/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7016095
they didn't even worry about the sun!

>>6938649
>So what you say is that NASA could just magically invent slow motion playback, but fails to do a primitive task such as calculating a proper aperture and exposure time for photos on the moon.
No, but this is a great example of trying to put words in my mouth again. You guys can strawman all you want, and then claim victory but it doesn't fool me and I think there are smart enough people out there to see through this. I've done a decent job in this thread presenting information.

Slow motion technology that you claim they didn't have (while also providing no proof of this continuous slow motion uninterrupted footage) was only marginally better than public technology at the time. It is completely feasible that the government could have had that technology. When you watch a film like 2001: A Space Odyssey, released a year before the first moon landing, it's clear that Hollywood already had many of the same techniques and none of that footage was outside of their ability.

Not only that, but the realistic technology claim is completely backwards. You believe we had the technology to send humans past low earth orbit back then, when we've never done anything like that since. And that's just getting slightly away from our planet, a few hundred miles, not the 237,000 miles to the moon. That's not covering any of the other amazing technicial miracles that the apollo missions gave us, perfect consumption for a TV audience.

Face it, you didn't even read the whole thread. It doesn't really matter if you lie to me, but you should care if you're lying to yourself.