There was also a great many generations who heard a story of jesus. And believed it at face value for millenia... now as science and truth comes forth, we realize things we hadn't before. A good deceiver will show you things at a certain angle, convince you a brick is flat by only showing you one side. It is when change the angle in which you view it, that is isnt flat, but a three dimensional object

@SoullessHeathen Theres a world of difference between faith and fact based evidence. I teach physics, don't try to snowball me with frame of reference arguments. False comparison.

@Meekmill understood and respect your honesty. But it is real and did happpen. Watch the mythbusters, its a painless way to address the controversies.

@t1nick then you also understand that the laws of physics are fluid. Concrete today, but as technology advances, our exploration and discovery become more and more advanced with it. When (because I don't care for ifs) a new discovery changes a law of physics, then that will be the new and accepted understanding. The same applies to everything.

@SoullessHeathen Thats part of the definition of the scientific process and paradigm. Scientific knowledge is not fluid, but dynamic. Fluid suggests going back and forth. Dynamic means changeable.

or the Andrea Doria. Robert Kurson's Shadow Divers is a great read about the difficulties of deep sea diving even to just 160 feet (50 m) depth.

Waited until the moon was on the other side and then it's down hill all the way.

@Meekmill I am as certain as the evidence allows. You are right there is evidence, plenty of it in fact, to support the landings. There is no solid evidence against them. Most items circulated around are either misunderstandings or outright forgeries.

@Meekmill A valid point. Humans are an amazing species and have always accomplished extraordinary things throughout history. I believe in the ingenuity and ability of humans throughout history. Neolithic stone structures, pyramids (both in egypt and the middle east), the city-states of antiquity. I do believe that industrious humans constructed all of them. Humans have and will continue to do amazing extraordinary things.

@StarvingArtist Technologically, in the 1960's, we were infantile. Plus, there is the radiation belt we would have to get through, which, without some kind of shielding, the astronauts would certainly have been too sick to accomplish such a task. It is estimated that to defend against the radiation belt (of which the name eludes me presently), we would need three-quarter inch thick lead walls on the crew capsule, to which there was none. The Cold War was nothing but a pissing match between two nations, and a space race was the game we both whipped our Willie's out to compete with. Lie to gain the upper hand, absolutely plausible. The U.S. was not about to let the "commies" take that victory. Plus, watch the first press conference from the 4 men aboard the ship. Why is no one smiling, why do they look as if they have a guilty conscience? Just watch the video. It is easily searchable on YouTube or other video hosting services. If I had just accomplished such a feat, I would be overjoyed. Hell, even nascar racers are excited about going in circles the fastest. Going to the moon and no joy or happiness? Body language is a mother fucker.

@StarvingArtist also, flat earth isnt even up for debate, nor is it relevant to this topic.

@maturin1919 ...wow.. It’s good I wasn’t there, I’d still be in jail, or prison ~

@StarvingArtist fact check using NASA I assume you are implying?

@Bendog that technology was impressive for it's time, but I must remind you, although development of the blackbird began in the late fifties, it did not reach production until the early 70s. Technology was not yet available to produce the components needed for the SR-71 to be effective.

@Bendog I am 30, and have done 2 tours in Afghanistan. I was a petty officer 1st class construction mechanic with the United States Navy Seabees. I know much about military tech. And you just confirmed what I said about seeing 71s in 1975, as I had stated they didnt reach production until the early 70s. And being within 25 feet of a Blackbird hardly makes you a subject matter expert on them, no offense. I've been in Blackhawks, chinooks, c130s, c130 gunships, c17s, and have seen men and women control drones and using then effectively. I have also seen the technology on ships, which some is amazing, while others are rudimentary. Dont act as if you are the only one here with military knowledge. I was the same age while serving that you were. The navy has more aircraft than the air force, and I've traveled far and wide on them. But again, thank you for proving my point about when the sr71 came into use.

@Gurahl

@Gurahl I do believe the international space station exists, as I have seen it fly by quickly in the night sky, and have also, with a directional antenna and a ham radio, made contact with it in 2011, during an open ham event which the space station was taking part in.

@Gurahl the ISS is 100 miles from the van Allen belt, as NASA claims

@Gurahl also, if you are to link a plethora of YouTube videos, try to keep them sourced from people in the field of science, or academia, as I have done, not a bag designer branching out in desperation for youtube views. Lol

@Gurahl To ask someone involved in the Apollo missions if the (for sake of argument) mission assigned to lie and deceive the public about the moon landings is true, would be like asking Nixon about Watergate before the tapes surfaced. You would get an answer that they rehearsed, and is in keeping with the story they intend you to believe. Now, as far as those who watched the rockets take off, and as awe-inspiring as it may have been, you have to put emotion aside and realize that people on the ground could not track, with the naked, the destination of the rocket once in orbit. That's like saying you watched a plane takeoff in 1969 from LAX bound for DC, and you know for certain that it made it to DC without rerouting, emergency landing, etc., maybe a bad analogy, but you see where I'm going with it. Seperate emotion of events, and focus on the event itself, or the non-event.

@Gurahl JWs calling evolution a "theory" is funny to me, because it validates evolution as true. They fail to understand that, by definition, a theory is something that can be tested, and proven, or replicated. What they should be yelling, for their own sake of argument, is that evolution is a hypothesis, that would make more sense, but science has proven evolution as valid.