Is it just me, or do the rest of the world regard James Bond films as being just a little bit tongue in cheek. 'My name is Pussy Galore'. 'I must be dreaming'. Little Nelly, Aston with ejector seat, underwated Lotus Esprit, Oddjob? It's all not a million miles from the Batman TV series. It's not meant to be taken too seriously. I find more anomolies in 'Kindergarten Cop'. No way would he be able to do what he does with that bunch of kids, they'd have eaten him. Still, it's good entertainment.
I'm surprised that no one has brought up the reference to the Moonlanding Hoax in 'Dragnet'. The character played by Dan Ackroyd says 'That's where they hoaxed the Apollo Moon landings'. A clear reference, in a film, to NASA's wrongdoing. Why isn't this mentioned in 'Dark Moon'?

johnwitts: Why isn't this mentioned in 'Dark Moon'?

Well, I have never heard that before because I have never seen Dragnet, and probably David Percy hasn't either. But if he had, of course he will make a big deal out of it.

__________________
~AstroMike

That was "Sneakers". Dan Akroyd said it in the movie, and he also was in a short-lived show called "The Psi Factor" about paranormal investigators. He was supposed to host a show called "Out There' on the Sci-Fi channel, but it was cancelled. It was a bit like Conspiracy Zone. One episode was going to be on the Moon Hoax, but alas.

Dan Aykroyd's character in Sneakers specifically mentions the moon landing hoax theory. Is this whistle-blowing? Of course not. Ayroyd and Sidney Poitier are the classic comedic diad in that film. It's a far more overt reference than in Diamonds, but in this case it's just part of the character.

I think we're expanding beyond the normal understanding of whistle-blowing. A whistle-blower is someone on the inside who has been entrusted with a secret, but who reveals it instead, ostensibly for ethical reasons. The sine qua non for a whistle-blower is that special, inside knowledge, not just what that person says. Someone who merely makes a reference but has no demonstrable "insider" knowledge is not a whistle-blower.

I believe Diamonds Are Forever is not a reference to the moon hoax theory. But it doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. There is no evidence that the creator of that scene could have had any inside knowledge. That kills the hypothesis right there. Ian Fleming is a plausible whistle-blower at prima facie. Richard Maibaum is not. Therefore there is no whistle-blow. Full stop.

All we have is an ambiguous scene in a somewhat campy film written by an unremarkable Hollywood screenwriter during the height of Apollo popularity three years before the first published moon hoax book. It's not clear that this scene even refers to the moon hoax theory, much less is trying to expose it. The holes in this hypothesis are big enough to fly a space shuttle through.

"The holes in this hypothesis are big enough to fly a space shuttle through."

Ah but not for a committed HB. The "holes" are just a smokescreen created by a bunch of NASA stooges. Haven't you been paying attention, Jay? It's just not helpful when you keep hauling out facts - like Ian Fleming's death in 1964 - that are inconsistent with a big conspiracy (so big in fact that virtually everyone is in on it except a small portion of the American public).
So lets see - the Russians are in on it, as are a bunch of Hollywood screenwriters and producers , Disney, Kubrick, a good portion of the world's geologists, probably the Japanese (got them in line for Selene), the aerospace industry, Congress, the Senate, astronauats, NASA ground employees, amateur and professional astronomers the world over, etc etc.
It seems there are only a few of us left that weren't part of the conspiracy. I have to wonder why I'm being kept in the dark. What harm does NASA, or the US government think I could cause by being included with the other billion or so who were part of pulling this off?

Now that's funny. Could we just get the short list of the few people who were not involved?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Squirm on 2002-02-13 11:30 ]</font>

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>

Sure.

1) The person who refers to him/herself as "SeeThruArt"
2) Art Bell
3) The producers at FOX
4) The myriad HBers who go forth everyday to "show the TRUTH(TM)" Much like Miss Cleo.

__________________
Valiant Dancer

I am not now, nor have I ever been, involved with any government conspiracy. Nor do I have any knowledge of such conspiracy, other than that publicly available, and if I did have knowledge that is not publicly available I would not be at liberty to discuss it.

