Time: Wed May 21 23:12:22 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA05550; Wed, 21 May 1997 17:46:12 -0700 (MST) by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA24599; Wed, 21 May 1997 17:46:01 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 23:10:37 -0700 To: (Recipient list suppressed) From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: SNET: A Giant Hop or a Giant Hoax? (fwd) <snip> > >Last night on the United Paramount Network TV program "Strange Universe" >hosted by Emmett Miller (a young man who pretends to be on the inside track >of great secrets), the world began to shake. The occasion? The possible >hoax of the moon landing(s) was handled pro and con. The only reason why >this sensitive subject has found its way onto national TV is because of an >article in a recent edition of the English magazine, The Fortean Times, >which proclaimed, in no uncertain terms, that the moon landings were >fictitious... that NASA had "mooned" not only America and Americans, but >the entire world with a carefully crafted hoax. > >The two men who, on the program, supported the hoax theory were an English >professional photographer and an American who formerly worked on the Apollo >space program. They really did sound professional and were very convincing. >To rebut these two men the program producers brought in an English writer >on space subjects. (It was a duel, my Englishman is better than yours...) >The rebuttal was a fiasco that may have gone unnoticed by most Americans, >who, after all, rarely notice much of anything at all in detail. > >First, the so-called "writer," seated at his computer, was industriously >plying his trade on the keyboard... using his two index fingers and the >hunt and peck system. Now, to be a serious writer one must know how to >write. If that involves a keyboard then the art involves the use of ten >fingers in a coordinated fashion. Less than that and the person is a >scribbler, not a writer. And a scribbler is not an expert at much of >anything. > >The scribbler tried to explain away a number of anomalies and peculiarities >of the official NASA photographs previously criticized by using reasoning >carrying conspicuously low probability numbers. Yes, that could have been >true (the causes of the strange lighting effects, the shadows, the lines, >etc.)... but in the end the TV program viewer was left with the uneasy >feeling that nothing at all had really been successfully explained away. > >But finally the scribbler, in his rebuttal of the moon landing hoax claim, >made a gaff that was so bald-faced that it killed any creditability he >might have gained in the moments before. It was a question of the black >quadrant crosses in the official NASA photos and the fact that some of >these crosses mysteriously disappear in part or in whole. Just like the >time and date lines on a home camcorder, these black quadrant crosses are >an integral part of the photo because they are IN the photo equipment, not >out in front of the lens. Yet the scribbler declared that where the photo >was particularly bright the black quadrant cross would be obscured by the >brightness. The truth is precisely the opposite: the black crosses would be >MOST apparent in the brightest parts of the photo and would only disappear >in areas of the photo which were totally black. In sum total, the scribbler >didn't know what he was talking about. (Conversely, in a camcorder where >the numbers and figures are white, the date and time tend to disappear >when the area of the picture containing them is very bright.) In either >case, these equipment-established markings are always there, whether very >visible or not. The conclusion, then, is that some of the official NASA >photographs are photo montages. They are fakes. > >Go to your video rental shop and take out "Diamonds Are Forever," a James >Bond/007 flick released in 1971, two years after the first supposed moon >landing. Play several times the chase scene in the middle of the picture, >the one where Bond uses the Moon Rover to get away(!) Then start asking >yourself questions about this scene which has nothing to do with the rest >of the story. The English intelligence agencies knew from the start what >was going on. > >The American public seems able to absorb an endless number of revelations >of public corruption, malfeasance, criminality, stupidity, and cupidity. >Maybe we expect our elected officials to be lousy dirty crooks even though >we hope they are not. But there is a possibility that the moon landing hoax >is a type of indignity that even the complacent American people will NOT >endure with cow-like placidity. If Mom and Dad out in the hustings get to >believe that their basic emotions were trifled with by the Federal >government by that pretentious intonation, "One small step for Man, One >Giant Step for Mankind," there will be no forgiveness. And a government >which has earned the utter and complete contempt of its citizenry cannot >long stand. H. Ayre. > <snip> ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail