ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => Clavius Moon Base => Topic started by: bknight on May 26, 2016, 03:27:04 PM

Title: If Neil Amrstong were to admit a hoax, you wouldn't believe it?
Post by: bknight on May 26, 2016, 03:27:04 PM
Jay simple question have you ever made this statement?  I suspect not, but I wanted to ask the host directly.
Title: Re: If Neil Amrstong were to admit a hoax, you wouldn't believe it?
Post by: Glom on May 26, 2016, 03:47:46 PM
If Armstrong ever said such a thing in the future, we'd be more concerned over the fact that he was a ghost.
Title: Re: If Neil Amrstong were to admit a hoax, you wouldn't believe it?
Post by: bknight on May 26, 2016, 03:49:58 PM
LOL, of course, but this question was in reference to the past, prior to Neil's death.
Title: Re: If Neil Amrstong were to admit a hoax, you wouldn't believe it?
Post by: JayUtah on May 26, 2016, 04:06:14 PM
Here's the relevant paragraph from an article I wrote for Metropole.

Quote
"What if Neil Armstrong himself said it was all a hoax? Wouldn’t that clinch it? Put another way, what if Gen. Eisenhower had “admitted” that D-Day in 1944 was just a hoax, that it never occurred? We’d properly discount that admission because although Eisenhower was a central figure in that event, the evidence for D-Day is too extensive to be fully compromised by one statement. Similarly, although Neil Armstrong is revered as a hero, to Apollo historians he’s just one of twelve moon-walking astronauts, and part of a vast cooperative effort involving hundreds of thousands of people and documented by huge volumes of evidence. Our belief in the moon landings doesn’t rest solely on Armstrong’s testimony, and so it can’t be reversed solely by it." (Metropole, no. 16 March 2003, p. 17)

That's most likely what is being (mis)quoted.  I hope it explains the full sentiment I expressed.  Hoax believers commonly omit the rationale and cite this in an attempt to show I'm ideologically entrenched.
Title: Re: If Neil Amrstong were to admit a hoax, you wouldn't believe it?
Post by: bknight on May 26, 2016, 04:11:12 PM
Here's the relevant paragraph from an article I wrote for Metropole.

Quote
"What if Neil Armstrong himself said it was all a hoax? Wouldn’t that clinch it? Put another way, what if Gen. Eisenhower had “admitted” that D-Day in 1944 was just a hoax, that it never occurred? We’d properly discount that admission because although Eisenhower was a central figure in that event, the evidence for D-Day is too extensive to be fully compromised by one statement. Similarly, although Neil Armstrong is revered as a hero, to Apollo historians he’s just one of twelve moon-walking astronauts, and part of a vast cooperative effort involving hundreds of thousands of people and documented by huge volumes of evidence. Our belief in the moon landings doesn’t rest solely on Armstrong’s testimony, and so it can’t be reversed solely by it." (Metropole, no. 16 March 2003, p. 17)

That's most likely what is being (mis)quoted.  I hope it explains the full sentiment I expressed.  Hoax believers commonly omit the rationale and cite this in an attempt to show I'm ideologically entrenched.

I can't tell you where the quote from, but it was substantially from your web site, but thanks for the information.
Title: Re: If Neil Amrstong were to admit a hoax, you wouldn't believe it?
Post by: JayUtah on May 26, 2016, 04:20:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: If Neil Amrstong were to admit a hoax, you wouldn't believe it?
Post by: bknight on May 26, 2016, 04:40:00 PM
As always the encyclopedia of information, space related or otherwise.
Title: Re: If Neil Amrstong were to admit a hoax, you wouldn't believe it?
Post by: Trebor on May 26, 2016, 04:58:42 PM
I find it interesting that conspiracy theorists think that the only evidence is what some authority figure said.
Title: Re: If Neil Amrstong were to admit a hoax, you wouldn't believe it?
Post by: bknight on May 26, 2016, 05:05:02 PM
I believe that the comment was directed at Jay.
Title: Re: If Neil Amrstong were to admit a hoax, you wouldn't believe it?
Post by: ka9q on May 26, 2016, 08:28:52 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.
And it's about time, too!
Title: Re: If Neil Amrstong were to admit a hoax, you wouldn't believe it?
Post by: gillianren on May 27, 2016, 12:47:00 PM
I was actually reading a case from 1950 last night where literally the only evidence against a fourteen-year-old boy was his confession.  Fortunately, it was not at the time sufficient for a conviction of murder, since he was a minor, but his name has been public knowledge for sixty-six years for something I am not convinced he did.
Title: Re: If Neil Amrstong were to admit a hoax, you wouldn't believe it?
Post by: Willoughby on July 21, 2016, 03:23:22 PM
Isn't the only evidence against the now infamous Brendan Dassey (from Netflix's Making a Murderer) his confession?
Title: Re: If Neil Amrstong were to admit a hoax, you wouldn't believe it?
Post by: twik on November 17, 2016, 10:32:29 AM
The thread title begs the question (I believe that's the right term - JayUtah can correct me if it's wrong). By saying that Armstrong would "admit" the hoax, it implies that he would be telling the truth - one does not "admit" a lie. Therefore, disbelieving him would be refusing to admit the truth.

However, what would (hypothetically) happen would be that Armstrong would "say" there had been a hoax. This is neutral, and would still be up to the listener to determine if what he said were true or not. For example, many people in their old age might develop mental issues leading to delusions or hallucinations. If Armstrong, before he died, said "I never walked on the Moon," that could easily be untrue, even if at that point he believed it was true.

So, the question is, what support could he give? If it were an old man mumbling to himself, no, I wouldn't believe it. He could be delusional, he could have been pressured, he might be telling a tall story just for the heck of it.

If it were Armstrong still mentally strong and able to describe exactly how the hoax was perpetrated, then I would have to take that seriously.

Many people over the years have "admitted" to being involved in the Kennedy assassination, but their stories are contradictory. I believe none of them without additional proof, because talk is cheap. Evidence is valuable.
Title: Re: If Neil Amrstong were to admit a hoax, you wouldn't believe it?
Post by: Peter B on December 17, 2016, 05:17:23 AM
I was actually reading a case from 1950 last night where literally the only evidence against a fourteen-year-old boy was his confession.  Fortunately, it was not at the time sufficient for a conviction of murder, since he was a minor, but his name has been public knowledge for sixty-six years for something I am not convinced he did.

And not to derail the thread, but there was a case back in 1999 where pretty much the only evidence for the prosecution was the confessions of the four accused. Yet despite the confessions contradicting both each other and the physical evidence, the four were convicted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norfolk_Four
Title: Re: If Neil Amrstong were to admit a hoax, you wouldn't believe it?
Post by: bknight on December 17, 2016, 09:48:23 AM
...

And not to derail the thread, but there was a case back in 1999 where pretty much the only evidence for the prosecution was the confessions of the four accused. Yet despite the confessions contradicting both each other and the physical evidence, the four were convicted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norfolk_Four
What a tangled web of "confessions" and contradictions, seems like a lawyers haven for more trials to me.
Title: Re: If Neil Amrstong were to admit a hoax, you wouldn't believe it?
Post by: gillianren on December 17, 2016, 12:37:34 PM
I was actually reading a case from 1950 last night where literally the only evidence against a fourteen-year-old boy was his confession.  Fortunately, it was not at the time sufficient for a conviction of murder, since he was a minor, but his name has been public knowledge for sixty-six years for something I am not convinced he did.

And not to derail the thread, but there was a case back in 1999 where pretty much the only evidence for the prosecution was the confessions of the four accused. Yet despite the confessions contradicting both each other and the physical evidence, the four were convicted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norfolk_Four

Or there's the Central Park Five.  Lots of cases along those lines, really.
Title: Re: If Neil Amrstong were to admit a hoax, you wouldn't believe it?
Post by: bknight on December 17, 2016, 12:46:02 PM
...
Or there's the Central Park Five.  Lots of cases along those lines, really.
I haven't researched when DNA analysis was capable of identifying specific individuals, but 1989 seems to me a little premature, mid 90's seems more likely for the police to have a culprit in their files.  I could be wrong on the dates, if so let me know.
Title: Re: If Neil Amrstong were to admit a hoax, you wouldn't believe it?
Post by: gillianren on December 18, 2016, 12:52:23 PM
At absolute minimum, the Central Park Five were convicted solely on their coerced testimony, and they were minors.  They were absolved by the DNA testing of someone else who confessed.  The first killer captured using DNA evidence was arrested in 1987.  The paper detailing the scientific validity of "DNA fingerprinting" was published in 1985, a year before one of the victims in that case was killed. 
Title: Re: If Neil Amrstong were to admit a hoax, you wouldn't believe it?
Post by: Peter B on December 18, 2016, 04:51:00 PM
At absolute minimum, the Central Park Five were convicted solely on their coerced testimony, and they were minors.  They were absolved by the DNA testing of someone else who confessed.  The first killer captured using DNA evidence was arrested in 1987.  The paper detailing the scientific validity of "DNA fingerprinting" was published in 1985, a year before one of the victims in that case was killed.

The scary thing about the Norfolk Four case was that when another man (whose name had been given to police by a neighbour of the victim) confessed to the crime, the prosecution theory was changed from "the Norfolk Four did it" to "the Norfolk Four and this other guy did it together". Then, according to the Wikipedia, when it was pointed out that "...none of [the defendants'] DNA matched that found at [the victim's] apartment...prosecutors stated that the lack of DNA evidence couldn't disprove that the defendants weren't at the scene..." And these men were found guilty multiple times...
Title: Re: If Neil Amrstong were to admit a hoax, you wouldn't believe it?
Post by: gillianren on December 19, 2016, 12:31:26 PM
A person who shall remain nameless still wants the Central Park Five executed.  Never mind that rape isn't even a death-penalty crime in the US.
Title: Re: If Neil Amrstong were to admit a hoax, you wouldn't believe it?
Post by: ka9q on December 21, 2016, 04:25:22 PM
A person who shall remain nameless still wants the Central Park Five executed.  Never mind that rape isn't even a death-penalty crime in the US.
Yeah. And his followers couldn't understand why he polled at 0% among blacks in many areas.