Whistle Blowers

[torque of the town]

Watching a TV program in the UK called whistle blower about the shady goings on in large UK bank.

It occurred to me (yet again)that if the Apollo project was a hoax it would have involved a multitude of people.

Do the conspiracy theorist really think in all that time since, no one would have blown the whistle? for monetary gain or otherwise.

David

[Maksutov]

Whistle blowers pay an important role in keeping, as we used to say in American industry, production, et al, "honest"*. As a result, American industrial leaders have done their best to discredit whistle blowers. In many cases, it has gone beyond discredit, and into the realm of dismissal, attacks, and worse.

In spite of this, informed whistle blowers still perform their ethical duties.

It's informative and quite educational how all the Apollo "whistle blowers" have had no direct involvement with the lunar program.


*Note: the version I've always used is "Keeping [fill in the department's name] accountable". It's a much more positive approach than the old cliché, and avoids the usual comeback of "What, do you think I'm being dishonest?" or "Are you calling me a liar?" Instead, it's hard for competent professionals to complain about being held accountable for their work.

[Damien Evans]

For me it seems to show the lack of common sense among hoax believers, the fact that that many people were involved and so long a time has elapsed without any whistleblowing is in itself compelling evidence FOR Apollo having happened.

Anyway, thats my 2 cents worth

[JayUtah]

David Percy and Mary Bennett say they have whistle-blowers, but that's only because they define whistle-blower to fit what they think or say they have.

I think of a whistle-blower as a clearly-identified person who is known to have been associated with some activity, and who gives personal testimony in public, and possibly supplies corroboratory physical evidence. Whistle-blowers open issues widely and suddenly.

In one category, Percy calls people like Bill Woods whistle-blowers: people who were not Apollo insiders. He also calls other conspiracy theorists whistle-blowers, as if other ignorant accusations qualify.

His other category are the mythical whistle-blowers responsible for the anomalies in the photographs and video. There's no evidence any such people exist. And since the anomalies generally boil down Percy's ignorance of light and shadow, it's hard to argue that they need to exist.

[torque of the town]

Ah yes! the mythical whistle blower, aren't they a bit like the ghostly apparitions in the TV program Most Haunted they only ever show themselves during the add break and the camera crew is invariably to traumatized to record the incident

The gullibility of Joe Public is beyond reproach......



David

[JayUtah]

David Percy's anonymous whistle-blowers seem to have all the properties necessary to fit Percy's claims exactly, but none of the properties that would allow any one else to test the claim. It's like the invisible witness in court that only one attorney can hear.

So in Percy's material we have people like Bill Wood(s), a name so common there are actually two of them in Percy alone (although the other is demonstrably real and has lambasted Percy). This guy apparently collects college degrees in difficult subjects the way some people collect DVDs. He even headed up ASME's propulsion group (I checked; nope). And he worked on many, many rocket projects -- except they're all classified and he can't tell us about them. Of course. And this heaven-sent gift to rocketry whom nobody's heard of tells us the F-1 rocket engine exhaust just looks wrong. He specifically agrees with Bill Kaysing. (How many real rocket scientists know who Kaysing is, or care?) So after this highly-qualified semi-anonymous rocket scientist gives his damning evidence, he suddenly develops a medical condition that prevents him from speaking.

And we have people like Una Ronald (which Percy admits is a pseudonym). Her alleged whistle-blowing story has her watching TV at the wrong time of day, seeing letters in newspapers that the newspapers themselves can't find in their archives, and conveniently corroborating a known-wrong story about how the Australians watched the moon landings. Una Ronald is everything Percy needs. And strangely when we first questioned the Una Ronald story, Percy was somehow able to go back and get additional information from her to address our concerns. How convenient! But are we allowed to see Una Ronald, know her real name, and interview her to test her story? Of course not, for that would compromise her safety. So that's why Percy doesn't disguise her appearance or voice on his video?

The whistle-blower's most powerful tool is his identity. It's the key to his authority. I compare Percy's whistle-blowers to, say, the tobacco industry whistle-blowers. Those were people known to have been associated with the tobacco companies; their pictures are in annual reports, etc. There are other whistle-blowers I know of who spoke out about aerospace safety. They say the same thing, "If you're going to blow the whistle, be prepared to look for a new line of work for no company will hire you in that industry." Roger Boisjoly, for example, lectures on engineering ethics; he no longer builds rocket boosters.

