Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I believe the moon hoax believers are intellectually lazy, it would take too much effort to look up explanations by reputable people in the science community and understand the physics and technology involved, so it's easier to just say it was a hoax based on their own poor understanding.

Usually people get hung up on the killer Van Allen belt or no stars in the background nonsense. It's really simple and straightforward to understand, but hey the government must've lied, right?

Posted by B.Brewer at August 14, 2006 09:55 AM

Vox (it's a he) seems to have an Ann-Coulter-like reflex to say whatever he thinks will annoy the largest number of people. I don't read him, but when he gets quoted by others it tends to be that type of statement, so I guess it works to get his name out there.

Posted by Steve G. at August 14, 2006 10:11 AM

But what did you think of the article itself? Being a frequent flyer in Voxland, I can tell you this was tongue in cheek. Just as you do, his blog has a number of nut jobs, and he ocassionally yanks their chain.

Posted by Orville at August 14, 2006 10:15 AM

Don't write Vox off on this statement alone; he often has unique and insightful things to say about politics, culture, and so forth. In this, he is much like yourself, Rand.

I'm definitely not defending this silly moon hoax stuff, though; I've been over there debunking it and some of the stupid commenters who believe it. Many thanks to Phil Plait for his site.

Posted by Astrosmith at August 14, 2006 11:02 AM

I should also add that the Fox Network (which is not the same thing as Fox News)

They are chocolate and vanilla from the same ice cream shop.

should be eternally ashamed of itself for broadcasting that travesty of a crockumentary on the subject a few years ago, and feeding the loons who believe this stuff.

This particular ice cream shop has no shame. They do not say "loons", they say "fans".

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 14, 2006 11:36 AM

They are chocolate and vanilla from the same ice cream shop.

Horseshit.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 14, 2006 12:01 PM

"Abosolute Nonsense"

Is there any good simple way to distinguish apparently insane conspiracy type theories ("the moon landing was a hoax" "9/11 was orchestrated by the US or Israelis") from ones that actually have some plausibility (for example, maybe "DDT wasn't nearly as bad as people made out and helps way more than it hurts")?

It would be nice if we could just say "they're clearly crazy" but it seems like I can't be really sure until I check the evidence out myself or think about it. For example, the "moon hoax" theory has many arguments and pieces of evidence, but I simply find them all copmpletely unconvincing, and the evidence to the contrary (that we actually went to the moon) much more convincing. For the DDT thing, I find the evidence that it did more good than bad much more convincing than otherwise.

But I certainly don't have time to chase down every wacko theory. I guess we all use "common knowledge" or "consensus" as a filter to avoid spending all our time deciding whether things are true.

So. Anybody know a quickie way to decide without checking the evidence yourself?

Posted by Jeff Mauldin at August 14, 2006 12:20 PM

Amen! I have absolutely no patience for the moon-hoaxer crowd. Having met Gene Krantz, Chris Kraft, Gene Cernan and Al Bean at various events/lectures etc, there is no way on God's green Earth that men as honorable and as devoted as they were to what they were doing would have ever been a party to such a hoax. And what about the 400000 people around the country working on Apollo? And then all the scientific proof that lines up against these nutballs? Nope, doesn't wash with me. 10 good men went there and a lot was learned, especially from the 'J' Missions (15-17). I just wish I was old enough to remember them instead of Apollo-Soyuz and Skylab falling being my first 'space mission' memories...

Posted by Greg at August 14, 2006 12:24 PM

Horseshit

Who do you think owns the shop, Rand? It's Rupert Murdoch all the way. Murdoch is not some hands-off owner who delegates absolutely everything to Roger Ailes of Fox News, or to whoever the hacks are at the Fox Network. He knows what kind of product he wants from his managers, and he gets it. What Murdoch has at Fox Network ought to show you how little respect he has for you, the television viewer.

Not just in the United States, for that matter. In China the same Rupert Murdoch has another news desk that has a few things in common with Fox News, except that it appeases the Chinese Communist Party instead of the American Republican Party. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Television .) The man plays for several sides.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 14, 2006 01:50 PM

The ownership is secondary to the fact that one is a news network, and the other an entertainment network.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 14, 2006 01:54 PM

Rand, Mike is one of your liberal nut-job consipatorialists that I was refering to above. He says that Rupert is the hand up George's sock puppet @ss. That is just as whacked out as the fake moonshot and grassy knoll people.

