By your standards of proof, neither of us could ever present any proof for any of our statements on this forum that qualifies
You are absolutely correct. This is why I maintain a rigid distinction between proof (which I didn't ask you to provide), evidence (which I did ask for) and reasoning (which I also asked for). Of course, you refuse to provide any of the above and then whine about how proofs are hard, so the benefit of this distinction is somewhat limited. Nonetheless, I remain confident that you'll sort yourself out any moment now...
aaany moment now...Unless I show up at your house with the film originals and some lab equipment that would convince you that they are 45 years old, we will always be left with referring to second hand evidence.
No, that's not what's happening here at all. Allow me to remind you:
You came
to us asking why we don't consider NASA's photos to be particularly convincing. I explained that, as far as I'm concerned, it boils down to two things: the absence of evidence pointing towards the authenticity of these photos, and the simple matter of fact that they raise multiple red flags which immediately point towards (poorly) procedurally generated content.
This is where your reasoning turns a bit hairy. You respond to me pointing out that the pictures were likely procedurally generated with (paraphrasing) "Exactly! There are so many of them! Surely this means they must be real since no one would bother faking so many!" - the only way I can interpret this without accusing you of being internally inconsistent is to conclude you didn't know what "procedurally generated" means. In which case: you could have just asked.
simply asking if you had any evidence that these particular photos were faked
Yes. They follow regular patterns which are indicative of procedurally generated content. That, combined with an absence of evidence on your side, leads me to conclude that the simplest explanation is that they were, in fact, procedurally generated.
I was alive at the time of the moonshots and saw many pictures that were published in newspapers and magazines at that time, as well as watched the televised broadcasts along with millions of others.
How many is "many"? 5? 20? 30,000? Give us a ballpark estimate to work with.
On to your questions:
1 - If you think technology cannot be reused or repurposed, then you're beyond reasonable help.
2 - They
tried that, and they still claim to be trying to do it. Because of that, answering your question of "why aren't they doing it?" is unanswerable; it relies on a false premise.
3 - This one seems to perpetually confuse you. NASA, in its prime, was making an absolute bank. Of course, now that their funding is dwindling the whole operation is bound to eventually fall on its face, but we might not live long enough to see its demise.
4 - Because pouring them into their Swiss bank accounts was just so much more appealing. As for your vision of "the government never holds any secrets from us because something something the media" - again, this is beyond reasonable help. Think about any scandal that the media has uncovered after it's been going for multiple years. The fact that they only get uncovered years later necessarily implies that they were not uncovered for years. Once again your logic turns to religion. The Big Man in the Sky is watching over us, and he'd never lie to us.
5 - Ah, yes, Wikileaks, the group whose idea of the "truth" just happens to perfectly align with Russian national interests. But, more seriously: No, I do not see why it would have to happen by now. There is no doubt in my mind that the issue will
eventually be uncovered, but you've presented no reasoning to suggest a schedule or timeframe.
If that is the reason behind the conspiracy [...]
[...]the purpose of the conspiracy
I've asked you so many times what you think the purpose of the Conspiracy is, and your answer is "that". Fantastic, that gives me a lot to work with, doesn't it? I speculate that you don't understand what the purpose of the Conspiracy is, but you're simply refusing to tell me.
For someone who keeps complaining about obstructions to discourse, you sure introduce quite a few of them.