Post by MarkS on Apr 14, 2006 21:45:11 GMT -4
Hi,
In lurking over several months I notice three key characteristics of hoax believers: Incomplete, incorrect or missing knowledge of what they're talking about, and an apparently iron will to not accept introduction of new (or correction of faulty) knowledge. Whereas the latter deficiency may haunt them possibly forever, the main contributors here do the yeomen's job to remedy the former.
Thirdly, I also notice the cyclical nature of the HB/AB interaction. Someone reads Rene or Sibrel, finds this site, and engages in discussion. The same topics - direction of shadows, the film inside the Hasselblad, the 'temperature' of space - are brought up by the HB and explained - sometimes in considerable detail - by the AB. With insignificant variation the HB exhausts the panoply of Apollo objections (each of which has been answered, is being answered, and will be answered again) and then makes way for the next unconscionable objector.
Would a forum topical reference section help save effort once it's established? The section would need to be moderated and read-only to the public. As each major subject - Radiation and Shielding, Temperature Control, Optics - is built, a thread could be started elsewhere in which an outline is agreed upon and content inserted, Wiki style. The final article can then be posted by the administrator in the reference section, and next time someone says the Saturn V rocket would need to be 266 times bigger to reach the Moon, they can be referred to the appropriate reference article (at a cost of ten words) versus again explaining principles of multi-stage rocketry and Newtonian physics (several hundred words).
Not to be pessimistic, but the outcome for the HB is unfortunately likely the same in either case.
In lurking over several months I notice three key characteristics of hoax believers: Incomplete, incorrect or missing knowledge of what they're talking about, and an apparently iron will to not accept introduction of new (or correction of faulty) knowledge. Whereas the latter deficiency may haunt them possibly forever, the main contributors here do the yeomen's job to remedy the former.
Thirdly, I also notice the cyclical nature of the HB/AB interaction. Someone reads Rene or Sibrel, finds this site, and engages in discussion. The same topics - direction of shadows, the film inside the Hasselblad, the 'temperature' of space - are brought up by the HB and explained - sometimes in considerable detail - by the AB. With insignificant variation the HB exhausts the panoply of Apollo objections (each of which has been answered, is being answered, and will be answered again) and then makes way for the next unconscionable objector.
Would a forum topical reference section help save effort once it's established? The section would need to be moderated and read-only to the public. As each major subject - Radiation and Shielding, Temperature Control, Optics - is built, a thread could be started elsewhere in which an outline is agreed upon and content inserted, Wiki style. The final article can then be posted by the administrator in the reference section, and next time someone says the Saturn V rocket would need to be 266 times bigger to reach the Moon, they can be referred to the appropriate reference article (at a cost of ten words) versus again explaining principles of multi-stage rocketry and Newtonian physics (several hundred words).
Not to be pessimistic, but the outcome for the HB is unfortunately likely the same in either case.
