Sad commentary from yesterday

[tlbs101]

The local AM talk radio station afternoon host did 2 hours of, "where were you on July 20, 1969". Many people called in with their stories. I was suprised, as was the host, that there were so many in the Albuquerque area that were involved directly or indirerctly (or whose dad or uncle was involved) with the Apollo program. Many told of meeting Neil Armstrong or other moon-walking astronaut before Apollo 11 launched. All-in-all it was a good show.

Here's the sad part.

The 2nd caller to the show was a HB and was immedietely disconnected. The talk-show host proclaimed he would disconnect anyone espousing the hoax, and explained why, giving great arguments why we actually did land on the moon. Yet, even after that, they still called (and were promptly disconnected). It was funny to listen to these kooks try and get a word in before "click", and the host was getting more upset each time. But at the same time I was saddened there were so many kooks in the area.

[JayUtah]

It's not necessarily that there are so many kooks. It may be that the kooks are the ones who feel strongly enough about their beliefs to call in and try to share them.

Part of the allure of conspiracism seems to be the excitement of believing something that few other people believe. It's a way of saying, "I'm different." We can go beyond that and speculate that they think their beliefs are not only different but also better. But simply the difference is enough to worry about here. What good is being different if no one notices?

[die Nullte]

I understand that the highest priority of a talk-show host is to keep things moving. Brief, pithy sound-bites are preferred to long-winded explanations. Political shows apparently screen callers so only "ditto heads" can get through. Still, I think (just going by your description of the program) this would have been a major opportunity to get some of the HB stuff in the open so that it could be demolished by others.

[NEOWatcher]

It's not necessarily that there are so many kooks. It may be that the kooks are the ones who feel strongly enough about their beliefs to call in and try to share them.

Part of the allure of conspiracism seems to be the excitement of believing something that few other people believe. It's a way of saying, "I'm different." We can go beyond that and speculate that they think their beliefs are not only different but also better. But simply the difference is enough to worry about here. What good is being different if no one notices?

And what about those "devils advocate" types. They don't believe it, and want to prove that they can make you believe anything.

[W.F. Tomba]

Not only may the kooks be more likely to call in to begin with, but some of them may have only decided to call in after hearing the host cut off the first one. Conspiracy theorists seem to draw a lot of motivation from the idea that their "truth" is being suppressed, so what you heard may have been an impassioned reaction by a very small group of people.

[Kemal]

Sadly I don't think it's only a few, according to polls a lot of people seem to believe this nonsense.

And most of them are on the internet:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com...howtopic=43524

[Swift]

Actually tlbs101, I take it as kind of good news that the host was trying to focus on the landing and not on the nonsense. IMHO, most AM talk radio, morning, afternoon, or the middle of the night, likes to focus on the nonsense, since the sillier, stupider, or more rude the talker is (whether a caller or the host) the better it is for ratings. Talk radio is more a three-ring circus than anything else (send in the clowns!). :-?

[pghnative]

... (send in the clowns!). :-?

don't worry, they're here.

[/flashback to bad 70's pop music]

[Bob B.]

Sadly I don't think it's only a few, according to polls a lot of people seem to believe this nonsense.

And most of them are on the internet:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com...howtopic=43524

Our good buddy Turbonium. He's been busy at Apollohoax forum as well:

What Are The Astronauts Doing?

[Gillianren]

technically, that's from a musical; it doesn't count as pop. what's more, it's from a musical based on a Bergman film. (thank you, Sondheim!)

I'm ambivalent about this. part of me says that they shouldn't waste the time on woo, especially when a lot of people who worked on it were sharing their experiences, which is infinitely cooler. then again, if they'd let one woo talk, it would have been a flood of woo, and people don't always listen to the debunking.

edited to add the other side of my argument: however, if they'd only let one woo on, then debunked it, that might have had an effect, given how easily it can, in most cases, be done.

[Astronot]

Sadly I don't think it's only a few, according to polls a lot of people seem to believe this nonsense.

And most of them are on the internet:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com...howtopic=43524

Our good buddy Turbonium. He's been busy at Apollohoax forum as well:

What Are The Astronauts Doing?

While he may be totally uneducable, Turbonium is certainly among the more polite of the HBs that have come that way. No yelling and name calling when he is challenged. Just blind insistence, beyond all reason, that he is right.

[die Nullte]

edited to add the other side of my argument: however, if they'd only let one woo on, then debunked it, that might have had an effect, given how easily it can, in most cases, be done.

I was thinking of only one woo in my comment. Just one to get the issue aired and disposed of. The HBs make a lot of noise, but I don't think "most" people believe them. But a lot of people would like to know, "Well, what about it?" HOWEVER -- I agree that the show might then go off-track, and perhaps the HB issue should be put off for another show.

[AgnosticMagickian]

Sadly I don't think it's only a few, according to polls a lot of people seem to believe this nonsense.

And most of them are on the internet:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com...howtopic=43524

I am not very familiar with all the published lunar landing photos, so I'll ask are there any photos, sufficiently big, showing the ground beneath the lander, to support or disprove the absence of blast crater?

