Craig has great capacity to create straw-man explanation that he can knock down and then dismisses a credible explanation that makes sense. His Lloyd England story during the interview is striking:
First he concocts an implausible explanation that he does think makes sense (and asserts it is what Lloyd England said):
… first of all the plane was crossing the highway so the pole somehow had to get through the fuselage of the plane as it was going across the highway – and plus it was hit by the right wing which because it’s not perpendicular to the plane it’s kind of the back – the pole should have gone forward and to the right but it instead it goes one hundred fifty feet up the road to the left and impales England’s cab, supposedly, and leaves a hole which you can see in photographs that you would have a hard time getting a tennis ball through the hole in the upholstery – allegedly made by this more than twenty foot long pole hurdling through the air after being hit by a plane going five hundred and thirty miles per hour.
And here, Craig asserts that a new hypothesis that fits the evidence better is wrong. Even as he describes it being more plausible. Incredible!
And the group that I’m talking about, this group of researchers, is now saying oh it wasn’t the first pole it was the second pole that was on the other side of the plane and it was just a small part of a pole. Even though it has been absolutely clear that it’s a long part of a pole – the part that it’s attached to the ground – he said it many times. And now this particular group is trying to convince us that they’re trying to change the story so that it fits the evidence better. And I think that’s wrong
A Comprehensive Review of the Lloyd England Accident Scene
This video examines all the fragments of the first two light poles and determines which piece actually hit the taxi, providing in a factual basis for evaluating Lloyd England’s story.