Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

spartacus699
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

they made 2001 a space oddessy. And they had graphic arts back then. They could manipulate photos. They did without computers back then. ahhhhh duuhhh

Yeah they were hand drawn on to negatives in fact it was common for grade school kids to make movies this way. Problem is its easy to tell thats what they did its not like CGI which becomes difficult to tell. And during Apollo that technology didnt exist in fact its been just in the last decade that CGI is hitting the point were its believable prior to that was easy to spot as well.

spartacus699
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

they made 2001 a space oddessy. And they had graphic arts back then. They could manipulate photos. They did without computers back then. ahhhhh duuhhh

Very true. Now find me one single Apollo photograph where that was done. Make it one of Earth where there is a very high detail record of the weather that can be compared with the meteorological records of the day. Then explain how they did this so consistently over every single photograph of Earth in such high detail, including getting all the lighting and shadows correct on the terminator and did it all in just a few days after returning the films back to Earth.

Then you can explain how these graphic artists knew where all thew rocks and craters were that they put in the Apollo footage and photographs, seeing as the rocks and craters they allegedly drew weren't on any photographs in existence.

Then go find me the technology that allowed them to add Earth to live TV broadcasts so that it had the correct weather patterns in fine detail, and the craters and rocks, and all the long zero g sequences.

Find me the cameramen, the sound men, the guys working the ropes and pulleys, the people who built the sets the people working the lights, the people who processed the film and edited it all together, the drivers who transported all the moon dust to the set, the set designers and builders. Anyone. Anyone at all. Even a friend of a friend of their dog will do, just one reliable witness is all you need.

Disbelief is not proof. Rolling your eyes is not proof. Suspicion and inference of motive is not proof. I can produce evidence to support my beliefs, let's see yours.

choos
this is a very strange statement coming from you..

apparently its impossible for audio and visual to be in synch for presumably live feeds..

If it's on the moon (which you claim), and with separate sources for audio and video (also claimed) - yes.

choos

now NASA the "almighty" was able to fake the lunar landing with tv magic

True.

choos

they were able to control the expansion of a bag with god knows how many strings and stagehands, not to its full extent, as well as perfectly rotating and following a nice parabolic trajectory, being perfectly still all the while completely ignoring the atmosphere..

An air compressor would do the trick, as I said. Hardly difficult.

choos

they were able to use slow motion for hours and hours of continuous footage of which the only available hardware for doing slow motion a machine that was able to collect 30 seconds worth of footage at a time..

Here's something you (and your Apollo-ites) should read...

Empire is a 1964 American silent black-and-white film made by Andy Warhol. It consists of eight hours and five minutes of continuous slow motion footage of the Empire State Building in New York City.
....

It was shot at 24 frames per second but is projected at 16 frame/s, so that, even though only about 6 hours and 36 minutes of film was made, the film when screened is about 8 hours and 5 minutes long.

en.wikipedia.org...(1964_film)

A slow-motion film with "hours and hours of continuous footage", done in 1964. Before Apollo.

It was not impossible, clearly.

Here's the best part, though...

They filmed it at 24 fps. And it was shown at 16 fps.

.....66.66% speed.

Same as Apollo footage.

Game over.

choos

they were able to edit the dynamic reflections on the visors of the astronauts of which they had no hardware to do this with..

You're way off topic now.

choos

they are able to control stage hands pulling wires and strings of every single falling object to represent about 4-5m/s^2 gravitational acceleration in order to use 67% slowdown, perfectly for every falling thing, everytime.,

We've gone over this, so moving on...

choos

they were even able to control all kicked up dust on the lunar surface to also fall at 4-5 m/s^2 gravitational acceleration, presumably also on strings, so that they can use the 67% slowdown

You don't know what the material(s) actually was. Same as I don't know it.

You just assume it's fine dust, as if it's a proven fact.

It's not. You are speculating here.

choos

but they cant synch live audio and visual signals because thats too hard, ignore the live tv programs that were running in the 50's and 60's with synchronised audio and visual, they dont count...

