The guy who did this study has a Ph.D.
A Stereoscopic Method of Verifying Apollo Lunar Surface Images
He attempts to prove that the mountains in the background of the Apollo footage and photos are backdrops.
My issue with this is the complexity of the proof. I know enough about optics and geometry to know that slight details can change things considerably. It’s not hard for there to be unpredicted optical illusions.
So him showing how it “could be faked” might be all this amounts to, so long as there is a viable way to produce the same types of offsets for a true far-distance outdoor scene.
Until we see this scrutinized better - i.e. or even him trying to scrutinize his own claims better (most don’t) - my gut says this is “debatable”, and possibly even bad evidence.
I’d be happy to be proven wrong, and have this truly be good or smoking gun evidence.
There are so many other clear anomalies that prove the footage was shot on Earth that I have a tendency to lower my standards in a case such as this. You’re right; the scientific method should be used very strictly even when dealing with what could almost be called moot points. It seems almost moot to me because of the other clear anomalies.
Right - so there is “proof of the hoax” and then “stuff that is compatible with the hoax” but might also be “compatible with Apollo being real” – in which case it needs to NOT be called “proof of the hoax” - because it’s just not. And when we call it proof - we give the Apollogists a leg to stand on … I want to live in a world where we fully remove their legs to stand on… And that’s the world I’m trying to construct.