Actually the obvious video advertising blurb was at the Vimeo link that I had posted originally, but that text there has now apparently gone and no, I did not write it. If I had found the video and text together at YouTube I would have used that link instead of Vimeo.lux wrote: Did you write this, Andrew1484? If not please cite source. It seems to be word-for-word from the YouTube video caption hype which, I suppose came from Weidner. Or, are you Weidner perhaps? In any case please cite source.
Well I thought that since this obvious "advertising text" was very obviously about the video on display, with a link above, it should not mislead anybody. My apologies if it did. I have made a small edit.lux wrote: The reason is that the comment highly praises persons who may not necessarily be considered praiseworthy by members of this forum (myself for one) so it should be put into context to prevent misunderstandings. It is also accepted practice here.
You may be correct. Do you mean like the 'Dark Side of the Moon' --- a French "documentary" (mockumentary) by (Khazarian) director William Karel? Or perhaps Karel was simply trying to "poison the well" because (Khazarian) Kubrick really had been involved in the hoax.lux wrote: BTW, I have studied Weidner's essays and even bought copies of the Kubrick films he cites and studied them in relation to his points and found the whole thing to be an excessive stretch of logic, a general waste of time and (IMO) mostly a barrel of red herrings. Though a few of his points might have limited validly I think the "package" as a whole is likely disinfo. Just my opinion and just thought I'd mention it.
To deal with your "red herrings" point ---- concerning Jay Weidner's throwing a whole bunch of disparate jigsaw puzzle pieces into the mix, with his points of view, you might perhaps wish to consider that Weidner was probably trying to provide more bits of the "jigsaw puzzle" (that he apparently thought that he had detected) than your mind can (yet) find places for in the (allegorical) puzzle that your mind is creating. When constructing any jigsaw puzzle, a bit that you cannot find a place to fit is just an irritating distraction for you, at that moment in time, although not later. If I might try to create a simple analogy or sorts, that I hope will not irritate your mind yet again.
Each discrete mind creates their own discrete and subjective point of view (Weltanschauung) about the nature of perceived "reality" ---- my point of view will not (cannot) be exactly the same as yours, yet we can still try to help each other to see alternative points of view.
How ready we (each) will be to accept such alternative points of view depends on how far we have "individually" (as separate mind/body entities) gone down the path to try to solve WTF is going on. If we are trying to solve WTF is going on in the first place of course. Many minds are apparently not!
With any luck at some point in time a "critical mass" will be reached (100th Monkey Effect) and a "paradigm shift" will occur in human perceptions of reality. The average of all individual points of view (and guesses) about the nature of "reality" tends to be closest to the correct answer, when we are able to measure what the correct answer really is.
If the above attempt at an explanation about WTF I am going on about is just a meaningless, rambling, "word salad" --- from your point of view --- then I am sorry to have irritated your mind yet again.
Sorry, I have no wish to niggle you (or anybody else). As for these Apollo rockets apparently not spinning, a spin would obviously be highly dangerous and undesirable for the alleged human contents and I simply don't know if the allegedly steerable engines could have theoretically prevented or (automatically? gyros?) compensated for any such hypothetical spinning tendency or not. I hope that clarifies my point of view for you.lux wrote: Lastly, while you are welcome to quote me and add your thoughts to my comments, if you do so please comment on the actual point(s) that I raised rather than steer the topic off in another direction. For example, I mentioned my observation about the lack of spinning motion of NASA rocket launches in comparison to other launches. Maybe it's a valid observation and maybe it isn't but your posts (which quote and reply to my comments) go off on a tangent about using fins to steer rockets or some such topic which really has nothing to do with the point I raised -- so why include my quote in your ramblings?
Many forums consider such tactics to be deliberate derailing of threads -- in other words, troll tactics. It's also just annoying.
