NASA Wasting Time and Money on Moon Landing Doubters

Rob Miles writes "Yahoo! News has this article about how NASA is paying aeronautics engineer James Oberg $15,000 to write a monograph gathering up materials answering the skeptics of the 1969 Apollo Moon Landing, point by point. It's a shame that even $1 has to be spent to debunk these conspiracy theorists with too much time on their hands. And it's unfortunate that the nutters will see this as validation of their ridiculous claims ('if our charges weren't true, NASA wouldn't bother answering them' they'll snivel.)"

Comments

FOX Network

[DrLudicrous]

The worst of this whole debacle is when Fox had the "special" on TV about a year ago about whether the moon landing really was a hoax or not. Just adding fuel to a fire that should have burned itself out years ago.

Then again, since when our network executives concerned about what is good or bad TV, let alone good or bad science?

Re:FOX Network

[ckuhtz]

oh please. fox news is a benchmark now?

roflmao

Re:FOX Network

[Neumann]

Ok I am going to admit it: I had serious doubts that NASA went to the moon after seeing the Fox special. I didnt know enough (and still dont)about lunar physics or photography to be able to make a judgement call on a lot of the claims. The one claim that struck a chord with me was the crosshairs missing from the pictures. That one I could understand. Unfortuneately the NASA spokeman was not cast in a good light at all. He was evasive on a lot of the issues and came across as someone who was trying to hide something. Now whether this was the producers' fault or whether this guy was just weasley in real life, I dont know. But I thought they raised valid concerns and I couldnt find anything that refuted the claims put forward in the special.

That was until I saw this article:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
They could save themselves 15k and just link to that. He refutes all the claims of the doubters with very rational explanations.

See the internet is good for something after all!

Re:FOX Network

[grub]

The worst of this whole debacle is when Fox had the "special" on TV about a year ago about whether the moon landing really was a hoax or not.

Was Jonathan Frakes the host? I never trust anything on Fox unless Frakes hosts the show.

Re:FOX Network

[SirSlud]

Or you could start with the approach that would have avoided everything you went through:

The chances that you will be subjected to useful, intelligent, exposes on the same network that created "Who wants to marry a millionaire?" are -1 to 0. Seriously, didn't it occurr to you that if the argment was really that compelling, other stations would be jumping on the bandwagon too? I thought FOX should start advertising a "Tinfoil Tuesday" lineup after that special (which was amusing if you watched it in a "how would *I* try to convince gullible people" light.)

I think you shouldn't have admitted it man. I mean, come _on_! FOX practically makes all its money exploiting Blue Collar's distrust of academia and his eagerness to disassociate himself from anything remotely 'artsy' (read: original.)

Re:FOX Network

[the-matt-mobile]

There was also a recent article in Discovery magazine mentioning this bad-science-blundering. They provided the link to bad astronomy and mentioned some of the other urban-legends-of-science like being able to balance an egg during the equinox. One of the points they presented was how scientists do some experiments with bouncing laser beams off a mirror on the moon which the Apollo astronauts placed there. How's that for not landing on the moon?! Check it out some details here

Blue Cheese

[Chris_Stankowitz]

The fact that we such an abundance of blue-cheese dressing to go with our wings is enough proof for me.

Other options

[scott1853]

This is the best option for the money. The alternative would be to send them all up there in the cargo bay of a shuttle and then crack the bay doors for a second or two and see if they'll finally believe you.

Re:Other options

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

The alternative would be to send them all up there in the cargo bay of a shuttle and then crack the bay doors for a second

We can do that. Do we have to give them pressurized suits?

Re:Other options

[RealAlaskan]

>>The alternative would be to send them all up there in the cargo bay of a shuttle and then crack the bay doors for a second

>We can do that. Do we have to give them pressurized suits?

They don't need no steenken suits! If vaccuum would do them harm, the insides of their heads would have killed them all years ago.

Useful for educators

[StefanJ]

Of course this won't satisfy die-hard cranks. That's not the point.

This booklet is for educators, to help them address concerns brought up by students who might have stumbled on a True Disbeliever's website or seen that atrocious Fox program!

That's not a waste of time nor money.

