Apollo Discussions > Clavius Moon Base
If Neil Amrstong were to admit a hoax, you wouldn't believe it?
JayUtah:
I can't see where I make any substantially similar statements at clavius.org, but I've written a lot both there and on various web forums in the past several years and this topic comes up occasionally. It's not necessary to find the reference.
Coincidentally the same rationale I give in the quote above is taking hold in the legal world. Confessions without evidence are no longer considered singularly inculpatory. They must be accompanied by evidence, in order to guard against false or coerced confessions. The notion that a confession should per se trump all other evidence is not only empirically and logically flawed, it is -- in my opinion -- a projection of the "gotcha!" approach commonly taken by hoax theorists. They don't want to examine the evidence; they just want some kind of smoking-gun sound bite.
In any case, thanks for reaching out to clarify all this. That's what this part of the forum is for.
bknight:
As always the encyclopedia of information, space related or otherwise.
Trebor:
I find it interesting that conspiracy theorists think that the only evidence is what some authority figure said.
bknight:
I believe that the comment was directed at Jay.
ka9q:
--- Quote from: JayUtah on May 26, 2016, 04:20:57 PM ---Coincidentally the same rationale I give in the quote above is taking hold in the legal world. Confessions without evidence are no longer considered singularly inculpatory. They must be accompanied by evidence, in order to guard against false or coerced confessions. The notion that a confession should per se trump all other evidence is not only empirically and logically flawed, it is -- in my opinion -- a projection of the "gotcha!" approach commonly taken by hoax theorists.
--- End quote ---
And it's about time, too!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version