So as many of you know, the Apollo Moon Landings were a hoax

This particular hoax is one of the most important "conspiracy theories" out there to use as a red pill,

because once its exposed, it undermines the credibility of the establishment government, media, education, science, etc

The Apollo Moon Landing is so obviously fake, so ridiculously impossible, that only an idiot could still believe it after examining the evidence, and working out some basic math and physics.

Belief in the moon landings truly is a litmus test for stupid

And yet, time and again i encounter people online who claim to be engineers, scientists, etc but who believe in the moon landings.

So i look more closely at the psychology of belief in the moon landings.

what makes apparently intelligent, educated people believe absurdities that they could debunk themselves just by applying the simple math and science they allegedly learned in school?

i often hear people say "we" went to the moon

so i correct them and say "no, some other people might have gone to the moon, but you didn't go anywhere near the moon

so there is this feeling of belonging, sort of like being a sports fan. "we won" the big game. no, "the team" won, and "the fans" merely observed

so we need to drive a wedge in between the average "fan" and the "team" he associates with

we need to weaponize the language of the moon landing hoax debate, by using subtle and not-so-subtle linguistic manipulations

---

for example, i frequently ask people "why do you believe in the Apollo Moon Landings"

but to weaponize this question, i could simply substitute some loaded words into the question, depending on the suspected triggers of the opponent

---

so "why do you believe in the Apollo Moon Landings"

becomes

"why do idiots believe in the Apollo Moon Landings"

nobody wants to be associated with a belief that could make them an idiot, so the target becomes curious and digs a little deeper

---

"why do you believe Americans can walk on the moon, but Russians can't walk on the moon"

by framing it as a nationalist argument in the context of the cold war, some emo-hipster knee-jerk anti-American will reflexively be opposed to acknowledging their own superiority

---

"why do you believe men walked on the moon ?"

by framing it as a male-dominant, patriarchal narrative, the feminist beta-male types will reflexively be opposed to associating themselves with the idea that men can do things that women can't

---

"why do you believe the government when they tell you they sent men to the moon ?"

by framing it as a claim made by the government, some people will be naturally skeptical of governments, and so will not like the idea of themselves believing something the government said

---

"why do you believe NASA's claim to have sent men to the moon?

this directly calls into question the credibility of NASA, which is probably startling for some people who see NASA as a quality name-brand

---

"why do you believe white men walked on the moon ?"

so far this question seems to be the most controversial.

apparently inserting the word "white" into the question seems to trigger a lot of people, who then focus only on the word "white" and forget about the rest of the question, which is hilarious to watch

---

so to combine all these loaded words into one question, it may look like

"why do idiots believe the ZOG government's claim that NASA sent straight white men to the moon ?"