Hoax debunkers are generally pretty confident about the facts involved and believe an intelligent individual will draw the right conclusion. There also something compelling about the agruments when viewed side by side. You can see how lacking many of the hoax arguments are that way.

A reputable scientist also strives to give a balanced presentation of his reasearch. A scientist will point out weak points of his own theory as well as any counter arguments as points to be resolved with future research. He is conservative in his conclusions making sure that they are derived directly from the data. Hoax believers, being psuedoscientists, do none of this. They borrow arguments from each other and don't really contribute much new information. Their research consists of digging through often obsolete sources to look for that one quote that may support their position. They selectively ignore other evidence and do not submit their theories to rigorous testing. This is why debunking sites present the hoax sites also. Real research entails considering all facts and evidence as best as we can determine them and see how our theories and hypothesis fits into the "big picture".

__________________
If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the precipitate.