Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"

  • 29 Replies
  • 4464 Views
*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25310
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« on: November 14, 2017, 10:51:44 AM »
I want you download this video for next. Because generally such as these type videos disappear after a while it published.

« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 10:53:49 AM by İntikam »
They hate me cause they can't control me.

"The greatest sacrifice is not what you do for others, but what you give up to do for yourself."


*

Denspressure

  • 1947
  • What do you, value?
Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2017, 11:03:20 AM »
Can this be moved to complete nonsense?

One scene is from Capricorn 1, an other is clearly an animation never released by NASA, an other was from a satire video made as a joke.
):

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2017, 11:47:04 AM »
HASA??
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2017, 01:51:02 PM »
I want you download this video for next. Because generally such as these type videos disappear after a while it published.


Can I get my 3 minutes 28 seconds back for watching that?
They don't even say anything, just randomly string together publically available clips, many not from NASA.  The one with the light hitting the astronaut is an admitted fake made in the early 2000's by a guy who did it to see how gullible Moon hoax believers are.
When they do finally show some NASA footage near the end it is clear they are in low gravity.

*

Hamzah

  • 1450
  • The Exposer Of Insecurities
Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2017, 03:04:21 PM »
HASA??

Letter H is a letter N in the Russian alphabet, however though, if he is Turkish then he probably missed the letter on the keyboard by accident because letter H is next to letter N.

НАСА NASA in Russian
Deaf, dumb, and blind, they will not return (to the path). Al-Baqara (The Cow) - 2:18




Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2017, 03:25:19 PM »
I want you download this video for next. Because generally such as these type videos disappear after a while it published.



Clearly a fake and highly edited video.  While some of the video content was of the actual moon landing, most was fake.  The best part of this video is some will use it as clear evidence of a faked moon landing.  Face it guys, we did go to the moon, 9 times in fact.  Ask yourself, why fake it...9 times.  NASA had nearly 500,000 people working on the Apollo program, how on earth can you keep every single one of their mouths shut.  The most telling proof that the USA landed on the moon is their competition.  Yes, the space race with the Russians.  Even the Russians dont questions the moon landing.  Joke is on you boys, we did land on the moon, 6 times. 

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2017, 07:54:06 PM »
I want you download this video for next. Because generally such as these type videos disappear after a while it published.



Clearly a fake and highly edited video.  While some of the video content was of the actual moon landing, most was fake.  The best part of this video is some will use it as clear evidence of a faked moon landing.  Face it guys, we did go to the moon, 9 times in fact.  Ask yourself, why fake it...9 times.  NASA had nearly 500,000 people working on the Apollo program, how on earth can you keep every single one of their mouths shut.  The most telling proof that the USA landed on the moon is their competition.  Yes, the space race with the Russians.  Even the Russians dont questions the moon landing.  Joke is on you boys, we did land on the moon, 6 times.

So which is it? 9 times or 6 times. Even you cant keep up.


You realise for a job within NASA or any government department they have vetting procedures and security clearances. Not all 500,000 people you claim (you cant even work out whether the amount of times going to the moon is 9 or 6!) would need to know everything. Most are just plebs processing paperwork and payslips.

It's like a puzzle. Each person has a piece to the complete picture, but very few people have enough of the pieces to make sense of it all.

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #7 on: November 14, 2017, 08:11:59 PM »
I want you download this video for next. Because generally such as these type videos disappear after a while it published.



Clearly a fake and highly edited video.  While some of the video content was of the actual moon landing, most was fake.  The best part of this video is some will use it as clear evidence of a faked moon landing.  Face it guys, we did go to the moon, 9 times in fact.  Ask yourself, why fake it...9 times.  NASA had nearly 500,000 people working on the Apollo program, how on earth can you keep every single one of their mouths shut.  The most telling proof that the USA landed on the moon is their competition.  Yes, the space race with the Russians.  Even the Russians dont questions the moon landing.  Joke is on you boys, we did land on the moon, 6 times.

So which is it? 9 times or 6 times. Even you cant keep up.

9 trips to the moon (Apollo 8, 10 and 13 did not land), 6 landings (Apollo 11 - 17 except 13), so both, exactly as stated. I've highlighted the post to make it easier for you to read, but please try to keep up.

Quote
You realise for a job within NASA or any government department they have vetting procedures and security clearances.

How thorough depends on what the job is, but remember that Edward Snowden had a high-level security clearance.

Quote
Not all 500,000 people you claim (you cant even work out whether the amount of times going to the moon is 9 or 6!) would need to know everything. Most are just plebs processing paperwork and payslips.

How many of those 500,000 are processing payslips?

Quote
It's like a puzzle. Each person has a piece to the complete picture, but very few people have enough of the pieces to make sense of it all.

True, but if what you assert is right, many of those pieces alone would be significant.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2017, 08:22:43 PM »
The context he implied at the beginning was we landed 9 times. Here is the sentences in its entirety

Quote
The best part of this video is some will use it as clear evidence of a faked moon landing.  Face it guys, we did go to the moon, 9 times in fact.  Ask yourself, why fake it...9 times.

Video of moon landing And then that we went to the moon 9 times and 'why fake it 9 times'. In the context he implied, we landed on the moon 9 times. So we faked a landing 9 times? I can't be blamed for his shit grammar. He can own that one

Yes, Edward Snowden had high level clearance and had access to lots of information. And look where he is now for exposing what was essentially the truth. He is an important lesson for those who would dare stray from their script


Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #9 on: November 14, 2017, 09:03:37 PM »
The context he implied at the beginning was we landed 9 times. Here is the sentences in its entirety

Quote
The best part of this video is some will use it as clear evidence of a faked moon landing.  Face it guys, we did go to the moon, 9 times in fact.  Ask yourself, why fake it...9 times.

Video of moon landing And then that we went to the moon 9 times and 'why fake it 9 times'. In the context he implied, we landed on the moon 9 times. So we faked a landing 9 times? I can't be blamed for his shit grammar. He can own that one

Summarized, "we went to the moon 9 times and landed 6 times." Seems pretty clear unless you want to be baffled by plain language.

Why fake nine trips to the moon? Or, for that matter, "only" six landings? One practice "fly-by", one "heroic landing", then quit while you're ahead would make more sense if you were faking it. Public support was already slipping after the first landing, anyway, so just find some excuse to cancel the program then and there.

Quote
Yes, Edward Snowden had high level clearance and had access to lots of information. And look where he is now for exposing what was essentially the truth. He is an important lesson for those who would dare stray from their script

Are you abandoning your claim that "for a job within NASA or any government department they have vetting procedures and security clearances" has any significance?

The Apollo 11 moon landing happened 45 years before the "lesson" of Edward Snowden, such as it is. Are you suggesting that potential whistleblowers back then accurately knew Mr. Snowden's current situation? If you do, then the Apollo program is nothing, and that's the real story.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #10 on: November 14, 2017, 09:32:50 PM »
I want you download this video for next. Because generally such as these type videos disappear after a while it published.



Clearly a fake and highly edited video.  While some of the video content was of the actual moon landing, most was fake.  The best part of this video is some will use it as clear evidence of a faked moon landing.  Face it guys, we did go to the moon, 9 times in fact.  Ask yourself, why fake it...9 times.  NASA had nearly 500,000 people working on the Apollo program, how on earth can you keep every single one of their mouths shut.  The most telling proof that the USA landed on the moon is their competition.  Yes, the space race with the Russians.  Even the Russians dont questions the moon landing.  Joke is on you boys, we did land on the moon, 6 times.

So which is it? 9 times or 6 times. Even you cant keep up.


You realise for a job within NASA or any government department they have vetting procedures and security clearances. Not all 500,000 people you claim (you cant even work out whether the amount of times going to the moon is 9 or 6!) would need to know everything. Most are just plebs processing paperwork and payslips.

It's like a puzzle. Each person has a piece to the complete picture, but very few people have enough of the pieces to make sense of it all.

And you expect us to believe you worked in medical research?  Your not kidding anyone here Bull Shifter and this post proves it.  There is a difference between going to the moon and landing on it.  Kinda like you can go to your friends house without actually going in it.  All Apollo missions from 11 to 17 with the exception of 13 landed.  Apollo missions 8, 10 and 13 just went to the moon but didnt land.  Let me put this simply for you since now I know you didnt even graduate high school.  3 missions went but didnt land.  6 missions landed.  6+3=9 Got it?  I sure hope so.  Question for you, did both of your parents die of embarrassment or just one? 

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #11 on: November 14, 2017, 09:38:33 PM »
No. His grammar was shit. Just because he eventually specified the amount of landings after waffling on for a bit doesn't clear the fact he implied we landed 9 times to fake it

I'm not abandoning any claim. Even the lowly paid cleaners working in any government department, including NASA would need a security clearance. From what forejimmy is implying, that even such cleaners working for NASA would have full knowledge of everything going on in the company.

I'm not sure how Edward Snowden doing what he did impacts on my claim though. It is simply a fact that to work inside the government or their departments that you will be vetted and security clearances given. Even if you posses a clearance, it does not mean you know or are even entitled to know everything anyone with the same level can know. Everything is a need to know. And if you just mop floors, push papers, take phone calls etc. You don't need to know.

Obviously the Edward Snowden lesson is there for any future employees. Not past ones from before Edward was even born (have you taken all your meds today?)

« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 09:41:01 PM by Shifter »

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #12 on: November 14, 2017, 09:39:46 PM »
I want you download this video for next. Because generally such as these type videos disappear after a while it published.



Clearly a fake and highly edited video.  While some of the video content was of the actual moon landing, most was fake.  The best part of this video is some will use it as clear evidence of a faked moon landing.  Face it guys, we did go to the moon, 9 times in fact.  Ask yourself, why fake it...9 times.  NASA had nearly 500,000 people working on the Apollo program, how on earth can you keep every single one of their mouths shut.  The most telling proof that the USA landed on the moon is their competition.  Yes, the space race with the Russians.  Even the Russians dont questions the moon landing.  Joke is on you boys, we did land on the moon, 6 times.

So which is it? 9 times or 6 times. Even you cant keep up.


You realise for a job within NASA or any government department they have vetting procedures and security clearances. Not all 500,000 people you claim (you cant even work out whether the amount of times going to the moon is 9 or 6!) would need to know everything. Most are just plebs processing paperwork and payslips.

It's like a puzzle. Each person has a piece to the complete picture, but very few people have enough of the pieces to make sense of it all.

And you expect us to believe you worked in medical research?  Your not kidding anyone here Bull Shifter and this post proves it.  There is a difference between going to the moon and landing on it.  Kinda like you can go to your friends house without actually going in it.  All Apollo missions from 11 to 17 with the exception of 13 landed.  Apollo missions 8, 10 and 13 just went to the moon but didnt land.  Let me put this simply for you since now I know you didnt even graduate high school.  3 missions went but didnt land.  6 missions landed.  6+3=9 Got it?  I sure hope so.  Question for you, did both of your parents die of embarrassment or just one?

You have good Googling skills. I award you a gold star. Now run along monkey man. Your friends need a target to hurl their faces at

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #13 on: November 14, 2017, 09:51:22 PM »
I want you download this video for next. Because generally such as these type videos disappear after a while it published.



Clearly a fake and highly edited video.  While some of the video content was of the actual moon landing, most was fake.  The best part of this video is some will use it as clear evidence of a faked moon landing.  Face it guys, we did go to the moon, 9 times in fact.  Ask yourself, why fake it...9 times.  NASA had nearly 500,000 people working on the Apollo program, how on earth can you keep every single one of their mouths shut.  The most telling proof that the USA landed on the moon is their competition.  Yes, the space race with the Russians.  Even the Russians dont questions the moon landing.  Joke is on you boys, we did land on the moon, 6 times.

So which is it? 9 times or 6 times. Even you cant keep up.


You realise for a job within NASA or any government department they have vetting procedures and security clearances. Not all 500,000 people you claim (you cant even work out whether the amount of times going to the moon is 9 or 6!) would need to know everything. Most are just plebs processing paperwork and payslips.

It's like a puzzle. Each person has a piece to the complete picture, but very few people have enough of the pieces to make sense of it all.

And you expect us to believe you worked in medical research?  Your not kidding anyone here Bull Shifter and this post proves it.  There is a difference between going to the moon and landing on it.  Kinda like you can go to your friends house without actually going in it.  All Apollo missions from 11 to 17 with the exception of 13 landed.  Apollo missions 8, 10 and 13 just went to the moon but didnt land.  Let me put this simply for you since now I know you didnt even graduate high school.  3 missions went but didnt land.  6 missions landed.  6+3=9 Got it?  I sure hope so.  Question for you, did both of your parents die of embarrassment or just one?

You have good Googling skills. I award you a gold star. Now run along monkey man. Your friends need a target to hurl their faces at

Not google my friend, I do this little thing that most intelligent people do, its called reading books.  I have read multiple books by various astronauts in the Apollo program.  Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan, Michael Collins, Jim Lovell and Gene Kranz.  So this should be a lesson for you.  There is other ways to gain knowledge other than google and youtube.  I will be honest however, you have become my favorite poster because its so easy to pick you apart and tear you to shreds, fun actually. 

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #14 on: November 14, 2017, 10:08:47 PM »
I will be honest however, you have become my favorite poster because its so easy to pick you apart and tear you to shreds, fun actually. 

LOL I was seriously going to say the same thing. ME TOO MAN! You're so easy to wind up!

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #15 on: November 15, 2017, 02:26:02 AM »
I will be honest however, you have become my favorite poster because its so easy to pick you apart and tear you to shreds, fun actually. 

LOL I was seriously going to say the same thing. ME TOO MAN! You're so easy to wind up!
Calm down Shifter, you fucked up and looked foolish.  Just move on.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #16 on: November 15, 2017, 03:33:19 AM »
Lol whatever man, coming from a guy who names himself after an STD you're one to talk

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #17 on: November 15, 2017, 04:02:26 AM »
Can this be moved to complete nonsense?

One scene is from Capricorn 1, an other is clearly an animation never released by NASA, an other was from a satire video made as a joke.
İntikam shouild only be allowed to post in Complete Nonsense and True Believers (same thing).

Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #18 on: November 15, 2017, 06:53:56 AM »
I will be honest however, you have become my favorite poster because its so easy to pick you apart and tear you to shreds, fun actually. 

LOL I was seriously going to say the same thing. ME TOO MAN! You're so easy to wind up!

But you didnt did you.  Thats because I am a fast thinking adult and you are whats called a slow thinking adults or "slow adult".  "Slow adult" is now what we used to call a retard before that term became politically not correct.  So there once again I have proven that there is no way on this planet or others for that matter that you ever worked in the medical field on any level, even janitor.  This also explains why you believe the earth is flat, string theory is true and watch YouTube so much.  Again, so easy to tear you to shreds.  Check Mate AGAIN!!! LOL

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42526
Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #19 on: November 15, 2017, 07:20:26 AM »
Lol whatever man, coming from a guy who names himself after an STD you're one to talk
His user name is JimmyTheCrab, not JimmHasCrabs.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #20 on: November 15, 2017, 12:59:48 PM »
I will be honest however, you have become my favorite poster because its so easy to pick you apart and tear you to shreds, fun actually. 

LOL I was seriously going to say the same thing. ME TOO MAN! You're so easy to wind up!

But you didnt did you.  Thats because I am a fast thinking adult and you are whats called a slow thinking adults or "slow adult".  "Slow adult" is now what we used to call a retard before that term became politically not correct.  So there once again I have proven that there is no way on this planet or others for that matter that you ever worked in the medical field on any level, even janitor.  This also explains why you believe the earth is flat, string theory is true and watch YouTube so much.  Again, so easy to tear you to shreds.  Check Mate AGAIN!!! LOL

I never said string theory was true Hence, why it is called string theory dumbarse. And you mock all the worlds most brilliant minds and physicists mocking their theories. Are you smarter than them? Why do we hear Stephen Hawking talk so much and not you? Why aren't you out there using your so called brilliant intellect to solve the mysteries of the universe? You are full of shit dude. And you know what a dude is? A camels dick. I really couldn't give 2 shits what you think I have done in my life or haven't done. Why are you so hung up on it??? You have proven yourself to be nothing but an immature retard since you came here while pretending you are smarter than anyone else on the planet. Good for you man, I wont try and take your megalomania. It's yours.

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #21 on: November 15, 2017, 02:04:53 PM »
No. His grammar was shit. Just because he eventually specified the amount of landings after waffling on for a bit doesn't clear the fact he implied we landed 9 times to fake it

Trying to cover for your mistake by pretending to not understand is counterproductive, but if that's what you want to do, knock yourself out.

Quote
I'm not abandoning any claim. Even the lowly paid cleaners working in any government department, including NASA would need a security clearance.

Did you hear this from some other conspiracy theorist, or did you make it up yourself?

IOW, can you provide some evidence that this statement is true?

Quote
From what forejimmy is implying, that even such cleaners working for NASA would have full knowledge of everything going on in the company.

Where did he say that?

