Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JayUtah
In Sibrel's case, a fair amount of direct denial is required.
|
Yes.
Quote:
|
Footage that directly contradicts his cutout or transparency argument is on the reel he saw. Sibrel makes the mistake of showing us the slate frames on his original footage, allowing us to narrow down his source to one single reel of videotape.
|
It's only a mistake if Sibrel is consciously trying to pull something over on us. But if he believes what he's saying, then he's consciensiously citing his source, and validating that it's real film. That it is useful in refuting him is irrelevant. Again, he's in denial, so he sees what he wants in it.
Quote:
|
We know now exactly what he was looking at. And on that reel is a glimpse of Earth through the window, from close up -- not across the cabin -- showing the frame in the picture. The camera moves, giving us appropriate parallax. It is one thing to allow one's interpretation of facts to be skewed by one's preconceptions. This is hard to avoid even for the seasoned researcher. But it is quite another thing simply to ignore pertinent facts that directly and conclusively contradict one's findings.
|
Yes, it would take someone either intentionally hiding the facts, or someone truly delusioned. Or both. How about someone delusioned enough to think he's right no matter what the evidence says, because the evidence is tainted anyway (it all comes from NASA). So it's perfectly acceptable to misrepresent what's shown to tell the story you want to tell, because that's "the truth".