We don't have any evidence for the Conspiracy either. Yet your theory relies on it.
What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second (third stage of the Saturn V), and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?
What about computers Tom? Scientists claimed to have made a never before seen punch card fed machine that could do complex mathematics in minutes that would take a room full of human calculators years or more. Then they claimed it was possible to have direct input into those machines, making punchcards unnecessary. Then then claimed they could use never before seen transistors to make the vacuum tubes of the old system unnecessary. Then they claimed they could condense all the transistors, diodes, etc into smaller never before seen integrated circuits. Then they claimed they could condense even more parts into never before seen micro-processors. Then they claimed they could make those integrated circuits and micro-processors smaller, and smaller, and smaller still, till you get to our current point of reference where you could fit the txt equivalent of 16 million 300 page books on a $50 8gb memory stick.
If you looked at computers the same way you look at aeronautics you'd be forced to say that looks farcical as well. How could they make those advances? A computer scientist in the 1940's shown a quarter sized stick and told it had 16 million books on it would say "nonsense". The simplest explanation is that they really couldn't do all of that stuff. You're not inclined to open up your hard drive to see if there's a conspiracy inside though are you? You live in our age and take those advances as signs of progress.
The point I'm getting at is researching, or even just casually looking up info, on the advances of computer tech is as easy as researching/looking up info on aeronautics. You always cite the Saturn V rocket accelerating 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second as an impossibility. Why, the 100 tons part? Is 100 tons just too heavy to lift in your opinion? Newtons third law says with sufficient thrust you can lift any mass, and accelerate it to almost any speed. Did you research the thrust capabilities of the Saturn V before choosing it as your poster child? Can you cite where any stage of it's engines would be insufficient to move the mass of the rocket to those speeds? If you can't cite any obvious flaws with the math, then why do you use this example so often?
Likewise, the rest of your post, where you look at all that the various space agencies have accomplished, and say "how could this technology have advanced to this stage?" just makes apparent you're not keeping up with the current tech. I'm not going to cite every experiment/project/mission done by every space agency just to prove their validity. Cite some examples you have problems with. Examples where you feel the math doesn't add up. I, and others most likely, will offer our insights.
You didn't say anything about observable. You just wanted the simplest explanation.
One group is suggesting the simplest and most easily observable claim, and another group the unobservable and most complex claim. With which group should the burden of proof lay?
The answer is that the burden is on you guys is to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. We're not. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.
In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?
A company called Mollar International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim that the Sky Car is ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. They've released a few videos of it hovering a short distance off the ground in test flights. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?
So where's your proof for all of these sci-fi claims of yours?
First off, your link, it goes nowhere...
Second off, I don't see how NASA is the same as the flying car scam, or the water car scam, or the free energy generator scam. I don't see how it's the guy who believes in ghost and talks about it at parties either.
There's too much to the fields of aeronautics and space exploration for us to be expected to lay it all at your feet for inspection. Give us solid examples that you dispute and we'll defend those.