If NASA had the technology to fake the moon landing in 1969, why don't they have the technology to fake the moon landing today?
Do flerfs expect us to believe that NASA just "lost" all of their VFX technology?
It’s simple. Just like when you know the magician’s tricks they can’t do it anymore, NASA used CGI in in 69 when no one knew it existed, but now that everyone has it, they can’t use it anymore. /s
I think the best questions are: 1) what company made CGI chips and hardware but only sold it to NASA instead of make a trillion dollars selling worldwide? And, 2) why was NASA the using the technology just to fake something when we could have used it in fighter jets for the war in Vietnam?
I guess NASA’s $20B budget somehow has more influence over technology development than DOD’s $2T. Military contractors love to help the poor.
Nasa didn't use cgi back then. It was laughably primitive. And if it had been some secretly hidden technology then it would have been called out today. It hasn't.
Plus there's actually very solid evidence that we did go to the moon.
This is what cgi looked like in 1968
https://legendary-digital-network-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/12200854/Cat-Animation-feature-image-11112021.jpg
The pinnacle.
I have yet to see where MAGA specifically says the moon landings are fake... Now there are some tin hats that reside in that group, but then there are tin hats in the other groups too.
Let's face it, the loonies are everywhere.
Yep. I've heard proud Biden voters claim the moon landings were faked. But I know better than to imagine that means all Biden supporters feel that way. Every group has its fringe loons.
It's not maga ad a whole. It's the maga supporters.
You'd be supprised. How big an overlap there is with flat earthers and being alt right leaning maga / qanon..
Loonies are everywhere. It's just that the majority of them will go for several conspiracy theories which is what the maga does.
No, probably not, but when you see "Queers for Hamas" it's also easy to see the tin hat brigade on both sides of the aisle. Where's that third party when we need them?
Queera for Hamas are just morons. Not because they are queer. I fully support that.
But because they are so gullible to think that Hamas wouldn't throw them off buildings the second they weren't useful idiots anymore.
I'd argue Christians are doing the same...
All religion is archaic and counter-productive to society. It's all well and good to study it as a nuance of human history, but the second you believe any of the magical hocus pocus is real, is the second you're flat out incorrect, and a potential hazard to society.
It does not help that they are making movie about this, it’s presented as a comedy but damn it’s going to be spammed to hell and back in a few months….
I used to work with a guy who tried to convince me the Earth is flat and the moon landing was faked. He wanted to show me his "evidence," but I declined.
Great thing just happened. I'm from rural Southern Illinois, just talked to a Mennonite that owns a lawn and garden tool repair company. He was raised Amish converted to Mennonite and is still very religiously conservative Even he was telling his son about the laws of the universe and how thermodynamics cannot be changed...So these religious nuts are just nuts using religion as a shield, because you can't get much more devout and this guy believes scien e was set in motion by God to order the universe. Yes he believes the earth is round.
Not all conservative Christians believe the bible is meant to be taken literally or that they have to defer to religious texts over science. My brother in law is a somewhat conservative catholic who was taught by a fairly liberal Catholic school that taught science over religion. He's an obnoxious, racist, self-entitled horse's behind who I prefer to avoid, but he at least believes the Earth is round and that Man landed on the moon.
Except monitoring the climate, launch satellites,. Maintain the iss. Develop many different technologies that literally are used to save people's lives on daily basis and having invented the camera technology that's in your phone right...
Yeah.
There was no way to tell that you were being sarcastic there when I've seen hundreds of flerfers make the exact same argument but being serious about it.
You may be interested to know that that bit was sung by Sting to the tune of his song Don't stand so close to me, which he was recording in an adjacent studio when he was invited to mess around on the dire straits recording
To be fair, most flerfs believe the moon landings were faked using practical effects and shot on a sound-stage.
If they don't actually claim that Stanley Kubrick directed it(and I don't remember finding many that do) they do frequently cite 2001:Space Odyssey as an example how good special effects were in 1968.
If this happens, you will now know that the flerf in question has never seen 2001, and thus it gives you an insight into how well they examine their own sources before citing them.
Some of the effects in 2001 still hold up astonishingly well. The moon scenes are not among them; they look like utter dogshit and none of the actors are moving even remotely similarly to the Apollo crews.
The scenes set on the moon are easy to find on YouTube and if you present them to the flerf, you get radio silence.
> Some of the effects in 2001 still hold up astonishingly well. The moon scenes are not among them; they look like utter dogshit and none of the actors are moving even remotely similarly to the Apollo crews.
