Was Joseph Fielding Smith wrong about the Moon and Space?

[Mahonri]

I don't see anything on those pictures

[larsenb]

I guess I should weigh in on this. Was trying to ignore it, but it's my birthday and have some free time. Also, just got really good news regarding an operation my son underwent a week ago, so I'm in an expansive mood.

Early '70's I worked for the Branch of Astrogeology, USGS, in Menlo Park, CA. What did I do? Analyzed moon rocks, among other things. Yes, I've held large moon rock thin sections in my hand. Very unusual rock. Normally FerroMagnesium igneous rocks that had been subjected to multiple brecciation stages. Had never seen anything like these before.

Also had access to the full suite of moon photos (hundreds) that I could peruse at my leisure. QUITE impressive!

People I worked with were very intelligent, hard-headed, serious scientists, some of whom trained, briefed and de-briefed Apollo astronauts before and after their missions in Flagstaff, Az.

To indicate how serious these folks were, one of them, Dr. Michael Carr (google him), had severely injured himself when a study he was doing on crator creation using explosives went awry. His face was massively scarred.

Was also involved in other studies of results of the Apollo 15 trip. One of these were experiments trying to explain the peculiar lineaments seen on Mt. Hadley by the astronauts. This resulted in a co-authorship with Dr. Keith Howard on a paper found in the Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report called Lineaments That Are Artifacts of Lighting. Google it.

Do I believe the Apollo moon landings were real? 'Fraid so. Of course you could say I have a vested interest in maintaining a powerful delusion I've strongly bought into over the years. Certainly don't think that's the case, however.

My wife's father was an engineer w/Allison Corp., a subsidiary of GMC, working on the Atlas rocket engine. He, and many, many, many very practical, clear-eyed, intelligent, no-nonesense engineers were involved intimately with so many aspects of the Apollo program, it is beyond belief that you could pull off a deception of that magnitude with these kinds of people CLOSELY watching/participating. THEY both created the technology and operated it. Think about that for a moment.

As mentioned, the reflecting mirror left on the moon has been used for experiments using lasers for decades now, is very strong proof for moon landing.

Skmo and others who understand all this are correct, based on my direct experience and other powerful considerations.

[Mahonri]

I am still "undecided", but leaning towards hoax.

For those that don't think it was a hoax, what are feelings towards what was behind President Smith's remarks?

[firend]

I guess I should weigh in on this. Was trying to ignore it, but it's my birthday and have some free time. Also, just got really good news regarding an operation my son underwent a week ago, so I'm in an expansive mood.

Early '70's I worked for the Branch of Astrogeology, USGS, in Menlo Park, CA. What did I do? Analyzed moon rocks, among other things. Yes, I've held large moon rock thin sections in my hand. Very unusual rock. Normally FerroMagnesium igneous rocks that had been subjected to multiple brecciation stages. Had never seen anything like these before.

Also had access to the full suite of moon photos (hundreds) that I could peruse at my leisure. QUITE impressive!

People I worked with were very intelligent, hard-headed, serious scientists, some of whom trained, briefed and de-briefed Apollo astronauts before and after their missions in Flagstaff, Az.

To indicate how serious these folks were, one of them, Dr. Michael Carr (google him), had severely injured himself when a study he was doing on crator creation using explosives went awry. His face was massively scarred.

Was also involved in other studies of results of the Apollo 15 trip. One of these were experiments trying to explain the peculiar lineaments seen on Mt. Hadley by the astronauts. This resulted in a co-authorship with Dr. Keith Howard on a paper found in the Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report called Lineaments That Are Artifacts of Lighting. Google it.

Do I believe the Apollo moon landings were real? 'Fraid so. Of course you could say I have a vested interest in maintaining a powerful delusion I've strongly bought into over the years. Certainly don't think that's the case, however.

My wife's father was an engineer w/Allison Corp., a subsidiary of GMC, working on the Atlas rocket engine. He, and many, many, many very practical, clear-eyed, intelligent, no-nonesense engineers were involved intimately with so many aspects of the Apollo program, it is beyond belief that you could pull off a deception of that magnitude with these kinds of people CLOSELY watching/participating. THEY both created the technology and operated it. Think about that for a moment.

