Faking the moon landing impossible

  • 457 Replies
  • 23078 Views
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #300 on: April 29, 2017, 01:08:43 PM »
Quote
I know all to well that anytime a cover up is attempted, the public finds out.
And we're not public?

Quote
Our media isn't state run. It isn't controlled by the government.
It's not state run but if you believe government and news and media in general is not controlled by the government (most governments if not all) then you are seriously below par to be discussing anything

Quote
So how do you fake the moons gravity, in LEO. In LEO you are essentially weightless. Meaning gravity is not effecting you. So again, how do you fake micro gravity in a zero G environment?
Get facts right.. just basic simple things:
LEO - NOT FAKE confirmed
Moon gravity - Can be faked as there has never been anything to compare it to. POSSIBILITY

Stop mixing things as it doesn't make you seem very smart

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #301 on: April 29, 2017, 01:14:30 PM »
Once again, your point is valid if it wasn't POSSIBLE to make phonecalls on Earth or LEO and POSSIBLE to make phonecalls only to the moon. Why is it so difficult for moon landing cults to understand this?
Probably because it doesn't make any sense.  Maybe you could try that again, but this time in a language other than gibberish.
Ok let me translate that into English
"Once again, your point is valid if it wasn't POSSIBLE to make phonecalls on Earth or LEO and POSSIBLE to make phonecalls only to the moon. Why is it so difficult for moon landing cults to understand this?"

Quote
Besides, my point was simply to illustrate that there was live interaction between the POTUS on earth and the astronauts on the moon and how that doesn't really work very well with the slo-mo prerecorded film assertion.
1. Who said it worked well?
2. Read my points again, the one in English and the translation of it into English.

Quote
As for "getting away with it" - do you really not know the power of governments and media?
I think that conspiracy theorists give governments far too much credit.
Credit where it's due. 47 years and counting

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #302 on: April 29, 2017, 02:18:08 PM »
Yea, you aren't so good at this are you? He doesn't say he's "just a light guy". He clarified that he started out as "just a light guy". I never thought he was the "leading expert" in his field. It doesn't matter if he is. He researched his argument. He provided evidence for his argument. And in the second video he clarified things.
so we have an average guy doing some insignifricant things in the film industry, no one in particular, who all of a sudden decides it is his duty to get into the moonlandings in detail from a professional point of view.
The window dressing, the calm voice, the neutral stand about trusting covernments,.......o boy this guy has never participated in the debate, commented on the Apollo and all of a sudden he makes a debunking pretentious debunking video.
And now we have not heard from him to participate in the ongoing debate.
A suspicious ephemera that wants to get on with his live........wtf ? is the debate not important enough to continue ?
I believe he did not expect so much negativity....a true debater accepts and wants to continue, but he wants to get on with his normal life making insignificant.....uh ''films'' ?
Quote
Is he not a filmmaker? Does he not make films? His YouTube is full of "films" he's made. He admits to making tons of commercials and documentaries.
He presents himself as someone with high credentials that knows the ins and outs of the film industry for more than 30 years about film, filmmaking, lightening and equipment that is used today and in the late sixties and seventies...
Only to realise that he should have mentioned in the first vid that he was nobody in particular in the filmindustry and your average lightguy reflects his abilities nicely.
To hear him say that in the second video is in hindsight. Should have set his own film achievements strait from the beginning.
Quote
Again. It doesn't matter if he invented film or if he was just some homeless guy on the street. His argument was well presented and his evidence cannot be refuted. As you can see, jarrah tried, and failed. You don't need to be an expert to make an educated and well researched argument. Though it does help if you are in the business and know what you are looking for in the first place.
Fail ! His initial vid sounds scripted ! A bit historical backgound, a bit of info on film, all easy going and smooth........but clearly someone who wants to continue with his life after dropping a bomb, but not really interrested in an ongoing debate about Apollo.
Collins said :
'when you listen to them they do not seem to know very much about photography or video, or lightening, or even perspective and i think'they hope you don't either''
Wow, David Percy and the ''aulis'' site, proof this is utter bogus and Collins hopes you don't realise there are many persons doubting the Apollo footage with more credentials than him.
But instead of going to the next level, poor Collins wants to go back to his normal life.
Quote
Oh yup, now the paranoid side is coming out in you. Paid shill!? What makes you think that? Is it your paranoid delusional mind? I think it is!
One video, pretending to know it all, smooth scripted layout, window dressing as a genuine filmmaker, but wants to continue with his life the moment he stumbles upon some critics.
Quote
The whole video is a refutation of jarrahs video, it contradicts absolutely non of his original video other than clarifying that he isn't special compared to other people who are in the same business. Again you don't need to be different than someone to put forth an educated argument. You just need to reasearch your topic well and provide sources for you're evidence. Which he does, very, very well.
He debunks himself,.......that is way better than presenting Jarrah's video, because then you would have said that Jarrah is insane.
Now i post his own video, which clearly reveals what a louzy authority he is on the whole subject.
But i guess this is way over your head.......
Quote
Clearly you are confused but again I thank you for refuting your own argument. I know your brain prevents you from seeing it that way but clearly this isn't the only disablitly you have. I would expect nothing less from someone who cannot understand things that are being presented to him. Is ignorant of science, and believes 911 was an inside job done by holograms.
Holograms ?, but i thought that those technigues weren't available in 2001  ;D ;D

