top 95 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 135 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I heard they got Stanley Kubrick to fake the landing, but he was such a stickler for accuracy he got them to actually go to the moon to film it.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I’m not sure how he was in 1969(?) but by the time he made Full Metal Jacket in the 1980s(?) he was so afraid of flying, he had palm trees brought in to England rather than shoot on location in Vietnam. Which is why all the palm trees in that movie look dead as hell. So I’m guessing he would not have gone to the moon, but would have had moon craters brought to him. Which means someone would have had to go to the moon to get them. Therefore, we went to the moon. Checkmate atheists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 84 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Special effects in late 60s:
    69hCBrQrM7Vxs3F.jpg

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 79 points 2 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 49 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

    They wanted to fake a moon landing and after analyzing cost they concluded that the cheapest option was to film on location.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 2 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 31 points 2 months ago* (4 children)

    Most people I've brought the moon landing up to think the moon landing was fake. I usually point out a few examples to explain away the their arguments. Also I add that thinking it was fake is a huge slap in the face to all the skilled people who made it happen.

    I feel like I'm going crazy. But everything I've looked up are credible sources, unlike some stupid YouTuber pointing to the the flag and saying "there's no wind on the moon, how do you explain that sheep!"

    They put a fucking pole through the top of the flag to keep it straight, because they also realize there was no fucking wind. A kindergarten could work out how to do that.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    The real cover-up about the flag is so much more fun. The astronauts were sworn to secrecy for decades.

    Then decades later, some scientists were taking high resolution photos of the moon that weren't quite good enough to see the flags themselves but did show the shadows of them. But they couldn't see a shadow for the Apollo 11 flag, and then NASA had to come clean.

    When they took off from the Moon, Buzz Aldrin saw the thrust of the spacecraft blow the flag over. When he told NASA about it in the debriefing they told him "you can never tell anyone this."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    We measure the distance of the moon every month by laser, targeting a mirror array on the moon.

    I watched a documentary, Behind the Curve, about flat earthers who drove to the NASA space center to explain how everything was fake. On the drive, you can clearly see them using GPS for directions in their car. They don't believe their bullshit, every flat earth influencer story has a point where they were losers and unemployed and they saw easy money in grifting simps.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Opinions of the guy aside, I recall it was Neil DeGrasse Tyson who made the argument that it simply is cheaper and easier to go to the moon than to fake it and maintain the coverup.

    Like, we can't keep secrets for shit, but that's the one that stays kept?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 months ago
    [–] 22 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    That's just a psyop, NASA and the CIA were hiding some of the world's leading stable diffusion models for the time in a secret underground Data center somewhere in the Nevada desert.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    I thought that was under Cheyenne Mountain?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    No, you’re probably thinking of the Stargate project.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    But I thought the Stargate project was the US government's current big AI thing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    That’s to divert our attention from the actual Stargate project, which demands an immense amount of energy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    But I thought that THAT Stargate project had its own naquadah and naquadriah based generators for decades now?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    They did, but for regular base operations I believe they continued to use the electric grid. Like the lighting, computers, HVAC, elevators, communications, workshops, medical equipment, etc..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I don't think so, I mean, it cost $2bn just to turn the lights on at that place! And that was 1995 2 billion, not hyperinflated 2026 2 billion!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago

    True, but I’m only going on memory as I rewatch the shows every year, lol. 🫣 So at some point they mention only the gate and dialer use the newer generators.

    The other base systems default to the original power grid and only in emergency go to the new generators. My guess would be tax reasons to keep the general public from thinking something is off with the books for the facility? Redundancy might also make sense. 🤔

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 22 points 2 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Jurassic Park came out in 1993 (can't help but use this as a point of reference), but this does look consistent with lower budget stuff, like that Canadian cartoon Reboot. Anyone else remember that one?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago* (4 children)

    It's not that it's low budget, it's that it was fully CGI. It was a pioneer in 3d animation.

    Also this is from Transformers and it is from the same Vancouver studio.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    The gif? That's from terminator 2, not transformers, and is an incredibly well-executed effect for the time. It's also missing the part where the actual effect happens.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 22 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    Now imagine how CGI was when they flew to the moon in 1969!

    The best argument against the moon landings being fake is the sheer amount of people involved in the Apollo project. Estimates go up to 400'000 people (with different levels of involvement). If it had all been fake, someone would have blabbed by now.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Actually the best argument would be that the Soviets didn’t raise holy hell about it being fake.

    Apollo 11 was able to be tracked by radio the entire trip to the moon. The radio transmissions and The television broadcast was unencrypted over plain radio. I’m sure the Soviets were able to verify the entire mission in real time. If there was even a hint that the moon landing was fake, the Soviets would have been throwing it in the US’s face the instant it happened.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    One of my favorite quotes is "The only way three people can keep a secret is if two of them are dead", from some random western movie, but yes people love to blab.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 2 months ago

    CGI in 1988.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I can't remember where I heard this or of it is true, but apparently it would have cost significantly more money to deceive the public with a fake moon landing than it would have been to fund the mission. When I think about the effort they would have put behind this ruse it makes sense as I'm sure the media was all over the event and the fakery wouldn't have been isolated to a single broadcast.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    The thing is fake moon landing people are also flat earthers and shit. To them, the money isn’t the important part, it’s the hiding of some sort of special knowledge. When you say it would cost more that implies that there’s an option that costs less which is possible in the first place.

