MOON LANDING “HOAX”
When I think of denialism, moon-landing hoaxers often spring to mind before anything else. This isn’t an incredibly popular conspiracy theory, with numerous polls showing only about 6 percent of the U.S. population doubts that we sent people to the moon,30 but it is intriguing nonetheless. The belief that NASA never executed manned missions to the moon, and that photos and videos from these events were actually staged in a movie studio in 1969, is particularly interesting to me because there is verifiable proof that we have been there. For one, the lunar laser ranging experiment accurately measures the distance between Earth and the moon using lasers on Earth aimed at retroreflectors planted on the moon during the Apollo program.31 In case that piece of clear, accessible evidence wasn’t good enough, in 2015, NASA made more than 10,000 raw, high-resolution moon-landing photos available to the public.32 That’s not to mention that, as former astronaut and second man on the moon Buzz Aldrin has pointed out, the context of the moon landing as part of the Space Race during the Cold War means that a hoax is highly unlikely. That’s because “the Russians would have exposed by now if we didn’t land,” according to Aldrin. The evidence against the alternative theory doesn’t end there. As Neil deGrasse Tyson explains, there are all kinds of facts that prove we went to the moon.
“You can look at the Saturn V rocket, which got us to the moon and back, and calculate how much fuel is in there, and watch the thing take off, and ask yourself: where the hell do you think this thing is going?” Tyson asked. “There’s enough fuel to get you to the moon, and stuff left over to come back. It’s not just going down to the grocery store—it is a Saturn V rocket.”
So why would some people continue to adhere to an idea that has been definitively debunked? International businesswoman Margaret Heffernan, in her book Willful Blindness: Why We Ignore the Obvious at Our Peril, suggests that willful blindness “doesn’t have a single driver, but many.”
“Our blindness grows out of the small, daily decisions that we make, which embed us more snugly inside our affirming thoughts and values,” Heffernan wrote.33 “And what’s most frightening about this process is that as we see less and less, we feel more comfort and greater certainty. We think we see more—even as the landscape shrinks.”
We know moon-landing hoaxers are wrong, but does this belief cause harm? It did for at least one man. Moon-landing denier Bart Sibrel, who claims all six Apollo moon landings from 1969 to 1972 were staged, approached Apollo 11 crew member Aldrin in 2002 and called him “a coward, and a liar, and a thief.” Sibrel continued to harass the retired engineer, telling him that he needed to “repent” and asking him to swear on the Bible that he went to the moon. Aldrin, who had been lured to the location under false pretenses, finally punched the man in the jaw. Sibrel tried to pursue criminal charges, but the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office ultimately concluded that Aldrin was provoked and that it was “unlikely a jury would find Aldrin guilty of a misdemeanor battery charge.”34
FLAT EARTH CONSPIRACY
Moon-landing deniers aren’t the only alternative theorists who accept their narrative despite verifiable evidence to the contrary. Recently, there has been an uptick in the belief that Earth is actually flat, and not an oblate spheroid as photographic evidence, mathematics, and basic observations have shown. The Flat Earth conspiracy, which posits that NASA scientists, world governments, and any people who can do simple calculations are hiding the truth that Earth is flat, is especially notable because it is a belief that has become increasingly popular in the twenty-first century. It’s commonly believed that scientists hundreds of years ago thought Earth was flat and that everyone else accepted it as a fact, but this is actually a popular misconception repeated even in some textbooks.35 The reality is much more interesting: ancient Greeks knew Earth was (nearly) spherical by measuring shadows, and educated people have understood that fact ever since.36 Contrary to popular belief, even Christopher Columbus and his crew, often credited with “discovering” the Americas, knew the shape of Earth.
So why do some people believe Earth is flat today, when our ancestors knew better? The answer lies partly within the power of popular culture and the ease with which misinformation spreads in our technological era. The modern Flat Earth belief got its start with an English writer named Samuel Rowbotham, who published a book called Earth Not a Globe in the 1800s and based his theories largely on biblical interpretations.37 The torch was later passed to Samuel Shenton, who founded the International Flat Earth Society (IFES), but the belief fell in popularity when IFES shut down in 2001 due to the death of its then-president Charles K. Johnson.38 The society and its core beliefs were resurrected yet again in 2004 as “a place for free thinkers and the intellectual exchange of ideas.”39 The modern incarnation of the Flat Earth Society now has a popular website, which includes the world’s largest public collection of literature on the topic, but it isn’t fully responsible for the increasing adherence to the belief. Instead, the surge came from famous figures, including a recording artist known as B.o.B, who proposed the Flat Earth hypothesis without any scientific backing whatsoever. B.o.B first mentioned his belief in a Flat Earth in January 2016 on Twitter, prompting a discussion with Neil deGrasse Tyson, who attempted to convince the singer that he was wrong. B.o.B then released a song called “Flatline,” in which he accused Tyson and NASA of feeding false information to the public in exchange for monetary compensation. Tyson’s rapper nephew released a song response, and the astrophysicist himself responded, as well.
