Join 3,564 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Conspiracy or not?
March 26, 2001 6:39 AM   Subscribe

Conspiracy or not? Convinced to sit and watch FOX's show on whether we landed on the moon, I found myself wondering why there was no evidence against the hoax presented. Is this is clearly another feed on the conspiracy theories surrounding JFK's administration? Or was it just another "When cars attack?" (If so, I didn't find this as funny)
posted by samsara (24 comments total)

 
"If you believe they put on a man on the moon ... if you believe there's nothing up their sleeve, then nothing is cool"
posted by jragon at 7:36 AM on March 26, 2001


;)

It's because NASA didn't want to give it the tacit endorsement of contributing to the programme. And because FOX produces tabloid shit. Anyway, they offered a wearied response on the NASA.gov front page when the programme was first shown, and you'll find a more substantial critique here.

I bet they fucking showed it next to "The Lone Gunmen", didn't they?
posted by holgate at 8:01 AM on March 26, 2001


Simpsons quote of the moment: "I own that network!....I suppose you don't like tabloid newpapers, either!"
posted by Hackworth at 8:09 AM on March 26, 2001


Samsara: Thank you so much for the first link. I saw the special too, and went looking for a site like that, but all I found was stuff like this. I never doubted, but I hate not having the answers.
posted by thirteen at 8:12 AM on March 26, 2001


"The Lone Gunmen" is pretty good.
posted by thirteen at 8:15 AM on March 26, 2001


I want to believe.....but I can't because there is no compelling evidence that the landings were faked.
posted by Markb at 8:32 AM on March 26, 2001


Just for kicks, here's a bit more info on ABC's, "When Cars Attack"

My parents taped the Fox show when it re-aired last Monday. I found it disturbing, not only that...but was almost driven mad at not having a clear perspective from the scientific community. I know (or atleast hope) that the executives at Fox knew that this was just hysteria provoking, but what I took a particular offense to was the tidbit that NASA staged the deaths during an Apollo 1 mission mainly to silence Gus Grissom.

This is just my opinion, but for the sake of this country's sanity (not that having a bunch of TV influenced conspiracy theorists wouldn't be entertaining), could we keep the Simpsons and get rid of Fox?
posted by samsara at 8:45 AM on March 26, 2001


Did anyone see that show? I found myself strangely drawn to it. Actually it was pretty well done. They presented some things I hadn't heard of previously that actually got me thinking...
posted by fusinski at 9:13 AM on March 26, 2001


"They presented some things I hadn't heard of previously that actually got me thinking."

And most of them have perfectly rational explanations.

Just for an example, all the photos with no stars in the background? That one caught me. Considering that I fancy myself an amateur photographer, though, it shouldn't have. The light on the moon, having nothing between moon and sun to get in the way, is pretty bright. The stars, on the other hand, are pretty dim. So when you adjust the camera's aperture to the figures on the surface of the moon aren't all washed out, the light from the stars is too dim to be captured on film. Take a photo on the earth's surface with the same settings, and you wouldn't see stars in that pic, either.

There are pages both from NASA and a third party debunking the FOX special, but I can't seem to find them now.
posted by CrayDrygu at 9:35 AM on March 26, 2001


NASA's press release on the special.
posted by samsara at 9:48 AM on March 26, 2001


They presented some things I hadn't heard of previously that actually got me thinking.

I think you need to realize that a plausible case can be made for anything, so long as you limit the universe of available facts to those which support your claim. It's particularly easy to do this limiting when you're talking about areas that people don't know much about. The facts that would debunk the argument are unavailable to you because you haven't studied the matter.

It's generally a good idea to take arguments cum grano salis when you don't understand the subject area thoroughly. Otherwise, people can persuade you of all sorts of things, such as that the federal income tax is unconstitutional or that dust mites don't really exist.
posted by anapestic at 10:35 AM on March 26, 2001


"Meanwhile, back in the 21st century, the STS-98 crew is preparing to come home after undocking from the International Space Station. Landing is scheduled for Sunday."

Hee hee.
posted by CrazyUncleJoe at 10:36 AM on March 26, 2001


Ok, yeah... I know what you guys are saying. One thing I was referring to specifically (and shame on me for not spelling it out I suppose) was how the cross hairs on the camera lens were sometimes covered up by images. That is weird...


