He just said that the outer layer is primarily for heat transfer and micrometeor protection

__________________
... it's so much easier to blame your car wreck of an argument on the hardness of the wall rather than upon your inability to drive -JayUtah

I really believe the burden of proof goes both ways. We need to question things that we are told, I don't accept everything that people tell me (look at the source, have they ever lied to you before?). That's a dangerous logic for me to live by. You think governments don't lie?

Everytime you seem unable to address a counter point to your claims- you change the topic.

You have changed the topic four times now.
You have yet to address any rebuttals or answer questions.

You never did quote where you think I said I adamantly claimed to know where the LM plans are.

You have not answered whether or not the LM computer was capable of doing its job.

You have not addressed the rebuttal's and questions to your lighting issues in photographs.

You have not addressed questions about artifacts in scanned, compressed and copied .jpg files.


Stop changing the topic everytime you get backed into a corner and answer the questions asked and address the issues raised in response to your claims.

Strawman.

No one here said they believe the government never lies.

I suggest you start questioning those moon hoax believers.


ETA: I too have noticed that you change the subject or move the goal posts every time you're asked a direct question.

__________________
... it's so much easier to blame your car wreck of an argument on the hardness of the wall rather than upon your inability to drive -JayUtah

And the people here present the same arguments as well. I'm sorry but you are not convincing me either. On the LM, the shield was not described as how it was constructed. What about the fasteners on other portions of the LM as you can see in the photos? That would not be consistent with the construction as you described.

Personally, I wouldn't address either of these two questions until you start addressing what you have avoided for two pages now.

The facts don't change. Every argument you presented here has been debunked a thousand times.

What could possibly convince you? I have long believed that NOTHING will get through to a moon hoax believer.

If we took phtos from Earth of the artifacts, or even flew you to tranquility base, you'd just say they were placed there by unmanned probes.

__________________
... it's so much easier to blame your car wreck of an argument on the hardness of the wall rather than upon your inability to drive -JayUtah

You've changed the subject again. I ask a third time: Do you agree that the AGC was capable of doing the functions that were required?

The "bad construction" argument has been covered before. Here are a couple of posts that should be helpful. The second one has links to the outer covering being placed on the LM:

Amazing lunar module picture

Amazing lunar module picture

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I really believe the burden of proof goes both ways.

NASA has satisfied its burden of proof. The body of that proof is the evidence you're trying desperately to explain away.

You say all that evidence is fake. That's an affirmative rebuttal. All the burden of proof for an affirmative rebuttal rests on the affirmer.

We need to question things that we are told, I don't accept everything that people tell me...

What have you done to question the authors of the books and web sites you're using to supply you with arguments?

Is it important to question according to a proper knowledge of the material? Or does ignorant questioning suffice too?

You think governments don't lie?

Do you think we dispute your claims because we trust the government? We dispute your claims because they fail to measure up to fact. The government has nothing to do with it.

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

I'm not changing the topics on a whim, this is what happens when I have to argue my point against many persons. Someone was arguing about computers (which I could careless about really), others photos, I asked about the LM, because JayUtah had some info, he prodded me about the plans. etc. Maybe we could continue this when things would be a little more balanced.

You brought up the computer and the LM. I've mostly been lurking, waiting for you to answer some questions -- which you have failed to do.

You are the one who keeps changing the subject. You can't complain when you do that and then get called on it.

__________________
... it's so much easier to blame your car wreck of an argument on the hardness of the wall rather than upon your inability to drive -JayUtah

van-rijn thanks for the links, I will read those. jayutah maybe in your book NASA satisfied your burden of proof, but not in mind. How can you say that the government has nothing to do with this? That's rather absurd.

Exactly. He's trying to create an air of confusion.

Even if others changed the subject- That does not stop him from addressing points raised and questions.

While you're at it- why not browse JayUtahs site where he addresses all your generic claims?

http://www.clavius.org

Strawman. Who said the Apollo project had no government involvement?

I'd still like to know. What could POSSIBLY satisfy your burden of proof?

__________________
... it's so much easier to blame your car wreck of an argument on the hardness of the wall rather than upon your inability to drive -JayUtah

Regarding the LM: Those are my observations, of what is in the photos, that is why I wanted to research this more, remember the plans? I do have questions regarding the construction and am eager to learn before I cast my judgement on the LM. Remember when you asked me what it would take to convince me? I responded with with the LM plans, etc.

john jones - your cohort did

It's already been explained that some of those documents are still classified, and others are not available on the web because they don't lend themselves to scanning.

As far as I can tell, you've made no effort to look beyond a google search.

SO the only thing you will accept is something you can't get?

I expect you have already cast your judgement.

__________________
... it's so much easier to blame your car wreck of an argument on the hardness of the wall rather than upon your inability to drive -JayUtah

I think namecalling in this type of forum is not appropiate.

Who is my cohort, and what did he do?

__________________
... it's so much easier to blame your car wreck of an argument on the hardness of the wall rather than upon your inability to drive -JayUtah