UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Nov > Nov 10

Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

From: Colin Bennett <sharkley.nul>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 08:42:21 -0000
Archived: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 14:40:36 -0500
Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing


>From: Bob Young <YoungBob2.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 23:17:06 EST
>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

>>From: Larry Hatch <larry.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 02:00:34 -0800
>>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

>>>From: Jim Speiser <jimspeiser.nul>
>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 16:42:17 -0700
>>>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing

>>>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99.nul>
>>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>>Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 23:55:14 +0000
>>>>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing -

>>>>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
>>>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates.nul>
>>>>>Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 13:15:28 -0500
>>>>>Subject: Re: NASA Commissions Book To Prove Moon Landing


Hello UpDate savants all,

> Or do I just detect envy of somebody's book contract with NASA?

Yes, I am envious. NASA should have chosen me.

The trouble is that as the author of four published books, my
charges are extremely high, if only because I don't write school
essays. I doubt if NASA could afford to engage me. Oberg's
$15000 would not keep me in booze and girls for a month, never
mind any extras. As a writer proper I tend also to use images,
and that kind of thing would scare NASA to death, as it scares
most flat-footed people of this Earth, hollow or otherwise.
Still, sorry for breaking the rationalist utilitarian law of
thou shalt not imagine! Thank you sir, for your comparison of my
List posting to the work "irrelevant" Norman Mailer. I went out
and bought a good vintage on the strength of that.

Regarding your claim that Menzel, Sheaffer, and Condon were
Fortean thinkers, as a feature writer and reviewer for the
Fortean Times and the author of a recently published book on
Charles Fort, Politics of the Imagination, I was somewhat taken
aback by this, and I do not believe a word of it, just as there
are some who do not believe that a Moon landing took place. But
you learn something every day, I suppose.

>> The response, from anyone else, would be instantly
>>farted off as totally evasive.

Please Larry, I assume this list is for scholars and gentlemen,
and this is street-fighting language. Yes, I have been known to
street fight myself, but only against WASP pelicans, and you are
far too intelligent to be a leafy Dark Age Anglo-Saxon pelican
(supersonic or otherwise), from the old pre-New Age Methodist
curiosity shop, although you probably have the same terminal
problems with regard to meeting elemental beings. You can remedy
this latter problem by reading my book, Looking for Orthon. It
will annoy you to death, but that is always a good start on the
road to Rome.

>>> Sounds like what you'd get if Marshall McLuhan and
>>>>Robert Anton Wilson were locked in a cupboard
>>>>together for nine months.

I would like to thank Jim for the comparison of my humble
posting to that of Marshall McLuhan and Robert Anton Wilson.
This makes a total of no less than three famous names pronounced
in the same breath as mine own. If I can achieve that in a
single List post, then I am more than pleased. With such praise
ringing in my ears, last night I bought rather an expensive
cigar and took out both my wife and two ex-mistresses to dinner
on the strength of it. I thank you for selling a lot of my
books, sir, but the bad news for your good self (and many
others) is that there is worse to come. Having done Adamski and
Fort, I am now turning to Captain Ruppelt, but you will have to
hold your breath for a short while. You might like to know that
the book is entitled An American Demonology.

>>>>Colin Bennett _ I am disappointed to
>>>>see his solipsistic response on this List, as Bruce
>>>>Maccabee has properly pointed out.

I am sorry not to live up to his expectations. I would like to
be judged by my peers. The trouble is I don't have any.

>>>>I can easily say that both you and he exist only in my
>>>>mind, but where does that get us?

Postmodernism is about the psychology of descriptions.
Suffering remains the same for all of us.

>>>>As you should realize, I am a strong proponent of the
>>>>scientific method, properly applied, not necessarily
>>>>the way science is always practiced. I certainly don't
>>>>agree at all with Bennett's view that there are no
>>>>objectively established facts or truths.

In postmodernism, facts and truths are replaced by streams of
ever-changing and ever-evolving streams of information. Tragedy
remains the same for all of us.