Quote
I'm not sure how Edward Snowden doing what he did impacts on my claim though.

You were were attempting to argue that everyone involved in any way being vetted and holding security clearances meant that no one would talk. Mr. Snowden had been vetted and held a security clearance, yet he talked, so your point is disproved.

Yes, Edward Snowden had high level clearance and had access to lots of information. And look where he is now for exposing what was essentially the truth. He is an important lesson for those who would dare stray from their script

How would this lesson impact people from the '60s, until after 2010 who had access to lots of information, yet never came forward?

Quote
It is simply a fact that to work inside the government or their departments that you will be vetted and security clearances given.

Nope. So far, that's only an unsubstantiated claim, not a fact. You got anything to back that claim up?

Quote
Even if you posses a clearance, it does not mean you know or are even entitled to know everything anyone with the same level can know. Everything is a need to know. And if you just mop floors, push papers, take phone calls etc. You don't need to know.

Which is exactly why I'm skeptical that all these guys you claim need clearances actually do need them.

Quote
Obviously the Edward Snowden lesson is there for any future employees. Not past ones from before Edward was even born

You're right. He couldn't have "been a lesson" for insiders to your perceived cover-up trying who may have been to decide whether or not to stay mum for most of the last 60 years, only going forward. Why did you bring it up?

Yet even after Mr. Snowden's flight, we still see leaks of highly classified material, so any "lesson" there apparently isn't particularly effective.

Quote
(have you taken all your meds today?)

I see you've decided to ditch your "argument" in favor of inane, yet snarky, comments. That won't be any more productive, but may be more satisfying to you, I guess.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #22 on: November 15, 2017, 02:45:40 PM »
No. His grammar was shit. Just because he eventually specified the amount of landings after waffling on for a bit doesn't clear the fact he implied we landed 9 times to fake it

Trying to cover for your mistake by pretending to not understand is counterproductive, but if that's what you want to do, knock yourself out.

Believe what you like. It is not necessary. I pointed out his shit grammar because he's a know it all upstart making out he is smarter and better than everyone else on the planet

Quote
I'm not abandoning any claim. Even the lowly paid cleaners working in any government department, including NASA would need a security clearance.

Did you hear this from some other conspiracy theorist, or did you make it up yourself?


IOW, can you provide some evidence that this statement is true?

Are you suggesting that cleaners or contractors who go throughout highly sensitive offices do not need any vetting? I could tell you of my own experience in my working life but have no desire to doxx myself to such an extent. Suffice to say, a cleaner who cleans the 'Pentagon' for example would NEED a clearance. Even such a thing such as the 'floor pan' of a building or accounting for the fact you may have lazy employees leaving classified paperwork on their desk needs to be accounted for and you want to vet ANYONE who walks through your doors. How do you know the lowly paid Chinese worker mopping your floors isn't actually working for the communist party in China as a spy? Hence, the vetting to get some level of confidence. There are various levels of security clearances. Some are just glorified police checks while others go full on into your entire lifes history. I'm guessing the cleaners don't need that level of thoroughness

Quote
From what forejimmy is implying, that even such cleaners working for NASA would have full knowledge of everything going on in the company.

Where did he say that?

Can you not read? I said he was 'implying' hence he says 500,000 people work for NASA and implying that all 500,000 would 'know if it was a hoax'. I pointed out that that simply didn't need to be true. The cleaners or paper pushers for example, the entire HR department don't need to know and certainly don't know everything that goes on inside any building they work for. When the CEO of a company has a board room meeting or talks to other government departments, does he invite all 500,000 people in on it? Not everyone knows everything. Just because you work for a company doesn't mean you have access to all intelligence.


Quote
I'm not sure how Edward Snowden doing what he did impacts on my claim though.

You were were attempting to argue that everyone involved in any way being vetted and holding security clearances meant that no one would talk. Mr. Snowden had been vetted and held a security clearance, yet he talked, so your point is disproved.


You would find a lot more 'Edward Snowdens' if NO CHECKS were ever done. You would also invite spies from every country to apply for jobs if there were no vetting procedures of any kind to apply for a job.


Yes, Edward Snowden had high level clearance and had access to lots of information. And look where he is now for exposing what was essentially the truth. He is an important lesson for those who would dare stray from their script

How would this lesson impact people from the '60s, until after 2010 who had access to lots of information, yet never came forward?

Admittedly you are confusing me here. Edward Snowden is a lesson for any future person. You will always get whistle blowers. It is unavoidable, the government pursued him HARD to make an example of people who don't do the right thing (by the government - I fully support what he did and released myself). They of course wont stop future whistle-blowers entirly but they can make more people uneasy and uncomfortable/scared to do the same thing, even though they know that it would be the ethical thing to do

Quote
It is simply a fact that to work inside the government or their departments that you will be vetted and security clearances given.

Nope. So far, that's only an unsubstantiated claim, not a fact. You got anything to back that claim up?

You are suggesting that people who work for governments or spy agencies can just rock up and get a job without being checked. That is preposterous. Again, if nobody is vetted, what is to stop spies from accessing high level intelligence? Keep in mind a cleaner has 'access' to high level intelligence (although not given) and even so much as the floor plan of a building is not information the governments would want leaked to their foreign counterparts.

Anyway, take a look at here, although Australian related, I'm pretty sure the US is just as uptight guarding classified information as Australian
https://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/About/Careers/Life-at-the-ACMA/acma-security-clearance-faqs-acma

Or hell, here is a wiki article about security clearances. Educate yourself. Then ask, would a government want their workers to checked?

keep in mind, the NAMES of some people who work in government departments are sensitive. So even your paper pushing HR assistant would need to be cleared.


Quote
Even if you posses a clearance, it does not mean you know or are even entitled to know everything anyone with the same level can know. Everything is a need to know. And if you just mop floors, push papers, take phone calls etc. You don't need to know.

Which is exactly why I'm skeptical that all these guys you claim need clearances actually do need them.

As I said, the floorplan of a building, the names of people who work their and the fact that employees could leave sensitive information on their desk is a reason they need to be checked. A lot of cleaners work after hours when many staff have already left for the day.

Quote
Obviously the Edward Snowden lesson is there for any future employees. Not past ones from before Edward was even born

You're right. He couldn't have "been a lesson" for insiders to your perceived cover-up trying who may have been to decide whether or not to stay mum for most of the last 60 years, only going forward. Why did you bring it up?

Yet even after Mr. Snowden's flight, we still see leaks of highly classified material, so any "lesson" there apparently isn't particularly effective.

You cant blame the government for trying though can you. They are hardly want to be seen 'lying down' or we may yet see many more 'Edward Snowdens' Security clearances aren't full proof and they never will be. But I guess they are better than nothing. Plenty of people fail them and never get through. Even if you are a nice guy, if you have links to a foreign government or have a past which can be used to blackmail you, you may not get that clearance

Quote
(have you taken all your meds today?)

I see you've decided to ditch your "argument" in favor of inane, yet snarky, comments. That won't be any more productive, but may be more satisfying to you, I guess.

Only because your arguments are repeatedly and demonstrably one of low intelligence


Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #23 on: November 15, 2017, 08:17:42 PM »
No. His grammar was shit. Just because he eventually specified the amount of landings after waffling on for a bit doesn't clear the fact he implied we landed 9 times to fake it

Trying to cover for your mistake by pretending to not understand is counterproductive, but if that's what you want to do, knock yourself out.

Believe what you like. It is not necessary. I pointed out his shit grammar because he's a know it all upstart making out he is smarter and better than everyone else on the planet

Are you still pretending to not understand the clearly stated distinction between "went to the moon" and "landed on the moon", or do you really not understand it?

Quote
Quote
I'm not abandoning any claim. Even the lowly paid cleaners working in any government department, including NASA would need a security clearance.

Did you hear this from some other conspiracy theorist, or did you make it up yourself?

IOW, can you provide some evidence that this statement is true?

Are you suggesting that cleaners or contractors who go throughout highly sensitive offices do not need any vetting? I could tell you of my own experience in my working life but have no desire to doxx myself to such an extent.

You have no evidence. Got it!

Quote
Quote
Suffice to say, a cleaner who cleans the 'Pentagon' for example would NEED a clearance. Even such a thing such as the 'floor pan' of a building or accounting for the fact you may have lazy employees leaving classified paperwork on their desk needs to be accounted for and you want to vet ANYONE who walks through your doors.

"Lazy employees leaving classified paperwork on their desk..." Can you remind us about what you think the purpose of vetting and security clearances is, again, and why you think it means anything? Everyone makes some mistakes, but, in the real world, "lazy employees" as you describe wouldn't maintain a security clearance for very long.

