I can't find a place to introduce myself here, so if this isn't the right place, I apologise.
I have already posted here, so I guess I had better put my cards on the table, and I'll try to be brief.
I am an "AB" (Apollo Believer). I am in my mid 50's, so like some others here (ka9Q?) I experienced the moon shots first hand as a teenager (unlike most HB's whom I suspect the vast majority of were post moonshot).
In my youth, I was fascinated by space (I still am) and inspired by people like Patrick Moore, and many years later, by Carl Sagan. I followed the Apollo story listening to Voice of America shortwave broadcasts in the 19m and 25m bands, but unlike many, because I lived in New Zealand, I didn't see the Apollo landing and Neil Armstrong's first steps live. In those days, there was no way to get a live satellite TV feed to this country (the first one wasn't until 1973). Instead, I was in my High School Assembly Hall on a Monday afternoon shortly before 3 o'clock along with the rest of the students, listening to it on the radio which was being broadcast through the hall's PA system.
My experience base is that I spent 20 years in the military (1973-93) as an Avionics Engineer, working on electrical, electronics, radar and radio systems, both airborne and ground-based. After retiring from there, I started a photographic business which I still own to this day.
I find it extraordinary that anyone could believe NASA would have gone to all the trouble of faking the Apollo programme when it would have been much more difficult and much more expensive than actually doing it for real. While a lot of debunkers seem to focus on proving using technical reasons, that things weren't faked, my focus has always been on the "why".
For example, if beating the Soviets to the moon was the only goal, then why not take the simplest, cheapest option and quit after faking Apollo 11; why go on and do it again another five (potentially six) times instead of taking a "mission accomplished" or a "been there done that" attitude. Six more very public and hideously expensive Saturn V launches and six more splashdown recovery operations. A catastrophic failure of any one of these would have left them with the "Capricorn One" scenario, inconvenient, live astronauts. Additionally, five (potentially six) more recording studio sessions dramatically increases the chances of a mistake, and therefore discovery; remember, there is no CGI post production available at that time, so it would all have to be done "live"; the slightest error, and the game's up!
Also, why didn't they just go ahead with the mission when the "problems" occurred on Apollo 13. The fake Lunar Landing set would surely have been ready. If they faked the approach and landing footage for Apollo 11 and 12, why not just do the same for 13. No-one would have been the wiser.
