491453:

A little more detailed research on the subject of riggings would be invaluable to your analysis... and you should also drop the references to 'flying monkeys' from a film shot in 1939!

The truth is, there are quite sophisticated articulated gimbels that allow the freedom of movement and degree of control you suggest is impossible, and both vertical and horizontal planes can be simultaneously altered from these suspending structures. The articulated gimbels are nearly always mounted on ceiling tracks that correspond with matching camera mounts that allow complete syncronisation of fluid movement to create seamless flying/jumping sequences... and there have been applications where these gimbels were hung from cranes soaring nearly 100' up [remember the jumping sequences from SUPERMAN RETURNS where a teenaged Clark Kent leaps stories into the air through lush fields? Although designed exclusively for linear movement these scenes illustrate how large some of these rigs can be - and, this a was with a largely untrained young actor and not a stunt person].

Oncamera flying techniques have progressed by leaps and bounds [pun intended] since the spate of those contemporary 'flying monkeys' -the martial arts fantasy films- and digital processing has only made the entire process even more realistic.

Having said all of this: I personally don't subscribe to the concept that the Apollo landings were faked; but, I do believe it was possible to do so at that point in time and do so convincingly. In a closed studio environment nearly anything could be recreated even then and that was long before computers assisted the process with the complete imaging control possible today.

But, I DO enjoy reading the pro/con debates on this issue!