Devils advocate, can someone answer this question with an open mind

>>Devils advocate, can someone answer this question with an open mind?<<

I am always suspicious when I see someone ask for 'open-minded' responses. In my experience they usually mean they want you to agree with them. I'm not saying you are saying that, but I thought that would be a useful bit of background for you to know before reading my answer. I have been accused of being closed-minded for disagreeing with people who asked for 'open-minded' responses before, more times than I care to recall.

>>The argument is that it is impossible to fake the moon landings yet it is easier for Hollywood to make a movie about Apollo 13 which looked more authentic than the actual lunar landing?<<

And the argument fails, because Apollo 13 does NOT look 'more authentic' than the actual landing. What it does is, in many cases, conform better to what people *expect* to see of space flight, but it has many MANY inaccuracies when comapred to real space flight and lunar landing missions. For example, during the course correction scene they show a huge yellow flame firing from the LM engine, and the spacecraft stack pointed at Earth. To perform a course correction you fire your engines across the direction of travel, and indeed at the angle of the exterior scene it would have been impossible for the astronauts to see the Earth in the widows, since they would be angled backwards. Furthermore, the fuel used in the LM does not burn with a bright orange flame. That's just one of the flaws in that movie. Then there's big swirling clouds of gas in space, sound in space, impossible landmark identification, and so on. It is an excellent narrative re-telling of the events, but it is a terrible technical reproduction when special effects and 'what the viewrs expect to see' takes precedence over a true depiction of the event.