspiracy theory was BEFORE the Apollo 11 moonwalk (yes, I'm that old). The conspiracy theories re-emerged before and after every subsequent moonwalk and again after Fox (yes, Fox!) broadcast a program in 2001 sympathetic to the conspiracy theories.

nora, by her own admission, first learned of the moonwalk conspiracy theories (there are several) a few weeks ago. She chose to write posts that implied or directly stated that portions of one or more theories are valid.

There are many, many websites and articles devoted to the several theories. Each of them either support or debunk the theories. Wikipedia has a voluminous page on the subject. I know this information is available because I reviewed the subject before posting my disagreement with nora.

A reasonable person who is new to the subject would express her interest and would link to the page(s) containing information with which she believes other similarly interested people might educate themselves.

nora is able to write a cogent post and I read her consistently for a long time. Eventually her fascination with conspiracy theories prompted me to speed read the first few lines of her posts so that I could skip the remainder if it was simply more of the same.

There are some people who refuse to accept that they are peasants (commoners) as a result of the mathematical odds even though this is the case for most of the people who have lived on this planet. They prefer to believe that there is a (or more than one) carefully conceived and executed plan to create and maintain a large peasantry. I suppose that they need identifiable villainy to blame for their circumstances as a source of comfort (I coulda been a con-TEN-dah. I coulda BEEN sum-buddy...).

By logical extension, if not for this (or these) carefully planned, executed and, in most cases, secret conspiracies, no one would be a peasant. I don't believe that this is plausible and I have thousands of years of history and a myriad of societies to support my belief.

Alternately, by the same logical extension, if not for the conspiracies then far fewer people would be peasants. The alternate version allows that peasants would exist in any case but the numbers would be different. The alternate version is a concession (if you will) to the inevitable existence of peasants absent a conspiracy to create and maintain a peasantry.

Either conspiracies are remarkably plentiful and successful most of the time or there are causes other than conspiracies behind the hierarchical construction of human societies around which societies inevitably evolve.

I am satisfied by the compendium of anthropological studies that the latter is true, and I add that it can also be seen to occur elsewhere in the animal kingdom.

Are there scoundrels and scalawags and con men among us who thrive by taking advantage of others? You betcha, but they are not the reason behind a hierarchical societal structure in which most of us occupy the bottom tier.

Most of the determination of class positioning is based on chance. If George Herbert Walker Bush had been born to a poor dirt farmer in central Arkansas, it is unlikely that there would have been a President Bush, let alone two.

If I had been born to one of my father's patients who was a machine shop laborer, it is unlikely that I would have been given the education that I enjoyed. If my father had not been born to a union railroad employee who was able to weather the Great Depression, and if the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 and the subsequent Civilian Pilot Training Program had not been available while my father was in high school, and if the war effort had not needed pilots, and if the G.I. bill had not provided him financial aid to become a physician after the war, it is unlikely that I would have been enrolled in a private Catholic school.

I can construct an elaborate conspiracy to explain these otherwise happenstance series of fortuitous occurrences and, frankly, you could not disprove my conspiracy theory because it would include elements for which there is no disproof.

But that's not how it came to be. Emperor Hirohito did not attack Pearl Harbor so I could attend a good school.

Incidentally, a good education is why I am capable of constructing an intentionally false conspiracy (or other) theory for which there is no absolute disproof. Intelligent Design proponents (a/k/a Creationists) use the same trick.

When you know that you can create a false construction armored against disproof as an intellectual exercise, you know that it can be done when the stakes are higher. All you need is an audience.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/nudes/ballin_music_group/NUDES.jpg

4 MM
Submitted by Alice on Sun, 07/26/2009 - 5:26am
*******

Poor Puddy..

"Hello to our friends and fans in domestic surveillance."

www.marcmaronrules.blogspot.com/

Indeed, one can invite conversation, discussion, argument by merely making a post. That is the nature of the blog.

But that does not mean one is inviting namecalling, demeaning and dismissive comments, ridiculing gender-based swipes, or offering one's self up for bullying. If these are hurled at one, one can choose to be unresponsive to such hurtful and disrespectful tactics for many reasons, not the least of which are self-respect, modelling civilized discourse for younger participants, and taking the subject/issues seriously and refusing to see them suffocated by heaps of demeaning, dismissive language.

A blog is not an organized debate (someday it would be nice to see some format on each blog for such a thing). But it would be good to see the blog be more than a free-for-all where positions (whether strong or weak arguments) are supplemented by the bullying which can drive out diversity of viewpoint.

[I value viewpoint every bit as much as (if not more than) opinion.

opinion -- judgement or belief resting on grounds insufficient to produce certainty
view -- a conception, notion, or idea of a thing; an opinion or theory
viewpoint -- an attitude of mind

I love it when we each make our arguments for the facts, points or experiences we value/hold dear and which we consider supportive of our views.

