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.
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.
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.
"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.
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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..."
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.
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".
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 
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.
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.