…and this is a 
Some polls you know are just set up to try and get affirmations of what the pollster believes. Others are more inscrutable. Why would CNN even bother to ask this?
Do you believe the Apollo moon landings were faked?
Yes 14%
No 86%
It's meta-meaninglessness. I was tempted to vote yes, not because I think the moon landings were faked (shee-ya, you'd have to be a raving moron to think that), but because the poll question was so freakishly crazy.
But then, I guess that's what the modern media does. It doesn't evaluate; its job is just to treat every point of view as if they were equally sensible.
Comments
Posted by: Glenn | July 17, 2009 10:03 AM
I think you're overthinking this, PZ. The point of on-line polls -- all on-line polls -- is to increase traffic to the site. Period. And I'm guessing, for CNN, this one worked spectacularly.
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 17, 2009 10:03 AM
Upcoming CNN poll:
Do you think Elvis talks to you each evening at 10:03 sharp through radio broadcasts you receive via the fillings in your molars?
__ Yes
__ No
(/Editor's note: possibly, we should also offer a 'No opinion' option...)
Posted by: Mozglubov | July 17, 2009 10:04 AM
That is because it is biased not too!!! Like all those claims about media bias in the last American election that coverage of the Obama campaign was much more favourable than coverage of the McCain campaign. It of course had nothing to do with the fact that McCain (and, more importantly, Palin) kept saying stupid things...
It is this state of affairs that makes the 'accommodation' stance not even a good strategy (nevermind its philosophical bankruptcy). If you start out trying to meet your ideological opponents halfway and they do not, because of the need for the media to present a balanced view regardless of the underlying facts, it will automatically skew toward your opponents.
Posted by: Deepsix | July 17, 2009 10:05 AM
"Modern Media" or "Mainstream Media" should be relabeled as "News Entertainment". Sorta like "Sports Entertainment", aka professional wrestling.
Their main objective is to increase viewership, not actually report news.
Posted by: Dianne | July 17, 2009 10:06 AM
I was tempted to vote yes, not because I think the moon landings were faked (shee-ya, you'd have to be a raving moron to think that), but because the poll question was so freakishly crazy.
Don't do it! If too many people vote "yes," it might win and then in the next KM book this poll will be used as an example of how scientists have failed to communicate with the public. Sort of like the Pluto controversy.
Posted by: Lee Picton | July 17, 2009 10:08 AM
For the umpteenth time PZ, and to you Holbach, the word "it's" is a contraction meaning "it is" or "it has" - and nothing else. The words "its" is already in the possessive case and does not have an apostrophe. It's one of my pet peeves and its misuse is one of the most pervasive in the language. And yes, I am a former English teacher and this is one of the few grammar lapses about which I am not tolerant. Pedant mode off now.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2009 10:10 AM
I am sure they could just make stuff up. Next time they might even make a better job of it. The current effort at it is pretty poor.
Posted by: gillt | July 17, 2009 10:15 AM
@#1: "I think you're overthinking this, PZ. The point of on-line polls -- all on-line polls -- is to increase traffic to the site. Period. And I'm guessing, for CNN, this one worked spectacularly."
But what about a little integrity? Is it too much to ask that CNN behave in a manner befitting a major media outlet and not The Enquirer?
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
July 17, 2009 10:16 AM
I remember a spelling bee in the 3rd grade (only in-class) when I was given the word "it's". Being a smart little prick, even in the 3rd grade, I asked for the word to be used in a sentence. She said something like "Its fur turns white in the winter". So I spelled it "its". She told me I was wrong and kicked me out of the running. So I waited until I was big and strong, found out which residential facility she ended up in, and clubbed her to death with her own walker. The end.
Posted by: JD | July 17, 2009 10:17 AM
My pet peeve is "this". Instead of "this." The latter is correct (the period should always be inside of the quotation).
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | July 17, 2009 10:17 AM
I think there's something to this. not to whether the moonlandings were faked or not but to the question in it's meta form. that is to say, there's something about the type of type of question. simply asking the question, or questions of this type, raises doubts in some minds. first time I had heard this particular doubt raised, about 6 years ago, I talking to a frenchman, i was sure he was nuts. yet, he was a highly intelligent gentleman working a high level management position in a global IT firm. Smarter than me in most respects, in other words. And the hard work of refuting his position only seemed to strenghthen his resolve.
Along the same lines, I ran into another fairly smart guy this week who said he was an absolute believer in "The Secret". Wackiness, I thought. And yet, he brought up example after example that he thought strengthed his case. Obviously, he chose to ignore very simple facts that were staring him right in the face that would have shut down this belief, but he was firm in his belief of The Secret, except, by his own admission, with regards to pleasure boats. There's no amount of positive energy that can turn pleasure boating into anything more than the money pit it truly is. Anyway I could not turn him.
