Or course I've seen the video of the Apollo 11 press conference, where Armstrong, Collins, and Aldrin do look like deer caught in headlights. But the explanation for that could be a number of things.

Such as?

Some comic relief. 

If [ you   NoOneImportant] don't believe any so-called "conspiracy theories",  then why the ____ are you on CathInfo to begin with?

Ummm, perhaps bacause it's named "CathInfo" and not "ConspirInfo".

You seem to be penalizing NoOneImportant for an overgeneralization that's of your own invention.  Altho' it's safe to infer from his 1-line wisecrack that he does not accept all "conspiracy theories",  there's nothing about it that should lead a reader to conclude that he dismisses or rejects all "conspiracy theories".  If you found an unambiguous quote during your review of his posting history that proves that he allows no exceptions, I'm sure I'm not the only CathInfo member who'd like you to show it to us.

Or more likely [ you   noOneImportant] are a troll that is just here to start trouble and be contrary for lulz?

As trolls go, it might be said that he would be quite an "aberration" or "anomaly" (ahem!).  He posts on CathInfo at an average rate of fewer than 1 every 3 days, and has originated only 1 topic since registering almost exactly 2 years ago.  So he has only 223 posts total to his name.

Don't tell me you're here for Traditional Catholic news, because virtually all your posts are on the topic of science of some sort.  I'm really wondering if you belong here on a "Traditional Catholic" forum at all.

It seems that you've lost perspective here (I certainly hope that it's only temporary): The topics "of science of some sort" on which he posted are all topics that you: the owner-moderator, consider acceptable content for CathInfo, aren't they?  And all of those topics (excepting maybe 1) were started by a member other than himself. 

In a recent topic, NoOneImportant has described himself as an "engineer".  I'm surprised that an owner-moderator who describes himself as a "computer programmer" would not recognize the apparent reluctance by NoOneImportant to participate (to leap being out of the question) into various ecclesiastical topics as simply showing the classic caution that's typical of people in his field.  Especially after being exposed to debates or arguments over theology that are carried on by the former seminarians on CathInfo.  I mean, throwing around terms like "manifest heresy", "material heresy", "formal heresy" (shouldn't there be a corresponding "actual heresy"?[†]), and understanding how to distinguish each?  Yikes!  Are CathInfo readers really surprised that an engineer would gravitate to the intellectual comfort of topics closer to his own field?  In a word: "science"?

I certainly can relate: I never was taught in parochial school about types of heresy.  Nor did anyone ever even whisper about Card. Siri and the news accounts focused on the Sistine Chapel stove-pipe.  The major U.S. t.v. networks showed us the first appearance of "Good Pope John" (XXIII) in white on the Vatican balcony, and that was that.  "Bugnini"?  That's an Italian car manufacturer!

-------
Note †: An admittedly dry joke unlikely to be understood by anyone except computer programmers (or software engineers) who've absorbed at least 1 relevant "language reference" manual.

I've long thought a good argument in favor of the moon landings having happened, in this case of Apollo 11, is all the seemingly unpredictable happenings, such as no pictures of Neil Armstrong being taken by Aldrin. There's one of Neil reflected in Aldrin's visor and a few with Neil's back turned, but which are focused on something else. The account from James R. Hansen's First Man The Life of Neil A. Armstrong (which was authorized by Armstrong) has some wondering if Aldrin didn't take the pictures of Neil on purpose, out of spite for not getting to be the first man to step on the moon. Aldrin's father was furious that he wasn't picked over Neil, and lobbied NASA to switch the order. One of the claims of Kaysing and other moon hoax proponents, with zero evidence, is that Stanley Kubrick was hired by NASA to write scripts for Apollo 11, 12 and 13.

Without question, it was a highly unusual relationship between two men who had to work so closely together—one of amiable (read neutral)—strangers. But the strangeness went in both directions, not just from Neil to Buzz.

Consider the fact that, while Armstrong took dozens of wonderful photographs of Aldrin, Buzz took not a single explicit picture of Neil. The only pictures of Neil were one with a reflection of him in Aldrin’s helmet visor in a picture Neil took, or a very few where Neil was standing in the dark shadow of the LM with his back to the camera or only partially shown. *

It is one of the minor tragedies of Apollo 11 that posterity benefits from no photos of the First Man on the Moon. Not of him saluting the American flag. Not of him climbing down the ladder. Not of him stepping on the Moon. Not of him standing by the LM. Not of him with the Earth in the background. Not of him next to a crater. Not of him directly anywhere. Sure, there are the grainy, shadowy, black-and-white TV pictures of Armstrong on the Moon, and they are remarkable and forever memorable. There are also a number of frames from the 16mm movie camera. But, very regrettably, there are no high-resolution color photographic images of the First Man with the spectacular detail provided by the Hasselblad.

Why not? The answer, according to Aldrin, was that he simply did not think to take any—except at that moment when they were planting the American flag and President Nixon’s call allegedly ended what would have been a Buzz-at-Neil photo shoot.

