UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 6

Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

From: Colin Bennett <sharkley.nul>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 00:29:32 -0000
Archived: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 11:58:25 -0400
Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 10:28:05 EST
>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 22:37:38 +0000
>>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

>Tell me Colin: do you believe that the U.S. actually sent astronauts
>to the Moon or not? On which side of reality do you sit?

>>Of course the notion that the Moon landings were faked is right up
>>there with the Flat Earth and Hollow Earth nonsense.

Hi Bob, Dick, and all good List folk,

The question asked by Bob is like the question have you stopped
beating your wife lately - answer yes or no. That is a leading
question, and is hardly applicable in any court. These hard
differentiations Bob prefers for his version of the real are
largely meaningless in a postmodern age where science is
evolving into a huge cyberspace gaming system rather than being
in pursuit of the old industrial  idea of objective tangible
goals. But then there are still people around who believe that
the world of appearances is totally real:

they believe that doctors cure, policemen protect, politicians
govern, scientists discover things, and priests leads us to God.
Like the skeptics versus believers game, those who oppose the
original moon landing split into hot and cool parts. The hot
believe that the scientists and astronauts were on a Hollywood
set, but I propose a more sophisticated approach based on the
question do the scientists themselves consider that it was real?
They used screens to carve images in one another's head, as did

This making of images is a continuous process industry like the
production of cement, or soap operas, both almost

And of course there is no OFF switch. We live in a cultural
fluid whose dynamic structure consists of acts of imagining.
Media being pure mind, we manage mysteries rather than solve
them, In this sense is anything absolutely real? Though
scientists are completely familiar with the idea of absolute
temperature for example, or the limit in the calculus as a kind
of mathematical hoax in order to engineer round and not solve a
particular problem, scientists accept the idea of the objective
real as if it were something that really didn't need any
thinking about. But electricity, magnetism and gravity are

Their absolute nature, like the fire at the back of Plato's
prisoners that they can never see, is ineffable. What science
does deal with far more than its much-vaunted reality is
frequency of phenomena.

The mysteries of electricity, magnetism and gravity are of
course much more stable and predictable than the appearances of
say, the Virgin Mary or the UFO, or even a hollow earth, and
outsider within the octave of appearances if ever there if ever
there was. We may therefore talk of management of mysteries
rather solving them. A thing that occurs more often than another
thing is in scientific terms more true than the second thing.
But rather do we choose those mysteries we can handle than those
we could not, for whatever reason.

Frequency is a far more important concept than reality.
Frequency tells us that levels of reality are part of a ratings
war for the prime-time advertising frames of conscious
realization. In this war the UFO is just beginning to feel its
feet with increased frequency, but the Virgin Mary bless her is
lagging far behind the Loch Ness Monster. Oh yes, eventually we
will get what we really want. The greatest evidence for contact
is that we have appeared as aliens to others. But after the
landing, whatever steps out on the ramp to greet us will of
course have its own agendas, super-suggestions, just as many
automated denial-schedules, and will undoubtedly be stuffed full
of media and advertisements as are we. As John Keel (who wrote
the Foreword to my recent book) said, the aliens are the liars,
not the contactees. In the Cargo Cult sense, we lied to natives
not out of ill-will, but because we had no choice. What could we
do? We still do not understand our own product-social-relations
media equations ourselves, never mind explain them to loincloth

As I pointed out in a recent article in Philosophy Now,
Faraday's lines of force are conventions we use in order to
engineer our way around mysteries rather than solve them. Does
Bob think that tremendous events have a simple non-anomalous
linear reality? Books could be filled with the multiple
anomalies of the Moon landing, but I will point out just one -
 let Bob consider say, the very strange motion of the LEM before
landing as described by Norman Mailer in A Fire on the Moon.
People and events are actors in a cultural petri-dish, and they
paint on cave walls just as does everyone else. Let Bob read the
chapter The Search for Oswald in my recently published book,
Politics of the Imagination, and he will realize that absolute
reality like absolute temperature is a theoretical possibility
realizable only in the impossible limit.

Being somewhat over twenty one, unlike most believers, I almost-
witnessed the almost-event myself in almost-real time. I say
almost because I did not of course see every single second of
420-line low-definition grainy pixels that were all that was
available to me by means of UHF preamplifiers on an ancient
1960s black and white TV (with a pink screen!) perched on top of
a temperamental cheap refrigerator whose reluctant generator
blew Aldrin and the LEM into smithereens many times. Over thirty
years later this heap of decaying pixels remains in my head as
tremendously significant experience of varying degrees of
reality. What remains of these is smell, touch and atmosphere of
the fabrics and moods and tensions and expectations of this past
era. The moon landing still gives me overwhelming nostalgia for
the baked paxolin smell of old circuit boards I was
experimenting with myself at the time, as a mad young man very
much on the loose. Through intense mystical subjectivities we
enter truth, not through facts. If facts exist, I certainly have
not come across one. Perhaps I only use facts to pull on my
socks in the morning. I certainly do not use them for the higher
inspirations. I am not interested in the weight or bra-size of
the Mona Lisa, or there being no sociology or statistics in
Churchill's History of the English Speaking People - both are
heart-felt mystical appreciations of historical periods through
which a time-system can be entered, and that is as as good a
definition of the first Moon shot as any I have heard. Instead
of being a dirty word for an unclean concept, we should be more
ready to accept product-mysticism as a perfectly valid element
of experience, an example of which is Warhol's Campbell's Soup

As many famous scientists (see Arthur Koestler's book The
Sleepwalkers), themselves have said, mystical subjective
insights lead us beyond the world of appearances and the bland
PR fronts of science into zeitgeist, into era forces, and into
those elemental conspiracies by means of which all control
cultures are made. Kepler and Copernicus had fantasy-prone
intellects, as and we now know, Newton himself spent more time
in his alchemical laboratory than he did with his calculations.
In vain does science try and propagandize itself as Mr. Clean.
Lift the scientific stone, and we have a modern phantasmagoria
equal to any painting by Hieronymous Bosche.

We surely have to accept that pure unadulterated media is now
the building-stuff of Western culture, for better or for worse.
If we were more honest with ourselves, we would admit that there
is no absolute factual reality, but degrees of experience, both
collective and individual. For instance, I myself could accept
that parts of the first moon landing were almost real. The
hauntingly beautiful impression of the first moon footprint made
technological power into an art form for our age, making spoilt-
brat daubs look absolutely silly. Our architecture proper is
absolutely abysmal, but our science truly amazing. But again,
seen as art form, the reality of scientific discoveries is
irrelevant. In this sense, science can be deconstructed as
profitably as can the faces of Garbo, Dietrich, Robert
Oppenheimer, or even George Bush. We mentally navigate by such
icons, and the facts cannot possibly compete with their emotive
power. Like the media stars, science is not objective, it is our
very gut, mind, and destiny, for better or for worse. My final
answer to both Bob and Dick is this: Both saw a moon landing. I
didn't see a moon landing. For me such a landing didn't happen.
It was a very weak reality. Like Norman Mailer, all I saw was a
WASP cathedral being built. That's what I saw.

The strongest reality always lies in what we are not being told.

In this sense, all consciousness is part imposture. The landing
was a weak reality. Alas, we navigate mentally by such
hallucinatory simulations as "reality" in all its strengths and
weaknesses. The implicit conspiracy (the building of the said
cathedral) is always the closest approximation to the real. The
explicit conspiracy is always a PR front, like the changing of
the Guard at Buckingham Palace.

That tells us just as much about Britain and Royalty as the moon
landing official line tells us about America.

Colin Bennett

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com