Posted by
michael
on from the things-THEY-don't-want-you-to-know dept.
redbaron7 writes "The BBC is
reporting that NASA has cancelled plans for a book to challenge the Moon Hoax Conspiracy Theory, due to criticism. No doubt the cancellation of this book will be listed as further "evidence" that the landings were fake."
Well, at least we can point to the fact that Lunatics have made it from there to here.
-- /*
* We did not get what we need.. we cannot sleep..
OK, this is funny. . .
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
. ..Because they couldn't prove they landed there
Perception is reality.
by
nege
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
NASA is darned if they do and darned if they dont where those conspiracies are concerned. If people *want* to believe something, nothing they say or do can prove otherwise.
Re:Perception is reality.
by
Daniel+Dvorkin
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Oh, yawn. If NASA had a history dating from its inception of faking missions, then you'd have some grounds for comparison. Slashdotters' distrust of Palladium is more akin to doubting the old Soviet space agency's rather vehement denials that personnel were killed every time there was a mysterious explosion at Baikonur.
-- The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Perception is reality.
by
Daniel+Dvorkin
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Um, I don't think you read my post very carefully.
---
You: People who think Palladium is evil because it's from Microsoft are just like people who think NASA faked the Moon landings.
Me: No, people who think Palladium is evil because it's from Microsoft are just like people who think the Soviet space agency was lying when it denied that its personnel were getting killed.
You: That proves my point!
---
You may not understand the context here. NASA has a lot of flaws, but lying about its missions isn't one of them; every time there's a failure (whether or not loss of life is involved) it's dissected in gory detail, in public. OTOH, the Soviet space program was under no more obligation than the rest of the Soviet government to reveal its fuckups, and (as we now know) they did suffer a number of rather horrific accidents that make the Challenger disaster look like small potatoes. This was something that everyone kind of suspected all along, but we had to wait until the end of the Cold War for our suspicions to be confirmed. The Soviets didn't help their own case at all with pre-emptive press releases that said, in essence, "That big boom at Baikonur that your satellites picked up, that was just, um... a problem with a test of a new engine, that's right! No dead cosmonauts and ground crew here, nosirree. Nothing to see, move along, move along..."
So the point is (in case you still haven't gotten it) that Microsoft has a history of lying too. They lie about their intentions, they lie about standards compliance, they lie about openness. They try to control every new technology that comes along, and if they can't control it, they try to crush it. This behavior is a matter of public record. So when people who pay attention to this history express some suspicion of Palladium, we're being entirely reasonable -- just as those who expressed suspicion about the safety record of the Soviet space program were being entirely reasonable. Those who believe NASA faked the Moon landings, OTOH, have no reasonable grounds for their suspicions.
Do you get it now? Jesus, I can't believe I wasted that much time in explaining this to someone who probably isn't going to get it anyway...
-- The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Perception is reality.
by
manyoso
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If people *want* to believe something, nothing they say or do can prove otherwise."
Dare I say that it reminds of... many Microsoft supporters who claim Palladium is a Good Thing (tm)?
Microsoft lovers *want* to believe that Palladium is a god send for computer security, despite the fact that it's utterly impossible for Microsoft to protect against viruses and trojans and still maintain backward compatibility with unsigned software and/or viruses.
Yet, no matter how much I make this point, which the hopelessly optimistic never bother to refute, their only answer is "Microsoft is a great company they'd never try to hoodwink users into believing the benefit of Palladium was increased security."
If you want to know how people can be so delusional that they can believe the moon landing was a consipiracy, look no further than the parent post.
Re:Perception is reality.
by
dildatron
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I listen to Art Bell, but that doesn't make me a dummy. I take what he and his guests say with a big grain of salt, and realize that much of it simply can not be trusted or proven.
I do find it a fascinating show, though, whether I believe any of it or not. There was a relaly good who on a week or two ago when they were interviewing Kevin Mitnick. You just have to have the ability to seperate the fact from the fiction.
--
If you had nuts on your chin, would they be chin nuts?
Re:Perception is reality.
by
manyoso
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Yes, I read the link. The fact is Palladium (for all practical purposes) _is_ DRM. It provides the means _and_ they created it specifically for DRM. Brian admitted this. Others (when pressed) have admitted it. Palladium's primary goal is DRM and Microsoft has been trying to spin it otherwise.