As mentioned, the reflecting mirror left on the moon has been used for experiments using lasers for decades now, is very strong proof for moon landing.

Skmo and others who understand all this are correct, based on my direct experience and other powerful considerations.

Well said.

I personally lean a little more over that it was a hoax, and the motive was there as well.

As for the moon rocks, and all of the things you talked about LarsenB, I believe it, but what is IT is the question.

What I mean is for example. In 1991 a UA Airlines 737 crashed outside Colorado Springs. Everyone knows it was the rudder that malfunctioned and caused the plane to nose dive. This was the official report by the NTSB. It is all over the net, etc. The investigators went through the wreckage, top scientists, etc and the rudder did it!

Well, I can tell you that was not what happened. I cannot tell how I know this other than I know people and am a pilot myself. It was a love triangle in the cockpit and with someone else. It was a murder-suicide.

My point is I am angry at the news a lot, and official reports, etc. For them to show the rudder, and how it caused the crash, and it was all a lie....disgusting.

So maybe LarsenB the moon rocks were not real, and all those scientists are either duped, or muscled into a lie, or just part of the lie. MAYBE.....just something to think about.

Maybe we did go to the moon, but I tend to lean that we did not, and official reports mean nothing to me after what I have learned in aviation. By the way, their are more crashes that the real truth is held back.

[larsenb]

So maybe LarsenB the moon rocks were not real, and all those scientists are either duped, or muscled into a lie, or just part of the lie. MAYBE.....just something to think about.

Maybe we did go to the moon, but I tend to lean that we did not, and official reports mean nothing to me after what I have learned in aviation. By the way, their are more crashes that the real truth is held back.

Firend, I think the Apollo program and 'outing' the results of a single crash are a bit different. The scope of the Apollo program was enormous. Thousands of people intimately involved coming at it from multiple directions resulting in multiple landings on the moon w/several different sets of astronauts.

I suggest you think about all the designers/engineeers involved in the program who also had a hand in making sure their equipment ran, and probably in many cases were the ones that oversaw its operation during the real flights. Then you had families of all these workers glued to their TV's sharing in the work of their husbands, witnessing the whole thing coming together and perhaps watching these husbands perform in the command center, etc. Think of all the people involved in the telemetry and tracking of the flights. These would be the same people involved in both the practise flights and the real ones. How on earth could they be fooled regarding the real flights??

Then you have all the people that 'witnessed' the astronauts entering the rocket modules; saw them blast off in the same rockets; then saw them return and picked up after re-entry. Where did they go all that time? Beggars the imagination how this kind of thing could be staged.

Also, I should emphasize, the rocks I saw were very unusual and fit like a 'T' what you would expect of surface rocks shattered and re-fused multiple times by millions of years of impacts.

Like you, though, I'm aware of coverups; coverups that seem to be getting more blatant in recent years. They exist, including Flight 93. I have inside info on this that I trust. And of course, the official story of 9/11. But for me, 9/11 is easy because the official story violates laws of physics and evidence, in my strongly held, and I think, informed view.

[firend]

LarsenB you do have a point.

I have not researched much into the moon landings. Sounds like you know a lot more about it. You are right about the scope of the NASA programs being much greater than a single crash.

Thankyou for your insights

[A Me]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the aliens on the moon yet, the ones Neil Armstrong saw. (I know... I'm bad.)

[Cowell]

But for me, 9/11 is easy because the official story violates laws of physics and evidence, in my strongly held, and I think, informed view.

