I think it's the same reason they didn't complain publicly about the U-2 until it crashed on a mission and they had real proof. It makes the Russians look weaker than Americans and they don't want to put more attention on that, let alone look like poor sports in the minds of world opinion during the Cold War..

The reason is that all governments benefit from grand illusions/conspiracies. One day Russia may want or need its fake moon landing, just not now.

Apollo was not even the most colossal technological grand illusion of the 20th Century, nor the first. That belongs to something called nuclear bombs, which are fake as well. Nagasaki/Hiroshima were conventional firebombing as in Dresden.

Because I never even thought of nukes being fake before, you get an upvote.

Yes, it's illogical that nuclear fission can have some behavior like chemical reactions: which is the entropic spatial expansion that comes from chemical bond rearrangements. Uncontrolled nuclear fission is just meltdown, the whole reaction to start with is taking place in basically one solid block of homogeneous metal, giving off subatomic particles radiating and spreading heat as the entropic expansion...

To think there's some magic threshold where this process turns into something like TNT behavior is ludicrous... But more grand illusion to end WWII and start a new profitable Cold War.

Not trying to be an ass when I ask this, but I am one of those proof in pudding guys, and while I find this theory facinating, and well presented, and I thank you for that, what about all the service men that saw the bombs go off, the video evidence of nuclear explosions, etc.? That's alot of witnesses to fake. like all those islanders that watched the bombs go off and it raise the water level to their feet in their cities. I get video evidence can be faked, but unlike things like the moon, that's a hell of alot harder to compartmentalize.

This argument is brought up all the time on any grand illusion/conspiracy...how could so many people be involved and not say anything?

But it's really a question that if you applied to anything in everyday life, you see "conspiracy" or rather ignoring behavior, is going on constantly. How many hundreds of millions of businessmen conceal their future plans daily? How many doctors don't tell their patients the full story of their health problems, often to the doctor's profit? How many salesmen make exorbitant profits on naive customers in over their head, often deeply negatively effecting that customer's financial stability.

Yet the lying goes on daily, yearly, in never-ending fashion across every industry...especially in America, a land built by hustlers and hucksters.

That grand technological fakery can take place is not at all surprising to me that it could take place. It may be surprising when one begins to put the pieces together and see which events and technologies are very likely fake. But the fact that people would attempt such things, or how they could keep such secrets, or go on living ignoring and forgetting them, none of that is surprising...the normal present state of humanity.

As for the nukes on the islands...I mean that to me is almost a smoking gun of fakery. What was the point of the water explosion? It makes for a pretty intense visual of a column of water coming up and expanding. I don't see any reason why one or more sets of massive conventional bombs could not pull that off...

As for all of the old Nevada test site film...the usual movie fakery. Real soldiers had been there at times. You can pack explosives with countless materials to alter effects. I mean this is how fireworks operate. Magnesium and phosphorous, etc, yield bright flashing light. (In any case, since when do you see nuclear fission yielding bright photons of visual wavelength?)

You can certainly lace a conventional bomb with radioactive material and then when that fallout spreads, claim the thing was a nuclear explosion to begin with...nothing hard about that. Even on Wikipedia, we read about the first Trinity test site: "A rehearsal was held on May 7, 1945, in which 108 long tons (110 t) of high explosive spiked with radioactive isotopes were detonated."

All of the grand illusions/conspiracies are this way...a combo of real high technology claiming to deliver more than it really can, for psychological affect.

I'll let the survivors know they just saw a firebomb, not an atom bomb, then.

Firebombing is a technique...

That looks nothing like the atom bomb explosion.

You mean it didn't have all the magic, bright visual wavelength photons which allegedly appear in a nuclear fission bomb? Oh yeah, it didn't...

If we read in the book, Who Built The Moon, we find that the moon rocks which both Russia and USA claim to have returned, robotically and manually, respectively, were measured to be nearly identical to one another and native Earth rocks. These pieces of data are actually what turned all the moon origin theories on their head and drove newer theories as the result is rather nonsensical.

We also learn that the successful Russian robotic retrieval was just after Apollo 11 and 12 "success"...so it's also here that we can see why the Russians never claimed fraud on Apollo 11: mutual fake successful moon rock retrieval. A robotic retrieval and sample launch from lunar surface and guidance back to landing in Kazakhstan is equally ludicrous for 1970 as manned moon landing in 1969.

Some type of exploratory system would def be clutch up there. Or communications.

The thing that makes it untouchable is that there really isn't a lot you can say against it that can't be dis-proven easily. People give up, and only the hardcore deniers remain.

The Japanese took some nice party pics while doing unrelated orbity things.

This is the best answer, so far. If I may play devil's advocate with the evidence though, that only proves we've shot man made objects up to the moon. A robot could as easily place those reflecters as a man, and with a much higher survivability. The landers themselves do nothing but prove we shot something to the moon, not someone.

I kind of liked the Barbara Bain answer. On well.

