"Neil - At what point does the accumulation of evidence become the proof?"
For I can cite reams of evidence which I, and I'm sure many here, will accept as a proof. But you 'probably' won't. 'Probably' because you don't want to confront the possibility that you're barking up the wrong tree, and 'probably' because you won't be able to associate Apollo with (and at this point you'll have to all forgive my European approach) 11/9 any more ....
Accumulation of evidence is never a substitute for proof.
Proof can render worthless even the biggest mountain of evidence.
The dispute here is that I say there's a demonstration that can be performed to PROVE whether or not Apollo was a hoax.
It focuses on the evidence of an anomaly indicated by a conspicuous absence of information about spacesuits with ice sublimators.
Rather than a support for the Scientific Method, I've gotten beaucoup unexepected arguments ranging from morality to trumped up costs to, the worst, it's already been proven--plenty of video shows the suits operating in the environment they were designed for. Duh.
Galileo begged his inquisitors to peer through his telescope to KNOW the truth.
I'm no Galileo but I'm saying let's have NASA demonstrate the spacesuits with sublimators in a high vacuum chamber on Earth duplicating environmental conditions of orbit so we too can KNOW the TRUTH rather than having to believe a faith-based space program.
