If one group of scientists does not talk to you or sticks to their paradigms than there are others who do work on their alternative theories and publish their findings through other means - some even might get through the barrier. Because there are huge obstacles or resistant establishments, it need not stop those who want to begin anew. I guess that was always the case since man uses scientific methods and his knowledge in a persistent way.

Some even say - and I agree - that this resistance towards real science actually speeds up the process that more people than usual start to question the so far solid looking scientific grounds. The more stubborn and totalitarian those "in charge" behave, the more obvious that something is wrong.
Take the whole vaccination affair. I wasn't very sceptic about what was circulating until 2020. I now became a total sceptic and I had begin to read and research the topic. Until I came out and also suspect that not only this time but many times in the past the things were different than presented. Even before 2020 I became suspicious because we had measles vaccines mandated where I worked and I was thinking how to get around it, when in March 2020 the events made this obsolete. I also do not believe any longer in HIV.

I am very well aware that every humans worldview can be shattered, but it only shatters violently if one is a very convinced representer or believer in certain views. I am not this kind of person for the most part. I am willing to follow any theory because it's a theory. One need not to act as if it's a personal insult, like so many do nowadays. I know that I know very little.

Though I do not very much approve of the exchanged tonalities on social media, the fight peoples against peoples. It's counterproductive. We need to work together professionally. And also to be fair with one another when it comes to arguments. It's an inflationary term but "staying open minded" is really important.

So. I looked into the link you gave me yesterday evening. I watched around an hour but then got to another source which I liked much more. This one:

I laughed really hard and was way more able to follow the explanations about vanishing points and eclipses and such. The guy who gave the examples did a much better job than those in the first video. He showed real pro's. I tried to stay open for the idea that the moon might not be a solid body but one scientist (in the end of the 50s) said that the moon would consist of plasma. I was being aware about what that did to me and I felt inner resistance towards this proposition. I find that interesting. It teaches me something.

You did not answer my questions, by the way. I would appreciate you give me the same fair treatment.