Them's fightin' words, MacReady...

Mark's post about Edgar Mitchell and his reaction to the moon-hoax morons was great. What I didn't appreciate, however, was Mark's description of this YouTube video as "compelling".

That clip uses the standard "leading narrator" technique, where they try and fool you into believing their tripe by confidently explaining what you're supposedly seeing in the video, even though in reality what they're describing is nothing more than a very far-fetched interpretation of what's actually going on in the clip, combined with other details that don't even appear in the video at all!

Here is a quote I pulled from the video (about :34) which shows the unbelievable lengths this "leading narrator" goes to try and trick the audience into "seeing" something that simply is not there:

In this never-before seen or heard footage, not only is the radio conversation between the astronauts and Houston control audible, there is a secondary, private conversation taking place between the crew and a third confidential party, prompting the astronauts with what to say, when to speak, and how to effectively manipulate the camera to achieve the desired misleading effect.

NASA claims that the Houston transmissions were the only ones taking place with the astronauts. Listen now as Houston control initiates a conversation with the crew, only to find them too preoccupied with the behind the scenes trickery to respond.

Now here is what is actually said on the video which they show to back up this incredible claim:

Houston: Hello Apollo 11. Houston. Gulfstone says the the TD(or TV) looks, uh, great. Over.

Five Second Pause.

Voice: "Talk".

Armstrong: Replies.

This is simply pathetic. They get a pause when calling for their astronauts, and somebody says "talk" to get them to reply... and that proves something sinister is afoot? Why couldn't it have been somebody from Mission Control saying "talk"? Why couldn't it have been Buzz Aldrin or Michael Collins, who were on board the spacecraft with Armstrong, prompting him to reply? Why does somebody telling Armstrong to "talk" after a pause indicate some Machiavellian conspiracy to coach the astronauts "how to effectively manipulate the camera to achieve the desired misleading effect"?

And where in the world does the narrator get the idea that the five second pause after Mission Control tried to initiate contact with the astronauts was because they were "too preoccupied with the behind the scenes trickery to respond"? Eh? It couldn't have been because Armstrong had simply nodded off? Or was just finishing up a dump? Or just was doing something else totally innocuous at the time that resulted in a slight pause before answering?

Stupid.

The entire video is like this. There is nothing in these clips except completely innocuous things going on with incredibly far-fetched and sinister "explanations" given for them.

But that's the game: make outlandish claims, dress it up with an English accent so the narrator "sounds smart", throw in some spooky music and VOILA! You have dumbasses the world over thinking they just saw the rug pulled out from under one of the greatest achievements in American history... hell, in human history.



No, Mark, I'm not saying you're a dumbass. I know better. But if you found this video "compelling", then somebody must have whacked you with a "dumbass stick" this morning. I hope it's only temporary.

We landed on the moon, people. Get over it. Here is a good site debunking the frankly silly arguments of the conspiracy kooks.