Tarkus, you have made three different kinds of errors in this thread. Others have already pointed these out, but they bear reiteration.
First, you made a source error (identifying video imagery as "film"). Not really a big deal, but it does demonstrate once again your unfamiliarity with the Apollo record.
Second, you asserted that things should be done a certain way for space missions, but you manifestly have no insight into how actual space operations work. This is, again as already pointed out, the "If I ran the zoo" fallacy. You have no experiential or factual basis for your assertions of how things "should be done" or "should have been done". Bluntly speaking, you have no idea what you are talking about, but you presume to tell a group of well-educated laymen and engineers with actual space operations experience (like me) that we are just taking things on faith. That's arrant nonsense.
Third, of course, is the simple error of fact you made in asserting that in-cabin motion imagery was unavailable from various missions. That was simply wrong, and everyone here knew that. You based your claim on this supposed fact, which in reality - quickly demonstrated - was nothing more than your ignorance of the subject. Therefore, your claim immediately failed because its fundamental premise was wrong.
Please explain if being wrong like this ever causes you to reconsider your position, and if not, why anyone should expend any effort in trying to educate you.
You contradict when they say that Apollo was the fact and best documented history on the one hand are the films, audio as well (why astronauts sound so bad from space? Nasal and metallic voice because they are "far away" ?)
Oh, dear. You didn't answer my question.
You claimed that there was no imagery of crews "driving" their spaceships. Multiple examples were promptly shown to you, which made me ask you if you ever reconsider your position, given the many errors you make concerning Apollo.
Instead of answering my question, you simply repeated your second error, the "if I ran the zoo" fallacy, but added an irrelevant complaint about sound quality. This is another variant - we'll call it the "if I engineered the zoo" fallacy. The problem is, you simply don't know anything about spaceflight in general, nor about spacecraft communications in particular. You're just waving your hands that things should be a certain way, but you have no basis for it other than your demonstrably ignorant opinion.
and secondly the documents with information, but most of what is said there is not proven,
Handwaving. You can't simply deny what's in the documentation and expect anyone to take you seriously. Not only do you clearly not understand what's in the documentation, you aren't even aware of the
existence of the vast majority of it.
you will read that data with reverence produced in his mind the authority that has been written, but history is full of lies and science has often complicit in the lies promoted by the government, reasons for mistrust abound.
Appealing to general conspiracism won't save you. Nor will attempting to frame those who disagree with you as gullible believers uncritically accepting what they are told by NASA. The regulars here are the ones finding and reporting the evidence, and pulling it apart and analyzing it and correcting each other. You, on the other hand, Google up images and factoids from random sources, but are unable to construct a coherent, let alone factual, narrative with them.
And, by the way, I've
worked with people who made Mercury and Gemini and Apollo happen. I'm talking about hard-nosed engineers who would hand you your head if you played fast and loose with the facts. I'm not in their league, but I can, and try to, apply that same kind of mindset in my job. And yes, space flight is my business; I don't
have to just believe or disbelieve.
And of course those who distrust Apollo, observe critically graphic evidence, that's what it is.
I have seen no evidence of critical analysis from committed Apollo hoax believers. Critical analysis requires being able to admit error. Neither you nor any of the conspiracists you crib from demonstrate the ability or willingness to do so.
And not only the evidence but the absence of evidence, because there is no verifiable evidence of piloting a spaceship ... this is serious.
No, it's risible. You said there was no evidence. You were provided with evidence. Now, you're half-denying it exists, and half-handwaving that it's somehow wrong or untrustworthy, but once again, you have nothing but your own ignorant opinion to back it up.
I'm not insulting you by calling you ignorant about space flight in general and Apollo in particular. We're all ignorant about something. But you refuse to amend, or even acknowledge, your ignorance. So, I return to the questions asked above:
Given your numerous errors, why do you never reconsider your position?
And why, given your unwillingness and/or inability to correct or even acknowledge your mistakes, should anybody keep trying to educate you?
I'm not saying this to insult you. I'm simply trying to get you to
think about what you're doing, rather than just keep digging in.