“Alright, listen B.o.B once and for all … it’s a fundamental fact of calculus and non-Euclidean geometry, small sections of large curved surfaces will always look flat to little creatures that crawl upon it,” Tyson said on an episode of Comedy Central’s The Nightly Show, pointing to Isaac Newton’s statement that, if he saw further than others, it was only because he stood on the shoulders of giants (his predecessors).40 “So that’s right, B.o.B, when you stand on the shoulders of those who came before, you might just see far enough to realize the earth isn’t fucking flat.”
Tyson added that, in a free society, you can and should be able to think whatever you want.
“If you want to think the earth is flat, go right ahead,” he said. “But if you think the world is flat, and you have influence over others, as would successful rappers, or even presidential candidates, then being wrong becomes being harmful to the health, the wealth, and the security of our citizenry.”
A number of people sided with B.o.B and other famous believers, including model and actress Tila Tequila,41 even though no one has presented empirical data to prove their claims. These high-profile Flat Earthers continue to push the claim despite the fact that most of them have eyes, and some may even have telescopes, and they are capable of seeing other planetary bodies and their semi-spherical shapes. Do they believe every other object in the sky is rounded except for Earth? Or that the other planets are merely painted on a black tarp in the sky?
The lesson here is that celebrities aren’t always right. You shouldn’t believe Earth is flat because B.o.B. said so, just like you shouldn’t avoid vaccines because of Jenny McCarthy. But that doesn’t mean celebrities are always wrong, either. When Leonardo DiCaprio won an Oscar for Best Actor in a Leading Role, he used his acceptance speech to draw attention to the most prominent example of denialism today, and the one that could have the most far-reaching implications: refusal to accept the reality of global climate change.
“Climate change is real; it is happening right now. It is the most urgent threat facing our entire species, and we need to work collectively together and stop procrastinating,” DiCaprio said. “We need to support leaders around the world who do not speak for the big polluters, but who speak for all of humanity, for the indigenous people of the world, for the billions and billions of underprivileged people out there who would be most affected by this.”
CLIMATE CHANGE
There is clear evidence, including tempera
ture measurements, pollen analyses, cloud cover observations, and unique weather patterns, demonstrating that our climate is in the process of shifting. That fact itself isn’t too jarring, considering that Earth has gone through many natural changes over the course of its history, but this time around the data shows that fossil fuels are a major catalyst. In Cosmos, Neil deGrasse Tyson explained the differences between “climate” and “weather,” as well as how we can actually measure our effects on changing climate patterns.
“The strongest force driving climate change right now is the increasing CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, which is trapping more heat from the Sun,” Tyson said. “All that additional energy has to go somewhere. Some of it warms the air. Most of it ends up in the oceans. All over the world, the oceans are getting warmer.”
It’s important to note that the idea of anthropogenic global climate change isn’t based on Tyson’s opinion, nor is it based on the opinions of any person. Its foundation is built on measurable facts and data. There is a clear scientific consensus on the matter, with more than 97 percent of scientists who study the phenomenon agreeing that humans are contributing to it,42 and most of the people who deny the reality seem to be protecting their vested interests or hoodwinked by those who are. Some corporate executives who rely on less regulated carbon dioxide emissions,43 for instance, and—through their lobbying efforts—certain policymakers in the United States,44 have actively attempted to undermine the established science on climate change and sow the seeds of doubt. There has been some pushback in the form of efforts to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for misinformation,45 but, for many, the scheme is working. People all over the world, including up to 25 percent of Americans,46 believe climate change is all just part of a plan by “Big Science” to pull the wool over the public’s eyes. To what end, however, I’m not sure. It seems the only symptom of accepting our role in this particular climate event would be reduced emissions, more green jobs, and an increasingly stable environment. Regardless of the rampant science denial in this area, the facts remain the same: climate change is real and we are part of the problem. This has been confirmed by every major scientific body that deals with the issue, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),47 the National Academy of Sciences,48 the American Meteorological Society,49 the American Geophysical Union,50 and more. Naomi Oreskes, professor of the history of science and director of graduate studies at Harvard University, explains that the idea that there is discord among climate scientists “is incorrect.”
“Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open,” Oreskes wrote in an essay for Science.51 “But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.”
The science denialism and anti-intellectualism present within the anti– climate change movement is not rare or unique. In fact, in many ways, it is similar to what we see in those who strictly oppose life-saving vaccinations. In each case, you have people with conspiratorial and antiscience mentalities working overtime to convince the general public that the vast majority of peer-reviewed, scientific studies are wrong and that scientists themselves are covering up the truth. The doubt surrounding the theory of evolution by natural selection is another example of modern denialism, and there are many more, but the good news for us is that science itself doesn’t depend on the beliefs of others.52 Comedian John Oliver, when commenting on a poll showing that one in four Americans disbelieved in climate change, made this point extremely clear.
