It should be noted that this particular clip is finally what convinced maverick astronaut Brian O'Leary that the Apollo landings were genuine. No doubt lingers in his mind.

Aulis keeps missing the boat. They don't understand why this is important footage. See, originally they argued that no footage existed of lunar gymnastic feats. The 18-inch jump of John Young, they argued, was all there was. But now we have footage of Armstrong jumping five feet up the ladder. And that footage has been there for 30 years. And Armstrong's claim that he did this has been there for 30 years.

The question is not how Aulis thinks it was done -- you could guess they'd try to explain it away by some hypothetical stage trickery. The question is why Aulis didn't know about it in the first place. They claim to have done meticulous, exhaustive research. But time and time again we find that when they say, "There is no X in the Apollo record," we have little trouble finding appropriate examples of X.

When they say the obscured fiducials look like the result of cuts and pastes, it's pretty easy to show that for every one of their examples we can find three examples of an obscured fiducial that's obviously and optical phenomenon.

When they say the pictures are all studio perfect, it's pretty easy to find examples of photos that are poorly framed, focused, or exposed.

Aulis is responding the way they always respond to evidence of their shoddy research: by changing the subject. They don't ever acknowledge that they've been trumped on that point; they just convert the argument into another question that hasn't yet been answered and pretend that their knickers aren't blowing in the breeze.

It's time for David Percy and Mary Bennett to stop the posturing and admit that their research was cursory at best, or selective at worst, and therefore does not represent the opinion of someone adequately familiar with the Apollo record.

From a ballistics point of view, Aulis' argument is a non-issue. Physics dictates that the displacement-over-time curve of an object going up to the apex of its arc is the mirror of the curve of an object falling from that same point. It's no good to say it "looks like" a falling object. That's expected. If Aulis wish to have us believe that it's a film of a falling astronaut run in reverse, then they must provide the distinguishing proof -- the bit of evidence that can only be explained by a falling astranaut, not evidence that supports either assertion.

But the most important rhetorical aspect of this point is not whether Aulis can come up with a plausible method for falsifying the Armstrong leap. It's the fact that -- once again -- Bennett and Percy must backpedal. How many more times must this happen before the world realizes its Aulis, not NASA, who is not telling the whole story?