Name for those who support the Apollo Missions

[laxbear1735]

I'm writing a paper on the the possible hoax of the Apollo moon missions. and ive used the coined term "conspiractists" to obviously describe those who believe the conspiracy, but i don't have a general nam to describe those who believe the mission did happen, I thought of the term "anti-conspiracist" but double negatives aren't popular for a term paper, and it's annoying to type a bunch of times, if anyone has any good names, please post your suggestions

Thanks

[JayUtah]

I generally use "critic" if I'm speaking specifically of someone who disputes a conspiracy theory.

[Count Zero]

"Historian" was the first word that popped into my mind. This not only refers to the professionals who make a career of studying and interpreting the historical record, but also those amateurs and laymen (including scientist and engineers) who understand the evidence and how various pieces fit into overall chronology of events.

[nomuse]

"Rational?" "Informed?"

[PhantomWolf]

Well though it probably not helpful, generally those that are active in disputing the Hoax claims can be called ABs (Apollo Believers) or Hoax Debunkers. They are often called, by those defending the hoax claims, Government Stooges, CIA Agents, Paid NASA Disinformationists, NASA Provocateurs, Sheeple, Closed Minded and several things really aren't repeatable in a family forum.

[Jason]

Penguinaut.

[laxbear1735]

Hmm, ive had a couple of good names, maybe "rationalists", but maybe there migt be something better out there. If anyone has any more suggestions, feel free to comment.

[reynoldbot]

I've always liked the term Champion of Justice.

[Mr Gorsky]

The term I have often seen in connection with those who disbelieve conspiracy theories is Skeptic ... or Sceptic, pick your own preferred spelling.

However, the problem with using this term (or Apollo Believer) in connection with Apollo is that there is an underlying implication that both sides of the debate are fuelled by belief rather than by evidence. It seems to me that those who accept that Apollo happened are not acting solely on belief in the way that the Hoax Believers are.

To pinch a term from B5, how about Hoax Believers and Normals?

[JayUtah]

Yes, the problem really is that the different camps have different reasons for believing as they do, and so it's hard to find a set of terminology that doesn't also apply a value judgment.

[Bob B.]

How about historians and revisionists?

[nomuse]

Terminology itself is a potentially interesting area of discussion.

Often, the one side is described in terms of belief (aka "hoax believer"), whereas the other is described in terms of motive (aka "debunker.") This is because, oddly enough, the anti-Apollo veiwpoint is in many places the mainstream of thought, and the pro-Apollo arguer is an outsider. This board is in the minority, where the board's regulars are in the "pro camp" and hoax believers are put in the position of outsider. This is how so many of the hoax believers who come here end up describing themselves in terms of skepticism and free-thinking, and try to cast the board as straightjacketed and blinded by "mainstream" belief.

Outside of Apollo, each side prefers to see itself as informed, and the other side as deluded. Still, again, there is a shading; one side's belief is explained as the result of massive brainwashing by the military-industrial complex (or whatever we are calling it today,) the other is more usually cast as a personal credulity (that leaves its victim open to exploitation by hucksters).

Although each side prefers to see itself as better informed than the average, what they consider information is very different. For the hoax believers, they have discovered ideas suppressed by the mainstream, and links of communication (once, mimeographed newsletters and small-press publications, now, internet and mainstream press and best-selling books), that are unknown to the general public and fly below the radar of the nebulous powers-that-be. This puts the hoax believer in an interesting position; where they not only can but are urged to disbelieve what they identify as mainstream or official. Given the dumbing down and the growing psuedo-science content of the mainstream press, however, the hoax believer is increasingly forced to identify their enemy as being specifically government or the scientific community.

The skeptics, on the other hand, generally trust to science; not as a nebulous god, but as a method. Skeptics are from Missouri. They tend towards backyard engineers. To them, what is convincing is that Apollo, for instance, can be described in terms of basic science, which in turn can be tested empirically. For the skeptics, what convinces about science is that it is internally consistent, and that it generates hard predictions in numbers which can be satisfied with observation. (My view of the skeptic community may be weighted by the fact that this board is filled with engineers and Randi's board tends towards practical stage magic and Myth-buster type experiments).

What is hard for the skeptic crowd to understand is how unimportant this structure, method, and prediction ability of science is to the hoax believers. In their universe, their needs are satisfied with emotional connections; they react to facts on the basis of trust, personal connection, and whether they go in the same direction as beliefs already held. I can't recall more than one hoax believer who actually saw it as worthwhile to get up from his computer, go outside, and make a simple observation (such as seeing if they could cover the Moon with an outstretched thumb.)

So in short, there isn't a single language that describes both "camps." I do not believe one can even describe both groups in a neutral manner, as both have world-views that diverge radically at the most basic level. Myself, I would tend to operate from the "skeptic" point of view if I wanted to write an essay. For one thing, the skeptic accepts logical thought and presented argument and cited facts -- all which tend to be emphasized in formal essay-writing! For another thing, the skeptic believes that everyone is educate-able (with the exception of the hucksters and con-artists and snake-oil salesman like Bart Sibrel, who know very well they are selling tainted product). Skeptics do not hide their method or intent and are willing to give away their "secrets" to anyone if asked (and often when unasked as well!)

If one were to write from the point of view of the hoax believer one would of course be allowed vague assertions and veiled allusions -- all fair game in a style more akin to poetry than formal essay -- but they would also find themselves having to write of the general public with the disdainful monicker "sheeple," and to defuse any determined or powerful arguer from the other side by expanding their conspiracy and labeling those others as "debunkers," or "paid disinfo agents."

Let not this little attempt at an essay indicate that I believe we really have two parallel camps here. If all we were talking about was beliefs with no real-world connection -- say, if Greedo really did shoot first -- there might be argument that these are opposed but equal philosophies. However, hoax believers have me scurrying inside from the deadly chemtrails. Science believers built me an airplane so I can visit Paris. As long as I can test the veracity of Apollo arguments with an outstretched thumb I'll consider the "skeptic/pro-apollo/scientific" viewpoint to be the more powerful and the closer to an abstract ideal of "truth."

And, if nothing else, science can describe (through social anthropology, for instance) the hoax-believer much more completely than the hoax believer can describe the pro-Apollo crowd. "Paid debunker" is factually untrue, and it gives you no deeper understanding of motive or methods and no way to investigate same -- all you can do is assume they are lying to you.

[Count Zero]

You're giving lie to your nickname, nomuse.

So how much did laxbear1735 pay you to write the essay?

[JayUtah]

A television producer recently asked me some hard questions. Not hard in the sense that he was trying to play against me for keeps, but hard in the sense that these were over-arching questions that I realize now I should have been thinking about more for the past five or six years. Questions like what separates a scientific theory from a conspiracy theory? Or what makes a conspiracy theory so seductive to average people?

When you start answering these questions, you end up with a flood of dichotomies. Conspiracism and science are diametrically opposed in a surprising number of ways.

[asdf]

I always liked ADHD - Apollo Determined Hoax Debunkers