Visual Communication

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Perlmutter, D. D.
Right arrow Articles by Dahmen, N. S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Visual Communication, Vol. 7, No. 2, 229-251 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1470357208088760

(In)visible evidence: pictorially enhanced disbelief in the Apollo moon landings

David D. Perlmutter

University of Kansas, USA, ddp{at}ku.edu

Nicole Smith Dahmen

Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, USA, ndahmen{at}lsu.edu

When pictures become journalistic, historical, and popular icons, there is a common belief that they also have a single, usable meaning, and media, political, and academic elites typically determine it. Yet, research on how people interpret images suggests that believing is seeing: pre-existing prejudices and experiences affect what meanings we draw from pictures. This is especially so when the viewer seeks out information that confirms strongly held notions, what mainstream audiences might think of in some cases as conspiracy theories. This article examines reaction to one of the most famous sets of images of the past century — photos of the 1969 Apollo moon landing — by proponents of the `moon hoax' theory, those who believe that the landings were faked by NASA. Analysis of moon hoax websites shows that the pictures' visual details are used as evidence that the mainstream interpretation is `visibly' in error.

Key Words: conspiracy • hoax • icons • photography • photojournalism • photostyle • phototruth • science


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?