I've seen this disingenuous approach before, and sooner or later it will boil down to "all the data come form NASA, and NASA tells lies" with a healthy dose of "no one else has replicated the process therefore it is suspect". It's just a verbose JAQ-ing off.
I don't have a whole lot of time to respond ATM as I am busy doing the same thing you are here, trying to make a living.
I am not trying to make a living here.
Your summation of my position is essentially correct, and I certainly do not deny it. It is a fact that when confronted with any sort of bad publicity disaster, NASA employs propagandists and "PR" men to lie to the people, and to congress. A typical example was when the Challenger shuttle exploded on launch, needlessly and senselessly killing 7 astronauts and destroying an expensive piece of hardware that the American people paid for simply because Ronald Reagan was in town speaking to Republicans and thought it would be a "swell PR boost" to have the launch coincide with his Florida visit.
Morton Thiokal had pleaded with NASA not to launch, because the knew the O ring seals between sections of the solid rocket booster were compromised by the cold conditions. So what does NASA do?
You make the same mistake many hoaxers do: equating an enthusiasm for, and a willingness to defend, the Apollo missions with tacit approval of everything NASA does. How, btw, did NASA get on with hiding their mistake there? Got made public pdq if I recall.
You're right, I believe if all of the evidence originates with once source and that source is a proven liar that evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and methodically, which is what I have done. I also believe the evidence NASA provides itself can be used to prove a negative because it so well documented, and when you document something that didn't really happen of this scope your make thousands, probably millions of mistakes. And an individual like myself can systematically pick that evidence apart, not in just certain areas, but nearly all of it.
And so far you have failed to do any picking.
I agree with you that I am in the minority with my conclusions as they relate to the Apollo project. What I do not agree with is that what I am doing represents some sort of marginal unscientific witch hunt prosecuted for personal glory or gain.
Apart from spending a substantial amount of your posts basking in unsupported self-aggrandisement.
I tested all of my arguments against the best NASA had to offer, and what I found was that there was a consistent pervasive pattern, many people would post simultaneously trying to overtax my abilities to respond and the conversation was directed or steered away from the evidence and subject, and on to my own credibility and scientific aptitude, as well as my integrity and in many cases sanity. Just as you have done here. It is very predictable. And because you are so predictable you are very easy to expose.
Diddums. Poor baby.
Go ahead and 'expose me' then. Do your worst, then tell us how Apollo was faked.
It's very telling the part of my post that you choose to quote and the posts you chose not to address.