I don't know about 9/11, what i do know is that Secretary Norman Mineta gave a vailable testimony that was skipped from the records, because his remarks would clearly indicate goverment involvement one way or the other
And the collapse of building 7 was a 100% demolotion according to the top authority in the field from my country the Netherlands who was shown the footage without knowing it was on 9/11 !

Be my guest if you want to discuss more, but i advise you to be more critical...and i am willing to support you with that !

« Last Edit: April 29, 2017, 02:21:38 PM by dutchy »

?

frenat

  • 3503
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #303 on: April 29, 2017, 02:19:22 PM »
there was live interaction with mission control while they were on the moon.  That negates the arguments of slow motion and it not being live.
The live interaction (assuming you mean communication) of astronauts inside helmets where you can't see lip movement to confirm slow movement + live communication?

Or do you mean the live communication like they did from base to launchpad, base to in-flight ascend, base to LEO. The communication delay is not that major, it's POSSIBLE. Your point is only valid if it was impossible to record live communication on Earth but only possible on the moon.

So I don't really see what point you're trying to make
No, I mean interaction, like they were given instructions like "go over there", "look at that rock", etc. and responded.  So since they interacted in real time, they couldn't have been in slow motion.

?

frenat

  • 3503
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #304 on: April 29, 2017, 02:22:55 PM »


Videos.. if you don't know which video faking distance in low earth orbit then you're not worth the time.
I know which one the hoaxies CLAIM is faking the distance from low Earth orbit but they are wrong.  Sibrel cut out part of the footage that proved him wrong.


Also explained here
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny7.html
and here
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny8.html

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #305 on: April 29, 2017, 03:28:58 PM »


Videos.. if you don't know which video faking distance in low earth orbit then you're not worth the time.
I know which one the hoaxies CLAIM is faking the distance from low Earth orbit but they are wrong.  Sibrel cut out part of the footage that proved him wrong.


Also explained here
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny7.html
and here
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny8.html
Granted that is a good video !!

Problem is that both Sibrel and Jarrah white oppose a flat earth.
Most flatearthers started with debunking the Apollo missions, but believed the Gemini achievements.
Recently there is a shift towards ''all space achievements are fake'' based on the observations that we only ''see'' a rocket going ''up'' and mostly with a typicall shallow arc, destined for....... ??