Thus am I accused of solipsism.

Well, my ideas as originally expressed are not so much
solipsistic as a plea to the scientifically minded to question
the far too easily accepted idea of factual objectivity. We must
make an attempt to understand the words and concepts we use, and
try to understand something of their history and cultural
development. This is a very involved subject in which I am a
professionally involved specialist, but put briefly, Shakespeare
for example, would hardly have understood the idea of the
objective real at all. His world was a world of impacting
thought processes, just like NASA's book-commissioning
ambitions. Witness Hamlet's renowned struggle for what we term
the real, which must now be the struggle of James Oberg. It
could be said that Hamlet as a character was involved with the
classical Platonic problem of reality being shadows on a cave
wall seen by prisoners who cannot turn round to see what is
causing the shadows. This is Plato's model of mind, as well as
that of Charles Fort, and it now must feel familiar to James
Oberg.

If all this smacks of Eastern mysticism (about which I know very
little), then so be it, but the idea is the essence of such
great subjectivist classics as Kapra's The Tao of Physics, and
Thomas De Quincey's work (he said in Confessions by the way,
that the word objective was no used much before 1822). These are
books that I heartily recommend to the List, together with
Patrick Harpur's Demoniac Reality and George Hansen's The
Trickster and the Paranormal. These books are an antidote to the
scientific outlook that to my mind has grave limitations as a
means of knowing anything. Well-adjusted rational folk are often
far too well protected, and one can be so well-adjusted and so
completely sane that it affects both their intelligence and the
critical perception, as it obviously has done in NASA's case. It
should be borne in mind that the idea of getting rid of the nut-
cases in order to reveal the shining truth has the most
atrocious moral reputation in all human history.

>>>>>I have removed a lot of this `monotribe' or `word salad'
>>>>>to get to the hard core of fact.

The term verbal salad is of course always applied to those who
have a touch of the poet and who always pose a dreadful threat
to nut-and-bolt folk. Bruce wants to reduce the imagery. It
disturbs and confuses him. He wants to get rid of all ambiguity.
Pictures are fuzzy. And they tend to talk back, which would
never for scientist. The trouble is that if ambiguity goes, so
does deep background. Thus does a bus full of fighting drunks
become a point moving down an inclined plane. The situation is
killed stone dead, in other words. In typical scientific
fashion, the event has been rationally denatured in order to
give a manageable answer. All explanations are structured in
this way.

The answer to your question, Bruce, is another question. Ask
yourself why is fact is always hard and not soft? Why is the
truth terrible, and reality awful, always a kind of punishment?
The answer is that we live in a certain cultural fluid that
worships pain and suffering. This fluid is moreover a rather
simple-minded trading entity reflected by its paranoid suspicion
of frauds and hoaxes. Inputs must equal outputs, and we must get
what has been paid for. Other cultures simply do not operate by
these paradigms_but lo, what is this coming through on the
Animalist Newsline on my other computer as I write this?

It has just been announced that NASA has cancelled its proposed
book commission. Well now, here is a new development indeed.
History is writing itself in the very moment of this debate. I
said originally "from the Fortean point of view, James Oberg's
coming book commissioned by NASA looks as if we now have
emerging a new branch of science. We might call it the Science
of Reinforced Virtualities. Given Oberg's daunting project as a
start, in the future, it may not be required to prove that an
event is "real" or "true" so much that it happened at all.

Now's there's a new paradigm indeed!

As if to prove my point, with the withdrawal of the said
commission, we now have a somewhat Borgesian situation where
within hours a solid claim to show up the virtuality of another
claim has turned into a virtuality itself.

>>>>I believe that the Oberg commissioned book.
>>>>is quite unique and unprecedented in the
>>>>history of NASA publishing.