And that brings us to Percy's alleged insiders who cleverly doctored photos or performed studio shenanigans. According to him, these guys left us "subtle clues" tp the true nature of the Apollo record in the form of misaligned shadows, duplicate lights, and other discernible anomalies that we were supposed to find later.

If identity is a whistle-blower's sword, then publicity is his shield. Going public effectively prevents the people on whom he's blowing the whistle from exercising reprisal with impunity.

Is that what Percy's whistle-blowers do? We have to ask why they didn't just write a letter to the Washington Post or contact a foreign government or do any of the other things whistle-blowers normally do to find safe harbor. But Percy's whistle-blowers were being constantly watched. And the danger to their lives was just too great.

Um, right. So these guys in mortal peril and under constant surveillance take steps to undermine and subvert the process, putting in extra lights and generally doing things that would be very noticeable at the time. Keep in mind that according to Percy these guys would be eliminated if they got caught. So Percy's mythical whistle-blowers follow the stupidest possible course of action under those circumstances: they undertake sabotage, but without reaching for the safety of publicity. Instead of leaving huge clues that would tip off the world, they leave subtle clues that may not ever be discovered -- or worse, be discovered by that ruthless, constant surveillance before the public ever saw it. Even now these anomalies don't seem to be visible to the world's recognized experts in image analysis; they're visible only to that select handful of untrained, unknown people.

Can Percy give the name of even one such monumentally stupid whistle-blower? Nope. It's simply what "must" be true in order for Percy's book and video to sell.

[Maksutov]

[edit]Roger Boisjoly, for example, lectures on engineering ethics; he no longer builds rocket boosters....

Thanks for mentioning one of my favorite people.

I think it's a good thing that the company I worked for in the 1980s had a policy of taking "whistle blowing" seriously. As a result, such problems were identified and corrected internally.

Of course, having DCAS looking over everyone's shoulders helped a bit there. But, no one directly involved with the designs, processes, and products was ever allowed to forget how much was at stake. If the sub's power unit failed, well, ...that was an unacceptable scenario. We made sure it would always work.

Maybe Morton should have stuck with salt.

[nomuse]

Actually...

This technique by the hypothetical whistle blowers is an effective solution within the constraints of conspiracy-land.

You see, one of the basic tenants of the conspiracy believer is that "the average guy" (defined as essentially a bright inquisitive person who just happens to like going over old photographs or other historical records) is by their very nature able to see things that the established investigators (hampered as they are both by a cloistered world-view and a need to conform to the establish beliefs of their professions), can not.

Now, add to this that the powers-that-be have fingers everywhere, that all ordinary news outlets foreign and domestic are controlled, and every movement is captured by hidden cameras, this communication by subtle signs is the only safe way to operate. Anything else would be quickly covered up or spun.


You see exactly the same pattern in that 9-11 nonsense (that thankfully we no longer have to deal with on this board.)

[torque of the town]

^^^^^^^^^


A very accurate analogy old chap.



David

[JayUtah]

This technique by the hypothetical whistle blowers is an effective solution within the constraints of conspiracy-land.

...which doesn't necessary bear any resemblance to real life.

..."the average guy" ...is by their very nature able to see things that the established investigators ...can not.

In other words, the standard substitution of presumed trustworthiness in place of expertise. It doesn't matter whether you've studied the sciences involved as long as you have the appropriate biases. As long as someone is appropriately skeptical of the person who publishes photos, it doesn't matter whether he has any training in optics or the mathematics of projective geometry -- he's naturally going to be a better photo interpreter than all of those trained experts who studied at government-controlled institutions.

Average guys like David Percy and Bart Sibrel have to invent ad hoc methods of analysis to give their claims a superficial semblance of rigor. "This is the way the real world works," they say. "And since Apollo photos don't obey those rules, they can't have arisen in the real world." The punchline is when other average guys go forth in droves with their cameras and take plenty of real-world photographs that happily and consistently break the simplistic rules the conspiracists offer to explain the universe.

That's why I like to take the average-guy approach at Clavius as well as the theoretical approach where possible. "The world is thus," says Percy. "No it ain't," says I, "And here's the photo to prove it as well as instructions for duplicating it yourself." But then I go on and say, "Here's why the world isn't thus." I've found that different readers connect with different kinds of explanations.

