An alternative historical narative.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Let me state this as plainly as I can, I dont really give a fig about the Apollo space programme( over and above open admiration for the sheer guts of the crews) What I do care passionately about is historical accuracy, and an honest attempt to find the truth of any disputed situation.

An officially accepted account, can only be challenged by an alternative narative that is at least as compelling as the official version. Take for example the assassination of John F Kennedy, over the last 40+ years it has become possible to construct a rival narative to the Warren Commission findings, that is at least as compelling, if not more so, than that version of events, this is because new evidence has emerged that has been peer tested, and excepted by known experts in the relevant fields. This is the scientific method in action. It appears to me that Moon hoax believers have been reduced to producing a series of photographs, often heavily croped, and shouting, "whats wrong here then" attempting to place the onus on their opponents to prove that the moon landings did, in point of fact, happen. This is the unscientific method in action, if you wish to propose a rival hypothosis to NASAs account then the onus is on the proposer to provide evidence, and not the other way round.

So here is your chance, give us, if you will, your alternative narative to the official historical account, and please cite recognised experts, in relevant fields to the topic being proposed that agree with your findings. We may then have something to enter into a debate about because, as it stands scientifically, and evidentually you have nothing that will stand rebutal.

My fear is that this will eventually have the "Little boy who cried wolf" effect on the research community, in that nobody, will take anything we say seriously.

"We must never tolerate a world where logic, is held captive, by mere speculation" ST....