Re: Moon Landing expose on Chanel 9 (AUS)

From: Jonathan Silverlight (jsilverlight_at_spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid)
Date: 01/10/05 

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:40:55 +0000

In message <20050110114555.6a45ef3f@server.office>, Michael Smith
<smithm@SPAMBLOCKnetapps.com.au> writes
>On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:14:23 +0800
>"Neil Gerace" <geracen@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Julian Bordas" <Julianbordas@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:41e0e61b$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
>> > I'll be recording this as an example of bad science. It may come in
>> > useful as a teaching aid.
>>
>> It's commercial television; there's no science involved.
>
>I thought Jay Windley and Jim Oberg did a good job of presenting the facts.
>
>But for me this is an instance of TV creating, and making money off, a
>totally phoney debate. By presenting this as a comparison of the
>pro-hoax and anti-hoax groups they implicitly start with both positions
>at the same level.
>
>As you say. This is commercial tv.

Perhaps unfortunately, TV has to maintain balance. Usually, it's
justified, and in this case it made the pro-hoax people appear a bunch
of paranoid trailer trash, and the antis a bunch of - scientists and
engineers? No harm done, then!
But I still want to know if Jim Oberg was in a set or his study :-)