zlacker

You can present evidence for and against moon landing being a hoax and if done properly the delusional theory among them (hoax) should be really clear. Presenting the evidence as plainly as possible should be elucidating not misleading

>>darepu+(OP)
My favorite support data is that you can literally shine a laser at the retro reflector they put on the moon to measure distance.

>>menset+li
Surely that can be easily waved away in the minds of an ignorant by saying it's just a shiny rock, crashed satellite, ice patch or some other silly nonsense.

>>FindMy+R11
Explain to them how the bright traffic signs work. If they were just mirrors, they would be invisible at night.

>>menset+li
No one's saying we didn't send artefacts to the moon ...

{Actually, done prior probably say the moon doesn't even exist, but I think this makes the point - there's a plausible reason for a reflector being there that doesn't require a manned moon-landing.

Just saying that for the sake of argument.

Though I did see a program as a teenager that presented some convincing 'evidence' that NASA/USA Government were lying to the public. Then it comes down to whether you trust the USAG who you know have lied access manipulated public perceptions on a grand scale, or trust random program makers who you don't yet know to be liars.}

>>pbhjpb+hg1
In those cases I usually change tactics and steelman believing the moon doesn’t exist (it’s just projected to the sky) ;)

Then you can see if they have the reasoning skills to convince themselves the moon isn’t a projection.