>>Are you sure you just don't have an emotional attachment for wanting us to land on the Moon?<<
Yes, I am sure. At least i am sure that the emotional attachment to the achievement has nothing to do with the conclusions I draw when examining the evidence.
>>Isn't real science based on asking questions?<<
Yes, but when the weight of evidence points to one answer the basic question is decided. Consider that I HAVE questioned the reality of the Moon landings. I then did the 'real science' and lokoed at the evidence. The conclusion: the landings were real.
>>Another thing is that how do you know the Soviets didn't question the lunar landings? Can you speak Russian? Were you involved with the KGB and nothing was mentioned about the lunar landings being faked?<<
Can you show that they did? You cannot prove a negative. Unless you can provide evidence that the Soviets did question the landings, the defaul position is that they did not.
Oh, have you met Alexei Leonov? He was a Russian cosmonaut at the time. He never doubted the reality of Apollo, and nor did anyone else in the Russian space program at the time. That's his personal testimony.
>>If you can answer these questions, I will stand corrected and give you the best answer.<<
You missed something out there: if we can answer those questions to your satisfaction, we will be given best answer. This does nothing to reassure me that you didn't mean' can you agree that I might have a point' when you asked for 'open-minded' responses.
>>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.<<
There is so much available online that shwoing you to be wrong is very difficult in this limited setting. Try a discussion forum like apollohoax.net
>>Maybe they were more concerned about the US nukes than the US faking a moon landing?<<
Since they were trying to get to the Moon themselves first, showing that the Americans were faking it would have been a major political coup.