The standards you must abide in are not some well concealed secret. you are required to use empirical evidence and the scientific method. If you do not know what that means, LOOK IT UP.
Again, you are speaking in many cases to professional scientists. You have not substantiated your claim to be a scientist or to have any special knowledge of, expertise with, or insight into the scientific method. Thus such condescension is unwarranted. To that end, you have been asked specifically how "empirical evidence" and "the scientific method" can apply to similar events in history. You haven't provided that very important justification.
Since you cannot duplicate the event, the onus is upon you to prove it.
The proof has been submitted. It is that very proof that you are trying to explain away. When you try to explain it by claiming affirmatively that arose by some other means, the burden of proof moves to you.
...until NASA came along and then it was just "you believe it because this is the way we said it happened!"
Nonsense. NASA and its associates have given a mountain of evidence in various forms. They explicitly do not ask you to take their word for it. They provide as much detail as you can hope for, allowing you to check up on every detail of their claims.
You, on the other hand, provide absolutely nothing. You are the one asking us to take your word for it that you have incontrovertible proofs and the superior intellect to argue them.
