I'm NOT a hoaxer. I just have a question, and it is based on a hoaxer's argument, so I put it here.
First off, this is a terrible argument for this particular hoaxer to make. For starters, if the argument is sound, all it does is show that they were inefficient with their panoramic shots.
The argument is that they could have taken the pans using just 6, 7 or 8 shots, but they actually used a lot more than that. Usually at least 15, and in most cases, far more than that, and even up to 30 in some cases.
My argument has been because it is easier to stitch together 20 photos into a pan rather than just 8 simply because the more overlap each photograph has, the less each image needs to be distorted in order to be stitched with the adjacent photograph since you are using more of the center of each frame - rather than the edges which suffer from more distortions from the lens and the fact that each photograph is not "parallel" to the last - so the film planes are off. Things like that.
Then I got to thinking - did they actually stitch these photographs together THEN (if so, how) - or was it not until digital editing tools such as Photoshop emerged that they then took the panoramic photographs and stitched them together? If it is the latter, did they actually have the foresight to know they would be easier to stitch with more photographs?