Sorry Shy. Falls at the first fence: Wikideceivia? Really? A *trustable* source on the Big Lies Archived Message
Posted by Rhisiart Gwilym on July 30, 2019, 4:47 pm, in reply to "Moon. Landing hoax claims and rebuttals"
Syndrome of our time. Part of the Syndrome's operating system, surely? Maybe didn't start with that plan, but well and truly suborned into it by now: Billionaire's Blight; see Omidyar/Intercept example discussed four threads down. Look no further than the Philip Cross debacle for a clear indicator of Deceivia's trust rating (though you could look much further; plenty of other examples of its wholly-disqualifying dishonesties). Treat it as an - apparent - intellectual stronghold that, sadly, has been captured by the Orcs. Afraid I just have to refuse to take it seriously as a reliable source - especially not on anything that may (note the cautiously-provisional word! Scientific method meticulously applied! ) have the taint of the Big Lie on it. That same cautious provisionality makes me stand here, for the moment: I have no firm conclusion to offer about whether the moonwalks were hoaxes or not; but it's clear enough just from a fairly preliminary flight over the subject that there are some damned odd inconsistencies, in considerable number, for which - AFAIK - no properly-credible explainaways are offered. Definitely in the old Scots-Law 'Not Proven' box. (Meaning: 'We're pretty sure you're guilty, hen. But we cannae quite prove it enough to convince a jury - no just yet, onywhiles. So away ye go - for now. But - er - leave your passport with the polis, ken?') If, as I suspect, we're now in an era of multiple Big Lie scams of great impudence, it's necessary to tread with careful objectivity here - especially over stories that we'd like passionately to believe; always the best foundation for a Big Lie.
|
|