And in response to the allegations that the astronomers saw no stars, could it be (if those allegations are true at all), that their visors were shaded to protect from very strong sunlight up there?

[GDwarf]

Sadly I don't think it's only a few, according to polls a lot of people seem to believe this nonsense.

And most of them are on the internet:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com...howtopic=43524

I am not very familiar with all the published lunar landing photos, so I'll ask are there any photos, sufficiently big, showing the ground beneath the lander, to support or disprove the absence of blast crater?

And in response to the allegations that the astronomers saw no stars, could it be (if those allegations are true at all), that their visors were shaded to protect from very strong sunlight up there?

As the BA is so fond of saying. There is a website attached to this forum. http://badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html :P

[Bob B.]

I am not very familiar with all the published lunar landing photos, so I'll ask are there any photos, sufficiently big, showing the ground beneath the lander, to support or disprove the absence of blast crater?

Here is one of the most well known examples: AS11-40-5921

If you take the time to peruse the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal I'm sure you will probably find others.

And in response to the allegations that the astronomers saw no stars, could it be (if those allegations are true at all), that their visors were shaded to protect from very strong sunlight up there?

The visors were indeed tinted to protect against UV light, and I'm sure this was partly the reason the astronauts could not see stars. Perhaps more important, however, was the fact the astronauts eyes were adapted to the bright sunlit scene all around them. Their eyes could never get adjusted to seeing faint stars.

[PhantomWolf]

I am not very familiar with all the published lunar landing photos, so I'll ask are there any photos, sufficiently big, showing the ground beneath the lander, to support or disprove the absence of blast crater?

And in response to the allegations that the astronomers saw no stars, could it be (if those allegations are true at all), that their visors were shaded to protect from very strong sunlight up there?

There are a few photos of the ground under the lander, AS11-40-5870 and AS11-40-5921 for instance. Both Neil and Buzz also talked about the lack of crater.

109:26:16 Armstrong: Okay. The descent engine did not leave a crater of any size. It has about 1 foot clearance on the ground. We're essentially on a very level place here. I can see some evidence of rays emanating from the descent engine, but a very insignificant amount

109:46:08 Aldrin: There's absolutely no crater there at all from the engine.

109:46:10 Armstrong: Nope.



As to the stars. The Astronauts stated that if they stood in the shadows an allowed their eyes to adjust then they could see stars, but when looking at the brightly lit landscapes they couldn't.

103:22:30 Armstrong: From the surface, we could not see any stars out the window; but out my overhead hatch (means the overhead rendezvous window), I'm looking at the Earth. It's big and bright and beautiful. Buzz is going to give a try at seeing some stars through the optics.

103:22:54 Duke: Roger, Tranquility. We understand. Must be a beautiful sight. Over.

[Comm Break]
[Buzz is about to do a platform alignment using the Alignment Optical Telescope ( AOT) to do star sightings. Gene Cernan says that, while standing in the shadow of the Apollo 17 LM, he could see some stars while he was outside. I asked the 11 crew if they had made any such experiment.]

[Armstrong - "I don't recall doing it on the surface. We tried a good bit inside."]

[Aldrin - "I guess I wouldn't have given it any hope at all."]

[Armstrong - "There was a thought that, if you could look through a tube, you would probably be able to see stars. I don't remember that we tried anything like that."]

[Aldrin - "You could see them in the AOT, which was sort of like that."]

[Armstrong - "Which was just one power (meaning a telescope with no magnification)."]

[Glom]

I sympathise with the radio host, but it is only asking for HBers to claim censorship.

[AgnosticMagickian]

If you take the time to peruse the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal I'm sure you will probably find others.

Thanks for replies guys, those pics are awsome...

[Paul Beardsley]

If you think about it, the only people with a motive to phone in are people who were involved with the mission in some way or they were doing something especially interesting or amusing on the day (which rules out a lot of people who were too young or not yet born) or they espouse the hoax.

It must have been irritating to the presenter having to deal with so many HBs, but I find it heartening that he gave them short shrift. I'm starting to think that HBs have had too much indulgence over the last few years. We've seen so many come and go, and they all seem to fall into one of two groups:

"Maybe the moon landings happened, maybe they didn't."

"The moon landings did not happen and nothing you say will convince me otherwise."

If someone raises a piece of "evidence" for the hoax, perhaps we should respond by providing them with a list of books and websites, including this one, adding, "If, after due consideration, you genuinely don't understand something you read, or you don't feel it covers everything, then come back and we'll help you."

That should sort out the first group; there is no hope for the second group.

I think the presenter was right to disconnect all HBs. Why allow one to speak? They make the same points over and over again. At one time it seemed to make sense to engage them in debate, but now we know how little that achieves - all it does is give the hoax theory more publicity and makes it live that much longer. I think it's better to respond simply by providing the above list and closing the conversation. And if someone tries to accuse you of censorship, give them the above list and close the conversation.