My rights will be taken away if and when Microsoft roles out Palladium and it is successful. My rights will be taken away because large copyright holders will use Palladium to limit the fair use rights of the public (Microsoft has admitted this although grudgingly). And please don't repeat the soiled mantra of 'you can turn it off'. Well you can turn your computer off too, but then it isn't useful anymore now is it. If and when Palladium becomes successful, Microsoft can use it just like it has the IE browser to hinder competition and create another level of second class computer users. The danger is obvious and your pathetic attempts at white washing this as nothing more than something analogous to encryption are stupid and will backfire... just like Microsofts related FUD about linux.
No doubt the cancellation of this book will be listed as further "evidence" that the landings were fake.
No, the fact that they were going to create the book is further evidence. The more elaborate the story is, the more likely it is to be a lie.
Does it really matter anymore?
by
Flamesplash
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I hope that NASA has realized that it really doesn't matter anymore. Even if it was a hoax, who cares. We have a space station orbiting the earth that I think everyone agrees is there, especially since you can see it with a telescope. Let's concentrate on the present and future and not whether something in the past that really doesn't matter now adays actually happened .
-- "Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
The book wouldn't have worked anyway
by
HeroicAutobot
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I was surprised when I read that NASA was planning this book to begin with. People who think the moon landings were a hoax are never going to be convinced otherwise by anything anyone says, NASA or otherwise.
If NASA really wants to do something about these wackos, they should sic Buzz Aldrin on them.
-- I'm looking for a HEPA media filter for my TV. I'm alergic to reality shows.
Re:Why don't they...
by
isa-kuruption
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"Oh, those are just doctored images" That will be the excuse... then you'd have conspiracy theorists showing how the pixalation of the photo near the landing sites show that there was no activity at this region, etc etc..
Like someone said originally... those who don't want to believe it, will continue to not believe it no matter how much evidence you have. If you flew them into space and plopped them into a crater, they still wouldn't believe it!
My point being...
by
MacAndrew
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
...there is absolutely NO chance of winning with the conspiracy crowd. They have everything to lose by conceding. (And I was pretending to be one of them. I'm not! Really!)
However, a book aimed at the general public might make sense -- there is a lot of bad science out there in general acceptance. A book targeting these problems, and not framed as a response to the conspiracy theorists, might make a lot of sense.
For all the fun folks make of conspiracy theorists, the term itself is a condemnation of skeptics run amok. I like the undercurrent of skepticism, of criticizing the accepted wisdom, but not with the disregard of the facts and, worse, dishonest hidden agenda of getting rich or getting on TV.
Re:My point being...
by
jdunlevy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Jim Oberg was interviewed yesterday on the BBC World Service (before the decision to cancel the book, and with zero indication that there had been any real criticism of the idea of publishing the book).
He basically said it was never intended to convince hard-core conspiracy theorists (he refused to be drawn into calling them nuts), but was rather intended for people, like school teachers, who might face related questions and needed to understand the issue to have answers. Apparently NASA routinely receives requests from teachers and others asking how to answer doubts.
Which is the more complex and unlikely scenario: the Apollo program occured as "conventional wisdom" says it does, or the whole thing was faked with thousands upon thousnads of people involved, fake unmanned space craft travelling from Earth orbit to lunar orbit replying to radio chatter from Earth, fake moon rocks good enough to fool the best geologists around the world etc. etc.
Given the technology of the day it would be HARDER to fake the landings then to do it for real, not to mention the huge numbers of people involved staying quiet.
True skeptics don't automaticaly beleive everything they are told, but they are also able to logicaly analyze the evidence before them. No skeptic would beleive that the moon landings were faked.
Re:My point being...
by
Boronx
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And why would they bother faking the landing seven times! Nobody was even watching except Apollo 13.
Re:That's too bad
by
JThaddeus
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What the heck is a dumb bunny like that doing teaching? Did he also deny the Holocost? If my kids got some cretin like that, you can be sure that everyone from the principal to the state certification board would hear about it.
-- "Love is a familiar; Love is a devil: there is no evil angel but Love." --William Shakespeare ('Love's Labors Lost')
It can be no surprise that people think the Moon landings were fake - after all, look at how many people take astrology seriously.