Audio signals and video signals can be put in synch from the start, but others can only be synched later on.

In Apollo's case, it would have to be synched later on - if it was on the moon.

The audio is a distinct signal. Microphones record the voices of two astronauts. These audio signals are processed into EM signals on the lunar surface, and then transmitted to Earth, and are finally processed back into audio signals, so their voices can be heard at Houston.

Video signals are sent at the same time, processed into EM signals, sent to Earth, and processed back into video signals.

You want to tell me why they would be in synch, here?

onebigmonkey

The two signals transmitted simultaneously through the same satellite dish on the same wavelengths to the same receiving equipment? Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's how TV works.

They had TV back then. The processing of a TV signal is the same no matter where it came from, and the technology was pretty well established.

Sure, it might be a completely different environment, but that's no big deal!!

Have you seen a field reporter on the 6 o'clock news, doing a 'live' report?

It is not in synch. The anchorman asks the reporter a question. We see the reporter. He doesn't reply to the question, however. We watch him standing in silence for awhile. Eventually, he answers.

That is a delay we commonly have on Earth, with the two parties just a few miles apart.

So if the reporter is on the moon, there'll no problem!!??!

Any other fantasy tales?

turbonium1

onebigmonkey

The two signals transmitted simultaneously through the same satellite dish on the same wavelengths to the same receiving equipment? Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's how TV works.

They had TV back then. The processing of a TV signal is the same no matter where it came from, and the technology was pretty well established.

Sure, it might be a completely different environment, but that's no big deal!!

Have you seen a field reporter on the 6 o'clock news, doing a 'live' report?

It is not in synch. The anchorman asks the reporter a question. We see the reporter. He doesn't reply to the question, however. We watch him standing in silence for awhile. Eventually, he answers.

That is a delay we commonly have on Earth, with the two parties just a few miles apart.

So if the reporter is on the moon, there'll no problem!!??!

Any other fantasy tales?

Nice goal post moving again. I never said there wouldn't be a delay, you're claiming there isn't one. There is a delay, you're just pretending it isn't there. You can't see the lips moving, you have no idea when they're saying it, you're just assuming it all matches up with no delay.

The point you're dodging now is the one you made about the video and audio being separated and somehow it being impossible to synch them together. Still claiming that makes a difference? Does your notional news reporter's words match his lips moving?


e2a: It's also worth pointing out that a live satellite feed on Earth across the Atlantic actually has more atmosphere to get through than one from the moon.

How's the carrier bag and stick work coming on? Finished your experiment yet?

turbonium1

Here's something you (and your Apollo-ites) should read...

Empire is a 1964 American silent black-and-white film made by Andy Warhol. It consists of eight hours and five minutes of continuous slow motion footage of the Empire State Building in New York City.
....

It was shot at 24 frames per second but is projected at 16 frame/s, so that, even though only about 6 hours and 36 minutes of film was made, the film when screened is about 8 hours and 5 minutes long.

Your link is wrong: en.wikipedia.org...(1964_film) edit- so is mine when pasted into here

have you seen any of it? I'm guessing not - here's some: www.youtube.com...

Any people in it? Any vehicles driving? Any dirt in a ballistic arc that matches lunar gravity and not earth? Any carrier bags flying around?

Speaking of dirt, your claim about what type of dust it is doesn't really make any difference - gravity works equally on any particle regardless of its mass. The arcs of dust thrown up by the rovers match with lunar gravity, not Earth - it's not just the lack of atmosphere that controls the behaviour of the lunar dust.

turbonium1

An air compressor would do the trick, as I said. Hardly difficult.

an air compressor now?? perhaps you are not aware of what drag is, and how it will affect a bag in mid-air??

have you experimented yet with a stick and some sort of light weight bag?? have you tried throwing it up in the air yet?? guess not given your statement.

Here's something you (and your Apollo-ites) should read...

