Is it worth arguing with HBs?

[wdmundt]

I've done more than a little arguing with HBs, mostly in the comments section on YouTube. Without a doubt, and most of us have seen this, the video makers can't be convinced of anything. You can lay out a chain of evidence, show them pictures, reports, budgets, studies and on and on and on. And they will always respond with "Aldrin was a drunk," or "the Russians knew this, but didn't tell anybody" or "your stoopid" or whatever . It is impossible to convince them of anything.

So is it worth doing? Sometimes I just do it in case anyone else who might be swayed by the HB argument is reading. I've made a point of trying to leave the top message with words to google that will lead the reader to a debunking site.

Is there a better way to go about this?

[BertL]

It's hardly worth doing it, for me. I do it because for some reason I enjoy discussing with incredibly stubborn and ignorant people.

[Bob B.]

I do it partly because I learn from it. I probably know an order of magnitude more about Apollo today than I did before I started arguing with a bunch on lame brained HBs. They may not learn anything but I do. Furthermore, I take satisfaction in knowing I'm doing something, however small, to stand up for the truth and the honor of those who the HBs insult. I've received enough thanks over the years from people who have read my writings to know the effort is worthwhile.

[nomuse]

I like learning. I like practicing on how to describe technical subjects. I find talking about the sorts of questions the hoax believers come up with clarifies my thinking -- and gives me better tools to use in the rest of my life (Odd example; through discussion of shadow-hiding I finally understood why velvet looks as it does, and that allowed me to write an effective shader for an artwork I was rendering at the time).

And I do feel there is a worthwhile fight here to not demean the work of science, but more importantly, to not allow it to become alien. So many of the people who show up in these discussions seem to think of science as hermetic, as something done in some ivory tower far from their experience. It may be to their benefit or to their detriment, but it is not something they can either understand or control. I try to disabuse them a little of this idea; to plant the idea that one can understand something of science, read up, do some kitchen-table experiments, be a backyard astronomer, etc.

Connected to that is the strong perception I have of many people on internet discussion boards (same thing happens on some of the art boards I hang out at); of retreating into a limited universe, where it only exists if it can be Googled. There is this ongoing "How can you believe that? Show me a link where it says that!" I try to shake up that reduced sphere of experience and point out all the ways in which you can observe that don't involve reading some words on some web page (or hearing some words in a YouTube video.)

[Nowhere Man]

Most of the anti-HB group are not arguing to convince the HBs, but to present the facts to the wider audience: The fence-sitters, the people who have heard some of the HB claims but not the counter-arguments. If the HB winds up making himself look foolish, so much the better.

Fred

[Jason]

You don't argue with a HB to persuade an HB that he's wrong. That almost never works. Instead you gain the entertainment of having made a good argument, the benefit of the research you did to present that argument, the benefit of informing others, and possibly coming across one or two ideas that you hadn't thought of before.

[wdmundt]

Most of the anti-HB group are not arguing to convince the HBs, but to present the facts to the wider audience: The fence-sitters, the people who have heard some of the HB claims but not the counter-arguments.

the benefit of informing others, and possibly coming across one or two ideas that you hadn't thought of before.

That's pretty much what I've been thinking. Does anyone have success stories with this tactic?

[ineluki]

wdmundt said:

That's pretty much what I've been thinking. Does anyone have success stories with this tactic?

IIRC there was a thread about succes stories over at BAUT

[furi]

nowhereman said:

Most of the anti-HB group are not arguing to convince the HBs, but to present the facts to the wider audience: The fence-sitters, the people who have heard some of the HB claims but not the counter-arguments. If the HB winds up making himself look foolish, so much the better.

Fred

That is pretty much why I do it, there are so many rational people that I know now from which I hear "I used to belive it was real, but now I don't know, I mean look at the evidence such as {Random HB Crock Here}." Which is normally a cue for a serious discussion about the nature of reality (there is a bet between a couple of people to see if I can go a night at the pub without discussing science / technology or cats(not a chance)).

The other is to try and see if the HB tie themselves up by the neccesary untying of physical nature of the universe for them to get the theory to work, that way the fence sitters normally come firmly down as looking at these arguments as "A bit o' a larf", and with a Giant Super Double Heart Attack inducing portion of extra luck with luck sprinkles and some lucky sauce, you might get an HB to suffer a BFOTO and progress elsewhere with their newfound freedom.

[dwight]

I used to think it was worth my time for the fence sitters. The problem is that the hard core HBs will do _whatever_ it takes to make their point known. The recent Mark Gray debacle highlights their mindset. When a so-called student of videography has nary of an iota of copyright law, and another has, despite about 25 pages worth of video dissertation as to why the video looks the way it does (ie sequential artifacts), and still posts apparent surprise at the same videotape, and the collective wolfpack decimate a man's name simply because he has a website about mechanical TV; you soon realise these folk are nothing more than scum. I'd honestly rather waste my time swallowing vodka laced cement than engage with those twits. The internet is great for the resources it allows to be at finger tips reach, but it also creates a sub-human culture who relish hiding behind anonymity, and being spiteful hateful xyz's just for the sake of being so.

[petereldergill]

What's this about vodka??? Where??When???

Pete

[JayUtah]

Don't underestimate the ability of fence-sitters to see through people like Jarrah White who are morally as well as factually bankrupt. It's not necessary to respond to every ill-mannered rant in order to maintain a balanced presentation. Sometimes it's better to let that sort do as much talking as possible because every sentence they utter diminishes their credibility.

[VALIS]

Once on another board I saw a thread where the Aldrin VS Sibrel video was posted. Most participants didn't recognize what the video was about and just saw it as a funny "old guy beats young guy" video. It was that kind of board. Anyway, one guy mentioned he had seen scientific proof showing the moon landings to be fake and that it was a shame. I refered him to Clavius and he enthusiastically thanked me a few days after.

So I didn't exactly argue with him but I can vouch there are happy endings

[Obviousman]

I do it for pretty much all the reasons previously mentioned.

Sometimes a question is asked and I have to dig deep into technical reports I would normally never bother with. I pick up lots of interesting information, gain a greater appreciation.

I do it to check on the person asking the questions; sometimes they are a person who has heard the misdirection of the HBs, and just need to be shown how to research the subject for themselves.

I do it for the lurkers, who might otherwise just swallow the HB nonsense. I always try to stress researching the facts yourself, consulting experts (plural) in the fields where you don't have the background to make a valid judgment, checking the what people have said is actually what they did say, etc, and most importantly to try and set up experiments to verify the data you have been given. That last one is a killer for the Jack White debates; once people try to reproduce the things he says are impossible, they discover what a fraud he is.

Lastly, and not to my credit, I do it because it is so easy to slap these people with a cold wet fish and make them look stupid. It's schadenfreude.

99% of the time, you are unlikely to change the mind of a "hard core" HB.

[Grand Lunar]

Most of the time, when I argue against HBs, I do it not for their education, but for the education of others that are not familar with Apollo and space.
I hope to show the double standards that HBers use when it comes to Apollo and other space flights that are regarded, even by HBers, as real.