moon landings were a hoax

NASA's rebuttal cancelled

In early November 2002 NASA announced that it was cancelling
publication of a manuscript by Jim Oberg that was intended to refute
the claims that the Moon landings were a hoax. NASA said that this
decision was based on the possibility of an outcry raised by people who
felt such a book would "legitimize" the claims of landing skeptics.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/FOOLED

Unfortunately the conspiracy theorists don't need any proof. Ignorance is
their primary motivator.

Eddie T.


wrote in message
oups.com...
NASA's rebuttal cancelled

In early November 2002 NASA announced that it was cancelling
publication of a manuscript by Jim Oberg that was intended to refute
the claims that the Moon landings were a hoax. NASA said that this
decision was based on the possibility of an outcry raised by people who
felt such a book would "legitimize" the claims of landing skeptics.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/FOOLED

Ref: http://www.csicop.org/si/2003- 03/commentary.html
Skeptical Inquirer magazine: Mar 2003
Lessons of the 'Fake Moon Flight' Myth
by James Oberg

Depending on the opinion polls, there's a core of Apollo moon
flight disbelievers within the United States--perhaps 10 percent of
the population, and up to twice as large in specific demographic
groups. Overseas the results are similar, fanned by local attitudes
toward the U.S. in general and technology in particular. Some
religious fundamentalists--Hare Krishna cultists and some
extreme Islamic mullahs, for example--declare the theological
impossibility of human trips to other worlds in space.

Resentment of American cultural and political dominance clearly
fuels other "disbelievers," including those political groups who had
been hoping for a different outcome to the Space Race--for
example, many Cuban schools, both in Cuba and where Cuban
schoolteachers were loaned, such as Sandinista Nicaragua, taught
their students that Apollo was a fraud.

Like a counter-culture heresy, the "moon hoax" theme had been
lingering beyond the fringes of mainstream society for decades. A
self-published pamphlet here, or a "B-grade" science fiction movie
there, or a radio talk show guest over there--for many years it all
looked like a shriveling leftover of the original human inability to
accept the reality of revolutionary changes.

But in the last ten years, an entirely new wave of hoax theories
have appeared--on cable TV, on the Internet, via self-publishing,
and through other "alternative" publication methods. These
methods are the result of technological progress that Apollo
symbolized, now ironically fueling the arguments against one of
the greatest technological achievements in human history.

NASA's official reaction to these and other questions was both
clumsy and often counter-productive. On the infamous Fox
Television moon hoax program, which was broadcast several
times in the first half of 2001, a NASA spokesman named Brian
Welch appeared several times to counter the hoaxist arguments
(Welch was a top-level official at the Public Affairs Office at NASA
Headquarters, who died a few months later). The poor TV
impression he gave (a know-it-all "rocket scientist" denouncing
each argument as false but usually without providing supporting
evidence) may have been due to deliberate editing by the
producers to make the "NASA guy" look arrogant and
contemptuous. But to a large degree it accurately reflected
NASA's institutional attitude to the entire controversy. The
disappointing results of participating seemed to strengthen the
view within NASA that the best response was no response--to
avoid anything that might dignify the charges.

Roger Launius, then the chief of the history office at headquarters,
was an exception to NASA's overall unwillingness to engage the
issue. As an amateur space historian and folklorist, I had been
discussing with him for years the need for NASA to fulfill its
educational outreach charter and to issue a series of modest
monographs (a historian's term for a single-theme
pamphlet-length publication) on many different widespread
cultural myths about space activities. These ranged from
allegations of UFO sightings (and videotapings) by astronauts, to
the discovery of alien artifacts on the Moon and Mars and
elsewhere, to miraculous and paranormal folklore associated with
space activities, to the hoax accusations. Launius, nearing
retirement in early 2002, decided it was time for a detailed
response to the Apollo hoax accusations, and offered me a
sole-source contract to write a monograph that analyzed why
such stories seemed so attractive to so many people. Launius
departed NASA soon thereafter, leaving the project in the care of a
junior historian, Stephen Garber.