Quote
Quote
How do you know the lowly paid Chinese worker mopping your floors isn't actually working for the communist party in China as a spy? Hence, the vetting to get some level of confidence. There are various levels of security clearances. Some are just glorified police checks while others go full on into your entire lifes history. I'm guessing the cleaners don't need that level of thoroughness

"I'm guessing"

'Security Clearance' has a specific meaning. You're now walking back from:

Even the lowly paid cleaners working in any government department, including NASA would need a security clearance.

Quote
Quote
Quote
From what forejimmy is implying, that even such cleaners working for NASA would have full knowledge of everything going on in the company.

Where did he say that?
Can you not read?

Why, yes, I can read quite well. That's why I'm skeptical about what you've written. Thanks for asking, though.

You never answered. Where did he say that?

Quote
Quote
I said he was 'implying' hence he says 500,000 people work for NASA and implying that all 500,000 would 'know if it was a hoax'. I pointed out that that simply didn't need to be true.

But according to you, it did.

Quote
Suffice to say, a cleaner who cleans the 'Pentagon' for example would NEED a clearance. Even such a thing such as the 'floor [plan]' of a building or accounting for the fact you may have lazy employees leaving classified paperwork on their desk needs to be accounted for and you want to vet ANYONE who walks through your doors. How do you know the lowly paid Chinese worker mopping your floors isn't actually working for the communist party in China as a spy? Hence, the vetting to get some level of confidence. There are various levels of security clearances. Some are just glorified police checks while others go full on into your entire lifes history. I'm guessing the cleaners don't need that level of thoroughness


Quote
Quote
The cleaners or paper pushers for example, the entire HR department don't need to know and certainly don't know everything that goes on inside any building they work for. When the CEO of a company has a board room meeting or talks to other government departments, does he invite all 500,000 people in on it? Not everyone knows everything. Just because you work for a company doesn't mean you have access to all intelligence.[/color]

Quote
I'm not sure how Edward Snowden doing what he did impacts on my claim though.

You were were attempting to argue that everyone involved in any way being vetted and holding security clearances meant that no one would talk. Mr. Snowden had been vetted and held a security clearance, yet he talked, so your point is disproved.


You would find a lot more 'Edward Snowdens' if NO CHECKS were ever done. You would also invite spies from every country to apply for jobs if there were no vetting procedures of any kind to apply for a job.


Yet there have been no 'Edward Snowdens' blowing the whistle on your imagined "NASA hoax conspiracy" after 60 years. Why? Could it be that there was no "NASA hoax conspiracy" at all. Have you even considered that?

Quote
Quote
Yes, Edward Snowden had high level clearance and had access to lots of information. And look where he is now for exposing what was essentially the truth. He is an important lesson for those who would dare stray from their script

How would this lesson impact people from the '60s, until after 2010 who had access to lots of information, yet never came forward?

Admittedly you are confusing me here. Edward Snowden is a lesson for any future person. You will always get whistle blowers. It is unavoidable, the government pursued him HARD to make an example of people who don't do the right thing (by the government - I fully support what he did and released myself). They of course wont stop future whistle-blowers entirly but they can make more people uneasy and uncomfortable/scared to do the same thing, even though they know that it would be the ethical thing to do

Quote
It is simply a fact that to work inside the government or their departments that you will be vetted and security clearances given.

Nope. So far, that's only an unsubstantiated claim, not a fact. You got anything to back that claim up?

You are suggesting that people who work for governments or spy agencies can just rock up and get a job without being checked.

Whoa, hoss... "spy agencies?" We're talking about 500,000 mostly routine NASA employees, including the "floor moppers", remember? Nice try.

"It is simply a fact that to work inside the government or their departments that you will be vetted and security clearances given." So far, that's only an unsubstantiated claim, not a fact. Still waiting on that one.

Quote
Quote
That is preposterous. Again, if nobody is vetted, what is to stop spies from accessing high level intelligence?

Discouragingly, according to recent revelations, very little, even with vetting and security clerances.

Quote
Quote
Keep in mind a cleaner has 'access' to high level intelligence (although not given) and even so much as the floor plan of a building is not information the governments would want leaked to their foreign counterparts.

You never provided confirmation about the access to high level intelligence by "cleaners" other than your unsubstantiated claim. Cab you substantiate the value of the floor plan?

Quote
Quote
Anyway, take a look at here, although Australian related, I'm pretty sure the US is just as uptight guarding classified information as Australian
https://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/About/Careers/Life-at-the-ACMA/acma-security-clearance-faqs-acma

Or hell, here is a wiki article about security clearances. Educate yourself. Then ask, would a government want their workers to checked?

I've held a US security clearance. It's not as pedestrian as you assert.

Quote
keep in mind, the NAMES of some people who work in government departments are sensitive. So even your paper pushing HR assistant would need to be cleared.


In some cases that may be true. Can you provide examples? In those casses did their "paper pushing HR assistants" have clearances? How do you know?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Even if you posses a clearance, it does not mean you know or are even entitled to know everything anyone with the same level can know. Everything is a need to know. And if you just mop floors, push papers, take phone calls etc. You don't need to know.

Which is exactly why I'm skeptical that all these guys you claim need clearances actually do need them.

As I said, the floorplan of a building, the names of people who work their and the fact that employees could leave sensitive information on their desk is a reason they need to be checked. A lot of cleaners work after hours when many staff have already left for the day.

Quote
Obviously the Edward Snowden lesson is there for any future employees. Not past ones from before Edward was even born

You're right. He couldn't have "been a lesson" for insiders to your perceived cover-up trying who may have been to decide whether or not to stay mum for most of the last 60 years, only going forward. Why did you bring it up?

Yet even after Mr. Snowden's flight, we still see leaks of highly classified material, so any "lesson" there apparently isn't particularly effective.

You cant blame the government for trying though can you. They are hardly want to be seen 'lying down' or we may yet see many more 'Edward Snowdens' Security clearances aren't full proof and they never will be. But I guess they are better than nothing. Plenty of people fail them and never get through. Even if you are a nice guy, if you have links to a foreign government or have a past which can be used to blackmail you, you may not get that clearance

So where are the "Apollo hoax" leakers? They're suspiciously absent, even though the Snowdens of the world aren't.

Quote
Quote
Quote
(have you taken all your meds today?)

I see you've decided to ditch your "argument" in favor of inane, yet snarky, comments. That won't be any more productive, but may be more satisfying to you, I guess.

Only because your arguments are repeatedly and demonstrably one of low intelligence

Sticking to the Ad-Hominem fallacy instead of attempting real discussion, I see. It's easier and can't be any less productive than your attempted line of "argument", I suppose.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #24 on: November 15, 2017, 09:28:55 PM »
Quote from: Alpha2Omega
Are you still pretending to not understand the clearly stated distinction between "went to the moon" and "landed on the moon", or do you really not understand it?

Clearly you still have problems reading. Of course I understand it. Of course firejimmy understood it (after Googling). I just paid out his shit grammar structuring. How many times do we need to go over it? Are you seriously this dense?

Quote from: Alpha2Omega
You have no evidence. Got it!

No, just real world experience in dealing with and obtaining such clearances and working in seemingly innocuous departments that demand them. Which ones, what level and where I exactly work is none of your business

Quote from: Alpha2Omega
"Lazy employees leaving classified paperwork on their desk..." Can you remind us about what you think the purpose of vetting and security clearances is, again, and why you think it means anything? Everyone makes some mistakes, but, in the real world, "lazy employees" as you describe wouldn't maintain a security clearance for very long.

This happens more than you think. Depending on the department or how uptight the bosses are, people are either given a 'breach' or demoted/dismissed. One ladies pass at a defence base was discovered in a carpark (obviously dropped by accident). She was almost fired


Quote from: Alpha2Omega
"I'm guessing"

'Security Clearance' has a specific meaning. You're now walking back from:

Quote from: Shifter on November 15, 2017, 16:38:33

Even the lowly paid cleaners working in any government department, including NASA would need a security clearance.

As I had already explained, YES they NEED a clearance but NO, that clearance does not entitle anyone from accessing all the information available to people of that clearance. Everything is still on a 'need to know' and if your job is mopping floors, you don't need to know anything other than where the mop is.

Consider this. NASA or other government agencies geneally do not have their own 'in house' cleaners. They are contracted out to actual cleaning companies. Do you think the Pentagon for example, would be comfortable giving a cleaning company the contract if that cleaning company could not show or submit its staff to being vetted?

