I have some follow-up on my Moon Hoax talk in Redding, California last week.
First, there’s a thread on BAUT about it, which includes picture goodness from BABloggee Sabrina.
Second, Bruce Ross from Redding.com wrote an editorial about the talk the day after (I should have known he was a reporter; he was the only one there wearing a tie). He has nice things to say, which is cool… but he includes a funny bit from someone who was less than thrilled with my cold dose of reality:
Last night at the David Marr Auditorium, Phil Plait presented “science” as stand-up comedy with sarcasm, rhetorical comments and witticisms. He skewered other legitimate investigators and got chuckles from the innocent people in the audience – mostly members of the Turtle Bay Museum. What I observed was organized propaganda and centralized information.
How is it possible that in 2001 the FOX TV channel televised a believable program examining the unanswered questions surrounding the so-called moon landings and yet, today in 2007, FOX is clearly the Bush administration’s mouthpiece? Why has the government sent a representative out to local communities to debunk “the moon hoax hoax” when most people have not even heard of the “moon hoax”?
Just my thoughts…
I’m always amazed what people are capable of thinking. Calling Bart Sibrel and his ilk "legitimate investigators" is really, really funny. Maybe he missed the part where I went into detail about Bart’s ambushing of Buzz Aldrin and other astronauts to get them to swear on a Bible that they walked on the moon (I bet Walter Cronkite is green with envy over Bart’s investigatory acumen), or how so many Moon Hoax conspiracy theorists claim to be experts at photography but don’t understand anything about film, cameras, exposure times, framing, aperture settings, reflections, perspective, shadows… all those tiny tiny details.
As for my being organized, well, yeah. But propaganda? Funny, but what I presented were not only facts, but reproduceable experiments you can do at home (I modeled a moving flag by blowing on my belt, then swinging it back and forth: some propaganda!). The "centralized information" line has me a bit baffled, too. Does he mean evidence-based reasoning using facts, scientific protocols, and logical analysis? Color me guilty!
Oh well, you can’t please everybody, and, of course, you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Well, that’s just the sort of answer I expect from a government stooge.
(Warning- this post may contain humor.)
December 9th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Brain. Noun. A device for reprocessing sense into nonsense. Note: In rare cases, this has been known to work in reverse.
December 9th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
A vast conspiracy of Right Wing Leftists??
Well, I guess enquiring minds want to know . . .
December 10th, 2007 at 12:12 am
“Oh well, you can’t please everybody, and, of course, you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.”
Gah, too true Phil. I’ve been Getting into too many arguments with my friends where I forget this simple fact. Could have saved me a lot of pain and might have helped me convince them by changing my approach and manner.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:19 am
“How is it possible that in 2001 the FOX TV channel televised a believable program examining the unanswered questions surrounding the so-called moon landings and yet, today in 2007, FOX is clearly the Bush administration’s mouthpiece?”
Declaring it believable does not make it so.
Fairly or not, Fox News has had a reputation for conservative bias since its inception.
This is irrelevant because, unfortunately for the lying cretin quoted above, the Moon hoax show was not a presentation of Fox News, but of Fox Entertainment.
“Why has the government sent a representative out to local communities to debunk ‘the moon hoax hoax’ when most people have not even heard of the ‘moon hoax’?”
The government did not send Phil. The cretin needs to establish how he can determine what “most people” have or have not heard of.
Since my appearance debunking the hoax-hoax on our local TV Fox affiliate, I have at least mentioned the issue to thousands of people from all walks of life. Literally not a single one of them admitted to being unaware that allegations of a hoax had been made.
The problem with conspira-liars, other than their obvious moral depravity and corruption, is their tendency to over-estimate public gullibility and their own salesmanship.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:48 am
It’s of endless fascination to me that people believe that a government that was unable to successfully cover up their head of state getting a blow job in his own office is somehow able to fool even the Russians that they successfully landed on the Moon…
December 10th, 2007 at 1:54 am
Dave Hall wrote:
“A vast conspiracy of Right Wing Leftists?? Well, I guess inquiring minds want to know . . .”
Indeed. Now there’s one case where the shadows don’t line up.
December 10th, 2007 at 2:19 am
When did you get demoted from kick-ass author to government representative?!
December 10th, 2007 at 2:53 am
I think it’s wonderful. He’s basically saying “I believed everything Fox News told me, until they started shilling for that con artist Bush”.
December 10th, 2007 at 3:06 am
Phil, at least once a week someone in our crew (nearly 300, male, female, officer, enlisted) asks ME about the Hoax Hoax… most of them seem to consider the FOX line to be Mainstream, and the burden of proof to be on NASA and the Govt. Even after I lay out answers to all the FOXisms they bring up, and explain (to the best of my ability) how curved surfaces reflect light, etc, etc…I still get a shrug and a “I still think it’s a hoax/cover-up/conspiracy”.
What do I do? I keep trying, because it’s the right thing to do. If we stop trying to promote reason and logic, we LOSE. We lose big.
Keep up the fight, BA. We are with you.
Tom Epps
OS1(SW) USN
USNS Arctic T-AOE 8
Persian Gulf
December 10th, 2007 at 3:07 am
WWZD?
(what would Zaphod do?)