Stefan Jones

Re:Useful for educators

[fermion]

As I have mentioned in a previous post, engaging these people is never useful. People who deny the moon landing, evolution, or the Nazi generated holocaust are asserting an opinion in an effort to save a personal belief, and are not engaging in meaningful dialog. By engaging these people directly, you invalidate the scientific process and enter an argument that cannot be won.

The problem is that science starts with an acknowledgment that we may be wrong. Nothing in science can be proven exactly. Nothing in science can be taken as truth. We have no reason to believe that the moon landing did not happen, but, scientifically, we can not say it absolutely did happen. There is nothing wrong with this bacause the level of doubt is so trivial as to have no practical effect. This doubt is then used by people who wish to disprove the moon landing. This is generally done by mangling facts to fits a predetermined reality. Because the anti-science side is fighting from a deeply held personal belief, and the pro-science side is fighting from a spirit of discovery, science loses.

The second problem is assumptions. Science assumes that a certain level of proof is good enough. Science assumes that the ultimate truth is not necessary; all we need is a theory that fits the available fact well enough and can be applied to a known domain. Science accepts the possibility that theories may be modified in the fullness of time. These assumptions not only form an achilles heal that can easily be exploited, but also form a basis to make scientist sound foolish. For example, lets take a person who believes the earth is flat. This person points to building, and notes that when the design is drawn up, the assumption is indeed made that they earth is in fact flat. The reasonable person notes that locally, over a small distance, the Earth is taken to be flat. The flat-Earth proponent then asks, is the earth flat, or is it not! This person uses the assumptions of science, that theory need only hold to a known domain, to make the scientists look like a fool.

So by engaging these nuts directly, we teach kids that this is useful. What might be good is a curriculla that explains what science does, what it does not do, and why science must concede all arguments to religious zealots. It really does no one any good to argue with these people. Anyone hypocritical enough to deny the moon landing but use a microwave or watch tv pretty much deserves what they get. The best we can do is make sure our kids are smart enough to know the difference between science theory and personal belief.

Re:Useful for educators

[Jaeger]

engaging these people is never useful.

Perhaps not, but Buzz Aldrin proved that punching them sure can be satisfying.

Johnson - Flag this...

[ProtonMotiveForce]

Johnson, flag this message for section 721 investigation. Potential Conway incident - auth code 786C-1943.

Fox is largely to blame.

[Rank Amateur]

This issue should fall far below the attention-radar of NASA. The act of giving it even a moment's notice fans the flames of the conspiracy theorists (and will be adduced by them as yet further proof that the agency has something to hide).

It was a sad day when Fox stooped to entertaining the theory on its special (the company should have lost priviledges to the monicker "journalism" that instant).

Myself, I prefer Buzz Aldrin's Response...

[uncleFester]

from a recent news article...

The controversy recently emerged from cyberspace in the person of Bart Sibrel, who has made a film questioning the Apollo Moon missions and who confronted astronaut Buzz Aldrin at a Beverly Hills hotel on Sept. 9 and demanded that Aldrin swear on a Bible that he had in fact walked on the moon.

The 72-year-old Aldrin, the second man ever to touch the lunar surface, punched the 37-year-old Sibrel in the face. Sibrel asked that assault charges be filed, but Los Angeles County prosecutors declined. A videotape of the incident showed Sibrel following Aldrin on the street with a Bible and calling him a "thief, liar and coward," one prosecutor said.

How's that for refutation? :)

-fester (Good for Buzz.. I'm sure he and the others who risked their ass at the top of that Saturn V are sick of this crap)

Re:Myself, I prefer Buzz Aldrin's Response...

[Wraithlyn]

Now that's a true Hero :) And the prosecutor's office declined to press charges too! That single handedly revived my faith in the American justice system ;)

Re:Myself, I prefer Buzz Aldrin's Response...

[UdoKeir]

They had a great interview with this crank on The Daily Show.
The interviewer showed him the video footage of Aldrin punching him and then proceeded to question whether or not it was faked.
It was amusing watching him squirm when she said "His fist doesn't actually appear to make contact with your face does it? Could that have been faked?"

NASA

[Camel Pilot]

It is too bad one of the astronauts did not trudge a gigantic NASA WAS HERE into the moon dust so that the image could be seen from a large telescope. That should silence the idiots.

