[Zvezdichko's LRO / Moon Hoax thread]

[Zvezdichko]

OK... I guess it's enough... Can't participate anymore, beer party here... It looks like I have personal preference that humans should return to the Moon as soon as possible and people won't agree with me if it's not sustainable... Well... I guess we'll never agree with each others then...

End...

[Swift]

Do you have any evidence that the number is decreasing? This is quite interesting if it turns out to be true

The number of threads started on BAUT by believers of a lunar landing hoax. Even in the years that I've posted on BAUT, there has been a huge drop in such threads.

There is not a log of independent poll data, but what there is shows no trend.
ABC news

Just six percent of Americans think the government staged the Apollo moon landings according to a 1999 Gallup poll, the most recent data available. A similar poll by Time/CNN, conducted in 1995, also revealed that six percent believe the moon landings were faked.

[Swift]

OK... I guess it's enough... Can't participate anymore, beer party here... It looks like I have personal preference that humans should return to the Moon as soon as possible and people won't agree with me if it's not sustainable... Well... I guess we'll never agree with each others then...

End...

No, you don't get to just drop the conversation. Go off to your party. Tomorrow morning you make it very clear what exactly your beliefs are. If you refute any conspiracy beliefs, that can be the end of the thread. If not, you address all the questions that have been put to you in this thread.

[Zvezdichko]

Well... regardless of my condition, I am quite sure I won't turn into a hoax believer tomorrow...

[Gillianren]

I read a book about conspiracy theories recently wherein the author spent a lot of time talking to actual conspiracy theorists. Apollo isn't mentioned in the book once. Who wrote Shakespeare's plays is, but not Apollo. The hoax theory isn't dead, but it's certainly dying.

[Paul Beardsley]

I've noticed that when people say things like, "They should be able to make a sewing machine with a better needle guard. After all, if they can put a man on the moon..." they are less often adding, "assuming they did, of course, and it wasn't all faked." Probably because they realised it's both boring and wrong.

[JayUtah]

I read a book about conspiracy theories recently wherein the author spent a lot of time talking to actual conspiracy theorists.

Would that be Jonathan Kay's Among the Truthers?

[Gillianren]

That would, yes.

[JayUtah]

Jonathan is in my town today. Hoping to get to meet with him.

[JayUtah]

Youtube...

I had hoped for some quantitative evidence behind your claim. In my interpretation, YouTube remains the last bastion of Apollo hoax belief because they've been effectively laughed off most other venues.

I get far fewer emails asking questions. On all the written forums I either read or write, fewer hoax claims are being made.

Qualitatively, people are pointing to "Mythbusters" as the end of the hoax. "What, you still believe in that? Didn't you see Mythbusters?"

[Donnie B.]

Zvezdichko, if I'm reading your posts right, you seem frustrated at the lack of ongoing, aggressive manned space exploration. You feel that the Apollo hoax crowd is taking that lack as evidence that there never was such an aggressive program, and you're bemoaning the fact that we've given them that opening.

Well, I agree in general. I think a lot of us would prefer to see more progress in space (especially us BAUTers and SF fans). And I also agree that there would be no such thing as an Apollo doubter if we'd proceeded to build lunar bases and maybe even gone on to Mars.

But the sad fact is that the American people, though their elected officials, determined that there was no need to put vast resources into such a program, when the resources were badly needed elsewhere. You and I may disagree with those priorities, but that doesn't change the fact that the decisions that were made, were made. And unless you have a few billion dollars lying around to fund a re-energized space program, there's little hope that the trend will change anytime soon.

Does that mean we're giving an opening to the Apollo doubters? Yes. It's a shame, but that's how it is. Complaining about it here isn't going to change anything -- even if every American BAUT member and casual reader wrote their congressmen every day and considered no other issue when casting their votes, it wouldn't make a gnat's worth of difference. You are, as we say, "preaching to the choir", and it's a very small choir in a very large cathedral.

I am glad that at least we have continued with unmanned exploration, with considerable success. Opportunity rocks!

[R.A.F.]

...I also agree that there would be no such thing as an Apollo doubter if we'd proceeded to build lunar bases and maybe even gone on to Mars.

Not to be a "disagreeing Darrell" (hey, I just picked the name out of a hat ), but I'm not so sure of that.

Oh they would be less in number, but I've read some amazing justifications for belief, and there's some who simply will never concede and admit defeat.

[Swift]

And I also agree that there would be no such thing as an Apollo doubter if we'd proceeded to build lunar bases and maybe even gone on to Mars.

A very minor disagreement with an excellent post... I suspect even when we have a hotel on the moon and a base on Mars, there will still be doubters. There are still a few flat-Earthers around, among other fringe beliefs.

[Garrison]

Categories of HB as I see it:

Trolls: couldn't care either way if its real as long as they get to wind people up

Professional HBs: those who essentially promote the idea of a hoax with a view to making some money with a book/DVD.

True Believers: the kind of people who want to think they've penetrated some great secret the rest of us are too dumb to see

Anti-authoritarians: those like Ong who simply reject anything associated with government or 'The Powers That Be'

Anti-Americans: a subset of the above who reject Apollo out of resentment/distaste for the USA.

I'm curious to know which of the above Zvezdichko thinks would be convinced by the additional evidence provided by a new moon landing?

[Swift]

I'm curious to know which of the above Zvezdichko thinks would be convinced by the additional evidence provided by a new moon landing?

