But that would involve evidence. 

Where's the evidence for the moon landing?  Oh, right - destroyed.  So both sides are left with theories to come to conclusions.  Which side has motive, opportunity and evidence to support it's case?  The side which says it's a hoax. 
.
You have no hard evidence to support the moon landing.  Interviews, 50 year old pictures and grainy video files are not hard evidence.

You have no hard evidence to support the moon landing.  Interviews, 50[-]year old pictures and grainy video files are not hard evidence.

Really, now!?

Are you really arguing that all "50[-]year old pictures" and "grainy video" must be disqualified?

That would mean that there's "not hard evidence" of the War of Yankee Aggression (e.g., unsettling still photos by Matthew Brady), the sinking of the Titanic or the Lusitania, the Attack on Pearl Harbor, and D-Day.

What a pompous modernist you must be!  What in [Hades ] do you believe that the available technology allowed us back then?  Do you personally understand any of the photographic technology!?  Hah!  I'm quite sure that I know that answer to that question!

Maybe your rhetorical allies ought to doggedly promote a "theory" that World-War II never happened!?

If in 1969, at the launch of the first (successful) Apollo moon landing mission, the technology did not exist for sending a manned space vehicle beyond earth’s orbit, how can we be celebrating in 2019 events which could not have yet possibly taken place [....]

Well, [Hades! ]  You've nailed me!  NASA has admitted that the alleged launch of Apollo 11 was secretly delayed until nobody was watching.  NASA has refused to admit to citizen accusations that airplanes aerially dispersed powerful depressant drugs over the crowds that had gathered that night.  So practically no one saw the Apollo 11 launch, and of those people who claimed in "interviews" to have witnessed it and "been there", such testimony could be easily dismissed.

Are you really arguing that all "50[-]year old pictures" and "grainy video" must be disqualified?

I didn't say disqualified, I said it wasn't hard evidence.  Pictures can be faked.  Videos can be faked.  Can you trust the pictures of Pearl Harbor?  Sure, because you have thousands of men who were there and who saw people die or were injured.  The soft evidence of pictures/videos is corroborated by hard evidence.  All the hard evidence for the moon landing - apollo tech - is destroyed.  How convenient.

Did any of you watch the Apollo 11 film by Todd Miller that aired on CNN for two nights for the 50th anniversary? I did.

It is very interesting. It's full of all kinds of nice, clear, HD-quality film footage of the launch and the arrival into LEO...then after that, nothing.

It's quite bizarre.

There's also NO moving film footage of the landing, only all sorts of crystal-clear COLOR still photos.

The whole thing reeks of baloney.

Watch here for $5.99:

You have no hard evidence to support the moon landing.
Interviews, 50[-]year old pictures and grainy video files are not hard evidence.

That would mean that there's "not hard evidence" of [....] the sinking of the Titanic or the Lusitania

Ooops!

The "photographic technology" on which I became overly focused seems not to be especially important to proof of those maritime disasters.

Altho' there were numerous still photos and some motion pictures of the ships before they set out on their final voyages across the Atlantic, it's my understanding that there were no still nor motion pictures of either sinking.  But I claim no expertise for either maritime disaster; I'm not among the many people apparently obsessed with the grim details of such things, especially for the earlier sinking ^[☆].

For the sinking of the Titanic (Apr. 1912), there would've been interviews of survivors and crews from rescuing ships.  It was eventually found on the deep-sea bottom where its iceberg-damaged hull settled.  That wreck never having been raised, the "video" or "photographic technology" in the remotely-controlled unmanned submersible was important to docuмent the wreck.  Or are Moon-landing deniers determined to reject that kind of evidence, too?

For the sinking of the Lusitania (May 1915), the site where it sunk was no mystery.  Its wreck has long been known to be in relatively shallow water offshore Ireland.  Surely that would not be dismissed as "not hard evidence",  even tho' no CathInfo member can travel to Ireland and just go stare at it ^[†]?

Let all the above be as they may, I concede that they were my potentially unwise digression(s).  So after some quick answers, let's return to the "Moon Race".

-------
Note ☆: E.g., once here in Central Florida, there was an exhibition of artifacts retrieved from the Titanic; I never attended it.  Not because of scheduling conflicts, but because of simple lack of interest.  Likewise the more-or-less recent eponymous film; I already knew the ending.^[×]

Note †: The wreck is nowhere even close to being within "tourist-diver" depth-limits.  The sinking of the ship hasn't been a geopolitical issue for many decades, so I suppose it's safe to rely on Wikipedia for all the details I've read today. ^[×]

Note ×: I've omitted links herein in hopes of discouraging members from derailing this topic, whose debate has more-or-less briefly turned to issues of proof that's typically not popularly demanded for popularly acknowledged historical events.