John Beadles wrote:
The trend is that
they are willing to disregard or misrepresent the available evidence
in favor of the landings, but are totally unable to present ANY
evidence supporting their own theories. A moon hoax proponent with a
valid argument should be able to show positive proof showing how the
hoax was executed. I was curious to see if you were going to have
anything original, but no, no luck.

In any case, this particular example is directly falsifiable
....snipped...

John -

You're missing the point.

The problem with Michael and all the other crypto-conspiracists is
nothing they present is subject to being falsifiable; they don't use the
rules of scientific evidence and logic.

They are right. Everyone else is wrong. If you try and demonstrate they
are wrong by bringing up "falsifiable", they will either ignore your
facts and evidence, claim it's not true, or claim you're part of the
cover-up.

They're not working on a logical level, and nothing you can ever so or
do will convince them otherwise.

If you want proof, just ask Michael (or any other person of his type)
exactly what evidence, if presented, they would accept as proof they
were wrong. See what response you get. And even if on the off chance
they do provide such a list, and you demonstrate anything on the list to
them, they will then recant and find a reason to not accept that, either.

Just view it as the Internet equivalent of tilting at windmills.

A Reformed Tilter