I think I've said before in this blog that my entire family disbelieves that the moonlandings took place. I have no idea what it is about the landings that they find so implausible. "The waving flag" argument is what does it for my son. Another family member thinks we would never have spent that amount of money if it could have been done on a sound stage for a mere fraction. It goes on. The arguments are easily refuted, and only seem to strengthen their positiions instead of the other way around. Anyway, this topic goads me.
Posted by: Umilik | July 17, 2009 10:20 AM
"its job" not "it's job"
It's quite simple: "it's" replaces "it is"
Don't mean to be picky but you always get that one wrong and it's annoying...
And CNN has long ago lost its relevance as provider of news - as have most US mainstream media outlets. Its mission now seems to be mostly to do polling and to solicit input from BillyBob in Oklahoma about current events. And who cares about what BillyBob thinks.
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | July 17, 2009 10:20 AM
Oh, and I voted yes!
Posted by: HB | July 17, 2009 10:20 AM
Hey PZ,
Since the forces of reason are kicking ass on this one, I really don't see why you posted this. You're not trying to bury the one about midwife pain, are you?
Posted by: Joseph Smidt | July 17, 2009 10:22 AM
Yeah, these are the kinds of things that make me avoid cable news. PBS' Newshour and the main Newspapers would never ask such questions which is why I get my news from them.
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
July 17, 2009 10:23 AM
JD is so fast, he's "scary."
Posted by: Tigerwolf | July 17, 2009 10:27 AM
I voted “yes” also. Let’s Pharyngulate this poll and have everyone wondering, “Gee, I didn’t know so many tinfoil-hat-wearing idjits watched CNN…”
^..^
Posted by: Sgt Skepper | July 17, 2009 10:27 AM
You might want to specifically link to us.cnn.com . When I clicked the link, I got sent to the international CNN news page whose poll is rather less stupid, though incredibly boring: "Which American golfer has the best chance of winning the British Open?"
Posted by: Geds | July 17, 2009 10:30 AM
And who cares about what BillyBob thinks.
BillyBob might...
Also, Mr. and/or Ms. Language pedant, there should be a question mark at the end of that sentence...
Posted by: Sgt Skepper | July 17, 2009 10:31 AM
You might want to specifically link to us.cnn.com . When I clicked the link, I got sent to the international CNN news page whose poll is rather less stupid, though incredibly boring: "Which American golfer has the best chance of winning the British Open?"
Posted by: Tigerwolf | July 17, 2009 10:32 AM
Mind you, I'm not saying that Pharyngulates are tinfoil-hat-wearing idjits*. Nobody looking at CNN.com will know who we are....Bwaaa-HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!squid+1!
^..^
*But we can play them on the Intertubes...
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
July 17, 2009 10:36 AM
I think I'm going anti-science on this one. I'll be using technology brought on by advances made possible by the space program, too. Its the right thing to do.
Posted by: Thomas Winwood | July 17, 2009 10:40 AM
My pet peeve is "this". Instead of "this." The latter is correct (the period should always be inside of the quotation).
Wrong. It's not right to mutilate a quotation with punctuation which doesn't belong to it; it's confusing and potentially problematic. Trivial example, from an exemplary howto guide to using vi: "To delete a line, type 'dd.'" What are people likely to type? Answer: d-d-dot, which deletes TWO lines.
If, on the other hand, you quote a full sentence, including the full stop is correct because a sentence needs a full stop by virtue of being a sentence: "Spock said it was logical." However, if I use that as part of a larger sentence, a la "Spock said it was logical", I wouldn't include the comma in the quotation because it isn't in the original.
Posted by: Frank W. Gurliacci | July 17, 2009 10:42 AM
if you think that is bad, you should check out the poll on AOL/Netscape...
Posted by: Hank Fox | July 17, 2009 10:44 AM
I looked at the results, but I'm not about to legitimize a poll like this by voting in it. As if the point was arguable.
Something else in it bugs me. I've long known that one of the goals of the most malignant godders (and conservatives, too, come to think of it) is to devalue the language by making certain words meaningless.
If the words mean nothing definable, you can no longer communicate effectively, which means you can't argue, can't learn, can't THINK.
"Theory" in the technical sense has been one of the words under assault ("It's just a theory!"), as is "science" How many times have we heard "science is just another religion"?
"Believe" is definitely in there too. These days, to use the word at all, to say "I believe ..." might be to say "I have faith."
From a mild noncommittal expression of personal understanding, it's now freighted with something like aggressive religious devotion. "I believe" starts to mean "I accept it based on no evidence whatsoever."
I continue to — yes — BELIEVE religionists are losing ground, but I sometimes make a point of reminding myself that every possible rhetorical dirty trick to come out of human history was probably originally invented by a sneak-weasel priest. And they and their fellow-travelers are still damned good at tripping up the rest of us with them.