Empire is a 1964 American silent black-and-white film made by Andy Warhol. It consists of eight hours and five minutes of continuous slow motion footage of the Empire State Building in New York City.
....

It was shot at 24 frames per second but is projected at 16 frame/s, so that, even though only about 6 hours and 36 minutes of film was made, the film when screened is about 8 hours and 5 minutes long.

en.wikipedia.org...(1964_film)

A slow-motion film with "hours and hours of continuous footage", done in 1964. Before Apollo.

It was not impossible, clearly.

Here's the best part, though...

They filmed it at 24 fps. And it was shown at 16 fps.

.....66.66% speed.

Same as Apollo footage.

Game over.

what you are showing is filming at normal speed and playing it back slow.. its quite jerky for most movements.. and as far as i know, apollo 12+ footage was at 30fps not 20fps.. which means they needed a high speed camera to film at 45fps..

turbonium1
You're way off topic now.

off topic?? how so?? you know the visor reflections on the astronauts?? you know how its curved and reflects a wide view.. so wheres the camera crew and stage crew?

turbonium1

You don't know what the material(s) actually was. Same as I don't know it.

You just assume it's fine dust, as if it's a proven fact.

It's not. You are speculating here.

do we need to know the material?? whether is dust or sand or fine rocks

what they are was not the point im making because it doesnt really matter to the point im making.. the dust/rocks/whatever kicked up by the astronauts all fall according to lunar gravity, thats 1.62m/s^2..

now you are saying the footage was at 67% of earth so that means the dust/dirt/rocks/whatever was falling at 4-5m/s^2.. are you saying they used thousands of strings to suspend thousands of individual dust/dirt particles kicked up?

turbonium1

Audio signals and video signals can be put in synch from the start, but others can only be synched later on.

In Apollo's case, it would have to be synched later on - if it was on the moon.

The audio is a distinct signal. Microphones record the voices of two astronauts. These audio signals are processed into EM signals on the lunar surface, and then transmitted to Earth, and are finally processed back into audio signals, so their voices can be heard at Houston.

Video signals are sent at the same time, processed into EM signals, sent to Earth, and processed back into video signals.

You want to tell me why they would be in synch, here?

because they are received at the same station at the same time.. you know like regular live TV..

and how do you know its perfectly in synch? how are you able to see through the astronauts visors??

MarioOnTheFly
Interesting question. Indeed. What would be the reason for much details of the model ? Maybe to prepare the astronauts for that moment of coming face to face with the moon. You know...to avoid anybody going in to shock

I'm late to the party on this thread, but this deserves a reply before moving on...

You've just stated a perfectly reasonable explanation for the astronaut replies that hoax believers latched onto. Most have said they remember few small details of while there. Rather than claim that the gov't "mind wiped" them after their missions, it makes sense to me that they were highly focused professionals who had trained intensely for the job at hand. There was limited time and resources for each boots on the ground visit to the Moon. To get lost in the majesty and try to wrap your head around the reality of where you were, what you were doing and what it all meant could have been deadly. It wasn't sight-seeing, it was work. Kinda sad to think they weren't able to enjoy it, but understandable.

reply to post by turbonium1


Ok where to start first the delay in news broadcast have nothing to do with synchronizing the audio and video. On a digital broadcast they are both encoded in the data stream. Now the delay there is about a quarter to half second delay depending on how many transponders are used and where the reporter is at. However thats not the reason you see the big delays in the days of analog it was hardly noticed only became obvious since networks went digital. The biggest delay is of course digital encoding it can add 2 to 4 seconds to a broadcast. Lets say we have a reporter in Japan and the headquarters is in New York. So the reporter in New York says something its encoded say taking oh 3 quarters of a second. Not bad thats fast right then we send it to the uplink takes about half a second to get to Japan. So now where at a delay of 1 and a quarter seconds and of course the signal has to once again be decoded taking another 3 quarters of a second and we have a 2 second delay. Throw in the time it takes for his responses to be sent back and you have the reporters constantly waiting to hear the other. This delay can get even worse as i said i didnt even count the time for a transponder to receive and resend the message.The more of these that are used and you can end up with some serious delays.