The meandering foot paths seem pretty convincing to me. Somewhere I've read how they line up with activity recorded in the 60s and 70s footage. That would have been a pretty long troll if the hoax was planned to that degree. I also don't think the computing systems of the day could have controlled a robot capable of deploying all of those things.

I have a buddy that is a long time landing skeptic. These photos always give him pause.

I kind of liked the Barbara Bain answer.

So did I. Last I saw it was up 4. Must've changed. Sorry humorless assholes signed in since we last spoke.

Also, the Russians used probes to put up their reflectors. So the tech existed.

I forget that the early rovers where more like RC cars -- driven by people from the ground so yes, they could have wandered about. The Lunokhod 2 apparently went 26 miles!. The Apollo paths still look very people-generated to me, though, but I guess if the intent is to deceive it's in the realm of possibility.

I personally have no doubt we were there. Watched the landing on a little portable TV (which in itself was pretty cool) that was plugged into an outhouse light socket in a California state park. A small group of people in the woods under dark skies. Will never forget.

I think we might've gone, but I've never seen anything definative. Nothing about the moon landing couldn't have been faked. The double negative works, there. When people will say, "yeah, but the costs to fake the moon landing would be more than to go to the moon.", I like to respond with two points.

First, not if you can't. If you literally can't put a person on the moon, then nothing is more cost effective than faking it. And we had alot, as a nation, riding on putting a man on the moon.

Second, George Lucus, among others, show us that in that day, you can preform advanced stage tricks with little money and successfully create something that looks better than the Star Trek Original Series sets.

Well, to quote another TV series: "I want to believe".

If you haven't had the chance to see the moon lander in the Smithsonian Air & Space museum, add it to your bucket list (I'm assuming it's still there, I saw it last in the 80s). It is an amazing sight that, like the Grand Canyon, has to be experienced in person.

First, the thing is huge. Second, it appears to be made out of tin foil. That somebody had the balls to say "I'll ride that baby down to the moon" blows my mind.

Don't know if you were around during the Moon Age^tm, but they were some crazy times. I lived near Edwards Air Force Base and China Lake and we saw and heard some pretty wild stuff.

never a straight answer

only usa citizen believe in this hoax because you and your parent have been brainwashed by some national 1969 propaganda that say usa is number 1 and bla bla.

you are all so disillusioned that even a 100 years psychotherapy would not be enough. problem you pass these fake ideas to new generation who think they have to think same like everybody. (isheeps? )

you are a Shame to this great planet.

God is ashamed by your USA lies.

you are all a gigantic fiasco. you are all a failure....! lies lies lies.

You moon landing nuts confuse the shit out of me. Ever question mars rovers? Cassini or voyager? Mars isn't even a real thing! Wake up sheeple!

I question everything NASA related: it's a military agency with confidential technology and data. Shouldn't that be enough to be suspect to any neutral observer?

You're welcome to tell me what you believe, but at the end of the day the technology is classified for national security reasons so we can't know for certain.

Space is demilitarized indefinitely by international treaty, making a "military" space agency useless. NASA is not managed by the DoD, therefore not military.

And the sky is green and the leaves are pink.

NASA is funded by the federal government, but it's a private entity. 'Military' is nowhere near an accurate description of the agency.

From The National Aeronautics and Space Act:

CONGRESSIONAL DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE

(b) Aeronautical and Space Activities for Welfare and Security of United States.--Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that adequate provision be made for aeronautical and space activities. Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President.

And later on...

ADMINISTRATION AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COORDINATION

Sec. 20114. Administration and Department of Defense coordination

(a) Advise and Consult.--The Administration and the Department of Defense, through the President, shall advise and consult with each other on all matters within their respective jurisdictions related to aeronautical and space activities and shall keep each other fully and currently informed with respect to such activities.

(b) Referral to the President.--If the Secretary of Defense concludes that any request, action, proposed action, or failure to act on the part of the Administrator is adverse to the responsibilities of the Department of Defense, or the Administrator concludes that any request, action, proposed action, or failure to act on the part of the Department of Defense is adverse to the responsibilities of the Administration, and the Administrator and the Secretary of Defense are unable to reach an agreement with respect to the matter, either the Administrator or the Secretary of Defense may refer the matter to the President for a decision (which shall be final).

Sounds like a military organizational command structure headed by the Commander in Chief, and you already admitted its funded by the federal government.

The only question most have is the ability to get humans there alive, keep them alive, and get them back alive, in 1969.

Unmanned rovers are understandably much simpler.

Supposively isn't a word. Supposedly is a word.

What else is there to do there?

A telescope and communications system on the moon would greatly increase our range into outer space, for starters.

No it wouldn't.

When landing on the moon, you need to keep things as light as possible. That would severely limit the size of any telescope you could bring.

You'd be better off just launching a telescope into space and not have it land anywhere, just chilling in orbit or other space location - like Hubble or the James Webb telescope.

A telescope on the dark side of the moon would reveil things we've literally never seen due to several factors, the light of the sun being a simple one. And a radio center on a pole would make communications for something like a mars mission more effective. And much more effective if we were to turn the astroid belt into the rich mining centers they could be.