larseb, my old friend. Look at the evidence I posted at the beginning of this thread. Better yet, watch the documentary, "A strange thing happened on the way to the moon." This is one of the most interesting examples of mass mind control I have ever seen...which is the sole purpose of these things (including 9/11). I have seen very little evidence that man has been to the moon, honestly. And I believe I am pretty fair about these things. Interestingly, the evidence I keep hearing about always seems to be tangential to man being on the moon...rocks, people tracking the astronauts, reflectors...none of which tell me a man was on the moon. And the only actual evidence we have of man being on the moon happens to be highly questionable, contradictory, and in many cases, obviously falsified. As with 9/11, I have seen footage that raises questions that only lead to one answer...particularly the flag moving when no one touched it (which no one has been able to adequately address), the guy dangling (which no one has addressed), and the fact that there is footage of the astronauts intentionally using a small window in their ship to make it look like the earth from a distance (which no one here has dared adequately addressed). These are the WTC7's and flight 93's of this particular brainwashing bit of history. The public either chooses to not look at them, or not answer them. I like the way you think Larsenb. I agree that you raise some very good points in your above post, but for a different reason... I could not help but think, as I read your statements above (and I mean this in all sincerity based on how well informed I know you are and cognizant of the very good points you were making) I was thinking how incredible it is how deep this whole grand conspiracy goes...that these guys are able to pull this stuff off somehow. It is nearly "unbelievable," but not for us people who see evidence and science for what they are. Take a deeper look, you may be surprised. I certainly was.

[larsenb]

It is nearly "unbelievable," but not for us people who see evidence and science for what they are. Take a look, you may be surprised. I certainly was.

Cowell, there are reams of science, eyewitnesses and participants supporting contention moon landings were real. I was a very minor participant but knew and worked with a number of those who had direct contact with astronauts and handled the many pound of rocks brought back, analyzed them and did papers on them and on the photographs of moon terrain.

None of the evidence I saw was fabricated in my strongly held view. Rocks far too distinctive, and I saw hundreds of amazing photographs. The science performed during the moon walks and by instrumentation left behind and everything else I have mentioned form a very coherent, interlocking compendium of evidence, observations and analyses. Coherence is one of 3 pillars of truth, as is Identity or empirical observations.

The few oddities you mention just can't compete with this, and may well have logical explanations that are every bit as good adductively as those put forth by those you support.

Sorry. I'm dealing with too many personal/work-related issues to delve into something I don't think will be too fruitful. And certainly don't buy into the reasons put forth for such a mega-grand deception. I also lived through the start of space age from very beginning.

Everyday conspiracy is a fact of life. I believe President Benson was right when he said there was A single overarching conspiracy working for the overthrow of all nations. But there are GRAND events that really happened. Moon landings are among them.

Cowell, I generally really like your posts. But for me, this thread is a dog that won't hunt. No offense.

[Cowell]

Larsenb,

I was just about to add to my post and say...one of the reasons I was not interested in this "conspiracy" was because I knew 9/11 was an inside job, and I knew the war was and is a fraud, and I was tired of people lumping me in with "conspiracy theorists." I have never been interested in "conspiracy theories." Like you, I only care about history, the truth, and good science...contrary to what less informed persons believe.

I was stunned when I discovered this was not the "conspiracy theory" I had assumed it was.

Remember, the LDGs depend on the persons who lived through these episodes to pass down the confusion to the next generation. My grandparents didn't know a thing about the truth behind WWII, for instance. Another example...interestingly enough, just about every young man in the M.P. 10th ward believes 9/11 was an inside job, and there's a lot of young men in that ward. This is due to a couple informed young men in the ward spreading the good word...none of their parents believe it of course.

Anyway, I'm rambling, but I'm telling you...I know 9/11 was an inside job, just as many of us do... And like 9/11, I began to conclude the truth about the moon when I began to see that there were glaring unanswered questions being ignored. That answered everything for me. When I saw that an official story could be accepted as true when there were such gaping holes (e.g., Van Allen Belts), it spelled cover-up. Once you come to realize the truth, its kind of odd when you think about it...that you're only sane, in the public's view, if you believe man pulled off the unparalleled and likely impossible feat of going to the moon...and, conversely, you're bonkers if you doubt man's capabilities.

I can't force anyone to look into it deeper, but having recently come into contact with this evidence, and having literally been someone who also intentionally avoided this topic a matter of months ago, I can sincerely say, this is on the same level as 9/11. I just hadn't realized it. I don't go around proclaiming that to everyone, bc I know that will turn people off for sure. But it does seem to be the truth, so I can't help but share it here.

Also, remember, there is reams of "science" that backs the official story of 9/11 too. It's just the kind of science that takes every possible angle aimed at bolstering a falsehood and isn't interested in truth.

