Since your understanding of the politics and history of space travel is rather limited, what makes sense to you is hardly the gold standard. Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD
I asked this question in all sincerity and welcome all responses. But this seems a bit smug and condescending. It's almost like you have an agenda to go after anyone who questions anything about the moon landings.
If you feel you have the answers, then educate others, don't attack.
One thing I've noticed is that whenever any aspect of the moon landings are questioned, a group of people get highly emotional and go on the defense about it, under the guise of being rationale.
Now, the comments about the South Pole and Mariana Trench are interesting, but a little off base.
It's a bitch getting to the South Pole and going to those great ocean depths, just as it's a bitch getting to the moon. However, we know the South Pole doesn't look much different that the rest of inland Antarctica. And while there's much about our oceans we've yet to explore, deep sea diving is still deep sea diving.
With the moon, there's more to it than it just being far away. The ability to practice successfully putting man on non-earthly bodies could lead to further space exploration and manning of other planets and moons. We just abandoned it, that's it, man's not leaving earth ever again?
Going to the South Pole doesn't really prove anything and probably won't lead to many breakthroughs. Abandoning landing men on far away worlds seems, well, scientifically reckless.
As for Pyramids and Treasure ships, they were specific attributes of their respective civilizations. The Egyptian civilization faded, and the Treasure ships, while impressive, didn't really serve much purpose and a lot of what we know of them today might be embellished.
But landing man on the moon had the potential to lead to further progress, unlike pyramids and treasure ships. It is disheartening to simply abandon it when (if) we have the technology.