>>511971171
>no i dont believe in something unverifiable like the moon landings
have you been to australia recently? im betting you have no real evidence for that either. i cant remember the term you always used to use, what was it now? some meme term you picked up somewhere anyway.

>>511971713
but you deny that multiple lunar orbiters took photos of the landings. why? those are all fake right?
just be up front and say that you dont accept anything you can see for 'yourself', whatever that means.

>>510838864
you have to get real close like for them, see? but, there are some low orbiting sats have taken photos showing the sites and the footprint trails. schizos say fake, however.

>>40573008
even if it was able to attain its maximum angular resolution while looking at the moon, something the size of the descent stage would maybe show up as half a pixel. And then you'd just call it fake anyway.

>>507993302
Oh yes we did