You say that again, Dick!So now, whither the real, in the light
of the embarrassment of both James Oberg and NASA? Put in modern
terms, and put also in relation to the interest sectors of List
members, "subjectivie intuition" means no less than not
believing science when it says that all that is happening is the
joining of flange B to A, or that the transistor reaches a
steady-state condition when the resistors of the bias chain are
properly adjusted, or that NASA means what it says when it
offers James Oberg a commission. Orwell's Newspeak nightmare was
that such statements would be accepted at their face value,
period. Mailer himself encounters an updated version of Newspeak
amongst NASA personnel when he writes of the Moon landing in A
Fire on the Moon.

Everything is OK, but don't mention the Nazis.

Newspeak briefly, is corporate language stripped of all nuance,
and hence of all character. Like legal language, the object is
to avoid all metaphysical implications, and thus to make any
"explanation" either political, social, or scientific, complete
within itself, and hence render the explanation appear to be not
worthy of further investigation. And don't mention the Nazis yet
again. Like NASA, we do this all the time as an ongoing mental
process, and we choose that system of description that allows us
to get some sleep at night. So at the time when you saw a
murdering Nazi in front of you at a Houston press conference,
you didn't see anything at all. Nobody complained about this
vanishing of Nazis as they now complain about the attempted
vanishing of the Moon Landing. Like abductions, such vanishings
happen all the time, they are part of our mental process. To
vanish a thing, you merely change its metaphors, as presumably a
fish does after it is thrown back into the water with an
astonishing tale that no other fish will believe. If I say for
example, that there are scores of thousands of alchemical
laboratories manned by celibate witch doctors active in both
Britain and America, perhaps the Catholic Church would not be
recognizable when described as such. If I did describe it as
such, then I would be accused of denying reality as much as if I
denied a Moon landing. This we argue about different systems of
descriptions rather than truth or fictions. Thus when I say that
the Catholic Church does not exist, I mean that I do not see
that animal usually described as the Catholic Church in the
terms it usually offers itself. Perhaps I want to do this for
some reason, perhaps penetrate its frontal agenda, that is the
way it would like itself to be seen That is what I mean when I
talk about denial of the Moon landing. Phony Hollywood moonscape
"explanations" are not for me. They are somebody else's
metaphor.

Thus when science says that FET transistor A is controlled by
light-dependent resister B firing thermistor C through diode D,
and that is all that is going off, period, I am entitled to be
suspicious, as when a woman is stoned to death in the name of
God, or NASA offers a commission.

As I said, I didn't see a Moon landing. I saw a WASP cathedral
being built, that's what I saw. I don't have a problem with
that, but certainly Oberg now has a problem with a book
commission that didn't turn out to be a book commission. The
authorities concerned didn't tell us about the construction of
this cathedral, and they didn't tell poor abused Oberg that the
carpet was likely to be ripped from under his feet quicker than
you could say deep space probe. But perhaps such implicit
conspiracy is so deep that NASA didn't even know that they were
constructing such a thing as a cathedral in the first place, and
perhaps they would not recognize a book commission proper if
they saw one. Let's face it, with the Oberg business, the Disney
face of NASA has cracked.

They have run off and left Oberg to face the music holding a
dead dog in his arms. With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Big Science as General Groves called it, has blinked at high
noon and lost its nerve. If Oberg still wants to write publicity
for NASA, then he will be required to construct a defence of the
retracted defence, now flavoured by his own anger and blushes.
What a super-text that will be. Borges, thou should be living at
this hour!

Given this kind of changing goal-posts, what do rebel Forteans
such as myself then see when they consider the truth and
validity of the Moon landing, or indeed a NASA book commission
that turned out to be nothing of the kind? In addition to the
foil Stars and Stripes, the unbelievable courage, and the truly
spectacular science, I see a something much more interesting
than some possible Hollywood film set. I see a Pandora's box.
Out from this box tumbles no less than a hundred would-be film
sets, each far bigger and more spectacular than anything even
Hollywood has to offer. Out tumbles not only phony book
commissions, Oberg's shredded dignity, but the great national
fantasies involved in scientific and industrial financial
structures and technological developments, all which go right
under the hill of dreaming intrigue. Each element of the
Military Industrial Complex forms a demonological list of fraud
and criminality beyond all compass, though I have yet to hear
charges of cannibalism and incest, although they probably on the
horizon.

