1. Attempting to debunk the supporting evidence would be even more valuable for proving a hoax claim...
2. Gish Gallop... Each time you are cornered in one, you attempt to redirect to one that you mistakenly believe gives you surer footing.
1. Attempting to debunk supporting evidence is why I'm here. If I didn't want to see it debunked, I'd stay in an echo chamber where people are nice to me.
No, presenting badly vetted, cherry picked ideas rife with misinformation to support your assumption that the Moon landings were faked is why you're here. I told you very shortly after you arrived here that Apollo would never be disproven by minutiae that doesn't look right to you. Look at the engineering that went in to the LM and explain specifically why it could not have done what it was designed and built to do. Look at the geological information regarding the Moon rocks and try to explain why literally every geologist is mistaken about their lunar origin.
In the process of doing actual research, you would discover what the rest of us already know. Instead, you choose to seek anomalies that you mistakenly believe have no explanation, when the truth is, you just don't understand what you're seeing. When confronted with explanations to these anomalies, you simply construct out of your imagination whatever is required to keep your assumptions alive, evidence be damned. No way the additional expenses could be covered in the Apollo budget? Create NasaX, an organization that no one has ever heard of, worked for, and that has generated zero physical evidence of its existence. Information or quotes about a topic that negates one of your claims? Paid NASA shill. Information or quotes about a topic from an independent enthusiast? Not a qualified expert. You handwave into or out of existence absolutely anything you need to in order to cling to these anomalies.
2. Gish gallop is when you do NOT discuss things to conclusion... on purpose.
Again, it's clear you don't really understand, so I'll try to make it more clear. Gish Gallop is when you attempt to support a claim with an overwhelming amount of arguments, regardless of whether those arguments are strong, or even correct.
Your claim is that the Moon landings were faked. To support this claim, you've presented 5 poor arguments, with who knows how many more poor arguments waiting in the wings. When cornered in one, your intention is to shift to another and another and another. A great example is in this thread, about Lunar launches, and you repeatedly try to get Jay to engage with you about flag movements.
I'm stating individual pieces of evidence that I believe have NOT been debunked and I'm trying to see if they CAN BE DEBUNKED... thus I'm here.
How can you even pretend to be looking for any kind of truth when you have exerted zero effort to discover the truth for yourself? You have repeatedly been caught presenting things as fact that were wrong.
You should have vetted all of this before
you ever brought it here.
When one is debunked, I concede, as I should.
Your "concessions", such as they are, make it clear that your pride is much more important to you than any truth. You equivocate where possible, or simply claim that there's no answer in either direction. While you have acknowledged when certain aspects of what you've presented have been factually incorrect, you have never once accepted factual rebuttal.
There is a SERIES OF EVIDENCE that, in my view, seem to support MLH - and at this point, I don't know for sure which ones are true vs. not.
There is exactly zero evidence that supports MLH. There are a number of anomalies that you don't understand and have, for whatever reason, decided that you may assume the Moon landings were faked. You don't know the difference between which ones are true or not because you haven't done any meaningful research.
But there are ones that remain, which should be discussed. But currently aren't permitted.
They are permitted. You aren't permitted to continue with your current pattern of presenting piles of nonsense to support your presupposition that the Moon landings are fake.
I'm not holding my breath waiting, but if you find some humility, start accepting that there is a great deal you don't know, and start asking questions from a position of being genuinely interested in the answers, I expect that a lot of people here will help you out.
If you continue to insist on conclusions without evidence, shifting the burden of proof, handwaving away or outright ignoring counterpoints, and doing all of it while being insufferably arrogant, then although your ideas may be permitted here, you certainly won't be. This is the distinction you seem to having trouble grasping.