For example, if your organisation was involved with handling top secret information, would you want to employ someone with links to the Chinese communist party? Or would you want to employ someone who is facing bankruptcy and in need of lots of cash and maybe the floor plan, or individuals who work there could be sold to criminal gangs for money? Would you want to employ people with links to outlaw motorcycle gangs or a lengthy criminal rap sheet? The vetting is never full proof, but it does prevent undesirable people from obtaining access or information that could harm the government.

Most people (like Snowden) turn after they are vetted. This is the problem and of course foresight would have been wonderful but impossible


Quote from: Alpha2Omega
Why, yes, I can read quite well. That's why I'm skeptical about what you've written. Thanks for asking, though.

You never answered. Where did he say that?
He said it through implication. This was already answered but you are just being dense and arguing for arguments sake. Keep putting words in my mouth if it furthers your falsehoods. Here he is saying it here by the way

Quote from: firejimmy
NASA had nearly 500,000 people working on the Apollo program, how on earth can you keep every single one of their mouths shut.

So yes, he implied that if you work in an organisation, your would be privy to all its highest secrets (to which a fake moon landing would be one of them if that were true).


Quote from: Alpha2Omega
Yet there have been no 'Edward Snowdens' blowing the whistle on your imagined "NASA hoax conspiracy" after 60 years. Why? Could it be that there was no "NASA hoax conspiracy" at all. Have you even considered that?
It's not my conspiracy. I present possibilities, even if far fetched. It's what I do. And by the way, I personally have no problem believing we have visited the moon. I do however stick up for peoples right to believe otherwise. It's a free country (well that's what I have been led to believe)

Quote from: Alpha2Omega
Discouragingly, according to recent revelations, very little, even with vetting and security clerances.
Millions of people work within the public sector across many countries. And a few 'turn' bad whilst working within their organisations. Not a bad score

You are seriously proposing that governments 'do away' with vetting because it didn't work for 'Edward Snowden'? What a joke. The government owes it to the public and the decent men and women working within the organisations that the people who at least enter, are clean and not a mole, spy or criminal. Do you know how ridiculous your assertion is? Now answer this. Did Edward Snowden as a requirement of his job NEED TO KNOW ALL THE INFORMATION HE STOLE?? Or was he opportunistic and in a position where he could take it.


Quote from: Alpha2Omega
Whoa, hoss... "spy agencies?" We're talking about 500,000 mostly routine NASA employees, including the "floor moppers", remember? Nice try.

"It is simply a fact that to work inside the government or their departments that you will be vetted and security clearances given." So far, that's only an unsubstantiated claim, not a fact. Still waiting on that one.
Any government agency (at least where I am from) requires a security clearance. It can be a simple 'Baseline' (which is really just a glorified police check and not in depth of your life)

Your the one saying governments don't or shouldn't do security clearances for its employees because it didn't work on Edward Snowden. So I gave an extreme example. But where I am from, anything that says 'Australian Government' requires some level of clearance to work in. You want to work at the gift shop in Parliament House or the National Museum? You need a clearance. You think I am kidding?

Keep in mind those floor moppers will have keys and access passes to almost every office on every floor in sensitive areas. About the only people I can think of that do not need a clearance that work directly for NASA would be interns and that is only because their access is extremely limited and because they would be tagging along with someone who is cleared the entire time they are in the workplace. I'm sure NASA has some building which are public and that the layout is not sensitive.

And that 500,000 figure is doubtful the amount employed directly by NASA. That figure could be obtained by all the contractors and sub contractors in addition to 'actual' NASA.

I say AGAIN. why would every one of the 500,000 people who work for NASA be 'in' on the hoax? His argument hinged on the fact that a conspiracy theory is not credible because it would require too many people (every one of the employees) to have knowledge of it. I merely said that that was not correct and you could pull of a conspiracy with FAR FEWER people than he suggested.

As an example - take a look at the Vioxx scandal. How many people knew about how deadly and harmful it was. It killed tens of thousands of people and injured hundreds of thousands more. Do you think every doctor that prescribed the drug was 'in' on it? NO. A few people at the top fudged the results, manipulated the data and got it onto the market. The plebs who worked on the drugs research just did their jobs, reported the data and were probably none the wiser. DO YOU THINK EVERYONE WHO WORKED AT THE PHARMA COMPANY MERCKS WAS 'IN' ON IT TOO???

Or take a look at what happened with VW and their diesel emission cheating. Germanys biggest employer and only a few people required to pull off a massive scam that fooled the world


Quote from: Alpha2Omega
You never provided confirmation about the access to high level intelligence by "cleaners" other than your unsubstantiated claim. Cab you substantiate the value of the floor plan?

Floor plans can tell a lot about the building. Where computer servers are, where security cameras are likely to be located, where the office areas are, where executives or board rooms are. Any structural weakness, where all the doors inside are. It may even detail who sits at what desk. It's a map you don't want people who have no business knowing about it to see. If you wanted to place a bug or infiltrate a building in any manner, a floor plan or map of the building is not only your first step but your best friend.

As for confirmation, who do you think vacuums the floor, dusts, cleans the windows, the toilets, empties the bin in a CEO's office? The CEO? LOL!!! What do you think the janitors are for?

Quote
In some cases that may be true. Can you provide examples? In those casses did their "paper pushing HR assistants" have clearances? How do you know?
Government employees are usually protected because of information they merely have access to. For example in the Australian Federal Police, you would hope that the admins have been checked due to the nature of the Police work, their addresses and any undercover operations they may be involved in. Even in a place like NASA, you have people working on sensitive information. Keep in mind the amount of patents NASA has and would want to protect. I can generally speak from my own experience in Australia when I tell you that to work in the public service, no matter how innocent looking, you need to get a clearance. Anyone here will tell you how much they hate the 'Catch 22' You need a clearance to get a job in the public service but you can only get a job in the public service by having a clearance. Look, if NASA wants to allow hundreds of thousands of unvetted people working within their organisation, that's on them. Not my problem but I would say it's pretty dumb and irresponsible.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega
So where are the "Apollo hoax" leakers? They're suspiciously absent, even though the Snowdens of the world aren't.

Again, not my conspiracy, not really my problem to debunk. The argument was initially about the conspiracy requiring everyone involved in the workforce being 'in on it'. I provided reasons why that is not necessary.

Personally my own belief is what the records have stated. But again, if people want to believe otherwise, that's up to them. When pretentious upstarts like firejimmy want to come here and hang shit on everyone and come up with ridiculous arguments which are demonstrably false, I'll call him out on it. If you look back at his post history, you will find he and I go back to his initial posts. He loves hanging shit on me and I love hanging shit on him. Its a 'thing' we got going. Leave it alone  :P

Quote from: Alpha2Omega
Sticking to the Ad-Hominem fallacy instead of attempting real discussion, I see. It's easier and can't be any less productive than your attempted line of "argument", I suppose.

You have demonstrated you know very little if not nothing about security clearances and have even said they are absolutely useless.

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #25 on: November 16, 2017, 06:53:26 PM »
Quote from: Alpha2Omega
Are you still pretending to not understand the clearly stated distinction between "went to the moon" and "landed on the moon", or do you really not understand it?

Clearly you still have problems reading. Of course I understand it. Of course firejimmy understood it (after Googling). I just paid out his shit grammar structuring. How many times do we need to go over it? Are you seriously this dense?

"Of course I understand it." You and everyone else. But you still want to pretend there was a problem with the language? OK.

Quote
Quote from: Alpha2Omega
You have no evidence. Got it!

No, just real world experience in dealing with and obtaining such clearances and working in seemingly innocuous departments that demand them.

You have no evidence. Thanks for the straight answer.

Quote
Which ones, what level and where I exactly work is none of your business

I really couldn't care less. As far as I know, you could be making all this up. "If I told you what I did for a living I'd have to kill you" is still a popular joke, but stale.

Quote
Quote from: Alpha2Omega
"Lazy employees leaving classified paperwork on their desk..." Can you remind us about what you think the purpose of vetting and security clearances is, again, and why you think it means anything? Everyone makes some mistakes, but, in the real world, "lazy employees" as you describe wouldn't maintain a security clearance for very long.

This happens more than you think. Depending on the department or how uptight the bosses are, people are either given a 'breach' or demoted/dismissed.

Consequences would also depend on the material and circumstances involved. If you think it's as common as you want us to believe, maybe you work for a poorly-run outfit (or are making this up).

But you bring up a good point: mistakes of this nature do happen. So why wasn't there ever a leak about the postulated "fake moon landings" in more than 50 years since the beginning of the Apollo program? The real reason is, of course, that the nine manned moon missions (including the six landings) occurred exactly as described, and there is nothing to leak.

