Who doesn't enjoy a good strawman argument?
(media.scored.co)
Comments (45)
sorted by:
What a fucking jack ass piece of shit; 2001, a Space Odyssey, looks more realistic than the fake moon landings, and it was released in early 1968.
Not sure why you got the downvotes. But they never used CGI for those movies, it was all scale models, or physically building the sets, which in many cases can look better than CGI.
Ah, I see. Thanks.
The production quality was horrible on the moon landings. A shitty star trek episode. You can clearly see its a small set, the light never changes in the distance and they never go off into the distance. When you use that shitty budget and only release copies that are low res then its hard to tell. If you can look at those and think they're real then you probably believe the twin towers didn't collapse from explosoves
Exactly man, which, unfortunately, is about half of the population. Obviously a lot more than half the population believes some of this stupid shit, but a lot of those people just believe it because they don't turn their TV off long enough to form their own opinions.
He’s (likely) technically correct.
They used front (screen) projection! Camera tricks - not cgi.
Though, as others have said - virtually no one is claiming that apollo used computers to fake their footage.
I'd imagine someone like Elon Musk would know the difference and that's on top of the meme he posts that depicts CGI in that era.
At the end of the day, no one ever said that CGI was used to fake the moon landing and strawman arguments are a sign that you're wrong and are relying on dumb people not to notice.
I don't know what to believe. Elon sort of has a point. The moon footage (specifically the lander footage as Apollo descended to the surface) seems a little difficult to fake in 1969.
On the other hand, the god damn Japanese couldn't successfully land their luner module or transmit live video of the landing when they tried last month.
I've read a lot of conspiracy theories about the moon landing and not once has CGI (computer generated imagery) ever been mentioned. I don't know what point you think he has, but he's making a strawman argument, which is a sign that he's wrong.
That is a good point. You're correct in that no one talks about CGI in the context of the moon landing. Elon is trolling and I read into his point as to meaning we didn't have the technology to fake a moon landing in 1969.
Regardless of whether Kubrick was involved or not, it would have been hard to fake 50+ years ago.
No one said faking a moon landing would be easy.
Correct, it took them almost a decade.
Stop being clinically insane, paid shill.
???
White men went to the Moon. No amount of paid shilling will ever change that.
WTH? Who the hell would pay to shill the opposite?
I know, right? It’s the tactic known as well poisoning. By associating “conspiracies” with provably false claims, they can get people not to believe in provably true claims.
Neat. Burn in hell, retarded shill. No one will ever believe you.
I have watched American Moon. I also watched "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" and read "Moon Man: The True Story of a Filmmaker on the CIA Hit List" You won't win $50 bucks but it did raise some interesting questions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az9nFrnCK60
I spent some time watching this stabilized footage and you see lunar dust thrown in the air by the rover. So the question is this how you expect dust to act in a vacuum w/ 1/6 of earths gravity? I'm not sure TBH.
Nuking the Moon is another thing. Russians sent a dog there first.
As far as Musk he's paid to shill.
But OMG 50 years later are only just sending Billionaires into upper orbit? Didn't that get cancelled? Because of climate change.
Give up.
They sent a dog to orbit, not to the moon. She didn't make it back alive. :(
Exactly. Why did all manned flight later end in disaster. Every single time. Until the ISS.
Thanks. It's different nuking the moon, than coming back from the moon.
This by all probability is, tell me these odds. No return manned. Only drones.
Because it didn’t.
I hope we get to see musk scalped on Facebook live While they hardwire him to starlink and he ends up just rupturing his asshole from stress due to a backdoor trojan from some tranny faggot zoomer.
That's the Skynet we all deserve.
And this is why hollywood worked directly with nasa.
You can tell it’s real because it looks so fake
In buzz aldrins words, "what you saw is animation." (Conan O'Brian show). By this he meant stop motion animation which is obvious of any of the scenes of the lunar lander flying. The walking on the moon stuff was all studio footage with wires and 50% playback speed.
red herring.
in 1979 they had a lot of good practical effects.
practical effects usually look more 'real', since they are actually 'real' in some sense and subject to real-world physics/lighting, where cgi can never really reproduce those and never is interpreted in the mind quite as real.
It’s my understanding that the governments or “cabals” tech is decades ahead of what we see in our lives. I also understand that the CIA has a mandate that forces Hollywood to dumb down their graphics while convincing you they are leading the front lines.
People see the world through their screens. The hustle over us is so broad.
Clearly they didn't use CGI. And who ever said this must be very young.
This just proves Elon is opposition.
Real or fake, the event in question was in 1969.
Most of the footage was the same as Space Odessy tier.
No it wasn't Clash of the Titans. They didn't need to CGI the astronauts. Just the set. Tell me about this set, aw look it's in Diamonds are Forever right away.
The original star wars came out in 1977 and it is more realistic looking than the fake moon landings.
watch the original cut... the effects are good.. but.. yah.. its aged...
Curious minds would/should already know. The rest keeps praying to science
5D chess! Yaas queen.