Guardian criticizes SD Moon Hoax article

This is a head’s up from John Hatpin, on the usenet board

Stuart Jeffries makes a serious mistake in his 9/13/2002 Guardian column, where it seems he believes the Straight Dope defends the moon hoax. He must be thinking about the mailbag article, but if so he has clearly misread it.

John has sent an email to Ian Mayes, the Reader’s editor, who, I am informed, “compiles the daily Corrections column and is independent from the regular Editorial staff.”

I think I edited the link so it now works. – Dex

A thread on the same topic in MPSIMS Tell 'em Doris Godounov sent you, and it’ll be like an unclear wirnet if they don’t eat crow.

Wow, that’s an interesting way to mangle a Usenet URL. Did you do that, RM Mentock, or is it a bug in VBulletin?

Ed Zotti has sent the Guardian a note, asking for a correction. Please don’t do anything else.
RM, let me know what you intended to link to, and I’ll fix it.

It’d be a link to, without the http://. I doubt that the forum will support that kind of URL, since it’s well outside the hypertextual realm.

Sorry, I should have checked my links to make sure they were making it through OK.

Dex, it was a link to the newsgroup , as Wikkit says, but I guess vBulletin doesn’t recognize the news [url=“”]URL]/url].

Well, far be it for me to defend a paper that apparently has numerous problems with details (see linked thread), but…

I suppose one could read as follows: the Straight Dope column mentions a plot about Capricorn One and OJ. Jeffries is referencing the SD for mentioning the theory, not that SD actually believes that theory. Okay, if that’s the case, then the wording in his column is attrociously misleading. But if I squint my brain (hee hee) I can make it come out that way. Notice he says “the account set out”, which doesn’t actually say SD advocates the account, just that they describe it.

Just an alternative interpretation.

Yes, if you twist your brain around it enough, you could make that case – but then why add in the bit about the guy supposedly trying to call The Straight Dope? If he is just talking about the account I was describing rather than actually making it sound like I believe it, why bother to try contacting us?

This appeared on the Guardian corrections site the other day, but it has since aged off:

“In an article headed Were the lunar landings faked?, page 5, G2, September 13, we gave the impression that Straight Dope, an organisation with a reputation for debunking scientific fallacies, had accepted that the moon landings were a hoax. In fact, the Straight Dope article did not support the idea. It totally rejected it. In addition we allowed someone quoted in our article to say that [Sharon] Christa McAuliffe was the only woman killed when the Challenger shuttle blew up. In fact, Judith Resnik was also killed. Apologies.”

However, it has also come to my attention that the article misinterpreted another online source, and badly. The first website that they referenced was a spoof which had been posted to, even, six or seven years ago. The Guardian article seems to take it seriously. Imagine thinking that this was serious:

“Consequently, the moon walk sequences were actually filmed on location in the Sea of Tranquility. Kubrick did not accompany the crew to the lunar site because of his well-known fear of flying. However, all of the scenes were carefully scripted in advance, and Kubrick was able to direct remotely from the Johnson Space Center in Houston – a film making ‘first.’”

Not only that, the Guardian article says the piece was written by someone with the nick Great North Wind, when it is clear that C. Powers wrote it, and only bottomposted to Great North Wind’s question.

So, at this point, is the position of the owners of the SDMB that we, the member should NOT email/write to the dimwits over at Guardian?

The Guardian has obviously apologized rather lamely and still got it wrong. They don’t have a clue. They need a clue.

What say you Admins?

It’s being handled through official channels. While we appreciate your concerns (and I personally agree with you 100%), it is politically best (and most effective) if we hold in our indignation and engage in restraint.

“He” who must be obeyed.

Your wish is our command.

Sic 'em, Dex.