Since this is a flatearth forum, i doubt if to many flatearthers still support the work of Sibrel and J. White, because especcially the latter is promoting space X achievements most flatearthers consider fraudulent.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39316
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #306 on: April 29, 2017, 03:37:04 PM »
Quote
Our media isn't state run. It isn't controlled by the government.
It's not state run but if you believe government and news and media in general is not controlled by the government (most governments if not all) then you are seriously below par to be discussing anything
Oh, how President Trump wishes that were true in the US.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #307 on: April 29, 2017, 09:06:56 PM »

He explains pretty well why you cannot "slow down" film. Key word being FILM, and why you would need an as of yet non invented 6,000 ft roll of film just to do it.

Quote
What video shows they faked the earth from LEO. You can't even take a picture of the entire earth from LEO.

Uhh what proof do you have of film crews and producers being involved? None? That's what I thought.

Slow motion dates back to 1890's
Even if the 6000 ft roll statement is accurate why was that impossible in a studio in 1969?

Videos.. if you don't know which video faking distance in low earth orbit then you're not worth the time.

I don't know much about film technologies, however all the evidence points to the fact that before the 1980s slowmotion tech was limited to a few seconds, not a full 3 hours. Collins explains why this is not possible with the tech in the 1960s. Apparently you ignored it.

Why was it impossible? Because 6,000 ft rolls of film didn't exist.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 16888
  • Or should I?
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #308 on: April 29, 2017, 09:21:47 PM »
There is a lot of video evidence supporting moon missions.





Just in case anyone else is getting confused as to what video evidence actually is.
::) ::) ::)

Not saying that I think it would be totally impossible to fake, just really, really hard and unlikely.
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #309 on: April 29, 2017, 10:15:26 PM »
Quote
I know all to well that anytime a cover up is attempted, the public finds out.
And we're not public?

Quote
Our media isn't state run. It isn't controlled by the government.
It's not state run but if you believe government and news and media in general is not controlled by the government (most governments if not all) then you are seriously below par to be discussing anything

Quote
So how do you fake the moons gravity, in LEO. In LEO you are essentially weightless. Meaning gravity is not effecting you. So again, how do you fake micro gravity in a zero G environment?
Get facts right.. just basic simple things:
LEO - NOT FAKE confirmed
Moon gravity - Can be faked as there has never been anything to compare it to. POSSIBILITY

Stop mixing things as it doesn't make you seem very smart

Yes we are public. Hence my point that, most likely, we would know about  a cover up.

Are you seriously mentally handicapped? You literarily just said; "It's not state run but if you believe government and news and media in general is not controlled by the government (most governments if not all) then you are seriously below par to be discussing anything".

Do you not see the contradiction in your own statement? " it's not state run, but it's state run". That is what you literally just said. I'm sorry but I have no time for fucking idiots. That's twice you've tried to prove a point and have completely contradicted your own beliefs. Why anyone would continue to give you the time of day anymore is beyond me. So I am done arguing with someone that has the intelligence of a glorified ape. You bring nothing to the discussion and your intelligence makes everyone who reads your statements just that much more stupid. 

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 16888
  • Or should I?
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #310 on: April 29, 2017, 10:29:00 PM »
There's no need to call him an idiot or mentally handicapped.

It says more about you than him imo.
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #311 on: April 29, 2017, 11:18:08 PM »

He explains pretty well why you cannot "slow down" film. Key word being FILM, and why you would need an as of yet non invented 6,000 ft roll of film just to do it.

Quote
What video shows they faked the earth from LEO. You can't even take a picture of the entire earth from LEO.

Uhh what proof do you have of film crews and producers being involved? None? That's what I thought.

Slow motion dates back to 1890's
Even if the 6000 ft roll statement is accurate why was that impossible in a studio in 1969?

Videos.. if you don't know which video faking distance in low earth orbit then you're not worth the time.

Leaving aside the fact that believing that the lunar surface videos are in slow motion is falling for a commonly held misconception (nothing is in slow motion), slow motion of live TV was not possible for hours at a time on live TV, and that's what was being shown - not a filmed recording. We know it was live TV because those TV images showed views of Earth that could not have been done in advance.

