Ben Hornbacher

Professor Drake

English 207

31 March 2004

Final Draft

Persuasion down to a science?

 

On a Thursday evening in 2001 Fox TV network aired a program called “Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?” The show, hosted by X-files actor Mitch Pileggi, claims that the 1969 NASA moon landing did not take place, but was an elaborate hoax presented to the American people and the world. The evidence presented, however, is almost entirely disprovable and shady at best.

Fox’s claim of “hoax-hood” is supported by four main reasons: the photography and video, the unsurvivable trip, other physical inconsistencies, and lastly a murder-fear conspiracy. I will explore those arguments to show that they hold little scientific value, but are instead presenting a ploy to persuade television viewers based on their fear and emotions.

            In a legal sense Fox might not be responsible for the claims of their program, passing responsibility to it’s guests, but in an ethical sense Fox has committed a great injustice. By engaging in a sort of pseudo science (that is poor or misleading practice of empirical science) Fox intentionally leads their audience not towards truth, but encourages it’s viewers to engage in some sort of a paranoid fantasy which violates Occum’s Razor. Which is to say that when two explanations exist, instead of supporting the preferable simpler choice (going to the moon), the more extravagant, far fetched explanation is used.

Not one to lose an argument, Fox weasels out of responsibility for having to substantiate such a large claim by stating that the entire hoax was “conceivable. The use of the word conceivable qualifies Fox’s argument. You see, it is easier to convince somebody that it is conceivable the landing could have been a hoax than it is to convince an individual that the landing was in fact a hoax.

Let’s move on to the first reason Fox presents – photography and videos. Fox reasons we did not go to the moon because the photos and videos from the moon landing have inconsistencies. Fox warrants this reason arguing that these inconsistencies suggest falsification, and falsification – a hoax. As an example, in some of the photos, thin black crosshairs appeared but were not seen in front of some objects (astronauts and equipment). Fox claims that the photo crosshairs are evidence of tampering in photography. In defense of the NASA photos, Astronomer Philip Plait (Bad Astronomy) describes the antiquated photo equipment used by the NASA astronauts. One of the unfortunate byproducts of their equipment is the frequency of overexposure. Through overexposure the thin black crosshairs disappear in front of the brighter objects. By using this simple rebuttal, we show that Fox’s failed to apply Occam’s Razor. That is to say that photo tampering is one explanation for the crosshair covering, but not the best. Therefore, we cannot legitimately conclude that the photographs were falsified.

With additional photographs, Fox presents the grounds that the photographs have unparallel shadows. They assert that any shadows on the moon must be cast from a single light source (the sun), and being from the same source, the shadows must run parallel. Again Fox hoodwinks its viewers to readily accept their warrant without testing it themselves. Upsetting this particular hoax grounding, we notice that even on earth in an uneven terrain light from a single source casts shadows that fail to fall parallel. (Don’t take my word for it, try it yourself).

Moving on to video footage, our conspiracy hoax shows that footage from two different days looks remarkably similar; this is grounds for falsification (suggesting the landing was shot on a set). Again Occam’s Razor needs to be considered; I believe that there is a simpler explanation for why the sets look similar. Looking to Phillip Plait’s Bad Astronomy site, the actual footage from these “two different days” was three minutes apart in the NASA film reel. This would suggest that they really were footage of the same hill, and the idea that the film was shot in two separate days is due to poor editing.

Lastly in video footage, when moon walking footage is doubled in speed, it appears much like normal walking. But in defense of NASA all that Fox has shown is that moon like walking can be believably created by slowing video down. The fallacy  post hoc, ergo propter hoc tells us that because one thing follows another, the first cannot be assumed when the second is observed. In application, in seeing the moon walking effect in slower film we cannot conclude that NASA slowed down the video to produce the effect.

Fox argues most of their grounds related to photography and video very logically. The logic (logos) is most of the persuasion and is presented very well. It only becomes dangerous because the warrants are presented as the most likely explanation for their grounds. And according to Occums Razor, they are not the best (or simplest) explanation.