Posted by Orville at August 14, 2006 02:04 PM

The ownership is secondary to the fact that one is a news network, and the other an entertainment network.

No, they are both "infotainment". On television, only PBS is serious about the distinction between the two.

Even if the distinction did matter to Murdoch or whoever, Fox Network is a blatant insult to the intelligence of its viewers, and Fox News is just the same thing. (And so is CBS, for that matter.) If it were not chocolate and vanilla from the same ice cream shop, it would be Ding-Dongs and potato chips from the same supermarket. It's all junk food for the brain; that is Murdoch's utterly shameless, cynical conception of television.

Which is not to say that TV is a total loss. PBS sometimes aims a bit higher.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 14, 2006 02:37 PM

Rupert is the hand up George's sock puppet @ss.

Murdoch is far from alone -- "the" should be "a" -- and I would delete the words "sock puppet". Otherwise it's not far from the truth. It's also not a conspiracy; it's as obvious as the space shuttle.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 14, 2006 02:42 PM

No, they are both "infotainment". On television, only PBS is serious about the distinction between the two.

Oh, please. This is an insult to the intelligence of my readers (not to mention me). Or maybe I should say that PBS isn't serious about the difference between news and "progressive" agitprop.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 14, 2006 02:58 PM

Maybe I should say that PBS isn't serious about the difference between news and "progressive" agitprop.

You could say it, but it would not be true. Frontline has had a lot of good shows that should earn the respect of anyone who cares about national security. Not just progressives but conservatives, libertarians, you name it. They have documented Al Qaeda, they have documented Hezbollah, they have even documented them "off season" when national politics is distracted by other topics. The one thing that they don't do is jump when the Republican Party asks them to jump.

After all, if you want agitprop cr*p, you need go no further than statements like this:

"Iraq's new government has another able leader in Speaker Mashhadani. He'll preside over Iraq's new Council of Representatives. The Speaker is a Sunni who originally opposed America's presence in Iraq. He rejects the use of violence for political ends. And by agreeing to serve in a prominent role in this new unity government, he's demonstrating leadership and courage."

This is what Bush himself said in May. How did Mahmoud Mashhadani answer this praise? In July, he said, "I personally think whoever kills an American soldier in defense of his country would have a statue built for him in that country."

PBS is not by any means perfect, but they wouldn't buy into happy-face stories like this from Bush. Fox News can do it without blinking. They would bury, and have buried, the ugly truth of men like Mashhadani by slamming the Democrats for not marching with the parade. That is indeed infotainment of the lowest order.

The other story that PBS didn't run is the one about the moon landing being fake.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 14, 2006 03:16 PM

It would be as true as your nonsense about Fox. In addition to Frontline, they also have (or had) Bill Moyers...

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 14, 2006 03:21 PM

It would be as true as your nonsense about Fox. In addition to Frontline, they also have (or had) Bill Moyers...

Look, I said that PBS wasn't perfect. But Moyer's show was political and social commentary, which is not the same thing as reporting the news. The right way to say it is that PBS makes at least some distinction between news and entertainment, or in this case between news and commentary, with shows such as Frontline. Even Moyer's show serves as an example because commentary isn't quite the same thing as entertainment either, as evidenced by the fact that some viewers were pissed off by it.

My point about Fox News is that it doesn't have any show as serious or news-minded as Frontline, because its producers have no respect for news except as a special case of entertainment. They pay a certain lip service to the distinction between news and commentary, but even that is not a dichotomy that they really respect. For example, no one at Fox News, not even any Fox commentator portrayed as centrist or liberal, could be trusted to preside over a presidential debate, as Jim Lehrer has done many times. (But the way things are going in politics, it might happen anyway. For all I know Lehrer will be replaced by Tony Snow.)

Again, the farcical moon-landing-was-fake show should have taught you what Rupert Murdoch really thinks of you, the viewer. After all, your favorite news channel has clowns like Geraldo Rivera, flakes like Greta van Susteren, and pathetic masochists like Alan Colmes. This isn't just political bias like Tony Snow has — Snow could pass for a commentator like Moyers as far as I'm concerned — this is just personality trash.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 14, 2006 04:40 PM

"Again, the farcical moon-landing-was-fake show should have taught you what Rupert Murdoch really thinks of you, the viewer. "

Are you really Naive enough to believe that Murdoch was aware that that particular program was going to air?

