Because, they felt like they HAD to land before the end of that decade. To mainain the credibility of a (granted, now dead) president. Not to mention make sure they do it before the Russians. That's your motive, the cold war, a motive that sparked espionage suicide missions (espionage has only one punishment- execution). And the means... well, that's obvious. Opportunity- this was their LAST reasonably safe chance.Originally Posted by Kirkpatrick
So, the fake is easily possible. And as for the evidence to prove that we did land. None of it's conclusive, anything we've seen could be fake. And all we need to do to prove it is one independent photograph of the landing zone. Of which, if the location is visible from earth (as it should given that one picture). And since it also gets sunlight- actually, the entire moon gets sunlight- "dark side" means earth can't see it, something that I thought was a reason we couldn't see the landing. Eh, my bad. But, I digress, the point is that, with our technology, any observatory should EASILY see the lunar landing sites. We can look at most of the others. See the lander base and all. But not that first.
As for the rest of the landings, well, I have no reason to doubt them. I mean, really, we CAN see most of them. Anyone who wants to and has a few grand to spend on a reciever is fully able to pick up on the Rover's transmissions. But the first... that's where I am suspicious. I mean, seriously, why can't we just turn a telescope over there? We have satalites that can read a license plate. We should be able to see the footprints left behind.
Not that I'm saying there's no way the first landing wasn't real. It entirely possibly could have been. Nothing exists that draws a 100% conclusion. But I think the chances of that first landing being real are far less than the chance of it being faked. Both plausible, and a simple photo would prove it, one way or the other. Which is why I think it's a fake... the general public believes the landings were all real, so they have no reason to prove it (if it is true), and I've already covered a bunch of reasons to deny it (if it's false). Nothing to gain, everything to lose, not the best odds for a gamble.
