I answered all those claims even before his post was made. I don't need to spam my answers.
No. You have yet to supply a name for this super-duper hoax-busting movie you claim you saw, or why exactly no one else - i.e., people actually familiar with the topic - should be able to tell a movie from the real thing.
Hint: multiple reasons have been given to you for this.
Hint 2: unlike you, people here have actually made an attempt to identify the movie, and at least one poster made a reasonable guess - all we have to go on since you, who said you would only answer "sourced" arguments, refuse to provide a source - and showed several specific reasons he could distinguish it from the real thing.
You also have failed to provide any evidence for any of your claims, e.g., of actual fakery, or of crashed lunar modules.
You have failed to support your opinion that the AGC was insufficient for the task of landing on and returning from the Moon; you can't say what
would be sufficient. You were manifestly unfamiliar with what the AGC did, with how it fit into the overall GN&C scheme, and were wildly wrong on what the underlying technology was at the time. You were off by more than an order of magnitude on the memory, and even after people provided direct answers to you, you
still couldn't get it right.
You have also failed to acknowledge your numerous errors of fact and contradictory arguments and what they mean to your claims. The lone exception was your partial retraction of your ludicrous claims about the LLRV/LLTV.
...All of the moon jumps should have been 3 or more feet high.
Absurd. Many jumps were intended to be short jumps. There is nothing that prevents someone from using less effort to make a jump. This is equally as ridiculous as saying that all jumps on Earth must be at least,
x inches.
Why is it that hoax believers seem to be so much less observant of how things actually work in the real world?
Some of the jumps should have been five feet high.
And, once again, you fail to acknowledge that exactly such a jump was shown to you. The same sort of jump your "analysis" of the "complete" record (in itself a ridiculous claim) failed to show.
It must be said that your refusal to acknowledge evidence refuting your very first claim, and one to which you keep appealing, smacks of dishonesty.
In the meantime, not only have you avoided dealing with these issues, you have pressed on and made yet more mistakes while continuing to wave your hands about what you think should have happened, without once actually addressing any of the challenges put to you. Please yourself, but please don't think you're fooling anybody either.
