As it happens I have spent time looking into that. So far I am at the 50/50 point. People I respect and who have more of a science background say they believe we really did. The evidence from photographs shows lots of anomalies pointing at least to the conclusion that the video feed was not from the moon. What do you think?

@deeperthinker15 Yes, we did. Ignoring the fact that it would be impossible to keep a conspiracy of that size quiet for decades, there were multiple missions that came afterwards, including the Apollo 13 fiasco. How realistic is it to think they were all just scripted plays? NASA employs an army of engineers and PhD scientists and they're not there to simply act as window dressing for a multi-billion dollar government funded film production company. That would be the crazy conspiracy theory.

@Sgt_Spanky You said "impossible to keep a conspiracy of that size alive for decades" That is a fairly common rebuttal that appears when people try to refute a so-called "conspiracy theory" It rests on an implicit assumption that if a government "crime" or deception has occurred, then there will be a whistleblower who will contact a reporter at a major publication. The reporter will be eager to gain recognition with a big story, perhaps win a Pulitzer prize, and so will investigate the story and his/her employer will rush the story into print, or put on the air. There are many flaws in that assumption. First, the government does a very good job of keeping classified information secret, sometimes for decades, sometimes indefinitely. Second, the press is not free to publish whatever it wants. Project Mockingbird was acknowledged at the time of the Church committee hearings as a CIA effort to control and influence what the press said. The CIA claimed that it was terminated, but I see ample evidence that such censorship is still in place. There are "alternative media" that will publish stories that are not censored, but most people no attention or disbelieve them. My answer to those who say "someone would have talked" is to ask "but who would have listened?" I am not referring to the moon landing controversy specifically, although there are people who have claimed to have inside information who have talked and been ignored. That is another story perhaps for another post.
In the case of the JFK assassination, where I have done a great deal of reading, there was even a book by Larry Hancock called "Someone Would Have Talked" (2010) It is one of the hundreds of well-researched books on the assassination that refutes the Warren Commission.
My point is that hundreds of people who were involved HAVE talked. E. Howard Hunt, Chauncy Holt, one of the so-called three tramps, Fletcher Prouty, the doctors present at Parkland Hospital, JFK staffers, historians, etc. The major media outlets simply ignore these "whistleblowers"
Returning to the original issue of the Moon Landings, there are persuasive arguments on both sides of it and I will continue to keep an open mind. But "someone would have talked" is not a valid argument. Do you really have full confidence that everything you read in the press is the full truth? I don't.

Antitheist? I like that. Is it trademarked or can I use it too?

@deeperthinker15 Use away! Not mine. Lol

Depending on your definition of crazy, I can probably get much crazier. Full disclosure...I can have a wacky sense of humor