Now, add to this that the powers-that-be have fingers everywhere, that all ordinary news outlets foreign and domestic are controlled, and every movement is captured by hidden cameras, this communication by subtle signs is the only safe way to operate.

In other words, the standard hair-split where conditions are just lenient enough to allow conspiracy theorists to make a semi-credible accusation and sell it for profit or get on Art Bell, but not lenient enough to allow a critic to falsify it.

I can't interview Una Ronald, I'm told, because I might be some Gubmint agent who's gonna slip something nasty into her tea. But of course this supposedly omnipotent Gubmint with its omniscient hidden cameras and Seekert Ag'nts can't track Una Ronald down by virtue of David Percy having plastered her face all over the semi-civilized world in What Happened on the Moon? Percy's policy doesn't do much to keep Una Ronald's enemies from finding out who she might be, but they do a remarkable job of keeping David Percy's enemies from finding that out.

And you'd think the Gubmint would learn. If all its deep, dark secrets keep getting found out by your average joe, you'd think it would come to the conclusion that its secret-keeping ability wasn't very good. And you'd think it would take steps to fix that. Instead of all those highly-trained people trying to keep tabs on everything, why don't they hire some average joes, since they're so good at it? For being so powerful and omniscient, the Gubmint sure ain't very smart.

You see exactly the same pattern in that 9-11 nonsense...

And in every other fringe theory.

[CJSF]

That's why I like to take the average-guy approach at Clavius...

Jay, I LOVE Clavius; however, I have shown some people I know at work (both at my last job and at my current job), and they find it VERY dry. I think your language and presentation (especially relating to logic and debate) are not "average-guy" at all. That's not necessarily BAD, but I can see where some people just can't "keep up."

CJSF

P.S
Help! I think my posts are starting to mutate into R.A.F.-like or Zaphod-like strucutres!!

[Sticks]

Sorry but "whistle blowers" are those who betray confidences and their fellow co-workers instead of going through the proper procedures if there is something they believe is a miss.

Why do they do it?- Who knows
Ego ?- "hey I blew the lid on tanks that have a slight defect in the aiming system - I am such a great guy"
Book deals?

In order for certain organisations to function we need some level of confidentiality, discretion and restraint. As a serving civil servant I am expected to and keep to these rules, something so called "Whistle blowers" do not believe applies to them.

[nomuse]

Ow, Jay. Your expansion was so much clearer and better written than my original essay!

[CJSF]

Sorry but "whistle blowers" are those who betray confidences and their fellow co-workers instead of going through the proper procedures if there is something they believe is a miss.

Why do they do it?- Who knows
Ego ?- "hey I blew the lid on tanks that have a slight defect in the aiming system - I am such a great guy"
Book deals?

In order for certain organisations to function we need some level of confidentiality, discretion and restraint. As a serving civil servant I am expected to and keep to these rules, something so called "Whistle blowers" do not believe applies to them.

Hmm... I've always thought whistle-blowers were whistle-blowers specifically becasue the "proper channels" were unresponsive or downright hostile.

CJSF

[Donnie B.]

I think I've found the rhyming couplet I was looking for to close the first act of my forthcoming play:

No matter whether you've studied the sciences,
Long as you have the appropriate biases.


Thanks, Jay... yet another memorable coining.

[nomuse]

It does have an almost elegant simplicity to it; expertise is defined by whether they agree with you.

But I think there is just a little, in the conspiracy circles, of the same idea Hollywood is so fond of; that the "average guy"/viewer stand-in can skip all that tedious work involved in becoming a professional, and come up with better solutions to problems through basic intuition and common sense.

(Sometimes in movies this takes the form of some inane comment by the current love interest that gives the hero a needed insight into a thorny problem of theoretical physics. You know, I'd love to see this one played out in a medical drama some time; "But of course! 'Blood is red' -- the patient has Klienberger's Syndrome! Thank you, little boy! I'd never have understood what the MRI was showing without your comment.")

[JayUtah]

I think your language and presentation (especially relating to logic and debate) are not "average-guy" at all.

You may understand something different by average guy that what I'm thinking of. The average-guy response I'm thinking of is a simple empirical refutation as opposed to a discussion of the whys and wherefores. It's a question of approach -- both can be written poorly or dryly.

