Jay: Heavy dosages would be detected immediately by other equipment in the various rooms.

We are getting sidetracked and so, if you don't mind, I will just stick to the main points.

Jay: But Percy's claim that Fleming, with insider knowledge, is trying to blow the whistle is patently, unequivocally false.

Aye, and I immediately acknowledged that in my first posting to this thread. You will find no argument from me here.

Jay: Only insiders can blow the whistle, therefore the Diamonds theory is set back a step because it now must be established that the creators of the Diamonds movie had inside knowledge,

Could they not have been provided with insider information, alerted to untoward goings on or used by other persons to put across a subtle message, perhaps?

Squirm: The very fact that these men considered an obscure message instantly dispels the idea that subtle whistle-blowing is a figment of our imagination, or an "invention of conspiracy theorists".

Jay: No, Squirm, again you're arguing what you wish to be so, not what is so. Someone forced to do something contrary to his ideals will naturally desire to undermine the forced objective.

Agreed. The Thai-Burma railway is a good example of that. The workmanship of many enslaved POW's was deliberately shoddy in the hope trestles and embankments would collapse and erode when significant weight happened to be passing over it.

Jay: But that very fact is why those who are compelling the activity will very carefully monitor the work. They will expect their conscripts to attempt sabotage and therefore put safeguards into effect.

The question is not whether the desire is there, but whether it's wise to act on that desire.

And I don't disagree with that, but was it not yourself who questioned that "desire" by earlier stating "subtle sabotage intended as whistle-blowing is an invention of conspiracy theorists"? You are now slightly contradicting yourself. It was actually this which spurned my response -- a response that I maintain is still valid.

As to whether an obscure message is sensible or not is some thing I am in agreement with, thus my statement: "... the form of the intended whistle-blow is often dictating by extenuating circumstances". There would be many things to take into account when making such a decision, even as to whether a blow is viable at all.

Subtle whistle-blowing may be less effective, but it is certainly not a figment of our imagination.

Squirm: One can fully understand why those men ultimately chose not to embed an obscure message as their lives were in immediate danger and there was very little chance of their ingenuity ever seeing the light of day.

Jay: But this is exactly Percy's hypothesis.

I'm not Percy and I'm not interested in his entire hypothesis. It may look like I am arguing his case but, as I have stated on ApolloHoax.com, I don't actually subscribe to his full-blown "whistle-blowers" theory. In essence I am not arguing against whistle-blowers either, but Percy believes many insiders were actively encoding such messages for future generations to unravel. Whereas I do not.

Jay: He has argued subsequently that those who have personally contacted him, whom he characterizes as whistle-blowers, are indeed in mortal danger.

The question here is are they in immediate danger? Could they be led out into a court yard and lined up against a firing wall within minutes, like those prisoners you have made reference to? The point I was making is that those prisoners could end up losing on both counts. The intended message in all likelihood would be intercepted and those men could be executed as a result. Nil points! In the case of Percy anybody contacting him would at least have the opportunity to pass on vital information, so to this end a whistler-blower would be successful.

Jay: The notion that his alleged whistle-blowers believed themselves to be in mortal danger, therefore chose to act in very subtle ways rather than overtly, is the core of Percy's hypothesis, and it is exactly what makes his hypothetical situation identical to the forging of the white fivers, at least in terms of motives and second-guessing.

To which whistle-blowers are you now referring. Those who have contacted Percy or those whom he claims have left deliberate message in the Apollo media?

Jay: Percy's theory is a scenario which has been acted out in real life,

Well, there are other circumstances to be taken into consideration. In relation to alleged on-set stagehands, I have argued elsewhere that anyone willing to go along with forgery of this scale would not be doing so against their will. For the most part they would have recognised the vast importance of their work (in relation to International Politics). Some may not have like it and had second thoughts, but I very much doubt they would be forced to do things at gun point.

Anyway, I'm not really here to defend someone else's hypothesis, I'm here to defend my own.

and with results diametrically contrary to Percy's hypothesis. And you even agree that the real-life scenario -- in which whistle-blowing was specifically avoided -- makes sense.

Yes, it makes sense in this particular instance.

Jay: You seem to have departed from Percy's hypothesis by claiming there was no real mortal danger and the whistle-blowers just did this as a lark, much as software engineers put "Easter eggs" into software products.

I wasn't biding by Percy's hypothesis in the first place so how on Earth could I depart from it? And more to the point, if someone felt the truth was important enough to be known -- because of ethical reasons, of course -- why is he suddenly seen to be "larking about" if he manages to reveal and propagate the message of wrongdoing behind NASA's back?

Jay: This makes absolutely no sense from the point of view of the central conspirators who are trying to fool the world and allegedly possess a very large budget in which to do so.

What make no sense is your attempt to undermine my argument. If I was proper skeptical I would say you are intentionally blurring the line between my hypothesis and David Percy's, so that your rebuttal appears to carry more weight then it otherwise would.

I am arguing about a possible whistle-blow in a movie scene. This was not something produced by NASA and made available through NASA.

Jay: The whistle-blower hypothesis fails on two more points. {considerable portion snipped!}

And this is largely irrelevant to me as I don't subscribe to exactly the same theory as David Percy. If I did I would be cataloguing all of these so-called intentional flaws on my web site this very day. But I'm not.

The case which you go on to make here clearly highlights a partially faulty path of reasoning but it has no bearing as to what I myself am asserting. However, considering AstroMike's response, I wonder if anyone will take notice of that.

Squirm: I guess the point I am making is that if this were a simple training exercise then why such an emphasis on reduced gravity?

Jay: I like my answer best: not a lot of practical experience went into the performances in early Bond films.

That's certainly the easy answer. But I'm not so sure. I still find that bit where he attempts to block his escape quite odd and very possibly intentional. It's as though he was told to stay "in character".

You mentioned earlier that the astronauts ended up complaining as much of their training was performed publicly, to a larger or lesser extent. This whole sequence was far from public. Notice the sign on the security locked doors.

I guess we could argue what these scenes were meant to depict all day long. It just irritates me slightly when everybody instantly affirms the positive without giving any meaningful consideration.

Squirm: The whole scene depicts something more, if my honest opinion.

Jay: Well, in my honest opinion you're arguing as if you really, really want to believe this is a whistle-blow.

That is not the case, it really isn't. Read over my messages from the beginning. I just thought this scene was very interesting. I kind of knew there was no way of getting to the bottom of it all. What has kept this going is that what I just touched on a second ago: people jumping straight into defensive and scoff mode! When people start scoffing I feel the need to illustrate my case further still.

Jay: You're simply not thinking rationally. You're grasping at straws to reach the predetermined conclusion.

Codswallop!

Jay: As we've seen, the entire conspiracy theory phenomenon tends toward trying to tie together apparently unrelated events and causes with purely conjectural scenarios.

They are not always unrelated events, but often the ultimate theory is conjectural. Unless we are given access to secret (black) government files we can't prove anything.

Sigh.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Squirm on 2002-02-13 11:46 ]</font>