I've seen one guy argue that the sun is created and operated by NASA, and then there are the people who insist you can live from staring at the sun. Even a (quite nutty) friend of a friend claims to do this, someone I've personally spoken to and must unfortunately confirm is that dumb. He has 3 kids and is highly political, votes every time.
It's obviously the NOAA. They even tell you when they're going to be turning it on and off - it's like they're not even trying to hide it.
In addition, search for flat earth on a the popular crowd/fundraising sites. The lies they tell to separate the gullible from their money. It's a nice little earner.
"...think about it – without the help of so-called "experts", how do you really know what you’re looking at? It could be a hologram, projected from various government installations throughout the world. It could be a large, crudely painted balloon, held in place by helium and propelled by tiny sails and rudders (which is why it moves across the sky so slowly). Or, most likely, it could have been different things at different times and different places, depending on the technology available to the conspirators and the culture and beliefs of the population being deceived.
The hoax could easily have been imposed on a gullible world at many points in human history. Perhaps it began as a collective hallucination or a religious myth, or perhaps an especially bright star that came to be exaggerated over time. However the moon story started, early proponents of the hoax were swift to recognize how it could be exploited for their benefit, and shrewdly devised a scheme to use it to their advantage.
They began to spread rumors, falsify scientific observations, and invent new gods to represent this fictional celestial body. They ingeniously concocted the idea of "cycles of the moon", and as their resources increased, were able to create the illusion that this object in the sky actually went through such changes. To make their hoax more plausible to early, superstitious societies, they arranged for these cycles to coincide with the months of the year.
But don’t all qualified scientists and astronomers agree that there is a moon? Indeed, but shouldn’t one be suspicious of such unanimity, when universities are supposed to be forums for open debate of controversial issues. Even a layperson like myself knows that scientists are not supposed to approach issues with preconceived notions. Yet this principle is cast aside when the moon is at stake. You will never see the revisionist perspective on the moon being taught in institutions of higher learning, even as a controversial opposing view. In fact, in order to even become a recognized scientist in the current atmosphere of academic repression, one must pay lip service to the establishment’s orthodoxy. Could you imagine a student who argued the revisionist viewpoint on the question of the moon being awarded a degree? He would be hounded out of the university in an instant! How can one explain such behavior from institutions that are supposed to serve as forums for the free exchange of ideas, except to conclude that the establishment has something to hide?"
https://phdn.org/archives/revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisi...
I suspect they're an extreme form of "contrarian" that craves disagreeing with conventional beliefs to the point where it becomes part of their self-image/identity. Like other conspiracy theorists, they're obsessed with intricate rhetoric and arguments, but they rarely take the extra step of trying to prove something without obfuscation and without ulterior motivations.
This guy strapped himself onto a homemade rocket and lit a fuse. There are easier ways to prove/disprove the Earth is flat-- even if you don't buy the shadow-measurment and clock experiments. One could, for example, mount an expedition of to reach the edge of the Earth and take pictures. But that hasn't happened, ever. Or perhaps it did happen, and the effect was merely to quietly convert the very chagrined expedition team members from flat-earthers into round-earthers?
For some, possibly. As for the others, they would probably be a 99.9% / 0.1% ratio composed by actual believers and few smart con artists who saw the opportunity to cash on books, merchandise, donations, and perhaps even votes.
If it wasn't flat earth, it would be some other conspiracy theory, but a lot of the time it's simply all the conspiracy they can fit in their head.
They reminded me a lot of the classical "science" of bible theology. Where you take something ridiculus word for word - and then build a a complex stringent and logical philosophy above it. (with marxism I had similar experiences)
I'm afraid the religious mindset creates a switch that turns off critical thinking for certain topics. Then people can be more vulnerable to all kinds of hoaxes and scams.