Newspapers spend millions advertising their wares on the basis of which professional con artist^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hastrologer they employ. Just think about that for a minute - more is being spent on promoting scandalous anti-science than many aspects of science that could really improve our lives. But then look at missile defence and you can see it is not just Rupert Murdoch who is to blame for that one.
They acknowledged this.
by
Inoshiro
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The book was meant to be used as an oracle for school teachers and other people wishing to teach their non-luddite, but-still-easily-mislead friends about the truth behind the moon landings.
The luddite people who think the landings were a hoax have a lot of FUD which is easy to believe on the surface of it, but once you actually learn about the details, they fall apart. Placing all these details in one place is very beneficial.
Look at how far major religions got because a lot of people believed them for a long time. The Mormons were in the 19th century what scientologists are today. Bad memes spread easily among the uneducated.
-- -- Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Re:They acknowledged this.
by
WatertonMan
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
BTW - you do realize that there are many very educated and thoughtful Mormons, right? I'm not sure the "Bad memes spread easily amoung the uneducated" comment ought to be tied to Mormons. I agree with the general thrust, but not the backhand. . .
Re:They acknowledged this.
by
pmz
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
There are well-educated and thoughtful members of any religion. That fact doesn't make those religions more credible; it only establishes that even well-educated and thoughtful people are not immune to the siren song of religious ideology.
Re:They acknowledged this.
by
WatertonMan
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I agree. However the original poster suggested that religion spreads because of the ignorant and stupid.
I don't want to turn this into a religious thread. I just think that the bias some have against religion in general is a bit tiring. It for one suggests that the reasons people are religious is irrational and that religion itself is irrational. This is simply an ignorant view of religion.
I'm not suggesting that the "most likely" rational choice is any particular religion. However the assumption that all religions (including Mormonism) is irrational is itself a rather strong siren song of ideology.
So what if it's a hoax...
by
sapgau
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If don't beleive something that is very easy to verify then you should be much more worried about other things!!
- Are you an orphan? - Is the food you are eating really good for you? - Is your house really worth what you think? - Are your dreams really in your subconscious? - Are you mature enough (mentally) to place such fundamental questions?
Favorite piece of evidence
by
fleshapple
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The moon landing is a great example of separate intersecting lines of evidence converging on the conclusion that we did indeed land on the moon. For the conspiracy theorists, no amount of evidence is going to convince them so we might as well be speaking another language. Still, I think interesting things can come out of the discussion. My favorite piece of evidence of the landing is the storage bag from the Apollo 15 mission. NASA astronauts threw it out, it ended up at auction, someone bought it and realized that it was saturated with moon dust (you can tell the dust is from the moon by comparing the ratios of certain isotopes). The isotopic ratios of certain elements in moon rocks is different than that of any rocks found on earth. The collector has since been selling sections at an enormous profit.
see this link
Now, I suppose they could have gone to the moon with an unmanned mission which landed, blasted off, returned with a bunch of rocks and dust which was subsequently distributed. At that point, why not just go there. Occam's Razor would say manned missions is a much more likely solution given the other evidence.
Re:From someone who used to think it was real...
by
Yunzil
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
For me, the most convincing "evidence" supportng the conspiracy theory is the radiation belt, and NASA's inability (even at present IIRC) to send any living thing through it without receiving a lethal dose
The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation.
Intended Audience
by
joncraft
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I thought I should point out, the intended audience for this book was not the wacky conspiracy theorists, it was for teachers and students who had questions about non-intuitive physics that take place on the moon, so they didn't propagate the insanity spouted by wacky conspiracy theorists (and the FOX network). Any book targeted at those who were paranoid to begin with is doomed to fail, but some of the explanations of why things looked the way they did (lack of a blast crater, strange shadows, waving flags, etc.) make for some very interesting physics lessons.
Public education at work
by
cardshark2001
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Any high-school physics student should be able to counter all of the arguments in the "documentary".
If you believe in the "fake", you believe in it despite any real evidence that it was faked. Learn to think for yourselves without having NASA spend $15 k on a book.
Why do you think there was no NASA scientist to counter the absurd arguments in the "documentary"? The closest thing was a scientist who was allowed to say "there are a lot of crackpot theories out there".