onebigmonkey

spartacus699
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

they made 2001 a space oddessy. And they had graphic arts back then. They could manipulate photos. They did without computers back then. ahhhhh duuhhh

Very true. Now find me one single Apollo photograph where that was done. Make it one of Earth where there is a very high detail record of the weather that can be compared with the meteorological records of the day. Then explain how they did this so consistently over every single photograph of Earth in such high detail, including getting all the lighting and shadows correct on the terminator and did it all in just a few days after returning the films back to Earth.

Then you can explain how these graphic artists knew where all thew rocks and craters were that they put in the Apollo footage and photographs, seeing as the rocks and craters they allegedly drew weren't on any photographs in existence.

Then go find me the technology that allowed them to add Earth to live TV broadcasts so that it had the correct weather patterns in fine detail, and the craters and rocks, and all the long zero g sequences.

Find me the cameramen, the sound men, the guys working the ropes and pulleys, the people who built the sets the people working the lights, the people who processed the film and edited it all together, the drivers who transported all the moon dust to the set, the set designers and builders. Anyone. Anyone at all. Even a friend of a friend of their dog will do, just one reliable witness is all you need.

Disbelief is not proof. Rolling your eyes is not proof. Suspicion and inference of motive is not proof. I can produce evidence to support my beliefs, let's see yours.

edit on 1-1-2014 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)

they're all dead. Even stanley kurbrick!

spartacus699
they're all dead. Even stanley kurbrick!

How convenient for you - and not a single deathbed confession to be found anywhere.

Unfortunately for you many of people involved in the Apollo programme are still around. You can find them contributing to email discussion groups (I'm part of one, they have fascinating stories to tell), and you can go see the astronauts when they make public appearances.

So, that would be absolutely no proof or witnesses that supports your belief, lots of proof and witnesses that supports mine.

onebigmonkey

turbonium1

Here's something you (and your Apollo-ites) should read...

Empire is a 1964 American silent black-and-white film made by Andy Warhol. It consists of eight hours and five minutes of continuous slow motion footage of the Empire State Building in New York City.
....

It was shot at 24 frames per second but is projected at 16 frame/s, so that, even though only about 6 hours and 36 minutes of film was made, the film when screened is about 8 hours and 5 minutes long.

Your link is wrong: en.wikipedia.org...(1964_film) edit- so is mine when pasted into here

have you seen any of it? I'm guessing not - here's some: www.youtube.com...

Any people in it? Any vehicles driving? Any dirt in a ballistic arc that matches lunar gravity and not earth? Any carrier bags flying around?

The point of citing that film was to show you it WAS possible to produce several hours of continuous slow-motion footage.

You can't admit you're wrong on that point, you just move the goalposts.

But it doesn't change the fact - they had the technology to produce several hours of continuous slow-motion footage.

onebigmonkey


Speaking of dirt, your claim about what type of dust it is doesn't really make any difference - gravity works equally on any particle regardless of its mass. The arcs of dust thrown up by the rovers match with lunar gravity, not Earth - it's not just the lack of atmosphere that controls the behaviour of the lunar dust.

edit on 1-1-2014 by onebigmonkey because: bad link

We've already discussed this issue, and I've shown you the reasons why it doesn't hold up.

reply to post by turbonium1


You make no sense they had the ability to slow down video sins the beginning he filmed at 24 fps and just played it back at 16.Simple you slow down te projector if your implying this was done on apollo then show us. See the problem is we know what speed the film was taken at. So we know to play it back at the same peed.Just like when Worhol stretched out a six hour movie into eight. We know what speed to play it at he chose not to.So i guess what im asking is do you think it was filmed at a higher rate than NASA claims? Because you have been shown how stupid it looks when we increase the frame rate.