[nomuse]

I'd say it is the division between the illusion of the "Average Guy" (the Hollywood hero who triumphs through sheer intuition and so-called "common sense") and the reality of the average person, whom Jay credits with being able to use and appreciate logic (and perhaps a high-school understanding of basic science).

I see this as being a basic division in the forms of argument where conspiracy and hoax theories are debated. On the one side, "It is obvious to anyone who looks at it...."; on the other side "Here is how basic photogrammatry is done..."

One side makes an emotional call to gut feelings and naive intuition, the other lays out a framework for logical analysis of claim and evidence. Both _claim_ to be best able to speak to the "average guy."

(And I hope I am not alone in finding the latter approach, Jay's approach, uplifting, and the former -- the conspiracy believer's -- insulting.)

[JayUtah]

Sorry but "whistle blowers" are those who betray confidences and their fellow co-workers instead of going through the proper procedures if there is something they believe is a miss.

I didn't mean to imply that all whistle-blowing is morally justified. Certainly confidentiality must be maintained in order to retain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. But not all things held in confidence are ethically or legally justified.

The example I gave above was of the tobacco executives who blew the whistle on what tobacco companies knew about the harmful effects of tobacco. In that case there were no proper procedures, and the company's behavior was immoral. Whistle-blowing in that case is probably justified ethically.

A counter example might be Thomas Baron. He went public about what he felt were unsafe practices in Apollo manufacture after he felt he had exhausted his avenues within the company structure. Unfortunately a significant portion of what Baron identified was simply his displeasure with the company, some hearsay he had picked up, and his personal intolerance of certain behavior.

[CJSF]

I simply meant that most "average guys" I know think Jay's use of language and technical knowledge are a hard read, obviously done by someone with a much higher educational level than they have, and not geared toward themselves. We can debate on whether we think that's "sad" or what-not (I think it is), but that's what my experience has been.

Again, I can't stress enough that I love Clavius and find that reading Jay's posts to among the highlights in my otherwise boring and sometime stressful days.

CJSF

[JayUtah]

I simply meant that most "average guys" I know think Jay's use of language and technical knowledge are a hard read...

And I think that's probably valid criticism.

[Gillianren]

Hmm... I've always thought whistle-blowers were whistle-blowers specifically becasue the "proper channels" were unresponsive or downright hostile.

Quite frequently, yes. And most of them lose their jobs and are unable to get others in their field after--and very, very few end up with lucrative book deals.

[Serenitude]

In Jay's defense, you have to be willing to either be educated by the site or educate yourself enough to understand a 'basic' telling. The 'average' person possesing either quality perusing Jay's site (myself, for instance) can find it enormously informing.

If you stumble upon it from reading your best freind's myspace page, and aren't interested in astronomy in particular or Apollo in general, the 'average' person is going to find it a dry and boring read. You simply can't please everyone.

[torque of the town]

Hmm... I've always thought whistle-blowers were whistle-blowers specifically becasue the "proper channels" were unresponsive or downright hostile.

CJSF

I believe the case of Dr David Kelly supports your observation perfectly.

[JayUtah]

In Jay's defense, you have to be willing to either be educated by the site or educate yourself enough to understand a 'basic' telling.

There's a reason it was the site of the week in Science and not in Vogue. However, I didn't take Christopher's comment in a way that particularly needed a defense. Writing on scientific topics for a general audience is difficult, and Clavius' dryness has been a common criticism for years.

Some of the pages show signs of my revisions aimed at making the site more accessible to average people. Others, sadly, are still long stretches of unbroken textual explanation that frankly bore even me.

Yes, there are specialized topics at Clavius that require you to understand some principles of rocket science. And I have firmly argued for years that any reasonably inquisitive, intelligent layman can be taught enough rocket science to determine for himself whether Apollo was real. That doesn't mean I'm doing a good job at it.

[captain swoop]

I believe the case of Dr David Kelly supports your observation perfectly.

well at the riusk of straying into politics he was set up by the BBC.

no more comments

[torque of the town]

well at the riusk of straying into politics he was set up by the BBC.

no more comments

DITTO

[BigDon]

Okay Brits, who was Dr. Kelly and what did he do?

[Skyfire]

I suggest you google him up to find out, but to start you off here is a BBC report on him:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3076869.stm

This subject verges on politics so is probably not appropriate here.

[BigDon]

Thanks Skyfire.