advancedboy, in
reply 137 I pointed out the characteristics of a "strong" claim, namely that such a claim must:
1. Identify an actual anomaly (not an error of understanding, personal opinion, wishful thinking, or fabrication) and explain it in terms of contributing to a hoax.
2. Explain how the "hoax" interpretation is preferable to the conventional explanation.
3. Provide some kind of evidence for the specific hoax activity.
And, at a higher level, a strong claim that Apollo was a hoax needs to:
4. Explain how the hoax makes sense in the context of the Apollo record. This not only include the technical context, but the scientific, historical, political, budgetary, and managerial contexts as well.
I mentioned that I've never actually seen such a claim, including any of yours, and asked if you intended to advance a "strong" claim per the title of this thread you started.
Unfortunately, not only have you not done so, you're actually going the
other direction. I shouldn't have to point this out, but an implicit condition of a "strong" claim is:
0. A strong claim must be coherent, and certainly not self-contradictory.
But that is exactly what you are doing. You praise the Saturn V and "demand" it be built, then you disparage it by making dark hints about its "real" performance. You hold up the 100% made-in-the-USA golden age US aerospace industry as the epitome of engineering capability, yet insist it was incapable of carrying out the Apollo project. You say you are not trying to call the astronauts liars or "hoaxers", yet say they participated in the largest fraud in history. You complain about Boeing outsourcing work to other countries, but don't seem to grasp that Airbus was "outsourced" from the beginning as a multi-national consortium.
If you can't put together arguments that don't contradict themselves, you won't get anywhere. And even where you don't contradict yourself, you're all over the map. You don't really even have a coherent claim; you just have a mess of ill-informed notions cribbed from various conspiracists and overlaid atop your own ill-informed certitude.
And that's before even getting to all the individual problems with your claims. In addition to the errors and logical fallacies I referenced in my earlier post linked above, you keep making additional mistakes, waving your hands about new sub-conspiracies, and in the midst of making some good points about competitiveness and innovation, demonstrate a failure to grasp how large engineering projects work, how market forces drive corporate strategies and mergers, how national priorities develop, and in general make a lot of noise about things you only partially grasp to pretend that they somehow support a hoax.
Worse, you slavishly attend proven liars and incompetents - saying you'd literally trust them with your life - while dismissing
actual experts, and instead of learning from your mistakes, you churn out hamfisted attempts at self-deprecatory sarcasm in an effort to cast yourself as the unfairly oppressed free thinker.
Do you want to have an adult conversation or not? Do you want to learn anything or not?
