Thanks, I hadn't seen these videos.
I guess the opening question has got to be, what can somebody do to check up on whether this guy really was what he claims, or is just delivering
technogarble spiels to amuse an audience and himself?
Like, was he ever a test pilot or a pilot of any kind? Aside from his own say-so, is there any checkable documentation?
Like, whether he really is a "Dr." of some recognized academic program, or just bought a certificate of a non-existent institution from some post
office box in Colorado, or something?
Like, whether he ever really was in charge of the Apollo photo archives with the authority to purge them of unwanted images? How old would he have
been then and what work/education background would have justified his selection?
He called the Lunar Module at the Smithsonian "LTA-8" and said he had thousands of hours testing it, including in vacuum chambers. Are there any
on-line historical documents that corroborate this claim? What is the designation of the Lunar Module that the Smithsonian claims it has -- is it
consistent with Johnston's description?
Johnston claims the lunar modules landing on the moon had four probes deployed beneath each landing leg. What does NASA claim in this regard? Four
probes, one beneath each leg, as Johnston states?
Johnston claims that the images of Armstrong descending to the lunar surface were actually made by a 16-mm camera in the LM co-pilot's window. Is
that true? If so, how were they received in real time on Earth?
Johnston describes the Apollo module post-launch dance as "While we were still in earth orbit we had to separate from the Saturn V, take this
spacecraft and turn it around, and come back and dock to the lunar module and then extract the lunar module out of a shroud where it was protected
during ascent." How accurate is this description?
Johnston says that on Apollo-11 the lunar module was 'Eagle' and the command module' was 'Snoopy'. Who believes him, by now?
Isn't it reasonable, before being bluffed by bafflegarb, to make some straightforward 'reality checks' before jumping to any conclusion about the
credibility of his amazing story about Thornton Page?
Or would this doubting -- and attempting corroboration -- be seen as some sort of unfair and reprehensible 'personal attack'?
It's fun and easy just to believe his story. How much of the story on these two videos departs significantly from verifiable historical facts?