Part Three: THE NEED-TO-KNOW SCENARIO

Started by Robert Bruce, January 09, 2012, 04:41:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Robert Bruce

PART THREE: THE NEED-TO-KNOW SCENARIO

By now the reader will have accused us of straw man tactics in considering only the two improbable extremes, so we proceed to the middle of the road. Having shown that one extreme produces an unbelievably vast conspiracy, and the other produces no conspiracy at all, we examine a scenario in which only the people who really need to know are let in.

It comes down to whether one tells the contractors or not. If you leave the contractors out of the conspiracy, you get viable space hardware and therefore no real reason for a hoax. If you tell them, you get the big conspiracy with too many loose cannons.

Once you tell the contractors you bring in a whole lot of people. Each contractor has its own hierarchy of leadership and management and senior engineers who will have to be told. So that's, say, a hundred people at Boeing, a hundred people at Grumman, a hundred people at Douglas, a hundred people at North American, a hundred people at Lockheed, and so forth. Just deciding to inform the contractors (at least at the management level) adds several hundred people to the inner circle. That's one small step for NASA, one giant leap into chaos.

It can be argued that the average production line employee wouldn't know whether or not he was building real space hardware. They have a fairly limited field of view. But you can't as easily compartmentalize the engineers. Even the junior engineers in an aerospace venture require the big picture in order to do their work. Remember that you have to buy off enough of the work force in order to produce convincing hardware without producing working hardware.

In short, there is no middle of this road. Either you produce real hardware, or you have a very large conspiracy with no leaks after thirty years.

NASA knew more about the spacecraft than the contractors, so even if the contractors believed it would work, NASA knew it wouldn't.

That's a nice fairy tale, but that's absolutely not how it worked. NASA relied on experts from the industries that built its spacecraft to provide on-site advice and procedures.

The moral: if you want to perpetrate a hoax, don't have it catered.


Copyright www.clavius.org
Acknowledgement goes to clavius.org and I copy the Conspiracy Scale section here verbatum so as not to plagiarise. The Clavius site is a dream compendium of intelligent debunking of moon landing conspiracy theorists opinions. They debunk the conspiracists opinions that a giant hoax was perpetrated on the US citizens and the rest of the world. Please go there and read the site end to end. It will clarify any rash thought you might have about the 20th July 1969 and the following five moon landings being a hoax.
ROBERT BRUCE