22-11-2010, 02:20 PM
I haven't the time or inclination to get bogged down in the detail of this but here is my over-arching take FWIW:
My default inclination is one of sympathy with the underdog and, at least on this forum and this subject, Peter D is the underdog. The effect of the inclination is to read what is said by the UD carefully. A lot of the detailed technical issues surrounding the Moon-landings are indeed arguable - some of them ad-nauseam - without advancing the overall issue much. That said, my experience has been that the more carefully I look at those techie, and all the other issues the greater I judge the probability of the whole thing being a gigantic hoax.
I started on the issue a good few years ago as a confirmed "ridicule the hoax advocates" person - as I suspect the vast majority of believers are. I found it quite difficult to cross the threshold of opening my mind on it at all. The very idea that it could have been a hoax was absurd. I find a similar threshold applies to many Deep Political issues. To be perfectly frank, my initial research was really aimed at trying to confirm my original long-standing certainty (prejudice, comfortable assumptions - whatever) but I was forced to accept the opposite, and very uncomfortable it was too - as is research in so many other of our received "Official Narratives". I consider it highly unlikely that the alleged 'believer majority' have researched the issue at all - they have lives to lead, careers to pursue, livings to earn, peers to impress etc. - and to believe otherwise is, if nothing else, likely to jeapardise all of those things. Or or as someone once said "It's impossible to get someone to see what his livelihood depends upon his not seeing".
My point is this:
I cannot be certain 100% either way but the more I dig and research with an open mind, the more I judge the probability of a full-scale hoax to increase. I can't measure that probability scientfically - it's a subjective thing - but in my case it currently hovers around 80-90%-ish certainty of hoax.
And this is what really puzzles me: Peter Dawson seems to be claiming that the more he researches the issue, the more he is confirmed in the view that it was NOT a hoax. I simply do not understand how that can be if he and I have examined the same evidence. I agree there is room for differing interpretations on much of the techie stuff, but taken in-toto IMHO there is simply no contest.
And I can state, quite emphatically and without reservation, that I have no agenda other than a genuine hunger to understand this smoke and mirrors world we inhabit and to make what I find available to others without shoving it down their throats. Can PD do the same?
My default inclination is one of sympathy with the underdog and, at least on this forum and this subject, Peter D is the underdog. The effect of the inclination is to read what is said by the UD carefully. A lot of the detailed technical issues surrounding the Moon-landings are indeed arguable - some of them ad-nauseam - without advancing the overall issue much. That said, my experience has been that the more carefully I look at those techie, and all the other issues the greater I judge the probability of the whole thing being a gigantic hoax.
I started on the issue a good few years ago as a confirmed "ridicule the hoax advocates" person - as I suspect the vast majority of believers are. I found it quite difficult to cross the threshold of opening my mind on it at all. The very idea that it could have been a hoax was absurd. I find a similar threshold applies to many Deep Political issues. To be perfectly frank, my initial research was really aimed at trying to confirm my original long-standing certainty (prejudice, comfortable assumptions - whatever) but I was forced to accept the opposite, and very uncomfortable it was too - as is research in so many other of our received "Official Narratives". I consider it highly unlikely that the alleged 'believer majority' have researched the issue at all - they have lives to lead, careers to pursue, livings to earn, peers to impress etc. - and to believe otherwise is, if nothing else, likely to jeapardise all of those things. Or or as someone once said "It's impossible to get someone to see what his livelihood depends upon his not seeing".
My point is this:
I cannot be certain 100% either way but the more I dig and research with an open mind, the more I judge the probability of a full-scale hoax to increase. I can't measure that probability scientfically - it's a subjective thing - but in my case it currently hovers around 80-90%-ish certainty of hoax.
And this is what really puzzles me: Peter Dawson seems to be claiming that the more he researches the issue, the more he is confirmed in the view that it was NOT a hoax. I simply do not understand how that can be if he and I have examined the same evidence. I agree there is room for differing interpretations on much of the techie stuff, but taken in-toto IMHO there is simply no contest.
And I can state, quite emphatically and without reservation, that I have no agenda other than a genuine hunger to understand this smoke and mirrors world we inhabit and to make what I find available to others without shoving it down their throats. Can PD do the same?
Peter Presland
".....there is something far worse than Nazism, and that is the hubris of the Anglo-American fraternities, whose routine is to incite indigenous monsters to war, and steer the pandemonium to further their imperial aims"
Guido Preparata. Preface to 'Conjuring Hitler'[size=12][size=12]
"Never believe anything until it has been officially denied"
Claud Cockburn
[/SIZE][/SIZE]
".....there is something far worse than Nazism, and that is the hubris of the Anglo-American fraternities, whose routine is to incite indigenous monsters to war, and steer the pandemonium to further their imperial aims"
Guido Preparata. Preface to 'Conjuring Hitler'[size=12][size=12]
"Never believe anything until it has been officially denied"
Claud Cockburn
[/SIZE][/SIZE]