The implication hidden in this poll question is this new meaning of “believe.” No matter how you answer it (Groucho Marx: "Answer yes or no: Have you stopped beating your wife?"), you've fallen victim to the con.
Fuck CNN.
Posted by: Tom | July 17, 2009 10:48 AM
The correct way to answer this poll is to choose the "yes" response. Not because we believe the Apollo moon landings were faked but because it will be quite funny if 97% of the respondents answered that they believe it was faked.
Also, PZ you are over thinking this poll. It is a perfectly valid poll question to ask people what they believe. The fact is that people will read the question and spoof the poll but so what? Every online poll is equally silly.
Posted by: gman
|
July 17, 2009 10:53 AM
Moon-landing fakery and grammatical pet peeves aside, we need a thread on the moon landing itself.
In July 1969, I was a wide-eyed 15 year old Canadian Boy Scout at a national scout jamboree in Idaho (among 40,000 others).
There was a massive roar of jubilation and excitement across the entire camp when the LEM touched down. It was an incredibly display of the power of science and the astounding ability of the United States to achieve a dream that almost everyone thought was impossible.
Of course, in retrospect, it would been culturally way cooler to have been at Woodstock that summer.
And like many others, I have been more critical of the US since then, starting with Kent State and culminating with the idiocy of the last few years, so much so that I avoided even travelling to the US during the Bush years.
But, despite all that, it was magical to have been in the United States that summer and to share in that collective wonderment.
Posted by: Rob | July 17, 2009 10:54 AM
The poll is related to this article http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/07/17/moon.landing.hoax/index.html
Posted by: anne johnson | July 17, 2009 10:56 AM
This conspiracy theory has been around a long time. Now it will be bolstered by the loss of the original footage from NASA.
The flag they planted had wire in it to make it stand at attention like that. At least, so I've been told *cue scary music*.
I was a huge space buff when this event occurred, and my most vivid memory was that, as Armstrong jumped from the module, a humongous thunderstorm broke outside our house. The local fundies used that storm as proof that "God disapproves of this space walk." With logic like that, I'll believe in the moon landing, thank you.
Posted by: rob | July 17, 2009 10:59 AM
the moon landing were a hoax. the reality is that the apollo missions were actually trips to the surface of the sun. imagine, humanity explored the center of our solar system!
i know what you are thinking, that the surface of the sun is 5780 K and that there is no way human or machine could survive the tremndous heat. engineers solved that problem by landing only at night.
Posted by: william e emba | July 17, 2009 11:01 AM
Although I am an American, I have a pet peeve with your use of "correct". What you actually meant is "standard American usage". Standard British usage is to write "this".
Since the British usage is logical, I use it exclusively. The American usage leads to unnecessary ambiguity. The sentence 'John said "hello?"' is different from 'John said "hello"?'. Really, where was I supposed to put that final period, anyway?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2009 11:02 AM
Well that bit is true.
With no wind on the moon a flag would otherwise just hang rather limply from the pole.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2009 11:10 AM
Can I just point out my pet peeve is the American use of the word "momentarily".
It does not mean in a moment, it means for a moment. If someone says "I will be with you momentarily", it means that when they get to you they will only spend a moment with you. If you will be getting to them in a short while it would be "I will be with in a moment".
OK, now I have made that clear I do trust I can rely on Americans to stop misusing the word. Thank you.
Posted by: arensb | July 17, 2009 11:17 AM
Lee Picton @#6:
You beat me to it.
PZ, could you please be more careful about "it's" and "its"?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 17, 2009 11:30 AM
Is it too much to ask that CNN behave in a manner befitting a major media outlet and not The Enquirer?
Yes.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
Posted by: Will | July 17, 2009 11:30 AM
I'm a bit hung-over and confused, so I just voted "No" like a good minion. Did I make good?
Posted by: Igor | July 17, 2009 11:36 AM
"i know what you are thinking, that the surface of the sun is 5780 K and that there is no way human or machine could survive the tremndous heat. engineers solved that problem by landing only at night."
But that would have made it difficult to see where they were going. Fail.
Posted by: whitebird | July 17, 2009 11:41 AM
That's a good one, Matt Penfold @ 33, and one I was not aware of, and therefore now will forever be bugged by. My number one personal peeve is "a myriad of". "Myriad" is like "many". (I refuse to put a period inside quotes, just to put another period after the quote, dangit!)You wouldn't say "I had a many of bananas before that monkey stole them off the table", at least I would hope not.
Posted by: Will | July 17, 2009 11:42 AM
Well, according to The Elements of Style by Strunk and White, the American usage is correct.
Posted by: Phillycook | July 17, 2009 11:43 AM
Arggh - and here's another one -
Should West Virginia ban gay marriage?
http://wtrf.com/poll.cfm
Presently standing at 64% Yes - 36% No
What is wrong with these people?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2009 11:47 AM
Another peeve I have, but this will likely only resonate with fellow Brits is how when on a train and you reach the end of the journey the conductor will announce "This train terminates here".
