Wikipedia does not use primary sources, only secondary sources. Yes, I know. This puts them at risk of repeating gossip, but it also takes them out of the realm of interpreting primary sources. They need only to repeat what secondary sources have written to avoid this trouble.
Wikipedia lies about whatever suits their fascist agenda. Find some of the bios of the doctors of integrity on the Wayback Machine from pre-March 2020 vs. today. The differences are stark. They are clearly a propaganda arm of government.
The problem I have with the 9/11 truther movement is that some fraction of whatever compendium of "evidence" is being presented will align with my professional experience, and I will not see anything suspicious in the facts presented. For example, I fully believe, based on my field of experience, that someone with simulator and general aviation flight experience would be capable of piloting an airliner into a large building.
Too many threads and red herrings. I do think there are "conspiracies" behind 9/11. Primarily regarding who knew what, when, and why they did or did not do anything with that knowledge. But a lot of these little "nuggets" people latch onto seem to be dead ends, and should be retired, pending further evidence.
That still leaves out the destruction of the buildings, including 7, and associated video evidence including first responder descriptions of explosions. In the mainstream narrative there is sort of this idea that destroying the buildings was the goal. But this wouldn't make sense, that isn't what should have occurred and so isn't what would have been expected or planned. So you wonder why such a weird choice of a plot, fly into these two buildings (without expectation of total destruction), why not just crash into any random civilian urban area really. But fly planes into the buildings and then destroy the buildings, then the need and choice to fly into the buildings makes an amount of sense.
You are all over the place, which is refreshing. I think I have given you a compliment on that in other articles as well.
As for NASA, they lied about the manned moon missions (1,2) or any manned missions beyond low earth orbit. I think that if you are capable of pulling such a huge lie, you are also capable for many smaller ones..
After that is all smoke and mirrors but yes well done for catching them on this little detail.
Unlike most admirers of vintage NASA tech, I fully support moon skepticism, whether in seriousness or sport. And the silence on Johnson shows how empty the "conspiracies can't happen" argument is.
However, that said, I am now on Team Was Real and probably will remain there, having finally found footage of an astronaut dropping something which makes it easy to match for non-Earth gravity. This still makes problems with the photographic evidence very interesting to ponder and try to solve.
Moon landing skepticism is kooky, given the corner reflectors that were left on the moon. Possibly humans did not land on the moon, but it's impossible to claim that a human artifact did not enter moon orbit.
Lasers were successfully reflected from the moon in advance of Apollo - one of the many salient points raised in Mazzucco's American Moon, which is both erudite and entertaining even if wrong https://youtu.be/KpuKu3F0BvY?si=zSUqHHDMMnUaZTo8&t=2530
The moon can reflect light, so of course it can reflect lasers. The LM guidance system depended on laser telemetry to track the surface - obviously without any "reflectors" placed in advance. The eventual placement of reflectors is perhaps still reasonable for tagging landing sites but to a certain extent, a lot of the junk taken up and left on the moon to fulfill scientific "missions" seems like make-work as far as I can tell.
I have never seen the movie or read the book, so had only a cursory understanding of the story being told. After the last few years it seems obvious to me that we need to approach most claims we hear about anything with skepticism, but I don't see how we can possibly have the time & energy to fact-check everything. It's a depressing thought.
Sounds like Hidden Figures is what Shelby Steele coined, a "poetic truth".
Indeed - which is fine, "false but true" history is something that makes cultures function. It's just a weird facet of the anglo-American culture that we never write that history ourself, we always let outsider groups do it.
Thank goodness for brave souls and intellects like Charles Murray, and for your solid exposition. I’d read about the many “human computers” years before Hidden Figures came out and was shocked to learn it centered on only one, as if she were, as you said--Prometheus.
Thanks for this piece — I found it fascinating on multiple levels. I had always thought the Katherine Johnson legend was overhyped, but harmless: if it encourages others, I thought, so why not? But I prefer the truth more these days. She did good work, but so did many others. When a woman I knew got the Nobel Prize and I could see that there others doing equally significant work along the same lines, in my own mind I now see that all such prizes for women and minorities now comes with an asterisk.
I worked as a satellite systems engineer, MSEE from Caltech, etc. etc. My late husband, Harold Rosen, is known as “the father of the geostationary satellite.” So my work history is steeped in NASA lore and stories. Thanks again for this informative piece of investigative work.
Wikipedia does not use primary sources, only secondary sources. Yes, I know. This puts them at risk of repeating gossip, but it also takes them out of the realm of interpreting primary sources. They need only to repeat what secondary sources have written to avoid this trouble.