In his autobiography, Aldrin excuses what he failed to do. “As the sequence of lunar operations evolved, Neil had the camera most of the time, and the majority of the pictures taken on the Moon that include an astronaut are of me [author’s emphasis]. It wasn’t until we were back on Earth and in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory looking over the pictures that we rea lized there were few pictures of Neil. My fault perhaps, but we had never simulated this during our training.”

“We didn’t spend any time worrying about who took what pictures,” Armstrong graciously recalls. “It didn’t occur to me that it made any difference, as long as they were good.

“I don’t think Buzz had any reason to take my picture, and it never occurred to me that he should. I have always said that Buzz was the far more photogenic of the crew.”

At the same time, Armstrong does offer real clarification of the situation pertaining to cameras and the photographic plan for surface activities during Apollo 11. “We always had a plan for when we were going to transfer the camera. He was going to take some pictures, and I was going to take some. And I think roughly we did it approximately like the plan called for in terms of the camera transfer. I had the camera for a large fraction of the time and I had more assigned photographic responsibilities, but Buzz did have the camera some of the time and did take pictures. It was in the flight plan.”

Besides the Hasselblad that Neil mounted on his chest bracket shortly after the EVA began, another Hasselblad was kept in the LM as a spare in case the first camera malfunctioned. This camera—an intravehicular (IV) Hasselblad—did not have the reflective outer shell (that kept the EVA camera from overheating) and didn’t have a reseau plate for putting calibration crosses on the images; it was never brought out. The only other still-photo camera that was used on the surface was the Apollo Lunar Surface Close-Up Camera (ALSCC), a stereoscopic camera—often called the “Gold camera,” as its pro ponent was Dr. Thomas Gold, a prominent Cornell University astronomer—that had been specially designed for taking extreme close-ups of lunar soils and rocks. *

The Gold camera was solely Neil’s responsibility, and Aldrin does not recall taking any pictures with it. But Buzz definitely took a number of pictures of his own choosing with the EVA Hasselblad. This means Neil painstakingly took the camera off his chest bracket and handed it directly and carefully over to Aldrin. Buzz does not recall whether he, in turn, ever put the camera into his own bracket; he believes he did not but rather kept it mostly in his right hand. * Buzz does remember taking pictures, though. He took two complete 360-degree panoramas. He took pictures of the distant Earth. He took pictures of the LM. He took the famous shots of footprints (his own) in the lunar dust. But he took no purposeful shots of Neil. Not one. To be fair, all of the photos Buzz took were planned photo tasks of his; taking a picture of Neil was not part of them.

“I should have taken it upon myself to do that,” Aldrin offers today. “But, you know, when I look back at where I am now, and what I’m aware of now, compared to where I was, I hate to use the word, but I was intimidated by the enormity of the situation. At the time there was certainly a gun-barrel vision of focusing in on what you were supposed to be doing rather than being innovative and creative. Right there was an opportunity where I could have been creative and wasn’t.”

But Buzz had found other opportunities to be creative. “When I saw what my footprint looked like, I said to myself, ‘Golly, we ought to take a picture of that, but I’d better take a picture before and after.’ That was split-second. Then there was another instance when, ‘Gee, that footprint looks awful lonesome. Let’s have the boot, too. Yeah, but then, if I do that, I won’t see the footprint.’ So I took a picture with the boot slightly away from it. The rest of my picture taking was docuмenting going around the LM. Neil took most of the panoramas, both with the TV camera when he was first out there and then with the Hasselblad. It was just a matter of who had what when, and there was just not the opportunity for me ever to do that.

“When I got back and someone said, ‘There’s not any of Neil,’ I thought, ‘What in the hell can I do now?’ I felt so bad about that. And then to have somebody say that might have been intentional…. How do you come up with a nonconfrontational argument against that? I mean, that was just such a divisive observation, and Neil and I were never in the least divisive. We really were intimidated by the situation we found ourselves in on the Moon, hesitant and with an unclear idea of what to do next.”

Not even Apollo 11 crewmate Mike Collins realized it until well after the mission. “Stupid me, stupid me. We came back, the pi ctures got developed—they came back from the NASA photo lab. I loved them. I thought they were terrific. I thought they were great. I mean, the clarity of them, the composition, the colors, everything. I thought they were just magnificent. Never once did it occur to me, ‘Which one of them is that?’ It’s just some guy in a pressure suit. It was not until later that people said, ‘That’s Buzz,’ and ‘That’s Buzz,’ and ‘That’s Buzz,’ and the only Neil was the one where he was in Buzz’s visor. But even then, I attributed it to technical stuff—you know, the timeline, who was carrying what piece of equipment, what they were supposed to be doing at given time, experiments they were running on the surface, and so forth.”

Flight Director Gene Kranz only shakes his head sadly trying to come up with an answer: “I don’t have an explanation. In recent years I have been speaking to about 100,000 people a year. I do sixty to seventy public appearance engagements. And the only picture I can put up on the screen of Neil is his reflection in Buzz’s facemask. I find that shocking. That’s something to me that’s unacceptable. But, you know, life isn’t fair.”