On another note it always amazes me that a significant segment of a human population will believe the unbelievable and doubt the obvious.

Re:NASA

[jokerghost]

Actually, there are defacto "NASA Was Here" signs on the moon. The astronauts left several special reflectors (I forget the name) that reflect light straight back at the target, regardless of the angle from which the beam (in the form of a laser) originates. These have been used for years to calculate the distance the moon has been receeding from the Earth year to year. Also, there are beacons that ham radio operators have been using for years to bounce signals off of.... Why is it these conspiracy theorists always ignore this tiny point?

-jokerghost

Re:NASA

[DickBreath]

does not prove that PEOPLE put it there. Could have, theroetically, been done by an unmanned robotic lander.

Or by the aliens!

The Aldrinator

[PinkStainlessTail]

Maybe they could just send Buzz Aldrin out. With a bat. Or his manly fists of iron. That should "silence" the doubters!

Re:THis wil be moot soon

[Lawbeefaroni]

Yeah, or they can give the the naysayers (h04X0rz?) a telescope and they can watch the Chinese building a colony there.

The Soviet Factor.

[Robber Baron]

I would think that given that the moon landings happened during the height of the cold war, the Soviets would have been watching them very closely and would've been all over them like a bad stink if they could've even come close to demonstrating that the moon landings were faked. By the same token, if you were NASA, would you put your and your country's "face" on the line by staging such a stunt and risking discovery?

Re:THis wil be moot soon

[rgmoore]

Sadly that's not the case. You just can't convince somebody who truly wants to believe that it's all a conspiracy. They'll point out that this supposedly independent private company had to get government approval to do so, and that's proof that NASA got to themm and forced them to take part in the deception. It took me all of about 2 seconds to come up with that explanation. These are people who wouldn't believe that it was possible to go to the moon if you blasted them into space and landed them there. They'd still come up with some elaborate explanation about how it was all faked.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. Sadly this applies as much to physical proof as anything.

Re:God?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Maybe they can get someone to prove / disprove the existance of God for us too!

Heh. That's funny, but it brings up an important point. I'd love it if the NIH or the CDC or some other government agency concerned mainly with biology would spend $15,000 -- or $150,000, or $1.5 million; in any case I'd consider it money well spent -- to come up with a point-by-point refutation of creationism, and publicize the hell out of it. Creationists (including the "intelligent design" crowd) belong in exactly the same camp as the "moon landing was a hoax" people, Holocaust-deniers, flat-Earthers, etc. IMO this would be a much better expenditure of my tax dollars than just about any current government program.

Unfortunately, with the current administration, we're a lot more likely to see our tax dollars going to religious schools that teach the reverse ...

This has already been done...

[Griim]

...and rather well, I thought, by the guy who runs BadAstronomy.Com.

Here is a direct link to the article where he does so, where he tears apart the horrible Fox TV special that was on in 2001.

Waste?

[Alomex]

Money spent educating people is never a waste.

Sad Day for Science

[Shadow Wrought]

It is a sad statement for science in this country that NASA has to spend money debunking the absurd. I watched the Fox special and I kept shaking my head in bewilderment by the conspiracy theorist's "evidence". A modicum of science education ought to have been enough to have the nation laughing at these poodle buggering ninnys. Instead everyone shakes their head and says "sounds 'bout right to me..." Blech.

Conspiracy

[Michael Woodhams]

I don't believe these nutcases. However, I recently realized that one of my arguments against them is not as strong as I thought.

Here's the argument: Tens of thousands of people were involved in the Apollo program. There were thousands of them who would unavoidably know if the moon landings were faked. Several thousand people can't keep a secret for over 30 years.

What is wrong with this argument? Bletchley Park. For about 30 years, several thousand people kept the secret that the allies hand broken most of the axis codes during World War II.

(It is still a valid argument, however - there are differences between Bletchley Park and a hypothetically faked Apollo 11.)

Of course they were fake

[digitalhermit]

This is just another attempt to hoodwink the public. I'd publish my point-by-point rebuttal but no one would understand the scientific terms that I'd need to use.

