The Scientific Method is an ongoing process where one is supposed to ask questions and understand that even the slightest new discovery may shatter whatever was believed to be "true" or "valid" the day before.

Another thing that is actual science is analyzing the process that gives you the information. I have a hard time taking things at face-value from an organization that understands they have a complete monopoly on the subject being discussed.

What isn't science is arguments like "why would they lie?" and "the Russians would have called out NASA if they were lying", which is what you find when you do actual research into any of NASA's claims which happen to be surrounded by hundreds of inconsistencies.

Inconsistencies which they refuse to address. And that is why I hold the position I do now. That is why I question anything that NASA claims. Because frankly, I understand the "science" behind plenty of their claims as well or better than anyone. I understand that science well enough to see that a lot of them require certain leaps of faith. I 100% believe in math. I don't 100% believe in "trust us, thats the way things work on the Moon" or "trust us, when you are in space, the glow from the Earth disrupts the camera's light sensors".

I don't 100% believe in those things, and nobody should. Because that's NOT science. You can 90% believe it. You can 99% believe it. But those things are not like saying "water boils on Earth at 100 °C". You can believe that 100%.

As long as there is a shred of doubt, people are allowed to question it. That's science. As long as there is a reason why they could be faking it, holding a skeptical view is the sign of a healthy mind. Blindly believing 100% in something because "everyone knows..." or "NASA said..." is a sign of a lazy mind.