For some reason there has been considerable mainstream media
coverage of this year's Glastonbury Symposium, see:
http://www.glastonburysymposium.co.uk/.
I myself went along in 2010 and made one of my favourite HPANWO TV videos,
Ben Goes on Tor!, see:
http://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/ben-goes-on-tor.html.
In those days only the specialized press of the UFO/conspiracy/paranormal and
the mind/body/spirit communities; and the various overlaps thereof, covered it.
Journals such as
Nexus,
Caduceus,
Namaste etc. This year one of the speakers was Marcus Allen, the
UK
publisher of
Nexus magazine. He's a
good friend of mine and fellow researcher, specializing in the moon landings,
and has been on HPANWO Radio many times, see:
http://hpanwo-radio.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/programme-179-podcast-marcus-allen.html.
His lecture was reviewed by Jon Austin of the
Sunday Express and... ultimate spoiler alert, it is not exactly Pulitzer
Prize material. Source:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/838136/Moon-landings-hoax-Marcus-Allen-not-possible-Glastonbury-Symposium.
The content is vaguely factual, but includes some aversive
elements. The very title is simplistic and misleading:
"Secret Space Project- 'NASA had craft to reach moon... but hoaxed
Apollo missions instead'." It is intended to make the reader scoff,
and hopefully read no further. The true relationship between the secret space
programme and NASA's public equivalent is complex, but explicable. Marcus and I
delve into it in our interviews and also there is more information in the
background links below. The article begins:
"A top lunar landings denier." Any description of a
person's beliefs that includes the suffix "denier" is a personal slur.
It is intended to connect in the reader's mind to "Holocaust denier"
and thereby demonize the person. It is a tactic used by people like George
Monbiot, see:
http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/death-to-climate-change-deniers.html.
"Shocking claim" is just a
piece of shallow rhetoric. Why use the adjective "shocking"?
"Shocking" is a position on a purely emotional and qualitative gauge.
It says nothing about how much or little evidence exists to support or
discredit the claim. It is similar to Carl Sagan's cliche "Extraordinary
claims require extraordinary explanations." See here for more details:
https://youtu.be/Oxfmkn7QygY?t=26m18s.
"Mr Allen is the UK publisher of 'alternative news' magazine Nexus." "Alternative
news" is put into scare-quotes so that the reader will intuit an implicit pejorative
subtext. This is done in a similar way to how the mainstream media use the phrase
"fake news". The same goes for the old lines
"moon hoax conspiracy theorist" (repeated twice)
and
"The far-fetched conspiracy theory." If a trick keeps
working, why not keep using it?
"It
is then claimed that specialist scientists aided by Nazi's, who worked for the US in return for immunity from war crimes
trials." This refers to Operation Paperclip and it is not a
"claim"; it is historical fact. After the destruction of Nazi Germany
at the end of World War II, Hitler's scientists were given the choice of working
for the victorious allies or going to Nuremburg. The best known of these
scientists is Wernher von Braun. Many of these experts were also working in the
field of electrogravitics and this would have included the back-engineering of
extraterrestrial technology that used it, see background links for details.
"Believers even claim that the
high-tech craft are secretly flown into space." The word "believers"
is another dysphemism; it echoes phrases like "believers in the cult of
the Lemonade Fountain" etc. It prevents the readers understanding that
people like Marcus have come to this field of study via a careful scientific analysis
of the evidence. As always with the mainstream media, it is the comments under
the article that are far more interesting than the article itself; and based on
those, apart from the usual idiots of course, I'm pleased to say that the propaganda in this screed does not appear to
have fooled as many people as the authors and editor would probably like. We're
almost at the fiftieth anniversary of the Apollo moon missions. NASA know this
is going to be a massive informational choke point for them, possibly too
massive to prevent the truth exploding out... and I'm going to be squeezing
hard on their necks!
