Is it possible to convert a HB?

[Dr.Acula]

A short story of beliefs and knowledge

20 years ago there was a man living in Germany. This man was interested in some fields, amongst others in the history of spaceflights and astronautics. This interest started on April 12th 1981 with the first launch of the manned Space Shuttle Columbia. This event was broadcasted on German TV. It was a Sunday, about 1:00 pm German time and this young man was fascinated by the images.

In July 1969 he was two years old, so he wasn't able to watch the Apollo missions on TV. After the Columbia launch 1981 this young man began to research the US spaceflight program. He was fascinated, interested and excited. He discussed the movies and photos with colleagues and friends, especially those images from the Apollo missions. After a while there was a friend who called the photos being faked. He referred to the book of Bill Kaysing. Later this friend presented the script of Ralph Renes explanations. 1999 the man read David Percys book "Dark Moon".

This man, not a specialist in photographic analyse, radiation, engineering etc., was easily to impress with the big words and numbers in these books. After the FOX documentation and the release of "Lügen im Weltraum" from the German journalist Gerhard Wisnewski he was sure about a hoaxed moon landing. But then there were two confusing details in Wisnewskis book. First the author said, he investigated the original broadcast from the German TV (the broadcaster was ARD). But in his book he used a two-hour-documentation from a news-broadcaster (Phoenix). The interested man wondered, why the author referred to the wrong broadcast and in the first place not to the original NASA footage.

But the big thing was the screenshot from the Phoenix documentation which showed a the lunar surface through the CM window. At the top of the frame there was a structure painted green and orange. Wisnewski claimed, this was a studio structure. He compared it with this photo: http://lisar.larc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/MEDIUM/EL-2002-00473.jpeg
This was irritating. Why should NASA leave this scene in the footage? Why didn't they edit it? Why did they paint a structure green-orange, when they had to simulate a black sky? A quick research led the man to some interesting photos from Apollo 10, where this green-orange structure appeared as the window frame. The man wondered about the poor research skill of an acknowledged journalist and began to study the hoax arguments. He visited several fora (Baut, cosmoquest, Unexplained mysteries and others) and several youtube channels. He asked experts (Harlan Spence, Frank Cuccinotta, members of the Bochum Observatory etc etc).

Now this man knows, that he was wrong. He studied the evidences provided by NASA, he studied the fora, visited some special sites (i.e. Bob Bräunigs site). Although he doesn't understand each single detail, he knows, that Apollo happened.

I think, you have an idea, who this man is. Yes, it's me and I'm thankful to all the guys who explained all these special fields in great detail and with great patience. This is the reason, why I am here: to learn more.

[AstroBrant]

To answer your title question, yes. Vincent McConnell was a good example. I've run into some people with stories similar to yours who have stated that they were starting to fall for the hoax theory but were fortunate enough to encounter some good explanations for the claims they had seen. I think people like those, (and you), were hesitant to jump all the way on the hoax bandwagon because they had an intuitive sense about how impossible it must have been to fake something like that. So you looked further.

I've said many times that I think the questionnaire given to prospective jurors should ask a question like, "Do you think the Apollo moon missions were faked?" or "Do you believe 9-11 was an inside job?" Answering yes would be an automatic dismissal from jury duty.

[Luke Pemberton]

I'm fairly sure that the individual who once ran this forum was a hoax believer, that is why it is called ApolloHoax.Net. He changed his views based on the evidence presented. LO and other longstanding members of the forum will probably confirm this with more detail.

There was also a YouTube use called NASANAZI who said he had converted. He had a hard time convincing others that he had done so.

[AstroBrant]

There was also a YouTube use called NASANAZI who said he had converted. He had a hard time convincing others that he had done so.

Was that our NASA vs PETE, (among other socks)? If so, there are two possible explanations. First, he was spying: pretending to switch sides in order to gain our confidence in the hope that he could dig up some dirt or personal information on us. Or it was just symptomatic of his schizophrenia and he couldn't decide what he wanted to do. Bottom line, he went back to his hoax beliefs. I also think it may have had something to do with the attractive young Swiss lady who briefly participated as an Apollo defender in our YT discussions, and Pete was just trying to schmooze her.

[Bryanpoprobson]

Was that our NASA vs PETE, (among other socks)? If so, there are two possible explanations. First, he was spying: pretending to switch sides in order to gain our confidence in the hope that he could dig up some dirt or personal information on us. Or it was just symptomatic of his schizophrenia and he couldn't decide what he wanted to do. Bottom line, he went back to his hoax beliefs. I also think it may have had something to do with the attractive young Swiss lady who briefly participated as an Apollo defender in our YT discussions, and Pete was just trying to schmooze her.

Words taken from my mouth there, I was going to post the same, was just checking up on my list of known pete sock puppets. Nazinasa and Nasatellslies were definitely two of Pete's persona. I have a list of about 25.

[JayUtah]

I'm fairly sure that the individual who once ran this forum was a hoax believer, that is why it is called ApolloHoax.Net. He changed his views based on the evidence presented. LO and other longstanding members of the forum will probably confirm this with more detail.

