Win / Conspiracies
Conspiracies
Communities Topics Log In Sign Up
Sign In
Hot
All Posts
Settings
All
Profile
Saved
Upvoted
Hidden
Messages

Your Communities

General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
News
Changelogs

More Communities

frenworld
OhTwitter
MillionDollarExtreme
NoNewNormal
Ladies
Conspiracies
GreatAwakening
IP2Always
GameDev
ParallelSociety
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Content Policy
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES • All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Conspiracies Conspiracy Theories & Facts
hot new rising top

Sign In or Create an Account

28
Has someone a valid explanation for this? (media.conspiracies.win)
posted 4 years ago by penisse 4 years ago by penisse +37 / -9
96 comments download share
96 comments share download save hide report block hide replies
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (96)
sorted by:
▲ -3 ▼
– Ep0ch -3 points 4 years ago +2 / -5

Hahaha CGI

permalink save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– deleted 1 point 4 years ago +1 / -0
▲ -1 ▼
– ZyklonBen -1 points 4 years ago +4 / -5

So in 1969, they had cgi good enough to fake the moon landing but not rocket science good enough to send people to the moon?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 5 ▼
– Graphenium 5 points 4 years ago +5 / -0

You can believe that rockets exist while still acknowledging the utter fakery that occurred to produce the “moon landing” footage shown to the public.

But I guess shills aren’t here to introduce nuance

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -4 ▼
– ZyklonBen -4 points 4 years ago +3 / -7

Do you believe that in 1969, cgi existed that was good enough to fake the moon landing photos and footage?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 2 ▼
– Graphenium 2 points 4 years ago +3 / -1

Absolutely, have you seen 2001? And on top of that, what was the time gap between initial construction of the sr71 blackbird and its official public unveiling?

permalink parent save report block reply
... continue reading thread?
▲ 3 ▼
– DavidColeIntrepid 3 points 4 years ago +3 / -0

Kubrick was a master of camera tricks. That's the reason he was supposedly chosen to do the work, because he would stress out over his scenes not being perfect.

https://youtu.be/5ch5WC54egU

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -3 ▼
– ZyklonBen -3 points 4 years ago +3 / -6

2001 wasn't made using cgi.

Try again.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 3 ▼
– DavidColeIntrepid 3 points 4 years ago +3 / -0

I didn't say it was. I said it was camera tricks and even provided evidence you mouth breathing, "fake news!" crying, insufferable, illiterate little faggot.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -1 ▼
– Ep0ch -1 points 4 years ago +1 / -2

It was all CGI. A hoax.

Why haven't they been back. Every public manned attempt since has been a failure. Except for the robotic rovers. The rovers they cannot bring back. The Chinese recent attempt was a fraud.

Obviously there is no footage. Why has the original footage been lost. There is no actual footage of it. There are recordings on top of recordings.

Stanley Kubrick designed the set.

Later there was Diamonds are Forever and Capricorn One.

Without diving into it was impossible for them then. Not in that rust bucket. Without diving into almost every detail which are full of basic flaws.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ -5 ▼
– ZyklonBen -5 points 4 years ago +1 / -6

Why has the original footage been lost.

It hasn't been lost. It is in cold storage.

What on earth are you gibbering about?

It was all CGI.

How did they have cgi like that in 1969?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 1 ▼
– Graphenium 1 point 4 years ago +1 / -0

Lol, nice job dodging my blackbird question, the answer is that the military tech is approximately 50-60 years more advanced than what they publicly acknowledge.

You’re comparing Hollywood tech from the 60s to military tech, that’s your problem retard

permalink parent save report block reply
... continue reading thread?
▲ 0 ▼
– Ep0ch 0 points 4 years ago +1 / -1

Lose your dumb attitude. Gibbering about makes you stupid. Because I know something you don't. Hence your dumb attempt at asking me. Obviously if I was typing like a mongo ghklgighufg it might be appropriate. It isn't in a thought out reply.

There is no footage of them on the moon. There is only recordings. The biggest event in human history there is no original footage of. Obviously a hoax. The recordings were tapered with. What aired on TV wasn't even original footage. They aren't in storage they don't exist. There are no originals of mankind's greatest achievement.

Hey fucko why can't they bring the rovers back either. Either to them going back. Meanwhile 60 years later the Chinese just faked there's as well.

Stanley Kubrick space odyssey, CGI right. Hardly the same effects as today but still special affects. Yes they used computers then.

permalink parent save report block reply
... continue reading thread?

GIFs

Conspiracies Wiki & Links

Conspiracies Book List

External Digital Book Libraries

Mod Logs

Honor Roll

Conspiracies.win: This is a forum for free thinking and for discussing issues which have captured your imagination. Please respect other views and opinions, and keep an open mind. Our goal is to create a fairer and more transparent world for a better future.

Community Rules: <click this link for a detailed explanation of the rules

Rule 1: Be respectful. Attack the argument, not the person.

Rule 2: Don't abuse the report function.

Rule 3: No excessive, unnecessary and/or bullying "meta" posts.

To prevent SPAM, posts from accounts younger than 4 days old, and/or with <50 points, wont appear in the feed until approved by a mod.

Disclaimer: Submissions/comments of exceptionally low quality, trolling, stalking, spam, and those submissions/comments determined to be intentionally misleading, calls to violence and/or abuse of other users here, may all be removed at moderator's discretion.

Moderators

  • Doggos
  • axolotl_peyotl
  • trinadin
  • PutinLovesCats
  • clemaneuverers
  • C
Message the Moderators

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

2025.03.01 - qpl2q (status)

Copyright © 2024.

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy