The Houston Chronicle has an article today about the Apollo hoax at http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/space/1664394 that includes quotes from Phil Plait and James Oberg.

I like this decription:
"(Ralph) Rene, a retired New Jersey carpenter and self-published author ... is among a handful of vocal moon-landing nonbelievers demanding more Apollo proof from NASA, pestering aging astronauts and confusing millions of TV viewers and Internet surfers."

Jim O has this to say about the book he was asked to write:
"I was just going to bring out more of the amazing truths about our space activities, talk to the people involved, and show the public how they can think for themselves and check these things that they hear."

And Phil speaks out:
"The claims they are making are wrong, period," Plait said of the skeptics. "Some of their questions, I think, 'What are you thinking, saying stuff like this? That's just dumb.' ... "

Phil's site is linked, so start looking for visitors.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

The article states that Ralph Rene was a member of Mensa. What exactly are the qualifications to join?

I believe you have to score in the top 2 percent in IQ tests or something. Then they let you in.

Is Aron Ranen another Bart Sibrel in training? He said he flew to the Goddard Space Flight Center & was told the telemetry tapes from the Apollo 11 mission were missing? Did he bother to ask for the telemetry tapes from Apollo's 12 thru 17??? What would these tapes prove anyways??? Observatories get more accurate readings from reflectors left on the moon by the Apollo astronauts then from ones placed by Soviet unmanned landers. I think Mr. Aron is someone jumping into the moonhoax conspiracy to make a name for himself.

If the people I know are any indication, the primary qualification is that you must have an extremely high opinion of yourself.

A friend of mine is in MENSA and here is her quote about MENSA

"All that really means is that I got lucky on a multiple-choice test! Yep, that's really all it means. I.Q. scores don't mean anything - it's what you do with what you've got that counts..."

http://www.mensa.org/info.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-11-17 20:41 ]</font>

For some additional insight into MENSA check out this older BABB thread.

HOLY FLYING MONKEYS!! What a flaming idiot. We all have seen the video of the planes hitting the building, heard the stories of people who watched it live, who lived through the event. And he doubts that?! Ralph Rene's credibility is nil!

This Ranen cat ain't too swooft, neither. Because the Russians landed unmanned probes with mirrors, that means the U.S. lied? And this:
Ignoring the fact that spy satellites orbiting Earth can't get a good look at the Moon, just how in the world is a U.S. government satellite going to convince the hoax crowd? Yeah, independent scientists - these people won't accept the millions of independent scientists and engineers who say the moon rocks are real, the Apollo technology would work, the Van Allen belts are not that dangerous, stars won't be shown in moon photos, etc. NOW they'll suddenly accept independent scientists? HAH!

This sort of evidence - thousands of people seeing something happen live, etc. - is routinely ignored by conspiracy theorists of all varieties and skill levels. For example, several of my students were convinced by the movie "Wag the Dog" that a war could easily be faked. They simply forgot about all the independent international news and invesigative organizations, HAM radio operators, Internet users, international telephone calls, human rights and aid organizations, etc., that would come into play in such a situation. Similarly, Apollo HBs ignore all the witnesses of various sorts, not to mention all the other evidence, in favor of a waving flag or some such easily explained "common sense" argument.

I am reminded of an old Doonesbury cartoon, where one of the main characters is talking to two peasants (I think it was supposed to be Cambodia) and asked them about the "secret bombings".

One of the peasants says something like "Secret? It wasn't secret. I remarked on them at the time. I said, 'look, there are the planes.' And his wife says, "It's true, he did."

For example, several of my students were convinced by the movie "Wag the Dog" that a war could easily be faked.

Many hoax believers appeal to fiction. Capricorn One, Wag the Dog, and similar films are cited as proof that large-scale hoaxes are possible -- maybe even commonplace. Unfortunately this ignores the very salient (at least to me) fact that fiction lives in a world entirely created and controlled by its author. The author simply writes that the characters in his are fooled by the hoax, and the story proceeds. The author can conveniently ignore elements of the real world that contradict his plot.

Historical fiction such as Apollo 13 is often used as if it were primary source material. Mary Bennett and David Percy especially love to ascribe authoritative status to such secondary sources.

Sad, really. These people are trying to be historians. Doesn't it occur to them to behave like historians?

This may sound odd, but I think that teachers of literature might be partially to blame for creating an atmosphere in which fiction is used as though it were primary source material. I suspect I'm not the only person who recalls a lit. or film prof. lecturing on how novel X "proves" Y. Examples: "The final scene of 'The Maltese Falcon' proves how a man's loyalty to his partner is stronger than his love of a woman."; "'The Sphere' shows that [i.e., proves] the government is only interested in aliens for the military technology they might give us." Obviously my explanation is insufficient to explain the phenomenon...

Yeah - how many times has Hollywood portrayed the NSA as "the bad guys" (as an example)? Here's a bunch of ordinary American citizens trying to protect our country, and they are treated a villains. Aargh!

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

<a name="JD2452599.M&M"> page JD2452599.M&M aka Moon & Mirrow
1? Astronomy Question 1 November 20, 2002
whats the link to the data for the .ru "mirrow"?
2? Astronomical question #2 for November 20, 2002
at 4:40 P.M. PST {npr/pdx} had A.Gore on this AM
was this the only city to block the MAIN EVENT?
3? Astronomical Question #3 for November 20, 2002
can a link to Leonides (Counts) data be
provided {on the line below} {yeah from this MORNING} ?&?
{line below for links2}

I have to admit I'm baffled. Why do the hoaxsters get so upset when their ideas get so much as repeated back to them? I'm just listening to the "show" that our Bad Astronomer got to be a part of and you can tell that he and Jim were very calm, while Rene was quite animated and seemed to get upset if he felt that he was being shot down when really the host would ask him to simplify his answers. I've noticed this in the past as well with others like Rene. Perhaps this can be used to detect a hoaxster in the future.

__________________
jest

"Don't worry, everything is getting nicely out of control." -Douglas Adams

<a name="2-11-21.CB"> page 2-11-21.CB aka CB
On 2002-11-20 20:42, jest wrote: tO? 9:18 A.M.
SURE: i did get the CB swap acomplished..Now i've the Realistic
Built in VSWR {i like that} So yeah the Mom went along
to the Radio store picked up the hand held and called the
operator on CH26. the auto answer cam on and /WITH
instructions of what to do nest to place a call..
Well after 1/2 hour of trying we left..
So last night I tried being REALISTIC and found
some Radio Activity on CH20 {still Leonides} i believe

Well, it didn't help that Rene seemed to think that he was talking to Oberg rather than Gordon and would get quite upset when Gordon would confess his ignorance on an issue that Jim would of course be far more familiar with.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.