Mostly for KRJALK

[cheshirenoir]

Conspiracy AND spaceflight
The Italian Brothers who recorded the Russian spaceshots (and also the accidents)
(Via Unca Warren)
Please note this is a Fortean Times article, and thus is not exactly the most trustworthy of all sources.

Comments

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

Why do you diss the Fortean Times? The research seems to be about as good as you are ever going to get on those events, as is often the case with the Fortean Times -- the difficulty in verification lies with the subject, not the source.

[krjalk.livejournal.com]

The research seems to be about as good as you are ever going to get on those events

The research seems to have begun and ended with a handful of interviews, overly credulous ones at that. The recordings described by the brothers are flat out physically impossible, and their claims about lost cosmonauts show no knowledge of the strictures of spaceflight, such as delta-v limits. There are any number of obvious howlers apparent to someone with a modicum of on-topic knowledge. *cough*

the difficulty in verification lies with the subject, not the source.

Not really. They are hardly the only group of amateurs to have tracked early Soviet missions. Geoff Perry, who I mention above, is way, way more credible that the Judica-Cordiglias, and he certainly never reported anything like what they claim. The link I provided above from Oberg's site fisks the entire FT article.

FT don't fact check their articles, they make a point of providing a forum for alternate viewpoints that are then left to sink or swim on their merits. David Percy, one of the big moon hoax claimants I mentioned at Swancon, generated a hell of a lot of mail when he wrote the feature article for an issue in 1999 explaining his theories. Almost all of the responses were extremely negative, and were accompanied by a fairly high degree of criticism aimed at FT for publishing the rubbish in the first place. They ended up doing a follow up feature article a few months later that presented a much more balanced version of events.

Most of the time the articles are better researched, but problems can arise when testimony is accepted uncritically on the assumption they do indeed know what they are talking about.