23 Sep '16 12:21>
Originally posted by sonhouseAgainst an abject patch of logic such as you offer, who could argue?
So, more of your oh so solid arguement points. Show us your analysis of NASA failures, put your money where your extensive mouth is. Let's see your proof. Oh, you mean all you have is scoffing, derision and more opinions?
I can see your arguments now: "look at this OBVIOUS fake, why are there no night lights, why are there no cloud movents?" Obvious fail.
That is the sum of your kind of argument.
What could possibly offered to refute the gobbledygook reason you put forth?
I put forth a claim, you respond in some unknown, unknowable language and declare yourself the "winner" when I have no rejoinder.
Even you don't know the language you are using: it's as though you're speaking in tongues and have no interpretation.
None possible, either: it's not really a language.
It's a defense mechanism which manifests itself in letters, words, even sentences, but ultimately has no basis in the reality of the physical world.
It's a construct of your imagination which even you cannot demolish, the edifice has petrified over decades of reinforced blind faith.
Certainly reason and logic cannot assail it: you listen to neither, beholden to none.
I have offered six contradictory issues with this one video.
That offer constitutes a challenge to the veracity of the presentation of the space program which offered it.
This challenge doesn't cost anything to make.
An eight year old watching the video could just as readily made the observations, they are that simple.
They are simple questions, nothing sophisticated or complex in their inquiry.
The answers should be just as straightforward, economically elegant and satisfactory.
Instead of supporting a 'thing,' what's say this time around you support the truth.
Forget positions for the time being; simply set them aside.
Without prejudice or bias, answer the six questions that have been asked.