Unless they plan to dismantle the train, then no, it is not the train that is being terminated but the service the train was operating.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 17, 2009 11:50 AM
"Its" is a possessive pronoun, like "his". You wouldn't type "hi's", would you? "It's" is a contraction.
JD@10 & Thomas Winwood@23-
I learned quotes the way that JD suggests, but, as you can see above, I don't adhere to that for exactly the reason that Thomas states: clarity. I don't know which is technically correct. If I were writing formally, and not replying on a blog, my reference is the spousal unit, who keeps a copy of the Chicago Manual of Style on her desk at work. I don't know why; she has it memorized.
So, when did this alleged "moon landing" supposedly take place?
Posted by: Darren Garrison | July 17, 2009 11:50 AM
My pet peeve lives in a shoe box and likes to eat raspberries. I call him Algernon.
Some gen-u-ine antimooners have showed up on Badastronomy articles on Apollo lately:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/07/16/nasa-releases-partially-restored-apollo-11-footage/#comments
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 17, 2009 11:51 AM
Not that the American Movie industry is something one would point to for much of anything but
The terrible horror movie franchise "Final Destination" is on its third installment.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2009 11:52 AM
Since "The Elements of Style" is a guide to American English I not surprised.
Does anyone know if Fowler has anything to say about this ?
Posted by: Stu
|
July 17, 2009 12:05 PM
Matt, don't miss the action over on Intersection. Both Kwok and Davison are in true frothing form.
Posted by: Dr.Woody
|
July 17, 2009 12:06 PM
Go Pharyngulate this puppy:
Posted by: matt | July 17, 2009 12:08 PM
95% of online poll results are made up lol
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2009 12:11 PM
Yeah, I've been watching. You'd have thought that with Davison turning up in support the Colgate Twins would realise that maybe they went wrong somewhere.
Posted by: Eric | July 17, 2009 12:19 PM
I don't think the moon landing was faked but I do think some of the photographs were either faked or doctored to sex them up for the media. Then when NASA lied about that it just gave ammo to the denialists. A lot of conspiracy theories would lose a lot of followers if the government would just quit lying as their first response when they get caught "embellishing".
Posted by: tsg | July 17, 2009 12:21 PM
What's the difference?
Posted by: Craig | July 17, 2009 12:30 PM
#1 hit the nail right on the head. And you walked right into their trap PZ.
Posted by: Paul | July 17, 2009 12:30 PM
The RPG franchise "Final Fantasy" is on number 13, not counting games that are not part of the main series.
Posted by: Michael | July 17, 2009 12:31 PM
That damn FOX special...
On the bright side, I do use the special in my science classes to discuss critical thinking. Unfortunately most high school students require a lot of help to recognize the errors in logic/common sense/physics that the 'Did we land on the moon' special played on.
Speaking of which, what is it with Mitch Pleggi? He seems to be making a career out of causing problems for other people ('Moon' special host -> headaches for NASA, astronomers, and science teachers; 'Magic Secrets Revealed' specials host -> cost a lot of magicians and illusion builders gigs/business/money).
Posted by: tsg | July 17, 2009 12:32 PM
Oh, Christ. Here comes the Big Dic contest....
Posted by: Karey | July 17, 2009 12:34 PM
Whoops, thought I was looking at CNN, not the weekly world news.
Posted by: btj | July 17, 2009 12:37 PM
I hope this poll proves to the the educated elites that we need to start "teaching the controversy" in the public schools. (Yes, that was sarcasm.)
Posted by: Holbach
|
July 17, 2009 12:40 PM
Here is a question we can proffer:
"Do you believe a god was faked?"
Er, what do you mean by faked?
Posted by: recovering catholic | July 17, 2009 12:41 PM
A wise person here once advised me to give up on trying to teach PZ the correct usage of "its" and "it's", because he'd never learn it. But I'm glad to see I'm not the only one it bothers!
Maybe if we keep after him long enough...
Posted by: stogoe | July 17, 2009 12:41 PM
Integrity and fifty cents will get you fifteen minutes at the parking meter. Integrity is dead weight when you have to get a 30% profit margin or they'll liquidate the entire paper out from under you. Of course, integrity is one of those things that cause people to buy your ad-rags in the first place.
Posted by: BenA | July 17, 2009 12:42 PM
Phillycook@40:
You've never been to West Virginia, have you? Travel there really answers that question fully.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 17, 2009 12:44 PM
Now I just want everyone to know that the Colgate Twins will be wanting everyone to show respect to the people who voted no in that poll.
Remember it is all PZ and Richard Dawkin's fault that 14% of the voters in the poll think the moon landings were faked. It would be quite wrong of anyone to show the overwhelming evidence that we did land on the moon.
