Post by papageno on Jan 2, 2006 20:21:30 GMT -4
I just finished watching a programme made by RAI Educational (RAI is the Italian public service broadcaster), from the series "La Storia siamo noi" ("We are the History"), about the Moon Hoax, broadcast on RAI Tre.
The idea was to present both sides of the debate, in a form where the HBs presents their arguments and debunkers reply.
It did not turn out very well, especially because at the end the presenter Giovanni Minoli lost focus and did an interview with the Italian astronaut Roberto Vittori, which did not really deal with the Moon Hoax (why they did not make two programmes escapes me).
The time wasted could have been used to expand on some debunking arguments, which would have resolved some issues brought up by HB.
The main HBs were Ralph Rene (which you should know already), and a German guy named Gernot Geise, who presented the usual "arguments" (I mean, absolutely nothing new).
The main debunker was Marcello Coradini, ESA's coordinator for Solar System missions, which did not do a very good job, because he came over as a bit unprepared (ie, he did not say things I would have expected to hear).
Then there was Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer himself!
He did a fairly good job, considering that he did not address all the HB's claims (I think it is a matter of editing).
Third a photographer, Michael Light, who debunked nicely some of the photographic arguments.
They added bits of interviews with Ernst Stuhlinger (he worked on Apollo with Von Braun) and Richard West (ESO astronomer, working on that big telescope, whose name escapes me...).
VERY GOOD: Phil Plait, of course! And they gave the address of the BadAstronomy.
GOOD: part of Michael Light's debunking. And more time to debunking than HBs.
BAD: imprecisions and HB-like begging the question a couple of times (similiarities between Von Braun fiction of Moon landing, and actual footage; accidents in the Apollo program; photographs look like studio photographs...); no good explanation about the "no plume" argument; "radiation" argument not well debunked.
VERY BAD: they did not address the "high temperatures" argument; they did not distinguish LLTV from LM; they did not explain that Apollo 11 was a test for lunar landing; almost no debunking about the geological samples; Earth-based telscopes able to see Apollo hardware...
At the end, they left the Moon Hoax debate unresolved, without showing how unsupported the HB's arguments are, and saying that there are no certainties and that there remain more questions than answer.
I would say that this format still favors the HBs.
The idea was to present both sides of the debate, in a form where the HBs presents their arguments and debunkers reply.
It did not turn out very well, especially because at the end the presenter Giovanni Minoli lost focus and did an interview with the Italian astronaut Roberto Vittori, which did not really deal with the Moon Hoax (why they did not make two programmes escapes me).
The time wasted could have been used to expand on some debunking arguments, which would have resolved some issues brought up by HB.
The main HBs were Ralph Rene (which you should know already), and a German guy named Gernot Geise, who presented the usual "arguments" (I mean, absolutely nothing new).
The main debunker was Marcello Coradini, ESA's coordinator for Solar System missions, which did not do a very good job, because he came over as a bit unprepared (ie, he did not say things I would have expected to hear).
Then there was Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer himself!
He did a fairly good job, considering that he did not address all the HB's claims (I think it is a matter of editing).
Third a photographer, Michael Light, who debunked nicely some of the photographic arguments.
They added bits of interviews with Ernst Stuhlinger (he worked on Apollo with Von Braun) and Richard West (ESO astronomer, working on that big telescope, whose name escapes me...).
VERY GOOD: Phil Plait, of course! And they gave the address of the BadAstronomy.
GOOD: part of Michael Light's debunking. And more time to debunking than HBs.
BAD: imprecisions and HB-like begging the question a couple of times (similiarities between Von Braun fiction of Moon landing, and actual footage; accidents in the Apollo program; photographs look like studio photographs...); no good explanation about the "no plume" argument; "radiation" argument not well debunked.
VERY BAD: they did not address the "high temperatures" argument; they did not distinguish LLTV from LM; they did not explain that Apollo 11 was a test for lunar landing; almost no debunking about the geological samples; Earth-based telscopes able to see Apollo hardware...
At the end, they left the Moon Hoax debate unresolved, without showing how unsupported the HB's arguments are, and saying that there are no certainties and that there remain more questions than answer.
I would say that this format still favors the HBs.
Errr... yeah, that's right.
