For instance, Jack White's photo study seems convincing to me...
What specifically about it convinces you? What do you think he got right?
...despite the work I've seen answering his, arguing that he made errors in analysis.
What specifically is wrong with the refutations? Do you agree that he made errors? Or do you just choose to dismiss the criticism of his findings?
I can see the powerful political reasons for a hoax...
I can see powerful reasons for a conspiracy theory: personal greed and attention. Not only that, I see behavioral evidence that those reasons, and not a search for truth, motivates the conspiracy theorists.
If motivation alone were a reasonable jumping-off point for a line of reasoning, then both of these arguments would make sense. But whether a hoax occurred or not is not a matter of whether someone had a motive to do it. Whether a hoax occurred or not is a matter of objective evidence. In other words, instead of trying to argue, "Someone had a motive to do X, therefore X was done," you should be trying to argue, "If X was done, then fact Y would be observed (and by no other cause); I observe Y, therefore X is likely."
First prove that a hoax occurred. Then, if you wish, examine reasons for why that hoax came about. To do it your way puts the cart before the horse.
...and it wouldn't be hard to pull off, with all the video feed going through NASA.
Identifying a point at which something might speculatively occur is not the same as showing that the occurrence itself is simple, or even possible.
On the other hand, the astronauts like Aldrin and Mitchell, seem totally sincere and it's hard to believe they would willingly do this.
No engineer would do it. Engineers are attracted by solving hard problems, not by lying about having solved hard problems.
So I'll leave this issue in the maybe? category until a lot more evidence comes out.
What specific additional evidence are you looking for?
|