Really, I can't believe he studied anything for forty
minutes.
Whatever he studies, it's not anything to do with Apollo.
Consider the Apollo facts page, which is presented in a structure that is easy to debunk. Here goes:
This is an affirmed consequent. I am not sure of the mental health of Neil Armstrong, but that an old man should be victim of deteriorating health is not unusual. There is no precedent for this conclusion.
Is it a fact? No, it's a conclusion, and an unsupported one at that.
Is this fact? No, by admission, it's a rumour, hence calling it a fact is not particularly legitimate.
We may ask, but using lower case. What does this prove?
Parts were classified because they pertained to powerful rocket technology that was principally developed for military purposes. Other parts were classified because they involved medical data, which is confidential information between the astronauts and their doctors.
How do you know this? This fact smacks of circular reasoning.
That is because they rightly disappointed that the achievements of Apollo weren't taken to their true conclusion by using the technology to establish permanent orbital and lunar prescence as well as Martian prescence.
They hadn't perfected it in time for Apollo 11 but they had it capable of doing the job required of it. This fact would have more factual content if it didn't sound like innuendo. The innuendo is no doubt referring to the Delta Clipper, which was capable of performing its task barring some maintenance problems.
The blue haze is refractive scattering from the chemicals coating the glass, which can happen anywhere where the sun is visible.
This is not a fact but a conclusion, one based on low res jpegs and therefore hardly ironclad.
Factually incorrect. The LMs used on the J missions were variants modified for the specific purpose.
An interesting allegation, which you refuse to backup by presenting this evidence you claim to have.
What temperature? How can a vacuum have temperature?
During testing and training.
During testing and training.
The lunar surface has many similar looking features. Can you name this "tadpole mountain" and hence justify the quality of your research? Can you specify the GETs of this footage?
For the simulations during training.
That script is called the Bible.
Insults are not facts.
The picture you specify is from Apollo 15 and the similarities are not exactly overwhelming. There is a distinct difference between terrestrial and lunar mountains.
That's how rockets work.
Earth is even brighter, yet we seem able to see.
He recovered.
How can this be a fact if you suggest two exclusive sources for it. It's not a fact, it's a stipulation required for the conspiracy theory to be true.
This method was not accurately preserve the time domain.
The moon is in Earth orbit.
How exactly do you know what Neil Armstrong has in his house? There a few photos of Armstrong on the lunar surface because Armstrong was operating the camera most of the time.
You don't need as much memory for a real moonlanding since no memory is required to simulate the moon.
The astronauts were the CapComs because they were the best at communicating with their comrades.
LOL.
British Airways does not have the technology to transport a hundred people across the Atlantic at Mach 2. So does that mean all Concorde flights were fake?
Speculation is not a fact.
More innuendo.