Which is sillier: denying we ever went to the moon or trying to convince the true non-believers? Once upon a time--July 20, 1969, to be specific - two men got out of their little spaceship and wandered around on the moon for a while. Ten more men walked on the moon over the next three and a half years. The end. Unfortunately, not quite. A fair number of Americans think that this whole business of moon landings really is a fairy tale. They believe that the landings were a big hoax   staged in the Mojave Desert, to convince everyone that U.S. technology was the "best" in the whole wide world. Which is the harder thing to do: Send men to the moon or make believe we did? The fact is that the physics behind sending people to the moon is simple. You can do it with computers whose entire memory capacities can now fit on chips the size of postage stamps and that cost about as much as, well, a postage stamp. I know you can because we did. However, last fall NASA considered spending $15,000 on a public-relations campaign to convince the unimpressed that Americans had in fact gone to the moon. That idea was mostly a reaction to a Fox television program, first aired in February 2001, that claimed to expose the hoax. The show's creator is a publicity hound   who has lived up to the name in more ways than one by hounding Buzz Aldrin, the second man on the moon. Mr. X (as I will call him, thereby denying him the joyous sight of his name in print) recently followed Buzz Aldrin around and called him "a thief, liar and coward" until the 72-year-old astronaut finally lost it and hit the 37-year-old Mr. X in the face. Anyway, NASA's publicity campaign began to slow down. The nonbelievers took the campaign as NASA's effort to hide something while the believers said that $15,000 to convince people that the world was round -- I mean, that we had gone to the moon -- was simply a waste of money. (Actually, the $15,000 was supposed to pay for an article by James E. Oberg, an astronomy writer who, with Aldrin, has contributed to Scientific American.) If NASA's not paying Oberg, perhaps it could put the money to good use by hiring two big guys to drag Neil Armstrong out of the house. Armstrong is an extremely private man, but he is also the first man on the moon, so maybe he has a duty to be a bit more outspoken about the experience. Or NASA could just buy Aldrin a commemorate plaque   for his recent touch on the face of Mr. X. According to the writer, which of the following is to blame for the story about the hoax?
NASA's publicity campaign. The Fox television program. Buzz Aldrin. James E. Oberg.
Question: Which is sillier: denying we ever went to the moon or trying to convince the true non-believers? Once upon a time--July 20, 1969, to be specific - two men got out of their little spaceship and wandered around on the moon for a while. Ten more men walked on the moon over the next three and a half years. The end. Unfortunately, not quite. A fair number of Americans think that this whole business of moon landings really is a fairy tale. They believe that the landings were a big hoax   staged in the Mojave Desert, to convince everyone that U.S. technology was the "best" in the whole wide world. Which is the harder thing to do: Send men to the moon or make believe we did? The fact is that the physics behind sending people to the moon is simple. You can do it with computers whose entire memory capacities can now fit on chips the size of postage stamps and that cost about as much as, well, a postage stamp. I know you can because we did. However, last fall NASA considered spending $15,000 on a public-relations campaign to convince the unimpressed that Americans had in fact gone to the moon. That idea was mostly a reaction to a Fox television program, first aired in February 2001, that claimed to expose the hoax. The show's creator is a publicity hound   who has lived up to the name in more ways than one by hounding Buzz Aldrin, the second man on the moon. Mr. X (as I will call him, thereby denying him the joyous sight of his name in print) recently followed Buzz Aldrin around and called him "a thief, liar and coward" until the 72-year-old astronaut finally lost it and hit the 37-year-old Mr. X in the face. Anyway, NASA's publicity campaign began to slow down. The nonbelievers took the campaign as NASA's effort to hide something while the believers said that $15,000 to convince people that the world was round -- I mean, that we had gone to the moon -- was simply a waste of money. (Actually, the $15,000 was supposed to pay for an article by James E. Oberg, an astronomy writer who, with Aldrin, has contributed to Scientific American.) If NASA's not paying Oberg, perhaps it could put the money to good use by hiring two big guys to drag Neil Armstrong out of the house. Armstrong is an extremely private man, but he is also the first man on the moon, so maybe he has a duty to be a bit more outspoken about the experience. Or NASA could just buy Aldrin a commemorate plaque   for his recent touch on the face of Mr. X. According to the writer, which of the following is to blame for the story about the hoax?
A. NASA's publicity campaign.
B. The Fox television program.
C. Buzz Aldrin.
D. James E. Oberg.
Answer: