On Feb 26, 10:22 pm, "Tonico" wrote:

Second and last time, Koobee, that I ask you: if you prefer not to
answer and dodge I sure will understand:

I am sorry. I get so many hate mails everyday due to my strong ethics
that I cannot possibly be able to answer them all. Please understand
that.

what will YOU call "a
convincing proof of man's landing (mooning?) on the moon" to?

I don't. Please allow me to elaborate.

What, in
your eyes, is a valid, beyond-reasonable-doubt, proof that Armstrong
and Aldrin did ACTUALLY walk on the moon on july 1969?

When they have claimed that they did, the burden is on them to prove
so. I merely have to analyze their reports to conclude if they are
full of sh*t or not.

You keep on
telling us about the several "suspicious" stuff there is surrounding
the whole thing, but you haven't yet told us what you'd call
"convincing proof" to .

That is correct. In scenarios like these, proofs are meaningless.
However, I do want the detailed accounts to be totally accountable
although I may forgive one or two. Is that too much to ask? This is
how police detective work discern if a suspect is lying or not.

Another poster already told you about pics, witnesses, TV images, moon
rocks, reflectors and etc., and you dismissed all this as "cheap
stuff", so again: what will be VALID in your eyes?

Again, I expect most of the detailed accounts to be thoroughly
accountable. Liars would leave a trail as slimy as a snail would.
Did you watch the documentary where the guy interviewed all the
astronauts? The one that claimed he slept through the Van Allen Belts
is just funny as hell. We all know he was lying. I wish I could
share the video with you. However, the old link I had is no longer
available. Maybe someone can provide the one where Buzz punched the
same reporter.

Regards
Tonio

Well, best regards to you, too.
Yours truly, Koobee Wublee