Sort:  

rebut all of my other points first.
start with the fact that we can actually see the lower stage of the lander still sitting on the moon right now.

 7 years ago  Reveal Comment

Like I said
impenetrable willful ignorance.

one more thing.
In 1969 I was 18 years old....and an avid space nut.
I watched it happen in real time.

There is nothing of the photographic evidence and tv transmissions that couldn't have been faked.
(I have heard government do this from time to time, apparently, to spin a narrative.)

There are quite a few anomalies, like the lack of blast patterns under the moon landing rocket thingy - that's a doozy. I cannot explain that one. How do you explain that one?) - based on there own photographic evidence.

The lack of response and accuracy from the astronauts is also very suspicious, and the threats and violence to journalists asking awkward questions, does not exactly give a positive angle on them ever being there..

...and then there are the pesky van allens, which from how I understand it, could not have been neutralized with the thickness of the rocket walls and materials used ect.

I don't really know massive amounts about it, but the more I discover, the more suspicious I become of it ever happening...

There are hundreds of anomalies with the mars thingy too. (like my use of technical terms? lol)

 7 years ago  Reveal Comment

typo...fixed it.
it should have been 1969

 7 years ago (edited) Reveal Comment

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

 7 years ago  Reveal Comment

No. Some secrets go to the grave.

It is certain NASA faked some photographs. This doesn't mean they faked the moon landings. Use Occam's Razor to cut the insuperable assumptions, and you are left with a preponderance of evidence, including the pics @everittdmickey posted, that strongly supports actual landings on the moon.