Rusty Lander said:

"No amount of editing can disguise the fact that NASA made some really dumb statements. Saying that a conspiracy would require 3/4 million people is one."

Why is that crazy? How would *you* compartmentalise such a conspiracy? Which people at the major contracting companies would need to know, and which wouldn't?

"And calling your opponents crazy (namecalling)is a pretty good sign of not having a good argument."

Even though most of the hoax believers' arguments are crazy? Either these people believe their crazy arguments, in which case you might consider using that word to describe them, or they don't, in which case they're liars.

"And you can't hide the generalised answers that would not go into specifics about photos etc. The answers were a bit patronising and an insult to alot of people's intelligence."

Well, maybe they asked questions outside the field of expertise of these people.

"The spokesman for NASA on the FOX show, incidentally, is dead. I heard that he had been disatisfied with the generalised answers he had given-"

Where did you hear this?

"-and decided to do his own internal investigation to get some more specific facts and suddenly had a fatal heart attack. He was only 42 and had no previous heart problems as I understand it.

"Has the CIA struck yet again?"

What? Don't young people die of heart attacks? Maybe I should investigate the possibility that the local intelligence community was responsible for my sister-in-law's fatal heart attack at 39.

This sort of talk makes me angry. Rusty Lander, do you believe the landings took place? And if not, what evidence do you have that hasn't been comprehensively debunked by sites like this or Clavius?