    To them, there’s always another layer of justification they can add. Russia would have said something? Well, you see, the Russia/USA beef is manufactured by a secret cabal of, I dunno, Freemasons. It would have been leaked? Don’t worry, everyone involved was replaced by obidient clones.

    With a good editor, some conspiracy theorists could be decent writers if they weren’t using their creativity to be insane.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago

    I have had some sucess pointing out the USSR was tracking it and would love nothing more than to call out the US if they had faked it.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    🦅🔥BEAST WARS🔥🦖

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Beasties in Canada. I guess they didn't like "wars" in the title of a kids show? But we got an American station too, so when we'd watch it in Ontario it'd be Beasties, and then we'd flip the channel and it'd be Beast Wars coming out of Buffalo. As far as I know everything else was the same, or at least I never noticed anything...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Did they change the name in the intro song as well? Beasties just doesn't sounds as cool.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    They did, actually yeah! And I agree it was a little weird. They had to hit the same "Oomph Oomph" pattern of Beast Wars, so it was "Bease Tees", basically. It works, it's the version that plays in my head when I think about it, but it's definitely not as natural as two short words...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    So what you're saying is they not only faked the moon landing, they also kept these amazing computer graphics from us gamers all this time?

    Truly monstrous.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago

    I came for transforming monke robots, but what I got was the most kino character death out of all children's cartoons.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago

    The Moon landing was staged, but Kubrick insisted on shooting on location.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I don't think it was fake at all, but I don't think I've ever heard a denier say it was cgi. They say it's a stage.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    Am I a joke to you?!

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I remember when I was in kindergarten and the teacher was cool for reminding us that Beast Wars is coming up soon in couple of hours, so we could have something to look forward to going home!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    Actually the second moon turned out not to be a moon at all, it was a red herring and it was Earth All Along

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (15 children)

    Counter point - Actually good CGI in 1993:

    The entire moon is just CGI. Prove me wrong, go there and live stream from the moon to show you can really stand on it. I bet you won't.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (13 children)

    I think you’re wrong.

    Unless the t-rex was running it was a giant physical model. Likely in this shot zero to little cg was used. Hell I have the open matte version of the film where only digital shots are cropped, this one ain’t.

    Additional counterpoint: granddad worked on Apollo and if it was all fake, lots of real world shit I’ve personally experienced wouldn’t make sense. Production and Design awards, call backs during Apollo 13, the secrecy etc…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (12 children)

    Cool, since you have that version of the film I'm sure you'll be willing to share it? I've seen 2 matte versions, but none like you're describing.

    You don't seem to understand what this sub is for. Since your uncle worked for Nintendo, I'm sure you know the moon landing took place a few years before OPs example of awful CGI from 1996. I argued that much better CGI existed in 1993. That's still at least two years off from the moon landing.

    Everyone is making fun of people who claim it was faked. I'm glad your cousin was the King of Space. That's cool. I missed it by 3 space votes in the last space election. I'm jealous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Honestly, while the cgi shown is trash, it really isn't all that bad considering what they had at the time for a kid's show. They were producing a 30 minute episode a week on a budget that was surely a pittance, much less than 1/4 I'm sure, of a 2 hour film that we would consider really good at the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I didn't mean to insult your show, I just don't see why anyone would have been watching that when way more awesome things like Gargoyles existed at the same time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Ha! I loved beast wars, but yes, there were a great many much better shows... but also as a nerdy kid with only rabbit ears and a once every two weeks trip to the library, I watched whatever I could.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (6 children)

    Yup, that's just the movie without the matte. Like all versions of the movie, it has the CGI scenes present. He said he has a version where those aren't there, or the scenes containing CGI are notably cropped compared to the others. I'd love to see that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

    That's not just the movie without the matte. That's the exact version of the movie @olejellylegs@lemmy.zip was referring to, in which the all-practical scenes appear in an open-matte square frame while the scenes containing CGI are cropped and zoomed to widescreen. Scroll to exactly 20 minutes in and keep an eye on the screen size from cut to cut.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    It's the inverse of his description, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

    No it isn't. Olejellylegs wrote, "the open matte version of the film where only digital shots are cropped". In this the open-matte scenes are uncropped (the editor hasn't yet removed the top and bottom of the frame to make a widescreen final shot) while the CGI scenes are cropped to widescreen (because they've been through the optical printing process to render the CGI back to film, and lost the extraneous top and bottom of the frame in that process.)

    Especially back when this level of CGI was hugely expensive and laborious, when doing the digital FX shots they were only going to spend the time and money to render the widescreen area and they weren't bothering with the areas of the screen which would just get cropped off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago*

    Thank you. Basically anything requiring a digital intermediate rather than a full optical pipeline.

    It’s also been widely recognized that the t-Rex specifically was physical unless it moved. It’s one of the more predictable props and it’s reinforced by the open matte version you mention.

    Don’t know why that’s the dudes point of argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    From his description it sounded otherwise. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that the CGI scenes in the movie look much better than the CGI in the OP's image. And again, this is a shit post. The point was never doing deep research into a topic and winning an argument on the internet. It was making stupid jokes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Whole USA is fake. Columbus never discovered new continent he just faked it for money

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›