Dave McGowan

[Obviousman]

I heard it described on SGU quite nicely: it doesn't matter if your theory won't work, it doesn't matter if your theory and mine are mutually incompatible; as long as the theory is "anti official history" then it is acceptable.

[Peter B]

I heard it described on SGU quite nicely: it doesn't matter if your theory won't work, it doesn't matter if your theory and mine are mutually incompatible; as long as the theory is "anti official history" then it is acceptable.

That reminds me of something Peter "Ratbags" Bowditch wrote about cancer quacks on his website (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/cancercurers.htm). These people all have mutually incompatible theories about what causes cancer. But that doesn't stop them celebrating their individual wins, even though those wins would imply the others are all wrong.

[gillianren]

Your post really set me to thinking about this phenomenon.  I've never really considered the point before, but the moon hoax believers do seem to be some of the most zealous of the CTs.

With the possible exception of Birthers.

[cranj]

I think of it as nerd envy.

Personally, I don't think that's it at all, although this explanation will be an extremely easy sell to people who identify as nerds.  But I see some of the same behaviour from some 'nerds' whenever they leave the areas of their own expertise.  When I see people with a certain level of science knowledge at CosmoQuest publicly humiliate themselves with pompous and empty-headed declamations about history, law, economics, sociology, or some other topic, is this because they secretly envy historians, lawyers, economists, or sociologists?  I suspect not.

Contempt for other people's knowledge seems to be a very common trait, and I don't find the nerds to be immune from this tendency.

[Noldi400]

Your post really set me to thinking about this phenomenon.  I've never really considered the point before, but the moon hoax believers do seem to be some of the most zealous of the CTs.

With the possible exception of Birthers.

Which, now that you mention it, is another case of trying to tear down a great accomplishment. Or, at least, an historic occasion - the election of the first black US president.

[ka9q]

I've always found this one strange.  If the objective is to bitch about the US government, it's not like there's a shortage of real things to complain about.

Exactly. I'm continually accused (by the hoaxers) of blindly believing everything the US government tells me and of thinking that they can do no wrong. They don't stop when I express my opinions about Watergate, Vietnam and Iraq, not even when I label Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld as war criminals. Without exaggeration, I point out, because torture is formally classified as a war crime.

But no, they've already decided that I believe everything the government tells me, so I guess that clears things up.

[ka9q]

I think of it as nerd envy.

Personally, I don't think that's it at all, although this explanation will be an extremely easy sell to people who identify as nerds.

Well, I am admittedly one of those people who find it an easy sell, but I still think there's some truth in it. Apollo was the ultimate nerd stunt. I thoroughly enjoyed the Apollo 13 movie not only because it was about Apollo, but because the nerds on the ground got to be the heroes for a change. For a long time, Apollo was a symbol of human intellectual achievement; hence the cliche "If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we..." I don't apologize in the slightest for saying that we should celebrate intellectual achievements of all kinds, not just those in space. Without intellect, humans are pretty unremarkable animals.

And a lot of Apollo deniers do seem to resent all kinds of intellectual achievement, not just Apollo. So I think there's some validity to the claim, though it's probably safer to call it "nerd resentment" unless we can get some actual evidence (rather than wishful thinking) for an 'envy' element.

[Glom]

I've always found this one strange.  If the objective is to bitch about the US government, it's not like there's a shortage of real things to complain about.

Exactly. I'm continually accused (by the hoaxers) of blindly believing everything the US government tells me and of thinking that they can do no wrong. They don't stop when I express my opinions about Watergate, Vietnam and Iraq, not even when I label Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld as war criminals. Without exaggeration, I point out, because torture is formally classified as a war crime.

But no, they've already decided that I believe everything the government tells me, so I guess that clears things up.

That comes from an inability to see the world as anything other than black and white.

If you choose the path where you don't trust the gubmint then everything they say must be a lie. You must either have blind faith in their fidelity or blind faith in their ignominy. There is no middle ground.

It's also related to this New World Order type stuff as well. The notion of random enemies all over the place is too colourful. There must be a singular enemy, that being the Illuminati/Masons/OWG. Only that perspective is permitted in the binary world of the tin foil.

[Peter B]

Rather than targeting the nerds themselves, how about considering it's what the nerds have that the conspiracy theorists dislike - knowledge: the hard-won intellectual experience both from extended study and extended work experience, and what the people had to do and give up in order to achieve it.

Over on the UM forum Ove in the Moon Hoax thread metaphorically waves his hand and magically geologists know nothing about what a Moon rock would look like. Just like that 10, 20 or 30 years of study and hands-on work experience counts for nothing.

On what basis does Ove say this? None that I can see, but what power does he wield! With a mere assertion of ignorance on the part of geologists he can now claim the field is level and that he knows as much as they do. Gee, that was a lot quicker and cheaper than going to university and working your way up through the ranks of your chosen profession, and it works a treat on the Internet.

