It's as if someone said, "there is light in the world and I am able to see because light comes from my eyes." (People did indeed used to believe that eyes radiated light so that objects could be seen.) Such an eye-lighter will never process the experience from other people that the world did not go suddenly dark when the eye-lighter closed his eyes.
But back in 1969, it was way easier to just go to the damn moon than it would have been to fake the video sent back.
Even in Kubrik's 2001, there was no effort at all to film, say, even what walking looks like on the moon--even in the shots which putatively happen on the moon--even in the shots which happen indoors on the moon! It just would have been too expensive. This in a film in which they went all-out to create awesome special effects.
I am not sure of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program says the Apollo program cost €25 billion.
That’s a lot of money compared to the movie 2001, which cost €10,5 million (about 1/23,000 of it)
That would silence critics.
And, incredibly, they've managed all this, via the internet, without ever leaving their bedrooms.
Unfortunately, the US no longer seems capable of anything on the scale of a moonshot or Manhattan project or even Hoover dam.
Except war, of course.
My take is some people have an extreme distrust of the US government and its claims where national security may be concerned.
My take is that a lot of people learned to stimulate that for their own personal gain.
I think most people (including me) think the tech was too primitive. This is what I think computers were then [1]
Ultimately, I think bad ass people banded together and worked their butt off to pull off a stretch goal.
I wonder if I romanticize engineers from then or there are similar folks today.
It truly boggled my mind how the flat earth theory can be plausible in this day and age.
- no stars in photos (film’s dynamic range too low)
- no observable landing sites (resolution of telescopes too low)
There are many others.
>A few of the more we’ll known theories: no stars in photos (film’s dynamic range too low)...
And, ironically, if you were going to fake the moon landing photos, you'd probably have put some stars in, just so people wouldn't ask "Why are there no stars?"