I guess I don't have the luxury of being an amateur photographer to sort out these things by myself. However in my opinion when you can see half a crosshair and the other half is like, gone... that's not a washout, that's got to be a doctoring mistake (correct me if I'm wrong here... ). Now I guess it's possible that they might have "touched up" the pictures to make them pretty, but still that's just pretty strange, don't you think?
posted by fusinski at 10:53 AM on March 26, 2001



For a great page that you can use to debunk the Fox special (complete with pictures of little astronaut dolls), check out Are Apollo Moon Photos Fake?
posted by turaho at 1:38 PM on March 26, 2001


Good god, fusinski, you've proved it! Geez, and all this time, I thought... oh well.

So here's the fun part: if NASA faked it, why did they fake the Apollo 13 mishap?
posted by daveadams at 1:56 PM on March 26, 2001


Now I guess it's possible that they might have "touched up" the pictures to make them pretty, but still that's just pretty strange, don't you think?

I don't know whether it's strange or not, but so what if it is? Does it then become reasonable to jump to the conclusion that the moon landing was faked?

This sort of thinking reminds me of all those crackpots who want to say that Shakespeare's works were written by someone else. They say, "How could an uneducated commoner have written this?" And because there's no good answer to that (there's also no good answer to "How could anyone at all have written this?"), they say, "He couldn't have; someone else did."

It's not enough to find a ridiculous explanation that is not inconsistent with the known facts and evidence. You have to find conclusive evidence that someone else wrote Hamlet or that there was a massive conspiracy to fake a moon landing.

A lot of people were involved in the moon landing. Do you expect me to believe that in all the time since 1969, not one of those NASA employees became disgruntled enough to speak up?
posted by anapestic at 2:39 PM on March 26, 2001


Everyone should read the link from bad astronomy, posted by holgate. It answers all the stupid pseudo-science from Fox very thoroghly.

Other than the level of scientific ignorance permitted on US TV, what really hacks me off about this entire issue is that hundreds of thousands of talented people worked incredibly hard and were totally dedicated to the lunar landing effort. Whatever you think of space exploration, it is impossible to deny their fanatastic intellectual achievements.

That a TV channel can so ignorant and greedy to insult them by showing the kind of ignorant and unscientific tosh in this programme is despicable.
posted by normy at 4:25 PM on March 26, 2001


Aw cripes. Now your gonna tell me the manned Mars mission wasn't real too.
posted by rodii at 4:43 PM on March 26, 2001


wait a second, OJ really didn't go to Mars? What's he been doing since 1978, looking for the real astronauts?
posted by foist at 6:44 PM on March 26, 2001


I agreed with Normy, until I started learning more about the things that were supposedly faked. I'm sure they're explainable but it does make you wonder. After all, we were in a race with the Russians, the decade was coming to a close, etc. They had plenty of reason to fake photos.

Anyway everyone interested in this at all should take a look at this page.
posted by crushed at 8:33 PM on March 26, 2001


Haha you guys... my god. I'm not saying we didn't go to the moon, I'm just saying there was some pretty neat shit in that special, that's all. Calm down, yo!
posted by fusinski at 10:33 PM on March 26, 2001


geez, crushed, the supposed evidence on the site you linked was stuff that's already been debunked in this thread. Pay attention, will ya?
posted by anapestic at 7:26 AM on March 27, 2001


It was indeed very neat. What I found interesting is how they used a very honest/wise appearing elderly man as the main hoax believer. I personally, firmly believe that we went to the moon, but I'm afraid that many people after seeing this show are now convinced that we did not. That's really what I'd like to point out...that media such as this is bound to influence those that do not question it. Both of my parents were entirely convinced that we didn't go to the moon after this show, also mentioning that they liked the elderly man and felt he was doing the right thing. I hope I did some good by posting this, as the feeling of not having the other side of the story literally tormented my brain of questions without answers. Just be sure to tell the less fortunate folks what FOX is up to...and as for those that think cars remember their abusers, well, just let them be :)
posted by samsara at 7:36 AM on March 27, 2001


I think it's fairly likely that in a thousand years no one (outside of a few nuts) will believe we sent men to the moon.

(For a wonderful book documenting the Apollo missions, get the deluxe three volume hardbound [packed with photos!] edition of Andrew Chaikin's A Man on the Moon.)
posted by D.C. at 4:14 AM on March 28, 2001


« Older Washington DC Metro Popularity is Possible Problem...  |  Saudi Arabia bans Pokemon. La ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments