That says it perfectly and succinctly.
Agreed, although focusing on CGI as some viable way to help create a faked moon landing is absurd, to say the least.
Here’s a link to an article about the state of the art in the mid-70s, particularly the famous vector-line trench run depicted in 1977’s Star Wars.
[QUOTE=Linked article]
<snip> You may recall the “wire frame” model of the Death Star in 1977’s Star Wars. This is one of the earliest examples of moving CGI in feature films. Similar wire frame technology was also currently being pioneered for video games. There were plans in 1978 to make a feature film called The Works using nothing but CGI, but it proved to be an expensive pipe dream, and the film was eventually scrapped.
Eventually, engineers found a way to fill in those 3-D wire frames with solid-looking “walls” that can simulate lighting bouncing off of them, essentially creating an full, solid 3-D object that can be rotated quickly and easily within a frame. The first feature film to employ this “solid object” form of CGI is 1982’s Tron, about a human being who was zapped by a molecular laser, and reformed inside the memory of a computer. <snip>
[/QUOTE]
It wasn’t until Tron that algorithms were developed to fill in those vectors with surface geometry (or normals) beginning the boom into shaded surface rendering. But this wasn’t until the 80s and, again was very synthetic looking, primitive and time consuming.
Not only that, but special (in-camera) and visual (post-camera) effects expert artists and pioneers would have by and large focuses on the state of the are in green-screen, rear-projection and the esoterica of optical printing of the day.
The tech of the art was just woefully inadequate at the time to fake what we see in the Apollo footage.
It was doable but the mountain of evidence that the craft actually went to the moon far outweighs any evidence or lack thereof, that it was blown up (without anyone noticing…ummm 7 times).
I was surprised to see how poor the state of the art was in Escape From New York. The cool 3-D display of NYC that Snake sees in the glider landing sequence? They couldn’t do that with CGI at the time, so they made models of the buildings, painted them black, colored the edges, then filmed that. They faked the CGI!
Did that a lot for Tron too. Much of what looks like CGI is actually sets or hand-drawn animation to look like CGI. There is actual CGI in the movie, but a lot less than people think there is.
Approximately 27 minutes, the work was done in the very late 70s. It wouldn’t be a practical approach to faking moon video. Nothing would be a practical approach anyway.
davidm, I have to apologize, I thought you were following onto the thread about the Apollo 12 video problem. Unfortunately the B&W Apollo 11 footage would be easier to fake given the ridiculous assumption that anyone would try to do that.
Most of the CGI in Tron was done with ray tracing, not polygonal projections. The shading of the black and white image could have easily been produced at the expense of a great deal of additional computation time.
I didn’t know that there was a thread about the Apollo 12 video problem. Is this one redundant then? Do you have a link?
Actually, faking the low gravity really would be as easy as slowing down the video. Hollywood doesn’t use this technique much because they like to show faces (which must match up with dialog), but the Moon footage didn’t show faces.
The vacuum, though, would be tough. You’d need a vacuum chamber big enough to contain the whole set (a painted background would show the wrong parallax), which didn’t exist at the time. Then you’d need to have the actors in real pressure suits. Then, since the real pressure suits would be just as heavy and bulky as the ones actually used on the mission, you’d need some way of boosting the height the astronauts could jump to, while maintaining the same motion while above the ground.
I wonder how many people the government would have had to “sanitize” in order to keep their little secret? Somebody would have sold the story to the National Enquirer for thousands if not millions of dollars if they had such a story.
That would be the hardest hurdle to overcome for a fake landing. Keeping the secret.
The first video in the OP explains why they could not have used slow motion with the technology available at the time. That’s what we’re discussing. Do you disagree with his reasoning?
Although, if you simply slow down the video, human reactions and muscle movement wouldn’t be in realtime. So that would be a dead giveaway, since low-gravity wouldn’t mean your limb, head and other superficial body movements wouldn’t be subject to it.
I meant these things wouldn’t be subject to low-gravity.
This is a very limited statement. Things falling can be represented by slowing down the film. Things moving can’t. Humans will continue to move and react in standard time and that will look different than a slowed down playback.
Here’s a video of Apollo 16. One of the astronauts jumps up. Except for that second, though, none of the rest of the movements remotely resemble slow motion. Watch the arms especially.
Not-the-OP here. I saw this clip over a year ago. I found it entertaining FTR.
I have not bothered with the response and counter-response though. I’m not that interested.
One of the vid’s central points was that the technology didn’t exist for slow motion video over an extended period of time. You could do that by overcranking with film - but then you would have to do a lot of cleaning. Getting out all of the scratches would be effectively impossible.
CGI is another matter: I am highly dubious but… meh.
He’s on a crane! I can see the wires! 
Also, the dust kicked up by the astronauts in that video (and all the others) is behaving in a way that would be very hard to replicate on Earth.
Nvidia sinks moon landing hoax using virtual light