He signalled his intention to 'cut his opponent into tiny pieces' in the facebook group he uses, and hasn't been slow to crow over his 'victory'.
He hasn't changed his aggressive and antagonistic approach to people who disagree with him, and his new found status as an 'astrophysicist' is giving him more legitimacy in the hoax crowd echo chamber there. The only thing changing here is that his opponent was a flaf-earther, so there's some enjoyment in that.
His stance now as to try and dismiss all the more stupid arguments (lack of stars for one) as ones that destroy the hoax claim's credibility.
His academic training hasn't improved his ability to dissect data and consider alternative explanations for his findings.
He did an aulis article covering lunar orbiter imagery of the apollo sites that we claimed showed they had enough resolving power to allow accurate reproduction of them on Earth. He somehow skipped demonstrating which photos did that, choosing only the best of the best orbiter images and neglecting the fact that they did not match thr Apollo site details.
His response to weather satellites and Earth imagery matching is that they used the satellite to forecast Earth's appearance, and that there are macro-scale weather systems that repeat themselves. He neglects to look at the micro-scale accuracy of Apollo's exact match.
He cited examples from decades after the missions where models of weather system development were compared with satellites and found good correspondence, with caveats. He neglected the caveats and the advancements in both modelling and satellites.
So no, his aggressive, bullying style, utterly misplaced self-aggrandisement and cherry picking of data hasn't changed at all.