My requests for inputs from various NASA offices and public
educational organizations soon reached the ears of news
reporters, and some print stories appeared in late October.
Although NASA officials were somewhat taken aback by the
publicity, they were at first inclined to defend the project on
educational grounds.

Then, on Monday, November 4, 2002, the eve of the national
elections, ABC's World News Tonight anchor Peter Jennings
chose the subject for his closing story: "Finally this evening, we're
not quite sure what we think about this," he intoned. "But the space
agency is going to spend a few thousand dollars trying to prove to
some people that the United States did indeed land men on the
moon."

Jennings described how "NASA had been so rattled" it "hired"
somebody "to write a book refuting the conspiracy theorists." He
closed with a misquotation: "A professor of astronomy in
California said he thought it was beneath NASA's dignity to give
these Twinkies the time of day. Now, that was his phrase, by the
way. We simply wonder about NASA."

Jennings was referring to Philip Plait, an educator (not a
professor) in California who runs the Bad Astronomy Web site
that discusses many mythical aspects of outer space. What Plait
actually had said was that he felt it was proper for NASA to
respond, but that it did seem "beneath their dignity" to be forced to
do it. Contrary to Jennings's account, Plait fully supported the
monograph contract.

But that TV insult did it as far as NASA management was
concerned. Their dignity called into question, and fearing angry
telephone calls from congressmen returning to Washington after
the election, they decided to revoke the contract. They paid for
work done to date and washed their hands of the project.

Many educators contacted me in dismay. Like them, and unlike
the NASA spokesmen, I had always felt that "there is no such thing
as a stupid question." And to me the moon hoax controversy was
not a bothersome distraction, but a unique opportunity.

This is the way I see it: If many people who are exposed to the
hoaxist arguments find them credible, it is neither the fault of the
hoaxists or of their believers--it's the fault of the educators and
explainers (NASA among them) who were responsible for
providing adequate knowledge and workable reasoning skills.
And the localized success of the hoaxist arguments thus provides
us with a detection system to identify just where these resources
are inadequate.

I intend to complete the project, depending on successfully
arranging new funding sources. The popularity of this particular
myth is a heaven-sent (or actually, an "outer-space-sent")
opportunity to address fundamental issues of public
understanding of technological controversies.

wrote in message
oups.com...
NASA's rebuttal cancelled

In early November 2002 NASA announced that it was cancelling
publication of a manuscript by Jim Oberg that was intended to refute
the claims that the Moon landings were a hoax. NASA said that this
decision was based on the possibility of an outcry raised by people who
felt such a book would "legitimize" the claims of landing skeptics.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/FOOLED


Responding to claims that moon landings were a hoax.

Allow me to relate a story from my youth.

My old granddaddy was a man of great wisdom and insight, in spite of having
dropped out of school in the 8th grade to support a widowed mother and four
siblings. He went on to own two vibrant grocery and general dry goods
stores in tiny communities in rural Mississippi and Louisiana. He served as
ration captain for his village during WW II, was a member of the local
school board, county commission, board of deacons of his church, and
director of the local bank.

I was an obstreperous young lad, given over to the typical hijinks of a
somewhat unrestrained rural southern environment.

One day, Granddad was sitting in his rocker on the front porch, sipping
coffee and reading his Bible.

"Son," he said, "come up here a minute. I need to talk with you."

"Yes, Granddad," said I, racing up to the porch.

"Son, you've got to stop going out in the barnyard and wrasslin' with the
pigs."

"Why?"

"Because, son, when you wrassle with a pig, everybody gets dirty, nobody
wins, but the pig just loves it."

I have not wrassled with a pig for these past 45 years.


--

-----
Joe S.

On 23 Jul 2005 01:09:29 -0700, "
wrote:

NASA's rebuttal cancelled

In early November 2002 NASA announced that it was cancelling
publication of a manuscript by Jim Oberg that was intended to refute
the claims that the Moon landings were a hoax. NASA said that this
decision was based on the possibility of an outcry raised by people who
felt such a book would "legitimize" the claims of landing skeptics.

