The question is "What evidence will it take to convince you that there WAS an actual moon landing?" Because if the non-believer cannot or will not answer that question in a reasonable fashion, it proves to them and everyone around them that they are not being reasonable. And if they are actually able to posit evidence that would convince them, chances are someone has it.

In short, put the burden of disproof on them.

I was there at PAFB, Fla. in Sept or Oct 1964 when they launched one of the Saturn I rockets into space that I had helped test fire at MSFC only a few weeks earlier.

I was there at MSC (later JC) Houston in 1969-1970 while they were still going to the moon & back. I was privileged to witness portions of several missions from the viewing room over the Mission Control Room.

I was there at Homestead AFB, Fla. in Dec 1974 (IIRC)
When they launched Apollo 17 at night. What an incredible Sight!

Was Apollo the REAL deal? Yep.

I imagine the Japanese don'y feel any need to seek out specific locations (and their orbiter still might not be able to see the surface with the necessary resolution) to satisfy conspiracy theorists.

"And pardon my stupid, but how did the astronauts avoid the solar radiation between here and there?"

Because, unless a solar flare storm is actually occuring, there is *no* signifigant risk. Espically for missions lasting only a week or so, beyond the magnetosphere.

Apollo (and most anything else) also cuts quicly across the VanAllen belts. (solid-state electronics don't like ionizing radiation very much, either)

Conspiracy theorists would have you believe it's as bad as the interior of a reactor, on the way to the Moon..,

Todd, that's precisely the reason. Nothng any more conspiratorial than that. Congress isn't likely to fund any high-profile program that has little public support beyond those employed by it.

I suspect many who don't believe it, weren't around (and space enthusiasts) in the 60's. I was. An unpopular war in southeast Asia and other major social issues of the day, did not help We didn't keep going to the Moon (and beyond…I still remember that the first Mars missions were 'supposed' to happen in the mid 1980's.) because we had 'beaten' the Soviets and the support wasn't there anymore.

Pure and simple.
.

Now that picture feenix, is rather nice. But it would be impossible for it to be CGI, for I have a colour reproduction of that very image, in a book from 1970. As well as a picture taken very shortly before or after, in colour, from the December 1969 National Geographic. This magazine also disproves the claim that NASA only released colour photo's in the photoshop, CGI era of today. Questions should be asked, questions should always be asked. But much of the conspiracy theorists who think the moon landing was fake that I have encountered (mostly on youtube) are viciously dogmatic, not interested in questions at all, and prone to anger when offered scientific rebuttal to their claims. Are they all like that? I hope not, but many I have encountered are.
Case closed. Peace Out.

Or because they have a strong belief that orients them towards one conclusion over another. Shock shock, they act like people because that's what they are.

By strict science, I'm willing to bet that few commenting here about 'crazies' and 'weirdos' – all scientific and open-minded terms, of course – has a lick of hard evidence that meets the criteria of anything that science calls a fact. Third party photos and documents about a state that you can't reproduce, and a slew of ad-hominem attacks don't make up much of a 'factual' argument.

Personally, I think that people went to the moon and I have no good explanation of why that stopped except for lack of political will. But I don't have proof of that, so I don't call people who think otherwise 'crazy' or otherwise insult them.

It does not matter what evidence comes out about the moon landings there will still be the crazy people who think they were not real.

(Some of the 'authoritive' analysis here almost beggars belief – paranoia is rife in the 21 Century!)

Just has that feel to it.

I work in movie post-production and special effects, and I know a fair bit about photography and computer graphics. I've always found the ignorant arguments presented by the hoax theorists somewhat upsetting and insulting.

This picture, though…. it looks like an excellent modern computer graphic to me… lovely motion blur, while at the same time maintaining crisp detail. Compare it to the mock-up movie NASA made of the Phoenix landing (available at the iTunes store, for free). The quality is very similar.

Just don't show it to the hoax theorists – it'll be more "proof" for them. Actually, if all the mission photos were like this, I myself might have become a hoax theorist…

1) Thousands of engineers were involved. If you tell engineers to build something they either build it, or say that it cannot be done. ALL of these people were paid off?

2) Russia had the technology to track something going to the moon. So the NASA would have had to send SOMEthing. Otherwise the Russians would have screamed blue murder. THEY had some bloody good reasons NOT to play along.

So NASA had to send something (they sure launched something). Why not put people in it? Automation was nothing like what we have today. So people would be the best to have along.

Also, 2 people alone in the Oval Office couldn't keep a sexual encounter secret. How do thousands keep this secret for 40 years?

I know we went there. But I do not think the technology was ready. NASA pushed it just a tad too far, but got lucky. I know, no guts no glory. But it has not been cost effective to go back.

I hope that is changing. Helium 3 may do it.

An ad in 1999 for some cheese company gave a good reason (saw it while in the USA for a visit). Went along the lines of:

For millions of years mankind thought the moon was made of cheese. Then we went there, and found that it wasn't. We never went back.

I liked it.

Philip

I've never been up the top of Mt Everest either, but hey, I've seen the photo's, heard the stories, and read the books as evidence they climbed it .. I've never dived the Titanic, but blow me down, if I didn't take the photographic images and recovered relics as evidence that they found it .. Gee, now I feel so foolish for having believed such solid evidence, after all, there is more radiation atop Mt Everest, there isn't much oxygen and it's difficult, so no one could have possibly made it, and the Titanic pictures, all murky .. they could have just 'after effects' manipulated it and found some old crockery, and whats all this hoohar I hear about people actually being able to be operated on and stitched up, hollywood fantasy i tell ya, then theres this story i hear about ……
Again Farnsworth " Sweet Zombie Jesus."

@Jim: Michael Collins – Command Module Pilot. He remained in orbit while Buzz and Neil went to the surface.

Reading the insipid posts by Adam and Jim leave me wanting to take Occam's razor to my throat!