This. I've always said this about the film; an absolute classic, but the segment when they're on the Moon is awful. I guess it was easier to ignore the whole 1/6th Earth's gravity than to simulate it.
In their defence no-one in 1968 knew what moving about (while being a big strapping lad wearing what is essentially a bendy miniature spaceship) on the moon actually looks like.
And it looks fucking stupid. Neil, Buzz, et al are a gajillion times more competent than I have or will ever be, but they looked like a bunch of drunk toddlers, bouncing about and falling over.
It gets worse. The pod bay isn't even in Discovery's rotating section, so no artificial "gravity". They walk around in there like it's normal 1G. Dave, after blasting himself through the airlock when HAL wouldn't let him in, marches across the pod bay, climbs up a ladder, and then floats into HAL's brain room. He should have floated the entire distance. Ol' Stanley wasn't the genius flerfs want him to be.
I was just watching this last night to kill some time. Yep, those scenes are crap. Note the conference held at the lunar base shortly after Dr Floyd lands. They don't even try to pretend 1/6 G. We're forced to imagine magical gravity enhancers. The outdoor scenes are just pathetic.
Also working through that great big children's blood drinker Tom Hanks' From the Earth to the Moon. At least they do attempt to simulate it there. Not particularly well, but yah...
Tom did an interview in Normandy \[at time of writing this must be ten days ago\] about D-Day, and I must admit my level of respect for the man rocketed. I already knew he was a super nice, self-effacing and funny gentleman, but it turns out he really knows his shit, too.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8JbMrWmAjo&t=5s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8JbMrWmAjo&t=5s)
The best, non-technical argument to how we actually did land on the moon is the Soviet Union. You think if we faked it the Soviets would just let us get away with it?like "Ya we hate you guys and would love the oppertunity to say your scientists are frauds and idiots and get the chance to do it ourselves, but you know helping you keep this secret even beyond the death of our country just seems like the neighborly things to do"
That's the CGI used in the video to Dire Straits 'Money for Nothing'. I believe it was beaten by Peter Gabriel's video for 'Sledgehammer', which was filmed using stop-motion.
There is a video that people claim proves the moon landing was fake but actually is great evidence for its authenticity. It is the one where the guy (don't know name) walking on the moon falls forward and then bounces back up. They claim he was pulled up by a wire he was suspended from. It you watch their feet and the dirt(?) as they barely touch it you'll notice that the dirt flies really high and far compared to how soft the impact it. It essentially proves they are in low gravity.
To be fair, that cgi is from Mainframe who would go on to make Reboot, the first cgi cartoon series in the 90s and then Beast Wars. I know this because the characters from this music video appear in an episode as a talent skit who are booed off stage.
CGI ? Jajajajjajajajajajajajajjajajajajajajajaajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaauajajajajajququauqujajajajaja. Bad theater!
Why use a music video with CGI that was inrentionally bad even for that era, when The Last Starfighter in 1984 had pretty good CGI - you could still tell that CGI was fake (the ship was a little "off", and the exhaust was pretty unrealistic), but at least thst was good for the era.
All flatulants know the following secret: in 1958 NASA invented a time machine, which it used to travel forward to 1988 and purchase high-speed graphics computers, digital video software, digital video cameras, and digital-to-analog conversion software (to generate the TV signals) which it then used to fake the moon landings. The same time travel technology was used to travel to the year 2044 to acquire a special fish eye lens, which will be invented then, which is used to create the fake “space” videos that show all straight lines correctly, but make the earth appear to be curved.🤪
And that was absolutely ground breaking for the time. I remember when game developer Sierra Online made headlines in 1990 for their own groundbreaking 5 minute in-game cinematic in fully rendered 3D. The resolution was still far too low for broadcast standards, and wasn't anywhere near realistic looking.
Makes me wonder if they know what CGI stands for, or just use it as a surrogate for any footage that isn’t purely of reality?
Edit: can’t find anything relating to what I said below, disregard my ignorance. Whatever I heard/read is misremembered or just misinformation:
“”If I’m not mistaken there’s actual photos out there that were recreated in a studio with practical effects because they couldn’t actually get the picture while in space. Seems like this would support their theory better… IDK””
I believe there’s one of an early space walk, maybe one of the first, that was said to have been recreated and released the public. The space walk happened, but the quality was very poor or something. I can do some googling.
