You argue that the moon landings were faked. But how much of the space program is faked? The ISS? Satellites? Mars Rovers? Voyager?
Space itself is fake. When you look up what you actually see is a color changing ceiling.
+1 mikachussetts… we’re like Truman Burbank in The Truman Show!
@OP: I’m unsure, I would imagine that only a small portion of the space program actually had to be faked. I’m curious about the absolute magnitude of radiation in space between the Moon and Earth - radiation in space is actually far higher than the public generally understands. If radiation levels were prohibitively high, they might have had to fake the entire trip from Earth to the Moon but not sure how that could have been pulled off without ground control being in on it which seems implausible. Assuming radiation levels are not prohibitive, I see no reason to believe we couldn’t have sent men to orbit the Moon, take some nice space pictures and then come back while the rest was done in a studio to awe the public.
I have another more extreme theory that radiation levels were found, early on, to be prohibitively high in high earth orbit when animals were sent into high earth orbit and returned to Earth with Geiger counter readings that required to them to be kept behind lead shielding most of the time. Of course, this was withheld from the public and the animal’s body-double was trotted out just as it would have been had the animal survived the radiation but died in the return crash. There is an interesting correlation between the list of nations that have sent animals into Earth orbit and the list of nations that possess nuclear weapons. Maybe these happen to be the nations that know the US space program must be bullshit and, therefore, concluded that maybe the other supposedly miraculous achievements of the US (e.g. the atomic bomb) might be bullshit, as well? Consider that the government has made it illegal to take home Trinitite (the radioactive glass supposedly created by the Trinity explosion) and the site where Trinity was detonated has been scoured of Trinitite. Just saying.
HG Wells wrote a book decades earlier featuring an “atomic bomb” - he actually called it that. Jules Verne famously wrote about blasting men to the moon. Wells laid out in plain language how his weapon would force the world to unite under a single government as the possibility of inter-state war became too dangerous since a solitary man could walk around with the power to destroy half a city in his suitcase. Sound familiar? Muslim terrorists with suitcase dirty-bombs?
It is not outside the realm of possibility that we have been told the most monstrous lies about the natural world by our leadersfor going on a century now. And this is really nothing new, our leaders have been long used to threatening us with eternal hellfire and imaginary demons flying about unseen, aweing us with the unseen Hand of God and indoctrinating our children so they will be receptive to these stories of unseen terrors and impossible feats. Is it really so different to dupe the public into believing that men have landed on the Moon and that there are weapons so powerful they can destroy an entire city in an instant? I’m far from concluding that this is, in fact, the case but my only point is that it’s not outside the realm of possibility and it’s unjustifiable credulity to place such monstrous lies beyond our leaders, as if they have even a grain of moral compunction.
Clayton -
interestingly enough is that radiation is not the evidence about the fake landing, but the other way round, it’s evidence that astronauts really went to moon, because after arival they developed <..early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip…> I didn’t know about this fact 
hehe.
To be a bit more logical, evidence of leaving the Earth, not landing on the moon (for, despite your disagreement with Clayton, his theory of going to the moon withstands your evidence).
I saw these images the other day:
http://www.consciousape.com/news/new-nasa-images-proof-of-moon-landings-/
From a public choice perspective, why fake the moon landings? There is today the narrative that this thing called “America” earned prestige and respect and a symbolic victory over the Soviet system, but when they realized it was impossible due to radiation or whatever, why did they continue to fake it anyway? JFK was dead, so no electoral repurcussions for backtracking on his famous speech. Were politicians involved at all, or was it totally within the bureaucracy? Were NASA folks that ballsy to fake the landing for the sake of their budget?
Following that, since there must be hard evidence of it today, what’s stopping some eager politician from finding the evidence and putting it out there? Or someone who was involved from exposing it and profiting from the book and movie deal? Why is no one picking up the $20 bill on the ground?
Those are all good reasons not to jump on the “the moon landings were faked” bandwagon. I can entertain a hypothesis without immediately adopting or rejecting it. Clearly, if they were faked, it would have had to have come from On High, nothing less could withstand the obstacles you’ve mentioned.
Clayton -
Just buy powerful binoculars and check is there footprints on the Moon.
You actually can’t, apparently. No magnifying instrument we have has such resolution.
Wheylous, did you not check out the link to the pictures I posted? One of the photots is supposed to be footprints.
Yeah, but it’s poor resolution
And more importantly, it’s from NASA, the very agency whose veracity we’re questioning…
I will withhold my judgment until an adversarial source can resolve the landing sites in sufficient detail to confirm that humans have been on the surface.
Clayton -
Here’s an interesting idea for all the people who think the Moon landings were faked: get together a build a spacecraft that can orbit the Moon, take pictures of the landing sites, and transmit the pictures back to Earth. A more specific requirement would be for the spacecraft to be able to get close enough and/or have a camera powerful enough to resolve footprints on the lunar surface. The question then is whether there are any private launch sites which can launch the thing.
I was just about to post this:
That actually makes sense. If you get together with tons of people who are interested in this you can raise enough money to actually do this. There must be 10 million on Earth who think the moon landing was faked. $200 from each of them, and you have $2 billion.
Then I decided to check inflation-adjusted costs for the mission: $135 billion.
Well, then, either you will need 60x more people to jump on your party bus or charge 60x more of each of them.
Now, you could say that you want a non-manned spaceship, which would cut costs a lot, though the conspiracy theories could then continue…
Well, I am guessing a really basic satellite might be doable with $2 billion.
I’ll just leave this here:
+1 Logistic, put a smile on my face at the end of an otherwise pretty crappy day!
Clayton -
Is there a reason to fake it at all when you can prove that that it’s impossible due to prohibitive restrictions? No symbolic victory was necessary over the Soviets, in so far as the public is concerned. Only so far as the government was concerned. The US had technology that was further along in every way. It would have been much cheaper and easier to explain that no one could do it with current technology.
Edit: Also, if it were faked and it was impossible due to radiation levels, how come no other country has said as much? Like any country that doesn’t have a space program? Or any country that doesn’t like the US?
I’m intrigued. Care to elaborate?