I was one who fence-sat for a while, mainly because I didn't know much about the Moon and Apollo. I heard the "evidence" of the conspiracy: "the pictures don't show stars", "the landscape looks like a backdrop (or the Nevada desert)", "the (unspecified) radiation would kill the astronauts", etc.

Again, not knowing much about the moon landings at that time, the CTs sounded plausible. However, I decided to do my own research. I found sites like this one (BA) and Clavius that explained how everything worked and what the Moon/interplanetary environment is really like. It took me no time after that to decide the CTs were rubbish.



CT believers, on the other hand, are strange in the fact that they will refute till the death anything that contradicts their CT, but will take the slightest rumor at face value if it supports their theory. For example:

(I apologize in advance for starting a CT if this spreads...) Since the Mars landscape looks a lot like the American Southwest, I told a person I know that is a rabid CT believer--in the Hoagland Mars mess mainly--that the Mars Sojouner footage was really made on a soundstage in southern Utah and the "bunny" that got run over was a Desert Cottontail that got in the way. (I had joked about that here on BAUT a while ago IIRC). He hung on my every word and proceeded to gleefully tell all his friends that the Mars footage was faked and the "bunny" was proof, just based on my one sentence...and he refused to believe me when I later told him I was joking and made the whole thing up.

__________________
"WARNING: Being launched into space is hazardous."--Lonewulf

Triplebrick is no longer birdable. It was fun while it lasted.

"N'oubliez pas: l'ours n'est pas un nounours!"--Nounours de Salmonberry