And it seems to me when folks share their viewpoints it benefits the 'big picture' understanding of what is going on and how we can deal with our mutual problems. Sharing viewpoints is an activity of considerable openness and vulnerability that I value. And I certainly do not want to see such variety of expression abused through ridicule -- mine or anybody else's.]

When the facts don't jive, when the news/offical story is bizarre/uneven/incongruous, when I'm uneasy about what is being accepted as Truth or framed as unimportant -- that is the time when I can't help asking questions. Asking questions is about expressing my viewpoint.

At times I may have no opinion whatsoever to express, because the data appears so skewed or missing. When I can't find enough data or official transparency to make the media's story or government's spin acceptable, it just makes sense from my perspective to ask questions.

I must back-off, but not without protest when another repeatedly demeans my viewpoint and dismisses it with an attempted epithet like "conspiracy theorist", or, when that doesn't get a reaction, an attempted epithet like the usually socially unacceptable state of mental impairment. I don't believe it is wise to avoid confronting those TACTICS (or possibly personal weaknesses); but engaging with them, I will not.

...maybe use the Open Mic a little bit more. I enjoy your posts as I am sure others do too.

I am not for censorship, even when it comes to the trolls; and I don't believe Sam is either. I think he has expressed this numerous times.

And speaking of Sam, where the heck is he? His absence may be attributed to our mood which I believe may be the reason for all this grouchiness.

I visited MMRules blog and watched Sam's interview of Katherine Harris. I laughed so hard that I started crying (not afraid to admit it). I MISS HIM, and may be what's going on here, we all do.

Sam's blog and everyone who participates in it are important to me. I thank Sam and ALL OF YOU for letting me get to know you through your voice, intelligence, perspective, and humor.

-watched Sam's interview of Katherine Harris. I laughed so hard that I started crying -

I know! Was that the best or what?! Man that was funny...

Submitted by nora on Tue, 07/28/2009 - 9:38pm.
...I must back-off, but not without protest when another repeatedly demeans my viewpoint and dismisses it with an attempted epithet like "conspiracy theorist", or, when that doesn't get a reaction, an attempted epithet like the usually socially unacceptable state of mental impairment...
--------
First, let us call a spade a spade. I am the "another" who holds the opinion, the view, and the viewpoint that you have an unhealthy fascination with paranoia which is (to prevent misunderstanding) the unyielding belief that you are the victim of a pandemic effort directed against your well-being. It is a mental state not present in the preponderance of human beings.

Second, I stated that I read your posts consistently for a period of time because they were well-written expressions of thoughts rather than shotgun blasts of personally-unresearched conspiracy theories that happened to drift past your gaze. If you post a cogent health care opinion with which I disagree, that's one thing. If you write a post offering the theory that Purina is selling kibbles designed to make cats take over the stock market, that's not an opinion. That's lunacy.

Third, I have no use (nor does anyone) for someone who runs around in a smoke-filled theater screaming "Fire!" without making the slightest effort to locate the door or the fire extinguisher. Everyone in the theater is engulfed in smoke. The one thing that they don't need is an alarmist loon adding to the chaos.

Let us stipulate, for instance; that the moonwalk was faked, that it is proved to have been faked to everyone's satisfaction, and that you were right all along.

Then what would you do?

You would do what you consistently and relentlessly do: You would continue to post your dossier of theories just like you would have if the fake moonwalk had not been proved to be fake.

In other words, you accomplish nothing. You don't even try to accomplish anything and you change nothing. You don't contemplate involved solutions to complicated problems. You continue screaming "Fire!" in a smoke-filled theatre without making the effort to find the door.

If I were you (which, thank the fucking overlord, I am not), I would be ranting about the evil of people who dump puppies while the dumped puppies starve in my yard.

I don't know if someone dumped the puppies. I have no proof of the Dumped Puppies conspiracy theory nor of the identity of the culprits and if I did, I sure as fuck wouldn't want them to take the puppies back. Contemplating the theory is not only a waste of time and effort, learning the truth changes nothing for the dogs. The well-being of the dogs is not incidental to a more important issue. If every dumped dog received good care then dog dumping would be immaterial.

In my opinion, my view and my viewpoint, someone who runs around screaming about the smoke in the theater or about assholes who dump puppies instead of finding the door or feeding the dogs is a not an asset and, unfortunately, is nuttier than a fruitcake. It is a malady and you've got it.

Meanwhile, the Birthers need you. They are looking for enthusiastic alarmists who don't let facts get in the way. You probably shouldn't mention the moonwalk thingy to them, though.

Submitted by toniD on Wed, 07/29/2009 - 9:25am.
Can't stay long this am because I have a doctor's appt.

...

And I understand I was condescendingly taken to task on an open mic as well.

...

Come on guys, our big problem is Big Corps, their money and the media.

====================================
Don't just let someone else give you their opinion; read my response for yourself.
Please, is Your NOT reading it a message? I don't want you to be angry about me because I had the temerity to actually write a response.

Also, I'm glad to see we AGREE about the corporations, their money (which I want to see everyone follow), and the M$M! That's great!