why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?

[Chew]

The really sad thing is that the HB's can't believe that they USA who developed the first atomic bomb, developed nuclear powered ships as well as submarines, supersonic jet fighters, put men into orbit etc couldn't come up with a way to put a man on the moon and bring him back. The only way they could do it was to cheat...............yeah right!!!

Right. Or to paraphrase someone who once said, "Cover-ups, murder, mind control, brainwashing an entire population, advanced technology capable of creating earthquakes and hurricanes, you name it. Conspiracy theorists believe the government is capable of anything... except actually landing a man on the Moon."

[gillianren]

We've all been assuming that the hoax 'believers' actually believe what they're saying. Suppose at least some of them are just trolling us?

Some so-called HBs may well have no serious doubts that Apollo actually happened. But, having not had much inspiration or opportunity in their own lives,  they developed a very real resentment of NASA, the US government, and the scientists and engineers who worked on Apollo -- still one of the biggest symbols of American (and human) technological achievement. In fact, they resent pretty much everyone they perceive as more successful than themselves, and that's a big crowd.

First off, I don't consider the latter "trolls."  Their behaviour is not intended to provoke an emotional response per se.  They are trying to make themselves feel better, and the reactions of others only matter when those reactions boost their self esteem.  In fact, when we disagree with them, it means that we don't appreciate their genius.  Yes, they then call us sheeple or what have you, but that is still about being better than they feel they are.  They aren't brainwashed.  They've seen through the lies, even if they don't quite know how the lies work.

Second, I prefer to meet each new person on the terms in which they present themselves.  I don't want to speculate about which of them is the newest sock.  I don't want to try to determine if they're sincere about their beliefs or not.  I choose to believe that each new person is a new person until they prove otherwise, and I choose to believe that they aren't a troll until they prove otherwise.  I really do believe that it's more useful to behave that way.  I think we further the cause of education more that way.

[Noldi400]

There are also some people among the HBs that I consider to be, well... dangerously twisted or something - I'm at a bit of a loss to come up with an appropriate phrase.

Once, a few comments into an exchange on YT, a (presumably) female poster accused me (that was the tone of it) of being Jewish.  Whether I am or not is irrelevant - once she veered off in that direction, that was basically the only answer she would give to any comment I made.  I suppose it had the desired effect; I shut up and went away.

Let me be absolutely clear: I did not consider it an insult in the slightest way, but she was obviously using it in that context, and (I think) somehow equated it with automatically being a disinformation agent. If she was serious, she's one creepy individual.

[onebigmonkey]

There are also some people among the HBs that I consider to be, well... dangerously twisted or something - I'm at a bit of a loss to come up with an appropriate phrase.

Once, a few comments into an exchange on YT, a (presumably) female poster accused me (that was the tone of it) of being Jewish.  Whether I am or not is irrelevant - once she veered off in that direction, that was basically the only answer she would give to any comment I made.  I suppose it had the desired effect; I shut up and went away.

Let me be absolutely clear: I did not consider it an insult in the slightest way, but she was obviously using it in that context, and (I think) somehow equated it with automatically being a disinformation agent. If she was serious, she's one creepy individual.

There are plenty of people out there for whom religious persuasion is all the proof they need that someone is not worthy of their time, to say the least.

In a similar vein, there was a poster on DIF, now banned, who used von Braun's Nazi party membership as an argument in favour of the hoax. Despite numerous attempts to point out to him that his German passport did not somehow invalidate science, and that von Braun did have quite a good record for making accurate rocket launches (at London!), he refused to accept it.

[Echnaton]

In a similar vein, there was a poster on DIF, now banned, who used von Braun's Nazi party membership as an argument in favour of the hoax. Despite numerous attempts to point out to him that his German passport did not somehow invalidate science, and that von Braun did have quite a good record for making accurate rocket launches (at London!), he refused to accept it.

That was an early charge in Joe Rogan's gish gallop at Phil Plait during their infamous "debate" on the short lived Penn Jillette radio show. 

[cjameshuff]

In a similar vein, there was a poster on DIF, now banned, who used von Braun's Nazi party membership as an argument in favour of the hoax. Despite numerous attempts to point out to him that his German passport did not somehow invalidate science, and that von Braun did have quite a good record for making accurate rocket launches (at London!), he refused to accept it.

There was someone at BAUT/Cosmoquest that was similarly hung up on von Braun, went by "HighGain". Eventually got banned as a sockpuppet.

[Bob B.]

Second, I prefer to meet each new person on the terms in which they present themselves.  I don't want to speculate about which of them is the newest sock.  I don't want to try to determine if they're sincere about their beliefs or not.  I choose to believe that each new person is a new person until they prove otherwise, and I choose to believe that they aren't a troll until they prove otherwise.  I really do believe that it's more useful to behave that way.  I think we further the cause of education more that way.