To respond to your reply to Denspressure about images of the surface I have done a considerable amount of work matching views taken by modern lunar probes with those taken by Apollo astronaut (including views broadcast on live TV and printed on the next day's newspapers). The  details shown in those Apollo images show not just the hardware and the trails they made on the ground but rocks and craters, and these are not visible in the Lunar Orbiter images taken prior to the missions. This is particularly true of the later missions where they relied more on orbital images taken by Apollo astronauts themselves for details of the ground.

I've also done a lot on recreating views of the ground using digital elevation models created by a number of probes (including non-US ones) and seeing how they compare with images taken by Apollo, and again they are an exact match.

I'll repeat myself: You can't reproduce lunar gravity on live TV. You can't film an entire Earth from LEO. You can't produce images of Earth on live TV that are an exact match for what weather satellites show when the weather satellites haven't taken the photos yet.
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

*

Denspressure

  • 1821
  • What do you, value?
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #312 on: April 30, 2017, 03:18:39 AM »
Hey onebigmonkey, something just occurred to me: On some Apollo missions, match results of football matches are told to the astronauts. I don't think while any TV camera's were on, but its still interesting.

Also 2001 A Space Odyssey took 2 years to make, for about 2.5 hours of footage. Calculate the numbers and you have major problems with when filming had to be started (Multiple Apollo missions had to run on the same year to make all the footage for their live release date) and things they knew about those release date, which they could not have known unless they time-traveled to the future.
Watch me at: YouTube
Experience the past: Flickr
Support me on Patreon

?

Arealhumanbeing

  • 1474
  • Leader of the Second American Revolution
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #313 on: April 30, 2017, 07:35:16 AM »
We know it was live TV because those TV images showed views of Earth that could not have been done in advance.

Really? Thats how we "know"? How do you know the images shown of Earth were not faked and have been ever since?

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #314 on: April 30, 2017, 12:51:29 PM »
Quote
I know all to well that anytime a cover up is attempted, the public finds out.
And we're not public?

Quote
Our media isn't state run. It isn't controlled by the government.
It's not state run but if you believe government and news and media in general is not controlled by the government (most governments if not all) then you are seriously below par to be discussing anything

Quote
So how do you fake the moons gravity, in LEO. In LEO you are essentially weightless. Meaning gravity is not effecting you. So again, how do you fake micro gravity in a zero G environment?
Get facts right.. just basic simple things:
LEO - NOT FAKE confirmed
Moon gravity - Can be faked as there has never been anything to compare it to. POSSIBILITY

Stop mixing things as it doesn't make you seem very smart

Yes we are public. Hence my point that, most likely, we would know about  a cover up.

Are you seriously mentally handicapped? You literarily just said; "It's not state run but if you believe government and news and media in general is not controlled by the government (most governments if not all) then you are seriously below par to be discussing anything".

Do you not see the contradiction in your own statement? " it's not state run, but it's state run". That is what you literally just said. I'm sorry but I have no time for fucking idiots. That's twice you've tried to prove a point and have completely contradicted your own beliefs. Why anyone would continue to give you the time of day anymore is beyond me. So I am done arguing with someone that has the intelligence of a glorified ape. You bring nothing to the discussion and your intelligence makes everyone who reads your statements just that much more stupid.

Running something is not the same as having control over it. You don't need to run it to have influence over it. So asking if I'm mentally handicapped by someone who doesn't know the difference in the two is like a person with no legs criticizing my footballing skills.

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #315 on: April 30, 2017, 12:54:35 PM »

He explains pretty well why you cannot "slow down" film. Key word being FILM, and why you would need an as of yet non invented 6,000 ft roll of film just to do it.

Quote
What video shows they faked the earth from LEO. You can't even take a picture of the entire earth from LEO.

Uhh what proof do you have of film crews and producers being involved? None? That's what I thought.

