does your answer change if we narrow the claim to US astronauts walking on the moon in 1969?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2)#50062695)

instead, every piece of evidence, without exception, is dubious on many levels, flimsy.

this makes any rational person begin to wonder.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2)#50062700)

it would have been very simple to avoid/mitigate the controversy. instead, they went out of their way not to avoid it (by providing only the weakest possible forms of evidence), which any rational person would find suspicious.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2)#50062711)

Moon landing deniers are closer to flat earthers. There is unanimous third party cooberation from every international space program (including hostile nations that have every incentive to deny it if it was possible) that we landed on the moon. To believe it is fake means you must think that you've uncovered a massive, unanimous, international conspiracy. This is absurd on it's face, moreso that you're just some shithead and not a rocket scientist who can actually make an in intellient analysis of the data.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2)#50062971)

the 'evidence' of a moonwalk amounts to this argument: 'Uh, if we HAD in fact faked the landing, surely the Russians would have said something! So QED! That proves we did it.'

plus: a few very dodgy photos, and the retarded 'feather drop.'

that's it? it's very weak evidence, objectively. anyone who cannot admit this is not worth arguing with.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5892181&forum_id=2)#50062974)