Found these 2 long essays about Moon Landing Denial compared to other denials.
They have been written by a "Kevin Rosero - Location: Brooklyn, New York" and he has many fine points.
"Creationists will find this insulting, but let me say that I do not see a single further parallel between creationism and the Moon Hoax, other than the superficial fact that both deal centrally with the subjects studied by the "hard" sciences, and that both, in my opinion, ultimately reject the good work done by those sciences Ė with the qualification that the Moon Hoaxers have also lost touch with modern history, and have rejected science in a way that finally defeats sympathy and respect. I for one do not hold the theory of intelligent design, which is now a popular successor to creationism (at least as I see it), but I do hold it to be respectable and worthy of discussion; I hold orthodox creationism to be worthy of discussion, too, though I do not regard it as a scientific theory. The Moon Hoax, by contrast, does not and should not ever command any kind of basic respect, as a theory. Even taking the time to discuss it publicly is rightfully questioned as a good use of time. Moon Hoaxers lie, and heap calumnies on people who are said to be behind the hoax; creationists donít behave this way. Creationists have all their bearings on the ground and lead lives that I consider as a model of faith; Moon Hoaxers are a breed, frankly, who waste all our time and energy. But that is a subject for another post."
......... and from http://roseandrock.blogspot.com/2005...moon-hoax.html:
"Perhaps Ryan can correct my memory of this exchange about the Moon Hoax, but that's how I remember it. And I do recall clearly thinking that the refutation of the Moon Hoax used logical thinking that reminded me of Father Meier's work -- not in subject matter, of course, but in a style of argument that appreciated and respected human psychology (as I will describe below). I could be the only person in the world who has connected these two subjects this way, but then there may not be many people who read both Meier's work and that of Philip C. Plait, an astronomer known partly for refuting the idea that we never went to the moon (he may have written some of Ryan's articles). His site, Bad Astronomy, is one of my favorites; its larger purpose, quite apart from refuting the Moon Hoax, is to challenge all pseudo-scientific or unscientific thinking. So in a sense, even though its subject is always astronomy, it's about how to get good knowledge and to recognize bad thinking (including conspiracy theories), a subject of potential interest to anyone. He has a page tackling the bad science behind the Moon Hoax."