Where's Cassandra When You Need Her?

That woman should not have given up blogging. She'd be having a field day with this.
The life of Armstrong stands in such fascinating tension with the way people have imagined the moon in the past. The moon was feminine, overwhelmingly powerful, and a vast imaginary expanse where anything might be possible—he trod on it.
We lost a lot when she decided to pursue a more private life.


Texan99 said...

Did we ever! Please come back, Cassandra!

David Foster said...

Yes! The world needs Cassandra back!

Assistant Village Idiot said...

CS Lewis predicted that if we landed on the moon it would then lose its romance. That doesn't seem like a crazy prediction, but I don't think it has turned out to be true.

ymarsakar said...

Apollo astronauts brought special 70-millimeter cameras with Zeiss lenses and super-thin Kodak film, which was later processed in Rochester, New York, the site of Kodak’s headquarters.

Those Hasslebach cameras that could apparently work using 1960s technology in temperature differences of -200 to 200 F.

The moon landing video itself is unimpressive when you see it played on a loop across on a vintage monitor in a museum: grainy, short, confusingly mixed with CBS animations.

That's because the news agencies were not given the direct feed but it was projected on a screen and then the news agencies recorded off the screen, creating a static overlay that is overlapped with another static overlay of normal television broadcast. This was to simulate the effect of broadcast distortion over 240,000 miles. Of course, 21st century techonlogy can't even beam a wifi live stream broadcast without a relay every couple of dozen miles. We call this the 4g Wifi network via cell towers. The story is that they could do it using magically destroyed NSA 1960s tech, livestreaming from the moon. They did not record it on the moon and bring it back. They livestreamed it and broadcast it from the moon, to NASA, and NASA recorded it and put it up on a screen for the news to watch.

The original NASA recordings, the ones they failed to destroy along with the telemetry data, shows far more high definition details. Those details would cause problems later on after the common man learned how to use photoshop to differentiate artifacts and other issues.

The iconic photographs, 1968’s Earthrise and 1972’s Blue Marble (reportedly the most widely reproduced photograph ever taken),

It took them until the 21st century to take a second "picture" of the Earth after the "Blue Marble". Think about that for a minute. More than 2 decades passed before they decided they needed another picture.

Space is not a vacuum, it is a liquid. And the moon is apparently still in Earth's atmosphere. So either NASA has not bothered to do the basic scientific experiments needed on outer space's vacuum or... there's a reason why they do all "vacuum" spacesuit tests in an underwater pool. And there is no vacuum chamber spacesuit test video. They didn't need to delete those, because they never had them.

As for Armstrong, he had an interesting quote. "One of truth's protective layers" that must be removed for the future generations to see. Exactly what is protecting the truth at some graduation ceremony?

The moon is not what they told you it was and space isn't either. Nor is dark matter energy and gravity. Humanity is essentially 100% wrong and going for broke after woke.

ymarsakar said...


SOMEWHERE or other—I think it is in the preface to Saint Joan—Bernard Shaw remarks that we are more gullible and superstitious today than we were in the Middle Ages, and as an example of modern credulity he cites the widespread belief that the earth is round. The average man, says Shaw, can advance not a single reason for thinking that the earth is round. He merely swallows this theory because there is something about it that appeals to the twentieth-century mentality.

Now, Shaw is exaggerating, but there is something in what he says, and the question is worth following up, for the sake of the light it throws on modern knowledge. Just why do we believe that the earth is round? I am not speaking of the few thousand astronomers, geographers and so forth who could give ocular proof, or have a theoretical knowledge of the proof, but of the ordinary newspaper-reading citizen, such as you or me.

As for the Flat Earth theory, I believe I could refute it. If you stand by the seashore on a clear day, you can see the masts and funnels of invisible ships passing along the horizons. This phenomenon can only be explained by assuming that the earth’s surface is curved. But it does not follow that the earth is spherical. Imagine another theory called the Oval Earth theory, which claims that the earth is shaped like an egg. What can I say against it?

Against the Oval Earth man, the first card I can play is the analogy of the sun and moon. The Oval Earth man promptly answers that I don’t know, by my own observation, that those bodies are spherical. I only know that they are round, and they may perfectly well be flat discs. I have no answer to that one. Besides, he goes on, what reason have I for thinking that the earth must be the same shape as the sun and moon? I can’t answer that one either.

-the less popular side of Orwell

People tend to think of 1984 when they see Orwell, but that's not the only thing he was capable of grasping.