mvinson
Mercury
BANNED (sock puppet of "fattydash")
Posts: 1
|
Post by mvinson on Jul 17, 2011 18:06:26 GMT -4
Greetings good people. I apologize if this question has been asked before; if so, please point me to the relevant thread.
My question is this. Do the HBs really, genuinely believe what they say? I'm not talking about the superficial ones (the people, usually young, who just knee-jerk to the conclusion that it's all a fake without knowing anything about it). I mean the ones who have studied the evidence, who maybe know a little bit about physics, technology, and engineering, but who nevertheless claim to believe the ridiculous assertion that Apollo was a hoax.
So, are they sincere, or in their heart of hearts do they secretly know that Apollo was not a hoax, but they somehow keep arguing that it was? And if that's the case, why?
(I wonder the same thing about people who can't accept evolution, for example).
Thanks in advance for any insight. I am a life-long fan of Apollo, but new to the whole hoax vs. reality debate. I'm a physicist and know quite a lot about the Apollo program.
Cheers,
Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 17, 2011 18:14:23 GMT -4
There are all types... the kind who are simply misinformed, the kind who are mentally ill, the kind who don't actually believe in a hoax but simply like to provoke people (ie. trolls).
I've been conducting a informal survey...
What do you think of people who use deception in a debate? For example what do you think of the use of multiple fake identities to create the illusion of support?
|
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 17, 2011 18:19:50 GMT -4
You known when I read the first post I thought it might be him, then I decided I was just being paranoid, I guess not.
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 17, 2011 18:23:32 GMT -4
Well, to be fair, you don't have the information I have.
But two new users within minutes of each other is unusual for this forum. Even more unusual is that they are posting from the same location.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jul 17, 2011 18:32:03 GMT -4
And I suppose the post here really does give an insight into the mentality of HB's or at least trolls who pretend to be HB's.
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 17, 2011 18:38:53 GMT -4
Or the trolls who pretend not to be HBs just to deceive people.
|
|
|
|
Post by carpediem on Jul 17, 2011 18:39:16 GMT -4
What do you think of people who use deception in a debate? For example what do you think of the use of multiple fake identities to create the illusion of support? And, people who use sock puppets to get around a suspension? |
|
|
|
Post by lukepemberton on Jul 17, 2011 18:44:56 GMT -4
I mean the ones who have studied the evidence, who maybe know a little bit about physics, technology, and engineering, but who nevertheless claim to believe the ridiculous assertion that Apollo was a hoax. And that's exactly the problem in a nutshell. They know a little bit about physics and technology from what they've read, and not a thing about engineering. One can't know a little bit of engineering, one is either an engineer of they are not. Ralph Rene was a classic example of a 'self taught' engineer/physicist. He claimed Apollo was a hoax, but didn't even understand Archimedes' principle. He dismissed A13 as another hoax, all based on hand waving oribital mechanics - yet he did not understand Newton's law of gravitation. In fact, every argument he put forward was wrong because while he had read about physics, he was unable to use it properly. |
|
|
|
Post by philthy on Jul 17, 2011 20:33:45 GMT -4
You known when I read the first post I thought it might be him, then I decided I was just being paranoid, I guess not. Not mention, both puppet writing styles are amazingly similar. ie: exact. Phil |
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jul 17, 2011 23:22:04 GMT -4
Actually, this does bring up some questions that are pertinent, at least, to posters on internet forums regarding conspiracies.
Why do so many of them attempt the "soft approach"? "Oh, I believe in the moon landings, I do. I just have one little niggling doubt, which I'm sure you can resolve for me...." Then, when the issue they bring up is actually resolved, the claws start to come out, until suddenly fattydash is WRITING IN ALL CAPS!!!!1!, rather than as the sane, sober scientist he purported to be.
