Never mind the secret studios in warehouses or what have you, the whole moon landing saga was just realistic CGI. A scientist who wasn't even born at the time and who has no official connection to space travel or any space-based discipline, but you know us scientists, we're all in on it together. You can take my word on this, I'm a scientist. So why, if the evidence is so damning, does the moon landing conspiracy endure? Well, it's gone on long enough, someone has to finally come clean, and I guess I'm the only one who feels the public has a right to know. They may have been willing to wipe out the planet over their ideological differences, but when it came to important stuff like space-based contests, they trusted the Americans implicitly. Sure, the USSR could have disproved their claims if they'd wanted, but they clearly trusted the Americans not to lie. Another good point, the USSR and USA were involved in a space race, so the USA decided to cheat to get to the moon first. "It was a scam to get one over on the Russians" is another argument I've heard. Those other ones were probably publicity stunts too, but they kept those quiet. And apart from the further five times they went back, that's a fair point. "If the moon landing was real, why didn't they go back?" is one argument used. For example, I've been told that the moon landings were faked as a publicity stunt. I've had a number of discussions with conspiracy theorists myself, as you may have guessed. And thus this article gets back on track.ĭespite the fact that the moon landing conspiracy has been debunked many many many times, it endures. Interestingly, on that same programme they had a moon landing denier on to explain why the moon landing, and by association science in general, is a big con. I'm happy to be "token science guy" at times, but I'm not letting what little credibility I have get sullied further by having to speak to that guy as if his views should be taken seriously. I know this because I was invited to be on the show too, but refused once I found who I'd be sharing airtime with. That last one actually happened, by the way, on a BBC Radio Wales phone in. It would be like inviting David Icke onto Question Time, or having Stephen Green of Christian Voice on as the main guest to discuss the significance of the discovery of the Higgs Boson. Whatever you say about programmes like this, they're not balanced, so we can't complain on that front.īut giving such a high-profile media platform to the conspiracy theorists and letting them go unchallenged is a very dangerous move it infers undeserved credibility to their claims, meaning more people take them seriously.
We should probably have specified that when we argued that balance is unnecessary, we didn't mean "drop the actual science". We've been complaining about the media distorting science via their obsession with presenting a balanced argument for some time now. In a way, this is actually the fault of the science community. The programme portrayed the conspiracy theorists as having legitimate arguments and unanswered questions that support their claims, making scant effort to show dissenting views or counterarguments from people who have the audacity to be qualified to discuss the matter. The programme caused a lot of anger among the science community on the social networks, and arguably rightly so. Yesterday, Channel 5 screened a documentary (and I use that term so loosely it essentially qualifies as a liquid) called " Did we land on the moon?", which looked at the arguments for the well-established conspiracy theory that the moon landings, that defining achievement that inspired generations and showed the true potential of humanity, was an elaborate sham.
0 kommentar(er)
