Um, if NASA showed me pictures of a telescope with a lander on the moon, then they could have easily faked those if they faked the landing of the moon... There is just so much evidence that makes it seem too good to be true. There are tons of pictures that are so perfect. Like everything is perfectly centered, and their cameras were on their chests. Plus, there were these defects in the pictures that make them look like they were edited. Plus, there are multiple light sources, when the only light source that would produce a shadow would be the sun. (you can see shadows facing different directions). In videos, the reuse terrain when stating that they are in fact miles away from a previous locale. (I watched a TV special where they overlapped the footage, the terrain was very much identical, only the astronauts were doing different things). There is no blast crater where the lander landed when scientists say that there in fact should be one...quite large in fact. I could go in more and more detail, but don't feel like it right now.
And to answer the question, why and how could NASA fake the landing? They practically had the funding of the entire Nation at their disposal. We're talking billions of dollars. And they wanted to "fake it", because they knew at the time it was impossible, and they wanted to beat the Soviets during the Cold War. They had believed if the Soviets got their first, that they might establish some kind of nuke base on the moon (sounds funny I know).
