@ Matt : photos or it didn't happen

@ jdv : That's strange, but they could FAKE building it

@ jdv : You are a total idiot! The earth is ROUND! Go sit in a corner and think about the lies you have come up with or been given!

@ colin : The Earth isn't round - it's like a squashed ball, which triggers a conspiracy theory about footage of the Earth from the ISS. The ISS exists though - I've seen it from my telescope

@ Alex : @ Alex : not at all, it's squashed by only few tenths of percent... it is actually rounder than most of spheres we produce... and the flat-Earthers? real zombies

@ John Wareing : The diagram was so bad he removed it before I read the article literally im laughing my guts out at this guy/girl

@ Tina : It does matter... people are denying their's own hystory, this only leads to ignorance and hate. Even if only between the ones who don't believe and the ones who do... And about the trips on moon, it's maybe not that impossible as SpaceX is developing their Falcons... the cost will soon drop to hundreds, then tens of thousands dollars, which is cost of new car. Lot of people own 2-3 cars nowadays...

@ Mark : Anyone who says the moon landing was fake, is afraid to accept that mankind CAN do big things like that.

@ Mark : so awesome

@ lo : Lo. I got good grades in school. I'm not a dupe. ???? ????????????/ ????

@ Michael : Why not? In 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger blew up on the launch pad in front of our eyes. In 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated over Texas. We've watched people die on the way to space, and yet still we go.

@ Michael : The moon landing believers are like evolutionists, they both believe the impossible. They both believe in the "incorruptibility" of the human brain when it comes to reason. Finite I say, finite!

@ Jon : @jon For that. my Conclusion is that every one is insane do to this evidance. Thanks jon for proving that your a sociopath.

@ Michael : There are mesas and flat plateaus on Earth as well. Note that the lunar modules were all landed on flat plains, so as to REDUCE the risks of tipping over. Actually, the Apollo 11 lunar module was planned to land in an area that looked FLAT from satellite pictures. Neil used up almost all of his reserve fuel trying to land to the side of the rocks. The lunar modules were not completely flat, either. They did have a small tilt to them, they just did not fall over. If you look at pictures, they could withstand a slope of 30 degrees without tipping, and up to 45 degrees with a hard landing. However, the landers had a tilt of 5-10 degrees, which is perfectly reasonable for the bottom of a flat volcanic plain. No risk involved, even if there were some avoidable rocks. Remember that the moon's surface was extensively mapped by Apollos 8 and 10, and also by ground and space telescopes. NASA knew where all the flat areas were. Also remember that the Moon's space probes would have tumbled if what you claim is true. Sincerely, Bob Kerman

@ Jon : The Challenger did not blow up on the launch pad

@ Jon : Space Shuttle Challenger didn't blow up on the launch pad but good point!

@ Michael : And you guys are mostly Americans i guess?... so tell me, why did Collumbus sailed his men into unknown depths of ocean? For what? ... for Glory, for his kingdom, for achievemnets and for profit. Many people died here, many died afterwards... USA rise is an example of people taking huge risks, just to do more and achieve more. Don't deny effort and dreams of your fathers and grandfathers, as same as don't deny dreams of your brothers and sons who are and dreaming about wastes of space, as Columbus did about oceans. Not all went to sail with him, but those who did raised you'r awesome country... remmember that.

@ the space cowboy : Not sure how old you are, but there were a myriad of reasons to fake the landings. Primarily, the Viet Nam war was not going well. The Russians were years ahead of us in the space race - first rocket in space, first living creature in space, first spacewalk, etc..... But they figured out they couldn't do it and gave up. Today there is a video of a NASA astronaut stating that we don't know the effects of the Van Allen radiation belt on humans because we've never been that far in space. I'd say NASA showed their hand in that statement.

@ jimbo : Good job giving us your claim and not even leaving a link of the video. Just because someone on comments section of a Youtube video said theres a video of it, doesn't mean there's a video of it. If you can give me a link of anything that has anyone from NASA saying they haven't gone past the Van Allen belt, I will deny the moon landing.

@ Ray : Maybe you can do the math with this Ray! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE

@ Anthony : No, you wouldn't. All those things are too small. I know it seems strange that telescopes can see objects so far away, like galaxies and nebula. But those things are HUGE, so huge in fact, that their size more than makes up for their vast distances. The largest telescope in the world can't even see a big truck on the moon. The Hubble space telescope could not see a football stadium on the moon. It has everything to do with the ratio of actual size to distance. The lander is about 4 meters across and 400,000 km (400,000,000 meters) away. That's a size:distance ratio of 1:100,000,000. The Horsehead Nebula is 3 light years across (HUGE), and 1500 light years away. That's a size:distance ratio of 1:500; certainly much larger compared to its distance away, and it's easily viewable.

@ Mike : umm... haven't you heard of India's, China's, Russia's and NASA's lunar mapping probes? They saw it, with... drumroll... a TELESCOPE!!! WOW!!!

@ Anthony : That is like asking a doctor or professor to accept chickens for service rendered. These people are a cabal of evil priests who control the paradigm. Some questions are not allowed to be asked by the naive. You can't ask the priest if he is a pedophile in his church? We are not allowed to ask questions in America