" 

 *The basic flaw in your premise and that of the article in general is the notion that there is somehow a need to ""prove"" this or any other well-documented historical event. The burden of proof is on the accusers, and they have proven nothing. To take a ""neutral"" stance and thereby dignify this bogus tabloid junk undermines what little credibility this so-called ""encyclopedia"" has. You should take a look at the Wright Brothers article and see how deftly they have handled the questions that some have raised about whether they were the first to successfully fly an airplane. If you would bother looking at the history of the space program, you would see the continued improvement in the technology over the decades. We stopped sending people to the moon because there was no longer any public support for the expenditure. The moon flights evolved into the Apollo-Soyuz program, the shuttle, and the various space stations, along with the far-ranging unmanned flights to the outer planets. Even some of the moonbats concede that we successfully placed a laser reflector on the moon. Why they continue to profess that we couldn't have similarly soft-landed a manned vehicle is beyond logic and reason. It comes down to simply a fanatical belief in their premise, which is based on nothing. What is it going to take to get that simple fact through your thick skull??? As my mom used to say when we would do something dumb, ""Use your head for something besides a hat rack!""   

 "