LOL! What bit of the burden of proof have they not fulfilled? Live transmissions from the missions? Check. Thousands of photographs taken on the Moon? Check. Actual moonrocks brought back and universally agreed by geologists the world over to be genuine lunar samples that were picked up, sorted, bagged and brought back by a manned expedition? Check. Eyewitness testimony from everyone involved from various countries across the world? Check. Thousands or millions of pages of documentation about the hardware, mission profiles, personnel, etc.? Check. Actual hardware available? Check.

What exactly do they have to do on top of all that? That list of evidence will stand up in absolutely any court of law as virtually proving the Apollo missons were real, especialy given the total lack of hard evidence of any kind of fabrication in the Apollo record.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

Since NASA's claim has always been that we've been to the moon, isn't the "burden of proof" ... on them to prove they did so?

It is, and they have satisfied it. The hoax believers are generally in the business of trying to explain away all that proof, unsuccessfully.

What would have been the harm in writing a book refuting the Hbers arguments one by one?

Nothing, except that the public argued it was not a proper expenditure of their funds. There is nothing inherently wrong with the proposition.

And why wasn't Jay asked to contribute to the book?

No. Jim Oberg, the selected author, approached me to ask permission to include some of my material in the book. We have discussed aspects of the work. But I was not approached by NASA to contribute.

Why doesn't he write a book himself?

I plan to. However, a web site is easier to maintain, research, and publish than a book. I have a professional and personal life outside of moon hoaxery that doesn't really provide for writing a book.

And when will we finally wrap this thread up so we can all forget about it?

Well, I think you've said your piece. But nothing prevents other people from adding comments after the fact or asking you other questions.

You conceded that you didn't have the technical knowledge to support your original theory. But in backing out of that theory, you offered another theory which is now being discussed.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

No one has yet to provide any information on the previously mentioned "explanation" for the waving flag that in included pulleys and such. Again, I have never seen that claim prior to this thread.

Your intuition fails you. While a close light source would provide a difference in shadow lengths depending upon proximity (on a flat surface), it would, in fact, be exactly the opposite effect. A local light source would provide short shadows of closer objects getting light from a higher angle (i.e. objects more below the light) while farther objects would have longer shadows from the smaller angle. However, this can not account for shadow images where the astronaut farther from the light source has a shorter shadow than the astronaut closer to the light source. Oops. The only way to get the effect shown in the pictures is for the terrain to be uneven and use one light source that is fairly distant.

Jay did not point out the various things that would be difficult or impossible to fake, and how the set they used and the photos they took would not match the real thing. He wasn't trying to show the difficulty of faking, but the problems with the descriptions given by the HBers. That's a different argument.

But that's a problem, because the daytime sky acts as a huge diffuse light source, softening shadows and ruining some of the effects he is trying to demonstrate.

Once again, your intuition fails you. The use of close up lighting would provide diffusion effects and multiple shadow angles.

How are we supposed to tell the difference between your jokes and your real beliefs when you also say:

[bolding added for emphasis]

Sorry if I've lost the ability to detect jokes from conspiracists, but I've seen too much stuff far sillier passed off as straight beliefs to be able to tell the difference anymore.

They've long since satisfied the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on those who would cast alternate explanations.


If you will admit your errors, that would be a good start.

-----
Edited for coding