For years even someone as close to the pulse of the Manned Space Program as Chris Kraft failed to realize that there were no pictures of Neil on the Moon. When asked about the riddle, Kraft answered: “I can’t answer that. I was taken aback by it when I first recognized it was so, but I can’t give you any reason why it didn’t happen. I think it would be an unfair judgment that Buzz intentionally did not want to take any pictures of him. No, no, no. I don’t think Aldrin would have been that devious. I would not accuse him of that.”

Nor would Mike Collins. “It never once entered your mind, Mike, that Buzz might have not taken a picture of Neil on purpose?”

“Never. I mean, I’m not saying it couldn’t be true. I’m just saying I’m a naïve person. It never entered my mind that there was some nefarious plot on Buzz’s part to exclude Neil from the photo-docuмentation of the first lunar landing. It just never occurred to me. Maybe it should have.”

According to Chris Kraft and others involved in Apollo 11’s mission planning, “There were all kinds of scientific reasons to take pictures and all kinds of plans to take pictures of the lunar landscape, but I don’t think there was ever any game plan to have them take a picture of each other like you would do at the beach. I don’t recall that ever being discussed.”

Interestingly, when asked whether he thought Armstrong while on the Moon had been oblivious of the fact that Aldrin was not taking any pictures of him, Kraft asserted: “Yes, yes. I don’t think Neil cared. He may today, because he might like to have a picture of himself on the Moon, but I don’t think it crossed his mind at the time.”

In Apollo 12 astronaut Alan Bean’s view, the rather extensive photographic training the astronauts underwent for the mission should have led to pictures of both men. “Don’t forget, they had practiced their photography over and over again. It wasn’t that they just did this for the first time on the Moon. They practiced this in ground simulation over the course of several different days. In training you looked at all this film you had shot. Deke Slayton, for one, would have noticed if Neil wasn’t showing up in any of the pictures.”

Al Bean stops short of suggesting why Buzz failed to take pictures of Neil.

“Obviously one possibility is that Buzz just wasn’t thinking about taking a picture of Neil, and he wasn’t realizing that he wasn’t thinking about it.”

“That’s a possibility.”

“But there is also the possibility that he was thinking about it and that is why there aren’t any pictures of Neil.”

“That’s a possibility, too.”

“That he was thinking, ‘Neil may be the first on the Moon, but I’m not taking any pictures of him.’”

“That’s a possibility, too. I don’t know. We don’t know. And we should know, because I think it’s important to the long-range issue.”

“What makes it an important long-range issue?”

“Because there should be a bunch of good pictures of Neil. This was such an historic event. I mean, think about it: I’m going along on the boat with Christopher Columbus. He’s carrying the camera at the moment, but I’m his first mate. We all know what should happen. Nobody knows the answer why it didn’t.”

But Al Bean does possess a crystal clear idea as to the motivation of Armstrong’s silence, during and after the mission, to Buzz on the matter: “He was interested in doing the job. Neil was probably saying to himself all through his training, ‘I’ve got to make this landing safe; I’ve got to get out and do a good EVA; and I’ve got to get us back to the command module.’

“I got that way myself on my Apollo 12 flight. I didn’t think about people back home. I just thought about trying to be a good astronaut and doing my job. And Neil was even more focused than I was—more than most astronauts were.

“It would have been normal for Neil to be this way—for him to focus on the flying, on the jobs that really made the historic mission successful.” Within such a tight mental framework, the idea of a personal photograph not being taken would have been totally trivial.

Gene Cernan sees it similarly. “Certainly Neil realized the significance of the moment, but he was not going to be so arrogant as to say, ‘Here, Buzz, take a picture of me.’ What I can imagine Neil thinking was, ‘Oh well, we don’t have time to take a picture of me, so I’ll take a few pictures of Buzz to show everyone we were here.’

“Myself, if I had been in Neil’s place, I would have said, ‘Buzz, take a picture of me—quick.’”

Well let's see some evidence.

So far, all people on this thread offer is contorted speculation in order to prove it was a hoax.

My advice would be to not be cavalier and say the moon landings didn't happen. Instead people should admit that they are speculating that the moon landings didn't happen and really don't know for sure.

Did not read the previous threads on this subject but I happened to discuss this lately with a friend who believes it was all faked.

For myself I do not believe it was faked for this reason. Having lived through the time I remember there was great competition between the USA and the SOVIET UNION in the 'space race.' Now does anybody think that the Soviets went along with a fraud that put them out of the space race and gave all glory to the USA? The Soviet Union's NASA, whatever it was called, must have been well able to trace the rockets, satellites and moon attempts, so they would have been able to track the  rocket said to be the one that landed men on the moon. Now if there was no such rocket, and they had proof of that, I have no doubt this fraud would have been used by the Russians to HUMILIATE the USA at the time and even today.

But no, there was no such revelation, leading me at any rate to believe men did get to the moon and back. 

My advice would be to not be cavalier and say the moon landings didn't happen. Instead people should admit that they are speculating that the moon landings didn't happen and really don't know for sure.

There's plenty of evidence that at least the videos they show us of the astronauts on the moon are fraudulent.