I don't know Zvezdichko's answer, but I would guess none of them. The only category that might be swayed is one you haven't included: Fence-sitters. Often, these are people who are just not well informed on the topic, often not even well informed about space exploration, and are often younger (were not alive during Apollo). They see the Fox special or someone sends them a YouTube link from one of those in the above categories, and they get confused. They also seem to be the only category that ever get convinced by a discussion on BAUT (and thus don't need a new moon landing to convince them).

[PetersCreek]

...I also agree that there would be no such thing as an Apollo doubter if we'd proceeded to build lunar bases and maybe even gone on to Mars.

Yet there remains a segment of the HB population who think the shuttle missions were faked, in spite of their number and documentation. I think at least some of the Apollo doubters would remain unconvinced even with bases on the Moon and Mars. "Sure, we figured things out later but Apollo was still faked! Notice how they didn't build any bases within walking distance of Tranquility Base!!!"

[R.A.F.]

The only category that might be swayed is one you haven't included: Fence-sitters.

It is actually people like the fence sitters who will determine [big echo voice]WHAT THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY WILL BE!]

Suddenly, I'm philosophical....who would have thunk it.

[Donnie B.]

Well, RAF, Swift, and PetersCreek... you may have a point there. But if the number of HBs is small today, I say it would be virtually nil if Apollo had been continued and expanded.

In case it wasn't clear, I intended to suggest not a recent return to the Moon but a continued, ongoing, and increasingly ambitious program from the 70s to the present. But of course I wouldn't argue that even that would have produced a total HB population of zero.

One thing I would have loved to see -- a launch of the proposed (but never built) Nova booster. Imagine nine F1 engines in the first stage! Florida might have sunk from the sound pressure alone.

[R.A.F.]

I say it would be virtually nil if Apollo had been continued and expanded.

Emphasis mine...You are 100 percent correct... "people" take for granted "aspects" of everyday life...such as cell phones...

..so "if' Apollo had continued until...well, right now, then it wouldn't seem so unrealistic to that portion of the population.

So I agree and disagree with you...hey, that's kinda "philosophical", too.

[R.A.F.]

One thing I would have loved to see -- a launch of the proposed (but never built) Nova booster. Imagine nine F1 engines in the first stage! Florida might have sunk from the sound pressure alone.

Oh hell yeah...(can I say, hell?)

[Gillianren]

The key word, of course, is "virtually." There is no stance you can find so stupid that there isn't someone taking it.

[R.A.F.]

There is no stance you can find so stupid that there isn't someone taking it.

That would make a good "sig".

[Tensor]

Imagine nine F1 engines in the first stage! Florida might have sunk from the sound pressure alone.

Ah, I would prefer not.

[Zvezdichko]

I know a professional HB-er who refused to debate me on TV, because he claims he's not a convinced hoax believer... Yet he has made a pro-hoax movie, very famous in my country...

Perhaps many people, like him, are aware that the Apollo missions are not faked, yet they make movies for money...

As for the trolls and anti-americans, no chance here... A girl told me: "Your arguments are convincing, but I still hate the Americans and I can't believe they are able to do good things"

Categories of HB as I see it:

Trolls: couldn't care either way if its real as long as they get to wind people up

Professional HBs: those who essentially promote the idea of a hoax with a view to making some money with a book/DVD.

True Believers: the kind of people who want to think they've penetrated some great secret the rest of us are too dumb to see

Anti-authoritarians: those like Ong who simply reject anything associated with government or 'The Powers That Be'

Anti-Americans: a subset of the above who reject Apollo out of resentment/distaste for the USA.

I'm curious to know which of the above Zvezdichko thinks would be convinced by the additional evidence provided by a new moon landing?

[Daggerstab]

I know a professional HB-er who refused to debate me on TV, because he claims he's not a convinced hoax believer... Yet he has made a pro-hoax movie, very famous in my country...

Who's that? (I admit not following the local cranks.)

[Zvezdichko]

Private message sent. He's indeed a famous person here.

[iquestor]

HBers are annoying to me but I see no point in spending any enery in convincing them that we went to the Moon.

I wish we would go back and beyond. Robert Zubrin has given us a well defined, technologically feasible path to send Humans to Mars, which I would love to see happen, but I doubt I'll live to see it. Perhaps my son will.

[HenrikOlsen]

For example... the silence of Russia and the fact that Apollo landings weren't televised live on TV in the Eastern Bloc is quite a convincing argument, . . .

For people who don't know history perhaps.

This was one of the enemy's most impressive propaganda victories of the cold war, do you really think the Soviet regime would think it was a good idea to show live?
Remember that this was a time where television was 100% government controlled.

[Garrison]

I don't know Zvezdichko's answer, but I would guess none of them. The only category that might be swayed is one you haven't included: Fence-sitters. Often, these are people who are just not well informed on the topic, often not even well informed about space exploration, and are often younger (were not alive during Apollo). They see the Fox special or someone sends them a YouTube link from one of those in the above categories, and they get confused. They also seem to be the only category that ever get convinced by a discussion on BAUT (and thus don't need a new moon landing to convince them).

Yeah I deliberately left them out because of that last point, the genuine fence sitters generally just need a proper explanation of the existing evidence to persuade them.

[Garrison]

I know a professional HB-er who refused to debate me on TV, because he claims he's not a convinced hoax believer... Yet he has made a pro-hoax movie, very famous in my country...

Perhaps many people, like him, are aware that the Apollo missions are not faked, yet they make movies for money...

As for the trolls and anti-americans, no chance here... A girl told me: "Your arguments are convincing, but I still hate the Americans and I can't believe they are able to do good things"

So given that why would you propose that a new landing would persuade HB's in the first place?