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

Except that you're still trying to argue that Diamonds Are Forever contains a whistle-blow, and you seem oblivious to why it's not likely to be.

You're trying to borrow Percy's argument, and you seem oblivious to why it doesn't work in your case. To wit:

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?

Completely specious. The point is not whether they could or couldn't have insider information. The point is that you have to prove that they did have it. You can't assert your point on the basis that I can't disprove it.

Ian Fleming is widely known to have been involved in the intelligence community. His experience forms the knowledge base on which the Bond novels were written. Thus without needing to prove it, you or Percy can say it's plausible Fleming had some kind of inside knowledge.

Richard Maibaum is a screenwriter. It is not common knowledge whether he was an intelligence insider. It is likely that he was not, since nothing that is commonly known about him steers us in that direction. He may have been, but since your hypothesis is the one that rests on his being an insider, it's your responsibility to prove that he actually was. You can't simply assert it on the grounds that someone is unwilling or unable to prove that he wasn't an intelligence insider.

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.

No, you're misunderstanding me. Or perhaps we're misunderstanding each other.

I don't question the desire to undermine a coerced objective. In fact, my principal objection to the whistle-blower theory is based on that being a universal desire. So universal, in fact, that the people doing the coercing know about it and are watching for it.

What I question, then, is the assertion that the hypothetical Apollo whistle-blowers went ahead and did the obvious -- undermining the accuracy of the record by intentionally introducing flaws. What I argue to be an invention of the conspiracy theorists is the notion that such a well-known (albeit subtle) form of sabotage should actually be attempted.

The railway example doesn't really apply. You can't usually tell by looking that a bridge abutment is weak. In fact, testing construction is a hard thing to do. Lots of things look strong until x-rays of the welds or partial load tests prove otherwise. So the point you're alluding to -- the immediacy of punishment -- applies here. Once a train derailment had been attributed to poor construction, the workers would be long gone and untraceable.

Forging five-pound notes or Apollo photographs is purely a visual endeavor. And just as the people charged with forging the fivers knew that their sabotage could be easily detected by their captors, the hypothetical Apollo whistle-blowers would know that sabotaged photographs would be easily detected by those in charge of running the hoax. The immediacy of detection and punishment is assured. Plus, an Apollo hoax would not be a chaotic enterprise. Records would be kept of who did what.

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

The issue is not whether it was contemplated, but whether it was carried out. If it's unlikely that your subtle whistle-blowing will have any beneficial effect, but it places you in personal danger simply to attempt it, then efficiency is irrelevant. You're talking about mortal counterproductivity. You don't risk your life on a whim. Arguing that hundreds or thousands of people did just that is what makes the whistle-blower theory a figment of the conspiracy theorists' imagination.

It so squarely violates the rules of risk-benefit analysis that it's considered intuitively foolish. The consequences of failure are enormous, the likelihood of failure is great, and the probable benefit of success is very low.

I'm not Percy and I'm not interested in his entire hypothesis.

Then stop using his arguments. His arguments fit his conclusions, not yours.

Percy believes many insiders were actively encoding such messages for future generations to unravel. Whereas I do not.

What, exactly, then is your hypothesis? You seem to have developed a habit of making arguments that seem to go nowhere. Is it your hypothesis that this scene is the only whistle-blow? How many other alleged anomalies do you believe are whistle-blows?

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?

No, that is not the question. The question is whether these people had reason to believe their actions would have fatal consequences. Whether an execution occurs summarily or months hence is irrelevant. If people's actions are believed to be punished by death (immediate or otherwise), you must expect those people to behave as if that was their belief.

It is argued that the alleged whistle-blowers are still afraid today of behind killed for speaking out. Under that allegation, it makes no difference whether the alleged whistle-blowers believed the danger of death was immediate or deferred. The conspiracy theory says both apply.

If your argument differs then please clearly state it.

This also clearly distinguishes the railroad example from the Apollo whistle-blower theory. The conspiracy theory argues that the threat of punishment still exists for Apollo hoaxsters today. It does not exist for those who worked on the railroad, and likely stopped existing once they were moved to another project.

This clearly establishes different motives for the two groups of workers. The railroad workers could take an additional risk because they correctly believed the detection interval was short-lived. The conspiracy theory states that the detection interval for Apollo whistle-blowers is still in progress; they can still be caught and punished. You don't take a risk if you will spend the rest of your life fearing the consequences.

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.

No. If they could contact Percy now, they could have contacted Sen. Mondale or any of NASA's other powerful enemies back then. The entire basis of trying to explain alleged anomalies as whistle-blows is the notion that this was the only way they could get their message across. All other avenues were cut off by fear of death.

