Accumulation of evidence is never a substitute for proof.
Solipsist. You were convicted on an accumulation of evidence that was not tantamount to proof, but simply an accumulation beyond reasonable doubt.
The dispute here is that I say there's a demonstration that can be performed to PROVE whether or not Apollo was a hoax.
And it has been belabored for nearly 70 pages that your proposal is unnecessary, unreasonable, capricious, immoral, burdensome, and non-probative under your own standards of proof. Your only putative reason for suggesting Apollo was hoaxed is your uninformed, denialist obsession over a well-understood chunk of metal no larger than a carton of cigarettes. Your
stated reason for it is your ongoing crusade over an irrelevant conspiracy theory, in which you hope to vindicate your ego. None of that creates any sort of legitimate controversy.
It focuses on the evidence of an anomaly indicated by a conspicuous absence of information about spacesuits with ice sublimators.
Not an anomaly, but a condition that exists solely in your imagination.
Rather than a support for the Scientific Method, I've gotten beaucoup unexepected arguments ranging from morality to trumped up costs...
You misrepresent the morality argument and sidestep the cost argument. They do not go away simply because you don't feel like looking at them. In fact the cost argument was
your affirmative claim. You say the costs associated with your proposed inspection would be so minimal as to fail as a reasonable objection to your proposal. Yet when those actual costs are shown to you, you go stubbornly silent. This is because you are willfully ignorant of what your test entails.
Nothing in your argument remotely satisfies the scientific method. On the contrary, you have completely ignored contrary evidence produced according to the scientific method and accepted as such by the scientific community, with no justification beyond "I don't believe it." You may allude to the capitalized "Scientific Method" all you want and beg the notion that your test is required by it. But none of your argumentation here is even remotely compatible with scientific methodology. Specifically, you do not get to claim that tests you do not personally witness are, by that factor, globally scientifically invalid.
Galileo begged his inquisitors to peer through his telescope to KNOW the truth.
I'm no Galileo...
Expressly not. You've been invited to perform
exactly the same observation regarding current space operations and you refuse. You are the anti-Galileo. If we are to apply your methods to Galileo, his critics would simply say the Jovian moons must all be balloons.
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.
Repeating your proposal
ad nauseam does not negate the prior 70 pages.