[larsenb]

It is nearly "unbelievable," but not for us people who see evidence and science for what they are. Take a look, you may be surprised. I certainly was.

Cowell, there are reams of science, eyewitnesses and participants supporting contention moon landings were real. I was a very minor participant but knew and worked with a number of those who had direct contact with astronauts and handled the many pound of rocks brought back, analyzed them and did papers on them and on the photographs of moon terrain.

None of the evidence I saw was fabricated in my strongly held view. Rocks far too distinctive, and I saw hundreds of amazing photographs. The science performed during the moon walks and by instrumentation left behind and everything else I have mentioned form a very coherent, interlocking compendium of evidence, observations and analyses. Coherence is one of 3 pillars of truth, as is Identity or empirical observations.

The few oddities you mention just can't compete with this, and may well have logical explanations that are every bit as good adductively as those put forth by those you support.

Sorry. I'm dealing with too many personal/work-related issues to delve into something I don't think will be too fruitful. And certainly don't buy into the reasons put forth for such a mega-grand deception. I also lived through the start of space age from very beginning.

Everyday conspiracy is a fact of life. I believe President Benson was right when he said there was A single overarching conspiracy working for the overthrow of all nations. But there are GRAND events that really happened. Moon landings are among them.

Cowell, I generally really like your posts. But for me, this thread is a dog that won't hunt. No offense.

[Cowell]

LarsenB,

I know you don't have the time to look this all up, so I am making it simple.

If after you watch all of these clips, you still don't think there are at least glaring questions, I will be surprised. In any case, before you leave me all alone in my quest for truth behind the moon landings, I wonder if you would at least attempt to provide your best explanation for item number one below (I highlighted in red the most glaring questions to me):

1) Flags moving without being touched in a frictionless enviromnement (See 2:37 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4)
2) actor-nauts who look like they're on strings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNL ... re=related)
3) obviously doctored photos (See 27:20 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... +fox&hl=en)
4) multiple light sources (See 23:00 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... +fox&hl=en)
5) dangling effect (See 1:46 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNL ... re=related)
6) The same area of the "moon" filmed twice and NASA claims they are two different locations (See 25:40 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... +fox&hl=en)
7) Actor-nauts faking a distant image of the earth through their window (See 1:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crqbdjybYeE&NR=1)

[skmo]

I am still "undecided", but leaning towards hoax.

For those that don't think it was a hoax, what are feelings towards what was behind President Smith's remarks?

1) He was misheard.

2) His words are being misinterpreted.

3) He made a mistake.


I'm guessing it was number 3. He was an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. He was a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. I sustain him during his mortal service as such and continue to do so to this day.

He was also human.

[Cowell]

Oddly enough, JFS got it right Skmo.

[Mahonri]

I am still "undecided", but leaning towards hoax.

For those that don't think it was a hoax, what are feelings towards what was behind President Smith's remarks?

1) He was misheard.

2) His words are being misinterpreted.

3) He made a mistake.


I'm guessing it was number 3. He was an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ. He was a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. I sustain him during his mortal service as such and continue to do so to this day.

He was also human.

Yes he was human, also a comment designed to end debate. All Prophets are human, so everything they say is suspect now? Come on. That would mean they could "lead us astray", which is what is happening if he made a mistake on this. no?

This isn't oh, he snapped at his kids when he should have, or he ate meat a little more than he should. This was a Prophet making remarks to help teach an over all principle.

[shadow]

Yes he was human, also a comment designed to end debate. All Prophets are human, so everything they say is suspect now? Come on. That would mean they could "lead us astray", which is what is happening if he made a mistake on this. no?

This isn't oh, he snapped at his kids when he should have, or he ate meat a little more than he should. This was a Prophet making remarks to help teach an over all principle.

As has been discussed on another thread, we have been told to follow the Prophet and the majority of the Twelve (by Joseph Smith). Why?? Apparently sometimes some of the Twelve get it wrong. The Prophet won't, neither will the majority, but some of the Twelve sometimes do. At least that's how I understand it. How do you understand it?

And lets be very clear on this, when he said it, and I still haven't seen proof of his exact words, but IF he said it, he said it as an Apostle, not THE Prophet. Remember, some Apostles said the blacks wouldn't get the priesthood Oops!
I'm sure we could devote a whole big thread to things apostles and other GA's have said that were wrong, but that wouldn't be fruitful.

