Watching the FOX Documentary

[Trinity]

Well, I finally watched the documentary. When I had originally heard about it I laughed and said I wouldn't waste my time watching it. However, as I ran into more and more people who had become suspicious, I decided to watch it for myself, just so I can properly shoot down their "points."

One thing that is never discussed much is how poorly produced a program it was. All content aside, it was presented horribly, people were constantly being cut off mid-sentence, mid-thought, and it was very poorly organized, making it a headache to watch.

When I read Phil Plait's article debunking the 'documentary' (A term that is VERY loosely used now days, especially by Michael Moore), he actually did them justice, he made it sound as if the program could have been convincing.

Anyone with half a brain should note that they had about four or five "experts" speak on behalf of hoax believers, while they had ONE person, a NASA Spokesman, speak about the other side of it. A true documentary on such a subject should present both sides equally.

Not only that, but they used what I assume to be VERY little of NASA Spokesman's testimony. They avoided all specifics and tried to make him sound like he couldn't back up any of what he was saying.

Anyway, I guess those are my complaints (everything else has been covered by Phil and others). I just wanted to address the incredibly poor orchestration of the entire program. They definitely could have done a more impressive job, and, after seeing it, I find it hard to believe that people fall for this bogus garbage.

[Maksutov]

I watched this again for the first time in 3 1/2 years. This time I managed to get to halfway through it, as opposed to just the first fifteen minutes back in 2001, at which point I had to shut it off or barf. I guess my tolerance level has increased in the interim, since this time it was about 25 minutes before I had to shut it off or barf.

One thing caught my attention this time around. The music sounds like George Noory's various C2C themes on acid. Even when the highly-edited NASA spokesman was on, the soundtrack was grunting and growling with menace.

Also the "computer graphics" were overkill, an attempt to make an unscientific show look like it was technically competent. The only folks who might have been impressed would have been those who paused their "Battlestar Galactica" Betamax tapes to watch this show.

A more detailed dissection will follow. Not to worry about the patient about to be dissected, it was DOA.

#-o

PS: Meanwhile I need to check this out on the C2C site:

In his book Spiritwalker, Hank Wesselman (pictured above with Jill Kuykendall) described his altered-state journeys observing life first-hand through the mind of a 7-ft. tall forest dweller named Nainoa...cont.

[Lurker]

One thing that is never discussed much is how poorly produced a program it was. All content aside, it was presented horribly, people were constantly being cut off mid-sentence, mid-thought, and it was very poorly organized, making it a headache to watch.

This is the problem that I have with TV these days. I don't think the FOX "Documentary" is about a balanced presentation of the facts; it is about making money. So from the outset, I think there is a shift away from "what is true", to "what will sell".

They then target an audience that grew up on the fast cuts of MTV and that want to be distracted from day to day realities of life by the big secret. For those that produced the program, their success is measured by how popular it is and how much money they make after production costs. In this sense, I have a feeling that they were very successful.

I don't like the result... but in our free, democratic market place, I think that the program would have to be considered a great success. One might argue that a truthful program would be more successful, but now you are arguing against a proven money making formula...

[Trinity]

One thing that is never discussed much is how poorly produced a program it was. All content aside, it was presented horribly, people were constantly being cut off mid-sentence, mid-thought, and it was very poorly organized, making it a headache to watch.

This is the problem that I have with TV these days. I don't think the FOX "Documentary" is about a balanced presentation of the facts; it is about making money. So from the outset, I think there is a shift away from "what is true", to "what will sell".

They then target an audience that grew up on the fast cuts of MTV and that want to be distracted from day to day realities of life by the big secret. For those that produced the program, their success is measured by how popular it is and how much money they make after production costs. In this sense, I have a feeling that they were very successful.

I don't like the result... but in our free, democratic market place, I think that the program would have to be considered a great success. One might argue that a truthful program would be more successful, but now you are arguing against a proven money making formula...

Man do I feel you. This is how I feel about Michael Moore. Actually, I give him kudos, in a way. He knows EXACTLY how to appeal to his target audiences. I'm in no way addressing the specific content of his "documentaries," simply how he goes about making them.

I wish people (especially people of my generation) were able to just stop for a minute, and question EVERYTHING. It's amazing how quick some are to take something they see in a movie (which made millions for its creator), and believe it. Never thinking that it might not be the whole truth. Or the truth at all.

[Lurker]

Man do I feel you. This is how I feel about Michael Moore. Actually, I give him kudos, in a way. He knows EXACTLY how to appeal to his target audiences. I'm in no way addressing the specific content of his "documentaries," simply how he goes about making them.

I wish people (especially people of my generation) were able to just stop for a minute, and question EVERYTHING. It's amazing how quick some are to take something they see in a movie (which made millions for its creator), and believe it. Never thinking that it might not be the whole truth. Or the truth at all.