I really think that they expect that, before they've reached the end of the first page, everyone will be completely overwhelmed by their "little niggling doubt".
|
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 17, 2011 23:31:54 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 17, 2011 23:37:59 GMT -4
It is my experience that there is no single psychological profile of conspiracy theorists. I do, however, believe that a vast majority of them really do believe what they are saying, no matter how insane it seems to anyone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 18, 2011 1:06:58 GMT -4
I think I disagree. Or it might be a nuance. I think they believe in their case; they believe in the reality that they are describing. But I don not think they necessarily believe in the details; in the actual arguments they present. This is a tough thing to get across to them; the idea that there are other people who do not think good science can be made with bad data.
To them, it is not particularly material if the details are wrong. It is the underlying reality that matters. So they are free to change the details, fudge the details, or just plain lie or make up the details. Because the details are nothing; they are just ammunition. They are never engaged in forging a chain of logical links; they are instead hurling random shrapnel in hopes that enough of it will get through.
And this is actually behind an argument I have with some on this forum, and others. Yes; when you look at the whole of the data, it would be absurd to accept the Apollo Project as anything other than reality. The number of different things you would have to satisfy to hoax it is simply too big (and many of them are all but impossible).
But even if you KNOW that the larger context is impossible, this is no reason to duck from answering a specific question. I believe that practically all (and to my experience, every question the hoax believers have come up with so far) can be answered adequately without needing to involve the context of the rest of the Apollo Project. Their ideas can be solved in isolation, on a case-by-case basis.
|
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 18, 2011 1:48:25 GMT -4
Personally, I think that making the average HB think about the magnitude of what they're suggesting will make that person realize that what they're suggesting is impossible. On the other hand, the average HB doesn't end up here. I think the average HB is someone who encountered the idea somewhere and just doesn't know enough to counteract it. I think the ones we get here generally go beyond that, and that's where we run into problems. The kind of twit who would make a series of sock puppets with theme names isn't an average HB. They've gone beyond that. These are also the ones tied into their own ideas enough so that, in general, they're impossible to reach. But even that is just a generalization, and I do believe it's possible to convince some die-hard HBs that they're wrong.
I believe, however, that the best way to approach the discussion is to assume that the person is rational. I think the best way to approach the discussion is to approach it as an education, and making the person really think about everything which would have had to have been involved is a fine way to start that education.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 18, 2011 6:43:19 GMT -4
To Twik, my apologies for repeating this from another thread, but the reasons for sockpuppetry include: - the wish to portray, completely falsely, that they have popular support when little or none exists - the wish to misrepresent their qualifications, current employment and other personal circumstances - the need to invent imaginary friends as they have few in reality - the need to imbibe those 'friends' with equally 'impressive' but completely false credentials - the need for praise from the invented 'friends' (even when self-given, to them it counts..) - the desire to mislead or misrepresent (be that for the '15-minutes syndrome', or simply to troll) - to create 'strawmen' puppets that advance weak support for the other side, so they can then refute the issues and appear to be 'winning'- the desire for revenge against those who are better informed or have successfully refuted their claims - the simple desire to 'hear themselves speak' (ie to read back their words over and over and congratulate themselves on how clever they are) ..and so on. All in all... I think that sock puppetry gives an extremely accurate indication of the type of person you are dealing with.. To nomuse and Gillian- I agree with you, but I also think us skepticy types need to be aware of the (quite effective) scattergunning technique of continually changing the subject... While it is ok to answer new questions, there is a risk that the poster may get away with earlier assertions not being properly debated. I think the old ones need to be repeated each time until they are properly debated by the purveyor, and if the 'new topic load' becomes ridiculously large (or if the new topics are made so subjective that they are difficult to debate, like fatty's 'essays'), then I think the best approach may be to ask them for their very best 'proof' and to make sure that one is fully covered before moving onto to the next.. I have noticed that apollo deniers do NOT like to be asked what they regard as the best 'evidence'. Because obviously if that gets refuted, they get off to a very bad start. Eg, I notice that radiation used to often be the favorite, but now... no-one seems to want to discuss it in detail. Which is sort of annoying (in a strange way!) for me - as I've got a *huge* collection of pretty much irrefutable evidence on that topic. 
|
|