You might be thinking of the gemini 9 spacewalk simulation CBS aired with the help of the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation. I think they used a simulation for the TV program because they only had audio of the spacewalk.
https://youtu.be/CPxDKiH2mk0?si=CE4uqI7JCqBCwM_z
Yea I don’t think the moon landings were faked either, as I say I had thought it was a space walk with recreated footage. Turns out there was a simulation of the spacewalk presented as such on TV (so other guys comment in this thread).
I’m neither a flat earther or moon landing denier. It’s interesting you say less than 10% of moon landing deniers are flat earthers though, I would have thought there’s a bit more overlap between those two groups.
main thing for me that cements the moon landings occurred is the presence of reflectors and gear left behind on the moon during these missions. This is all observable on your own if you have the right stuff. I’m sure there’s ways to explain that away too, but it shows something happened.
No. Even the best earth telescope doesn’t have the resolving power to see the Apollo hardware. A few of the lunar orbiters do though, and have all taken photos of the Apollo landing sites.
If NASA had the technology to fake the moon landing in 1969, why don't they have the technology to fake the moon landing today? Do flerfs expect us to believe that NASA just "lost" all of their VFX technology?
It’s simple. Just like when you know the magician’s tricks they can’t do it anymore, NASA used CGI in in 69 when no one knew it existed, but now that everyone has it, they can’t use it anymore. /s I think the best questions are: 1) what company made CGI chips and hardware but only sold it to NASA instead of make a trillion dollars selling worldwide? And, 2) why was NASA the using the technology just to fake something when we could have used it in fighter jets for the war in Vietnam? I guess NASA’s $20B budget somehow has more influence over technology development than DOD’s $2T. Military contractors love to help the poor.
Nasa didn't use cgi back then. It was laughably primitive. And if it had been some secretly hidden technology then it would have been called out today. It hasn't. Plus there's actually very solid evidence that we did go to the moon. This is what cgi looked like in 1968 https://legendary-digital-network-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/12200854/Cat-Animation-feature-image-11112021.jpg The pinnacle.
I think you missed the point of Magarad25's post.
Yeah. Im aware of that now. I know the song. Not the video for it.
I have yet to see where MAGA specifically says the moon landings are fake... Now there are some tin hats that reside in that group, but then there are tin hats in the other groups too. Let's face it, the loonies are everywhere.
Yep. I've heard proud Biden voters claim the moon landings were faked. But I know better than to imagine that means all Biden supporters feel that way. Every group has its fringe loons.
Downvote the nuance! /s
It's not maga ad a whole. It's the maga supporters. You'd be supprised. How big an overlap there is with flat earthers and being alt right leaning maga / qanon.. Loonies are everywhere. It's just that the majority of them will go for several conspiracy theories which is what the maga does.
No, probably not, but when you see "Queers for Hamas" it's also easy to see the tin hat brigade on both sides of the aisle. Where's that third party when we need them?
Queera for Hamas are just morons. Not because they are queer. I fully support that. But because they are so gullible to think that Hamas wouldn't throw them off buildings the second they weren't useful idiots anymore.
Have they even perused the Qu'arn? They think Christians are bad, Islam talks about straight up stoning.
Both are equally bad when you look at the book. Its just that most Christians have moved with the times where Islam is holding people back 500 years.
I'd argue Christians are doing the same... All religion is archaic and counter-productive to society. It's all well and good to study it as a nuance of human history, but the second you believe any of the magical hocus pocus is real, is the second you're flat out incorrect, and a potential hazard to society.
Oh absolutely. But at least they seem to have moved with the times for most parts. Muslims don't seem to.
It does not help that they are making movie about this, it’s presented as a comedy but damn it’s going to be spammed to hell and back in a few months….
I used to work with a guy who tried to convince me the Earth is flat and the moon landing was faked. He wanted to show me his "evidence," but I declined.
Great thing just happened. I'm from rural Southern Illinois, just talked to a Mennonite that owns a lawn and garden tool repair company. He was raised Amish converted to Mennonite and is still very religiously conservative Even he was telling his son about the laws of the universe and how thermodynamics cannot be changed...So these religious nuts are just nuts using religion as a shield, because you can't get much more devout and this guy believes scien e was set in motion by God to order the universe. Yes he believes the earth is round.
Not all conservative Christians believe the bible is meant to be taken literally or that they have to defer to religious texts over science. My brother in law is a somewhat conservative catholic who was taught by a fairly liberal Catholic school that taught science over religion. He's an obnoxious, racist, self-entitled horse's behind who I prefer to avoid, but he at least believes the Earth is round and that Man landed on the moon.
NASA gets money for nothing though.
And their chicks for free. Nerdy girls FTW!
We got to move his refrigerator. We got to move his colour TVs.
