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