“You don’t need people’s opinion on a fact,” Oliver said. “You might as well have a poll asking, ‘Which number is bigger, 15 or 5?’ or ‘Do owls exist?’ or ‘Are there hats?’”
Questioning things is great and researching is even better, but settling for a shady hypothesis and rejecting the obvious truth is worse than simply saying, “I don’t know.” The only way to upset established scientific knowledge is with your own more compelling scientific findings, so if you doubt evolution or climate change or the effectiveness of vaccines, or any other matter on which there is a scientific consensus, I hope you’ll do the work to prove you are right instead of spreading misinformation based on fear and ignorance. Healthy inquiry and real investigation is one thing, but making your own outrageous, faith-based assertions is quite another. The fact that a person distrusts scientists or a particular government doesn’t mean they are guilty (or even capable) of any alleged crimes, so at some point real evidence has to be put forth.
THE 9/11 “TRUTHER” MOVEMENT
You can find a conspiracy theory surrounding just about anything, including the term “conspiracy theorist” itself, which some have asserted is merely the result of a government conspiracy to stigmatize those who question authority. So it’s only natural, in the wake of any large-scale world event or attack, that some conspiracy-minded people will say things “don’t add up” and attempt to replace reality with their own opinions. But those opinions are irrelevant when we are dealing with the facts.
One of the most popular alternative theories today is the so-called 9/11 Truther movement. According to a 2008 world opinion poll,53 15 percent of those surveyed said they believed the U.S. government was behind the attacks that targeted the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, with 46 percent of respondents saying Al-Qaeda was likely responsible and 25 percent saying they didn’t know. Believers in this particular myth are often under the impression that those of us who are skeptical of their claims are merely nationalists who doubt that the Bush administration would ever do such a thing, and some even go as far as to say that the large-scale “inside job” hypothesis hasn’t been proven because the subject itself is taboo. For me, however, this is not the case. I’m fully aware that President George W. Bush and his allies could have committed (and perhaps did commit) atrocities while in office, but I simply haven’t seen any empirical data showing that they committed this particular one. The subject isn’t off-limits for me, either. I welcome open inquiry into any topic and I regularly discuss and entertain 9/11 conspiracy apologists’ claims. Each time, however, believers fail to provide a single shred of hard evidence for the inside job theory, the no-plane theory, or the myriad of other unsubstantiated, speculation-based narratives put forth.
Because of the popularity of this particular myth, I’ve compiled a number of questions to help believers critically analyze their ideas. If you do believe 9/11 was an inside job, I hope you’ll consider asking yourself the following:
1. If you think no plane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, and that it was actually a missile of some kind, then what happened to American Airlines Flight 77, which carried 64 people who disappeared that day? These are people with families and careers and years of documented histories and they were all killed in the plane that was destroyed almost entirely when it careened into the Pentagon wall on September 11. If you doubt this verifiable occurrence, which was witnessed by many people and confirmed by investigators on site, you should be able to present a viable alternative. You should have some evidence for what happened to the plane and its dozens of passengers.
2. It’s commonly believed by alternative theorists that the United States attacked its own buildings as a false flag, so that American citizens would rally behind the government in its war against “terrorism” abroad. However, if the Bush administration had orchestrated the events of September 11, wouldn’t those in charge have blamed Iraqi terrorists to make the invasion that followed more easily justified? The 19 people who reportedly carried out the plot included 15 men from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon,54 but zero from Iraq, which is where one of the wars that followed took place. If you believe the inside job hypothesis, then you must be able
to explain this disparity.
3. If the Bush administration planned and executed the attacks on 9/11, then what was the motivation of the hijackers themselves? If these men weren’t expecting a reward of virgins and paradise in the afterlife, then why did they agree to become martyrs? A big part of determining guilt is looking for a motive, and with a suicide mission this is even more important. Is the government paying the attackers’ families millions of dollars? If so, there should be a paper trail. The fact is that Osama bin Laden, about a year after the events transpired, outlined motives that included religious division and oppression, U.S. support of Israel, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, and more.55
4. Alternative theorists often claim there must have been bombs in the World Trade Center towers because their destruction “looked like” a controlled demolition. Forgetting for a moment that it’s impossible to tell if something was intentionally demolished by merely observing a collapse (especially to the untrained eye), and ignoring that no building that tall has ever been purposefully destroyed using those tactics,56 and glossing over the fact that no real evidence for this claim has ever been uncovered, why do explosive devices necessarily denote an inside job? Even if the Twin Towers were brought down by bombs within the buildings, couldn’t they have been planted by the terrorists—and not by Bush—perhaps as a backup plan?
No Sacred Cows Page 43