You should check out the James Webb Telescope. It will be positioned beyond the moon at the L2 point.

We have the hubble.. and voyager. and the ISS.

And for itd be mostly useless on the moon as the light side of the moon always faces the earth.

the light side of the moon always faces the earth

This is not correct. Just like the Earth, half of the moon is lit by the sun at all times (apart from during a lunar eclipse). Because of tidal locking, we only ever see one side of the Moon from Earth, but the the side we cannot see (confusingly referred to as "the dark side") gets just as much as sunlight.

Consider what a "new moon" is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_moon

It is the phase where the moon appears dark (and cannot be seen) from Earth because the "dark side" is directly facing, and therefore illuminated by, the sun.

you couldn't debunk the article or my conjecture from it. You're just stating your opinion, not the facts of the matter. Like how there are literally megatons of resources just waiting for us to exploit. I mean, if we could get to the moon in the late 60s, and now private contractors can fly to the edge of the atmosphere, it would seem only logical to me that someone with enough enterprise would make some money off of it instead of just letting it sit there for 50 years while people like you settle for voyager and the international space station. You didn't even read the article or you'd come to conclusion that the hubble is nice, but a dark side telescope would be like comparing the telescope you get from walmart with the hubble. It's a whole diffrent level. Why would you be against that? Seems you're trying really hard here to suggest the moon is worthless as a stepping stone into space. That is a very odd and incorrect notion if I've ever heard one. Most of NASA agrees. As well as the Russians. If I may, it seems to me you're doing just what I suggested in the OP, defending the American version of events as a logical reason to stay right here, safe, on earth. Maddening.

I was just answering your reasons for why we didnt bring a telescope and why russia didn't go.

Barbara Bain

[deleted]

We are The Most High.

[8]

What is it about the Moon Landing that makes it so untouchable as to question?

because America sent humans to the f'n moon that's why. there were too many people involved for this to have been faked. what is it about one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century that makes it so hard for you to believe. AND there are so many more important conspiracies then this. i cannot fathom why anyone would waste their time trying to debunk it.

there were too many people involved

Much like 9/11, this is an exaggeration. Not everyone has to be in on it to play their part. Anyone in the military knows that. It's called "Need to know".

What is it about one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century that makes it so hard for you to believe?

It's not hard for me to believe. No where did I suggest that. What I find unbelievable is that after we played golf there, then we decided to take a break for half a century before exploring more opitions. I already know your response is technology, and that's all well and good. Because if we have the technology to land on the moon, and play golf. To make 0G pens (and we do), then what I find unbelievable that we didn't have a man on mars before 84'.

It's people, like you, that think there are more important things here or there so no need to look at this moment in history and srutinize it. I can not fathom why anyone would hang out on a conspiracy chat board and not atleast concider the evidence I present (that is the telescope stuff up higher) and prominate points, instead of forming straw man arguements about things I never stated.

you made 3 statements and asked 2 questions. i see no evidence here. merely conjecture. i don't see that i have made a straw man argument here.

i find it unbelievable that we aren't already having space hotels like 2001: space odyssey. but you know nasa budgets got cut to less than half of apollo project levels. then the shuttle explosion in '86 keeps us out of space for 2 years.and so on and so on. the moon race was real and the moon landing happened. you have yet to show me any evidence to consider

A telescope on the dark side of the moon would reveil things we've literally never seen due to several factors, the light of the sun being a simple one. And a radio center on a pole would make communications for something like a mars mission more effective. And much more effective if we were to turn the astroid belt into the rich mining centers they could be.

From The National Aeronautics and Space Act:

CONGRESSIONAL DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE

(b) Aeronautical and Space Activities for Welfare and Security of United States.--Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that adequate provision be made for aeronautical and space activities. Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President.

And later on...

ADMINISTRATION AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COORDINATION

Sec. 20114. Administration and Department of Defense coordination

(a) Advise and Consult.--The Administration and the Department of Defense, through the President, shall advise and consult with each other on all matters within their respective jurisdictions related to aeronautical and space activities and shall keep each other fully and currently informed with respect to such activities.

(b) Referral to the President.--If the Secretary of Defense concludes that any request, action, proposed action, or failure to act on the part of the Administrator is adverse to the responsibilities of the Department of Defense, or the Administrator concludes that any request, action, proposed action, or failure to act on the part of the Department of Defense is adverse to the responsibilities of the Administration, and the Administrator and the Secretary of Defense are unable to reach an agreement with respect to the matter, either the Administrator or the Secretary of Defense may refer the matter to the President for a decision (which shall be final).

Sounds like a military organizational command structure headed by the Commander in Chief, and you already admitted its funded by the federal government.

I kind of liked the Barbara Bain answer. On well.

The meandering foot paths seem pretty convincing to me. Somewhere I've read how they line up with activity recorded in the 60s and 70s footage. That would have been a pretty long troll if the hoax was planned to that degree. I also don't think the computing systems of the day could have controlled a robot capable of deploying all of those things.

I have a buddy that is a long time landing skeptic. These photos always give him pause.