Unbelievable moonbases and wrong science

[Ashim]

Here is something I don't understand: Why, then, did they fake the moon landings?

Do you mean images or the actual landings?
Are you refering to doctored/created  pictures and footage or the entire Apollo programme?

I'm not sure. I know the images were obviously faked. Many people believe that is proof that they didn't really go to the moon, while others say that they really did go to the moon, but just faked the images. But if that's true, then why did they bother with such a clumsy, fake presentation? I mean, the images and other anomalies are so obviously fake, it's comical.

So I don't know if they really went or not. Or maybe they had been there well before that time, and just tried to present images to the public that would appear congruent with the known technology of the time, and it just looks silly by today's standards.

What you do think, Ashim?

I think the work done on the public presentation was incredible. Just as we still marvel at Kubrick's 2001 which was made in the late 60's, the media produced was absolute cutting edge.
Also, people do not know how things look in space and on the lunar surface, they have no real reference points with which to compare what they are being shown. It's easier to 'fake' these sort of images compared to familiar situations on earth.

911 is the prime example. The destruction of the towers was unlike anything seen by the public before, so they had no comparison to go on.
In these cases people will almost always appeal to authority for an explaination.
Dr. Judy Wood has done excellent work on "Where did the Towers go?".

I think the astronauts went to the moon and had an 'experience'.
I believe the moon (and mars) are littered with artifacts, their disclosure however deemed unsuitable for public consumption.

Images just have to be good enough to be believed by the majority.