Certainly there's a lot to be suspicious about. No matter how careful the government was, how likely was it that such a complex engineering project worked succe

Certainly there's a lot to be suspicious about. No matter how careful the government was, how likely was it that such a complex engineering project worked successfully on the very first try? Even getting there would've been difficult, but then the system can lift off and return to Earth? It does seem incredible. And it's not like you can point a telescope at the moon and see the flags or other evidence. But I think the evidence is definitely in favor of it actually happening. We've got source code: https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11 https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11 We've got design documents: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LMdocs.html https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LMdocs.html The code and documents don't prove that the moon landings happened, but they do show that NASA couldn't have faked them with a stage without ever intending to go to space. They at least did significant engineering work, and made a system that has no obvious errors and could've gone to space. And then, after putting in all this engineering work, there is video evidence of a takeoff of an object matching the description. There are independent telescopes that tracked Apollo 11 to the moon. People picked up radio signals from the moon of the transmissions the astronauts were sending. Not to mention, there were multiple moon landings, which raises the chance of an error being revealed. A con artist wouldn't give you so many chances to catch him. The Russians would've been watching. Nixon was in power during Apollo 11, and you could certainly doubt him and maybe his Republican successor; but why wouldn't the next Democrat President shame his opposition to help get reelected, if it were all fake? There are moon rocks on display. I know that astronomers are able to tell the chemical composition of far-off space objects. If that technology is newer than the moon landings, and the chemical composition of the moon rocks matches what it says the moon is made of, then there would've been no way for NASA to fake those moon rocks without collecting a real sample(or at least sending older equipment to orbit the moon). Now, they could've sent unmanned rockets to the Moon, with fake broadcast signals that were carefully scripted being sent back, fake video that was pre-staged being sent back. But, those unmanned rockets would've had to leave the moon and come back, or else they'd be detectable via lasers or such still. And at that point, it's not that much of a stretch to add a manned crew. I don't know - NASA being able to fake all this evidence in a way that couldn't be revealed by nearly 50 years of technological advancement seems more extraordinary than doing the landings. Are you arguing that NASA never sent anything to the moon, only sent one-way unmanned rockets, sent two-way unmanned rockets, or sent one-way manned rockets? Only the two-way unmanned seems remotely plausible to me. And are you claiming that all Presidents afterward know it is fake and are lying to the public, or are they too busy or being lied to by NASA?