I don't know if it's because I have a sick and weird sense of humor, but I began to laugh at the thought that the Americans never really managed to put a man on the moon. Could it be just a conspiracy? Maybe someone wants to defame NASA and decided to put such thoughts out there. Whatever the truth may be, both sides have strong reasons in support of their views.
So was the US landing on the moon a real event, or something that was created in a studio in Arizona? I guess it depends on the person, if they want to believe it, and how much of an American they are.
In the article, one man makes a mockery of NASA, because the science behind men landing on the moon doesn't add up. One example the writer uses is: "The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?" and "How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?" These questions are very valid in response to the Apollo moon landing. Why is the flag fluttering if there isn't any atmosphere (nor breeze). Where are the stars in all of these shots, I don't think they are camera shy.
In response to the writers questions, one hurt American wrote back with acceptable reasons as to why things happened the way they did. For the question about the shadows, the fluttering flag, and the shy stars he answers: "Do you honsetly mean to tell me that you believe that this photo hasn'tbeen played with? Somebody (no.. NOT NASA) has doctored this photoreally badly to make people like YOU think that you have a stronger caseagainst NASA. That astronaut was copied and pasted into that photo.And as for the flag.. that shadow goes to the side with the face clearlylit because it's not exactly parallel to the sun's rays! It's on a bitof an angle, which anybody will tell you, is enough to clearly light theflag. And as for the fluttering.. less drugs for you, man. it's notmoving at all. Do you know what happens when a flag is stowed forseveral weeks, all folded up? You guessed it.. It gets wrinkled! Lookat getting some better glasses. As for the stars. in photography, toprevent an over-exposure (phonetically: Ovur-ekspojur) you must closethe iris a bit, or in this case, a lot. The sun is much brighter herethan the brightest day on earth. Whith the iris down far enough toprevent over-exposure, there is no way you would ever, EVER see ANYTHINGin the sky other than the sun and the earth."
Both men have good arguments swaying the reader into either side. It depends on what side the reader decides to take.
But these reasons are only minimal to the arguments the writers make.
What side do I take? Do I want to stay true to my country. Or do I want to expose them for their selfishness. Their selfishness to deceive an entire country for the sake of coming up 1st in the race for who's best. Who cares if the Russians beat us into space! Was it worth lying to millions of Americans, who bragging about their achievements, must now put their head down in shame.
These are theories at heart. I guess that it is all up to the people at NASA whether they want to leave a country living off their lies. Or one day they will accept the crime of deceiving the USA into thinking we are so advaced (that's what we think isn't, that the world revolves around us)and tell us it was all a hoax.
Whatever the REAL answer is, I will stand true to my country. I will back them up on their side of the story. Yes, we were the first one's to place a man on the moon. I will stand by this until the Association, deliberately state that Apollo never reached its destination. Until then, I am one proud and happy American.

If you are interested in the subject and would like to read more examples to both the defense and opposition feel free to visit the website of my findings: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm