Moon Landing: Fake or Real?

[Cyberman]

It was conjectured that, because of the belief the moon is millions of years old that the lander would come down into a vast dust cavity when landing.
Not a peep about this came forth after the "Landing" -
I remember that fact during the event.
Either the millions of years are bogus or the landing was.

Even Answers In Genesis wants people to stop using this as an argument because it makes creationists look bad.

The data gathered by unmanned vehicles prior to Apollo 11 showed that the dust accumulation was not insurmountable. Nobody was surprised when the LM didn't sink out of sight; despite which, the module's landing engine cleared away what dust there was below the craft.

(Yes, there were unmanned missions before Apollo 11. In fact it was the Russians who hold the distinction for being the first to reach the surface.)

There was dust around the lander, in spite of the fact there would have been multiplied thousandths of pounds of thrust blowing all of it away and glazing the rocks from the heat. There would have been an actual crater surrounding the lander if reality was in effect.

Though the descent engine did blow away some of the surface dust, the engine itself wasn't all that powerful. It didn't need to be - its sole function was to slow the vehicle's descent, something best done before you get anywhere near the surface. By the time the module made contact, the engine was switched into its lowest gear before being switched off entirely.

In the crisp black and white shots (done on a stage- probably at Area 51) shadows are seen at different angle and NO stars are seen.
If this was on the moon, stars would be visible and shadows would not reveal different light sources.

The only shadows shown at different angles are the ones falling across uneven ground. The smoking gun of multiple light sources is not shadows at different angles; it is multiple shadows - something not seen in any of the footage.

And do you know why no stars are visible? Because where the craft landed, it was daytime. The sunlight reflected from the ground washed out the relatively feeble light of the stars. That, plus the fact that the cameras were calibrated to compensate for daylight conditions, plus the fact that even at night a camera shutter needs to be open for some time to capture stars, should make for no surprise that no stars are seen. That said, certain of the brighter planets (Venus, Jupiter) have been identified in some of the photographs. And guess what? They're right where they should have been in the sky. It's almost as if someone was standing on the Moon with a camera.

The media was prevented from live feed at the control center and had to camera the fuzzy pictures off a projector. Why? Why were the pics fuzzy? The crew had a color camera on board, however, all pics supposedly on the moon were black and white.

I can't comment on this, other than to say if any of this is true there ought to be media articles about it. That plus check out the hi-res scans of the original Apollo photographs freely available (sorry, can't give the link right now. Can anyone help?)

The space capsule was orbiting the earth while pretending to be on the moon.
They were well out of range of anyone's radar to pick up and the Russians would not know where to aim radar anyway.

Then the doppler effect of the radio and telemetry signals would give the game away. No astronomer worth the title would be fooled for a nanosecond. The only way to simulate radio signals beaming to and from a spacecraft going to the Moon and back is to send a spacecraft to the Moon.

Being in earth orbit, the crew were out of range of the deadly radiation belt between them and the moon.
Why the Russians did not ballyhoo what they knew about the Van Allen belt, I do not know. Maybe they fell for the hoax too.

Well, since they cannot have been in LEO, owing to the doppler effect above, this claim doesn't even get to the starting gate.

Very few people who worked on the program knew the whole picture.
It is the same in every industry.
Especially one with the cloak of secrecy around it.

So we've got a small conspiracy, then, with only those with a need to know being in on it. That means that the vast majority of contract workers and ancillary staff had to believe they were working on a real mission, designing and building a modular space vehicle that would be physically capable of doing the job. That's like inventing a working lightsaber to fool people into thinking you've invented a working lightsaber.

Back when the event occurred, I did not think much about it. I saw it, believed it.
I was into cars not rockets.
I did escape Vietnam because of a severe injury, and as the years progressed I started adding up the lies of govt. to where I believe nothing they say- only what they do.
Just as I believe nothing the Impostor says - only what he does.

Okay, let's say the big bad Government conspired against the American people to pull off the biggest and most successful hoax in history.

Why?