Remember people, respect. Put the blame where it is due, and not on the media who insist on bring up claims the moon landings were faked. After all one must have respect for journalists who are scientifically illiterate, even if they write about science and get it all wrong.
Posted by: Kyle Marquis | July 17, 2009 12:48 PM
There was a "Moon landing hoaxer" column in the New York Times the other day. It came down on the "these people are crazy" side, but it also said something interesting that I think applies to all conspiracy nuts, including creationists. The column pointed out that for the conspiracy-minded, it's not the quality of an argument that matters, but the sheer number of arguments put forth. Even if your "facts" can be refuted almost immediately, if you have more "facts" than the other guy, you "win."
If that's an accurate interpretation of the conspiracy-minded, it explains a lot of things about creationists, like their tendency to use arguments that have been refuted for decades or centuries. Part of that is probably just good old intellectual dishonesty--you can't discount the importance of lying for Jesus--but I wonder how much of the behavior is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how logical arguments work. To some people, the goal is to have lots of facts, not good facts. They probably think we're crazy when we actually *refute their arguments* rather than just hurling datum after datum into the fray.
Posted by: tsg | July 17, 2009 12:49 PM
They reset it. I almost had it even (block cookies and hammer the vote button) and it went back to 44% No.
Posted by: stogoe | July 17, 2009 12:53 PM
No you may not. Where the hell did we pick up so many gorram prescriptivists? It's like they're multiplying or something. Seriously, ya'all - language is changed by those who use it, and you're never going to change that. So I could care less about what Strunk and White and Beebleforp Winksley III say about how language was used in the "60s". Language has passed you by, and takes no notice of your tantrums. Stop trying to divert the river with a frown and a grumble.
Posted by: william e emba | July 17, 2009 12:55 PM
Very funny. Strunk and White were American.
You remind me of the old joke about the European Jewish immigrants. They had from all across the continent, in the days when travel was uncommon and TV nonexistent, and radio not very common either. And they were mixed into a tiny district in Brooklyn, and were all surprised to learn how many different Hebrew accents there were, some of them extremely peculiar.
A bunch of the immigrants are having an argument as to what the "correct" pronunciation of the holy language was. Litvak? Polscher? Galicianer? And so on. And finally, this one guy spoke up, calling the others idiots, since it's clearly spelled out in the Holy Bible itself that his accent is the correct one. Naturally the others demand proof, so he opens up to page 1, and begins reading "boorayshoys beeray ahlikoym".
That's "In the beginning God created" in the original Hebrew, with the vowels horribly mangled. And yet, I've heard some oldtimers who spoke Hebrew like that, and certain escapees from certain Hassidic groups to boot.
Trust me, the joke is hilarious.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 17, 2009 12:57 PM
Meh. Anyone much younger that 40 has a skewed notion, owing to how good modern SFX are, of how cheap/easy it would've been in the 60s to make not one but six (or seven, if you count Apollo 13, or 11 if you count Apollos 7 through 10) fake missions (each of which would be effectively a TV miniseries, not just a movie) that are undetectable to an intensely critical audience (including Cold War foes who would've delighted in exposing a fake)... rather than to the willing suspension of disbelief makers of avowedly fictional films can count on.
Go back and watch SF films from the 60s: The vast majority of spaceflight-related SFX are transparently cheesy, and the few that were convincing were hugely expensive and time-consuming to produce. In any case, the most expensive bits of the whole Apollo venture — the Saturn rockets and the facilities used to launch them — were unconcealably visible to the general public in RL (I've personally watched Shuttle launches from 100+ miles away from the launch pad, and by all accounts Saturns generated vastly more sound and fury than Shuttle). Even if they wanted to fake everything else, they had to really launch real rockets.
I realize all the moon-landing-hoax BS has been very carefully debunked, but the cheaper to do it in a sound stage trope is just transparently foolish. It is, at least, to anyone who remembers how truly difficult it used to be to credibly fake stuff.
PS: I got interrupted for a couple hours in the middle of writing this; forgive me if it's hopelessly out of sync with the rest of the thread.
Posted by: tim Rowledge | July 17, 2009 1:08 PM
Dammit, it's called English. It's ours. We stole it fair and square from the Celts and the Romans and the Normans and the Deutsch and the ... well pretty much everyone that made the mistake of wandering down a dark alley with some spare syntax jangling in their pocket or a bit too much flashy semantics displayed at the bar.
If we say it's Aluminium then it's frakkin' Aluminium, right? Don't make me heat up the polysyllabic dependent clauses and get all grammatical on your behind.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 17, 2009 1:17 PM
I'll take English seriously as soon as it stops calling natrium sodium.
Posted by: Sili
|
July 17, 2009 1:22 PM
GAH!
Stupid, pointless arguments about punctuation! Praise for bloody fucking Frankenstrunk!
Gah! GAH! GAHHHH!
This at least confirms that we're not completely rational and unqualifiedly clever.
