I've just watched one of the most gratifying hours of television I've seen in quite some time. Though it's not directly related to the moon hoax, I think it's worth a mention here.

Last fall, The History Channel aired a series of documentaries on the JFK assassination. One of these presented "evidence" that LBJ was behind Kennedy's death. Apparently, this caused a bit of a stir.

Tonight, the same channel aired a one-hour discussion between a host and three noted history professors. To a man, the three historians trashed the documentary, pointing out its numerous flaws and utter lack of credible evidence. But they didn't stop there...

They aimed blistering criticism at The History Channel itself, for failing to uphold any kind of journalistic or historical standards. The host allowed this criticism, and reacted neutrally, allowing the historians to have their say and make their points. Indeed, he asked them for ideas as to how THC should have handled the controversial documentary, and other future situations of the same sort.

Of course, one can hardly imagine the Fox network allowing such a response to their fiasco of a moon hoax documentary. That didn't stop me from fantisizing about the BA, Jay, and Jim Oberg sitting in those chairs and letting go with both barrels!

Yes, it was The History Channel, not Fox, and yes, they do at least try to maintain an air of accuracy and authority, so it's less of a surprise that they would devote an hour to pointed self-criticism. Still, it gives one hope that skepticism and sanity still have a place on commercial television.

=D> Bravo!

Am I correct in guessing this addressed the awful 80's Nigel Turner "documentary" The Men Who Killed Kennedy ?

I'm off to check the program listing to see if the program repeats later this evening.

I missed the very beginning, so I didn't hear them name the documentary in question (if they ever did). They seemed to be focusing on one specific episode of a multi-part series, and IIRC The Men Who Killed Kennedy might fit that description.

They did mention that the specific episode was originally aired overseas, in the UK (I think), and at that time it included a claim, later shot to pieces by hard evidence, that three small-time French gangsters were involved in the assassination.

That's the one.

Thanks for the heads up, I'll tune in for the repeat at 12:00 ET.

Drat!!!

I dozed off about 25 minutes into the program ops: .
Will check the listings to see when the show will be repeated.

What I did see looked excellent though, and it did appear they were specifically addressing TMWKK.

I watched the program and found it very good. They specifically discussed the TMWKK episode titled The Guilty Men. The experts trashed the episode saying it was all hearsay from unreliable sources and ran counter to all existing evidence. They also said some interesting things about conspiracy theories in general. It's a breath of fresh air to see a network openly accept criticism for a bad programming decision and take steps to correct it. I intend to write to the History Channel and express my approval.

What I'm curious to know is if THC produced this program of their own incentive, perhaps in response to viewer feedback (like mine), or if it was done after having seen the success of programs like the one aired by ABC last November which laid a number of issues to rest. Perhaps there were other motivations, who knows. I'd really like to cut THC some slack, but am not yet eagerly inclined to do so given the fringe programming they still choose to air.

On another, most humorous note...

Holy irony, Batman! It appears that a number of viewers who subscribe to the JFK conspiracy theories are up in arms about last night's program, and are claiming that having aired it damages the network's credibility. :-#

This ongoing discussion is available here.

Heh, guess I should have Googled first.

Here is a THC press release dated 9 February which sheds further light on the issue, and just prior to that, a Washington Post article which mentions that letters of protest were distpatched to THC from Lady Bird Johnson as well as former presidents Ford and Carter. Another good article here on the subject from Max Holland.

I watched the episode of TMWKK that featured Jack White. At that time I was debunking many of White's assertions regarding Apollo photography and thus knew of his ineptitude at photographic interpretation. It was quite amusing to see him identifying shadowy figures in the trees when he was simultaneously unable to tell whether a superbly photographed and entirely unobscured Apollo lunar module was coming or going.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Max Holland wrote an article for History News Network about the TMWKK episode that irresponsibly accuses LBJ:

http://hnn.us/articles/4487.html

By the way, one of the "experts" on that episode was Gregory Burnham. Burnham is Rich DellaRosa's "Sergeant-at-Arms" at the JFKresearch board. The thought of a JFKresearcher speaking as an authority on history is as astonishing as, well, Plautus Satire writing encyclopedia entries on astronomy-related topics.

It was quite amusing to see him identifying shadowy figures in the trees...

I have wondered how many gunmen and other suspicious figures the members of JFKresearch have found on the grassy knoll and its immediate vicinity. When I regularly read that board, it seemed hardly a week went by when somebody didn't successfully Photoshop a photo to "bring out" yet another gunman or accomplice. (They were never anything mundane like parade spectators, grounds keepers, railroad workers, etc.)

Of course, that so many figures were being identified should have been a sign that the methods of analysis were flawed and unreliable. In their opinion, I bet, the evidence for conspiracy was piling on.