turbonium1

We've already discussed this issue, and I've shown you the reasons why it doesn't hold up.

you must be imagining it in hopes of dismissing it since you cant explain it or i really must have missed it..

but tell us again how they faked the dirt/sand/dust..

as presented the dirt/sand/dust falls at lunar gravity of 1.62m/s^2

you are claiming that the footage is slowed to 67% which means that the dirt is falling at about 4.3m/s^2



is earths gravitational acceleration 4.3m/s^2??

if you mean that the 67% slow down theory doesnt hold up, well then yes i agree 67% slow down theory doesnt hold up.

turbonium1
The point of citing that film was to show you it WAS possible to produce several hours of continuous slow-motion footage.

You can't admit you're wrong on that point, you just move the goalposts.

But it doesn't change the fact - they had the technology to produce several hours of continuous slow-motion footage.

No-one denies it is possible to change a frame rate - they've been doing that since they invented moving pictures. The DAC camera they took had a variable frame rate.

What you have failed to do is prove that it was done during the Apollo broadcasts to Earth. You've failed to do this because it wasn't filmed, it was broadcast - youtube and digital film wasn't around in the Apollo era. An altered frame rate would be instantly demonstrably false just by playing it back at the correct speed because what you get is a ridiculous Chaplin-esque film. What was not possible was changing the speed of live TV broadcasts. What would also not be possible is cramming all the audio that was broadcast into the footage. Did they feed them helium so they would sound correct when they slowed down the footage? How would that work exactly?

Here's your problem: the footage you claim is an altered frame rate film is actually live TV broadcast, and there are enough shots of Earth taken in the broadcasts to prove it was taken when it was claimed to be taken. If it was taken in advance that wouldn't be possible, and you would still have to find the studio, the lighting technicians, the sound technicians, the props guys, the cameramen, the set builders. the editors and directors, all those people that never ever once came forward, and then explain how it was possible to have those guys produce continuous footage that includes a meteorologically correct full sized Earth and these guys floating around in zero gravity in the Command Module?

We've already discussed this issue, and I've shown you the reasons why it doesn't hold up.

No. You didn't.

Now: Carrier bag. Stick. Results. Still waiting.

dragonridr
reply to post by turbonium1

 

You make no sense they had the ability to slow down video sins the beginning he filmed at 24 fps and just played it back at 16.Simple you slow down te projector if your implying this was done on apollo then show us. See the problem is we know what speed the film was taken at. So we know to play it back at the same peed.Just like when Worhol stretched out a six hour movie into eight. We know what speed to play it at he chose not to.So i guess what im asking is do you think it was filmed at a higher rate than NASA claims? Because you have been shown how stupid it looks when we increase the frame rate.

It looks stupid because you increase the speed by 2.45x!!

A film at 66.66% speed must be increased by 1.5x to return it to 100%, normal speed.

Do you realize this?

The Mythbusters jump at 66.66% speed nearly matches Young's jump, without even trying to!

Why would it be that 66.66% is the same speed as filming at 24fps set at 16fps? Just amazing!

turbonium1

It looks stupid because you increase the speed by 2.45x!!

A film at 66.66% speed must be increased by 1.5x to return it to 100%, normal speed.

Do you realize this?

The Mythbusters jump at 66.66% speed nearly matches Young's jump, without even trying to!

Why would it be that 66.66% is the same speed as filming at 24fps set at 16fps? Just amazing!

which would mean that this scene was filmed not on earth and not on the moon since if we calculate acceleration due to gravity of the dust/dirt falling/slowing down to its peak it would equate to 4.3m/s^2.



i guess for you a gravitational acceleration due to gravity on "Earth" is normally 4.3m/s^2 and not 9.8m/s^2, also given how you believe centrifugal force is governed by gravity, such that without gravity centrifugal force cannot exist.. i have come to the conclusion that you are not of this earth/dimension and are infact an alien..

p.s. when you say nearly matches john youngs jump; how far off, in your opinion, is the difference?? in my opinion its a bout less than 0.5second difference ie the mythbusters at 67% is about less than 0.5seconds faster than john youngs jump..

choos

which would mean that this scene was filmed not on earth and not on the moon since if we calculate acceleration due to gravity of the dust/dirt falling/slowing down to its peak it would equate to 4.3m/s^2.