Yes, I can confirm that.  He managed to convince Jack White to let him post some of White's pictures and arguments here.  That was a boon because at that time he would post things only within one of his tiny walled gardens.  We persuaded him that White was way off base, and he came around.  He was quite a character at the time.  Several years after that he emailed me to say he had straightened out his life, was seeing a nice girl, and was working and going to school.  We did good here.

[Luke Pemberton]

We did good here.

..and if we converted our Dutch friend??

[smartcooky]

I think it is perfectly possible for a conspiracy believer to alter their views. While I have always been an Apollo believer (I witnessed the landings from age 13 - 17), as a young adult I was a firm believer in much of the Kennedy assassination conspiracy (multiple shooters on the grassy knoll, mob/FBI/CIA involvement etc etc). Gradually, as I read more and more about it, I came to realise that it was a load of old cobblers. There was no sudden epiphany, just a gradual realisation over a number of years that elements of the alleged conspiracy just didn't add up.

As for the Apollo Hoax, I think that there are aspects of Hoax Believery that debunk themselves, that simply don't jibe with reality, and that do not require a degree in mathematics or physics to understand; any reasonable person can easily follow the reasoning.

The very first aspect of HB reasoning that I encountered was the shadows; the claim that because shadows did not appear parallel in some of the Apollo surface photos, there must be two lighting sources in use, and since, on the moon, the only viable lighting source is the Sun, the photos must be faked. I have seen numerous explanations about perspective, the slope angles or unevenness of the lunar surface, etc, etc, all of which are correct, and which explain why shadows sometimes do not seem parallel, but there is a much simpler key fact that debunks the multiple light source claim from the get-go, and this is that multiple light sources will cause multiple shadows. Anyone who has been to a night time sports event at an old style stadium where the lights are on lighting towers rather than spread around the tops of the grandstands, will recognise this phenomenon....


 
....players casting multiple shadows. With multiple light sources, there is simply no way to avoid multiple shadows. I'm really surprised how rarely I encounter this argument when people are discussing the shadow aspects of alleged Apollo photo fakery.

Now I don't wish to derail the thread into one about shadows, I merely point out that not all aspects of Hoax Believery require highly technical explanations in order to debunk them, and since alleged shadow anomalies are a very common theme among new HBs, it is a great one to tackle them with early on. The earlier you get to an HB, the more likely you are to turn them.

[Dr.Acula]

I'm fairly sure that the individual who once ran this forum was a hoax believer, that is why it is called ApolloHoax.Net. He changed his views based on the evidence presented. LO and other longstanding members of the forum will probably confirm this with more detail.

There was also a YouTube use called NASANAZI who said he had converted. He had a hard time convincing others that he had done so.

This guy had converted? Wow, that's really impressive and new for me. I only was aware of another youtuber (NASAvsPete) who was converted by GoneToPlaid.

[Dr.Acula]

There was also a YouTube use called NASANAZI who said he had converted. He had a hard time convincing others that he had done so.

Was that our NASA vs PETE, (among other socks)? If so, there are two possible explanations. First, he was spying: pretending to switch sides in order to gain our confidence in the hope that he could dig up some dirt or personal information on us. Or it was just symptomatic of his schizophrenia and he couldn't decide what he wanted to do. Bottom line, he went back to his hoax beliefs. I also think it may have had something to do with the attractive young Swiss lady who briefly participated as an Apollo defender in our YT discussions, and Pete was just trying to schmooze her.

Aaaah, I remember the lady. Sarah was her name, I read her responses. At this time I was converted about 5 or 6 years ago, if I remember right. Yes, this lady had something to say (and yes, she is attractive ) Is this right, that Pete isn't converted?

About Vincent McDonnell. Is this the young man who first pretended to release a video (or book or whatever), but interested people had to pay first for it?

[ka9q]

I've been at this for a while but I can't say I've ever personally converted anybody. Then again I tend to go after the really tough cases (e.g., Hunchbacked) where I'm really playing to the galleries, not them.

[Glom]

It's good to hear the tale of such an organic realisation. You retained enough of a sense of open mindedness and critical thinking to question what the conspiracists were selling and from there the edifice crumbled.

[AstroBrant]

..and if we converted our Dutch friend??

OMG, perish the thought! I would not want him on our side. I'd prefer that he just quit.
Now Hunchie is a different story. I've always hoped he would see the light. (Isn't he Dutch, too?)

[AstroBrant]

I can't say I've ever personally converted anybody.

Ah, but you don't know! As I mentioned in another thread, there are a lot of silent ones out there and you could have had more influence than you realize. The same is true for all of us.

[AstroBrant]

This guy had converted? Wow, that's really impressive and new for me. I only was aware of another youtuber (NASAvsPete) who was converted by GoneToPlaid.

No, he didn't actually convert. I believe he faked it. See my previous comment about that. (NASA vs PETE)

In addition to the appearance of Sarah on YouTube, there was a discussion between Pete and me regarding a photo he used in a video to make a point about shadows. (He said he took the photo.) I told him I was going to post a video showing how the photo was deliberately faked. He took the video down and suddenly started getting very friendly with me. Within a day or two he announced his conversion. So it could also have been a dodge to prevent me from revealing his deception.

There are several possibilities for his "conversion," including the possibility that he really did convert and then changed his mind.

BTW, does anybody know if NASACrooks is Pete? (It's the account with that horrible clown picture of Buzz for an avatar).