>>does anyone have a good website that gives all the evidence that it was all a fake?<< There is no such website. All the so-called 'evidence' is a load of rubbish that can be dismantled by anyone with elementary science education. >>how do you know for sure though?<< Because I've seen more of the Apollo evidence than I'd bet you even know exists, including ALL the film and video from each flight. I also have been studying the space programs of the 1960s as a hobby for about a decade now. >>there is noblast crater where Apollo 11 landed.<< Nor should there be. Machines with much greater thrust, such as the Harrier aircraft, do not carve craters under them when they land or take off. What there is, however, is evidence that the lunar soil has been disturbed by a rocket engine. >>there are no stars, despite the deep clarity of space.<< Nor should there be. The lunar surface is in daylight, so the cameras are set up to expose the film accordingly (i.e. for a fraction of a second). Stars require several seconds of exposure to show up on film, as any photographer will tell you. Try that and the sunlit lunar surface will simply be an overexposed blob. Can you find ANY images taken in space of sunlit objects that also include stars? The shuttle? The ISS? Even the Voyager pictures of the planets don't have stars in. Are they all fake too? >>the flag is waving, even though there is no air in space.<< No, it really isn't. Watch the VIDEO and FILM. The flag waves ONLY when being moved by an astronaut. The rest of the time it remains TOTALLY static, which is next to impossible in anything but a vacuum, >>also, in the sixties, the government said "if you cant make it, fake it".<< Really? Says who? >>also, an astronaut that worked for nasa and was on one of the previous aopollos says that the evidence is there to show it could have been done in a studio.<< Bull. If that's the case, which astronaut and which mission was he on? I'm betting you have no idea, and if that's the case I strongly advise you not to include that in a piece of coursework. Un-named sources are useless, and should get you marked down by any competent teacher. >>Bill Kaysing, that guy on the video on Youtube that was on the documentary in february 2001, said "the chances of getting back to earth from the moon alive was 0.0017%".<< Bill kaysing worked for Rocketdyne, the comapny that built a number of the engines used on the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft, but he worked for them in the same way that the guy who cleans the Oval Office works for the US government. He was not an engineer, had nothing to do with the development of any rockets, and left the company in 1963, more then four years before the first Saturn V flew. The probability assessment he refers to was carried out beforehe left the company, at a time when they were having trouble with the engines. Four years of hard work later they had the problem solved, and the probability went up accordingly. In the years before the Wright brothers, the probability of flying across the Atlantic was zero. In the years just after their first powered flight the probability was marginal, though at least the principle was demonstrated. In recent years the probability has become a certainty because the development process has made safe transatlantic flight possible. The same applies to Apollo. The Apollo lunar missions were some of the most heavily documented events in human history. They simply could NOT have been faked to the degree of detail that is present in the record.