So you have the actors move faster than normal, film them, and slow down the film. Aside from the speed at which muscles move (which we humans can vary anyway), all of our time cues in motion come from gravity, and all of them depend on gravity in the same way. Now, there’s also the claim that video technology of the time was such that slow motion was not practical, and I can’t speak to that claim. But if you can do slow motion (which we can certainly do now), then you can do fake low-g.
That’s because of the vacuum, not the gravity, which I already said was much more difficult.
In our up-thread discussions of CG capabilities in the late 60s/early 70s, I had thought of things like global illumination (i.e. bounce illumination) and how you’d need a 360º set and illumination exactly mimicking the sun and earth to get those kinds of details perfect.
While I can’t imagine the techs and artists at Nvidia where completely scientifically rigorous in their demonstration, it still goes a long way to show the Apollo footage was genuinely shot on the moon, on that day, etc., to any who would point to the lighting and shadows as marking the whole thing a hoax.
Obviously, this proves that not only did NASA fake the moon landings with CGI, but they did so using computer technology that wouldn’t even be revealed to the general public for nearly another 50 years. Probably given to them by aliens. The conspiracy goes deeper than we thought.
Agreed. It isn’t necessary to use CGI, nor is it plausible that the technology–which at the time was just barely sufficient to generate crudely pixelated animations–was available. But creating most of the conditions, sufficient to fool even technical observers using the qualify of video feed available at the time, could be done using practical effects, albeit at great cost and effort involving hundreds of people with the necessary experience, who would incidentally also be the same people who worked on films like 2001: A Space Odyssey or Silent Running, i.e. Douglas Trumbull and his visual effects crew. Practically speaking, even a film like 2001 with Kubrick’s notorious and obsessive attention to getting the fine details correct has numerous and obviously verifiable errors that show that it was filmed in a studio (e.g. the normal gravity during the Lunar briefing session, the pen that doesn’t float realistically in the shuttle, et cetera). That NASA could film hours of footage on a simulated Lunar surface with no more detectable errors than vague discrepancies about shadows and sunlight angles and keep the entire filming crew silent about it for forty-odd years is implausible to the extreme.
I missed that, but agreed, for all the reasons stated. The world’s biggest vacuum chamber was built in 1969 (so the technology to do that existed around about the right time), but it’s nowhere near big enough to build a set for some of the footage we’ve seen - especially the rover footage, which contains some of the more obvious images of dust behaviour in a vacuum.
By the way, if you want to see that chamber (The Space Power Facility at NASA Plum Brook, part of the NASA Glenn Research Center), it was used as the set for the cold open of the 2012 Avengers film. (The banners in the background reading “Joint Dark Energy Mission” are not set dressing; they are actual banners in the chamber for another mission that NASA Plum Brook was supporting, and were worked into the story as part of the Tesseract research.) It is a large chamber for what it does and you could certainly fit the LM inside of it, but not with enough extra room to drive a golf ball or walk any significant distance.
My take is that the first video states why it was highly improbable that the moon mission was slowed-downed video tape but not that it was impossible a difference the second video makes note of.
I don’t recall hearing it lately, but for years after the Moon landings people would say things like “if they can put a man on the Moon, why can’t they cure cancer”. This was said about various desirable but difficult goals.
The fallacy behind such rhetorical questions is the idea that putting a man on the moon is more difficult than curing cancer. It’s not. Given equal resources and incentives, putting a man on the Moon is much easier than developing a cancer cure all, or eliminating world poverty, or any number of other things.
This is the fallacy being discussed here. That going to the Moon is more difficult than nearly anything else; that it is easier to fake technically correct video of a moon landing than to actually do it. No. It’s not. Certainly not then and possibly not even now.
One thing all the evidence shows that the moon landings were real is that it’d be nuts to try and get everything right to fake it (totally apart from the technical aspects of slo-mo filming and whatnot).
Would people on earth who had never been to the moon known to omitted all the stars from photos?
Would they know to do the shadows correctly?
Would they have gotten the lighting on the shadowed side of the lander correctly?
How the flag moved?
How you’d actually walk in low gravity?
There are a lot of fiddly little details that I think are improbable anyone here trying to do it would get all of them right. Some because no one would even to know to fake some aspects since humans had never been there before.
Faking the footage wouldn’t have worked, because it would never match the actual landing site properly. The hoax would have been blown as soon as the Russians (or anyone else) landed on the moon - and at the time of the landings, nobody knew that that still wouldn’t have happened 45 years later.
It would have been pretty short-sighted to create a hoax that would only have lasted until Leonov landed on the moon in 1971, say…
Yeah, the argument is “This looks nothing at all like anything ever seen on Earth! Therefore, it must have been from Earth, and not from someplace very unlike the Earth!”.
Quote of the year. Well done.