GAH! A pox on you! Makes me fucking wanna stop using apostrophes altogether.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 17, 2009 1:22 PM
Are you sure it's CNN doing this? It sounds like it could be the same people (WND/OneNewsNow types, IIRC) who put up those polls that ask "Is Obama a socialist?" with "Yes" already checked; and "Is Obama a good President?" with "No" already checked.
Posted by: Steve | July 17, 2009 1:25 PM
I ran into an interesting variation on this at a Christian apologetics website. Basically, what the Christians keep saying is that if you believe in the moon landing, then you should believe in the resurrection. I know, I know, it doesn't follow, but does give some insight into their way of thinking.
http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2009/07/july-16-1969.html
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 17, 2009 1:27 PM
Me fail english? Thats unpossible,
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 17, 2009 1:29 PM
Really? What could possibly lead you to that conclusion? Which photos do you imagine are doctored? To show what?
It's at least possible to imagine a motive for faking the whole enterprize — Cold War prestige, avoiding an embarrassing failure, etc. — but it's much harder to see what conceivable motivation a country that had really landed on the Moon would have to phony up the evidence. If any of the photos showed something really earthshakingly unexpected — diamonds or gold or fossils of ET — I might be tempted to wonder about their veracity (extraordinary claims, and all that, you know)... but in fact, there's nothing particularly sexed up about the photographic record from Apollo: The Moon we see in those photos looks pretty much like everyone expected it to look, and the photos look pretty much like the pictures you'd expect a crewcut-and-skinny-necktie outfit like NASA would take.
Unless you have specific pictures that you think, for specific reasons, are doctored, I'm going to assume that this is just another case of someone presuming something sneaky's going on because... well, because Government did it, and Government is always sneaky and evil, even when it doesn't need to be, right? Meh!
In other news, I think I'll stay out of this episode of Usage Wars®, despite the fact that I'm an actual professional in that field. Y'all have fun with that, y'hear?
Posted by: Jeff | July 17, 2009 1:30 PM
It's not just the landing. The moon itself was cleverly faked using smoke and mirrors early on, and later using sophisticated special effects for a more detailed moon experience.
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 17, 2009 1:36 PM
Well, sorta, I guess...
I mean, I'm still not real sure I really get what it must be like to live on whatever planet they do, but at least I know it's probably best not to let them anywhere near heavy machinery...
(/Course, I pretty much already knew that.)
Posted by: Roger | July 17, 2009 1:40 PM
You have all got it wrong. The moon landings were not a hoax, they actually happened. But really it was aliens landing at Roswell in 1947 that gave us the technology. And the only reason they used that big-ass rocket was because if we went to the moon in flying saucers that would give the game away.
Posted by: SafirXP | July 17, 2009 1:52 PM
I'm not an American, from Bangladesh to be exact. But that poll and all these hoax people are not only unpatriotic but what they're doing is as bad as treason!
I can ignore or filter out the hoax BS, but where I live, people are very gullible to these things. I've met numerous people who believe it was a hoax. Its hard to take it when someone insults mankind's greatest achievement. And there are those who believe it because they love to hate America.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 17, 2009 1:55 PM
I just whipped these lunar landing pix up on photoshop.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 17, 2009 2:09 PM
...Not!
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 17, 2009 2:09 PM
Those fakers at NASA have just released shots from the lunar orbiter, including pictures of the old landing sites.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10289551-239.html
Looks like some pretty good photoshop to me!
Posted by: Glen Martin | July 17, 2009 2:15 PM
Of course there are people who believe that the Moon landings were a hoax. They are in a category of reality-challenged people collectively referred to as "morons," and substantially overlap with members of the YEC crowd.
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
July 17, 2009 2:16 PM
#70 Sili:
makes you want to STOP USING APOSTROPHE'S ??
The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe.
Pretty funny that some would bring up "The Elements of Style" though. If memory serves, they were responsible for all the split infinitive nonsense... a rule they pulled out of their asses. sorry... arses. Every time I hear an "I" used as the direct object of a sentence, spoken by an American (esp. TV pundits) trying to sound "proper", I whistle a nasty little curse.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 17, 2009 2:22 PM
sasqwatch @83
I love a good Zappa reference.
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | July 17, 2009 2:27 PM
PZ, I don't think you are being fair to CNN here. The associated article seems well done and made clear how ridiculous the hoaxers position is. It in fact ends with a snarky remark by the Phil Plait about how no level of evidence will convince the Apollo Hoax theorists.
The article is at http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/07/17/moon.landing.hoax/index.html
Posted by: Albigensian | July 17, 2009 2:35 PM
Wake up, people! The moon hoax was clearly faked! It had to have been faked because the moon isn't real!
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
July 17, 2009 2:50 PM
...the moon hoax was faked?
Now I have to lie down.
