The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[eggyk]

What is clear is that you have completely missed the point that proto57 was making with that list of points and the contrivance of explanations for them. 

But I think it comes down to this: The adjustment of the known facts and eyewitness statements in order to better imply a desired outcome, rather than letting the facts define the truth. This needs to be done over and over, in order to "protect" the Baresch/Marci/Kinner/Kircher/Jesuits version of the story.

Perhaps I am mis-understanding. Was the list not a set of examples perceived to have been "adjusted" in a specific way for an agenda, along with some unanswered questions that the other side chooses not to answer? I was pointing out how many of those questions, even if answered, do not get to the core of the issue at hand (and that many of the questions are posed in ways that do not allow an answer without seeing it as a contrived explanation)

And you are mis-stating the claims that he has made (as well as those of all the crazy moon-landing deniers).  In none your examples did anyone ever suggest  "that's why". 

I wasn't trying to say that proto57 was literally saying "that's why its a forgery" for each of the points. I was trying to say that if you were to do so that it wouldn't lead anywhere helpful for most of those questions, and that posing those issues in that way do not help in getting to the truth of the matter. I probably didn't do a good job explaining what I meant.