So where does he think the other STD's came from?
I imagine that, like moon landing and other conspiracy theorists, he was focused solely on the one thing he had a theory on and ignored the similar events that potentially contradicted it.
Yeah, I'd noticed that none of the conspiracy nutjobs ever try to say that Gargarin's flight into orbit was fake. Probably none of them are batshit insane enough to want to piss off the Russians.
In their defense, those theories that I've seen agree that people have been sent to the orbit and that ISS is real etc. They simply refuse to believe that people would have been able to reach the moon with the technology of that time.
I hate that shit so much. I was an eight year old kid, and I stared up at the moon right after watching Armstrong's first lunar walk in July 1969, and I saw the glint of sunlight reflected off of the command vehicle as it orbited the moon. It is still a clear and awesome memory - it made me shiver with excitement, wonderment, and pride.
When I was younger, I used to believe in the moon landing conspiracy theory 
I think part of the problem is the documentaries they show. The ones about the moon landings are put together quite well and they
seem to have a lot of scientific evidence. Also the experts on them don't act like complete weirdos, and appear to have valid credentials.
Yeah - they point out that the flag is "flapping in the breeze made by the fake lunar landing soundstage air system". Actually, the Lack of air is why the flag kept jiggling; no air pressure to slow it down. You can wave a paper fan much faster in a vaccuum than in air. Also, the flag was made of a mylar-like plastic, and reacted to heat from the strong sunlight that bombarded it directly and from heat waves reflected upward from the lunar soil. Then they say, "No stars are visible in any of the lunar surface footage". Why? Because they were on the daylight face of the moon, and lunar soil is reflective - those old video cameras were glared out by the surface refraction, hence no stars. Without an atmosphere, the daylight side of the moon gets extremely hot, too BTW, again because of the nature of the klaast-like dirt surface.
The technology was comparatively primitive back then, but Newtonian physics and navigational maths were well understood and accurately calculated by those minimalistic guidance systems, and the slide-rule using flight engineers back at Houston. The missions were incredibly risky - calculated at up to a 50% + predicted failure rate, but very brave men, highly trained engineers and technicians, and their calm reasoning teamwork made it happen, gaddammit! It's so infuriating when fucktards pompously wave off the bravery and very hard, nerve-wracking work that went into this great human achievement. What really cheeses me off, is people who think the tech wasn't enough to do the lunar landings, but are posing their arguments using technology that would not yet exist now if the moon landing program had not greatly accelerated the pace of research and development. It's like saying Magellan never circumnavigated the world because he didn't have a GPS unit....sigh.
