Letter to President Obama #38 | Subject: Conspiracy Theories

Letter to President Obama #38 | Subject: Conspiracy Theories

Dear President Obama,

So it’s almost the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, and that’s got me thinking of conspiracy theories. I’ve always thought it was strange that a small percentage of people believe that the moon landings were a hoax. I mean, if you ask me, I think the evidence is pretty definitive—the moon rocks, the pictures of Earth from the Moon, and the general hassle that it would be to orchestrate a multigenerational worldwide conspiracy involving tens of thousands of people and keeping it secret for 40 years.

But, if the moon landings were really filmed in a studio, I want to get to the more important question—why didn’t we ever make that a full-length movie? That set design was great! And the reduced gravity, it looked so real! Needless to say, we probably should cast different people this time around. I mean, all of the Apollo 11 astronauts were decent looking guys, but let’s be honest—Armstrong famously stammered over his big line, leading some to the impression that he skipped an indefinite article in “one small step for (a) man,” leaving himself open to criticism from self-appointed grammarians and jerks everywhere. If you ask me, I think he did a pretty good job, but critics would probably have the director’s head (Tim Burton?) if he were to be in the sequel.

It doesn’t matter which actors you pick, really, but props will be key to this movie, as we’ll want to take advantage of the cool low gravity environment. There should definitely be a trampoline (how much fun would that be?) and we’ll have to write several dramatic high jumps into the script, maybe as our hero (a gymnast?) flees his enemies (a track and field team bent on taking over the crater/neighborhood?) by leaping straight up fifty feet into a waiting moonicopter.
In any event, the movie should also include pogo sticks. Maybe pogo sticks could be to the moon what cars are to us.

Speaking of Apollo 11, I remember there was a guy running around trying to get Buzz Aldrin to swear on a Bible that he landed on a moon and I remember Aldrin eventually punched him in the face. I thought that was fantastic. I think it would have been even better if Buzz would have hit the guy in the face with the Bible. If he had, could he have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon? If so, awesome, but weird.

Anyway, I guess I can understand why people are skeptical about the moon landings; I mean, first of it all, it’s complicated stuff, and to understand a lot of the explanations about why the photos are real, you’ve got to do the work to understand the science of light rays bending and so forth. And science can be confusing, especially today. Subatomic physics are a good example—many physicists speak a language that could fit right into an forwarded email message averring claims about a one-world-government and the Illuminati.

I mean, contemporary physics actually argues that most of the mass in universe consists of “dark matter” (the enemy of the Illuminati?) and they use other nefarious-sounding codewords like “the god particle.” I hope that last term is just a play on words because it’d be pretty depressing for us to physically locate a divine entity of some sort and then have Him or Her get eaten by an amoeba or something. The only way I’d express a divine entity at the subatomic level is if it had a beard of some sort, gluons, zero spin quarks, whatever. A beard is sort of necessity.

I guess that’s how conspiracies start—there’s a gulf of knowledge that gets filled in with, well, filler. Anything that works. And if something gets discredited, it’s pretty easy to make up something else to fit the theme. To prove my point, consider shriners. After all, no one knows what they really do, they wear those funny hats, and they have some sort of shrine. And they really like kids. If spun maliciously, that could all sound pretty bad.
To debunk my own conspiracy—unless their world-conquering army consists of a bunch of sick kids flanked by old guys in go-karts, I don’t think that they’re up to no good.

In any case, let me know what you think.

Brett

Letter to President Obama #9 | Subject: NASA, Outer Space, and Constellations

Letter to President Obama #9 | Subject: NASA, Outer Space, and Constellations

Dear President Obama,

I’m writing because there are a few concerns about NASA that I have, and these concerns are never discussed in the mainstream media.

First of all, congratulations on the space program, and please give props to whoever named the areas of the moon. I mean, the Sea of Tranquility is a great name; that guy should definitely get a raise. I was a little confused though, when I found out that all of the areas on the moon have Latin, not English names. Is it true that Catholic priests named the moon?

Then again, I suppose Latin is better than some languages. I mean, imagine if they chose German! As an example of how creepy that’d be, I’m including Neil Armstrong’s famous first words on the moon, only in German: Das ist ein kleiner Schritt für einen Menschen, aber ein großer Sprung für die Menschheit!

Scary, right? And you have to admit—the German word for humanity (Menschheit) sounds more like a disease than anything. To prove this, I just called one of my friends on the phone, and I pretended to be sick. The conversation went like this:

Friend: You sound sick. What do you have?

Me: Menschheit.

Friend: Oh no! That sounds exotic!

Me: You could say that.

And while I do think the moon was well-named, whoever named the constellations should be fired. They look nothing like the objects they are supposed to represent—they’re like ancient abstract art. Now, don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with abstract art, but if we don’t tell people it’s abstract, they’ll miss the point. I mean, when I first encountered Cubist art, I didn’t know it was art—I just thought it was a bunch of geometric shapes with cancer; I felt bad for them, the poor, sick triangles and circles, with parallelograms and rhombuses springing forth uncontrollably.

Worse than that, many of the constellations are also indecent! According to my constellation book, many constellations have classical origins, and several are named after the famous heroines and goddesses of Greek mythology. In almost every depiction, these women are nude! That means there are half a dozen topless women in the sky; it’s like Girls Gone Wild up there!

I mean, consider the princess Andromeda—classical sources say she was one of the most beautiful women in the world, and she’s almost always depicted nude—but according to the accompanying myth, she’s chained up to a rock too! Great, when I want to teach my son about the constellations, what am I supposed to say when he asks who Andromeda is? Oh, by the way son, that’s the world’s most beautiful woman in bondage. If I say that, he’ll ask, “what’s bondage?” And then I’ll tell him to ask his mother.

I mean, with children, you give them any information and there’s another question. This is especially true about sex; it’s like a perverted version of If You Give A Mouse A Cookie.

Finally, even some of the modern names are a little creepy. The Hubble Telescope has made some wonderful discoveries, but one of the most famous pictures associated with it refers to an area that’s commonly called the “Horse Head Nebula.” Since when did we start naming things after The Godfather?

I’d appreciate a response to these important inquiries.

Sincerely,

Brett Ortler