[Mahonri]

That is one I'd stay away from, that is another thread all together

D&C 107, as I mentioned before, says that it is only binding when one of the three bodeies (1st Pres, Quorum of 12, Seventy) speak as one.

[shadow]

That is one I'd stay away from, that is another thread all together

And I want to stay away from that too, I just wanted to point out that A- Apostles make mistakes and B- JFS was an Apostle not the Prophet when he allegedly made that comment.

[skmo]

Yes he was human, also a comment designed to end debate. All Prophets are human, so everything they say is suspect now? Come on. That would mean they could "lead us astray", which is what is happening if he made a mistake on this. no?

This isn't oh, he snapped at his kids when he should have, or he ate meat a little more than he should. This was a Prophet making remarks to help teach an over all principle.

A comment to end debate? No, but a true one nonetheless. Shadow really made my points for me, but I'll do it as well:

I'd have no problem with saying most everything any individual Apostle says is correct. I still maintain that at least twice a year I raise my arm in my oath of confirmation that these men are Disciples of Christ, Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. This does not mean that now and again they may say something wrong, or at the least, misunderstood.

In another thread, Mahonri led me to President Benson’s marvelous I Testify talk. I have to agree with his description of these powerful words:

As a special witness of Jesus Christ, and as His humble servant, it is now my obligation and privilege, as the Spirit dictates, to bear pure testimony and witness to that which I know to be true. This I will do.

I’d say this qualifies as “words to accept from God” given by His prophet. The ones herein being attributed to then Elder Smith are not the same. It doesn’t mean almost every other thing he said was correct and true.

It does mean I don’t believe these few words (if truly said and meant as such) are correct.

[Cowell]

Can anyone who thinks we went to the moon tell me how any of these three video clips below are possible? Others pretended to provide answers for these while avoiding the main issues. Just scroll to the relevant time I referenced within each clip.

1) Flags moving without being touched in a frictionless enviromnement (See 2:37 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4) Is this the Nevada high desert?
5) dangling effect (See 1:46 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNL ... re=related) This guy is floating, why?
7) Actor-nauts faking a distant image of the earth through their window (See 1:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crqbdjybYeE&NR=1) Why did they obviously fake this as discussed? See where they turn the lights on. Just as the video says, they filmed from the back of the ship to make it look like they were far away from the earth. Why were they so close to the earth if they were supposed to be halfway to the moon?

There's really nothing to discuss for any of these I think is the problem, which is why no one has adequately attempted to address them. It is what it is...footage that does not make sense or match the record.

On one hand we have moon rocks and a bunch of people who believed in a program. On the other hand, we have video footage that is not real footage. Some people who admit the footage is fake think they did go but they faked the footage. That seems like another sorry excuse...because if the footage is fake, it seems a lot more reasonable to me that they just did not go.

[mchlwise]

There's really nothing to discuss for any of these I think is the problem, which is why no one has adequately attempted to address them.

Cowell, this is the kind of comment that shows just how closed-minded about this you really are. I specifically addressed each and every issue, and you chose and continue to choose to ignore anything I have said about it, and instead simply say that no one has "adequately attempted to address them" and go on with the conclusions you have jumped to while turning a blind eye to what has been presented to you in answer to your very question.

This is why this thread is pointless, as far as you're concerned, and I'm sorry I ever bothered to try to have an intelligent discussion with you. You obviously have your mind made up and there will be no changing it.

I can only hope that others who may read the thread are more open to possibilities.

[Cowell]

I specifically addressed each and every issue

1) Flags moving without being touched in a frictionless enviromnement (See 2:37 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4) Is this the Nevada high desert?

We've addressed this before, and I believe that they can be possibly explained by either wiggling the flag pole as it's held, or brushing it as they walked by.

http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 556#p86556
Your argument relies too heavily on a proposition that is less than likely. I want to hear your "logical" explanation for why the flag moved after the actor-naut did not touch the flag.

5) dangling effect (See 1:46 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNL ... re=related) This guy is floating, why?

