blowing the moon landing hoax wide open 4th time

Let us open this with a few statements. To be considered evidence, there must be evidence. To be considered good evidence it must be detailed. There is no point in listing a large number of 'reasons' if not extrapolated and left unexplained. To do otherwise is to play the old creationist tactic of Gish Gallop: list as many claims as possible, hope that there is not enough space to refute them all, claim those not refuted are therefore proof of the claim. Videos in general and specifically for debates such as these, where claims are often in list form and numerous, do not constitute fair evidence. Fair in the meaning, I am expected to refute multiple 10 minute videos in a debate that has a character limit format. I will deal with the first video, that's easy, any more constitute as laziness at best, abuse of the format at worse. If you have no evidence other than you-tube videos, then start researching. Case in point on the nature of evidence: the Van Allen radiation belt: A common claim (and one made here despite the name, a hint in itself as to the nature of the source of the claim) demands that astronauts cannot safely pass through this belt. To be evidence, requires more than a claim, more than a hypothesis. It needs to be supported by evidence, otherwise it exists and remains purely as a hypothesis, a statement, devoid from the facts of necessity that would support it. To claim an astronaut could not safely pass through requires one to know the physics of biology and radiation. The physics of radiation. The nature of the supposed time spent in the belt, the trajectory through it, the nature of the belt itself and so on. See the claim, astronauts cannot pass through the belt, relies on the assumption that they cannot, circular, deficient and not evidence. This is something you need to consider for all your claims. Is it a claim, or is it evidence. If it is evidence is it good evidence or conjecture. Is the claim supported by what you tell us, or are you just telling us about the claim. To be evidence of a hoax, you must present us with *evidence* not a list of claims. Those who claim the conspiracy cannot ignore the nature of being a scientist to support their position. If their position is true, or any claims are true, the science of the truth will be abundant. == "I can and i will show you footage of Apollo faking part of their mission, for nearly an hour." The video in question is an excerpt from the film: A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon. The video, the film maker and the claims of the video are refuted here: http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org... You post a video, I post a link. Seems fair. ;) == "The bottom line is no human can pass the Van Uys [Allen] radiation belt that cover the earth about 250 miles out." So here we refer back to my opening spiel on the nature of evidence. That is a claim, not evidence. So provide some evidence for the claim. :) INVISIBLE PINK UNICORNS INTERCEPT ALL ASTRONAUTS SO THEY CAN NOT HAVE MADE A TRIP TO THE MOON. That is also a claim, and at present, on equal standing with yours. Evidence, not claims is what we are after. If you can't find the evidence I'll provide the refutation to it anyway in the final round. :) == "Oh an btw neil armstrong has only given two on camera interviews his whole life, both times under extreme stress. Simply, he is tired of lying." Does conjecture count as evidence? No. Is the number of interviews done, a causal link to the claim? No. This is not evidence, it is a claim. Why does video count as important as non video? In fact he does do interviews, a preference for not doing them on film is just that, a preference. I don't like public speaking either and if I was him, I doubt I'd prefer to hold interviews with those of your position as well. :) http://www.jsc.nasa.gov... << An interview. That's 1. http://www.amazon.com... << A book containing an interview. That's 2. http://www.astronomyforum.net... << Convention talk, live audience. That's 3. And so on. == "In a television program about the hoax theory, Fox Entertainment Group listed the deaths of 10 astronauts and of two civilians related to the manned spaceflight program as having possibly been killings as part of a coverup." "Spacecraft testing and flying high performance jet aircraft can be dangerous, and all but one of the astronaut deaths (Irwin's) were directly related to their rather hazardous job. Two of the astronauts, Mike Adams and Robert Lawrence, had no connection with the civilian manned space program. Astronaut James Irwin had suffered several heart attacks in the years prior to his death. There is no independent confirmation of Gelvani's claim that Irwin was about to come forward. Moreover, if there was a coverup (that the Apollo 11 and subsequent landings were faked), the coverup would logically have occurred in 1969 and subsequent years - yet all of the deaths listed above occurred in 1967 or earlier." Check what you quote and where from maybe? :) == "The U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction to take attention away from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities did abruptly stop, with planned missions cancelled, around the same time that the US ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War." Again is this evidence or a claim? It is a claim. Does it have evidence? No. Does it have conjecture? Yes. Is that evidence? No. Does it hold merit even as conjecture? Let us have a look. The Decision to Go to the Moon: President John F. Kennedy's May 25, 1961 Speech http://history.nasa.gov... The U.S. enters Vietnam conflict in ... 1965 http://en.wikipedia.org... So we have a clear discrepancy here for the start of the program as a distraction. Planning was a requirement for the missions of course and occurred much earlier than the start of the war. The last Apollo missions we scrapped in 1970. http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov... The exit of U.S. soldiers from Vietnam began in 1973. http://en.wikipedia.org... The Apollo missions as a distraction from the Vietnam war does not match up with the dates of both. As conjecture it fails. == Let us be having that evidence then.