How I go about dealing with HBs has changed over the years as I've gotten more accustom to their behaviors.  My approach of late is to be as impersonal and unemotional as possible.  Address the argument, not the person.  I don't care about the person, what his/her motives are, or whether he/she is a sockpuppet.  They can ramble on and insult me and I really don't care because they mean nothing to me.  However, if they make factually incorrect statements, or argue that Apollo was a hoax, I'll go on record with the appropriate corrections and counterarguments.  When I can, I'll address my posts to the wider audience rather than making it look like I'm engaging the HB one-on-one.  The down side to this approach is that I'm often ignored because the HB would rather go after people they can wind up.

[gillianren]

How I go about dealing with HBs has changed over the years as I've gotten more accustom to their behaviors.  My approach of late is to be as impersonal and unemotional as possible.  Address the argument, not the person.  I don't care about the person, what his/her motives are, or whether he/she is a sockpuppet.  They can ramble on and insult me and I really don't care because they mean nothing to me.  However, if they make factually incorrect statements, or argue that Apollo was a hoax, I'll go on record with the appropriate corrections and counterarguments.  When I can, I'll address my posts to the wider audience rather than making it look like I'm engaging the HB one-on-one.  The down side to this approach is that I'm often ignored because the HB would rather go after people they can wind up.

True enough.  I know that "appeal to the lurkers" is often silly, but I do think that this is one of those places where the lurkers really can see what's really going on.  I think when they see that you aren't letting the HBs get to you, and that this makes the HB ignore you, they start to see the validity of the argument--or at least the invalidity of the hoax argument, such as it is.  Oh, I'm sure there are also some lurkers who want to believe in the hoax and aren't interested in the facts, but I think more lurkers are fence-sitters.

Noldi, that's why Charlie Chaplin wouldn't respond after people who had seen The Great Dictator asked if he was himself Jewish.  He said it wasn't the point, and if he denied it (because he wasn't), he made it look like he was accepting that calling someone Jewish was insulting them.

[ka9q]

First off, I don't consider the latter "trolls."  Their behaviour is not intended to provoke an emotional response per se.

My point is simply that it's worth considering the hypothesis that at least some of them may not actually doubt the reality of the Apollo program. And when someone states something they don't actually believe in a deliberate attempt to stir up others, that's trolling -- by definition.

Why they troll can have any number of explanations, ranging from simple amusement to an attempt to make themselves feel better by attacking another's sacred cow. None of this is in conflict with what you said, nor did I intend to imply that every hoaxer is a troll as I've described. I'm sure at least some really do believe what they say, and they would not necessarily be trolls.
 

[gillianren]

I'm perfectly aware that some don't doubt it, but I don't think "sure, the science is fine but the politics are off" is necessarily "I don't believe in a real hoax."  And even if it is, who cares?  Their motive is no more of interest to me than the possible motive of faking Apollo.  It's the arguments that matter.  If they're trolls, they're trolls.

[ka9q]

Well...okay, but since we spend a lot of time discussing reasons why these people believe as they do, and why they don't respond to facts and reason, I thought it only reasonable to suggest that maybe they aren't being truthful about their beliefs.

[twik]

In a similar vein, there was a poster on DIF, now banned, who used von Braun's Nazi party membership as an argument in favour of the hoax. Despite numerous attempts to point out to him that his German passport did not somehow invalidate science, and that von Braun did have quite a good record for making accurate rocket launches (at London!), he refused to accept it.

I think that in the politically-motivated HBers, there is a subtype who really doesn't care about the science or history, they merely are trying to prove that The US Government Is Evil. Proving a hoax, helps prove the evil, and, conversely, proving the evil supports a hoax. So, von Braun's Nazi associations are considered to be proof of a hoax, because Nazis are evil, and evil governments do evil things, like hoaxing moon landings.

I think you can see it in Patrick's postings where he starts nattering about "militarizing" the Moon. He doesn't really care that this would invalidate many of his points that you can't get to the Moon at all - he's simply trying to make some point that the US government did not take part in something complex and inspiring.

[gillianren]

Well...okay, but since we spend a lot of time discussing reasons why these people believe as they do, and why they don't respond to facts and reason, I thought it only reasonable to suggest that maybe they aren't being truthful about their beliefs.

I also think we spend too much time discussing why they believe the way they do.  I really don't believe it matters.

[Echnaton]

Gillian, don't you enjoy a little meaningless chatter now and then?

[gillianren]

Sure.  I just don't think unproductive chatter is worth it.  What's more, "why they believe the way they do" always involves someone making claims about mental health that shows that the person doesn't know anything about psychology.  This, for what I think are obvious reasons, really bothers me.