I suggest you read the thread: I am stating as a fact that it was not possible then, and would be extremely difficult now, to produce anything that would allow hours of live broadcast to simulate conditions on the moon. See the video in the OP for a start. The Apollo photos, TV and 16mm all contain details, including time and date specific images of Earth, that could not have been done prior to the missions. The broadcasts that show Earth did not have the relevant information available to them that would have allowed them to reproduce the weather patterns on there. The Apollo missions took photos, film, and live TV that showed surface details not known about prior to the missions - images from India, Japan, China and the former USSR confirm this.
What are you on about? They had information and pictures years before the moon landing. You do know they just didn't wake up and decide to go to the moon right?
Good question. I wonder if Kennedy did wake up one morning and decide that going to the moon was a challenging but worthwhile goal. We'll probably never know.
There were many unmanned missions with cameras.
There were some. Some of those were successful, and some of the successful ones provided fairly high quality photographic data from the surface. What's your definition of 'many'?
What's your point? Interestingly, the only manned landing at the same location as a previous unmanned landing, Apollo 12 and Surveyor 3, was the only manned landing that had no live video due to camera failure. Why not? That one would have been the one easiest to have the most realistic "backdrop" for the site, since a lander had already been there.
Also, since live TV, it's always been possible to fake live footage. It's simply pre-recorded and broadcast with an overlay text that says "LIVE" - why was that impossible and why would that cost billions?
Not true. In the earliest days of TV, it was not possible to pre-record video.
It might surprise you, but recording video was not as easy even in the 1960s and early '70s as it is now. Recording as much video as was broadcast, seamlessly, would have been difficult, and if attempted, would require a large number of technicians and other people to be "in on the plot". What happened to all of them? Why have none ever spilled the beans in almost 50 years? Where is the evidence for a sufficiently large, evacuated, studio where your supposed recordings were made? There's just too much conspiracy woo here to be convincing.
Research based on an agenda is not research, it's a cover up.
This is what all Apollo hoax "research" is. Your agenda is to deny the accomplishment of the manned moon landings, so you'll simply concoct whatever story, no matter how implausible, and without any actual evidence, you think advances that.
Where's the actual research showing that a huge indoor film studio with a backdrop they used for different locations on the moon was impossible to do on Earth and it was easier to just go to the moon?
Where's
any evidence there ever was such a huge studio that could have been used for such?
It was claimed that Kubrick could fake a realistic moon landing, but didn't: "look at
2001." Followed by "he must have been 'sandbagging' those scenes because the effects, while good, weren't convincing in the details." So the claim becomes "we say he could do it, but we have no actual evidence because what we
can show you isn't good enough."
This thread is not about whether man went to the moon or not, it's simply about the claim that it was impossible to fake.
Can you show how the technology at the time was even remotely sufficient to fake all the details convincingly? Until you can at least show that it's possible, there is no need to 'prove' it couldn't. Claims that it might have been possible, without anything to back them up, are meaningless.