James Oberg writing Moon Hoax book

[The Bad Astronomer]

James Oberg is a space historian and UFO debunker. He's writing a Moon Hoax book that-- get this-- is funded by NASA. I was pretty surprised when I found out. There's a newspaper article about it in the Miami Herald today. I am quoted in there; not my best sound bite, but what the heck.

A slightly different version of the article is in
the San Jose Mercury News, and also in the Detroit Free Press. The article was written as part of the Knight-Ridder news service, so it's in lots of papers today.

[Zathras]

It's a shame that the book has to be funded by NASA. That will make the book have no credibility in the eyes of those it seeks to convince.

[The Bad Astronomer]

It won't be able to convince those it most needs to, just like my site or Jay's won't either.

My concern is that since it's a book, it won't be as easy to disseminate to the people who do need it -- the fence-sitters-- as well as a website is. James is a good writer, and I am sure it'll be a good book. Once it's done and I've read it I'll talk about it in my newsletter.

[SpacedOut]

A while back we discussed coming up with a better term for the HP/HB crowd - Phil finally found the right term - twinkie [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

I doubt it will do anything to silence the twinkies but, it will at least end the argument that NASA's silence confirms the hoax is real.

[SpacedOut]

Dumb question - Since NASA is commissioning the book will it be a public domain document or will it be sold at cost or for profit?

[JimO]

The 'monograph' -- not a book, really -- is due to be issued in 3rdQ 2003, and it will be gratis. The full text in pdf format will be on line for anyone to use. I'd like to see somebody do a commercial edition paperback, perhaps, but that's to be decided in the future.

[SpacedOut]

Thanks for the info JimO - Can't wait to see it!

[jrkeller]

The monograph will probably appear here.

http://history.nasa.gov/what.html

[Donnie B.]

JimO, are you who I think you are? If so, welcome to the BABB, and do drop by again!

[Zathras]

On 2002-10-30 16:37, Donnie B. wrote:
JimO, are you who I think you are? If so, welcome to the BABB, and do drop by again!

That's what the link on his profile says.

Likewise, JimO, welcome to the board!

[JimO]

I am delighted to be here, and offer this latest press story on my project:

NASA hires writer to debunk Apollo theory
http://www.galvestondailynews.com/report.lasso?wcd=5535

By Ted Streuli (Ted.Streuli@galvnews.com)
The Daily News, page A-3
Published October 31, 2002

[Irishman]

Hey, welcome and congrats, JimO. I got the announcment from CSICOP, which links the Galveston Daily News story.

Zathras, it's not a shame it's funded by NASA, it's great! There have been many complaints (including on this site) that NASA should do more to combat the conspiracy theorists. Well, here they are actually doing something. Kudos!

No, because it's from NASA it's not likely to convince the conspiracists of anything, but then nothing will. If people want to discount it because it is from NASA, they still have Phil's book and this website and Clavius.

“Half the world’s population wasn’t yet born the last time an American walked on the moon. Launius said that as more time passes, the less real the lunar missions seem.

“As time progresses, this gets less and less real to everybody,” said Launius. “At some level, I think that may be what’s happening here.”

“Finding the basis for people’s beliefs is something NASA wants me to do,” said Oberg. “They just can’t understand what the appeal is. The general feeling was that the people who held this view were unworthy of dialog. I think that was unseemly and improper of NASA. People who are puzzled by something deserve an attempt at an explanation.”

<a name="2-11-02.BUHS"> page 2-11-02.BUHS aka Beaverton Union High School
On 2002-10-30 12:12, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
James Oberg is a space historian and UFO debunker. He's writing a Moon Hoax book that-- get this-- is funded by NASA. I was pretty surprised when I found out. There's a newspaper article about it in the Miami Herald today. I am quoted in there; not my best sound bite, but what the heck.


http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/n...on/4402259.htm
nOT TO LONG AGO i attended a reunion of BUHS
{class of 56} & besides the Lady Host there was
only one name mentioned that i even remembered
"Lee Metcalf" a Dr. form San Jose as i recall {believe whatever you like (BWYL)}

<a name="2-11-02.**"> page 2-11-02.** aka **
On 2002-11-02 11:21, HUb' wrote: tO: HUb'
Yeah? so i went to San Jose?
{actually those are THe wrong words}
I just don't know the song.
and searched for lee metcalf

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/n...on/4402259.htm

THe results of my search was I found Metcalf
{apprearently a Ca.town or berg .. and Lee
{ um as in the windless side ? i guess }
but I never ever found the Dr. i was looking for{oh my}

[Jigsaw]

Well, here's what he's up against. Ralph Rene.