Quote
One ladies pass at a defence base was discovered in a carpark (obviously dropped by accident). She was almost fired

OK. Poor dear. Lacking any relevant details, what am I supposed to make of this anecdote?

Quote
Quote from: Alpha2Omega
"I'm guessing"

'Security Clearance' has a specific meaning. You're now walking back from:

Quote from: Shifter on November 15, 2017, 16:38:33

Even the lowly paid cleaners working in any government department, including NASA would need a security clearance.

As I had already explained, YES they NEED a clearance


Still waiting for some actual evidence that this is the case.

Quote
but NO, that clearance does not entitle anyone from accessing all the information available to people of that clearance. Everything is
Consider this. NASA or other government agencies geneally do not have their own 'in house' cleaners. They are contracted out to actual cleaning companies. Do you think the Pentagon for example, would be comfortable giving a cleaning company the contract if that cleaning company could not show or submit its staff to being vetted?

Probably not, but we're talking about NASA, which is a civilian agency, not the Pentagon, which is military.

Quote
For example, if your organisation was involved with handling top secret information, would you want to employ someone with links to the Chinese communist party?

Since you like to go into wild hypotheticals, it depends. If "my" organization was involved with gathering information about the inner workings of the Chinese government, then such a person might be valuable.

Quote
Or would you want to employ someone who is facing bankruptcy and in need of lots of cash and maybe the floor plan, or individuals who work there could be sold to criminal gangs for money? Would you want to employ people with links to outlaw motorcycle gangs or a lengthy criminal rap sheet? The vetting is never full proof, but it does prevent undesirable people from obtaining access or information that could harm the government.

No, it prevents some, but obviously not all, undesirable people from obtaining access or information that could harm the government. There is a long list of moles who intentionally leaked data.

Quote
Most people (like Snowden) turn after they are vetted. This is the problem and of course foresight would have been wonderful but impossible

So where is the "NASA moon hoax Edward Snowden" whistleblower?

Quote
Quote from: Alpha2Omega
Why, yes, I can read quite well. That's why I'm skeptical about what you've written. Thanks for asking, though.

You never answered. Where did he say that?
He said it through implication. This was already answered but you are just being dense and arguing for arguments sake. Keep putting words in my mouth if it furthers your falsehoods. Here he is saying it here by the way

Quote from: firejimmy
NASA had nearly 500,000 people working on the Apollo program, how on earth can you keep every single one of their mouths shut.
So yes, he implied that if you work in an organisation, your would be privy to all its highest secrets (to which a fake moon landing would be one of them if that were true).

No need to put words in your mouth; you're perfectly capable of being inconsistent all on your own.

Since you say that people leaving classified information just lying around unsecured "happens more than [ I ] think", then even those custodial crews as well as anyone else in that office could be privy to NASA's highest secrets. According to your scenario, I could see an honest, hard-working, non-Chinese-Communist, non-outlaw-motorcycle-gang-member, taxpaying American citizen seeing some highly classified reports outlining some part of the hoax. I could also see [him | her] becoming incensed to the point of going public about how the taxes (s)he pays are being used and what the highly-respected organization was doing.

Quote
Quote from: Alpha2Omega
Yet there have been no 'Edward Snowdens' blowing the whistle on your imagined "NASA hoax conspiracy" after 60 years. Why? Could it be that there was no "NASA hoax conspiracy" at all. Have you even considered that?
It's not my conspiracy. I present possibilities, even if far fetched. It's what I do. And by the way, I personally have no problem believing we have visited the moon. I do however stick up for peoples right to believe otherwise. It's a free country (well that's what I have been led to believe)

It is far fetched, but you're choosing to try to defend it, which makes it yours for the purpose of these discussions.

Quote
Quote from: Alpha2Omega
Discouragingly, according to recent revelations, very little, even with vetting and security clerances.
Millions of people work within the public sector across many countries. And a few 'turn' bad whilst working within their organisations. Not a bad score

Tell that to the people who have been harmed (or the families of those killed) because of moles and leakers.

Quote
You are seriously proposing that governments 'do away' with vetting because it didn't work for 'Edward Snowden'?

Where did I propose that? I'm challenging your assertion that everyone that works for NASA has a security clearance, and the naive assertion that people who have been vetted or even have security clearances represent no risk.

Quote
The government owes it to the public and the decent men and women working within the organisations that the people who at least enter, are clean and not a mole, spy or criminal. Do you know how ridiculous your assertion is? Now answer this. Did Edward Snowden as a requirement of his job NEED TO KNOW ALL THE INFORMATION HE STOLE?? Or was he opportunistic and in a position where he could take it.

I'm hardly an expert, but my understanding is that Mr. Snowden was a highly-skilled network administrator and had been given access to most of the NSA's data. Presumably someone in authority thought he needed that access to do his job. In hindsight, this was not a good decision.

Quote
Quote from: Alpha2Omega
Whoa, hoss... "spy agencies?" We're talking about 500,000 mostly routine NASA employees, including the "floor moppers", remember? Nice try.

"It is simply a fact that to work inside the government or their departments that you will be vetted and security clearances given." So far, that's only an unsubstantiated claim, not a fact. Still waiting on that one.
Any government agency (at least where I am from) requires a security clearance. It can be a simple 'Baseline' (which is really just a glorified police check and not in depth of your life)

Your the one saying governments don't or shouldn't do security clearances for its employees because it didn't work on Edward Snowden.

Where did I say that?

It's baseless assertions like this one that I question:
Even the lowly paid cleaners working in any government department, including NASA would need a security clearance.

Yet still nothing to back that up.

But you may be on to something... what is called a security clearance in Australia may not be the same thing that's called a security clearance in the US. Since the discussion is (nominally) about NASA, the American definition applies.

Quote
So I gave an extreme example. But where I am from, anything that says 'Australian Government' requires some level of clearance to work in. You want to work at the gift shop in Parliament House or the National Museum? You need a clearance. You think I am kidding?

I'm not from Australia (but I've visited - wonderful place!) and have no familiarity with the Australian government's employment rules, so I have no idea. Last I heard, NASA was part of the US government, not the Australian government, so wrinkles like you're describing aren't particularly relevant.

Quote
Keep in mind those floor moppers will have keys and access passes to almost every office on every floor in sensitive areas. About the only people I can think of that do not need a clearance that work directly for NASA would be interns and that is only because their access is extremely limited and because they would be tagging along with someone who is cleared the entire time they are in the workplace. I'm sure NASA has some building which are public and that the layout is not sensitive.

And that 500,000 figure is doubtful the amount employed directly by NASA. That figure could be obtained by all the contractors and sub contractors in addition to 'actual' NASA.

I say AGAIN. why would every one of the 500,000 people who work for NASA be 'in' on the hoax? His argument hinged on the fact that a conspiracy theory is not credible because it would require too many people (every one of the employees) to have knowledge of it. I merely said that that was not correct and you could pull of a conspiracy with FAR FEWER people than he suggested.

...you may have lazy employees leaving classified paperwork on their desk

This happens more than you think.

Keep in mind those floor moppers will have keys and access passes to almost every office on every floor in sensitive areas.

Those are your words. See what I mean about inconsistency?

Quote
As an example - take a look at the Vioxx scandal. How many people knew about how deadly and harmful it was. It killed tens of thousands of people and injured hundreds of thousands more. Do you think every doctor that prescribed the drug was 'in' on it? NO. A few people at the top fudged the results, manipulated the data and got it onto the market. The plebs who worked on the drugs research just did their jobs, reported the data and were probably none the wiser. DO YOU THINK EVERYONE WHO WORKED AT THE PHARMA COMPANY [Merck] WAS 'IN' ON IT TOO???

Unlikely, but the problems with Vioxx came to light fairly quickly, anyway. Not quickly enough for some victims, but quickly in the context of Apollo's legacy.

Vioxx was pulled from the market only five years after initial approval; independent analysis of published data from clinical tests yielded a convincing link to cardiovascular problems despite Merck's efforts to downplay early indications of same [source - I found that using Google; I hope you don't mind.] It's been more than fifty years since the beginning of the Apollo program, with all its published data, where's the smoking gun?

Quote
Or take a look at what happened with VW and their diesel emission cheating. Germanys biggest employer and only a few people required to pull off a massive scam that fooled the world [/b]

It was uncovered in, what, seven years?

Quote
Quote from: Alpha2Omega
You never provided confirmation about the access to high level intelligence by "cleaners" other than your unsubstantiated claim. Cab you substantiate the value of the floor plan?

