For reference, I have already told them why the sky has no stars (it's because of camera exposure, the moon surface is very reflective so lower exposure is used to not overexpose the image) and why the flag wasn't drooping down (there was an extending arm in the stand to hold it upright, as a flag drooping down is a sad flag). I have also explained that the videos of the moon landing were upscaled/remastered when they asked why the video quality of the clips were so good.
Currently, their main argument is the fact that the U.S. were able to do the moon landing in the mid 20th century while are experiencing delays for the current moon mission. They argue that, if the moon landing could be done way back then, with modern technology, it should be possible to quickly get back to the moon. They also argue NASA could have just reused the same designs as the Apollo missions if they actually went to the moon.
I have argued that NASA's budget is a fraction of what is used to be, and that the addition of new modern technologies introduces additional parts that could break and thus need to be tested. I have also mentioned that the Soviet Union would immediately call out the US if they faked the moon landing, and that samples of moon rocks were sent to Soviet scientists to study and verify. They insist that the Soviets were scared of what the US would do if they spoke out against a fake moon landing, which I didn't agree with (given they were both nuclear superpowers)
They then argued that it's impossible to tell whether the moon rocks are actually from the moon landing, they could be samples collected by rovers. I responded that no rovers had successfully collected moon rocks at the time, and then they switched to arguing that it's impossible to verify the rocks are from the moon. I followed up by saying there are methods of doing that (through the composition of the rocks and such). They then asked how anybody knows what moon rocks look like if nobody else has been to the moon, and I got kind of stumped. I tried to explain that there are models to how the moon formed, how we know the rocks aren't from Earth, satellites that map out the surface, etc., but they reiterated that no one can "prove" that they were from the moon without going there in the first place.
One interesting thing they also mentioned is that, if the US really did do a moon landing, why the Soviets (during cold war era) or Chinese (in modern era) didn't do what they do best and copied their designs to land on the moon. Given that the US and China are having a new space race with the goal of being the first to establish a lunar base, they argue that China could just copy the Apollo program designs if the US really did do a moon landing.
To summarise, their main points/questions right now are: a) Explain why the US hasn't gone back in so long, and why with modern technology it seems so difficult? (especially given that NASA has been experiencing numerous delays in the Artemis missions, that certainly hasn't given them a good impression...) b) How do you verify moon rocks without having actually been on the moon? How did scientists figure out what a moon rock looks like? c) Why aren't the old Apollo designs being reused for a moon landing? (by either the Americans or the Chinese)
They say that there isn't strong evidence either side (but believes that it is false, saying that "we will see" once someone else lands on the moon)
And what other points can I bring up to definitively say, yes, the moon landing wasn't faked?
edit:
Another thing, they also can't believe that astronauts could bring and ride the little moon buggies. I am also partially interested in how that was achieved to be honest!
You can't use logic to talk someone out of a position they didn't use logic to decide on in the first place.
Those kinds of people should get nothing but scorn from the rest of us. No conversation, no attempting to change their minds.
Just pure, unadulterated scorn and derision. Nothing else. Fucking morons aren't useful for anything other than diluting the gene pool anyway.
In the current age of the Internet that doesn't work. It used to be people were afraid of being shunned by their community as then they would have nothing. Now with social media there are echo chambers that amplify views deserving of shunning and give refuge to those who would otherwise be shunned.
But deprogramming people like this is hard, and won't always work. So I won't blame anyone for shunning people like this, but just know it's not really solving anything.
Then let them. What does it matter to you? People are allowed to be complete morons if they wish.
It matters to me because the sheer number of these morons who are being exploited by the rich are actively making my life and the lives the people I care about worse. To do nothing about it is to admit defeat and accept this as the way of the world. I don't want to do that, I'd rather at least try something, even knowing the likelyhood is low.
And I don't think pure doomerism is helpful either. By encouraging against any kind of deprogramming, you tacitly make it easier for the morons to spread without resistance.
That type of thinking is no different than the christians who believe that unless everyone else believes as they do then they ALL go to hell.
That ype of "enforced community" bullshit is exactly that. Bullshit.
People spend way too much of their time worrying about everyone else. Yes, helping when you can is a good thing.
You, however, are the one professing all the doom here. If not everyone believes the right things then we are all doomed.
Except who decides what those right things are, and what will happen when you teach society to think in that way, and then some demagogue takes control, and decides to subtly start changing what those right thoughts are?
Why, you get what we're going through right now, don't you...
So no, group think is never a good idea even if the thoughts are the "right" ones.