Posted by: Anonym | July 17, 2009 3:01 PM
Candidate language peeve: placing 'only' before the verb, instead of before the conditional phrase (e.g., 'He only saw the dots.', rather than 'He saw only the dots.').
P.S. How you like THAT punctuation?!?
Posted by: E.V. | July 17, 2009 3:09 PM
I worked with some camera operators for the film industry who were convinced it was all faked. They cite the moving flag, dust patterns,reflections (or lack thereof) as "proof". But their basic tenet for not believing is that someone told them it was impossible to travel through the Van Allen belt. They got really weird when anyone tried to debunk their fallacies.
Come to Texas where conspiracy theorists and ardent woo believers are only a pebble toss in any direction.
Posted by: Corey S
|
July 17, 2009 3:44 PM
If the moon landings were faked, would not the Russians have claimed this too. Also, was it faked the other times?
Posted by: tsg | July 17, 2009 3:48 PM
My favorite part of the moon landing conspiracies is that, by the time they get done explaining how the government managed to fool so many people for so long, faking it is so complicated it would have been easier to just go to the moon.
Posted by: Holbach
|
July 17, 2009 4:20 PM
Lee Picton @ 6, and arensb @ 34
I stand corrected for as many times as I admit to violating the rule of "it's" and "its". One of my failings in trying to aceive proper English usage, and a habit that I must correct. Thanks again.
Posted by: Sleeper | July 17, 2009 4:35 PM
@Bill Dauphin (#74)
I think this thread of the conspiracy theory stems from the slide positives released by NASA for the print media. It's the naive belief that these should be exact copies of the raw pictures taken on the moon.
It doesn't occur to them that they only bothered to release the good shots. Hoax believers point to the shots being in the wrong order as if that somehow matters.
I suspect that what people see as faking is just the normal process of touching up, burning in the light areas and dodging the dark to give a more even picture. I don't know if they did this but it wouldn't surprise me if the press photos had been colour corrected and had the contrast evened out before hand so it actually could be printed.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 17, 2009 4:53 PM
Sleeper:
Ahhh, a blast from the past, calling up memories of working alongside my father in his home darkroom. How long do you think it will be before nobody recalls what burning in and dodging even mean?
Oh, well. For the record (not that you need me to say this)...
Correct Printing ≠ Falsifying Evidence
The kind of printing "manipulation" you describe would only create a legitimacy problem if someone were going to do some sort of quantitative photoanalysis... which should be done from the original negative in the first place, if possible.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | July 17, 2009 5:00 PM
Daym:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html
Posted by: Gav D
|
July 17, 2009 5:06 PM
My school physics teacher thought the moon landings were faked (I remember being taken in for a couple of days before I looked up his claims about the van Allen belts on Google or AltaVista or whatever I used then). Now that I think about it that was a pretty poor example for an otherwise good science teacher to set.
On the other main topic, my pet peeve is the abuse of the word 'literally'. I know language changes through usage but that's no excuse for stripping good words of their meaning!
Also 'loose' instead of 'lose'. Very common and very stupid!
Posted by: JeffreyD | July 17, 2009 5:18 PM
I have it as certain, i.e., revealed knowledge that grammar rules and pet peeves are hoaxes carried out by the Illuminati masters of NASA as foretold in Nostradamus and further that...
What? Oh, yes nurse, I will take my medication now.
Posted by: MikeS29 | July 17, 2009 5:32 PM
Should Gay Marriage ban West Virginia?
Posted by: Hank Fox | July 17, 2009 5:35 PM
You can't really appreciate the moon landing hoax until you see it in the original Russian.
Posted by: Will | July 17, 2009 5:44 PM
They wanted to boldly go where no style manual has gone before.
Posted by: sasqwatch
|
July 17, 2009 5:55 PM
Darned tootin', Will.
(note placement of apostrophe)
More peeves: free reign, begging the question, veil of tears, semprini
Posted by: arachnophilia
|
July 17, 2009 5:57 PM
@Bill Dauphin, OM: (#94)
so there's this lovely program called "photoshop" now that lets you burn and dodge right on your home computer, no need for smelly chemicals and lightseals and silver traps and all that time and darkness and water...
i whole-heartedly agree. NO photograph is a true representation of reality. a camera cannot capture the full range of the electromagnetic spectrum that the human eye can see; not even all the dynamic range of the visual light spectrum we can see at one time. this is quite noticable in the apollo photos (or ANY night photos for that matter) where you can see the illuminated subjects and not the background stars. this is no mystery to a photographer, but perplexes the tinfoil hat crowd.
in EVERY printing, there is some degree of tonal correction and calibration. it's just a fact of the medium. things wouldn't look right if there wasn't.
but i suspect what sleeper is actually refering to re: burning and dodging are the pictures were a bit more dynamic range is present than the hoaxers expect. because, amazingly, the surface of the moon is moderately reflective, and provided a very very slight natural fill.
but let's be honest here, we're not talking about CORRECT printing. printing processes, especially in the digital age, have greatly evolved in the last few years. and most of these hoaxers are still using very poor quality, low resolution, and shoddily printed copies of copies made in the 70's. nevermind that basically every photo from every apollo mission is on the wed in reasonably high quality direct scans from the original film.
