That was brilliant.

Aldrin's punching of the journalist did not prove that he went to the moon any more than your punching me. You're well off the topic but that's what conspiracy deniers do. You ridicule and attack but you never defend your government's lies with logic because the truth is, you've just been repeating your whole life.…

I'm afraid you don't understand, sir. Frame rates of the video are not the only sticking point. Do some research...deep research. You just might come up with gems such as this one... http://www.break.com/video/ugc/fake…

Sorry, this reasoning does not pass muster. If they wanted to fake it but were short the technology, they would have simply developed the technology. Furthermore, the fakery need not have been CGI nor anything sophisticated. The quality of the video was quite low and it would not have taken today's level special…

American love lies. That's why you're doomed.

Yes, I've seen his reaction before. It looks to me like the reaction one might expect of a guilty man when someone tries to "peel back truth's protective layers."

Not "trolling." I seriously don't buy the "too expensive" excuse that people make up off the top of their heads. If it were possible to send people to the moon SOMEBODY would have done it since 1969. The only reason the US is "exceptional" in this respect is that only the US had the motive, means and opportunity to…

You're making stuff up. Soviet Russia would not allow the US to have a technological achievement on that scale and not try to, at least, replicate it. They were also winning the space race. Danger is no deterrent to an achievement on the scale of a moon landing. The Soviets lost a few men during the space race and,…

What? 45 years later and China can't put living men on the moon? Neither can Russia? Japan? Germany? India? UK? Nobody?!? Why has NOBODY put living men on the moon—and brought them back (alive)—other than the US? Could it be that the US was so desperate to one-up the "Red Scare" that they lied and faked the…

Every country is F-ed up in its own special way.

Good for her.

You are hopelessly confused. Like I said, if you can't figure out what to do with ½ of a reproductive system, there is no point explaining anything further to you. You cannot be successful in this universe.

You make a fair point, however, I still take exception to the use of the word "fables" in connection with the Bible. The word "fable" has negative connotations that "parable" does not.

Mine all mine! Can that be a name?

Animals eat their own vomit—and their young...but animals are, well, animals. Whatever the men in lab coats told you, we have the option to be better than them and, when we choose not to, we actually become lower than them because they had no choice.

I thought I just explained that. "Fables" are, as a class, untrue. The people who wrote the Bible did so at great personal cost...many risked and some even lost their lives to make sure that the record of events that we know as "The Bible" would be available to us and many of us easily dismiss it on the word of…

The brain is not a sexual organ.

I'd look funny without nipples. That has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

As anticipated, you don't understand. Homosexuality does not work. It doesn't work for God, evolution, religion or anything else except the two people who don't know what to do with their genitals. The conflict to which I referred would be between the children of nature and the children of technology...assuming…