The government can already read our minds. Last year we saw that scientists have been able to have machines controlled by nothing other than thought by scanning brain waves. It's obvious that this is merely the tip of the iceberg. Moving machines with thought is only the part that the government allows these scientists to reveal to the public. Just as civilians aren't privy to top-secret military aircraft designs until years after they become completely outdated, so is the thought-reading apparatus hidden while it still is useful.

You think I'm mad? Even private corporations are not allowed to release technology without government approval. Remember the Hoverboards in Back to the Future? They're real. But they still have military applications so cannot be released to the public. We know that it can work because the Japanese have maglev trains that work on identical priciples.

You still think I'm mad? Turn your Television to a 'staticky' station. Watch the chaotic series of dots and blips. Do this for about six hours until your brain becomes attuned to the frequency. Soon you'll be able to decipher the 8,192 bit encoded datastream that the government is using to communicate with the L'kelialia from Pluto. You'll hear their voices. You'll see their devilish grins peering back at you.

People ask, why would the government want to fake the moon landing? It's easy. Staking a claim. In 2053 the Global Congress will debate the issue of ownership of mineral rights on Luna. The government is only making sure that it has the most prior claim. The actual technology for a moon shot won't be available for another 16 years (I think, this is 2002, right?) but time travel has been well understood since Einstein. It's very complicated and scientific (I'd have to use terms like Schwartzchild radius and eigenvalues to really explain it) but suffice it to say that it's true. I read it on Slashdot earlier this year.

Anyway, I hope my detailed, logical, and coherent analysis and convinces you that this upcoming paper is total fabrication.

Exactly!!!

[s20451]

This is EXACTLY RIGHT. Anyone who believes that the moon landings were fake to "win" the space race clearly believes that the Soviets, in spite of launching the first artificial satellite and first man into space, were too stupid to notice that:

• American companies that were supposedly producing lunar landing hardware were actually producing nothing, or producing equipment that could not reasonably land on the moon (what's the point of faking it if you build the real hardware?).
• The Saturn rockets, once launched, did not follow a lunar trajectory. (Easy to track by telemetry.) In fact the entire path of the rocket could be easily tracked by anyone on Earth with a directional radio antenna -- including whether or not something landed on the moon (if it didn't, the signal would keep disappearing behind the moon with each orbit).
• The hundreds of pounds of moon rocks, released to the scientific community for study, were of obviously terrestrial origin.

No conspiracy theory concerning the lunar landing stands up to even five minutes of skeptical thought.

Re:Exactly!!!

[susano_otter]

Maybe they yelled and screamed for years and no one told us.

But do you see what you've done? In order to explain the conspiracy you already have (NASA lied to the media about the landing), you've suddenly extended the conspiracy by several orders of magnitude. I might be willing to believe that all of NASA could keep the lid on the hoax, if the evidence was sufficiently compelling, but to believe that the entire world media system managed to keep quiet for the past 30+ years is pretty far-fetched. To accept this much larger conspiracy theory in the place of evidence to support the original, much more limited conspiracy theory would be lunacy.

It would, in fact, fly blatantly in the face of Occam's Razor.

Re:This wil be moot soon

[los furtive]

With its 2.4 meter diameter mirror, the smallest object that the Hubble can resolve at the Moon's distance of around 400,000 kilometers is about 80 meters across. More info including cool pics here.

Re:God?

[jcr]

Creationists (including the "intelligent design" crowd) belong in exactly the same camp as the "moon landing was a hoax" people, Holocaust-deniers, flat-Earthers, etc.

Umm, I wouldn't put the holocaust-deniers in that list. Creationists and flat-earthers are merely idiots, but the holocaust-deniers are a pack of nazis who are trying to get another chance at genocide. Treat the nuts with derision, but if you get a crack at a holocaust-denier, kick his ass, but good.

-jcr

They DID!!!

[stefanlasiewski]

They tried this one. Chairface Chippendale once tried to write his name on the moon, but he only got the first 3 letters before running out of room.

And then The Tick kicked his ass...

And then the Man Eating Cow showed up... but that was after the Ninjas....