Slow motion dates back to 1890's
Even if the 6000 ft roll statement is accurate why was that impossible in a studio in 1969?

Videos.. if you don't know which video faking distance in low earth orbit then you're not worth the time.

I don't know much about film technologies, however all the evidence points to the fact that before the 1980s slowmotion tech was limited to a few seconds, not a full 3 hours. Collins explains why this is not possible with the tech in the 1960s. Apparently you ignored it.

Why was it impossible? Because 6,000 ft rolls of film didn't exist.
Video editing.... again this was POSSIBLE. As mentioned, it was POSSIBLE to prepare the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand. That's the ONLY point being made.

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #316 on: April 30, 2017, 12:56:06 PM »
There's no need to call him an idiot or mentally handicapped.

It says more about you than him imo.
Thanks.. his words make zero difference to me. It's their defense mechanism many times when they have no valid arguments or points.

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #317 on: April 30, 2017, 12:59:43 PM »
I'll repeat myself: You can't reproduce lunar gravity on live TV. You can't film an entire Earth from LEO. You can't produce images of Earth on live TV that are an exact match for what weather satellites show when the weather satellites haven't taken the photos yet.

I do get quite surprised at the lack of understanding moon landing believers possess.

So I repeat:
1. It was possible to pre-record
2. It was possible to air it "AS" live (by putting it together in such a sequence, they were not stupid by any means, very very capable)
3. Slow motion being live was NEVER a claim so why does this keep coming up? It shows how limited and fixated moon landing believers are on one concept and idea. Almost like being brainwashed no?

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #318 on: April 30, 2017, 12:59:49 PM »
We know it was live TV because those TV images showed views of Earth that could not have been done in advance.

Really? Thats how we "know"? How do you know the images shown of Earth were not faked and have been ever since?

To flip the coin, how do you know that all you have been fed in relation to the flat earth is no more solid that a John Davis bum burp?

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #319 on: April 30, 2017, 08:26:46 PM »
Video editing.... again this was POSSIBLE. As mentioned, it was POSSIBLE to prepare the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand. That's the ONLY point being made.

You can't do video editing beforehand if it's a live broadcast. That's what LIVE means.

If by "prepare the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand" you mean "planning", then, yeah.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 16888
  • Or should I?
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #320 on: April 30, 2017, 08:37:12 PM »
Obviously he is claiming he thinks the moon landings were pre-recorded. Not broadcast live.
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #321 on: April 30, 2017, 09:21:16 PM »
Obviously he is claiming he thinks the moon landings were pre-recorded. Not broadcast live.

Possibly. But it's not what he said.

What is actually typed is known (especially if QFT so editing after the fact can be detected). Otherwise, it becomes:

"I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant"
 ― Alan Greenspan
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 16888
  • Or should I?
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #322 on: April 30, 2017, 09:29:06 PM »
"I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant"
 ― Alan Greenspan

Alright paid, people have been saying that to me a lot recently, it's pretty annoying.
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

?

Arealhumanbeing

  • 1474
  • Leader of the Second American Revolution
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #323 on: April 30, 2017, 09:30:49 PM »
I dont think we went to the moon.

I do indeed think it was pre recorded nonsense.

Overlaying a little logo that say "live" proves nothing. Never has, never will.


*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #324 on: May 01, 2017, 12:22:12 AM »
We know it was live TV because those TV images showed views of Earth that could not have been done in advance.

Really? Thats how we "know"? How do you know the images shown of Earth were not faked and have been ever since?

Yet again: Because what can be seen on the live TV broadcasts of Earth is Earth exactly as it should be in terms of the land masses that should be visible at the time of the broadcast and the configuration of the terminator in relation to that, and because the weather patterns visible on that Earth are an exact, and I mean exact - not just 'vaguely similar', match for the weather patterns visible in images taken by weather satellites, often containing well document hurricanes and tropical storms. Those weather satellite images were public, freely available (I have a volume of them published at the time) and could in fact have been intercepted by anyone with the right equipment just as they are now.

