Margaret, the Moon, and Me

What do you get when you cross social media, a prominent Canadian author, and a decades-old conspiracy theory? The following:

 

This morning I came across this account of an interview Margaret Atwood gave earlier this year to a youth radio station in Sudbury, Ontario:

 

Student interviewer: I was told recently that you were one of the believers who is of the opinion that the Moon landing was actually filmed ... could possibly have been filmed here.

Atwood: The question about the Moon landing is "why haven't we been back?" and it was done in an age when computers were as big as a couple of rooms. If you even look at the Space Odyssey, 2001, HAL the computer - and I think that movie came out in the late '60s - HAL the computer is huge. So we didn't yet have microchips so I just wonder how did they do that? Why haven't they done it again if it was so easy?

Student interviewer: What do you think of the argument to that question, usually most often I hear they say we haven't had a need to return.

Atwood: Well, you think about it. President Bush said we're going back or words to that effect and then people calculated how long it would take and how much money it would cost to actually do that. It was a long time and a lot of money. Just wondering, wondering about the belt of deadly radiation that people have to go through to get to the Moon and those strange shadows and why the flag rippled and a few things like that.

Student interviewer: What would have pushed them to pull off an entire hoax like that?

Atwood: Well, if it was and the jury is open and we'll never know. But it was the space race with Russia... space and arms race that was going on at the time.

Now to me, it's pretty clear that she's casting doubt on the fact that the moon landing(s) occured. She doesn't outright say it never happened, but she doesn't deny it when the interviewer says "you are of the opinion that the moon landing was actually filmed". She then cites several reasons why she thinks people should be suspicious that it happened.

 

If someone were to say about the Holocaust, "there are many question" and "we'll never know if it really happened", it would be pretty clear that you'd be dealing with a Holocaust denier.

 

Not that I would equate even the most blatant moon-hoaxer to the odious claims of Holocaust denial. The only parallel being that, in very loose terms, both are the denial of a significant historical event.

 

In any event, if Ms. Atwood is not a believer in the moon landing conspiracy theories, the responsible thing for someone in her position to do - especially when speaking to an audience of impressionable young people - is to say that of course the moon landings occured. End of story.

 

So, given all of that, I posted the following on my Twitter page this morning:

 

Help us @BadAstronomer - Cdn. literary giant @MargaretAtwood is a moon landing truther!! http://bit.ly/9oMl10 (via @katewerk)

The "Bad Astronomer" is Phil Plait  who has written extensively about the moon hoax. I then "retweeted" a "tweet" from the National Post:

 

nationalpost Margaret Atwood’s ‘just wondering’ about that silly moon landing hoax http://natpo.st/9zGYHB

 

(Here's an updated story from the National Post).

 

This was enough to prompt Ms. Atwood to respond on her own Twitter page:

 

@RobBreakenridge: http://bit.ly/9oMl10 M: Noo, not quite. There are some interesting q's about it - no microchips then, how did they do it?

To me, saying "not quite" was hardly a rejection of the conspiracy theorist accusation, as was the notion about "interesting" questions.
The following is a lengthy back-and-forth between Ms. Atwood and me. I've tried to put it more or less in order, but that's difficult to do with Twitter. But it went pretty much like this:

@MargaretAtwood "Just asking questions..." - the true hallmark of any good conspiracy theorist
@RobBreakenridge: But I am obviously not a very good one! :) Does that mean anyone who DOES ask questions about anything IS a conspthrst?
@MargaretAtwood Usually it means they "just ask questions" - as opposed to seeking answers to those questions.
@RobBreakenridge: Oh I get it. You're a pal of Ezra's. You agree with him that George Soros funds avaaz... ?? And all that other Nazi stuff?
@MargaretAtwood I don't see what on Earth (no pun intended) this has to do with any of that.. Find a single tweet of mine dealing w/ Soros
@MargaretAtwood You say ".. the belt of deadly radiation" - Read this: http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm
@MargaretAtwood You say "..those strange shadows and why the flag rippled" - Start here: http://bit.ly/cmKoDk
@MargaretAtwood Also, it was called Apollo "11" for a reason - what about other Apollo missions - 12 & 14 in particular? All hoaxes?
@RobBreakenridge: What about other Apollo missions - 12 & 14 in particular? All hoaxes? M: but I haven't said I believed 11 was a hoax.
@RobBreakenridge: I realize some people are mad at the fall of Kory and sueing of Ezra & are taking it out on me, but theirs were own goals.
@MargaretAtwood What it comes down to is the embarrassment of a having a prominent Canadian propagating absurd conspiracy theories.
@RobBreakenridge: But I'm not, unless you think talking about something is propagating it. What it REALLY comes down to is leaving no stone unturned for strange items about me you can take out of context and turn into weird theories of your own.
@MargaretAtwood C'mon - you think those "just asking questions" about Holocaust, 9/11, etc are not propagating theories contrary to reality?
@RobBreakenridge: Give it a rest, Rob. Unless you mean nobody can ask questions about anything. And I'm sure you don't mean that.
@MargaretAtwood Well it's easy to clear up: yes or no, did Apollo 11, 12, 14 land on the moon?
@RobBreakenridge: But Rob. I never said they didn't. I've also said it would be very hard to do a hoax involving that many people.
@MargaretAtwood So is that a yes?
@RobBreakenridge: So is that a yes? M: Let's see you take my last answer to you and twist it into a No. C'mon! You can do it!
@MargaretAtwood Why the need to be so equivocal?
@RobBreakenridge: Grew up with scientists, know that today's "science" is often tomorrow's dismal mistake, keep open mind on all such.
@MargaretAtwood Not too open, I hope - you never know what might find its way in...
@RobBreakenridge: Not too open, I hope - you never know what might find its way in..M: As I've said, Great Pumpkin is very open-minded. ..
@RobBreakenridge: Now there's a headline for you! Wingnut veg. worshipper Atwood believes in the Great Pumpkin! Her credibility is shot!
@MargaretAtwood But of course the moon landings happened. Let's not overlook the fact that even here today you expressed doubt about that.
@RobBreakenridge: Rob, I will go on your show any time I'm in Calgary, now that I know you have one, if you want to have a real conversation
@MargaretAtwood Now THAT is one quote I will gladly dig up at a future date
@RobBreakenridge: But you haven't answered my Ezra question. (Is that evasive of you?)
@MargaretAtwood We're discussing what you said. If you can find anything I said about Soros/Avaaz, I'll happily respond to it
@RobBreakenridge: You're discussing what you said I said. But, taking my note from you: Do you believe what Ezra said about Soros?
@MargaretAtwood Which part? Do I think he's a Nazi or a sociopath? No (how's that for unequivocal - or do I need more of an "open mind"?)

For the record, I found it most unfortunate that Ms. Atwood would have signed the controversial "Stop Fox News North" petition, but I really had little to say in the ensuing controversy. I didn't bring up the moon landing controversy as a way of "further discrediting" her, although to be honest, I'm not sure why the interview has surfaced now.

In any event, whatever Ms. Atwood thinks about Sun TV News or Ezra Levant or Kory Teneycke is neither here nor there.

I still think her answer to the younger interviewer was an unfortunate one, and - given her profile and influence - I think it was an irresponsible one.

I probably agree very little with Ms. Atwood on many issues, and I certainly wouldn't call myself a fan of her work. I do appreciate that she took the time to respond to me and engage me in a debate. I hope to take her up at some point on her offer of an interview.

UPDATE: It's not over yet, apparently. Earlier today, Margaret Atwood responded with a few more "tweets", two of which I responded to:

 

@RobBreakenridge: Rob, you live in a world of yes & no. "Probably" is not a category for you, whereas "of course" is difficult for me.
@MargaretAtwood Would one say Margaret Atwood "probably" wrote "The Handmaid's Tale"*? Or can we conclude that some things did occur?
@RobBreakenridge: For instance, I thought there were "probably" no WMD in Iraq, but did not discount the possibility that there might be.
@RobBreakenridge: Whereas you seem bent on conducting some sort of heresy or witchcraft trial. What's it to be? Hanging? Tossed in ye pond?
@RobBreakenridge: Flattering, all this attention, but if you do a blogpost about our Twitter conversation, shouldn't you put all of them in?
@RobBreakenridge: There's a whole hash tag #AttackAtwood for your use! :) Enjoy! Sand toys! For what you missed, see Blog's Comment stream
@MargaretAtwood Surely there's a major difference between "attacking" someone and challenging someone. To say I'm "attacking" you is unfair.
@RobBreakenridge: Dear Rob, lighten up. It's a j.o.k e. I'll go on yr show, bring cookies, read yr palm. What's yr birthday? Have some fun!

(*yes, I originally referred to it as "Handmaiden's Tale".. my bad)

I was at first confused by Ms. Atwood's suggestion that I "put all of them in", referring to my account of our conversation. Although as the disclaimer above reads, it was "pretty much" the extent of the back-and-forth. It would seem, however, that I left out two of Ms. Atwood's remarks from early on in our conversation:

 

@RobBreakenridge: .. but remember the context was Speculative Fiction.
@RobBreakenridge: Moon: Go 2 www.yearoftheflood.com, Comments, last comment, mine. (I've also said I am a goalie & a turnip may run for PM.)

I'm not sure if that adds in any way to the context of the discussion, but let no one say I've left anything out.

 

What's even stranger about her responses this morning, as that we now seem back to the point where we started: namely that Ms. Atwood is expressing doubt about the moon landings (that she would say they "probably" occured but be unable to say "of course" they did).

 

The whole point I was trying to make in the first place is that is it rather unbecoming for someone of her stature to be connected to flaky conspiracy theories. After a fair amount of discourse with Ms. Atwood, I'm not sure I'm prepared to acquit her of that charge.