No, the scene was filmed on Earth, and it's been slowed to 66.66%.

His method of calculating for gravity is the problem.

His assumption is that Charlie Duke is the astronaut in the clip. It could be Duke, but it could be someone else, playing the 'role' of Duke. We can't tell who is in the suit. This means the height of ~6 ft. (Duke's height) can't be confirmed.

Without knowing the exact height of the astronaut, it is not possible to estimate the actual height of the dust. That means we cannot calculate this any further.

And even if the astronaut's height was known to be ~ 6 ft., it doesn't work.

Dust is probably the worst material to calculate for gravity. The fine particles stay aloft longer than other objects (ie: a tennis ball) on Earth, due to air resistance. And dust is not a single object, like a ball. Dust consists of many fine particles, which are sprayed over an entire area at once. There is no exact height it can be measured at.

He doesn't let the dust fall to the ground in his video, as well.

It is impossible to make valid calculations for gravity with that little clip.

choos

also given how you believe centrifugal force is governed by gravity, such that without gravity centrifugal force cannot exist..

Then cite examples of centrifugal force existing without any form of gravity being present. If you can do that, then I'll admit I was mistaken. If you don't, then you should admit to the mistake.

choos

p.s. when you say nearly matches john youngs jump; how far off, in your opinion, is the difference?? in my opinion its a bout less than 0.5second difference ie the mythbusters at 67% is about less than 0.5seconds faster than john youngs jump..

edit on 4-1-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)

The Mythbusters jump at 67% is less than 0.5 seconds faster than Young's jump, for sure.

Now, what if the Mythbusters jump was slowed to 66.66%, which I cited as being the exact speed?

At 67%, the Mythbusters jump was a fraction of a second faster than Young's jump. So at 66.66%, it would be a fraction slower, yes?

They might be a perfect (or nearly perfect) match, after all!

turbonium1

choos

which would mean that this scene was filmed not on earth and not on the moon since if we calculate acceleration due to gravity of the dust/dirt falling/slowing down to its peak it would equate to 4.3m/s^2.

No, the scene was filmed on Earth, and it's been slowed to 66.66%.

His method of calculating for gravity is the problem.

His assumption is that Charlie Duke is the astronaut in the clip. It could be Duke, but it could be someone else, playing the 'role' of Duke. We can't tell who is in the suit. This means the height of ~6 ft. (Duke's height) can't be confirmed.

Without knowing the exact height of the astronaut, it is not possible to estimate the actual height of the dust. That means we cannot calculate this any further.

And even if the astronaut's height was known to be ~ 6 ft., it doesn't work.

Dust is probably the worst material to calculate for gravity. The fine particles stay aloft longer than other objects (ie: a tennis ball) on Earth, due to air resistance. And dust is not a single object, like a ball. Dust consists of many fine particles, which are sprayed over an entire area at once. There is no exact height it can be measured at.

He doesn't let the dust fall to the ground in his video, as well.

It is impossible to make valid calculations for gravity with that little clip.

choos

also given how you believe centrifugal force is governed by gravity, such that without gravity centrifugal force cannot exist..

Then cite examples of centrifugal force existing without any form of gravity being present. If you can do that, then I'll admit I was mistaken. If you don't, then you should admit to the mistake.

choos

p.s. when you say nearly matches john youngs jump; how far off, in your opinion, is the difference?? in my opinion its a bout less than 0.5second difference ie the mythbusters at 67% is about less than 0.5seconds faster than john youngs jump..

edit on 4-1-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)

The Mythbusters jump at 67% is less than 0.5 seconds faster than Young's jump, for sure.

