Coke can dating Free adult chatroom mobile phone
They can't prove that the incident even took place, and yet they devise fanciful explanations for it. If you relax the assumption that the footage was fake (since this is, after all, what they're trying to prove) then the hypothetical video tamperer can have a variety of motives, including pure mischief. First we still require proof that the Coke bottle actually appeared at all.
While Bennett and Percy emphasize the Western Australian's lack of cooperation, they neglect to tell the reader whether they verified the existence of those letters by other means.
However, some technician with access to the video could have done it off-line.
This is the second attempt to gloss over major differences between Una Ronald's story and what the Aulis authors want to make of it. In other words, Una believes the Coke bottle was actually on the "set" with the astronauts, not pasted on in post-production by some mysterious mischievous video engineer.
This is why the authors argue that Una must have seen a videotape.
It would have been practically impossible for someone to interject a convincing Coke bottle facsimile into a live transmission undetected.
Chief librarian Tracey Bennett (no relation to Mary) for The Western Australian has confirmed that no letter or article regarding a Coke bottle in the moonwalk telecast was printed in either of their two newspapers for at least two weeks following the broadcast.The Apollo 11 EVA occurred in the late morning in western Australian time. Bennett and Percy gently ignore Una's mistaken recollection and assert she must have been watching taped coverage replayed later at night.Unfortunately the authors are wrong about the live hookup.We bring up these inconsistencies to show that Aulis authors simply pick and choose the parts of her story they present as credible evidence, and pass over the parts that don't add up.In order for Bennett and Percy's conclusion below to make sense, it must have been a tape-delayed broadcast, so they just change Una Ronald's story to match the conclusion they want to draw. The authors suggest that the Coke bottle might have been added by an anonymous Australian whistle-blower between when the telecast was recorded in Sydney, and when it was rebroadcast from Perth.
(And it only took Clavius researchers 48 hours and one request to confirm this.) Are we surprised?