I can't believe you're so blindly devoted to Percy's way of thinking. You may reject various elements of his hypothesis, but you're falling into the same broad pitfalls of reason that he does.

It is no longer a matter of much debate whether Percy is a genuine researcher. His behavior during the past two years has clearly shown him to be a flim-flam man. His references to anonymous whistle-blowers whom he refuses to name, yet from whom he publishes testimony which appears to support his conclusion, are anonymous because they don't exist. In fact, David Percy has provided absolutely no evidence that any of his hypothetical whistle-blowers exists.

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?

To both, but since you say you're not defending Percy, it doesn't much matter why I say this. Instead of invoking Percy when he's convenient and running from him when he's inconvenient, you owe us a clear statement of your hypothesis. It's not enough to simply claim you don't subscribe to Percy.

I very much doubt they would be forced to do things at gun point.

But that brings up another material objection to the whistle-blower theory. We can gladly concede that someone might consider subtle sabotage. We might also consider that they'd be foolish enough to attempt it at the risk of getting caught and punished by death.

But how to go about doing it is a different matter. Many of these alleged whistle-blows would have occured on a stage filled with people. A potential whistle-blower won't know who's sympathetic to his ideals. He can't trust anyone else. Yet the whistle-blower theory says he was able to carry out his sabotage under just such circumstances.

As you say, codswollop.

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

Then before we go much further you need to write a nice long post telling us just what exactly your hypothesis is. If you keep referring to Percy's arguments, how else are we to know you're not subscribing to his conclusions?

Yes, it makes sense in this particular instance.

I don't buy your argument that the white fiver example is materially different from the alleged Apollo whistle-blowers. I don't buy your argument that the subverted railroad is materially similar to the alleged Apollo whistle-blowers.

why is he suddenly seen to be "larking about" if he manages to reveal and propagate the message of wrongdoing behind NASA's back?

I'm trying to understand your argument. You seem quite anxious to tell me what your argument isn't, but reluctant to tell me what it is.

You appear to be backing away from the notion that the alleged Apollo whistle-blowers were laboring under the threat of imminent death. If the threat didn't exist then the driving force behind the sabotage evaporates. If there is no express or implied consequence for spilling the beans, then a conscientious whistle-blower could just march up the hill and tell Congress, or get an appointment with Walter Cronkite.

Without the imminent threat of punishment there is no reason to subvert the hoax in the way it is claimed was done. Putting subtle "anomalies" into photographs would be just a diversion or a game, not a well-disguised cry for help.

What make no sense is your attempt to undermine my argument.

I am your opponent. It's my job to undermine your argument where I believe it to be logically flawed.

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 intentionally blurring nothing. You invoke Percy's evidence and it's only now after your indignant objection that we learn you don't subscribe to Percy's conclusions. It is not I who am deliberately confounding your argument, I believe it is you who are deliberately concealing it.

Just as with the moon rock argument on ApolloHoax, your conclusion seems to change with every post. Please just write a post that gives your argument. Then we won't have to irritate you by guessing at it.

Now I restate the question I asked, to which you responded with this dodge. Please explain how whistle-blowing of any type could occur in a well-funded, highly secure enterprise.

It's as though he was told to stay "in character".

Toward what end? What good would it do in any scenario to have the astronaut remain in character and pantomime reduced gravity? It's well established that the Bond films were poorly written, poorly directed, and poorly acted. The money went to build the sets.

You're affirming the consequent. You must deal with the notion that not everything an actor does is oriented toward the plot. It's more plausible to believe the actor was told once by the director that he was playing an astronaut in a simulation and that he should mimic reduced gravity. He may not have been directed to behave otherwise while reaching for Bond, so he followed the direction he'd been given. Movie directors don't always adjust every detail, especially in Bond films where other pressures apply.

This whole sequence was far from public. Notice the sign on the security locked doors.

Irrelevant. Actual Apollo training was well documented and thus familiar to audiences in 1971, which is likely why the scene was included -- eye candy to Apollo enthusiasts. If Broccoli wanted to depict a closed-set simulation contrary to NASA's practice, that's his business. You need to separate why things might have been done for film marketing purposes from why things might have been done for dramaturgical purposes.

I just thought this scene was very interesting.

But you've gone on at length to develop "interesting" into a whistle-blow.

They are not always unrelated events, but often the ultimate theory is conjectural.

Often? Try "always".

Unless we are given access to secret (black) government files we can't prove anything.

But conspiracy theorists don't generally do well with the facts that are already available. You can't build a case on selective examination of public information and then say that you can't be sure until you have access to more information. Deal first with all the information that's already available.

The complaint that confirmatory evidence isn't (and will never be) forthcoming is just a red herring to distract from a poor handling of the existing evidence.