No, in the absence of any actual evidence in favor of your belief, and in the face of a mountain of it to the contrary, you invent a fantasy version of events where the evidence looks entirely differently.
Because my interpretation of body language might outweigh all the objective evidence. Right?
Please show us where anyone here has cited testimony by Nixon or Johnson as evidence of the reality of Apollo.
As we have no control over your psychological projection.
Asked and answered thoroughly.
Agreed, that a better bead on it. Not sure why rejecting science and evidence would make one think they were an outside-the-box critical thinker, but it does seem to be the case.
Straw man. No one in this thread bases their belief in Apollo's authenticity on statements made by Johnson or Nixon.
It was a typo.Still laughing at that Vixen "evidence photo" of the sunrise over the two moons
Thoroughly predictable avoidance noted, just like you avoided an image from an actual live TV image I posted. Twice.
Straw man. No one here has done that.
He's a psychologist, so if he studied behavioural and experimental psychology as a science, as I did, then it is all based on observable and measurable data. Obviously, he is only observing, not taking ECG's or measuring anything physiologically. Your psychological reactions are largely biologically based. So, if someone has just got back from being the First Man on the Moon with international coverage, you'd expect them to be more like someone who's just won an Olympic Gold Medal than someone fidgeting and wishing he was elsewhere.
Or perhaps it was a quip.
Very apropos of the thread topic- Keep shooting for the stars!
Gee, if only someone had gone out to that same desert region and showed how even there, with a movie set to "fake" the Moon landings, you can't photograph under those conditions and expect to see stars.
No, I'm not. I'm pointing out the overwhelming scientific consensus that's been maintained for the last half century plus regarding the reality of the Apollo Program. I'm quoting actual knowledge that I've gained throughout my life because I'm actually interested in learning, not just presenting myself as a rogue intellectual with an intelligence score in the top tenth of a percent. Knowledge which, for example, makes it clear to me when you lie about how you've easily photographed stars in a manner supporting some hoax nut's ignorant claims, or that you use the word "radiation" with histrionic alarm, but don't actually know anything about it.
I rather suspect it is literally faux outrage.
I know, right. Speaking (well writing) up to the level of a normal person can be a real struggle for some. You keep trying though, ok.