But the two pictures I posted of the lunar module are absolutely different.
One looks like a proper module and the other one is shabby and has Scotch tape all over the place.
Well, first, you can't tell the difference between the Apollo command module and lunar module. So clearly you already know less about the Apollo missions that most school children of the 1960s and 1970s. And you certainly know far, far less than the dedicated amateurs such as those here who emphatically study and preserve a legacy of technical excellence. And in comparison with what I as an aerospace engineer, and the others here similarly situated, know about the field, you don't know enough even to warrant much further attention. Your knowledge of my profession is negligible. Do you really think such abject ignorance is the proper position from which to launch a critical attack of it?
Let me help you put this in perspective. You say you have children. I, however, have none. I would consider myself rather inept as a parent, knowing nothing of the theory and practice of child-rearing, and having negligible practical experience in the long-term care of children. Imagine what you would do if I told you that you were raising your children inappropriately and that I was going to report you to the authorities. Imagine if the yardstick against which I measured your performance were nothing more than my own ignorant suppositions and expectations that practically no experienced parent shared. This is exactly the sort of fool you're making of yourself here.
Second, and also belabored, these two spacecraft were built for very different purposes. They look different because they
had to look different. The command module is sleek because it's also an airplane. The lunar module is minimal because it has the highest fuel compounding factor for the mission.
Third, and further belabored, you still refer to "Scotch tape" and other wrong, preconceived notions despite their having been clearly rebutted. We'll get back to this.
You have not proven anything to me.
If your argument is "This doesn't look right to me," then you have the burden of proof to show that you know what you're talking about. Specifically you bear the burden to prove that your expectation of what a lunar lander should look like is what a real engineering company would build. Your romantic notion of what a real spaceship looks like is
entirely irrelevant to how the industry really works.
You didn't reason your way into your beliefs. You just decided that's the way things should be. Therefore you can't be reasoned out of beliefs you hold simply because you like them.
I’m not some kind of hoax fanatic...
Clearly you are. As has already been said, what other kind of person would spend hours putting together a massive web site plagiarizing other people's arguments in favor of a hoax? Lots of people put together summary pages as personal study and writing projects. You expended
zero original thought, neither in formulating your hoax claims nor in researching opposing views. You simply plagiarized other people's work and subscribed to it wholesale. How is that anything other than uncritical homage to hoax theories?
...and I’m willing to accept defeat if proven wrong
Clearly not. You continue to refer to "shoddy" construction for the lunar module even when it's been painstakingly shown to you just how wrong you are. You don't have the faintest idea how the lunar module was built and why it had to have been built that way, and you are unwilling to accept information and correction from well-qualified practitioners in the field. You are refusing the strongest kind of proof that exists, so I think it's fair to say no one believes your sudden forthrightness.
I have decided to do a proper investigation into everything to do with the Apollo missions to the moon.
Based on what you say, I doubt it.
I'm the webmaster of the most widely consulted web site on the subject of debunking Moon hoax claims. That site has been in its present form and at its present location for more than ten years. On your page you reiterated claims that have been debunked for literally a decade, and which even a cursory effort at balanced research would have uncovered. You had the opportunity to do proper research before. You obviously weren't interested in doing it. And when presented here with material that challenges your borrowed beliefs, you don't consider it -- you simply dig in your heels and re-assert your original claims. Hence no one believes you when you promise us that you'll be doing more balanced research. You don't seem especially motivated.
I will be using some of Jack White’s findings...
No "proper investigation" of the Apollo missions considers what Jack White has published on the subject anything more noteworthy than the ignorant and dishonest ravings of an egomaniacal crackpot. I have debated him directly, and all he could do was call me names and threaten to sue me. He was shown repeatedly what was wrong with his methods and claims, but chose to ignore his critics and pay attention only to his fans. He was never acknowledged or endorsed by any professional body of photographic interpreters and analysts. His only "analysis" efforts were in chasing one conspiracy theory after another and lamenting about how
agents provocateurs dogged his "obvious" brilliance.
Not only did White lack any sort of legitimate qualification or recognition as a photographic analyst, his basic spatial reasoning skills were so poor as to likely rank him below average among laymen. He constantly made egregious and embarrassing errors of basic observation, all the while crowing about his supposed skill and basking in the admiration, behind walled gardens, of legions of fans who looked to him to give pseudo-scientific justification to all manner of irrational conspiracy beliefs.
This even culminated in his intentional
fabrication of photographic evidence allegedly of fakery. Not content with merely misinterpreting legitimate photos and "accidentally" cropping away exculpatory evidence, he put together his own composites and tried to trump up arguments that arose only in the composition, not in the original source material. What better evidence do you need of his willingness to put his own goals ahead of serious scholarship? Do you really want to continue using material so thoroughly discredited and refuted?
...but I will look into them carefully and taking into account the laws of physics, unchangeable wherever you are in this reality, even on the moon.
There is more to the proper interpretation of photographs than vague recollections of high-school physics. It is just as specialized and skilled a field as aerospace engineering. If you've realized that we don't accept your bluff and bluster on the subject of how to build spacecraft, then you should also realize we won't accept your bluff and bluster about how to properly interpret and analyze photographs. And in case it's not explicit enough, any argument that simply requires us to accept Jack White's opinion as if it were that of an expert photo analyst is an immediate non-starter.
Given your obvious bias, I'm not confident your newfound devotion to the "laws of physics" is going to reach a useful level of skepticism over White's drivel. You had that knowledge a few weeks ago. What prevented you from applying it then? If you're now admitting that you have a lot to learn about how to interpret photographs properly, then I agree. However I don't agree that you presently possess the required knowledge, nor that you're likely to suddenly acquire a useful amount of it over the next few weeks.
It might be easier simply for you to concede that people far more knowledgeable than you and Jack White aren't fooled by the handwaving references to "anomalies" and "inconsistencies" in photographs.
You have not proven anything to me yet, even if you posted that beautiful picture of the satellite but that proves nothing.
Yes, it proves you aren't willing to be corrected on any point.