Wikipedia lies about whatever suits their fascist agenda. Find some of the bios of the doctors of integrity on the Wayback Machine from pre-March 2020 vs. today. The differences are stark. They are clearly a propaganda arm of government.
The problem I have with the 9/11 truther movement is that some fraction of whatever compendium of "evidence" is being presented will align with my professional experience, and I will not see anything suspicious in the facts presented. For example, I fully believe, based on my field of experience, that someone with simulator and general aviation flight experience would be capable of piloting an airliner into a large building.
Too many threads and red herrings. I do think there are "conspiracies" behind 9/11. Primarily regarding who knew what, when, and why they did or did not do anything with that knowledge. But a lot of these little "nuggets" people latch onto seem to be dead ends, and should be retired, pending further evidence.
Presumably for the other post -
That still leaves out the destruction of the buildings, including 7, and associated video evidence including first responder descriptions of explosions. In the mainstream narrative there is sort of this idea that destroying the buildings was the goal. But this wouldn't make sense, that isn't what should have occurred and so isn't what would have been expected or planned. So you wonder why such a weird choice of a plot, fly into these two buildings (without expectation of total destruction), why not just crash into any random civilian urban area really. But fly planes into the buildings and then destroy the buildings, then the need and choice to fly into the buildings makes an amount of sense.
You are all over the place, which is refreshing. I think I have given you a compliment on that in other articles as well.
As for NASA, they lied about the manned moon missions (1,2) or any manned missions beyond low earth orbit. I think that if you are capable of pulling such a huge lie, you are also capable for many smaller ones..
After that is all smoke and mirrors but yes well done for catching them on this little detail.
(1) https://www.aulis.com/lbjmooned.htm
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpuKu3F0BvY "Am.Moon"
Unlike most admirers of vintage NASA tech, I fully support moon skepticism, whether in seriousness or sport. And the silence on Johnson shows how empty the "conspiracies can't happen" argument is.
However, that said, I am now on Team Was Real and probably will remain there, having finally found footage of an astronaut dropping something which makes it easy to match for non-Earth gravity. This still makes problems with the photographic evidence very interesting to ponder and try to solve.
Moon landing skepticism is kooky, given the corner reflectors that were left on the moon. Possibly humans did not land on the moon, but it's impossible to claim that a human artifact did not enter moon orbit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the_Moon
Lasers were successfully reflected from the moon in advance of Apollo - one of the many salient points raised in Mazzucco's American Moon, which is both erudite and entertaining even if wrong https://youtu.be/KpuKu3F0BvY?si=zSUqHHDMMnUaZTo8&t=2530
The moon can reflect light, so of course it can reflect lasers. The LM guidance system depended on laser telemetry to track the surface - obviously without any "reflectors" placed in advance. The eventual placement of reflectors is perhaps still reasonable for tagging landing sites but to a certain extent, a lot of the junk taken up and left on the moon to fulfill scientific "missions" seems like make-work as far as I can tell.
I have never seen the movie or read the book, so had only a cursory understanding of the story being told. After the last few years it seems obvious to me that we need to approach most claims we hear about anything with skepticism, but I don't see how we can possibly have the time & energy to fact-check everything. It's a depressing thought.
Sounds like Hidden Figures is what Shelby Steele coined, a "poetic truth".
Indeed - which is fine, "false but true" history is something that makes cultures function. It's just a weird facet of the anglo-American culture that we never write that history ourself, we always let outsider groups do it.
One wonders how the Russians did it.
Thank goodness for brave souls and intellects like Charles Murray, and for your solid exposition. I’d read about the many “human computers” years before Hidden Figures came out and was shocked to learn it centered on only one, as if she were, as you said--Prometheus.
Thanks for this piece — I found it fascinating on multiple levels. I had always thought the Katherine Johnson legend was overhyped, but harmless: if it encourages others, I thought, so why not? But I prefer the truth more these days. She did good work, but so did many others. When a woman I knew got the Nobel Prize and I could see that there others doing equally significant work along the same lines, in my own mind I now see that all such prizes for women and minorities now comes with an asterisk.
I worked as a satellite systems engineer, MSEE from Caltech, etc. etc. My late husband, Harold Rosen, is known as “the father of the geostationary satellite.” So my work history is steeped in NASA lore and stories. Thanks again for this informative piece of investigative work.
Deborah, Gosh, you should write your memories about Rosen Motors--your husband and his brother were my heroes back then!
NASA is always a story teller. Artists were engaged from day 1 to illustrate their stories.
Lots of folk working on hot air balloon satellites and such
No space exploration
Bubbles in space - black deep water pools - Astro NOTs almost drowning