Floor plans can tell a lot about the building. Where computer servers are, where security cameras are likely to be located, where the office areas are, where executives or board rooms are. Any structural weakness, where all the doors inside are. It may even detail who sits at what desk. It's a map you don't want people who have no business knowing about it to see. If you wanted to place a bug or infiltrate a building in any manner, a floor plan or map of the building is not only your first step but your best friend.

Well-designed security systems are layered, so defeating one (like guessed locations of security cameras) leaves the others (e.g. motion detectors) intact. Approved spaces where classified information can be stored, processed, analyzed, and discussed are difficult to get into, even if you know where they are, and are designed so that forced intrusions can be detected. If someone divulges lock combinations and security system disarming codes, then building plans are the least of your worries. Ordinary industrial espionage, which is much of what you describe, doesn't involve security clearances.

Quote
As for confirmation, who do you think vacuums the floor, dusts, cleans the windows, the toilets, empties the bin in a CEO's office? The CEO? LOL!!! What do you think the janitors are for?

Those same people in the custodial crew that have access to places where "Lazy employees leaving classified paperwork on their desk..."
Quote
Quote
In some cases that may be true. Can you provide examples? In those casses did their "paper pushing HR assistants" have clearances? How do you know?
Government employees are usually protected because of information they merely have access to. For example in the Australian Federal Police, you would hope that the admins have been checked due to the nature of the Police work, their addresses and any undercover operations they may be involved in. Even in a place like NASA, you have people working on sensitive information. Keep in mind the amount of patents NASA has and would want to protect. I can generally speak from my own experience in Australia when I tell you that to work in the public service, no matter how innocent looking, you need to get a clearance. Anyone here will tell you how much they hate the 'Catch 22' You need a clearance to get a job in the public service but you can only get a job in the public service by having a clearance. Look, if NASA wants to allow hundreds of thousands of unvetted people working within their organisation, that's on them. Not my problem but I would say it's pretty dumb and irresponsible.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega
So where are the "Apollo hoax" leakers? They're suspiciously absent, even though the Snowdens of the world aren't.

Again, not my conspiracy, not really my problem to debunk. The argument was initially about the conspiracy requiring everyone involved in the workforce being 'in on it'. I provided reasons why that is not necessary.

While, at the same time, providing reasons that it is, because lazy "insiders" leave sensitive information lying around [paraphrasing] "all the time".

Quote
Personally my own belief is what the records have stated. But again, if people want to believe otherwise, that's up to them. When pretentious upstarts like firejimmy want to come here and hang shit on everyone and come up with ridiculous arguments which are demonstrably false, I'll call him out on it. If you look back at his post history, you will find he and I go back to his initial posts. He loves hanging shit on me and I love hanging shit on him. Its a 'thing' we got going. Leave it alone  :P

Perhaps you guys should get a room.

Playing devil's advocate and challenging accepted wisdom is a good thing, but you're taking on the burden of defending an idea that you may believe to be wrong, so you should expect to be challenged on what you say. Jane does this and she's pretty good at it.

Quote
Quote from: Alpha2Omega
Sticking to the Ad-Hominem fallacy instead of attempting real discussion, I see. It's easier and can't be any less productive than your attempted line of "argument", I suppose.

You have demonstrated you know very little if not nothing about security clearances and have even said they are absolutely useless.

Keep thinking that if it makes you happy.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #26 on: November 16, 2017, 08:12:24 PM »
I appreciate your long winded and time consuming replies although there actually isn't any need to seem antagonistic.  Don't get me wrong but you'll forgive me if I break this one down to a recurring theme rather then endlessly quote quotes. So lets start with employees leaving sensitive information lying around.

Perhaps we have different ideas about what is sensitive/classified. To most organisations it could be simple things like
Calender with notes scribbled in it
Photo of employees family
Personal details about the employee (does not have to be work related)
Names or numbers of other employees, customers or clients
Overhearing conversations
Telephone with messages still inside the message bank
Telephone that has its direct number displayed on it (this info is only meant for the switchboard or people that have business knowing it - not general public that could use it to harass for example)

Just the usual shit that means nothing to anyone but something that certain people or groups may pay to have. It's all innocent when it's just a single piece of the puzzle but gather enough pieces and you can get a picture.

They don't have to be state secrets left on a desk (that shit should not be printed in the first place). I am not expecting that every employee at every level will have super secret classified information printed on paper. Most, if not all of that shit is all electronic and once you get high enough up the chain (depending on the chain) you wont even have shit stored electronically.

Once my brothers friend took some paperwork at home from his work (he worked at Defence and presumably took stuff to work from home), the dickhead took paper that contained the radio frequencies that Naval ships use to communicate at sea and left it lying around for any visitor to see (my brother obviously did) Personally, if I were his boss, I'd fire him instantly. Once its on paper and most certainly have left the workplace, it cant be controlled

No need for context about someone working for Defence dropping their pass. While accidental it's also careless. Any dickhead could have picked it up and had access to a very high secure facility.

I personally accept there is no hoax going on inside NASA myself. In fact, I find the organisation to be very altruistic that although being owned and paid for by the US, has benefited everyone across the entire planet. Dozens of dozens of tech from water filters, cordless drills, artificial limbs and the sensor in everyones smart phone camera along with dozens if not 100+ more things we take for granted but was made possible through the good folk at NASA.

My only gripe was the notion that if an organisation was doing something nefarious, then by association, everyone must be 'in on it'. This line has been used to justify shit as impossible when it is far from the case and is probably something genuine whistleblowers are sick of hearing too. Edward Snowden for instance, had access to intelligence, but that doesn't mean he and all his colleagues knew the extent the NSA and other alphabet agencies in the US spy on its citizens and its foreign allies. His colleagues probably just did what they were told. Edward looked deeper than he was probably allowed to. It would be ludicrous to assume everyone who works at the NSA knew everything Edward ended up knowing and that only Edward decided to blow the whistle, just as it would be ludicrous to assume everyone at Merck knew Vioxx was dodgy or everyone at VW knew they were cheating on the emission tests. Conspiracies do not necessarily need the entire organisations employees full knowledge and co-operation.

If NASA doesn't require security clearances or anything equivalent like background checking for their staff, I can only say that goes against what I would think is logical given my own experience and that includes all cleaners employed by a cleaning company that has won a tender for contract in government buildings, that they will all be security cleared. Not perfect but better than nothing. It may be an altruistic space agency that gives the world lots of cool tech and pretty pictures but it does have it's guarded secrets as well as VIPs to protect.

At the same time, I support people to believe whatever they wish to. If that's that the moon landing was fake, the earth is flat and NASA is evil, that's for them. I prefer to engage with people on a more civil level if the possibility permits rather than come in smug and angry and trying to be really personal and hurtful. I have never met anyone here in real life. I reserve absolute judgement on their character until then (however I do engage in banter to those that want it)

This is the internet. Articulating ones ultimate view is never as great as meeting someone face to face. You just see text on a screen written perhaps hours sometimes days after you have asked a question. If this were face to face the hours pent on this topic could have taken less than 5 minutes. If anyone has any expectation of 'winning' and argument on a online forum their expectations are unrealistic. I can be rubbished and misconstrued and likewise you will be too. It's the nature of online forums.



« Last Edit: November 16, 2017, 08:17:26 PM by Shifter »

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #27 on: November 17, 2017, 08:32:15 PM »
I appreciate your long winded and time consuming replies

Detailed replies to long posts will be long. Keep your posts shorter and the replies will be shorter.

Quote
although there actually isn't any need to seem antagonistic. 

Agree. Comments like:

Clearly you still have problems reading.

Only because your arguments are repeatedly and demonstrably one of low intelligence

etc., add nothing to the quality of the dialog.

Quote
Don't get me wrong but you'll forgive me if I break this one down to a recurring theme rather then endlessly quote quotes. So lets start with employees leaving sensitive information lying around.

Perhaps we have different ideas about what is sensitive/classified. To most organisations it could be simple things like
Calender with notes scribbled in it
Photo of employees family
Personal details about the employee (does not have to be work related)
Names or numbers of other employees, customers or clients
Overhearing conversations
Telephone with messages still inside the message bank
Telephone that has its direct number displayed on it (this info is only meant for the switchboard or people that have business knowing it - not general public that could use it to harass for example)

Just the usual shit that means nothing to anyone but something that certain people or groups may pay to have. It's all innocent when it's just a single piece of the puzzle but gather enough pieces and you can get a picture.

None of the items you list have anything to do with security clearances, at least in the US, unless the "scribbled notes", etc. are classified information (which has a specific meaning).

Quote
They don't have to be state secrets left on a desk (that shit should not be printed in the first place).

State secrets are exactly what document classification and security clearances are concerned with. That other stuff you describe, if actually valuable, falls under the concept of industrial espionage, and is a concern for commercial as well as government organizations.