Oberg ''has got one hell of a job ahead of him,'' said skeptic Ralph Rene, a New Jersey carpenter who said he is self-taught in physics and has self-published two books. One book claims the moon landing didn't happen; the other criticizes Isaac Newton's grasp of physics. ``I could care less what they do.''

Ralph's two books.

NASA MOONED AMERICA! $26.00

This book contains 3 full size, full color NASA photos and 6 more NASA black and whites. It is must reading for those who believe our great father in Washington tells us no lies. It opens the mind and then the eyes because I prove my case by using NASA photos, quotes from the Apollo astronauts and quotes from other government scientists. The new edition has a few appendices added and it has had many minor changes since its first printing in 1992. It uses an 8.5 X 11 inch format and has 206 pages


THE LAST SKEPTIC OF SCIENCE $17.00

...The 178 pages in this book cover many diverse topics and came about because of the years I spent studying scientific anomalies. These studies inadvertently led to a number of discoveries also discussed in my book. My book was specifically written for laymen with an interest in science and it contains:

A large section on civilizations and technologies that were lost

A simple proof using stellar observations and plane trig that Newton's massive Equatorial Bulge is just a figment of Newton's imagination.

A section that reduces Einstein's Relativity to an absurdity.

Information on a very simple instrument, the Rene' two leaf electroscope, that proves Coulomb's law of electrical attraction and Repulsion needs serious modification.

A do-it your self experiment that proves our atmosphere fluoresces instead of scattering blue light.

A simple arithmetic proof that Newton's gravity of attraction of mass for mass is erroneous.

Look!! Twinkies!! Sic 'em, Jim! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[Donnie B.]

I'm so proud...

The Moon Hoax made it onto the National Public Radio "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me!"

For those unfamiliar with the show, it's a comic quiz show about events in the week's news. In this particular segment, the panel had to figure out what a particular story referred to.

The item went like this: "This week, NASA announced that it would spend $15,000 to convince people of what?"

The answer (that they went to the Moon) was guessed correctly after the host gave a hint that the thing was something that NASA had already done. The panelist's comment went like this: "If they spent billions to get to the Moon and still didn't convince some people, what makes them think that another $15,000 will do the job?"

A valid question, I suppose... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img]

[Peter B]

On 2002-11-02 15:23, Jigsaw wrote:
Well, here's what he's up against. Ralph Rene.

THE LAST SKEPTIC OF SCIENCE $17.00

My book was specifically written for laymen with an interest in science and it contains:

A simple proof using stellar observations and plane trig that Newton's massive Equatorial Bulge is just a figment of Newton's imagination.

Doesn't this guy look at what his coffee does when he stirs it?

[SaturnV]

Go Jimmy O


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SaturnV on 2002-11-06 20:07 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SaturnV on 2002-11-06 20:10 ]</font>

[jrkeller]

When you think of the small cost (15K$) for sponsoring James Oberg to write the book, vs. the hours (people's salary) spent by NASA answering everyones questions, I think the government is getting there money's worth. I'm sure that's why NASA is doing it.

[Jigsaw]

We saw J.Oberg on ABC last night, and went, "Oh, so THAT'S who he is." [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Then our pet HB was on the phone to us as soon as the news was over. "Hey, didja see that, NASA's taking this really SERIOUSLY! They've hired this guy to come after us!!"

We told him he was now officially a "Twinkie", but he didn't seem to care.

We keep trying to get him to check out the BA's website, or Clavius--I kept hollering across the dining room, to where Hubby was on the phone with him, "It's clavius dot org, tell him it's clavius dot org", but our Twinkie seems quite comfy with his conspiracy.

