The HBs keep saying that Armstrong doesn´t give interviews, BUT .............

Dear Bart Sibrel, the following is a PDF-file with a 106 pages (one-hundred-and-six pages) long interview with Neil Armstrong. An interview conducted as late as September 19, 2001:

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral...NA_9-19-01.pdf

Dear Bart, how can you read the above interview and still say that Neil doesn´t give interviews ?!

In the interview, Neil says:

"ARMSTRONG: Well, I recognize that I'm portrayed as staying out of the public eye, but from my perspective it doesn't seem that way, because I do so many things, I go so many places, I give so many talks, I write so many papers that, from my point of view, it seems like I don't know how I could do more. But I recognize that from another perspective, outside, I'm only able to accept less than 1 percent of all the requests that come in, so to them it seems like I'm not doing anything. But I
can't change that."

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral...NA_9-19-01.pdf

The notion that Neil Armstrong does not give interviews is simply Bart Sibrel's invention. To be sure, Armstrong does not give interviews to Sibrel, but that's a completely different story.

If he doesn't, Sibrel accuses him of having something to hide. If he does, Sibrel accuses him of lying. It's a Kobayashi Maru.

This is a classic example of the ability of conspiracists to transmute anything so that it implies the conspiracy theory.

Jay, maybe you could help me with this. Is that kind of reasoning a tautology?

And Buzz has beaten it... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

In more ways than one!

And he didn't even have to change the conditions of the test. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Yep. That's the technical term.

It actually can be used properly in logic and math. For instance, we know that either A or not-A. If we assume A, and it leads to B *and* if we assume not-A, and that also leads to B, then B must be true. It's the contrapositive variant of falsifying a premise if it leads to a contradiction.

The problem is how you work the "A leads to B" step.

Silas