I don't think any of us jumped into scoff mode immediately. We gave the idea that this scene could be a subtle whistle-blow the .05 seconds of consideration it deserved, then we carefully and rationally entered scoff mode. Just to make sure I'm following things here: We are in fact talking about a James Bond movie, right?! This whole argument seems like that game in which one connects Kevin Bacon to anybody through a maximum of seven people. Screenwriter X worked for Producer Y who knew Ian Fleming who worked for Mr. Z at MI6 who worked with Dr. N at NASA who was involved with the Apollo program. By this sort of logic any one of us could easily claim to be within the direct line of succession to several European monarchies.

Donnie B: Come on, Squirm, it's only a movie!

Yes, it's only a movie. But please understand that my current conclusion isn't based on a single questionable scene in a James Bond movie.

Jay: There is no evidence that the creator of that scene could have had any inside knowledge. That kills the hypothesis right there.

But have we even looked for suitable evidence? Do we even know what sort of acquaintances the author had?

Jay: Ian Fleming is a plausible whistle-blower at prima facie. Richard Maibaum is not. Therefore there is no whistle-blow. Full stop.

Have you received a responce from Richard Maibaum? Your unequivocal statement would seem to suggest so.

Squirm, I'm somewhat disappointed. It seems you're trying to defend the whistle-blower hypothesis, but not defending Percy's. Once again, I don't think you have been paying attention on why the whistle-blower theory simply doesn't work.

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

Unfortunately, it's a figment of Percy's imagination, which he concocted to seem more plausible, but it doesn't work in the real world. NASA is highly secured, and that thousands of breaches of security doesn't seem plausible. So, as of Jay pointed out, the whistle-blower theory doesn't really change anything. The basic assumption is still that NASA is very careless and lazy.
Other conspiracy theorists such as Bill Kaysing and Bart Sibrel don't believe in the whistle-blower theory.

__________________
~AstroMike

Ok, the film was 'Sneakers'. They both had Dan Ackroyd in didn't they? That's quite good for me! Thanks for the correction. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Isn't there a Moon scene in Superman, where one of the Astroactors gets kicked into orbit? Is this an intentional Whistle-Blow?

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.

But have we even looked for suitable evidence?

Who's "we"? You're the one making the argument, therefore it's up to you to prove Richard Maibaum had the kind of inside knowledge that would make him a whistle-blower.

Do we even know what sort of acquaintances the author had?

No, and that's precisely why your argument fails. We know what kind of acquaintances Ian Fleming had: his colleagues in the intelligence trade. The same argument will work for Maibaum if you can show that he had similar colleagues. But you can't simply co-opt the Fleming argument and make it work for Maibaum without establishing for Maibaum the things that make it work for Fleming.

Have you received a responce from Richard Maibaum?

Of course not. He died in the mid 1990s and I don't trust seances.

But I find it disappointing that you didn't seem interested in finding Maibaum's co-writer and trying to get the story from him. That's what I'm doing. That's what you should be doing.

I can't stress enough that if you want it to believed that Richard Maibaum had the same kind of intelligence contacts that Fleming had, it's your responsibility to prove it, not our responsibility to prove he did not. (In fact, it cannot be proved that he did not.)

Your unequivocal statement would seem to suggest so.

My statement was not unequivocal. It was qualified with "prima facie", meaning that I can accept it as plausible -- without examining additional evidence -- that Fleming had insider intelligence information. I know he worked in the intelligence trade and maintained his contacts there throughout his life. Since I have no such information for Maibaum I cannot accept it as plausible -- without additional evidence -- that he too was an intelligence insider. I know that Maibaum worked as a screenwriter. There is no natural connection between screenwriting and intelligence.

Far from being unequivocal, my statement correctly identified the difference between the insider argument applied to Fleming and the same argument aplied to Maibaum.

It now falls to you to prove the proposition that Richard Maibaum likely had, or actually had (not simply may have had) insider intelligence information that would have made him a genuine whistle-blower.