09-11-2010, 10:15 PM
Evan and his buddies on another link resort to ridicule and sarcasm to rebut the "Real Moon Landing in 1969" video clip,
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cg...06&page=23
where sarcasm and ridicule--which are varieties of ad hominem arguments--are precisely what we should expect when one
side runs out of arguments. In this case, that they are indulging in several fallacies at once makes it entirely apparent that
they have run out of intellectual resources (not that they were all that substantial to begin with). Notice, for example, how
I have presented many arguments here--perhaps as many as a dozen--but Evan picks out only one. Citing only some parts
of the evidence is the technique of politicians, editorial writers, and used-car salesmen. Technically, this is the fallacy called
"special pleading", well known to con men and shysters of all stripes. And he gains leverage by taking for granted--which
is called "begging the question"--that he is right and I must be wrong. Let's see how strong a case can be made for that.
Here is the video clip under consideration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgG5s28fvM8
Presumably, there are only three hypotheses:
(h1) this is actual footage of the moon landing;
(h2) this is actual footage of the faking of the moon landing;
(h3) this is actual footage of the faking of the faking of the moon landing.
Thus, it has been alleged, "Jim Fetzer has swallowed the fake "fake moon landing" film hook, line and sinker." Presumably,
the argument is that this video was made as a "joke" to further ridicule the hoax believers as propaganda and obfuscation.
Certainly, that is a possibility that cannot be ruled out. But is it the most likely among these alternative explanations?
(h1) can safely be excluded, since if this were actual footage of the moon landing, there would be no need for scaffolding,
a film crew, and a director to ask if Neil Armstrong would like to do "another take"! So we can conclude that (h1) is false.
Notice, however, that creating a fake moon landing stage scenario would require tremendous attention to detail, which
seems to be the case here. If we ignore the collapsing scaffolding, the crew's response, and the director's question, it looks
exactly like the footage we were presented of the actual moon landing, when it was broadcast world-wide by television. So
let's ask what would be involved in creating a fake video of the (actually false) faking of the moon landing as resources.
First, you would need to have exact information about the set, including the Moon Lander, the astronaut's suits, etcetera.
Second, you would have to find a suitable location, hire a crew and director, which is going to take time and lots of money.
Third, you would have to have a powerful motive for devoting the painstaking time and expense to create a fake, fake video.
Suppose it would run $100,000, which is a conservative estimate. (I would bet it would cost many times that.) How many are
going to have the time and money to devote to creating a fake video of the (actually false) faking of the moon landing? And
why would anyone do this? We are not talking about Photoshop or other easily utilized photo faking techniques. This is on a
large scale and very detailed and precise. Moreover, why would anyone who had the time and the resources do something like
this? If you believe the moon landings are genuine, why would you create a fake video to suggest that they were really faked?
When we take the alternatives seriously and consider what would be involved in faking a fake video of a fake moon landing, the
improbability of doing something like that--with such stunning success!--becomes quite remote. The probability that something
like the collapse of the scaffolding when creating a video of the faked landing appears quite reasonable, considering the role
of mechanical or of human error in producing a result like this. And if someone who had been on the set had the conscience to
be concerned about faking the world about the moon landing, if they had access to this tape, then they might have released it.
The likelihood that this mishap occurred during the taping of a fake landing thus appears to be much higher than the likelihood
that this was instead the faking of the taping of a fake video, which means that, given the available relevant evidence, (h2)
has a higher likelihood than (h3) and is therefore preferable. The question that then arises is, do we have enough evidence to
conclude that it has "settled down", which makes (h2) acceptable in the tentative and fallible fashion of science? Given the
rest of the evidence I have presented, the answer appears to be "Yes!", which is why Evan had to resort to special pleading.