I'm really sorry I missed this--I'm sure it won't ever be rerun. Maybe some good will come of this, and THC will finally stop showing TMWKK. I doubt they will, though maybe at least they'll yank the newest episode.

Gratifying as it is to see a major media outlet finally get its chops busted for conspiracy mongering, we should recognize that this self-criticism is unlikely to be repeated with the Fox video or any other moon-conspiracy materials. The only reason that this happened, as the above-linked articles make clear, is due to pressure from two ex-presidents, Lady Bird Johnson, and former LBJ aides Jack Valenti (who is head of the Motion Picture Association of America, and one of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington) and Bill Moyers (a highly respected journalist). No one of this stature is ever going to bring this kind of pressure on Fox to recant their woo-woo videos.

Another thing to keep in mind is the fact that this video (which was enthusiastically reviewed for me by one of my students who is particularly lacking in critical-thinking skills) does actually rise to the level of libel, as THC clearly ran it with reckless disregard for whether or not it was true. Most moon-hoax claims, even the ones alleging murder, are not so clear cut, because they generally don't name names, except for the astronauts, who have not, to my knowledge, been accused of murder by any conspiracist.

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Except that you can't libel a dead man.

As those linked articles point out, this has been one of the tactics of the producer of TMWKK, ever since he got burned in one of the early installments - only make accusations against the dead, and if possible, make the accusations come from other dead people.

Just think how bad the moon hoax claims will get once the astronauts who actually walked on the Moon begin to die off...

I'm sorry, but that's incorrect. A person must be dead 50 years before he or she can't legally be libeled, at least in America. Lady Bird Johnson could sue THC for libeling her husband, and she would win hands down, especially with the "mea culpa" video (though the retraction would mitigate any damage award she might receive). Although it is more difficult to prove libel against a public figure, it can be done, if the plaintiff can show that the defendant either knew the information was false, or recklessly disregarded the issue of its truth or falsity. Clearly one of these situations applies to THC in the case of "The Guilty Men." It is also worth noting that the vague disclaimers by THC's resident historian do not immunize THC from the libel charge (just as the words "allegedly" and "reportedly" do not automatically immunize news organizations), though again they might slightly reduce a damage award.

Although this tactic does in fact reduce the chances of a libel suit (not because the dead can't be libeled, but because they can't defend themselves), I think the idea is more to avoid being contradicted, and less to avoid being sued.

Actually, I doubt they'll get any worse--the astronauts generally don't bother to defend themselves now, as they quite correctly view these charges as beneath contempt. However, if someone were to produce and air a documentary claiming that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were responsible for the Apollo 1 fire, because they knew that Gus Grissom was being groomed to be the first man to walk on the moon, I'm sure you'd see an outcry similar to that over "The Guilty Men." Nigel Turner's mistake in this case was naming a specific person as a murderer--as long as the purported killers and conspirators are unnamed government agents or officials, no one has standing to sue for libel.

What will happen, however, is that some HBs will start claiming that the astronauts were about to make end-of-life confessions before they died, and that government agents got wind of this and silenced them, cleverly making it look as though they had died of natural causes.

That reminds me of a post I saw ages ago poking fun at CTs. It went something like this:

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Getting back to the History Channel...

IMO they basically wasted their re-analysis of TMWKK tonight by polluting two hours with shows about the Bible "code." I spent the time watching Cirque de Soleil instead -- the situations there are so much more realistic.

For some odd reason, there has been a lot of religion-exploring programming on the cable the past few days. I wonder why that is? :wink:

Fred

Edited to add: Not that this has anything to do with lunar-landing conspiracies, either.

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

Bah, you're right--I'd forgotten that they have shows about the Bible Code. I'm going to crawl out on a limb and guess, from the ads that I saw when they first ran it, that they don't take anything even close to a skeptical position?

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

Well, it did air right after "500 yeas of Nostrodamus"!

Ask a silly question... #-o

__________________
--Doug

"When your statics problem becomes a dynamics problem, you're in trouble." --me

Moor's Law: "As you go from freshman engineering to Ph.D., the amount of work required per credit hour doubles approximately every 18 months." --me, inspired by Prof. Scott Moor

I can't say about the whole program, since a) I couldn't stomach it and b) (as I said) the much more true-to-life Cirque was on against it, but what little I saw during commercials sure looked non-skeptical.

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

Sunday night THC re-ran their original Bible Code episode and it looks like they aired a second hour-long sequel. I didn't see the second episode, but I saw the original when it ran several months ago. I would say the show leaned toward the woo-woo side, but there was a fair amount of skepticism included. In fact, there was some guy who was able to find the same 'coded' messages in a copy of Moby Dick.