See the discussion of "wires" above. http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 205#p87205

mchlwise, as I said, you never addressed the dangling effect. I don't know why you say "See discussion above" and continue to assert that you adequately addressed everything because you never addressed this issue. See the video-clip at the relevant referenced time.

7) Actor-nauts faking a distant image of the earth through their window (See 1:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crqbdjybYeE&NR=1) Why did they obviously fake this as discussed? See where they turn the lights on. Just as the video says, they filmed from the back of the ship to make it look like they were far away from the earth. Why were they so close to the earth if they were supposed to be halfway to the moon?

http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 205#p87205
I suppose you did at least discuss this issue, mchlwise. It seems however, your idea of explaining something, if I may be frank, comes off a little more like avoiding the issue to me. In this instance and in the flag moving instance, what I saw on film appeared perfectly clear (i.e., in the above clip at the relevant time, the lights come on and the camera never changes positions or zooms out). You basically always seem to think it is not clear how far away the astronauts are, or whether the camera is zoomed in on the window, or whether the angle of the camera is throwing things off, etc., etc. I prefer addressing questions head on like..."although I, mchlwise, believe the astronaut may have touched the flag, assuming he did not touch the flag, the movement of the flag can be explained by quantum physics' parallel universe theory - he was both on the moon and on the Nevada high desert at the same time." Or whatever other creative explanation you can come up with. Otherwise, if you are wrong about him touching the flag, than there is no explanation. Everything depends on you being right about something that seems at best very iffy. Do you or does anyone else have a better explanation? If not, I rest my case.

...you chose and continue to choose to ignore anything I have said about it...turning a blind eye to what has been presented to you in answer to your very question...This is why this thread is pointless, as far as you're concerned, and I'm sorry I ever bothered to try to have an intelligent discussion with you. You obviously have your mind made up and there will be no changing it...I can only hope that others who may read the thread are more open to possibilities.

Not so, mchlwise.

http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopi ... 731#p86731
Just because I don't agree with you [mchlwise] doesn't mean I'm not open minded. I have been discussing the evidence with you. I answered your question about touching the flag. I told you to watch the rest of the video that I posted which does give a frame of reference [you claimed it did not give a frame of reference...see picture in link]...As far as the flag issue, the video above is even more clear on this. I considered your statement about him touching the flag, watched the video and it appeared to me that this was definitely not the case. But that doesn't mean I can't discuss any of these things further.

Ironically, you have ignored the above statements, mchlwise. Contrary to what you and others may believe about me mchlwise, I am only interested in discovering the truth. When I am presented with truth, I recognize it. Sorry.

[shadow]

The astronaut touched the flag. Notice the flag is not parallel to the astronaut, it's at an angle toward the astronaut. It's easy to notice at about 40 seconds into the video. The space suits are large and bulky. The flag was touched on it's bottom right corner. That's how I plainly see it.

[Cowell]

The astronaut touched the flag. Notice the flag is not parallel to the astronaut, it's at an angle toward the astronaut. It's easy to notice at about 40 seconds into the video. The space suits are large and bulky. The flag was touched on it's bottom right corner. That's how I plainly see it.

Shadow, the relevant segment is at 2:37 not 0:40. I'm not asserting that the astronauts never at any time whatsoever touched the flag. I am asserting that at 2:37 in the relevant video, the flag clearly moves without being touched when the astronaut hops by which is impossible on the moon unless you can come up with a new theory that might win you the noble prize.

[mchlwise]

Cowell, I've given it my best shot, and at this point I'm sorry I put the time into it that I did, because it's clear to me that you either don't understand what I said, don't want to see anything other than what you think you've seen or both. Spending any more time with you on this issue is clearly going to go nowhere... so I wont.

I've said more than once in this thread that I wasn't there and don't KNOW one way or the other. Was it all faked? Maybe. Was JFS "right"? Maybe. None of the "evidence" against the official story, none of your videos, none of your hyperbole or that of any narrator, or anything else I've seen so far does anything to convince me that we didn't go.

Again, it's clear you won't ever see it differently than you presently do. That's fine, but I'm (once again) done with this thread as any further participation in it would only be a waste of precious time which I already don't have enough of.