I probably haven't reached the right conclusion, but I'm fairly sure the underlying thought process is right: it's not nice being factually smacked down, even by someone who knows a lot more in the topic of discussion than you. So if you can't argue the facts, and you can't straight ad hom the other guy, then just denigrate his profession/knowledge.

[Kiwi]

I can't really add much about what exactly makes hoax-believers tick, but over the years have noticed four particular qualities in most of the vocal ones who put up a fairly good fight:

Young
Smart
Undereducated
Arrogant

Naturally there are variations and exceptions – we've had some who are old, smart, undereducated and arrogant.  Some HBs obviously have an above-average IQ, but not the education to back it up so it works properly, such as the having ability to think and debate logically.  More often than not, their under-education applies to Apollo – they don't know much about it, don't understand it, and so they rubbish it.  Some of them might be quite smart, but they have much more ego than brains – a very poor combination.

Fifty years ago I had all of the first three qualities and, thankfully, not much of the fourth, but I sometimes decided some procedure needed changing and bumbled in before I fully understood exactly why things had been done a particular way for a long time.  Got into trouble a few times before I understood the understanding part.

I left school aged 15 in 1964 and went to work in a world that was heavily populated by old, vocal Victorians (the era or state of mind, not the State in Australia) and to whom modern-day PC-Brigaders are very similar. I didn't know how to best handle them.

Looking back now, I can see that school was too boring, not practical enough and not interesting enough.  A lot of useless facts were rammed into my head and I was supposed to regurgitate them, but I certainly didn't get an education for living, and my parents hadn't helped either. There was nothing about relationships of all kinds, professional and personal, nothing about how and why things were done in the business world, and more importantly, nothing about logical thinking which I only learnt here and at the Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board in the 1990s, thanks to JayUtah and others.  And the biggest thought I have about that is, “Why the hell wasn't I taught that valuable stuff at school, before I was old enough to leave?”  I firmly think the world might be a better place if many more people were taught basic practical and logical thinking at an early age.

Because of the above, I often see my if-I-had-run-off-the-rails young self in some HBs, and feel sorry for them.

[Echnaton]

All in all, I see them as not too much different from many of the "ists" and "ers" that I run into elsewhere.  "Ists" being followers of an ism and "ers" being those part of a belief group, broadly speaking.  They are people who develop an identity based on a ideological, political or social theory that is divorced from any testable or objective reality,  Yet insist their theory has great explanatory power or if implemented will yield the most desirable results.  It is all too common.  With moon HBs we at least have objective evidence to beat them down with.

[raven]

My theory is a lust for secret knowledge and drama.
The truth is, they are more than happy we don't agree with them.
 It wouldn't be the same if all the 'sheeple' believed, as they wouldn't be the only ones 'in the know' any more. The exclusive club wouldn't be exclusive.
Furthermore, disinfo agents give add a sense of empowerment. "Haha, I am enough of a thorn in their side that they send actual people to try and refute me!"  In a world where one is lucky to get any kind of interaction with a person when talking to large entities like governments and big business, the idea that they are getting such a personal response just adds to the thrill.

[Eastsider]

My theory is a lust for secret knowledge and drama.
The truth is, they are more than happy we don't agree with them.
 It wouldn't be the same if all the 'sheeple' believed, as they wouldn't be the only ones 'in the know' any more. The exclusive club wouldn't be exclusive.
Furthermore, disinfo agents give add a sense of empowerment. "Haha, I am enough of a thorn in their side that they send actual people to try and refute me!"  In a world where one is lucky to get any kind of interaction with a person when talking to large entities like governments and big business, the idea that they are getting such a personal response just adds to the thrill.

Agreed. There seems to be a lot of narcissism involved as well as copious amounts of drama and a huge deficiency in critical thinking. When I saw a certain hoaxer dressed up as a secret agent in his videos, I knew right there that it was not about Apollo or any kind of truth, it was about him. Cleverness is no substitute for true awareness. 

I'm considered an expert in my field of work and I can usually tell in about 15-30 seconds if a person actually knows what they are talking about. I suspect it is very much the same for aerospace engineers when they hear Moon hoax arguments. I don't understand the science behind Apollo much more than a layman, but I took the time to actually learn why/how things work in order to develop a better, though limited understanding.

I also find that the people that do the most finger pointing usually have the most to hide.

[raven]

Like the old saying goes, one finger forward, three fingers back. Or as wise person said, watch for the plank in your own eye when picking at the speck in others.

[Obviousman]

I have to disagree. It's probably because I am a cranky, cynical old man but I believe that although many of the Ct people are simply ill-informed, the majority of the 'vocal' CT'ers are malcontents. If government were incredibly open, if businesses and financial institutions were the most altruist organisations on the planet, if armed conflict between nations / religions / groups were a distant memory, these people would still be complaining, still be claiming a cover up somewhere. And to boot, they normally embody all the worst traits they would claim to reject.

One only has to look at places like Pilots for 9-11 Truth; dissent is not tolerated: they are the very definition of dictatorship.