Oh well.

[JimO]

I was on ABC last night? Was it live?

What did I say?

I mustn't have been paying attention!

joberg@houston.rr.com

[JimO]

I was on ABC last night? Was it live?

What did I say?

I mustn't have been paying attention!

joberg@houston.rr.com

[Lisa]

Now wait a sec. From little debates I've been in (read: knock down drag outs) with the Hbers, this is counter to one of their favorite rants. "Why won't NASA address us? Why are we ignored? The fact that NASA won't answer these questions is proof that the Apollo missions were faked!!"
Okay. Now NASA is going to answer their questions. Cool. So now we're hearing "Aha, NASA feels the need to address our charges. This proves the Apollo missions were faked!"
What am I missing?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Lisa on 2002-11-05 12:57 ]</font>

[JayUtah]

What am I missing?

You're missing nothing. This is the same tautological reasoning that defeats the intellectual process for all their other arguments.

It's the logical equivalent of "damned if you do, damned if you don't." Set one condition and the conspiracy theorists claim this implies the landings were hoaxed. Remove the condition, and the same conspiracy theorists claim this also implies the hoax. The conspiracy theorists cite this as the strength of their argument -- that no matter what NASA says, they can't escape the conclusion that the landings were hoaxed.

Unfortunately Silas' mathematical example doesn't really apply. Yes, if A implies B and not-A implies B, then be is true. However, that all rests on the strength of the implication. In mathematics the implications are unequivocally provable. In historical investigation, which is based on inductive logic and not deductive logic, implications are never absolute, and frequently not very strong.

"NASA is silent on the subject of hoaxes" implies "the moon landings were faked" is not a strong implication. It is, in fact, an affirmed consequent. There may be many other reasons why NASA is silent on that subject. In the inductive world, "A implies B" and "not-A implies B" shows only that A has little or nothing to do with B, therefore cannot be cited as evidence in support of B.

In a more informal sense, it is obvious that the desired conclusion is what drives the conspiracy theory. Every condition (NASA's attention or its silence) is connected to the desired conclusion by some creative scenario.

[Andrew]

http://www.aros.net/~gzero/cgi-bin/i...t=ST;f=12;t=14

(Requires registration and logging in to view.)

Hoax proponent Clyde Lewis (he'd probably deny he is one) made the above post on his forum upon hearing of NASA's funding of the book. The thread is entitled "NASA shoots itself in the foot, Oh the THREAT of Conspiracy dupes" in which he posted a little article he wrote called "CONSPIRACY DUPES ARE A THREAT TO NASA! A $15,000 dollar book will convince everyone we went to the moon!".

The main gist of the article, as is probably apparent from the title, is that he is indulging himself in some fantasy that the reason NASA is publishing this "book" is because they see hoax believers as a threat who are getting too close to the truth. Or something. And he asks "Why bother?" if hoax proponents aren't really a threat.

And then, browsing through his older posts on his forum, I find this post dated 18th Oct. @ 17:49 (again, requires registration, it also contains "language"), wherein he claims that ignoring hoax proponents (i.e. Sibrel) fuels the fire.

This is the same chap that called people who post on Bad Astronomy "a pack of idiots".

[Jim]

A simple proof using stellar observations and plane trig that Newton's massive Equatorial Bulge is just a figment of Newton's imagination.

Is this an attempt at a fat joke with a cookie pun?

[Jigsaw]

On 2002-11-05 10:19, JimO wrote:
I was on ABC last night? Was it live? What did I say? I mustn't have been paying attention!

Well, er, [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_redface.gif[/img] actually, I, Jigsaw, personally did not witness you on the TeeVee, but just as I came into the living room at the tail end of the news, Hubby said, "Hey, that NASA book guy was just on, with Peter Jennings, and he was talking about Twinkies, just like you said." Because I had just updated him on the book/Twinkie thing.

So I assumed that he meant that you, personally, had been on, but I suppose he could have meant just that Peter Jennings was talking about you. Were your ears burning? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jigsaw on 2002-11-05 16:36 ]</font>

[JimO]

I registered on Clyde's board and tried to reply to that new message, but was messaged that I wasn't authorized.