The second reason Fox argues that the moon landing was a hoax is that the astronauts could not have survived the trip to the moon. Fox guest Bill Kaysing tells us “Any human being traveling through the van Allen belt would have been rendered either extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within a short time thereof” Scenes from Hiroshima radiation victims are played as the viewers hear Kaysing’s words. It is true to say that any human would be killed by the Van Allen belts if they were there long enough, but Apollo eleven passed through the belts in about an hour according to Phillip Plait’s Bad Astronomy site. Kaysing’s logic makes sense enough, but Fox is making people afraid as they watch, showing photos from WWII radiation victims. By doing this, Fox is not exercising good science, but preying on people’s emotions and fear (pathos).

Additionally under the reason of the trip being unsurvivable, fox argues the grounds that the LEM was not controllable. Footage was shown on Earth when Neil Armstrong jettisoned from the LEM shortly before it crashed. Fox does not allow the explanation that this failed test run on earth was just a test. Many modifications were made to the LEM before it was taken into space.

Lastly, Fox interviews a Russian Cosmonaut who was involved in the space race. He expressed his fears expressing uncertainty as to whether the moon trip could be survivable.

All of these grounds telling us that the moon trip could not be survived revolve around fear (pathos). It is quite normal that the Russians feared the moon trip – nobody had gone to the moon before – nobody knew for sure how dangerous it was because it had never been done before. We were shown a LEM crashing which causes us to fear its safety.

The third reason Fox tells us the landing was a hoax is because of physical inconsistencies in the landing. For instance, on the moon’s surface, the LEM’s “rockets” should have left blast craters. Related to this, no smoke plume followed the LEM as it left the moon’s surface, and the “rockets” were silent compared to the high decibel rockets witnessed as Apollo 11 left the earth’s surface. Each of these grounds makes the mistake of equivocation. Equivocation is the fallacy that fails to properly use semantics. In this case the word “rockets” is thrown around universally. The rockets used to leave earth’s surface in the Apollo eleven were not the same as the “rockets” used by the LEM to leave the moon’s surface. The LEM used air thrusters. The Apollo used booster rockets

Continuing with physical inconsistencies, the flag on the moons surface should not have been waving as in the wind if on the moon’s surface. Fox warrants their reason by asserting that the flag waving suggests a gust of wind on an earth set, implying a hoax. There is a much simpler explanation as to why the flag was tottering in the video. There was an astronaut holding it. The slightest movement of the astronaut would cause movement in the flag. Occam’s Razor suggests that we take the simpler of the two explanations (astronauts holding the flag) as more likely to have occurred.

Lastly, Fox reasons that there was an elaborate conspiracy surrounding the moon landing. Anybody who was about to blow the whistle died during NASA exercises. Fox specifically names three astronauts, Roger Chaffee, Ed White and Gus Grissom. The warrant used is fallacious. It asserts that if an astronaut died, they did so because they were about to blow the whistle. But history shows us no evidence that any of these astronauts planned on blowing the whistle or even had information to defect on the moon hoax. Fox misrepresents the statistics of working as an astronaut. Many of these men previously had jobs as fighter pilots. Taking a career in space was not the safest endeavor known to man. The point being that it was statistically normal to expect three astronauts to die in service with NASA. Again Fox uses fear and excitement (pathos) of a conspiracy to breed persuasion in their audience.

Fox’s reasons that we did not go to the moon work together well presenting an enticing argument. They used film and video, looked at whether a human could survive the trip, examined physical inconsistencies, and presented data suggesting a conspiracy. These points are enticing, but hardly objective. Most of Fox’s grounds fall to Occum’s Razor which tells us that the simpler of two explanations is preferable. Evidence is presented one side of the argument as Fox gives Kaysing large amounts of air time while cleverly editing comments from a NASA representative. The most persuasive points of the argument appeal to emotions as Fox develops fear of the trip, and intrigue of the conspiracy. The very TV special was hosted by somebody from X-files. Yes, Fox has it’s persuasion down to a science. Their argument is neither objective, nor scientific, but it is persuasive.

Works Cited

 “Did We Land on the Moon” Conspiracy Theory. Fox Network. 15 February 2001.

Lunsford, Andrea A. Ruszkiewicz, John J. Everything’s an Argument. 3^rd Ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004.

Plait, Philip. Bad Astronomy. 4 March 2003. 11 March 2004. <http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html>.

Sagan, Carl. The Deamon-Haunted World. 1^st Ed. Newyork: Ballantine, 1997.