Message for Jarrah White, the hoax theory is dead Aug 25, 2011 19:20:08 GMT -4
Post by JayUtah on Aug 25, 2011 19:20:08 GMT -4
Remember the time he used ascent footage to "prove" that astronaut footpaths imaged by LRO were "faked"? LOL!
Actually no, because I don't really follow his activities. I sometimes comment on them when they're brought to my attention by others (such as you've just done), and that does sound like our friend. You probably have more experience with his hogwash than I.
A couple hours after he took his first giant step on the moon, Neil took a giant leap back into the LM. I see no wires, so if it was filmed on Earth that Armstrong guy is Superman.
That's what finally clinched it for Brian O'Leary, the astronaut-scientist who features in so much hoax drama. When he saw this leap, he said basically, "That proves it for me."
You may also have seen clips on YouTube from David Percy's epic 4-hour video What Really Happened on the Moon? Percy claimed to have personally viewed all the Apollo film and video footage. He even poses with a large tape cassette to show just how professionally he's applied his "award-winning filmmaker" skills to examining the Apollo record.
Anyway, he claimed that nowhere in the record were there feats of gymnastic skill that would be expected in diminished gravity. Keep in mind this was in the late 1990s when the Apollo mission debriefings were just being declassified. While reading the debriefing, I noticed Armstrong mentioned his fantastic leap up the LM ladder, and quickly went to the video archive to verify it. Sure enough, there was Armstrong leaping 5-6 feet.
When I presented this to Percy -- who at the time was still listening to his critics -- as an example he'd missed in his exhaustive survey of the Apollo video, he promptly ignored the fact that it existed and immediately launched into claims that "wires could have been used."
In other words, these guys keep missing the point. When you go on record saying, "I've examined the Apollo record in depth, and therefore I can say this or that about it," and you are contradicted relatively quickly, it's hard to credible base further arguments on your expertise with the evidence.
Nor can you change horses and stay credible. If you start by arguing that the record is suspicious because it lacks certain crucial details, then you can't credibly change lines of reasoning and say that the details you previously said were missing (and later shown to be there) are there only by fakery. Basically you lose credibility because you convey the impression that you're trying to discredit the record by any means possible. You're afraid of it.