I notice that almost all conspiracy theories have either one, two or all these three things in common.

1. It's about a controversial political event or figures.
2. It's about celebtities death (Or alleged death like "Paul is dead" conspiracy theory).
3. It's about great tragedy or disaster.

However there is one conspiracy theory which doesn't have any of those three elements. I'm talking about the moon landing denier. Shouldn't an event as marvelous and magical (Yes science can be magical) like the moon landing brought everyone, including the conspiracy theorists, together?

Does anyone have a theory about this, well, (Conspiracy) theory?

For some there is just no hope. I took my mother (a few years before she died) to Luray Caverns. The entire time we were there as she looked around in awe she kept asking, “who in the world built this” and “how the hell did they do it”? I tried to explain, “Ma, this is a natural formation, no one “built” it”. To which she replied, “Bullshit, someone carved all this stuff out, this can’t be a natural formation”. She then proceeded to tell me that it had probably been done just to bullshit people into coming and paying “good money” to see it.

And no, she wasn’t demented. (Well, not in the clinical sense)

It’s all about money. Many people believe that the moon landing was faked for profit as well.

Not all CTs are about significant events.

Take chemtrails for example.

No seriously, take chemtrails, and HAARP, and fluoride and all the other half baked CTs out there

/generalisations/

1. The conservative mind fears change and uncertainty. The moon for millions of years was merely a vaguely distant astral companion to earth, and harbinger of seasons, moods, and lunacy. For it to suddenly join the concrete scope of humanity's physical attainments was a significant and uncomfortable paradigm shift for some.

2. It WAS a political event. It cost taxpayer money, and it was part of the Cold War space race. So some people were easily inclined to believe either that we shouldn't have done it, or that we would be highly motivated to pretend to have done if it weren't achievable.

3. Once it was whispered to be a fake -- even in jest -- some people in categories (1) and (2) were primed to accept it, or at least investigate it. And once you're in CT territory, as we know, all "evidence" in support is accepted and all evidence against is dismissed or ignored.

/generalisations/

It's kind of funny -- CTists today bend their efforts toward what they think of as 'scientific method' -- often in pursuit of disproving something in science (climate change, evolution, the moon landing). The contrast is a striking insight into our human brains.

There's a book on the subject -- Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer (Henry Holt & Co. 2002; revised and expanded edition).

IMO they are about explanations of significant events ,for example HAARP can be blamed for earthquakes, so they are still (By proxy) about significant tragedies or disasters.



I disagree, not all moon landing deniers are conservatives and your justification to call it political event is, no offense, stretching it.

Well, I find that Conspiracy Theories can play to the all too human failing of believing we are smarter than other people. Whether it is the moon landing was in Arizona or believing LBJ was behind the JFK assassination, or believing that the legal system is under Admirality Law and by not consenting to their contract you are above all statutes, the one thing they all have in common is that the believer has in their possession sekrit knowledge of "what really happened/what's really going on." It's a weird kind of empowerment, not least because a person arguing with the CTist can, whenever pointing to facts or a solid counterargument can always be countered with "sheeple" or "that's what they want you to believe."

Not that I have any scientific survey here, but I think that this perhaps a reason why most true-believer CTists seem to come from a background that could be considered, well, mundane. By day they may repair refrigerators or shuffle paperwork at an office but at home, they are the expert leading the charge to expose the truth of "what really happened."

'conservative mind' =/= 'conservatives'

I should have said 'some people perceived a political dimension to the event,' and so to the extent CT's may tend to attach to political events (which doesn't by the way explain them), the same people were susceptible to CT thinking with regard to the moon landing.

Do *I* believe it was a political event? Of course it was. It was the signal peaceful achievement of the military-industrial complex up to that time.

'generalisations' = 'don't impute to me statements like "all this are that" because that's obviously not what I'm saying'

'offense' = none taken

What Really Happened is a collection of conspiracy theories in which people with secret, suppressed knowledge exercise their powerful deductive capacities to discover the truth.

I went to that site. Hoo-boy!

I'll say one thing: They don't like Romney much.

But they don't seem to like anybody or anything much.

The Demon Haunted World, by Carl Sagan

I have a lightly used dragon in my garage for sale. Cheap.

I think the birthers are fully baked.

The reason why the moon landing denial is such an outlier to me is because unlike other CTs it denies an optimistic non threatening event. I can understand if there are people who want to deny Obama as president or US citizen because they find his policies threatening. I can understand if there are people who want to deny 19 hijackers responsible for such a colossal tragedy on 9/11 2001.

I don't really understand (Though i can speculate) why people want to deny one the greatest achievement of mankind. If moon landing happened during the middle ages or the 18/19th century then it's understandable why people would deny it, or even think the astronauts are witches, but the landing happens during the times of atomic bombs, televisions and other modern gadgets.

Even if you're a conservative who's afraid of change, or someone who distrusts government, or someone who's afraid of science wouldn't the sight of an astronaut on a place outside Earth bring warmth to your heart? Sure there may be disbelief at first but an outright denial which continues until today?

Okay, here's another aspect (theoretically) -- the theory of "the other."

Some people have a harder time generalizing to a group outside some given coterie. The "sight of an astronaut on a place outside Earth" would only "bring warmth to your heart" if you identify with the astronaut and the space program and the greater attainments of humanity. But if you are accustomed to holding yourself separate -- as a member of a religion, or a class, or a political party, or some other characterization -- I think it can be harder to expand that self-identity for any given cause or event. One would resist doing so.

Perhaps it's a case of arrested development -- like a grade-school imp who just can't be happy for anyone else, because everything us we/them, me/them, everything is a zero-sum game, and if "they're" doing something great then *I* am a poor ol' victim. Can't have that, so they reject it.

Dime-store psychology, I know, and not based on any scientific survey of actual moon-landing deniers.........

Just how many moon landing deniers are there? I don't think there are more than a handful and I have never encountered one. Some people just make up outlandish stories to get some attention.

Why don't we ever talk about conspiracy theories that turned out to be correct? It's not like people don't actually engage in conspiracies. We know they do. And there are people who have theories about those conspiracies who are on the right track even though they may not have all the details correct. We have criminal sanctions for many types of conspiracies.

The kooks give the rest of us theorizers a bad name.