Do you really believe that NASA couldn't counter the arguments point by point? Any astrophysicist could. That's why they didn't have one on the show.
-- WWJD? JWRTFA!
Where's the money?
by
RatBastard
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
We stopped going because we couldn't afford it any more. No one else has gone because they have better uses for their money!
The race to the moon cost so much mioney that it would hev been utterly impossible to pull off at aniy other time in US history. Only the mind-boggling economic excesses of the 1950's and 1960's gave us enough money to toss down that bottomless money pit.
We didn't go to the moon for research purposes. We went for purely political reasons: to beat those (in the lexicon of the day) "Godless bastards in Moscow" to the moon! The science was needed to get the job done.
There is no point in putting a reaserch station on the moon. The cost of maintaining a manned presence on the moon is (pardon the pun) astronimical. Ever breath of air, every drop of water, every bite of food must be sent there at tremedous cost.
The only useful scientific endeavor to put ion the moon would be telscopes on the far side, insulated from the light and radation of the Earth and it's noisy inhabitants.
As much as I like the idea of manned space exploration, and as much as I'd love to go to the moon, I just don't see it being in any way econimically feasable any time soon.
-- Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Re:What a shame...
by
UnknownSoldier
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> Religion requires faith in some big things, ideas like God, the second coming, Shiva, etc. Science asks that you accept certain axioms like 1+1=2,
Science requires you to have faith in logic. Remember Philosophy *started* Science.
Re:I know a little about conspiracy theories
by
GMontag451
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
That's pretty funny, since I though proving the absolute non-existence of something was a logical impossibility.
Thats only true if your evidence was gained through observation of the natural world. If however, you evidence was gained through a logical examination of the concepts involved, for example finding a logical contradiction in the definition of God, then its certainly possible. One such piece of evidence that applies to most of the popular Christian definitions of God is the fact that omniscience and omnipotence are logically inconsistent with each other.
Re:Moratorium on Bush Trolls
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Slashdot Mirror
Well, at least we can point to the fact that Lunatics have made it from there to here.
. . .Because they couldn't prove they landed there
NASA is darned if they do and darned if they dont where those conspiracies are concerned. If people *want* to believe something, nothing they say or do can prove otherwise.
No, the fact that they were going to create the book is further evidence. The more elaborate the story is, the more likely it is to be a lie.
I hope that NASA has realized that it really doesn't matter anymore. Even if it was a hoax, who cares. We have a space station orbiting the earth that I think everyone agrees is there, especially since you can see it with a telescope. Let's concentrate on the present and future and not whether something in the past that really doesn't matter now adays actually happened .
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
If NASA really wants to do something about these wackos, they should sic Buzz Aldrin on them.
I'm looking for a HEPA media filter for my TV. I'm alergic to reality shows.
"Oh, those are just doctored images" That will be the excuse... then you'd have conspiracy theorists showing how the pixalation of the photo near the landing sites show that there was no activity at this region, etc etc..
Like someone said originally... those who don't want to believe it, will continue to not believe it no matter how much evidence you have. If you flew them into space and plopped them into a crater, they still wouldn't believe it!
...there is absolutely NO chance of winning with the conspiracy crowd. They have everything to lose by conceding. (And I was pretending to be one of them. I'm not! Really!)
However, a book aimed at the general public might make sense -- there is a lot of bad science out there in general acceptance. A book targeting these problems, and not framed as a response to the conspiracy theorists, might make a lot of sense.
For all the fun folks make of conspiracy theorists, the term itself is a condemnation of skeptics run amok. I like the undercurrent of skepticism, of criticizing the accepted wisdom, but not with the disregard of the facts and, worse, dishonest hidden agenda of getting rich or getting on TV.
What the heck is a dumb bunny like that doing teaching? Did he also deny the Holocost? If my kids got some cretin like that, you can be sure that everyone from the principal to the state certification board would hear about it.
"Love is a familiar; Love is a devil: there is no evil angel but Love." --William Shakespeare ('Love's Labors Lost')
It can be no surprise that people think the Moon landings were fake - after all, look at how many people take astrology seriously.
Newspapers spend millions advertising their wares on the basis of which professional con artist^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hastrologer they employ. Just think about that for a minute - more is being spent on promoting scandalous anti-science than many aspects of science that could really improve our lives. But then look at missile defence and you can see it is not just Rupert Murdoch who is to blame for that one.