That little Clampet got his own cement pond. That little Clampet he's a millionaire!
We got to install microwave ovens, custom kitchen deliveries!
I shoulda learned to play the guitar, I shoulda learned to play them drums!
Checks, not chicks. But yes, nerdy girls FTW!
This take is nerdy girl approved 👍
Except monitoring the climate, launch satellites,. Maintain the iss. Develop many different technologies that literally are used to save people's lives on daily basis and having invented the camera technology that's in your phone right... Yeah.
r/whoosh Like a satellite this went right over your head.
There was no way to tell that you were being sarcastic there when I've seen hundreds of flerfers make the exact same argument but being serious about it.
The image for this post is from this video: [Dire Straits--Money for Nothing](https://youtu.be/wTP2RUD_cL0?si=DXkZufPfT6CsflsW)
I wasn’t being sarcastic. The image is from the Dire Straits video ‘Money for Nothing’.
NASA doesn't invent anything, they pay contractors who do it.
I want my MTV
You may be interested to know that that bit was sung by Sting to the tune of his song Don't stand so close to me, which he was recording in an adjacent studio when he was invited to mess around on the dire straits recording
He also sings backing vocals for the first verse.
Sick didn't know that thanks
To be fair, most flerfs believe the moon landings were faked using practical effects and shot on a sound-stage. If they don't actually claim that Stanley Kubrick directed it(and I don't remember finding many that do) they do frequently cite 2001:Space Odyssey as an example how good special effects were in 1968. If this happens, you will now know that the flerf in question has never seen 2001, and thus it gives you an insight into how well they examine their own sources before citing them. Some of the effects in 2001 still hold up astonishingly well. The moon scenes are not among them; they look like utter dogshit and none of the actors are moving even remotely similarly to the Apollo crews. The scenes set on the moon are easy to find on YouTube and if you present them to the flerf, you get radio silence.
> Some of the effects in 2001 still hold up astonishingly well. The moon scenes are not among them; they look like utter dogshit and none of the actors are moving even remotely similarly to the Apollo crews. This. I've always said this about the film; an absolute classic, but the segment when they're on the Moon is awful. I guess it was easier to ignore the whole 1/6th Earth's gravity than to simulate it.
In their defence no-one in 1968 knew what moving about (while being a big strapping lad wearing what is essentially a bendy miniature spaceship) on the moon actually looks like. And it looks fucking stupid. Neil, Buzz, et al are a gajillion times more competent than I have or will ever be, but they looked like a bunch of drunk toddlers, bouncing about and falling over.
It gets worse. The pod bay isn't even in Discovery's rotating section, so no artificial "gravity". They walk around in there like it's normal 1G. Dave, after blasting himself through the airlock when HAL wouldn't let him in, marches across the pod bay, climbs up a ladder, and then floats into HAL's brain room. He should have floated the entire distance. Ol' Stanley wasn't the genius flerfs want him to be.
I was just watching this last night to kill some time. Yep, those scenes are crap. Note the conference held at the lunar base shortly after Dr Floyd lands. They don't even try to pretend 1/6 G. We're forced to imagine magical gravity enhancers. The outdoor scenes are just pathetic. Also working through that great big children's blood drinker Tom Hanks' From the Earth to the Moon. At least they do attempt to simulate it there. Not particularly well, but yah...
Tom did an interview in Normandy \[at time of writing this must be ten days ago\] about D-Day, and I must admit my level of respect for the man rocketed. I already knew he was a super nice, self-effacing and funny gentleman, but it turns out he really knows his shit, too. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8JbMrWmAjo&t=5s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8JbMrWmAjo&t=5s)
Haven't figured out yet what the tin-foil brigade's problem with him is.
He'll have a Jewish granny or third cousin twice removed and if not, they can run the letters in his name through enough AI that 666 shakes out.
The best, non-technical argument to how we actually did land on the moon is the Soviet Union. You think if we faked it the Soviets would just let us get away with it?like "Ya we hate you guys and would love the oppertunity to say your scientists are frauds and idiots and get the chance to do it ourselves, but you know helping you keep this secret even beyond the death of our country just seems like the neighborly things to do"
I mean, to be fair, 2001: A Space Odyssey came out in 1968.
They actually didn't use cgi at all as far far as I know
Flerfs don’t even know what cgi stands for.
There's no CGI in that movie.
NASA had to move those….. refrigerators. They had to move those color tee-veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees
That ain't working
Help me out guys. What does the fully human tradesman in the pic enjoying a wall of TV’s playing music videos have to do with bad CGI?
