Yes we had digital video. It wasn’t used here. You don’t seem to catch what I’m saying. If you can produce a video image through a camera you can manually create that same image in other ways. It’s not a technology limit. If your argument is that we didn’t have the CGI software and Special Effects technology to do it easily at the time then you are correct. But you are asking if it’s technically possible, not if it was easy, or practicle.
That’s the point this guy is making in the original video, and especially his followup. He basically says, “Point me to a commercially available technology or combination of technologies, on or about 1971, that could have produced slow motion video of the length and quality that was broadcast live.” He concedes that there were technologies that might maybe have been able to pull it off, but the execution would have been truly groundbreaking at the time and never repeated, as the technology to produce long-form slow motion video ultimately took different directions. He then points out the fallacy in believing that NASA had the technology to make revolutionary slow motion videos a full decade or more before the commercial sector, but that NASA did not have the technology to chuck a rudimentary life support capsule into space. That’s the reason, I think, to point out the technology limitations of the time, because it makes that fallacy readily apparent. Of course, moon hoaxers aren’t going to understand that, so…
Well, under that logic, you could argue that it’s technically possible to create thousands of hand-painted, photo-realistic frames with perfect physical representation and continuity.
But to get that right within less than a decade would’ve been impossible.
It’s theoretically possible in the same sense that someone with a powerful magnifying glass, extremely fine pointed tweezers, and a huge amount of time could make a photographic image by manually arranging the silver flecks on a piece of photographic paper, but in the real world it’s impossible or might as well be.
ETA: Ninja’ed by cmyk
I have no argument with that statement. It was not a matter of whether the technology was possible, but at the time we didn’t have it to use in that way.
In short, whatever technology that existed at the time, it’d have to have culminated into a perfect fake. And what’s more, any imagery depicted would have to perfectly match what we’d see upon future excursions. If someday, we go back to the Apollo 11 landing site, we should be able to perfectly match the scenery and landmarks to what we capture today.
A perfect fake would’ve been impossible.
One thing I don’t get about this guy; he says something like “Did we go to the Moon? I don’t know. But I do know that we couldn’t have faked the video.”
If he thinks that the video couldn’t have been faked, then how can he say that he doesn’t know if we went to the Moon?
The aliens shot it for us!
At the end of the 2nd video he says that he “Can’t be Moon Hoax Guy,” because he doesn’t have the time. He’s basically saying he doesn’t want to wade into that whole morass by ultimately declaring that moon hoaxers wrong, but he’s simply throwing his 2 cents in about film technology because that’s his area of expertise.
Of course all this leaves out the fact that the signals from the moon were no doubt also picked up by the USSR. Some of the US feed had to go through Australia.
So you would have to have filmed this well in advance and have it actually transmitted from the moon.
Good point. Maybe they sent Kubrick to the moon and he filmed and broadcast it from there. 
I wouldn’t necessarily rely on actual 1960’s technology levels to determine whether or not it was feasible. The $23 billion Apollo budget had to go somewhere. If they plowed tens of billions of dollars into video recording and special effects R&D, I bet they could have invented the VCR. As far as the big rocket goes, yeah they still would have had to build that, but building a big rocket that can launch into the upper atmosphere and blow itself up over the pacific ocean has got to be doable at a fraction of the cost it took to build Apollo one.
So, basically, the irony in faking the landings is in hindsight we know what was technically feasible in both landing men on the moon as well as if some government establishment had $23 billion to throw at faking it.
And it turns out that landing men on the moon was far more feasible than faking it in all regards.
Sure, and if JFK had made it a national goal to build a home video recording device by the end of the decade there’s a good chance Boogie Nights would have been set in a different decade. The point isn’t that we couldn’t have built the technology, it’s that it wasn’t readily available, and moon hoaxers are saying that the computers that were readily available in 1969 weren’t powerful enough to power the Apollo missions. So either we can push hard and spend money to accomplish great engineering feats with rudimentary technology, or we can’t, and moon hoaxers want to have it both ways.
That is an important point. And in this case as I mentioned, in order to fake it convincingly we would have had to spend $46 billion. We could have climbed to the moon on a pile of 46 billion $1 bills.
Sigh. Amateur astronomers tracked Apollo spacecraft, including engine burns, fuel dumps, and panel jettisoning, in deep space on the way to the moon.
Would it have been possible to fake the moon landing?
My answer would be “No, because there were just waaaay too many brilliant people involved in the operation, and you couldn’t possibly fool them all OR trust them all to keep quiet about such a conspiracy.”
I think people are forgetting the sheer SCALE of the Apollo mission, of just how MANY people it took to make the whole thing work. If NASA had been a tiny operation, maybe the handful of geniuses running it could have pulled off a hoax and/or kept their activities a secret.
But with hundreds of scientists and technicians on the premises and thousands more involved indirectly? You’d never be able to fool them all, bribe them all, or bring them all in on the conspiracy.
Telescopic Tracking Of The Apollo Missions
Note that some of these events were observed with the naked eye.
Apollo hoax contradiction:
-
1969 computers were not powerful enough to run a lunar landing mission.
-
1969 computers are powerful enough to create convincing moonwalk footage.
Again; that’s not what this thread is supposed to be about. It’s about video technology. We’ve rehashed all of that other stuff repeatedly.