First of all, I am hopelessly preconceived Loss Leader by considering the context.
FTFY.
Well of course I know Apollo is bogus to begin with given [Apollo 12].
Your analysis of Apollo 12 has been refuted twice.
My early Apollo studies were somewhat inconclusive.
No, your early Apollo studies were not inconclusive. They were quickly and soundly refuted by the relevant experts. You consider your claims inconclusive only because you never acknowledged the refutations.
You continue this program today. The several pending lines of reasoning you've deployed in this thread have been conclusively refuted, but you simply refuse to acknowledge any contrary opinion or fact. To you they don't exist. The sum total of your response to anything is simply to restate your belief.
But no question, I knew Apollo in a general sense was fraudulent.
Thank you for admitting that you drew your conclusion first, and you're now simply trying to backfill a pseudohistorical, pseudotechnical, pseudofactual argument around what you've already decided for other reasons to believe.
Your claims of medical malpractice, LM ascent and rendezvous, fraudulent maps, omnipotent autopilots, flaky communications networks, and lightning strikes all have the same central theme in which you invent new "requirements" for Apollo out of thin air and then try to hold Apollo accountable for having failed to achieve them. Your only answer for why people who are better trained and informed than you reach a different conclusion is that they must somehow be dishonest or deluded.
If an airplane going from San Francisco to Paris got hit by lightening...
Irrelevant. Passenger airplanes are not space missions.
And were Apollo 12 a real mission with real men aboard, they'd "call it back".
You're not qualified to make that judgment.
...but why fraudulent in a military sense?
I agree;
non sequitur. You were
not asked to provide a different argument in favor of a military Apollo. You were asked whether you would concede that your budgetary argument for it has clearly failed.
Your first error was that $30 billion was the estimated cost for Apollo. The estimated cost was actually $20 billion, and I have the primary source to prove it, and several secondary sources. Your secondary source is either wrong or you are interpreting it incorrectly.
For the second error, you cite cost
estimates as if they were actual expenditures.
Third error: reading the projection column in the budget instead of the actual appropriation column. This shows how inexperienced you are reading budgets.
Your fourth error has attained the status of legend. You think the entire estimate of $30 billion was spent every single year for 11 years. This is just plain wrong. I reproduce the actual appropriations in the table above. I dare you to tell everyone that all those numbers in the second column are really 30 billion dollars and not the numbers printed.
Your fifth error was lately to make a subtle change to your argument that contradicts your previous formulation of it.
All that leads to the premise that an enormous sum of money was spent on Apollo. That premise fails due to the errors listed above. You are pitting your private interpretation of one source against a mountain of contrary documentary evidence. You are simply wrong.
You lay that minor premise against the major premise that any large expenditure must be military in nature. At best this is a begged question and fails immediately. But you don't know what it means to beg the question or why it's not valid reasoning. So it's no wonder you don't address that.
But now the major premise also has counter-examples. Since the major premise is indirect by nature (i.e., "It must be X because what else could it be?") then it is entirely undermined by counter-examples. They are relevant in nature and scope, and demonstrate a history of large-scale publicly funded civil engineering projects.
I can't speak for others, but I will not engage a new "Apollo was Military" line of reasoning until you have dealt with the refutations of those already on the table.
When you don't concede arguments that have failed, you make it less likely that anyone will pay attention to any future argument. You may have noticed that several people have given up on you and put you on IGNORE. This is not because they cannot cope with the strength of your reasoning, but because they cannot cope with the weakness of it. They have realized that it is fruitless to talk to you because you are almost completely impervious to contrary fact. No one wants to debate with someone who clearly doesn't pay attention to the other side of the debate. You will keep believing whatever you want to believe regardless of what is said.
What's even more insidious is that on the rare occasion when you backpedal to accommodate new information, you don't acknowledge that this is what you're doing. You dishonestly proclaim you haven't changed your mind. This suggests that your evasion of contrary fact is a conscious choice.