Quote
I am not expecting that every employee at every level will have super secret classified information printed on paper. Most, if not all of that shit is all electronic and once you get high enough up the chain (depending on the chain) you wont even have shit stored electronically.

There are numerous operational reasons that classified information often needs to be printed on paper. Further, paper is often more secure than electronic files, as the Edward Snowden caper (and others) shows.

Quote
Once my brothers friend took some paperwork at home from his work (he worked at Defence and presumably took stuff to work from home), the dickhead took paper that contained the radio frequencies that Naval ships use to communicate at sea and left it lying around for any visitor to see (my brother obviously did) Personally, if I were his boss, I'd fire him instantly. Once its on paper and most certainly have left the workplace, it cant be controlled

Do you think taking it home on a thumb drive and reading it on his computer at home would have been more secure?

This is a good example of why it's hard to keep conspiracies secret.

Quote
No need for context about someone working for Defence dropping their pass. While accidental it's also careless. Any dickhead could have picked it up and had access to a very high secure facility.

It is careless, and things like this do happen because humans make mistakes. The security plan should be designed to expect and remain resilient in the case of problems like that. 

More details are needed before it's possible to judge whether someone would have "had access to a very high secure facility" due to a misplaced badge. If it's valid in a high security area, the pass undoubtedly has a photo, and passes should be checked. If it's an electronic card that operates door locks, that's a different story, but, during normal hours, some stranger walking around without a valid ID displayed should raise eyebrows; after hours, additional authentication (like alarm codes, or cipher locks, or both) should also be needed (if it's truly high-security).

Quote
I personally accept there is no hoax going on inside NASA myself. In fact, I find the organisation to be very altruistic that although being owned and paid for by the US, has benefited everyone across the entire planet. Dozens of dozens of tech from water filters, cordless drills, artificial limbs and the sensor in everyones smart phone camera along with dozens if not 100+ more things we take for granted but was made possible through the good folk at NASA.

My only gripe was the notion that if an organisation was doing something nefarious, then by association, everyone must be 'in on it'. This line has been used to justify shit as impossible when it is far from the case and is probably something genuine whistleblowers are sick of hearing too.

That's not the real issue. Very complex conspiracies would need more people involved, though, so large numbers of those employees would likely have to be 'read into' the scam to keep all the details accounted for, increasing the risk of leaks. Beyond that, there is so much interconnected data involved in a project like Apollo that even smart "innocent" people associated with the project (employees and contractors) would likely notice anomalies, and it's probable that at least some of them would start trying to find out what's really going on. It was anomalies in the reported data discovered by outsiders that brought the Vioxx and VW issues to light, which were far smaller and simpler cover-ups than a fake moon-landing program would need, yet they ultimately failed.

Quote
Edward Snowden for instance, had access to intelligence, but that doesn't mean he and all his colleagues knew the extent the NSA and other alphabet agencies in the US spy on its citizens and its foreign allies. His colleagues probably just did what they were told. Edward looked deeper than he was probably allowed to. It would be ludicrous to assume everyone who works at the NSA knew everything Edward ended up knowing and that only Edward decided to blow the whistle, just as it would be ludicrous to assume everyone at Merck knew Vioxx was dodgy or everyone at VW knew they were cheating on the emission tests. Conspiracies do not necessarily need the entire organisations employees full knowledge and co-operation.

Of course they don't. Being a large organization does increase the odds that even a single person willing to turn whistleblower will be exposed to (or deduce) incriminating information; as already noted, the whole organization need not be involved for this to happen. Large highly-technical organizations provide more opportunities for nefarious activities to be discovered than smaller organizations. Access to a lot of NASA's technical data is required way down the org chart, and not just by the engineering and scientific staff.

But it only takes one. Further, prodigious amounts of data increases the possibility that inconsistencies with the "official line" will be detected (e.g. Vioxx, which took all of five years, and VW, which took seven, before outsiders noticed their data didn't match the company's line).

Quote
If NASA doesn't require security clearances or anything equivalent like background checking for their staff, I can only say that goes against what I would think is logical given my own experience and that includes all cleaners employed by a cleaning company that has won a tender for contract in government buildings, that they will all be security cleared. Not perfect but better than nothing. It may be an altruistic space agency that gives the world lots of cool tech and pretty pictures but it does have it's guarded secrets as well as VIPs to protect.

I think this may be the source of our apparent disagreement. To have a "security clearance" for access to certain US government data has a specific meaning; you must fill out a long questionnaire which includes, among a myriad of details, explanations for what you did during any gaps in employment (with references who can corroborate), have a personal interview, and submit personal references (which are often interviewed, and the references you provided may be asked to provide additional references who know you, so you don't even get to pick and choose all of your own references). If all of the information stands up to scrutiny, you are cleared up to the level requested. It's expensive and time-consuming, even for a mid-level clearance. It's been described as "like a prostate exam, but more personal."

Not everyone in the facility I retired from (a defense contractor) had a security clearance - the colors of company badges was different depending on clearance level (or lack). Many didn't need one; for those, US citizenship was required, and, as I recall, you were asked to list any arrests (other than minor traffic infractions) and to give permission for a background check upon application for the job. I don't recall any questions about political affiliations by the company in that process. Sensitive information was diligently protected from accidental disclosure by the people cleared to handle it. People did not leave that stuff "lying on top of their desks".

You may be calling a "background check" a "security clearance". It's not the same here.

Quote
At the same time, I support people to believe whatever they wish to. If that's that the moon landing was fake, the earth is flat and NASA is evil, that's for them. I prefer to engage with people on a more civil level if the possibility permits rather than come in smug and angry and trying to be really personal and hurtful. I have never met anyone here in real life. I reserve absolute judgement on their character until then (however I do engage in banter to those that want it)

This is the internet. Articulating ones ultimate view is never as great as meeting someone face to face. You just see text on a screen written perhaps hours sometimes days after you have asked a question. If this were face to face the hours pent on this topic could have taken less than 5 minutes. If anyone has any expectation of 'winning' and argument on a online forum their expectations are unrealistic. I can be rubbished and misconstrued and likewise you will be too. It's the nature of online forums.

Of course; you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

Rather than trying to "win" discussions on forums like these, in most cases the best that can be done is to point out errors and inconsistencies in claims made (like "all NASA employees, including the cleaning crews, are required to have security clearances", which may have been due to misunderstanding, but is still simply false) so readers who follow have a better chance of reaching an informed opinion. Discussions like these also stay "on the record" for perhaps long periods of time. Carefully spelled out arguments in a written medium can remain valuable, unlike five-minute verbal discussions over a beer. I've learned a lot by reading some of the more drawn-out discussions on this site; others have said they have, too.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #28 on: November 18, 2017, 09:44:35 AM »
I want you download this video for next. Because generally such as these type videos disappear after a while it published.



Clearly a fake and highly edited video.  While some of the video content was of the actual moon landing, most was fake.  The best part of this video is some will use it as clear evidence of a faked moon landing.  Face it guys, we did go to the moon, 9 times in fact.  Ask yourself, why fake it...9 times.  NASA had nearly 500,000 people working on the Apollo program, how on earth can you keep every single one of their mouths shut.  The most telling proof that the USA landed on the moon is their competition.  Yes, the space race with the Russians.  Even the Russians dont questions the moon landing.  Joke is on you boys, we did land on the moon, 6 times.

So which is it? 9 times or 6 times. Even you cant keep up.


You realise for a job within NASA or any government department they have vetting procedures and security clearances. Not all 500,000 people you claim (you cant even work out whether the amount of times going to the moon is 9 or 6!) would need to know everything. Most are just plebs processing paperwork and payslips.

It's like a puzzle. Each person has a piece to the complete picture, but very few people have enough of the pieces to make sense of it all.
So you are saying over 50 years, with literally millions of people and I do mean millions involved in our space programs only a few are in on the secret?  Then what about the rest of the world with space programs and satellites in orbit?  Especially the ones that hate our guts. They would be more than happy to throw us under the bus. I just canít see how any rational person could think that many people could keep that kind of secret.

*

RocketSauce

  • 1441
  • I kill penguins for fun
Re: Deep Web Level 6 HASA moon landing hoax: "behind the scenes"
« Reply #29 on: November 28, 2017, 12:28:13 PM »
I have only been scrolling through some of your posts, but you sound smarter than the average poster here...
Quote from: Every FE'r

Please don't mention Himawari 8
Quote from: sceptimatic
Impossible to have the same volume and different density.

*fact*
Extra Virgin Penguin Blood is a natural aphrodisiac