a reply to: eriktheawful
Ah the old ownership is nine tenths of the law argument . Let's not go off topic, I forgive you anyway , you great lummocks, happy christmas .
The veracity of any claim does not rely on the failings of arguments made against that claim .
The veracity of any claim relies solely on whether there is truth to it .
It's like a cheating wife saying "I didn't" because she knows the husband can't prove it , except by logical conclusion via deductions . She accuses
him of having a deluded lack of faith of course , standard practice .
just because he can't prove the truth outright , doesn't mean she 's not lying . She is trying to escape the consequences by randomizing the order of
concurring truths , and denying legitimate methods , which only furthers justified suspicions .
If the police interviewed you , when you were hiding something , you wouldnt get away with relying on that kind of blustering . A lawyer would take
you to the cleaners
As far as the pendulum 'evidence' goes, they would have had the ability to slow down the footage by 2.5 times ( a rather convenient mathematical ratio
don't you think ? ) and asked the actors to speed up their movements for the short clip . Simples . Though I'm sure you'll tell me it's not .
The trouble is that lack of footage however : discussing that detail of (for the most part) its loss would be staying on topic .
The only footage easily available is provided to youtube by a film archivist from the era who worked in the tv industry , or other short clips which
survived for whatever reason . I'm going to postulate that the reason nasa say they lost it is because since 2008 they don't want it to be seen . The
complete footage hasnt been lost at all , but it is policy to cover up the now worse than useless , positively damning , evidence of fakery which is
the footage itself .
The same damning evidence that they didnt even have the tech to fake it properly , let alone get to the moon (and back) .
What's your response to that ?