I agree that fabricating hoax would be a lot cheaper than a mission.
Ah. That contrasts with a statement you made earlier, which has been the burr under my saddle: you described briefly what you elaborate upon in this latest post, and conclude "That is nearly as unbelievable as a secret Apollo launch." If what you said just now is true, then I think we are in substantial agreement: the secret Apollo launch is clearly ruled out.
That does not validate it in any way, it just says there are formidable obsticles to surmount.
Okay. We can evaluate that argument according to objective and subjective concerns. Objectively we can say that a certain desired outcome and a certain set of techniques will cost a certain amount of time and money in the commercial market. I bid all the time on prop and set creations based on my ability to produce them. Room to wiggle, but reasonably deterministic.
Subjectively we have to consider whether that cost can be absorbed. What you're willing to pay for a well-made hoax is perhaps not what I'm willing to pay. You say you wouldn't do it without the promise of some return on the investment. But not everyone else is so coin-operated. Attention is a strong motivator too.
So ill let you slide on that if you let me slide on putting together budget proposal cause even that is not worth my time.
I think we can agree to disagree. I can't really know whether I agree with your budget assessment until I see it, and if you'd rather not spend the time to produce it, then we can't be sure we disagree.
I'm objecting to what I believe you mean by "prohibitively difficult [and] expensive." The objection is based on little more at this point than the general handwaving notion that convincing hoaxes in the past have tended toward having been accomplished with less effort and expense than originally proposed. Previously I thought you were using this line of reasoning to support the proposition that a covert Apollo mission actually occurred, but this doesn't seem to be the case.
Given that you want a more rigorous dataset from me than what I had in mind the extra week will be an asset.
Look, we all participate here as free time and interest allow. I'd prefer you take as much time as you need and give your best effort. The rigor of the expected argument simply derives from how seriously you want to be taken by photo analysts at large. If you presented your findings as they stand to a panel of experts, they'd laugh. The more competently you can correlate detail by validated methods, the more seriously you can expect to be taken. And all this is based on my presumption that you want to be taken seriously.
Not convinced it is authentic either, just cant find grounds for total dismisal.
Well I have to say I'm a little confused. We seem agree that the least probable explanation is that an Apollo 20 mission was actually flown. But the only other hypothesis on the table now is that the Apollo 20 materials were hoaxed, and you seem to be on the path of trying to show that is also improbable. So what do you think is the probable explanation?
I wouldn't say I'm dismissing the authenticity of Apollo 20. That to me suggests rejection based on failure even to establish prima facie credibility. I don't believe the Apollo 20 material is authentic because that's where the preponderance of evidence points, in my judgment. That's not a dismissal; it's a conclusion.
|