You can't fake the weather if you don't know what the weather is yet, and as it takes 12 hours to image the side of the Earth visible from the moon with a satellite in LEO, then you have to put it together, then you have to get the colours and the the perspective correct, then you have to make sure that those clouds actually move and change over time when you take other photos or broadcast it again on live TV. Then you have to make sure that the subsolar point is in the correct place. That's why they are impossible to fake.
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #325 on: May 01, 2017, 02:22:02 AM »
There's no need to call him an idiot or mentally handicapped.

It says more about you than him imo.

Not to worried what it says about me. Idiot and mentally handicapped are very appropriate descriptions of someone who can't tell when they are contradicting themselves and try to make points that make absolutely 0 sense.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 16888
  • Or should I?
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #326 on: May 01, 2017, 02:32:28 AM »
There's no need to call him an idiot or mentally handicapped.

It says more about you than him imo.

Not to worried what it says about me.

I'll keep that in mind.
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #327 on: May 01, 2017, 04:45:36 AM »
Video editing.... again this was POSSIBLE. As mentioned, it was POSSIBLE to prepare the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand. That's the ONLY point being made.

You can't do video editing beforehand if it's a live broadcast. That's what LIVE means.

If by "prepare the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand" you mean "planning", then, yeah.

Really? It's amazing how such simple concepts are beyond you...

Here, this is live
Right? Because it says live on youtube as well as on the video itself

I can tell you the score will be 1-3, place some bets on it. It's live right?

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #328 on: May 01, 2017, 04:54:40 AM »
There's no need to call him an idiot or mentally handicapped.

It says more about you than him imo.

Not to worried what it says about me. Idiot and mentally handicapped are very appropriate descriptions of someone who can't tell when they are contradicting themselves and try to make points that make absolutely 0 sense.
1. it's "too"
2. That's not what "idiot" means
3. That's not what "mentally handicapped" means either
4. "sense" is not measured in quantity. It either makes sense or doesn't. So are you making 1 sense, 2 or 3?
5. Anyone can claim anything as you are poorly attempting. Show me a contradiction and maybe I can clarify it. But I don't think you're capable of discussion or even capable of basic construction of sentences.

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #329 on: May 01, 2017, 06:01:35 AM »
I thought I'd heard it all but this is new to me.

Do people actually believe that faking the moon landings was impossible and it was easier to just send humans there instead?

On what basis is this claimed?

Here's my take on it:

Requirements to fake a moon landing:

  • Film studio - available
  • Government controlled and monitored desert - available
  • Video camera - available
  • Extremely smart Hollywood producers - available
  • Full control over the live feed to the media - available
  • Camera speed control - available
  • Editing capabilities - available
  • Space shuttle to launch into orbit - available
  • Live footage from orbit - available
  • Ability to return from orbit - done

So how was it impossible? What exactly was impossible to fake?

This thread is about the possibility of faking it. Not whether it was faked or not.

Forgot one small detail - THE MOON ROCKS - Can't be faked!  There is no process on earth (then or now) that can produce an authentic moon rock.  The moon rock from the Apollo missions are REAL.  Period.

1. Moon rock has nothing to do with "going to the moon is cheaper than faking it"
2. Moon rock cannot be confirmed as a moon rock without having another moon rock to analyse and compare
3. Obtaining moon rocks does NOT require a man to go and fetch it

So your logic is if I have a rock sample from inside a burning volcano then it means I went there in person and it's REAL.. period

This thread was concluded ages ago. The claim that it was cheaper to actually go than to fake it is grade A bullpoop.

Apples to Oranges.  Having a rock sample from inside a burning volcano could mean you got it from somebody else; however, the rock does prove that SOMEBODY got that rock from the volcano.  If you are implying that the moon rock somehow traveled to earth by itself and somebody picked it up... traveled a quarter of a million miles by itself... I think even for a flat earther - that is far fetched.