I am just a very logically thinking guy, and I feel like it is in my very own nature to not believe in anything unless I am 100% certain that a certain claim is right.
Therefore I am just not religious (as in believing into "the god" - maybe there are human creators out there, but as long as I don't have proof (which I will most likely never get), I won't just blindly believe into what the Bible, Quran etc. tells me)). Same about cheaters in CS, there is no proof half of the pro scene is cheating, but because of many fishy clips I won't go out and tell everyone: "CS pro scene is free of cheaters." I don't know, I will most likely never know, so I won't spread propaganda (if you will), suggesting the accusation is justified or not.
About the proof NASA has given regarding the moon landing: I can only repeat what I wrote in #67.
And since the proof is actually not flawless (imo), any arguments regarding this very claim "We have been to the moon." are not considered claims, but arguments, debates, opinions, doubts, whatever, regarding the NASA claim. Idk, that is just the way I think about language.
And the justification for those arguments, debates, opinions, doubts, whatever, is the fact, that the evidence provided by NASA has so many flaws. So logically, I see it that way:
>NASA has given "proof".
>Some of the proof leaves open questions/can't be supported by our knowledge regarding science/just overall appers to be suspicious.
>I am doubting the "proof"
>As long as I don't get more proof, I won't blindly believe into what NASA is saying
>It's their turn to provide me with proof, because I am not claiming anything, I am in doubt ( see the "2nd >").
I hope that makes sense.
If you read all of this, thank you very much.