I think it works both ways. Those who have always championed the moon landings as authentic, will not easily alter their point of view, and vice versa. Believers are of the opinion that their explanations always make sense, that their 'logic' is always unimpeachable, yet non-believers often honestly do not see it that way...
I would not call myself a "believer"; the correct term is "engineer", with a couple of decades in aerospace, and I have worked for and with Apollo engineers and Apollo-era astronauts. I have never seen - not once, in nearly a decade of participating in "hoax" discussions - anyone make an argument which accounted for the entirety of the evidence that the Apollo crews landed on and returned from the Moon. In fact, not one of the hoax claimants I've encountered has even grasped the
scope of the evidence, let alone understood most of it.
Sorry, but there
aren't always two sides to every story, and opposing views are
not always worthy of equal respect. I don't simply believe Apollo happened because I was told so, but because I
understand it. I won't easily alter my opinion as to the reality of Apollo because I am reasonably familiar with the record, I understand much of how it works, I use some of the same techniques and knowledge in my own work, and I have had
first-hand opportunity to judge the competence and integrity of some of those who made it happen.
But perhaps you will have something novel to offer in the way of hoax claims, and will be the first to offer a comprehensive and realistic alternative to the record; I look forward to your arguments.
