I am really amused that you continue to pretend that it is a ludicrous theory since it is in the mouth of Rumsfeld and others that I heard it. I summarize what have been said if you don't want to hear it, just close your ear. Some people don't want to believe gas chambers of Hitler, you have the same right.
As for the Russians, it seems that they knew it. In the same report TV they mentioned that in his memoir the Kremlin chief asked : don't you ask yourself why Nixon didn't attend the landing on the moon ? They interviewed a Russian scientist who said that at that time they only needed two hours to discover that the film was a fake (it was Stanley Kubrik who helped them make the film although he didn't want to he was somehow obliged - amusing details : the reporters discovered also some rest of the film that wasn't used and on the fake moon land they showed a movie jacket of the 2001 Odessey
). Why they didn't reveal it to the world ? It was not discussed, but previous day there was an other report about the cold war and in a letter between Krutchev and Kennedy (they exchanged 45 letters only 4 have been declassified) it was revealed that they have agreed that the Russians will build the Berlin's wall so they have perhaps agreed to shut up in exchange of a concession from US but I was not revealed so I'm sorry I won't invent for you ... read 1984 perhaps you will get the basics of geostrategy and psychology manipulation of the mass from the military guys. What is sure is that there was 400 billions contract at that time that was distributed to 3 states California, Texas, the 3rd I don't remember, and that they need that the mass opinion agreed to sustain the budget of space defense. That's why they asked Disney for 2001 Space Odessey ... and the landing on the moon. In fact to give more details, someone among the 4 suggested the idea of the film to Nixon so it was not Nixon's idea at the origin.
Georges Orwell's 1984 http://www.online-literature.com/vi...17?term=warfare
" From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. And in fact, without being used for any such purpose, but by a sort of automatic process -- by producing wealth which it was sometimes impossible not to distribute -- the machine did raise the living standards of the average human being very greatly over a period of about fifty years at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries.
But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction -- indeed, in some sense was the destruction -- of a hierarchical society. In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared. If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction. It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance. To return to the agricultural past, as some thinkers about the beginning of the twentieth century dreamed of doing, was not a practicable solution. It conflicted with the tendency towards mechanization which had become quasi-instinctive throughout almost the whole world, and moreover, any country which remained industrially backward was helpless in a military sense and was bound to be dominated, directly or indirectly, by its more advanced rivals.
Nor was it a satisfactory solution to keep the masses in poverty by restricting the output of goods. This happened to a great extent during the final phase of capitalism, roughly between 1920 and 1940. The economy of many countries was allowed to stagnate, land went out of cultivation, capital equipment was not added to, great blocks of the population were prevented from working and kept half alive by State charity. But this, too, entailed military weakness, and since the privations it inflicted were obviously unnecessary, it made opposition inevitable. The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare. "
As for the Russians, it seems that they knew it. In the same report TV they mentioned that in his memoir the Kremlin chief asked : don't you ask yourself why Nixon didn't attend the landing on the moon ? They interviewed a Russian scientist who said that at that time they only needed two hours to discover that the film was a fake (it was Stanley Kubrik who helped them make the film although he didn't want to he was somehow obliged - amusing details : the reporters discovered also some rest of the film that wasn't used and on the fake moon land they showed a movie jacket of the 2001 Odessey
). Why they didn't reveal it to the world ? It was not discussed, but previous day there was an other report about the cold war and in a letter between Krutchev and Kennedy (they exchanged 45 letters only 4 have been declassified) it was revealed that they have agreed that the Russians will build the Berlin's wall so they have perhaps agreed to shut up in exchange of a concession from US but I was not revealed so I'm sorry I won't invent for you ... read 1984 perhaps you will get the basics of geostrategy and psychology manipulation of the mass from the military guys. What is sure is that there was 400 billions contract at that time that was distributed to 3 states California, Texas, the 3rd I don't remember, and that they need that the mass opinion agreed to sustain the budget of space defense. That's why they asked Disney for 2001 Space Odessey ... and the landing on the moon. In fact to give more details, someone among the 4 suggested the idea of the film to Nixon so it was not Nixon's idea at the origin.Georges Orwell's 1984 http://www.online-literature.com/vi...17?term=warfare
" From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. And in fact, without being used for any such purpose, but by a sort of automatic process -- by producing wealth which it was sometimes impossible not to distribute -- the machine did raise the living standards of the average human being very greatly over a period of about fifty years at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries.
But it was also clear that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction -- indeed, in some sense was the destruction -- of a hierarchical society. In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared. If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction. It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged caste. But in practice such a society could not long remain stable. For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance. To return to the agricultural past, as some thinkers about the beginning of the twentieth century dreamed of doing, was not a practicable solution. It conflicted with the tendency towards mechanization which had become quasi-instinctive throughout almost the whole world, and moreover, any country which remained industrially backward was helpless in a military sense and was bound to be dominated, directly or indirectly, by its more advanced rivals.
Nor was it a satisfactory solution to keep the masses in poverty by restricting the output of goods. This happened to a great extent during the final phase of capitalism, roughly between 1920 and 1940. The economy of many countries was allowed to stagnate, land went out of cultivation, capital equipment was not added to, great blocks of the population were prevented from working and kept half alive by State charity. But this, too, entailed military weakness, and since the privations it inflicted were obviously unnecessary, it made opposition inevitable. The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare. "
RS