Was the moon landing real or faked?

That makes sense.

That is indeed some of the strongest evidence that it was real. The Apollo missions happened at the height of the Cold War, and the USSR was perfectly capable of tracking where the radio signals from the Command Module and Lunar Landing Module were coming from. If the USSR had any reason to doubt those signals were coming from where NASA claimed they were, they would have said something.

Of course, the reason conspiracy theories survive is that the fruitcakes will always be able to come up with some bizarre, highly implausible, ridiculously complex alternative explanation for every fact that doesn't support their fantasy. In this case, I suppose they could claim that the USA launched unmanned, robotic probes that bounced messages sent from Earth back to Earth, landed on the moon and then returned.

Naw I'm content with dying on earth. Visiting? Sure staying and dying? I'll let my kid do that crap.

"Over 150 million horsepower, 20 tones of fuel burned per second, top speed of over 24000mph"

are you sure youre not referrin to my foxbody?

No, it's clearly just a naturally formed moon-mirror! My Facebook friends said it was fake!!!

Definitely not.

Apollo 11 landed on the moon in July 1965. At that time, Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey was in production.

What's actually laughable is the idea that the US Government, with all the resources it had at its disposal, couldn't have produced video images that were at least as slick as those in 2001 if there was some huge conspiracy to fake the landings.

Trying to be charitable, I guess it's possible that you and others who swallow this guff just don't understand how crude and limited the technology of the Apollo missions was. The microwave band transmitter on the Lunar Landing Module had an output of 20 watts, which is only five times the legal limit of CB radios. The bandwidth available was very limited, and it had to carry voice, video, LEM telemetry data and biomedical data for both of the astronauts. Weight was a huge issue on the LEM, and if you look at the size and weight of studio TV cameras in the 1960s, it's not at all surprising that the video camera on the LEM produced images that were grainy and generally poor quality.

I think part of the problem is that a whole lot of people today have been exposed to science fiction movies and TV shows set in space, and they've come to believe that they depict what the reality of space travel must be like. There's so much of a contrast between those and the shitty videos from the Apollo missions that they come to the bizarre and reality-denying conclusion that the real is fake, and the fake is real.

I'm also convinced that while many people who didn't live through the sixties might believe they understand the state of technology back then, those beliefs are also simply wrong. I don't recall anyone complaining about the video images from Apollo 11 at the time, and that was simply because most people were accustomed to watching low-res, interference-prone black and white TV. It's almost like the conspiracy nuts believe that NASA should have been able to transmit full-colour 4K TV from the Moon if they were really there.

Video technology was not nearly as advanced as now back then, and the ability to transmit and receive high definition video or dense data from orbit did not exist yet.

So those crude looking videos transmitted from space were in fact state of the art for the day. A lot of ordinary local TV news was not much better. I well remember the landing on the moon in 1969. I used to watch on Black and White TV all the launches and recoveries.