Or something...

creationism IS NOT A THEORY

[bani]

creationism is not testable. by its very definition creationism cannot be tested or verified.
creationism is not applicable. you cannot apply creationism to solve any problem.
creationism does not make any verifiable predictions.

therefore, creationism is not a theory.

the theorem (theory) of pythagoras is a theory. the theory of evolution is a theory.

creationism is NOT a theory. to claim it is otherwise is either ignorant or fraudulent.

Re:God?

[Yunzil]

Too bad the evidence for evolution as we know it isn't enough to bring it out of the 'theory' stage. Never mind the fact that a growing majority of schools teach the concept as fact.

Grumble. Nothing in science ever gets beyond the 'theory' stage. We still have the Germ Theory of disease and the General Theory of relativity don't we?

Theories are science's attempt to explain facts.

Fact: Things are attracted to other things.
Theory: Mass distorts spacetime and objects follow the shortest path in curved space.

Fact: Species change over time.
Theory: Traits are inherited from parents with occasional mutations. Environmental pressures cause certain traits to be more successful than others.

one of the reasons I prefer creationism (and the beliefs one can have with faith in God) is that evolution doesn't offer me much comfort in the face of depression, loss, hurt, uncertainty, death, etc.

What does evolution have to do with any of that? The truth of evolution doesn't preclude the existence of God.

Re:THis wil be moot soon

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

There are none so blind as those who will not see. Sadly this applies as much to physical proof as anything.

Reminds me of one of my favorite sigs ever:

Tell a man there are a million billion stars, and he will believe you.
Tell a man that a bench has wet paint, and he just HAS to touch it.

Re:A moon landing believer who also doubts

[gol64738]

This should clear up any misconceptions you might have regarding the Americans landing on the moon

please read and comment.

The most convincing...

[psych031337]

...fact about that entire saga is not a technical but a psychological one.

Remember, it was a "race into space" with the Russians leading some time along the way. They had the first device in orbit (Sputnik) and they certainly can be credited for having a high-tech state of the art space control center back then.

If something was faked along the way to the moon landing (i.e. no rocket leaving earth, the radio waves of transmission not really originating from the moon, etc.) do you think they would have kept their traps shut about this hoax? If someone had the tech and the expertise to really establish if something moved from earth to moon and transmitted a load of radio waves from there, it was them. They have not spoken up, and that in an era where almost every mistake from either side was used as ammunition to discredit the other. They didn't. Proof enough. QED.

Re:So any skepticism is bad?

[FreeUser]

Should we just accept everything the news media feeds us? So naive...

No, but twenty seconds of rational thought will debunk any of the conspiracy notions being bandied about by the imbecelic media whores of Fox News.

• The Russians were watching very closely, and would have cried foul had anything been "faked"
  
• Amateur radio enthusiasts tracked the saturn v's trajectory as well, and monitored the radio signal being sent back to earth
  
• The astronauts left mirrors behind, off of which we still bounce lasers today to measure the (increasing) distance to the moon.
  
• The "facts" as given by the moronic and scientifically illiterate media whores of Fox are trivially debunked
  
• For any conspiracy or coverup to have worked would have required a worldwide media conspiracy, on the part of several neutral nations as well as several nations who were, at the time, military foes (China, Russia, Eastern Europe)
  

Sorry, but when conspiracies start to reach "Nowhere Man" levels, they simply don't exist. (If you don't understand the television reference be glad, be very glad. Arguably the worst show to ever air on American TV).

Skepticism is only called for when strong evidence hasn't been presented by those making incredible claims. If NASA hadn't sent back radio signals, video, pictures, brought back lunar material, left "we were here" mirrors lying around, and had their telemetry and every vector tracked by literally thousands of different people, then some skepticism would perhaps be in order. However, they did all that and more ... making their claims backed by a plethora of evidence only someone with an agenda ("I'll make my career detracting from mankind's greatest triumph of the Media Whore Network [Fox]") could possibly ignore. As such, it is the likes of Fox that are making incredible claims, without a shred of credible evidence to back it up. In short, sir, your skepticism is woefully misdirected, and, yes, poeple who are skeptical of the lunar landings in light of a mountain of evidence should be laughed at and mocked the same way someone who is "skeptical" about the spherical shape of the earth would be when they trott their "flat as a plate" theory out.