David, may I ask you again for this thread, what kind of thing (in a general sense)
is proof for you if anything published does not constitute proof?
Quote:
|
All it takes is one piece of proof that the landings were staged and all of the mere evidence that they were real becomes moot.
|
And the other way around, all it takes is one piece of proof that just one lunar landing picture or part of video is real, and it would mean that we went to the moon. And again, as the word proof comes up here, what proof is accepted if anything published isn't? A video is also published, and could have been made by somebody who lies, no matter what side he's on.
Quote:
|
Now that's proof that at least some of the footage was faked and evidence that all of the footage was faked.
|
Meh, they can lie, hold back relevant information that would make the interpretation different. Therefore, according to your own logic, it is no proof but mere evidence.
Quote:
|
It was proof that at least part of the missions were staged here on earth.
|
Same reasoning, mere evidence. According to your reasoning, that is.
Quote:
|
In the pictures at the top of this page it's obvious that there is no damage consistent with wings crashing into the wall.
|
Why is the facade stone gone not consistent with wings crashing into the wall? What damage would be consistent with wings crashing into the wall? Why?