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?
My point is that information was available. Pay attention.
Many, some, same difference. Who cares when the point is about availability of information.
Many, a few? When you're making up stuff wholesale, who cares about being accurate?
How much
relevant information was available? The Surveyor craft provided some, giving a surface-level view. There were 7 Surveyors launched, and 5 successfully soft landed and returned pictures and other data. A few orbiters and some of the Ranger impactors gave "bird's-eye" views; 3 Rangers (7, 8, and 9) returned pictures until impact; Ranger 9 was broadcast live until it hit the moon as intended. Question: what value would the vertical views be for faking a manned landing? We can get vertical views, albeit lower-resolution, using earthbound telescopes; without the probes, those details revealed by the probes wouldn't have been known, anyway, so where's the win?
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.
So according to you this movie was broadcast live from the set? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054331/ since it wasn't possible to prerecord?
No. Why would you think that?
From your IMDB link: Spartacus (1960), 3 hr 4 min (184 min) (premiere), Super Technirama 70 (Technicolor).
That was a movie, shot on 70 mm film, with many scenes, shot at different times, not even shot in order, then spliced together to make a feature-length production and copied to 35 mm and 70 mm prints (later to video); various releases were different lengths, meaning they must have omitted and/or added different clips.
It's not a three-hour live video with a single uninterrupted scene. See the difference? I'm not sure why you think this is relevant. Was it because Stanley Kubrick was the director? Did you think
Sparticus was supposed to be taking place on the moon so Kubrick could practice?
Films can be converted to video, of course, typically using a telecine system (television cinema, get it?
), but there are always artifacts unique to film (scratches and spots on the film, for instance, and grain) that come through the conversion, and the telecine system introduces its own artifacts because of the different frame rates; these make it possible to identify when that conversion has been done.
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.
It might surprise you how well hollywood was actually doing back then.
You apparently didn't realize that Hollywood was using photographic film, not videotape, back then. Even so, they could produce scenes of only limited length. In a live TV production, on the other hand, a single shot could be indefinitely long.
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.
And you're wrong again. My statement is still true. Our agenda is not to deny an accomplishment but to expose a lie. Politics makes government do the most bizarre things. The bigger the lie....right?
Huh? Are you saying the Apollo missions really happened ("not to deny an accomplishment")? What lie are you "exposing", then? The missions happened as claimed, but the live video was faked? That makes no sense at all.
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?
You're quite dunce I'm sorry to say. [Nice ad-hom. You must be getting worried about the strength of your argument. I can't say I blame you.] It's not about proof of it existing or not, it's about it being impossible to have one (whether there was or wasn't) Do you get it?
I think we can agree that
if it's impossible, there wasn't one. Right?
So, are there any requirements that would not be possible to meet on earth? You could take a stab at 1/6 gravity by overcranking the cameras by a factor of about 2.5 or so and playing the scenes back at standard speed, yielding slow motion; that simulates low gravity in some ways but introduces other anomalies that
might be compensated for with
very careful scripting, rehearsal, and production. So let's agree, for the sake of argument, that that is at least
potentially doable. Behavior of fine particles and light items with large surface area, on the other hand, is not nearly so easy. As far as I know, they simply won't behave like they're in a vacuum unless they're in a vacuum. If you have any reasonably credible evidence to the contrary, please, let's see it. That means the entire studio must be at least a pretty hard vacuum. It
might be possible to create a small studio that could be effectively evacuated, but even you suggest a large studio would be needed to create a convincing fake. Currently, the world's largest vacuum chamber, still under construction (by who else but NASA) is 100 feet in diameter and 132 feet tall. It has a floor area of 7,854 ft
2. Note that the span of the LM landing gear was 31 ft X 31 ft, so the LM occupied (or at least straddled) an area of 961 ft
2, about 1/8 the available floor space. Your proposed studio would have to be
much larger.
Do you really think such a structure as the current one would be possible to build before 1969? How about the vastly larger one actually needed?
I'm still waiting to see evidence that something even remotely suitable was (or, for that matter, is) possible. Until then, my money's on
impossible.
Here's an example of a film studio in the 60's " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">7 1/2-minute video
Very nice. I notice that all of the sets were simulating scenes on earth. Some of the sets were even outdoors. Simulating scenes on earth in a studio on earth avoids a lot of the problems of accurately simulating scenes on the moon in a studio on earth.
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.
Check the first post
Check the replies to the first post.
"Space shuttle to launch into orbit - available" Really?