Posted by Mike Puckett at August 14, 2006 06:44 PM

Are you really Naive enough to believe that Murdoch was aware that that particular program was going to air?

There is nothing special about that particular program. Fox has a lot of disreputable programs.

The same guy who did the idiotic fake-moon-landing show, John Moffet, also directed the equally unaccountable "Rods!", which also aired on Fox. He has also produced a number of reality shows, quality programming like "Paradise Hotel", that run on -- you guessed it -- Fox. Fox just keeps doing this, not just with John Moffet but with several John Moffets. Rupert Murdoch does have some idea of what airs on his channels.

Murdoch is not the only connecting glue between Fox News and the Fox Network. Roger Ailes, the longtime Republican advisor, is both the chairman of Fox News and the chairman of Fox Television Stations. Meanwhile Geraldo at Large is produced by Fox News but airs on Fox Network. Geraldo Rivera is your man, folks.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 14, 2006 07:20 PM

So, Rand.

How about this weather we're havin', huh?

Posted by McGehee at August 14, 2006 09:32 PM

MJ:"My point about Fox News is that it doesn't have any show as serious or news-minded as Frontline"

BS and I don't mean Barbra Streisand. For one example "Fox News Sunday" has all other Sunday talk shows beat hands down.

Instead of your baseless accusations why don't you present one instance where Fox has done anything so partisan and biased as Rathers fake memo story? I won't hold my breath, as there exists no examples of such.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 15, 2006 08:39 AM

For one example "Fox News Sunday" has all other Sunday talk shows beat hands down.

It is true that Fox News Sunday has a singular competitive advantage over other television talk shows: special access to the Bush Administration and its allies. Whenever top Republicans want their butts kissed, they can go to Fox News Sunday. And sometimes in the middle of the smooching they let their guard down and say something interesting.

On the other hand, when FNS interviews just about anyone else, it's a complete waste of time. In particular when they interview Democrats, it's not very different from a Republican campaign commercial.

Instead of your baseless accusations why don't you present one instance where Fox has done anything so partisan and biased as Rathers fake memo story?

They do it all the time. The only difference is that unlike Dan Rather, they get away with it. (And not because they don't get caught. They get away with it because their fans want them to get away with it.)

For example, they spent an entire summer convicting Representative Gary Condit of murder in the court of viewer opinion. But when Representative Bill Janklow really did kill a man, they had very little to say. Janklow was convicted and went to prison for vehicular manslaughter; and still Fox News had very little to say. He was notorious for his reckless driving, and even for pulling rank when the police stopped him; but Fox News had very little to say about that either. The difference being that Condit is a Democrat and Janklow is a Republican.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 15, 2006 09:26 AM

Tell me Mike, why was it that when a Republican did something "bad" that was newsworthy, Frontline put the man's name, the state, and then R for Republican...yet when they did their piece on Condit, it showed Condit California Rep. I understand that Rep is for representative, but that was a flagrant try to cast the murder talk onto the republicans. When Dems did something "correct" and newsworthy, it was name, state, and D....not Rep as in Condit's case. Fox leans a little to the right, everyone else is left to the point of being horizontal.

Posted by Mac at August 15, 2006 11:00 AM

I find it amusingly stupid that Mike is equating overcoverage of a story with faking documents. Or maybe he believes that the Burkett memos are genuine, which would be even more hilarious.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2006 11:05 AM

Mike is equating overcoverage of a story with faking documents.

That's right, because it was overcoverage to the point of fabrication. If Gary Condit had been a businessman instead of an elected politician, he could have won a slander lawsuit against Fox. Like some other television desks, Fox is very interested in the window of sleaze between the letter and the spirit of slander laws.

Maybe he believes that the Burkett memos are genuine

No I don't. The difference is that Dan Rather was rightfully forced to resign from his crummy news desk. For all of his bias, Rather is not an expert it in the window of sleaze that Fox News knows all about. Some other people at traditional networks are better studies of this, and sadly, they keep their jobs. One of them is your friend John Moffet, who produces for ABC as well as for Fox Network.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 15, 2006 12:11 PM

MJ:"Whenever top Republicans want their butts kissed, they can go to Fox News Sunday."

Another baseless accusation, but then I didn't expect you to bring A fact to the table. Either you didn't see Ned Lamont making his very first Sunday talk show appearance on "FNS" this past Sunday, or you're just an idiot.

