A speculation about hoax believers

[PeterB]

Quite a few years ago I did a computer programming course, learning a bit about Pascal. One of the aspects of Pascal was that it taught you how to compartmentalise programs, using functions and procedures.

As a result, it’s possible for a programmer to write a function or procedure for an already existent program, and plug it into that program without any problems. All you need to know are the incoming and outgoing parameters.

Of course, while it’s possible to write the function or procedure without seeing the main program into which it’ll be plugged, it would certainly help a lot to be able to look at it.

Still, I wonder if this might underlie the belief of a number of HBs that it would be possible to compartmentalise a faked Apollo program to such an extent that few people involved realised they were working on a hoax.

(Note, I’m not saying it makes sense – there are still fundamental flaws with the concept. I just wonder if this might be a source for the belief.)

[HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk)]

peterb said:

Quite a few years ago I did a computer programming course, learning a bit about Pascal. One of the aspects of Pascal was that it taught you how to compartmentalise programs, using functions and procedures.

As a result, it’s possible for a programmer to write a function or procedure for an already existent program, and plug it into that program without any problems. All you need to know are the incoming and outgoing parameters.

Of course, while it’s possible to write the function or procedure without seeing the main program into which it’ll be plugged, it would certainly help a lot to be able to look at it.

Still, I wonder if this might underlie the belief of a number of HBs that it would be possible to compartmentalise a faked Apollo program to such an extent that few people involved realised they were working on a hoax.

(Note, I’m not saying it makes sense – there are still fundamental flaws with the concept. I just wonder if this might be a source for the belief.)

Thinking "outside the box" isn't something I associate with most HBers when it comes to seeing how their dreamt up schemes would all fit together.

I don't think HBers realise the consequences of each and every one of their claims in terms of how deep the comspiracy goes. I'm in discussions with someone on another board on this very subject - he has re-stated his position that only a few top NASA officials were in on the scam, along with the astronauts themselves and a few set designers and film crew.

Yet he is quite happy to claim that 380kg of moon rocks were found in Antarctica. Notwithstanding the fact the he has conveniently ignored all the evidence placed before him as to why Apollo rocks differ from lunites, the date when lunites were first discovered, and even that Apollo brought back ten times more lunar material than has ever been discovered here on Earth - he is overlooking all the analysis done by geologists and scientists on the composition and origin of the Apollo rocks. Are they all wrong, or are they all in on the scam?

The more intricate and involved HB claims get, the more people woud have had to be "in" on it - if it were technically possible to orchestrate a scam of such epic proportion of course...

[nomuse]

My feeling is that HB's _do_ assume a great degree of compartmentalism. But to them it comes out of the basic problems involved.

The HB thinking is, I believe, something like this; "I don't understand space science very well. Therefor (and since I am of above-average intelligence and I have been reading up on the subject) most people, including most of the employees of NASA, GM, etc. don't understand any of it. So they would be easy to fool. Only a handful of people at the very top actually understood enough science to see that the thing was impossible."

I do find this belief fascinating -- fascinating in it's stupidity, that is. Outside of the conceit that a little googling and some "logical thinking" can put the HB ahead of any of those poor rubes who, say, spent a half-dozen years at college pursuing a degree, it is the hidden assumption that science is only the province of scientists. That, somehow, levers and shadows and objects falling in a vacuum are all things thought about only by a small select group, and then only by using higher mathematics (or huge and expensive scientific instruments).

The questions that HB's tend to come up with (like that perennial "no stars" one) are not understood at the level of Professor Tryphon Tournesol, sole creator of the atomic-powered Moon Rocket -- they are understood at the level of the high school science student and the amateur photographer.

To go back to the compartmentalism idea, it is as if only one of the programmers actually knew what a register was, or even what language they were programming in. It is barely possible, in the spirit of the "infinite monkey" experiment, you might be able to generate code in that environment. It's a little harder to believe that any of the contractors building space hardware would want to use this as a business model.

[Jason]

I think you're giving the hoax believers far too much credit. A much simpler explanation is that the hoax believers simply haven't thought out all the logical implications of their theories, and have effectively isolated themselves among a community of people with similar beliefs who see no need to question their common assumptions.

[reynoldbot]

My parents are geologists, they both have masters degrees in geology from the University of Tennessee. I found out recently that they have both handled lunar samples from the Apollo missions, and they both vouch for their authenticity.

[Obviousman]

I still think it comes down to one or a combination of reasons:

1. Someone to blame. If the government covered up Apollo, then they are probably covering up lots more. That makes them untrustworthy, and are probably to blame for lots more thats gone wrong in the world. Whenever something goes wrong, or is something we don't like, we can blame the government / NWO / (insert choice of secret society). It also relates to 'order from chaos'; people often feel powerless in todays chaotic world, and if they can blame someone for that lack of power, it helps them cope.

2. I'm better than you are. If you are able to 'see through' the 'hoax' that is 'fooling' most other people, you must have superior insight and therefore a 'better' person. You must be smarter, more intelligent - and you don't need some stupid degree to prove it. This also makes them privy to a 'secret', that THEY know something that others do not; again it gives them a feeling of superiority.

3. Mental state. There are people who have mental disorders that make them prone to believing in any 'conspiracy theory', no matter how absurd. This reason does NOT apply to most of CTists out there; it's only in rare cases.

The first two are very broad descriptions which can be broken down further into sub-groups, but they'll do for this discussion.

[Retrograde]

I won't pretend to understand the psychology of some of the people I've come across in this weird wacky world of the internet. However, I do note that a very common argument is I-wouldn't-have-done-it-this-way, therefore no-one-else-would-either, thereby proving that the whole thing was hoaxed. By similar argument, I can prove that the people here are actually part of a hoax, because I wouldn't post the way they do.

[reynoldbot]

I dig your avatar Khrushchev. And your "signature" as well. Hell, I dig everything. Kudos to everyone for anything.

I think HB's act a certain way because they have nothing better to do. The internet is the best place to act like a pompous jerk so why not?

[jagster]

The internet and CB radios, of course.

[greigdempsey]

I think the problem with hoax deniers is they believe they discuss and understand science when they are eminently unqualified to do so. NASA could be telling them a whole lot of lies and none of them would have the remotest clue.

[LunarOrbit]

greigdempsey said:

I think the problem with hoax deniers is they believe they discuss and understand science when they are eminently unqualified to do so. NASA could be telling them a whole lot of lies and none of them would have the remotest clue.

I see a lot more unqualified claims coming from hoax believers. For example, hoax believers seem to be quite fond of the claim that the Apollo spacecraft would need to be shielded with 6 feet of lead in order to pass through the Van Allen Belt, but I have never seen them back that claim up with any calculations.

Apollo supporters very often back their claims up.

[greigdempsey]

admin said:

greigdempsey said:

I think the problem with hoax deniers is they believe they discuss and understand science when they are eminently unqualified to do so. NASA could be telling them a whole lot of lies and none of them would have the remotest clue.

I see a lot more unqualified claims coming from hoax believers. For example, hoax believers seem to be quite fond of the claim that the Apollo spacecraft would need to be shielded with 6 feet of lead in order to pass through the Van Allen Belt, but I have never seen them back that claim up with any calculations.

Apollo supporters very often back their claims up.

Do you have qualification that would lead me to believe you would understand even a non mathematical introduction to a study of the Van Allen belts never mind the actual science ?

[Bob B.]

greigdempsey said:

… they believe they discuss and understand science when they are eminently unqualified to do so.

That is a spot on description of a hoax believer.

greigdempsey said:

Do you have qualification that would lead me to believe you would understand even a non mathematical introduction to a study of the Van Allen belts never mind the actual science?

There are many people who frequent this board that are engineers and scientists, some of whom work in the space industry. I’m an engineer myself. What are your qualifications?

[LunarOrbit]

greigdempsey said:

Do you have qualification that would lead me to believe you would understand even a non mathematical introduction to a study of the Van Allen belts never mind the actual science ?

Try me. Go ahead... be the first to show calculations that prove that 6 feet of lead would be required.

[Jason Thompson]

Do you have qualification that would lead me to believe you would understand even a non mathematical introduction to a study of the Van Allen belts never mind the actual science ?

Do you? Put up some actual science. Show us where we have been going wrong all these years doing real experiments with radioactive material. I know I've done such experiments before. Have you?