Well, there are already many excellent discussions of this on the
Internet. It hasn't stopped the fools from believing what they want- no
amount of evidence will, because these people lack the capacity to
think. So why should NASA waste money on a publication that lacks any
purpose?

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message news:ZKrEe.173479$x96.154462@attbi_s72...

Ref: http://www.csicop.org/si/2003- 03/commentary.html
Skeptical Inquirer magazine: Mar 2003
Lessons of the 'Fake Moon Flight' Myth
by James Oberg



NASA's official reaction to these and other questions was both
clumsy and often counter-productive. On the infamous Fox
Television moon hoax program, which was broadcast several
times in the first half of 2001, a NASA spokesman named Brian
Welch appeared several times to counter the hoaxist arguments
(Welch was a top-level official at the Public Affairs Office at NASA
Headquarters, who died a few months later). The poor TV
impression he gave (a know-it-all "rocket scientist" denouncing
each argument as false but usually without providing supporting
evidence) may have been due to deliberate editing by the
producers to make the "NASA guy" look arrogant and
contemptuous.
snip




Jennings was referring to Philip Plait, an educator (not a
professor) in California who runs the Bad Astronomy Web site
that discusses many mythical aspects of outer space. What Plait
actually had said was that he felt it was proper for NASA to
respond, but that it did seem "beneath their dignity" to be forced to
do it. Contrary to Jennings's account, Plait fully supported the
monograph contract.
snip


Both these two situations are reminiscent of a recent story on
NPR about the hesitency of scientists (biologists) to debate
Creationists (who these days claim to advocate the "science"
of intelligent design). In an earlier episode an 'arrogant and
contemptuous' biologist decided to debate a creationist and got
his ass kicked.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4734942

Evidently he never served on his high school debating team
where he would have learned debate does not mean that you win
with just the facts. You win by making the best arguments and
by turning your opponents arguments against him.

The good news in the story is that scientists can learn from
their ass kickings.

NPR's Ira Flatow is fond of saying scientists need to get more
media savvy or surrender to pop culture, news media and
Kansas politicians dumbing down the public).

--
Hilton Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71° 04' 35.3"
Lat +42° 11' 06.7"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Webcam Astroimaging
http://home.earthlink.net/~hiltoneva...troimaging.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
http://www.chempensoftware.com

Daniel Joseph Min wrote:
[snip]
[1969 was...] That was nearly 46--yes, forty and six--years ago!
[more snip]
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I just know that I'm going to hate bring this up, but please don't age
me prematurely. Unless I lost a decade somewhere (given my mis-spent
youth, a distinct possibility!), 1969 was a mere 36 years ago (as
calculated on my slide rule).

I trust that the "46--yes, forty and six--years ago!", you state is
just a minor math mistake, and not an astral after effect derivation of
the flux capacitor.

Cheers! Michael

wrote:
Daniel Joseph Min wrote:

[snip]
[1969 was...] That was nearly 46--yes, forty and six--years ago!
[more snip]

I trust that the "46--yes, forty and six--years ago!", you state is
just a minor math mistake, and not an astral after effect derivation of
the flux capacitor.

Does this mean we can't trust anything of his conclusions too?
Hallelujah!

On 23 Jul 2005 01:09:29 -0700, "
wrote:

NASA's rebuttal cancelled

In early November 2002 NASA announced that it was cancelling
publication of a manuscript by Jim Oberg that was intended to refute
the claims that the Moon landings were a hoax. NASA said that this
decision was based on the possibility of an outcry raised by people who
felt such a book would "legitimize" the claims of landing skeptics.

Correct, since there is *no* legitimacy in denying Moon landings, and
believers in the hoax claims are without exception, morons or liars.

--

http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese...Astronomy.html

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down"

If i recall, Russia had a mission up to watch the first landing. I
think they would have called a Hoax PDQ !!
Just some narrow minded people around.
Mr. Min, please give a rebuttal about the Russian presence.
DL Smallen