Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/04/09
09/04/09
There are for three reasons:
1. Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realize that fully half of the world population makes that guy look smart.
2. Crackpots exist. Sad, but true.
3. Combine all of this with the fact that someone outside of NASA eventually figured out the same problem that NASA _anticipated_, which is that a flag hung on a flagpole in an airless environment simply won't flutter in the non-existent wind. NASA's solution was to add a metal boom to the top of the flag that would suspend it in an unfurled position, and in said airless environment it's going to take quite a while for the flag to stop moving with how hard Aldrin claims they had to stab that thing into the regolith. And, of course, since we all know that metal booms simply don't exist, the crackpot "solution" is to claim that it looks like it's fluttering in the wind because it's not in an airless environment, which means it happened here on Earth. Apparently with assistance from a wind machine, since the whole affair is supposed to have taken place in an enclosed studio. As someone I know likes to say, stupid should hurt.
09/04/09
Sorry, I refuse to call myself a moon landing "believer". That's just silly. Like calling myself an oxygen "believer".
If this well-documented fact as a whole isn't "conclusive proof", no amount of after the fact corroboration is going to convince people who choose to deny it.
I think it stems from some psychological need to be more "in the know" than the next person and somebody who "can't be fooled" by anybody or anything.
People made fun of NASA at the time for some of the things they did to help convince some people it was happening. Now we wonder if they shouldn't have done more! Or if it would of helped!
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
How would you feel after that?
This press conference was not on the day or even the next day or next week after they got back from the moon.
09/04/09
Not to mention the fact that they were probably physically exhausted by what they would have considered normal activity, as they worked to rebuild and retone their muscles. A week in space makes living on Earth hard work. This is why they send all kinds of excersize equipment to the ISS, since after spending too many days in a low-gravity environment, returning to Earth could kill you.
09/04/09
By the same token, shouldn't they then be elated to be out of that RV sized module?
09/04/09
Possibly. But that's one helluva SCOWL on Buzz's face...
Besides, they were Astronots...this was the first time they were up for a few days, and the first reports they had to write?
I'm sure the initial training was quite a bit more stressful than that.
09/04/09
09/04/09
LOL!!!!!!!!
09/04/09
09/04/09
o_0
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
Humans NEED conspiracy theories. It fulfills a fundamental need we have to make sense in a world full of chaos.
09/04/09
They have a need to make chaos in a world full of sense.
09/04/09
09/04/09
Humans don't NEED conspiracy theories. Uneducated and irrational individuals who lack the ability to make rational unbiased judgments need conspiracy theories. One could argue that this definition applies to all humans, but the problem is systemic of underfunded education, rather than an inherent flaw in the human psyche.
09/04/09
09/04/09
Think about it, you believe that 19 hijackers CONSPIRED to take down the trade center. You believe that Guy Fawkes CONSPIRED to destroy parliament.
Does that make you an uneducated and irrational individual? Of course not. These things all come in degrees.
Even within conspiracy theories, there is a degree of nuance. Take the Kennedy Assassination. There are people who believe that there were simply more people involved than just Oswald, but not that the government was necessarily involved. I don't think that's an unreasonable position to have. Congressional investigations have actually determined that there's a solid chance there was a second shooter. Why is that automatically insane?
In my experience, people really need there NOT to be conspiracies. As soon as someone even SUGGESTS that there might be something more to something, they get attacked as CRAZY NUTJOBS and lectured about how people NEED CONSPIRACIES. But given that exchange, it sure seems to be the opposite.
Take the case in point. There are few to no posters promoting a conspiracy theory about the moon, but there are several hundred attacking the IDEA of those people, not even the people themselves. That's an ad-hom of the highest degree.
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
uhh, Whoa, how did this comment get way over here. Either I was in the wrong screen or this thing bugged out bad.
09/04/09
You make far too many assumptive leaps with my statements. I was careful to mention that these things are varied and that there aren't any absolutes. In your reference to the Kennedy assassination, it is perfectly reasonable to posit questions and propose theories. I never said that Theory = Insane (your assumptions are far too broad and automatic). In fact, it is the very notion that accepting theories and accepting facts which may contradict your theory, that is the basis of science and rationality. However, the basic leaps of conspiracy theorists that refute hard science based on objective peer review and critical analysis all share one common thread: They alter their facts to fit their theories, rather than th eother way around.
09/04/09
Think about the following statements:
The way black people always assume the government is against them is illogical.
The way women think they can do math is illogical
Those statements are stupid because you're talking about a large group as though they're one person. Why is it ok to do the same thing with people who believe a certain type of thing? You're still grouping and diagnosing a large number of people with no actual exhibit. Noone can refute it because there isn't one here for us to look at and point things out about, so your positions remain unchallenged. Sounds pretty similar to what you accuse "them" of doing, doesn't it?
09/04/09
The people who believe such things are in obvious denial of scientific fact based on multiple sets of corroborative proofs and empirical data. The more proof you show, the more elaborate their coginitive disconnect becomes in order to support their crackpot theories. These are the people I alluded to, and more specifically, the addlepated crackpots who claim the moon landing was faked.
Calling a fundamental disbelief in scientific fact an "opinion" is laughable and absurd, and I can't really see any point in debating my point any further.
09/04/09
Look how many people flock to religion. Paranoia about dying could be the motivation for many. Paranoia about reprisals from an angry deity could be another.
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
:D
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09
09/04/09