am3930 wrote:I always wondered if anyone ever analyzed this footage:
Hard to fake acceleration due to gravity.
Not really. Play any movie a bit slower, and it looks like weaker gravity.
Another argument against fakery: Why would they bother? Seriously. Governments do cover up stuff, typically money that somehow disappeared, or that they in fact fired the first shots to start some war. But when did they ever fake a great achievement - in a country with a free press? The risk of discovery is too high, it would ruin too much credibility. As others have pointed out - the Soviets would have loved to expose a fake moon program. They were leading, doing everything in space first, until the moon.
If you want to hide a money sink, you don't fake a spectacular space program. You hide it as something excessively boring that not even the opposition would bother to sift through.
Also, a fake moon landing might be a bit cheaper, but still have a cost comparable to a real one. Ordinary telescopes can't resolve a rocket going to the moon, but they can see that something shiny goes there. So something had to go there, orbit the moon, and come back. That is as difficult as the real thing, fakery could merely save some weight.