I’ll be attending an American Astronomical Society meeting in January in Seattle (and blogging a lot while there). I love to give talks when I travel, and this time I’m pleased that I’ll be giving my Moon Hoax talk at the Society for Sensible Explanations — a skeptics group — on January 7.
In this talk I debunk the goofy idea that NASA faked the Apollo Moon landings. It’s a pretty fun talk, with lots of humor but of course solid science and a thick steaming slab of critical thinking. If you’re in the area, you should think about (and act upon the idea) joining the group and attending the talk! After all, as the group website says, their goals are to
Encourage critical thinking.
Promote sensible explanations for paranormal claims.
Promote real science as an antidote for pseudo-science.
Sounds like my kind of folks.
January 3rd, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Hi Phil,
If you’re in Seattle either Friday or Saturday and have some free time, feel free to drop on by the NSF AAPF symposium again. We loved having you last year, needless to say.
January 4th, 2007 at 1:44 am
You *really* ought to make such a sorely needed debunking available here as a podcast!
I can’t tell you how many sites there are (I’m sure you know this) that spew this nonsense, and yet how few and far between are systematic debunkings. It’s almost as though there’s a flippant disregard amongst scientists (“No one would possibly believe this!”) and this results in a de facto silence on the matter, this silence is perceived as lacking a strong counterargument, and is causing a disturbing number of otherwise reasonable people (IMHO) to question the Moon landing, the sometimes Apollo program in general!
January 4th, 2007 at 2:58 am
Phil
This was the very subject that I wrote to you about several years ago, when a friend freaked me out by saying that he was an HB – you gave me the great piece of advice that it’s good to keep your mind open, but not so far that your brains fall out. I would like to second the idea that you make a podcast of this – I’d be sure to burn it on CD and pass it around to any people I know who fall victim to this sort of absudity.
January 4th, 2007 at 5:43 am
Why bother debunking? Let people “believe” what they wish. Let’s move forward with science and leave those behind who are going to scoff anyway. Who needs doubters? Isn’t space exploration challenging enough without them?
January 4th, 2007 at 6:27 am
I wonder if any HBers, or at least those on the fence, might attend this.
In any case, continue the good cause!
January 4th, 2007 at 7:22 am
If this is the talk you recently(ish) gave at Goddard, I can attest that it’s a good’un. Why, even Pee Zee Myers hisself couldn’t give a better talk! Anyone reading who’ll be in the area really should attend, even if you’ve read all of Phil’s site and know all the arguments.
January 4th, 2007 at 7:54 am
Some time ago, a person very close to me expressed doubt in the moon landings. I directed her to this site, and we had a long series of conversations about the plausibility of the hoax proponents’ claims and why none of them make sense.
During the course of the conversations, it became clear that she actually wanted to believe that the landings were a hoax. Similarly, she wants to believe that aliens have made contact with us, and the stars have something to say about our nature. These things make the universe more interesting to her. This desire is foreign to me; I don’t understand why believing in a coverup is more desirable than believing (the well-supported fact) that we have landed on the Moon. How can it be more wondrous to choose your beliefs and accept any support for them than to examine the universe and delight in what you find there?
She finally said of the Moon Hoax, “Well, all of this seems to make sense, but if there’s nothing fishy about it then why are there so many questions?”
My response was, “How many of these peoples’ objections have to be proven to be without merit before you stop listening to them?” Had they been trying to prove astrology was a hoax, I doubt she would have paid them any attention. (I haven’t directed her to the excellent article here on the subject; she frankly doesn’t care whether it actually works.) Since they were trying to debunk science, though, she was ready to believe they had a point but were fumbling the details a bit.
Perhaps the biggest challenge the proponents of science face is the mentality that we are trying to remove the beauty from life. “Cold, hard facts,” they’re called. The mad scientist creates monsters, while the psychics help solve mysteries. Science and engineering are said to be tough fields for women to succeed in, and the men there are said to be socially inept. Atheists, you know, tend to be quite antagonistic toward the religious. …None of it is more than a charicature of truth, but how do we demonstrate that?
January 4th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Seattle, eh? I’ll have to tell my son (he just moved there)
BTW, Phil…you really do need to update the Bad Astronomers calendar.
January 4th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Phil,
is this talk open to the public? I’d love to hear you do this one again!!! (FOLKS: they LOVED it in Florida when Phil gave it last summer… )
January 4th, 2007 at 9:27 am
I guess the AAS meets in Seattle so the attendees aren’t tempted to run outside and do any viewing during the conference…
Enjoy your stay!
John (lifetime inhabitant of the Soggy City)
January 4th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Jon asks, “Why bother debunking?” I get his point but we have this little bitty problem that we are a “democracy,” and the ignorant get to vote (did Jefferson see this coming?), and they often seem to be in the majority, and America’s educational system is shameful and allows gullibility to run rampant, so if you think science is underfunded now and we have a nation of easily-misled boobies, just quit debunking and speaking up and see what happens. Scary.
January 4th, 2007 at 9:49 am
I’ll see you in Seattle. I plan to do some blogging from the conference as well.
January 4th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Right on, MO Man. There are a lot of people who believe in topics that need debunking. I work at a facility for scientific research and development, and have a good number of my co-workers (with college science degrees) have at one time or another declared their belief in such topics as the Moon Hoax, Creationism, UFOs, and psychics. So even “scientifically literate” people need to see and hear anti-science and pseudo-science debunkings. Keep up the good fight, Phil.
January 4th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
ooh, I was just wondering if you were going to be there too. Perhaps I’ll have the courage to say hi this time. (I saw you in Washington, but felt too much like a fangirl to say anything)
January 4th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
MO Man: Excellent answer and, yes, Jefferson did see this coming. His original idea was that only land owners could vote. His argument was that people who owned property (even if it’s just your personal house, not just plantation owners like him) had a vested interest in the success of the government. In fact, one of his early suggestions for the Declaration used the phrase “Life Liberty and Property” for the inalienable rights. To him, owning land was sort of an entrance requirement for participation in government.
Among those arguing for universal suffrage was John Adams of Massachusetts. While a land owner himself, he thought that this could lead to an elitist, two tier society like the nobility/commoner society in England that they were desperately trying to break free of.
If you want a good read, try David McCullough’s brilliant “John Adams.” It will take you a while to get through it’s 800 or so pages, but you’ll come away with a new understanding that there’s absolutely nothing new about the political infighting and power plays that we see today. In fact, Jefferson doesn’t come off that well. McCullough paints him as a manipulative dandy who, while brilliant, was quite self-centered. Most of the things that we give Jefferson credit for actually came from Adams’ writings decades earlier. The reason we don’t remember him that way is that Jefferson had an outgoing, gregarious personality whereas Adams was an abrasive SOB who felt compelled to speak his mind on all subjects like any good New Engander
While Adams was the author of much of the political theory that this country is founded on, we always remember the popular guy. See what I mean about nothing changing?
- Jack
January 4th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
If any of you use Google Video or YouTube, there are a lot of videos promoting the conspiracy theory, including the FOX show that Phil describes on this site. I don’t know if YouTube has a comment feature, but we should be leaving educated comments (educated being the operative word here) that disprove the whole stupid idea.