If Neil Amrstong were to admit a hoax, you wouldn't believe it?

[bknight]

Jay simple question have you ever made this statement?  I suspect not, but I wanted to ask the host directly.

[Glom]

If Armstrong ever said such a thing in the future, we'd be more concerned over the fact that he was a ghost.

[bknight]

LOL, of course, but this question was in reference to the past, prior to Neil's death.

[JayUtah]

Here's the relevant paragraph from an article I wrote for Metropole.

"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.

[bknight]

Here's the relevant paragraph from an article I wrote for Metropole.

"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.

[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]

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!

[gillianren]

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.

[Willoughby]

Isn't the only evidence against the now infamous Brendan Dassey (from Netflix's Making a Murderer) his confession?

[twik]

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.

[Peter B]

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

[bknight]

...

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.