21-11-2010, 03:47 PM
Peter Dawson Wrote:I read them all a few years ago - do I have to read them again?
As I said at the time, it's always entertaining to see someone try to convince the world that the moon missions were faked. Entertaining, up to a point.
I don't really think his Laurel Canyon series amounts to all that much - a lot of the same kind of talent (for spinning something out of nothing) was required to turn both his LC series and his Moon series into compelling reads.
(later...)
Okay, I've poked around some of his Moondoggie pieces again. Then I found myself at Wiki looking at the pre-Apollo 11 missions, like Apollo 8. I recommend other people do the same, especially those inclined to believe the hoax theory - you owe it to yourselves and the world.
There seems to be 2 trends which are making hoax believers more prevalent these days - laziness and shame. I'm too lazy to spend a lot of time answering all the moon hoax arguments, but a lot of people are so lazy these days that they can't credit other people in the past with having been smart enough to successfully do the moon missions. That's the "laziness" trend. And McGowan talks about people being too scared to accept the truth that the missions were faked, but the larger story to that is that Americans have taken quite a few blows to their pride over the years - from having their president knocked off by their own people, to finding out at long length the underhanded ways the US has sought to protect it's percieved interests in world affairs over the years, to 9/11 looking more like an inside job the closer you look at it - and they're tempted to jump to the conclusion that the landings were faked because faking of the landings would at this point seem to be more in keeping with the style in which it turns out America is inclined to do things. But it isn't necessarily so.
Rather than in continuing to engage in Ad Hominem attacks on Jim Fetzer, Perhaps you can make use of the reconstituted EF thread that Magda posted and build a factual case to support your arguments? I think this would be viewed all round as the best way to proceed is you are to sway people to your point of view.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14