From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul> Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:15:28 -0500 Archived: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 12:19:40 -0400 Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing >From: Colin Bennett <sharkley.nul> >To: <ufoupdates.nul> >Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 00:29:32 -0000 >Subject: 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 >I. >This making of images is a continuous process industry like the >production of cement, or soap operas, both almost >indistinguishable. >And of course there is no OFF switch. Fortunately, there is a delete "switch" so I have removed a lot of this 'monotribe' or 'word salad' to get to the hard core of 'fact'.- according to Colin. > Through intense mystical subjectivities we >enter truth, not through facts. If facts exist, I certainly have >not come across one. A delusionary or pseudo - solipsist? "I think, therefore, I am!" ..... I think. (But maybe I'm wrong....)" At any rate, my 'self' is the only thing that exists. All else is a 'dream'. <snip> >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. Fine. No absolute reality because each person has experiences... are experiences real? No, they are only '"experiences'. Hence I suppose the experience of a moon landing could be as real as anything else. The question then would be, did any person whom you would classify as 'reliable', experience the space program in the 1950s and 60's that included designing rockets, making them bigger and bigger and including human passengers along with electronic instruments? Here "reliable" means that you would experience 'belief' when you experience a reliable person telling you that he/she experienced events like... "10,9,8,7... 3,2,1 Lift-Off" after which the person experienced added weight due to acceleration, experienced seeing the ground receding from view, experienced seeing the whole disc of the earth silhouetted against the darkest deep space, experienced seeing the disc of the moon increase in size, experienced deceleration and stopping (on the moon), experienced golf on the moon, and so on... and on... (and experienced the return to earth) >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. If one were to pursue this to obtain a 'logical' conclusion one should start with the following question for Colin (and noting that the subject is the space program and not any other topic), what, if any part of the space program do you accept as 'real' in any sense? a) the late 1950's rockets that orbited the original satellites? b) the initial manned orbit programs in Russia and the US c) the Gemini program (2 at a time) d) the Apollo program (before the moon landing) Or were these all 'fig newtons of the imagination' strongly supplemented by Hollywood level set construction and acting? (Is the installation at Cape Canaveral/Kennedy/Canaveral real or only an "experience."?) >The strongest reality always lies in what we are not being told. You mean you experience the 'idea' that there are things which others know but they aren't telling you? But isn't this only an "experience" that you can't prove without knowing what they won't tell you? >In this sense, all consciousness is part imposture. The landing >was a weak reality. Was quite a strong reality... ooops, experience... for those who actually did it! >Alas, we navigate mentally by such >hallucinatory simulations as "reality" in all its strengths and >weaknesses. Yes, if it weren't for the hallucinatory internet we wouldn't all be reading these semi/pseudo-profound thoughts about the non-reality of anything that isn't experienced. >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 argues that the moon landing was a "weak reality." And I would argue, therefore, that 'proof' of a _non_-landing is an even weaker 'reality'.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp