Moving the goalposts.
Previously you said your approach was more effective than everyone else's because they wallowed around in details of this-or-that evidence without ever putting it in the context provided by a motive. You were better than they, you argued, because you actually had a theory for who was doing these things and why.
Now after it has been shown that they all argue motive too, you come back and say that their motives just aren't as good as yours. You don't realize that this changes the entire character of the argument you were trying to make earlier. You just gave up your qualitative advantage ("I take a different approach") for a quantitative refinement ("We all talk motives, but my motive is more credible").
No.
First, you can't decide which missions were used for what. First they're all warhead testing, then you're back to Apollo instrumenting the Moon, then you say only the unmanned Mercury missions tested warheads. We're still not sure what Gemini does, in your rapidly-changing story. When you have to change the hypothesis several times a day to accommodate facts you just learned about, that means it's obvious that the hypothesis didn't arise out of an examination of the facts, but rather out of your imagination.
Second, I and the other professional engineers ask you on a daily basis questions such as how your version of Mercury satisfies any meaningful test objective? You can't demonstrate even a coherent layman's understanding of test methodology, much less that of an expert. You're still making vague, handwaving claims -- not any detailed propositions. We're asking repeatedly for the details you say you have already provided! Where are they?
Start by proving what you've already claimed. Don't just go on to invent more stuff.
No. I was the one you said your motive had been previously suggested by Bennett and Percy, but I didn't say they did it in their book.
No, my guess is that you're reading it on Google Books, the same place you get all your quotes:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Dark_moon.html?id=uqi7qKZ5dIMC
But you mentioned Percy in the context of your attempts to analyze photographs a week or so ago. You said you had a photo analysis finding that "even Percy would envy." Clearly you knew enough about him before today to know what his particular idiom was. So were you bluffing earlier, or are you lying now?
But you can't make up your mind what claim you're going to make regarding the LM. In some versions it's an off-the-shelf LM that was operated automatically, freeing Tom Kelly's legendary team from any responsibility for fraud. In other versions Kelly knew exactly what the ship would be used for. In still other versions, the military bastardized the LM in some way to operate it as they wished, without Kelly's operational team being able to tell during the flight.
We grow weary waiting for you to test-fit all your tall tales
du jour against the facts.
Translation: Google Books won't let me see all of it, so I don't want to be quizzed on it lest I reveal that I haven't really read it.
The book is well over 500 pages of extremely dense text, and an index that is worse than useless. Are you going to represent that in the 48 hours since you first claim to have heard of it, you obtained and read it sufficiently to tell everyone here what it does and does not contain? All the while being a full-time physician at a busy urban hospital?
But yes -- the book is worthless. I said you weren't the first to propose Apollo as a cover for military missions. Nothing in what I said means you should be trying to match every little detail from their book with your ever-shifting claims. Straw man.