December 10th, 2007 at 3:29 am
The people who buy into the conspiracy theory even after exposure to the rational counter arguments do so because somehow the conspiracy is more exciting/attractive than what really happened. I find this extremely sad.
December 10th, 2007 at 5:18 am
I’m continually amazed at the number of people who just don’t understand science. It’s not a club established to perpetuate its own agenda, but rather a group of people dedicated to discovering the secrets of the universe through an objective and empirical method. Like “Inertially Guided” said, even after he explains the facts and details and clearly demonstrates that Fox’s documentary didn’t really document much, the responses are “Well I still believe it’s a conspiracy.” On what basis do you believe that? Open your eyes people!
The sad thing about that article is that most people will probably believe it and Phil will come off as a crackpot. Perhaps the reporter’s job is to create debate and present other viewpoints, but so many people will take it as fact and not a personal opinion. Sometimes I’m so mad I could scream!
December 10th, 2007 at 6:12 am
At least once a year someone I know drags out some moon-landing-hoax crap and sends it around in email, and I dutifully follow it with a detailed explanation about why there was no hoax and how all that hoax stuff is just good, old-fashioned bollocks.
More recently, I’ve taken another tack. I ask some questions back:
1. Why would there be a hoax? In order for there to be an ongoing cover-up there must be a reason - some matter of personal or other gain for the people involved. It’s obviously not a military/industrial thing since it’s quite apparent that they can openly lie and start a war for personal gain. So what purpose would a hoax serve?
2. (not-so-strangely captured earlier in this thread) If the president of the United States can’t get his end away with some office tart without it making the news, how can an massive conspiracy involving thousands of people be kept under wraps for 40 years?
3. (this is usually the killer) What evidence would you require to demonstrate conclusively that it is not a hoax? This one usually trips them up… If they’re going to recognize that they’re suffering rectal-cranial inversion, this question will trigger the recognition because anything I’ve ever heard in response has been easy to show from available records.
December 10th, 2007 at 6:30 am
‘rectal-cranial inversion’
I ‘invented’ a medical term for such people:
Cranio-Spelio-Nondifferentiation Syndrome (Can’t tell their a$$ from a hole in the ground (spelio - cave, as in spelunker)).
Sadly, there are many people who *should* know better who are deluded, or delude themselves - heck, I suppose we all do this in one area or another. If it concerns your kids’ obvious genius, your spouse’s/significant other’s talents in the bedroom, the kitchen, the workshop, or the primacy of your favorite sports team that’s no big deal. It is only when we allow ourselves to be deluded - in the face of overwhelming fact - that CSNS can become dangerous.
(I make it a point, at least once a month, to watch the encounter between Buzz and Sibrel. It gives me hope that Truth can, occasionally, defeat stupidity).
December 10th, 2007 at 6:55 am
You know, one thing I realized with time is that when people want to be fooled, they are fooled. And when people are stuck on the idea that there is no way we could’ve went on the moon, they’ll believe we never went to the moon ’till death no matter how many facts and common sense you smack in their face.
Oh well
December 10th, 2007 at 7:11 am
Cranio-Spelio-Nondifferentiation Syndrome (Can’t tell their a$$ from a hole in the ground (spelio - cave, as in spelunker)).
My vocabulary just expanded!
December 10th, 2007 at 7:21 am
I’m totally gonna abuse that expression now. I’ll look smart AND be offensive!
December 10th, 2007 at 7:25 am
I think it should be Ano-spelio though.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Wouldn’t Cranio-Spelio-Nondifferentiation be “Can’t tell their skull from a hole in the ground”
December 10th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Well, Squid, possibly, but use recto- spelio. or possibly gluteo….
How about “Dual-Manual Gluteal portable-illumination-assisted non-location disease”
(Can’t find their backside with both hands and a flashlight)
Of course, DMGPIALD isn’ as catchy an acronym as RSNDS…
December 10th, 2007 at 9:03 am
“I still get a shrug and a ‘I still think it’s a hoax/cover-up/conspiracy’.”
That’s the problem. They want science to be just another person’s opinion, so they get “equal treatment.” When you point out that they don’t know what they’re talking about, they think you aren’t playing fair.
A friend used to say that opinions are like belly buttons- everybody has one. My reply is that no, they are like bank accounts. Most everybody has one, but they are not all of equal value.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Oh man! I don’t know what to believe! Between the Moon Hoaxers, who say we never went, and Richard Hoagland, who says we went, and found alien ruins. Can someone help me? Are there any other choices?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:25 am
“Oh well, you can’t please everybody, and, of course, you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.”
Oooooo, that’s good. I always have trouble coming up with the words to describe that phenomenon, but that works. I don’t like to say that you can’t win an argument with an idiot…
December 10th, 2007 at 11:52 am
How about Cranio-Rectal Coincidence Syndrome? CRCS is a pretty nice acronym, and it conjures a pretty good image.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
I am always late to the party, but all I can say, this is Redding.
You should see the media beating the police get up here for doing their job and protecting the public. Blah! OK I won’t get started.
I would hate to see if they had any type talk dedicated to skepticism or atheism up here in, if they say the south has a “bible belt” I would call this town the belt bucket.
I would be glad to find the article in cut it out and have one my animals take a dump on it, just so you know not all of us Redding rednecks are represented by our local paper