I agree completely here... I will admit some sympathetic bias toward the point that Michael Moore was trying to make, but I simply can't respect the way he went about doing it. You are right, it is the same sort of thing as in the FOX documentary. I kept asking myself, "but what if we heard the next few words", or "why do we linger on this footage and see so little of other footage".

I think that there is a large segment of society that wants to be distracted from the fact that life is not a dramatic show that always comes to a conclusion when the curtain drops at the end of the evening. They like the theme music that lets them distinguish the good guys from the bad guys, they like to be shown which images they should care about, and they like having events distilled down into a simple story that is easy to follow and that does not have moral ambiguities.

[Trinity]

Man do I feel you. This is how I feel about Michael Moore. Actually, I give him kudos, in a way. He knows EXACTLY how to appeal to his target audiences. I'm in no way addressing the specific content of his "documentaries," simply how he goes about making them.

I wish people (especially people of my generation) were able to just stop for a minute, and question EVERYTHING. It's amazing how quick some are to take something they see in a movie (which made millions for its creator), and believe it. Never thinking that it might not be the whole truth. Or the truth at all.

I agree completely here... I will admit some sympathetic bias toward the point that Michael Moore was trying to make, but I simply can't respect the way he went about doing it. You are right, it is the same sort of thing as in the FOX documentary. I kept asking myself, "but what if we heard the next few words", or "why do we linger on this footage and see so little of other footage".

I think that there is a large segment of society that wants to be distracted from the fact that life is not a dramatic show that always comes to a conclusion when the curtain drops at the end of the evening. They like the theme music that lets them distinguish the good guys from the bad guys, they like to be shown which images they should care about, and they like having events distilled down into a simple story that is easy to follow and that does not have moral ambiguities.

=D>

That is all.

[Chip]

...they like to be shown which images they should care about, and they like having events distilled down into a simple story that is easy to follow and that does not have moral ambiguities.

Yes, like Fox "News." Though they didn't directly produce the Fox Moon Hoax show, which was done by another branch of the Fox Corporation, their outlook is equally at the service of "entertainment" and their opinion rather than accurate description. They present so-called "news" propped by secondary agendas. The result, as with the Moon Hoax show, is the distortion of facts and even blatant lies given the status of: "what if."

Michael Moore hasn't made films about space or the moon so I won't address his films other than to state here that his work actually stems from an old tradition in film making. Though technically "propaganda," (and some classic great films were made as propaganda,) – his work is in a subcategory of verifying, collecting, arranging and cleverly presenting historic facts in an entertaining way. The Fox Moon Hoax show collected some technical facts, but also hearsay, as well as anecdotal and unproven pseudo-evidence from some questionable pseudo-authorities and easily disproved notions, and then presented them all uncritically, wrapping up each segment with a neat little bow of vagueness under the statement: "now draw your own conclusions." This is what makes the Fox Moon Hoax show very much in the style of the pseudo-reporting on regular Fox News shows.

[Swift]

I agree with all of this but wanted to add one thing. None of this is new. Slanting "news" or "documentaries" to make a particular point or to entertain is not an invention of either FOX or the 21st century. Look for example at the "Yellow" journalism of the late 19th century newspapers which, I believe, was a large factor in the U.S. getting involved in the Spanish-American War. I think TV and videos have just increased the "efficiency" and maybe added to the instant gratification mindset.

[JayUtah]

The approach, "Here are the facts; draw your own conclusion," grants the viewer permission to draw a conclusion under the presumption that the facts have been wholly and fairly presented. That's never the case, nor is it necessary for the viewer to be encouraged to make up his mind at any point during or after the program. Even if the facts have been accurately presented, the viewer should make up his mind only if and when he has been satisfied with his grasp of the issue -- and that might include his own research.

For most topics, 48 minutes is not enough time to present a thorough set of facts. The viewer should be reminded that a suspension of judgment is still a valid outcome to the program.

[Teraad]

Does anyone know where I can get a hold of a copy of the fox documentary?

I teach physics at a high school and I'm interested in doing a critical thinking unit based on the moon landings. I've watched the Bart Sibrel documentary and found is somewhat boring and it wouldn't hold my students' interest for very long. From what I remember of the Fox documentary, it was more interesting, no so many dry lectures and no JFK assassination plot (wherever that came from).

Any help in getting a copy would be greatly appreciated.

[azbmatt]

i downloaded a copy from suprnova... another thread was asking about the pictures of california terrain matching up with "moon" terrain, and that claim and the photos are on the fox documentary..
i saw this forum googling california terrain satellite pics and thought i'd say hi.

[AGN Fuel]

i downloaded a copy from suprnova... another thread was asking about the pictures of california terrain matching up with "moon" terrain, and that claim and the photos are on the fox documentary..
i saw this forum googling california terrain satellite pics and thought i'd say hi.

Welcome aboard, azbmatt!