The book was meant to be used as an oracle for school teachers and other people wishing to teach their non-luddite, but-still-easily-mislead friends about the truth behind the moon landings.
The luddite people who think the landings were a hoax have a lot of FUD which is easy to believe on the surface of it, but once you actually learn about the details, they fall apart. Placing all these details in one place is very beneficial.
Look at how far major religions got because a lot of people believed them for a long time. The Mormons were in the 19th century what scientologists are today. Bad memes spread easily among the uneducated.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
If don't beleive something that is very easy to verify then you should be much more worried about other things!!
- Are you an orphan?
- Is the food you are eating really good for you?
- Is your house really worth what you think?
- Are your dreams really in your subconscious?
- Are you mature enough (mentally) to place such fundamental questions?
The moon landing is a great example of separate intersecting lines of evidence converging on the conclusion that we did indeed land on the moon. For the conspiracy theorists, no amount of evidence is going to convince them so we might as well be speaking another language. Still, I think interesting things can come out of the discussion. My favorite piece of evidence of the landing is the storage bag from the Apollo 15 mission. NASA astronauts threw it out, it ended up at auction, someone bought it and realized that it was saturated with moon dust (you can tell the dust is from the moon by comparing the ratios of certain isotopes). The isotopic ratios of certain elements in moon rocks is different than that of any rocks found on earth. The collector has since been selling sections at an enormous profit. see this link Now, I suppose they could have gone to the moon with an unmanned mission which landed, blasted off, returned with a bunch of rocks and dust which was subsequently distributed. At that point, why not just go there. Occam's Razor would say manned missions is a much more likely solution given the other evidence.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Copied from the Bad Astronomy site:
The writer they commissioned plans to still do the book, but he'll have to do it without NASA funding.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
I thought I should point out, the intended audience for this book was not the wacky conspiracy theorists, it was for teachers and students who had questions about non-intuitive physics that take place on the moon, so they didn't propagate the insanity spouted by wacky conspiracy theorists (and the FOX network). Any book targeted at those who were paranoid to begin with is doomed to fail, but some of the explanations of why things looked the way they did (lack of a blast crater, strange shadows, waving flags, etc.) make for some very interesting physics lessons.
Any high-school physics student should be able to counter all of the arguments in the "documentary".
If you believe in the "fake", you believe in it despite any real evidence that it was faked. Learn to think for yourselves without having NASA spend $15 k on a book.
Why do you think there was no NASA scientist to counter the absurd arguments in the "documentary"? The closest thing was a scientist who was allowed to say "there are a lot of crackpot theories out there".
Do you really believe that NASA couldn't counter the arguments point by point? Any astrophysicist could. That's why they didn't have one on the show.
WWJD? JWRTFA!
We stopped going because we couldn't afford it any more. No one else has gone because they have better uses for their money!
The race to the moon cost so much mioney that it would hev been utterly impossible to pull off at aniy other time in US history. Only the mind-boggling economic excesses of the 1950's and 1960's gave us enough money to toss down that bottomless money pit.
We didn't go to the moon for research purposes. We went for purely political reasons: to beat those (in the lexicon of the day) "Godless bastards in Moscow" to the moon! The science was needed to get the job done.
There is no point in putting a reaserch station on the moon. The cost of maintaining a manned presence on the moon is (pardon the pun) astronimical. Ever breath of air, every drop of water, every bite of food must be sent there at tremedous cost.
The only useful scientific endeavor to put ion the moon would be telscopes on the far side, insulated from the light and radation of the Earth and it's noisy inhabitants.
As much as I like the idea of manned space exploration, and as much as I'd love to go to the moon, I just don't see it being in any way econimically feasable any time soon.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
> Religion requires faith in some big things, ideas like God, the second coming, Shiva, etc. Science asks that you accept certain axioms like 1+1=2,
Science requires you to have faith in logic. Remember Philosophy *started* Science.
Thats only true if your evidence was gained through observation of the natural world. If however, you evidence was gained through a logical examination of the concepts involved, for example finding a logical contradiction in the definition of God, then its certainly possible. One such piece of evidence that applies to most of the popular Christian definitions of God is the fact that omniscience and omnipotence are logically inconsistent with each other.
What?