The landing module touches down on solid rock, covered in a layer of fine lunar dust. There is no reason why it would create a blast crater. Even if the ground were less solid, the amount of thrust being produced by the engines when it’s landing and taking off is very low in comparison to a landing on Earth because of the lack of gravitational pull.
The moon is covered with lunar dust and the dust is very thin. When the rocket is landing on the module– which is on top of solid rock -- the dust spreads out and is now under the astronauts as they begin walking.
With the information that is given, I think the landing on the moon actually happened. It wouldn’t make sense how the government would make an event up when you can easily prove it wrong. Plus, if the first moon landing really didn’t exist then it would have twisted the history of science.
" PHOTOS: 8 Moon-Landing Hoax Myths -- Busted." Daily Nature and Science News and Headlines | National Geographic News . N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Feb. 2010. < http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/photogalleries/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-pictures/photo2.html >.
argument, your, it doesn't matter now that we have TV satellite vans. They weren't used in 1969, compact, low-power requirements (READ the countless links you've been given about these), and low-quality TV cameras were used." -Steve Knight. "Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked - Telegraph." Telegraph.co.uk: news, business, sport, the Daily Telegraph newspaper, Sunday Telegraph - Telegraph . N.p., n.d. Web. 3 Feb. 2010. < http://www.telegraph.co.uk./science/space/5833633/Apollo-11-Moon-landing-conspiracy-theories-debunked.html >.