I'm going with the latter.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 15, 2006 12:12 PM

Tell me Mike, why was it that when a Republican did something "bad" that was newsworthy, Frontline put the man's name, the state, and then R for Republican

Frontline does no such thing. It did not dwell on either Bill Janklow or Gary Condit. Through both scandals, it stuck to the big questions like protecting America from terrorism.

Folks here seem to have forgotten what finally ended Fox News' long run of beating on Gary Condit. It was the 9/11 attacks. Before 9/11, they cared more about Gary Condit than about Osama Bin Laden. Frontline had its priorities straight.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 15, 2006 12:20 PM

That's right, because it was overcoverage to the point of fabrication.

Nonsense. Words mean things. And if Condit wasn't a murderer, he was definitely a sleazebag.

One of them is your friend John Moffet

"My friend..."?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2006 12:25 PM

Either you didn't see Ned Lamont making his very first Sunday talk show appearance on "FNS" this past Sunday...

I had the transcript right in front of me, Cecil. I didn't say that FNS doesn't interview Democrats, I said that it's a complete waste of time. All of the "questions" that they threw at Lamont were really accusations. They didn't need Lamont there to make their point; they could have just spoken for him: "Lamont is a leader of cowardice in the war on terrorism, and he also has sex with horses." It may have been a lapse of judgment for Lamont to appear on that show, although he did what could to fend off the "interviewer".

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 15, 2006 12:30 PM

And if Condit wasn't a murderer, he was definitely a sleazebag.

You have explained your position really well here, Rand: If Condit wasn't a murderer, he was a sleazebag who deserved the insinuation. I have said all along that the viewers of Fox News are the willing targets of its propaganda. They are not sheer victims. (The same could be said of most disreputable TV shows, including the fake-moon-landing story.)

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 15, 2006 12:40 PM

You have explained your position really well here, Rand: If Condit wasn't a murderer, he was a sleazebag who deserved the insinuation.

And you disagree? If so, why? All of the facts available on the public record indicate that what I said is true. The voters seemed to agree.

And do you really fantasize that if Condit had been a Republican, that Greta et all wouldn't have covered the story just as much? My complaint about Fox is the overreporting of this kind of missing-girl crap, not the political bias.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2006 12:48 PM

And you disagree? If so, why? All of the facts available on the public record indicate that what I said is true. The voters seemed to agree.

It is just as disreputable to falsely accuse a "sleazebag" of murder as it is to falsely accuse Mother Teresa. Even more so, if the accusations come with a studied plan to make it stick. The voters, for their part, were never asked whether Condit was a murderer or a sleazebag. They simply decided, in the Democratic primary, that they would rather have someone else. As did the primary voters in Connecticut concerning Lieberman.

And do you really fantasize that if Condit had been a Republican, that Greta et all wouldn't have covered the story just as much?

That is no fantasy at all, because "Greta" had nothing to say about Representative Bill Janklow, even though he really did kill a man. Neither did "Alan".

My complaint about Fox is the overreporting of this kind of missing-girl crap, not the political bias.

That is a perfectly valid criticism, but it is truly chocolate vs chocolate chip from the same ice cream shop. Missing-girl crap is political bias, because it instills deep anger not only against criminals, but also against politicians who are "soft" on crime. Osama Bin Laden doesn't hold a candle to local child molesters. Prison torture isn't just for foreign Muslims, you know; after enough missing-girl shows, the viewers don't mind it for convicted Americans either.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 15, 2006 01:08 PM

Another thing that can be said about the Fox News' obsession with raped and abducted women is that it is a standard fallback when the world's real news blows against them. Fox News has said all along that the liberal media buries the good news in Iraq, but even they can't come up with much lately. Hence, "Sally Jane has been missing for three weeks; a bloody bra which may or may not be hers was found in a dumpster this morning..."

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 15, 2006 01:18 PM

Fox did not "accuse" Condit of murder. The facts were what they were, and if they had that appearance, it was Condit's fault, by being a sleazebag.

That is no fantasy at all, because "Greta" had nothing to say about Representative Bill Janklow, even though he really did kill a man. Neither did "Alan".

Are you really this clueless about the news business, and particularly the sensationalistic carnival that Van Susteren does? Greta didn't mention Janklow because there was no story there. He hit and killed a man. He admitted it. End of story (snore).

Greta goes after crime mysteries, not political scandals. She's a Democrat, as far as I know (she's also a Scientologist).

