But once you discuss those ideas, and people repeat them, it's no use reopening the case if you're going to do the same analysis. Just send them to the previous analysis. If you don't trust it yourself, then try it yourself. Some of them are quite easy to do, such as taking a photograph at night with a flash on the camera, in a place where you can see the stars pretty well, and seeing that the stars don't show up in the film after all. You can even try with different cameras, different exposure times and so on (do a 10-second exposure and fire the flash and see what happens). Others take more work to replicate. But you're not doing science, as much as you're not doing science when you do electrolysis in your chemistry class -- what you're doing there is learning a little bit about HOW TO DO science, you're not doing science.
Why didn't you take it upon yourself to find out whether the astronauts that travelled aboard the Space Shuttle to the International Space Station *really* went there and not somewhere else?
What is. after all, the standard of evidence you're prepared to accept?!
how do you know the Soviets didn't question the lunar landings?
How about EVERYONE ELSE who had a radio receiver that could measure the signals by themselves? Even CT citizens? On several countries? Were all those in on the conspiracy too?
Is it possible that the Sputnik launches were faked too, and that the americans were in on it with the Russians to make the American public think that the Russians were able to launch satellites into orbit as early as 1957? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0af00UcTO…
Can you speak Russian?
Can you speak spanish? Or italian? Or chinese?
Look, the bottom line is that you can't begin to decide what you're going to believe if you don't have a clear idea of what kind of evidence you're prepared to accept that excludes the "it didn't happen" scenario. In science this is called "rejecting the null hypothesis". The null hypothesis here is "it didn't happen, it was faked". So if you haven't an idea about what constitutes a rejection of the null hypothesis, then how are you even going to find a way to consider that it might have been true after all?