If that has nothing to do with the original context or my statement, then why have you brought it up twice
To start a new discussion.
It's not applicable to the current discussion, and the answer is still "no" anyway.
Ok. I guess that's why all ya see is the acronym and not the deity.
Joe, when you make statements like this, you'll have to explain them clearly so that other readers may properly understand what you're attempting to convey. Without providing a coherent explanation, your assertions just look like word salad. Whatever dots you're connecting in your mind remain fully unexplored in this discussion. I'm starting to wonder if you're being deliberately vague.
That's the problem with the debunker model right there. Since all you guys do is focus on breaking shit, you don't know how to build anything. It's just "hurry up and gimme something to debunk."
What narrative? And what does any of this has to do with the Apollo program?
See? You haven't even let me establish the foundation to show what I wanted to talk about, yet you are bitching that I am being unclear. So instead of letting something develop so that you know what I am referring to, you have essentially said, "No, there's no connection to a narrative I don't have any information about yet, so what does this have to do with the Apollo program?
What I was seeking to do was establish a foundation for discussion, a step you guys just skip over, which is why so little gets explored.
I would have liked to go into the connection, but Mick has straightened me out that there is none.