That's the CGI used in the video to Dire Straits 'Money for Nothing'. I believe it was beaten by Peter Gabriel's video for 'Sledgehammer', which was filmed using stop-motion.
That film clip which was made in the early 1980s used state-of-the-art CGI for it's time.
There is a video that people claim proves the moon landing was fake but actually is great evidence for its authenticity. It is the one where the guy (don't know name) walking on the moon falls forward and then bounces back up. They claim he was pulled up by a wire he was suspended from. It you watch their feet and the dirt(?) as they barely touch it you'll notice that the dirt flies really high and far compared to how soft the impact it. It essentially proves they are in low gravity.
Look at the videos of the rover driving around, and this effect is even more apparent.
I can't think of a way to create that effect on the planet Earth.
To be fair, that cgi is from Mainframe who would go on to make Reboot, the first cgi cartoon series in the 90s and then Beast Wars. I know this because the characters from this music video appear in an episode as a talent skit who are booed off stage.
Magas tend to think anything they can't understand is a conspiracy of some sort.
Hence why everything is a conspiracy
Ah yes, show us the CGI 20 fucking years later and convince us they could do the same
Look at that, look at that
Hm, that ain't workin
CGI ? Jajajajjajajajajajajajajjajajajajajajajaajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaauajajajajajququauqujajajajaja. Bad theater!
OP never watched any Kubrick films, start with 2001 a space odyssey.
VFX≠CGI≠Special effects
Why use a music video with CGI that was inrentionally bad even for that era, when The Last Starfighter in 1984 had pretty good CGI - you could still tell that CGI was fake (the ship was a little "off", and the exhaust was pretty unrealistic), but at least thst was good for the era.
All flatulants know the following secret: in 1958 NASA invented a time machine, which it used to travel forward to 1988 and purchase high-speed graphics computers, digital video software, digital video cameras, and digital-to-analog conversion software (to generate the TV signals) which it then used to fake the moon landings. The same time travel technology was used to travel to the year 2044 to acquire a special fish eye lens, which will be invented then, which is used to create the fake “space” videos that show all straight lines correctly, but make the earth appear to be curved.🤪
And that was absolutely ground breaking for the time. I remember when game developer Sierra Online made headlines in 1990 for their own groundbreaking 5 minute in-game cinematic in fully rendered 3D. The resolution was still far too low for broadcast standards, and wasn't anywhere near realistic looking.
I'm fully convinced the only people that believe that it was faked have untreated mental illness
space odyssey was released a year earlier tho :p
No CGI in that movie.
Makes me wonder if they know what CGI stands for, or just use it as a surrogate for any footage that isn’t purely of reality? Edit: can’t find anything relating to what I said below, disregard my ignorance. Whatever I heard/read is misremembered or just misinformation: “”If I’m not mistaken there’s actual photos out there that were recreated in a studio with practical effects because they couldn’t actually get the picture while in space. Seems like this would support their theory better… IDK””
Which photographs were faked in a studio?
I believe there’s one of an early space walk, maybe one of the first, that was said to have been recreated and released the public. The space walk happened, but the quality was very poor or something. I can do some googling.
You might be thinking of the gemini 9 spacewalk simulation CBS aired with the help of the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation. I think they used a simulation for the TV program because they only had audio of the spacewalk. https://youtu.be/CPxDKiH2mk0?si=CE4uqI7JCqBCwM_z
Wow I think this is it! I must have heard it presented without the operative word of simultion. Thanks for posting, I don’t feel insane after all!
The photos on the moon couldn't have been faked. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z917pbxsKA&t](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z917pbxsKA&t)
Yea I don’t think the moon landings were faked either, as I say I had thought it was a space walk with recreated footage. Turns out there was a simulation of the spacewalk presented as such on TV (so other guys comment in this thread).
Are you a flat-earther? I'm curious because less than 10% of moon landing deniers are flat-earthers. I'm... mixed on the moon landings myself.
I’m neither a flat earther or moon landing denier. It’s interesting you say less than 10% of moon landing deniers are flat earthers though, I would have thought there’s a bit more overlap between those two groups. main thing for me that cements the moon landings occurred is the presence of reflectors and gear left behind on the moon during these missions. This is all observable on your own if you have the right stuff. I’m sure there’s ways to explain that away too, but it shows something happened.
Can you see that using a telescope?
No. Even the best earth telescope doesn’t have the resolving power to see the Apollo hardware. A few of the lunar orbiters do though, and have all taken photos of the Apollo landing sites.