This is the statement that I am most confused about and would like an explaination.
As would I. My interpretation of Tardis intended argument is, frankly, not very charitable and it would be good to know whether I'd be putting the right words in his mouth before I tear apart my own straw man.
He has fallen to the same trap of "Cosmic" Dave Cosnette: the astronauts never went to the moon, but while they were there they saw space aliens. Sorry, but no amount of avowed open-mindedness compensates for inarguably paradoxical claims. We can leave aside the UFO claims for now, but the key tidbit from that thread is Tardis' belief that the government actively suppresses or undermines "open minded" people.
We have seen conspiracy theorists misuse the phase open minded before. In conspiracy-speak it's a euphemism for accepting claims without question. Most conspiracy theorists don't seem to realize that at least some of their critics have carefully evaluated those claims and have concluded on an objective basis that they're just not as likely to be true as some other claim. That's by no means the sign of a closed mind.
We also saw Tardis offer the notion that some arguments aren't debunkable. I guess this means subjective opinions, but it might mean simply things on which there isn't enough evidence to avoid the suspension of judgment. But sadly we've all seen other conspiracists shift goalposts and burdens of proof in order to create the superficial impression of meaningful doubt.
If I put all this and other points together and simmer for a couple of days, one possible approach starts to take shape.
First, the handwaving FUD about how impossible Apollo would have been. Then the handwaving FUD about how accepting of authority the American public was.
Into the midst of this comes Tardis, the artist with expertise in media production. He knows what fakery looks like, and implies he's seen it in the Apollo material. It looks very much like an attempt at expert testimony. In his description of the evidence he says he has, but won't be providing, we find allusions to what he thinks that evidence shows: stop-motion, wire work, etc. And he wants his subjective interpretation of that material to stand as evidence.
In this respect he is little different from Bart Sibrel, who claims, "I am a filmmaker; I am an expert at making the fake look real." And presumably this allows him and Tardis both to differentiate between the real looking real and the fake looking real. Sibrel so far hasn't been able to do that, and I strongly suspect Tardis can't either. But until he actually presents his evidence there will be no way to know.
When he says we've debunked his evidence, I take it to mean not that he doesn't consider it evidence anymore, but instead that he doesn't consider us an appropriate audience in which to discuss it -- essentially implying that we've prejudicially and closed-mindedly rejected it, so there's no point in supplying it. But until he actually presents his evidence, there's no way to know.
Normally I'd be inclined to give Tardis the benefit of the doubt. If he says he's an expert in media production, let's let him lay out an expert's case. But I'm certainly not willing to accept the argument, "I'm an expert; I know it was fake." Experts demonstrate their expertise by giving detailed arguments, not brief ones. And I'm slightly disinclined to charity after hearing how he has treated everyone else's expertise. If he suggests that all aerospace engineers are lying to cover up Apollo, what keeps us from arguing that all filmmakers are lying to protect conspiracy theorists?
|