Missing-girl crap is political bias, because it instills deep anger not only against criminals, but also against politicians who are "soft" on crime./em>

OK, so you apparently are that clueless about what sells eyeballs to advertisers, instead seeing "right-wing bias" under every bed. I'm rapidly losing whatever little respect I once had for your intelligence.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2006 01:19 PM

Fox did not "accuse" Condit of murder.

They repeatedly insinuated it for months. They simply talked as if he was guilty. Insinuation is a form of accusation, as they well know.

Greta didn't mention Janklow because there was no story there. He hit and killed a man. He admitted it.

He categorically denied that it was his fault. He pleaded innocent, there was a trial, and he was convicted. It came out at the trial that he was a chronic reckless driver who even pulled rank on the policemen who stopped him. There was no story only because Fox News didn't want one.

She's a Democrat, as far as I know (she's also a Scientologist).

You hit the nail on the head there. A Scientologist is a kind of Democrat that Fox News
appreciates. That is, one with a flake-dried brain. They would know not to put Einstein on.

But even "Greta" and "Alan" have limits on what they can say. "Alan" especially, because he is closer to partisan topics.

what sells eyeballs to advertisers, instead seeing "right-wing bias" under every bed.

It's not under the bed, it's on the bed, as the advertisers well know. Advertisers are perfectly happy to sell to right-wing eyeballs. As I said, it's "infotainment", it serves a harmonious dual purpose.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 15, 2006 01:36 PM

There was no story only because Fox News didn't want one.

Again your utter tone deafness to news value is hilarious. This is why you will never be a network news producer.

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2006 01:40 PM

I said: Tell me Mike, why was it that when a Republican did something "bad" that was newsworthy, Frontline put the man's name, the state, and then R for Republican...yet when they did their piece on Condit, it showed Condit California Rep. I understand that Rep is for representative, but that was a flagrant try to cast the murder talk onto the republicans. When Dems did something "correct" and newsworthy, it was name, state, and D....not Rep as in Condit's case. Fox leans a little to the right, everyone else is left to the point of being horizontal.

Mike replied: Frontline does no such thing. It did not dwell on either Bill Janklow or Gary Condit.

Gee Mike, they did do a piece on it, granted it was small, and there was the R next to his name. I'm sorry, I kind of SAW IT. Now, of course if Frontline was doctoring photos like Reuters....

Posted by Mac at August 15, 2006 02:00 PM

MJ:"I had the transcript right in front of me"

If that is true and you still draw the conclusions you have posted above (Re the Lamont interview) then you certainly ARE an idiot.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at August 15, 2006 03:56 PM

Gee Mike, they did do a piece on it, granted it was small, and there was the R next to his name. I'm sorry, I kind of SAW IT.

I agree, Mac, you "kind of" saw it. You may have seen it on some program other than Frontline. Or you may have seen Frontline's interview with Bill Janklow. They did a show on the credit card industry and they interviewed Janklow for related state legislation. Unlike Fox News' worthless attack interview with Ned Lamont, much less its slanderous hatchet job on Condit, Frontline treated Janklow with respect.

See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/interviews/janklow.html .

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 15, 2006 05:13 PM

Again your utter tone deafness to news value is hilarious.

Not news value, sales value. The whole Condit story had fairly little news value, except through self-fulfillment. The sleazy missing-girl stories have even less news value by your own account. But they both have a lot of sales value.

The bug in your reasoning is the idea that if something has sales value, it therefore isn't biased. That is a colossal non sequitur. Bias sells. It sells just like sex sells. That is why John Moffet did his nutcase story about the moon landing being faked, and why he is in absolutely no trouble with Rupert Murdoch for any of his sleazy productions.

This is why you will never be a network news producer.

I wouldn't want the job, because it's disreputable.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 15, 2006 05:21 PM

Gee, Mike, you continue to evade the question (imagine my shock).

Was, or was not, Gary Condit a sleazeball? Are you really defending this creature?

Posted by Rand Simberg at August 15, 2006 05:22 PM

Was, or was not, Gary Condit a sleazeball?

I didn't know that it was crucial to answer this question. Since you ask, yes, he is something of a sleazeball, but no more so than about half of Congress. It's a relative matter and Condit doesn't mean much to me one way or the other.

Before the scandal broke, Bush had actually considered Condit for a Cabinet position. It would not have been his very worst appointment.

Posted by Mike Johnson at August 15, 2006 05:30 PM

Post a comment