Jump to content


Spartacus

How America Faked the Moon Landings


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#46 Duane Daman

Duane Daman

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,332 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2007 - 10:07 PM

Steve ... There is no reason to post Hawkins bio here ... I'm pretty sure it's as bogus as he is ... Apparently we have all been had ... I received an e-mail this morning from a friend of mine who follows my forum posts here and he saw that everyone was stilll trying to find out who Charles T. Hawkins is .... He sent me a post article from clavius about Hawkins and said he thought the guy was really a nasa stooge .... And after reading his train wreck of a book , it finally became clear to me also that the book was a set up .... It was most likely written by a nasa flunky trying to make the conspiracy info look bogus .... That's why not many of the photos in his book could be found on any nasa sites and the few that could be found , didn't show the anomalies he pointed out ....

I was stumped when I first started reading the book because some of what was written sounded very logical and scientific , while some of the other things sounded ridiculous .... Then when no one could find any proof of this guys existance and even the talk shows he was suppossed to have been on turned up as non existant also , I looked at his 'hoax evidence' more carefully and found it to be very lacking on all levels , to say the least .... After reading 'Dark Moon' by David Percy and Mary Bennett , it became even more clear that Hawkins book is major disinformation and nonsense ..

Here's the clavius link about Hawkins .... ( Good grief ... I never thought I would be linking anyone to that horrible web site ! )

http://www.clavius.org/bibhawkins.html

Edited by Duane Daman, 09 January 2007 - 10:08 PM.


#47 Matthew Lewis

Matthew Lewis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 700 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Panama City, FL
  • Interests:My interests lie in astronomy, space flight, contrail formation, weather, and of course aviation.

Posted 09 January 2007 - 10:38 PM

Evan Burton posted that same link in post 32 of this thread on Dec 20. But you probably missed it. I know how quickly new posts can build up on a forum or thread if you don't look at it for a while.

#48 Steve Ulman

Steve Ulman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 318 posts
  • Location:New England, USA

Posted 09 January 2007 - 10:55 PM

Duane-

Thanks for the info and honest assessment of Hawkins book.

I got the impression from Amazon that it was an 8 1/2 x 11 book that was bound somehow. If it is a simple copy and binding booklet that someone could easily run off at the local copy center, could be just some kid looking for some quick cash on a goof. Could be an Apollo enthusiast hoping to scam some quick cash due to the popularity of these kinds of books in general simply by linking to other books on Amazon to suck people in. However, getting something that looks very professional, printed and bound, is much easier to do these days than in the past, so that may not even be a good indication of the $$ put into the project.

If it was not done as a goof/scam, I’d be very upset. IMO, the Apollo record doesn’t need embellishment or this kind of “reverse” defense.

One final thought, has a Charles Hawkins ever done an interview, or are those references that are to be found in the ‘net a scam as well? I guess we may never know.

Again – Thanks for the update.

#49 Evan Burton

Evan Burton

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,003 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW, Australia

Posted 09 January 2007 - 11:05 PM

Duane,

Please don't take this as an ad hom attack because it is not, but I want to examine your attitude towards the book.

Originally, you were touting the Hawkins book as fact. On further examination of it, you revised your opinion based on new evidence and came to the conclusion it was bogus. But why did you make a leap to it being "NASA disimformation"? I see there being 3 possibilities for the book:

1. A person who truely believes what they say, publishing a book about it;

2. A person deciding to make some money by publishing a book about the "Moon Hoax"; or

3. A person (or NASA) deliberately publishing a book with easily deniable theories in order to discredit the hoax-theory believers.

What makes your favoured option of 3 any more credible than the other two?

#50 Duane Daman

Duane Daman

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,332 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2007 - 11:26 PM

Steve ... You're welcome .... After trying to verify Hawkins photographic anomaly claims and not being able to ( I first thought maybe nasa had edited or pulled the damaging photos ), I realized that copying the "bio" would be a waste of my time .

Evan ... No offense taken ... I reached conclusion number three because I find it impossible to believe that any authentic , intelligent conspiracy researcher would make the claims that this guy did which could so easily be discredited ... He makes his "whiz kids" look like Einstein ... If there ever were any kids involved in this to begin with , they came up with more meaningful information , theories and propositons for nasa than he did .

Even using the Wayback Machine to look at the previous Moonbloopers site only turned up more of the same nonsense ... If I was reading hoax information for the first time and this drivil was presented to me , I would believe that Apollo really did go to the moon ... That's how bad it is .

#51 Matthew Lewis

Matthew Lewis

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 700 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Panama City, FL
  • Interests:My interests lie in astronomy, space flight, contrail formation, weather, and of course aviation.

Posted 10 January 2007 - 12:12 AM

So why couldn't it be option 2?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users