Further, allow me to repeat the standard questions.
To be fair, I think he believes he's already answered them.
What will convince you you're wrong?
"Indisputable proof."
But so far the "disputation" amounts to a whole lot of speculation and question-begging. As I said, no one gets truly indisputable proof. That's not how history works. But if you're going to dispute evidence, it has to be on bona fide factual grounds -- proof of actuality, not conjecture for what you think might have happened.
Why and how were the landings faked?
"I don't know how they faked it, I never claimed that I knew."
And we covered this too. Apollo isn't about a a few rolls of film. It's about a mountain of evidence, all of which points to or supports a conclusion that the missions that generated it was real. Picking out a few points here and there and leaving the rest of the evidence unanswered is cheating. But it's how conspiracy theories plan to work: they want to boil a very complicated question down to one bellwether issue that supposedly decides the whole thing by itself.
But on the bright side, we have seen that Peter J. is willing to look at other forms of evidence too, such as the lunar module.
Unfortunately any theory that can't explain how we got all the evidence, and show that the explanation is actually what occurred, falls very short on completeness grounds. A theory that can't account for all the evidence is categorically rejectable.
|