Posted by: Will | July 17, 2009 6:06 PM
Correction @ #100:
That should have been "had gone before."
Posted by: NelC | July 17, 2009 6:24 PM
Tim @68, when Humphrey Davey originally isolated the new metal, he called it alumium. Later on, he changed his mind and called it aluminum (sic). So our cousins across the ocean actually use the discoverer's prefered name, while we Brits have chosen yet a third option.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 17, 2009 6:32 PM
The "experts" tell us that 2 + 2 = 4. But can that really be the whole story? Consider this: Isn't it odd that 2 + 2 = 4 and 4 = 2 + 2? Such a nice little package, don’t you think? Isn’t that convenient? But then consider this: 4 = 3 + 1. That’s right, we already know what 4 equals. So what are they hiding? What does 2 + 2 really equal? What would it hurt for more study on the real value of 2 + 2? A lot of people make a lot of money off of the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. Math teachers, accountants (who control the world's money supply), capitalists, the Zionist military industrial oedipal complex. I think they're afraid of the truth. Now I'm not one of those loonies who say the number 2 doesn’t exist, or that it can't be combined with other numbers to make bigger numbers, only that the "official" party line that 2 + 2 = 4 seems odd to me. "They" say that 2 + 2 = 4, but then they also say that 2 × 2 = 4, and 2² = 4. How convenient. They can't be all right! I think it’s time we ask what are they hiding? We will not be silent any longer!
Posted by: Raymond Zbylut | July 17, 2009 6:53 PM
Of course the moon landing was faked, God will not allow mankind to venture where he resides, or at least the 'rock decoration' in his yard.
Yes, there are some "Trekkies" believing we have some sci-fi technology for space travel. Earth was only formed 6000 years back, it was just a few centuries ago when we stopped riding dinosaurs. Geez!
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 17, 2009 8:26 PM
Adding to Marcus Ranum @81, the LRO has resolved something unexpected. Human sign.
From an AP article today:
And these are early images taken while the instruments are still being calibrated. I can't wait for the images to come!
Sad note: I just heard that Walter Cronkite has died. I grew up with Uncle Walt. He was 92. *thank you, old friend*
Posted by: Lynn David
|
July 17, 2009 10:35 PM
It would seem that among some (many?) Muslims that the idea that anyone actually set foot on the moon would be against their religion, something about the moon being split?
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2009 10:54 PM
Just caught up on this thread; unless PZ has altered the original posting (it shows the same on my RSS feed, however), there's nothing wrong there, apostrophe-wise.
Also, it's a really stupid poll.
Posted by: Man in the Moon | July 17, 2009 11:00 PM
You all have to realize that a good portion of the older generation does not beleive that we landed on the moon - at least the first time anyway.
I happen to beleive we did land on the moon, but were not the first there. The Germans were the first on the moon in 1947. Of course, this is conspiracy theory, but we know that Germany led in rocket technology and most other technology for a while. The Nazis were evil, but they had science on their side for a few years.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 17, 2009 11:10 PM
is this a joke?
in 1947, Germany was a pile of ash and rubble and in a deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep mental and economic depression that didn't end until 1954.
not to mention that any technology Germany might have had in 1947 would have been taken away by the Allies who were governing Germany at that time and who were attempting a "pastoralization" and de-industrialization at that time.
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2009 11:20 PM
Jadehawk, it's a well-known mythos.
See Nazi UFOs; also been done in SF (e.g. Moon of Ice).
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 17, 2009 11:27 PM
Nazi UFOs?
oh dear :-p
Posted by: Will | July 18, 2009 12:42 AM
I have a cousin who actually believes Nazis made it to the moon in the 1940s. He also believes there exists an object called the "Sorcerer's Stone" that can turn one element into another e.g. lead into gold. He also smokes copious amounts canabis, which explains a lot.
Posted by: Pareidolius | July 18, 2009 3:11 AM
Man, Godwin's law strikes again. Somebody's watched "They Saved Hitler's Brain" one too many times.
Posted by: WheelintheSky | July 27, 2009 6:33 AM
The funniest thing though is an old colleague who sat across from me railing on the lunar landing hoaxers. I had a tough time not laughing thinking of her equally ludicrous beliefs. From previous discussions with this woman I knew at that point she believed, and still does, that a man rose from the dead after three days, the Israelites had celestial Pop-tarts raining from heaven for 40 years, seas dividing, a universal deluge, the magic contained in the ark of the covenant that caused river waters to pile up and possessed the power to kill, staffs turning to snakes, young earth creationism, and the list of lunacy goes on.