In this haze of Pythagorean intrigue, American rocketry was born
of subsidized and cosseted Nazism. Forget things like that? We
would be damn fools if did forget for the sake of objectivity.
In other words objectivity is a way of putting to sleep, just as
Oberg was put to sleep when he thought he had a book commission.
In such sleep, we tend to forget SS officer Von Braun's personal
supervision of the hanging from a crane of starved and tortured
skeletal prisoners at the Nordhausen V2 plant. The truth of
course is always involved with media and presentation, Von Braun
looked good on TV, and that, in modern society is that counts.
After Von Braun, after Oberg's withdrawn commission does anyone
think believe NASA when it says it is merely joining flange A to
flange B, period, and that is absolutely all that is going off?

Getting a fruit-machine event to cough up its doubtful offerings
like this is what is meant by the term deconstruction. This
process makes any event that poses as a simple, isolated, and
objective thing, yield up its covert agendas to the degree that
Matter itself is revealed as being made of Plot and Conspiracy,
just as does Oberg's virtual commission to render false what was
supposed to be a virtual claim. What price now your precious
objectivity ladies and gentlemen of the List? With the false
born of the supposed real and the supposed real rising from the
supposedly false, where is our objective arrow? If the
commission was a fact, then it transferred into a fiction very
quickly! All claims of objectivity can be questioned in this way
if only because there are hidden agendas, even in putting a comb
through the hair. Every single element of experience is built of
such things: play, hallucination, self-deception and complex
ego. This is the stuff of active mentality, and not school essay
"facts" which usually turn out to be made of the most outrageous
cultural camouflage.

The real (always an approximation) is thankfully is scandalous
beyond all conception. Such noise in the system can be
surprisingly functional, as both James Oberg and NASA have just
found out. What price clean scientific objectivity now? NASA's
action is dirty street fighting, and its withdrawal is a fine
example of a rationalist psychosocial panic. Here is born a new
self-defensive scientific sociology, born of need to develop
continuously the tribal vanishing mystique of a consumer
society.

After Oberg, we are now all like Hamlet at the end of the play,
with the stage littered with corpses, and a sense of d=E9j=E0 vu as
a new season of scenery-changes begins. Poor Oberg. The
organization he loved, lived and worked for has trashed him good
in the eyes of the world. If I were him, I would sue NASA from
bottom to breakfast time as they say in Portobello Cockney, if
only for loss of earnings, loss of credibility, and loss of
dignity, and loss of all factual objective purpose. The whole
sorry publishing endeavor is now in a typical Fortean region of
intermediate states, being neither fowl, flesh, nor good red
herring. The situation certainly gives a new meaning to the word
hypertext.

Thus when we talk about reality, like NASA book-contracts, we
refer to systems of highly unstable verbal descriptions. I
myself prefer the alchemical chamber idea as a "realistic"
description of the Catholic Church, and my WASP cathedral
description of the Moon landing to the very tricky "factoid" of
a NASA book deal, which turned out to be much more unstable than
my ghost cathedral, having a half-life of two weeks.

With publishers like that, the only question of which is the
real or which is the false is the question of which is the
biggest rip-off. But things are getting better. There is hope
yet. Poor Oberg may be re-commissioned, and then we will have a
super-super text, changing and developing like Orwell's wall-
slogans each morning. As I have said, Oberg will certainly make
approximations in this new manuscript too, but then again this
new text may be withdrawn and go back into the Kafka's castle of
NASA for repairs, further developments, and finer editing before
it emerges again as a fine-spun approximation to the real.

Do not doubt this. As we know, in our own time, anything can
happen. Even the sober and [politically-correct Fortean Times
has an article on a UFO chase by a fighter aircraft. My
goodness, the times they are a-changing!

End of Round Seven, or somewhere around there.

And still the Brentford Polonius has not yet spoken.

But there is time yet, methinks.


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