I just wanted to talk about some of the arguments hoaxers make and get the thoughts of some people here. I find that there are a lot of arguments that hoaxers make that are half arguments or just present the same problem for the hoax.
Like, "There are no rover tracks. Explain that". I just want to ask them the same thing based on the premise that the mission was actually faked. Why aren't there any rover tracks? It's a unexplained issue in their theory as well. Never mind the fact that these things are actually explained - I'm just talking about the premise of the arguments presenting the same exact problem for both the real Apollo landing AND the faked mission on a set. Obviously, they don't see the flaw in the logic, but the reality is - if you couldn't explain something IN EITHER context, then how is it evidence that there is only something fishy going on in one of the scenarios? Does anyone understand what I am saying? There are lots and lots of arguments just like this.
The boot print doesn't match the boot. If that's the case, then what did they use to create the boot prints on the fake set? A boot that nobody had access to? They were all standing around, and someone said, "Hey, we need to put boot prints over here. Someone run into the prop room and grab a boot so we can make some prints". "Why don't you just use the shoes you're wearing?". "Nah. We need something from the back". It makes no sense in either scenario why the boot print wouldn't match the boot.
I once argued with someone who wondered how none of the astronauts ever got sick. Thought that was fishy. Well, they didn't get sick while they were faking it either, so how do you explain that?
Then there are the arguments that I call "half arguments" where they can't explain something, and don't explain exactly how it means it is a hoax. A lot of the photography arguments are like this. They imply something can't be explained, but then don't explain how you go from that to "the whole Apollo program was faked". Like, the cross hairs on the photographs and how the overexposure causes the area to bleed over them. Where do you go from there? Assuming there is no explanation for it, they still don't explain how they connect that dot with the hoax dot. All they know is that whatever happened to the photograph that caused this thing they have no explanation for, they DO know that it would not have happened had the mission been real.
I just wanted to vent a little bit. Anyone have any similar arguments you've come across?