But here is the clincher. Suppose (h3) were true and this is the faking of a video showing the faking of the moon landing? The
production values are so exceptional and indistinguishable from those of the footage that was televised around the world that it
demonstrates--conclusively, in my view--that the moon landing could have been faked! Listen to the argument. This is faking of
a video of a fake moon landing that is indistinguishable from the footage NASA broadcast worldwide. But in that case it shows
that the footage broadcast could have been faked, since this footage was allegedly faked and is--apart from the glitches that
distinguish it--indistinguishable from NASA's own. If it's real, it shows the moon landing footage was faked. But even if it was
faked, it shows how the footage could have been faked, as the rest of the evidence shows. Either way, it proves too much.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cg...06&page=23
where sarcasm and ridicule--which are varieties of ad hominem arguments--are precisely what we should expect when one
side runs out of arguments. In this case, that they are indulging in several fallacies at once makes it entirely apparent that
they have run out of intellectual resources (not that they were all that substantial to begin with). Notice, for example, how
I have presented many arguments here--perhaps as many as a dozen--but Evan picks out only one. Citing only some parts
of the evidence is the technique of politicians, editorial writers, and used-car salesmen. Technically, this is the fallacy called
"special pleading", well known to con men and shysters of all stripes. And he gains leverage by taking for granted--which
is called "begging the question"--that he is right and I must be wrong. Let's see how strong a case can be made for that.
Here is the video clip under consideration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgG5s28fvM8
Presumably, there are only three hypotheses:
(h1) this is actual footage of the moon landing;
(h2) this is actual footage of the faking of the moon landing;
(h3) this is actual footage of the faking of the faking of the moon landing.
Thus, it has been alleged, "Jim Fetzer has swallowed the fake "fake moon landing" film hook, line and sinker." Presumably,
the argument is that this video was made as a "joke" to further ridicule the hoax believers as propaganda and obfuscation.
Certainly, that is a possibility that cannot be ruled out. But is it the most likely among these alternative explanations?
(h1) can safely be excluded, since if this were actual footage of the moon landing, there would be no need for scaffolding,
a film crew, and a director to ask if Neil Armstrong would like to do "another take"! So we can conclude that (h1) is false.
Notice, however, that creating a fake moon landing stage scenario would require tremendous attention to detail, which
seems to be the case here. If we ignore the collapsing scaffolding, the crew's response, and the director's question, it looks
exactly like the footage we were presented of the actual moon landing, when it was broadcast world-wide by television. So
let's ask what would be involved in creating a fake video of the (actually false) faking of the moon landing as resources.
First, you would need to have exact information about the set, including the Moon Lander, the astronaut's suits, etcetera.
Second, you would have to find a suitable location, hire a crew and director, which is going to take time and lots of money.
Third, you would have to have a powerful motive for devoting the painstaking time and expense to create a fake, fake video.
Suppose it would run $100,000, which is a conservative estimate. (I would bet it would cost many times that.) How many are
going to have the time and money to devote to creating a fake video of the (actually false) faking of the moon landing? And
why would anyone do this? We are not talking about Photoshop or other easily utilized photo faking techniques. This is on a
large scale and very detailed and precise. Moreover, why would anyone who had the time and the resources do something like
this? If you believe the moon landings are genuine, why would you create a fake video to suggest that they were really faked?
When we take the alternatives seriously and consider what would be involved in faking a fake video of a fake moon landing, the
improbability of doing something like that--with such stunning success!--becomes quite remote. The probability that something
like the collapse of the scaffolding when creating a video of the faked landing appears quite reasonable, considering the role
of mechanical or of human error in producing a result like this. And if someone who had been on the set had the conscience to
be concerned about faking the world about the moon landing, if they had access to this tape, then they might have released it.
The likelihood that this mishap occurred during the taping of a fake landing thus appears to be much higher than the likelihood
that this was instead the faking of the taping of a fake video, which means that, given the available relevant evidence, (h2)
has a higher likelihood than (h3) and is therefore preferable. The question that then arises is, do we have enough evidence to
conclude that it has "settled down", which makes (h2) acceptable in the tentative and fallible fashion of science? Given the
rest of the evidence I have presented, the answer appears to be "Yes!", which is why Evan had to resort to special pleading.
But here is the clincher. Suppose (h3) were true and this is the faking of a video showing the faking of the moon landing? The
production values are so exceptional and indistinguishable from those of the footage that was televised around the world that it
demonstrates--conclusively, in my view--that the moon landing could have been faked! Listen to the argument. This is faking of
a video of a fake moon landing that is indistinguishable from the footage NASA broadcast worldwide. But in that case it shows
that the footage broadcast could have been faked, since this footage was allegedly faked and is--apart from the glitches that
distinguish it--indistinguishable from NASA's own. If it's real, it shows the moon landing footage was faked. But even if it was
faked, it shows how the footage could have been faked, as the rest of the evidence shows. Either way, it proves too much.