Not only satellites and rovers but people went as well. There's no reason one can go but not the other.
There are tons of additional factors that one need to include when bringing a human being to the moon.
Good! We agree the moondust was not done by strings.
There wasn't any disagreement, you did what you tried to do again below and that is take selective bits and paste them together and then ridicule this invented argument which you try and pass off as mine. A strawman.
Of course not, since no one can simulate 1.6m/s2 gravity in vacuum for square kilometers at a time. That's why moon video can't be faked, no matter the budget.
You argue that it's impossible to make a fake video and then say it's because computers can't simulate a different gravity field? The NASA computer generated simulations and Star Trek episodes prove you wrong on that. I'm guessing that with the equivalent of 130 billion dollars, the US might have been able to do it but I'd like to know if you can provide me with any video of the Apollo 11 landing where you can see the astronauts kicking up moondust.
And perhaps you believe "viral ads" and similar mind-rot but your credulity is already established. A little education goes a long way.
And this would be the other strawman to which I was referring. You completely misread what I said and avoided the point that many people have been fooled by basic budget commercials and films is easy and in one case, even the producers saying "this was fake" wasn't enough for people to disbelieve it. If a group of experts were given over 100 billion of today's dollars for the singular purpose to create a fake video make in grainy black and white, I'm guessing they would probably succeed. By the way, this is the second time on the same point that you misrepresent my position, either accidentally or purposefully. If it's the latter, and you believe that you are absolutely right, you shouldn't have to be reduced to such tactics, if it's the former, I would avoid using expressions such as the last sentence quoted.
It would give you a little better perspective on the times if you lived it rather than just read about it.
Well that's a fallacy.... The only thing that living during some event does is help give one the "flavour" of what happened but it would hurt massively with the objectivity of looking at the event.
Your life experience is apparently not very extensive. What you call "objectivity" is what I call depending on second or third hand information.
Wait a minute, are you actually saying that since I wasn't directly involved in the Apollo project and thus have to use second hand information that that somehow undercuts my argument? That the information that I gave such as the specs for the camera used is somewhat lessened because I didn't see Westinghouse build and install it? And your second sentence of what you call objectivity doesn't make any sense. Objectivity is when you look at the evidence offered and make a judgement on the soundness of the evidence keeping the solid and removing the spurious and draw a hypothesis solely on the basis of that solid evidence.
the ultimate goal post was the moon and the Soviets had a demonstratively better chance of succeeding in the amazing achievement.
It obviously wasn't demonstrated, since we succeeded and they didn't.
Well first off, you're begging the question. Second, I don't think that word means what you think it means:
demonstratively, adj: Serving to manifest or prove.
Very slowly: the Soviets served to manifest their better chance of succeeding of landing someone on the moon by having managed to outperform the US in all of the previous stages.
Put it another way: you've got two runners who race against each other and runner X beats runner Y in the 100m, 200m and 400m. Who would you assume to be the winner of the 1k based on past performance?
So the US did what it did before and did after in situations when they are unable to accomplish something in their interests: they cheated.
If you can dig up some compelling 'behind the scenes' photos of the 'video production' you so believe in then I may continue to humor you. But I know you can't so I suppose we're at an impasse.
So pointing out inconsistencies, mistakes and suspect elements within the the Apollo project isn't enough, using second and third hand sources isn't enough I have to provide some kind of photographic evidence of the astronauts on soundstage for you to start to question anything? Using that burden of proof, you must not believe anything that happened prior to the nineteenth century. You're asking for irrefutable evidence to prove a negative instead of being able to explain the inconsistencies found present in your version of events; something that should be spectacularly easy if man "obviously" went to the Moon.
Oh look:
