Yes. I am a professional, and sentimentality does not come into it.
>>Isn't real science based on asking questions?<<
It is also based on having all the facts and studying what has gone on before. In my scientific work, I spent maybe 5 times as long studying the work of other scientists before I could get cracking on anything original. To do otherwise would be like trying to write a great novel without first studying language or literature.
>>Another thing is that how do you know the Soviets didn't question the lunar landings? <<
Because they would have done so publicly. The Cold War was a HUGE deal (almist to the point of nuclear attack) and the Russians would have LOVED to have humiliated the USA in front of the whole world.
>>Can you speak Russian?<<
No. So?
>> Were you involved with the KGB and nothing was mentioned about the lunar landings being faked?<<
I'd hardly tell you if I was, would I?
>>If you can answer these questions, I will stand corrected and give you the best answer. I would LOVE to think that we went to the moon. So if you can show me that I am wrong, then I will be happy.<<
I've been tackling moon hoaxists for years, and I doubt your sincerity.
>>Just claiming it was debunked doesn't cut it. The burden of proof is also on NASA because they are the ones making the claim that they put a man on the Moon. You can't prove a negative but where is the right amount of evidence that we did land on the moon?<<
How about:
The telemetry and tracking data
Thousands of photographs
Hundreds of hours of video footage
Moon rocks which have been examined by eminent geologists the world over
Laser beams bounced of retroreflectors
LRO images showing LM decent stages, flags, rovers and footprints
Surviving hardware that is still available
I'd say NASA is done proving they went.