Now, what if the Mythbusters jump was slowed to 66.66%, which I cited as being the exact speed?

At 67%, the Mythbusters jump was a fraction of a second faster than Young's jump. So at 66.66%, it would be a fraction slower, yes?

They might be a perfect (or nearly perfect) match, after all!

Your not good at math and science are you? first lets discuss the astronauts height his plss is 24 in in with the addition of the oxygen purge system on top adding another7 in meaning the total height 31 in. Now since your such a genius in math im sure you can use this fact to verify the height of our astronaut in the video. Now as far as centrifugal force not working unless there is gravity. Really not sure what to say other then you flunked science in high school didnt you?

Centrifugal force is caused not by gravity but by something we call inertia. See when an object is in motion it likes to stay in motion. Like throwing a baseball ever see one reverse direction? Well centrifugal force is caused when we have an object in motion on a circular path. The object wants to travel in a straight path but is constantly redirected causing an outward force. Any spinning object develops centrifugal force independent of gravity. In fact do you know why the shuttle is weightless there not far out enough to be in space and are still under the effects of earths gravity. Yet its weightless inside because the gravity is off set by the shuttle falling towards earth. See the shuttle is in constant free fall around the earth just like the vomit comet they use to show 0 g. But the reason it doesnt hit the earth is centrifugal force is pushing it outward as it falls allowing it to maintain orbit. Side effect of this centrifugal force is it negates the gravity pulling it towards the earth meaning 0 g.

onebigmonkey

No-one denies it is possible to change a frame rate - they've been doing that since they invented moving pictures. The DAC camera they took had a variable frame rate.

What you have failed to do is prove that it was done during the Apollo broadcasts to Earth. You've failed to do this because it wasn't filmed, it was broadcast - youtube and digital film wasn't around in the Apollo era. An altered frame rate would be instantly demonstrably false just by playing it back at the correct speed because what you get is a ridiculous Chaplin-esque film. What was not possible was changing the speed of live TV broadcasts. What would also not be possible is cramming all the audio that was broadcast into the footage. Did they feed them helium so they would sound correct when they slowed down the footage? How would that work exactly?

Here's your problem: the footage you claim is an altered frame rate film is actually live TV broadcast, and there are enough shots of Earth taken in the broadcasts to prove it was taken when it was claimed to be taken. If it was taken in advance that wouldn't be possible, and you would still have to find the studio, the lighting technicians, the sound technicians, the props guys, the cameramen, the set builders. the editors and directors, all those people that never ever once came forward, and then explain how it was possible to have those guys produce continuous footage that includes a meteorologically correct full sized Earth and these guys floating around in zero gravity in the Command Module?

The Earth shots you're referring to were taken from space, not from the moon. So even if those shots were 'live', they have nothing to do with any (so-called) 'live' broadcasts from the moon.

They don't need to fake the astronauts floating around in their capsule. It was already possible to fly astronauts into LEO by that point. We could have done 'live" broadcasts from LEO.

But we didn't, and we couldn't, do 'live' broadcasts from the moon. They said it was 'live', so it was (or is) believed to be 'live'.

They even put 'LIVE FROM THE MOON' on the bottom of our TV screens, during the 'historical' Apollo 11 moon landing. They always re-inforced the idea of moon footage being shown 'live', which adds more realism. A 'live' broadcast is impossible to fake, after all.

There are many advantages to filming fake moon footage. We cannot go there and see it for ourselves. We cannot see a man walking on the moon, with Earth's most powerful telescopes. We don't know what it would be like to actually fly to the moon, or to land on the moon. We don't know what astronauts would look like when they walked on the moon.

Only NASA claims to know all this. And their footage supposedly shot on the moon is believed to be genuine, based on nothing but their word.

Another advantage in filming a fake - slowing the footage can be done without audio (the astronauts' voices). We can't see if their mouths, or faces, behind the reflective visors!

The audio was easy.