Moon landing: Contraversy

For a change decided to watch a National Geographic documentary. Had heard about this long time back but did not have a proper idea of what is it all about.

I liked the position adopted by National Geographic. It was very balanced and was giving ample opportunity for both the sides of their argument. The documentary was putting viewer in the seat of a judge and leaving it to him or her decide what their final say should be. It definitely gives its own opinion, but they never pushed their opinion on the viewer. I think, after viewing, that the conspiracy theory does not hold good and looks vulnerable and weak. The arguments were not strong enough and lacked a certain finesse. I was reminded of a similar controversy that of the "Taj Mahal". Some groups claiming it to be a temple before and having been converted by Shahajahan as a grave. I found the arguments of these people for temple theory as weak as the argument of the conspiracy theory of moon landing.

Why do these theories emerge? I think there are two main reasons: deeply ingrained personal prejudice and/ or attention seeking behavior. When I look at the current news hoopla of ISRO about moon landing and water discovery etc. I have a feeling that this is a bit too much. What I know of ISRO and its people does not give me confidence to say that they must have done what they claim they have done. I have a doubt because of my prejudice, but have no motivation to prove it. If it comes to that I would rather give benefit of doubt to ISRO and wait for the further things to emerge. One thing of course is there, if this ISRO thing is proven otherwise, I will no doubt brag about "I told you so". May be this gives me some insights about the proponent of these theories.

Another book comes to mind at this point. It is Michael Crichtons' Deception Point. It is based on the similar theme where the conspiracy theorists were right.