[JimO]

No Apollo Moon Landing? NASA Book to Combat Doubts
Tue Nov 5, 1:15 PM ET
By Deborah Zabarenko

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Moon rocks weren't enough. Neither was testimony from astronauts or even photographic evidence. So NASA (news - web sites) has commissioned a mini-book to show that yes, indeed, Americans did land on the Moon.


AP Photo



Most humans on Earth accept that U.S. astronauts first got to the moon aboard the Apollo 11 mission on July 20, 1969. But those who don't believe have created a sort of cottage industry of doubt, and that is what NASA wants to combat.


"I'd been concerned for some time that there was this story that's circulating about how we never landed on the Moon and we would get, periodically, calls from people about how to respond to that, especially from teachers," said Roger Launius, NASA's former chief historian.


Launius had long wanted to put together an educational aid for teachers and others who wanted to counter the doubters, and in September, NASA agreed to pay aeronautics engineer James Oberg $15,000 to write a monograph gathering up materials answering the skeptics, point by point.


The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has dealt with the controversy for decades, without much fanfare, but Launius said the questioning intensified in 2001 after the Fox television network aired "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?"


This program gave another voice to the doubters, whose arguments are scattered broadly over the Internet and have even spawned a backlash from scientists who view the doubters' contentions as simply ridiculous.


Those who doubt the Apollo moon landings maintained the United States lacked the technology to send humans to the Moon and was so desperate to appear to win the space race against the Soviet Union that it faked the moon mission on movie sets.


The doubters said the fake was done so poorly that there is ample evidence of fraud, including a picture of astronauts planting the American flag that allegedly shows the flag rippling in the wind. The skeptics contended there can be no breeze on the moon, so the picture must have been faked.


On its own Web page debunking the Apollo doubters -- http:/liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/news/2001/news-moonlanding.asp -- NASA agreed that there is no Earth-type breeze on the moon, and there is no atmosphere either.


DID THE FLAG WAVE IN THE WIND?


But when the astronauts struggled to plant the U.S. flag in the lunar surface, they twisted it around a bit before it stuck, and that naturally created ripples in the flag.

The ripples would have dissipated within seconds on Earth, where the atmosphere would have stopped them. But on the Moon, the rippling went unchecked, making it look as if it were being carried by the wind.

There are other sites, including http://www.badastronomy.com, that take aim at the substance of the doubters' claims. The site's creator, astronomer Phil Plait, was blunt in his condemnation of the doubters, whom he calls conspiracy theorists.

"The craziness involves people who think that the NASA Apollo Moon missions were faked," Plait said on the site. "There are lots of rumors spreading around about this, and rest assured they are all completely false. The claims made by these conspiracy theorists are actually all wrong, sometimes laughably so."

The controversy recently emerged from cyberspace in the person of Bart Sibrel, who has made a film questioning the Apollo Moon missions and who confronted astronaut Buzz Aldrin at a Beverly Hills hotel on Sept. 9 and demanded that Aldrin swear on a Bible that he had in fact walked on the moon.

The 72-year-old Aldrin, the second man ever to touch the lunar surface, punched the 37-year-old Sibrel in the face. Sibrel asked that assault charges be filed, but Los Angeles County prosecutors declined. A videotape of the incident showed Sibrel following Aldrin on the street with a Bible and calling him a "thief, liar and coward," one prosecutor said.

Launius, who recently moved from NASA headquarters to the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC, said he has no illusions about whether the upcoming monograph, which he describes as a short book, will change every doubter's mind.

"We know that there are groups of people out there, individuals out there, that you're never going to convince of something like this," Launius said. "That's not the audience.

"The audience are those who are basically coming to NASA, looking for information, and obviously they'll make up their own minds, but we'll try to put the best possible information in their hands," Launius said.

[AstroMike]

On 2002-11-05 17:26, JimO wrote:

I registered on Clyde's board and tried to reply to that new message, but was messaged that I wasn't authorized.

Jim, you awaiting authorization.

http://www.aros.net/~gzero/cgi-bin/i...Members;st=100