New Moon Thread

[BrandonD]

A question: For any of you forum members who were around in the late 60s, what was the level of public support for nasa and the moon missions? Was it pretty high?

The reason I ask is, the most "occam's razor" explanation for nasa photographic fakery would be that nasa was trying to boost public support for the space program, because support was flagging.

The problem with this explanation is that from what I've read and heard, it seems that the entire nation was generally pretty gung-ho and excited about the apollo missions, so fakery seems superfluous and unnecessary.

If someone was alive back then and can remember, what was the feeling among the public? Were people in general excited about the moon missions?

If so, then I can't see the "promotional" motive as a good explanation for nasa to resort to fakery, when they could have just taken photos of the real thing.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Hi Brandon.

I was almost 9 y.o when the Apollo Missions were happening.
Although i was very young at the time i remember the three big topics of the day were , in no particular order :

The Vietnam War
The Cold War and
Going to the Moon.

The public support was extremely high then, i believe. It was the most exiting thing that had ever happened in mankind's history. Every where you went there were people talking about it.
Going to the moon was seen as a welcome relief to the negative and scary war scenarios and i think that it gave the public hope and something positive to distract them from the chaos and mayhem that surrounded them.

I also remember, years later when the Apollo Missions ceased how dumbfounded people were at the decision to discontinue them as it seemed that the next logical step was to actually go there and set up manned stations, telescopes etc.

I seem to remember, as Gene has said (please correct me if i am wrong), that NASA canned any more involvement in the moon due to funding being cut off from the US government due to financial concerns (the Vietnam war having drained a more than sizable chunk of budget spending).

 

[musictomyears]

What I noticed is a tendency to be extra critical of any and all supposed UFO images, when no stone is left unturned to discredit them, yet the same critical analysis is not applied to images put forward by NASA. Why is that? Is NASA entitled to special treatment? Do they deserve our blind faith, because they are a governmental agency?

These days, we are used to question everything governments do, since they lie so much (and this goes for nearly all governments). Doesn't is therefore seem like a good idea to apply the same stringent criteria to NASA's photos and film footage, as to any other imagery that claims to document highly unusual events?

I wonder what the reactions would be on this forum, if a film were to be presented with aliens hovering around in space suits, and in a few frames one could see flares from reflected light above the alien's heads, suggesting the use of steel harnesses? Or if there was clear evidence of hot spots in the film, making it obvious that a small light-source was being used, instead of the sun? Would we also look for a "rational" explanation, and excuse the apparent inconsistencies with concepts such as special lighting conditions in space, or various unique coincidences - or would we rather come to the conclusion that we were looking at a poorly executed hoax?

 

[BrandonD]

What I noticed is a tendency to be extra critical of any and all supposed UFO images, when no stone is left unturned to discredit them, yet the same critical analysis is not applied to images put forward by NASA. Why is that? Is NASA entitled to special treatment? Do they deserve our blind faith, because they are a governmental agency?

Yes, I believe in consistency. Because of this, I actually know very few REAL skeptics. A true skeptic treats all information equally and pays absolutely no mind to "arguments from authority".

But that's not the definition of the modern day skeptic. Today's skeptic mindset is actually an unconscious defense of the western world-view mythology.

 

[Gil]

Gary McKinnon, the famous NASA hacker from Britain, now facing 70-80 years, discovered a NASA computer station that was just for airbrushing moon photos from that time. It had "before" and "after" boxes, and this is backed up by one of the Disclosure Project witnesses that said she'd testify before congress if they would grant her immunity from her security oath.

The point behind the second light source is, if they had one, they lied to us about it. Once they start admitting lies about moon photos, the entire house of cards begins to fall. There are a lot of inconsistencies that people have brought up--if you watch one of several documentaries, you'll become familiarized with many of them. I personally like "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon", because it does show the astronauts in low Earth orbit faking the shot of the Earth in the window when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon. They were removing a transparancy from the window that was stuck to it, and by the way--this film was all in color. The only Apollo 11 footage in color.

Hey, Gene, David! You guys want to have a nail-in-the-coffin guest for the moon-was-a-hoax thing and end speculation after all? Have Bart Sibrel on the Paracast. He was a great guest on Coast, but George Noory, in typical fashion, hadn't watched enough of his movie to get to the part where you can see the astronauts turn the lights back on in the spacecraft and SEE THEY HAD JUST FAKED THE SHOT.

I don't know about surface photos, or any of the other claims, but when you see that shot, it's all over. It's available for download at greylodge.org and many other bit torrent sites, you can buy a copy--but the question is, why would they fake being halfway to the moon if they couldn't get halfway to the moon? And what are the implications for all the other pictures, moon missions and so on?

So, just make sure, if you guys do have him on (and I think he'd be a great Paracast guest, if you're looking for suggestions), that you actually watch his film in toto.

End transmission