[AATW]

I think this is the right place for this.
As per the title. Interesting video of a few guys who work in the VFX industry watching footage from the moon landings and commenting on how authentic it looks.



Few points of interest, they comment on the length of some of the shots which they say would have been incredibly difficult to do in miniature or slow mo. The way the dust moves doesn't make sense in an atmosphere where you'd get turbulence.
The reflections in the visors would have been problematic - you'd expect to see lights or of the camera.
They compare it to the film 2001 which would have been state of the art VFX of the time and note how different it looks and how clear the effects are in it are.

I thought it was interesting because most of the "moon landing is fake" arguments which focus on how the footage is fake come from people with no expertise in the field.

[Cypher9]

You only have to look at the Apollo 11 conference to see that not one of the team had been to the moon.

[Kokorikos]

You only have to look at the Apollo 11 conference to see that not one of the team had been to the moon.

Or it could just be that they did not like speaking to the press.

[Dr David Thork]

Or it could just be that they did not like speaking to the press.

So you begin a rigorous recruitment process from the air force to find the absolute best of the best ... and you pick 3 guys who don't like communicating?

Have another go.

[Kokorikos]

Or it could just be that they did not like speaking to the press.

So you begin a rigorous recruitment process from the air force to find the absolute best of the best ... and you pick 3 guys who don't like communicating?

Have another go.

Why would liking to speak to the press be one of the skills needed to become an astronaut?
In any case, saying that looking at their faces is enough to determine that they did not go to the moon is not exactly the best argument against the Moon landings.

[Dr David Thork]

Why would liking to speak to the press be one of the skills needed to become an astronaut?

They literally hired Stanley Kubric to do the filming. Adjusted for inflation they spent $300bn. Putting a man on the moon was the promise of JFK himself. The single greatest scientific achievement in the history of mankind. And you are going to pick not one, but 3 people who can't talk about the experience convincingly to the camera?

[stack]

Why would liking to speak to the press be one of the skills needed to become an astronaut?

They literally hired Stanley Kubric to do the filming.

Source? What was Stanley's cut of the $300 billion?

Adjusted for inflation they spent $300bn. Putting a man on the moon was the promise of JFK himself. The single greatest scientific achievement in the history of mankind. And you are going to pick not one, but 3 people who can't talk about the experience convincingly to the camera?

Here's the full press conference, not some biased, made up narrative over a series of short out of context edited clips.

[Iceman]

They literally hired Stanley Kubric to do the filming. Adjusted for inflation they spent $300bn. Putting a man on the moon was the promise of JFK himself. The single greatest scientific achievement in the history of mankind. And you are going to pick not one, but 3 people who can't talk about the experience convincingly to the camera?

No they didnt.
What's the original number of dollars spent?
Yes it sure was!
I sincerely hope that prospective astronauts arent evaluated based on their ability to appear likeable in front of a camera.

...but then again, it would have been pretty awesome to see someone like Robin Williams in space

[AATW]

Why would liking to speak to the press be one of the skills needed to become an astronaut?

They literally hired Stanley Kubric to do the filming.

Well, no "they" didn't. And if they had then what's your hot take, that he worked with people who can't act for some reason?

Cypher9's post reminds me of a meme I saw recently which was along the lines of:

Spends 3 years getting a degree.
Spends another 2 years researching to get a Ph. D.
Goes to work doing research.
Runs some experiments and trials.
Writes scientific paper.
Gets paper published.
Has paper peer reviewed.

Bloke on the internet: "Bullshit!"

Which is pretty much what Cypher9 has done. 3 dudes who literally work in VFX look at the footage and explain how that would have been impossible to fake using 1960's technology, Cypher9 doesn't bother to refute any of what they say, he just offers an argument from incredulity. Convincing.

There's plenty of 3rd party evidence for the moon landings. The Australians were relaying signals for NASA, Jodrell Bank in the UK was monitoring the mission - and a rival one from the USSR which was unmanned but attempting a soft landing before Apollo 11 to steal their thunder. I believe it's the Chinese who not too long ago released photos from one of their craft in orbit around the moon which is high enough resolution to see the landing sites. Then there's the laser reflectors which are still used.

And the entire counter argument from people who think it was all a hoax is "nah".

[Dr David Thork]

They literally hired Stanley Kubric to do the filming.

Well, no "they" didn't. And if they had then what's your hot take, that he worked with people who can't act for some reason?

I said they made a movie. I didn't say it was a good movie. No one won an Oscar for Best Actor.

[stack]

They literally hired Stanley Kubric to do the filming.

Well, no "they" didn't. And if they had then what's your hot take, that he worked with people who can't act for some reason?

I said they made a movie. I didn't say it was a good movie. No one won an Oscar for Best Actor.

What's your source as evidence that Stanley made the Apollo "movie"?

And to AATW's point, you question why we would select astronauts who aren't the best at press conferences for the most advanced technological endeavor known to man at the time - Why would Stanley hire actors who aren't the best at press conferences for the most advanced hoax of a technological endeavor known to man at the time?

And Stanley was a perfectionist. Known for massive on-set re-writes and shooting dozens and dozens of takes for any given scene. He would have demanded far better, more convincing actors, I'm sure.

[J-Man]

going to the moon and filming the dark side is very easy, just ask Elon or Pink Floyd.

Deer in the headlight look...happens briefly

[scomato]

Did the people who claim Kubrick doctored the moon landings actually watch 2001 A Space Odyssey?

Watch this moon scene from 2001, this is Kubricks work from a year before the moon landing. It looks LIKE SHIT! compared to the raw footage from the Apollo missions.



How do you possibly expect people to believe that the same people who came up with the above, were somehow also capable of manufacturing hours and hours and hours of footage below?

[AATW]

How do you possibly expect people to believe that the same people who came up with the above, were somehow also capable of manufacturing hours and hours and hours of footage below?

Which is basically how this thread started. Some VFX artists, y'know, people whose literal job it is to do this stuff, had a look and basically said it's not possible, or wasn't at the time.
But I'm sure some "people on the internet" being incredulous is a better argument.

[J-Man]

We already know the cameras/film couldn't survive the supposed temps, let alone stay centered and in focus. Fake as a $3 bill

[stack]

We already know the cameras/film couldn't survive the supposed temps, let alone stay centered and in focus. Fake as a $3 bill

Evidence?

[Cypher9]

Why would liking to speak to the press be one of the skills needed to become an astronaut?

They literally hired Stanley Kubric to do the filming.

Well, no "they" didn't. And if they had then what's your hot take, that he worked with people who can't act for some reason?

Cypher9's post reminds me of a meme I saw recently which was along the lines of:

Spends 3 years getting a degree.
Spends another 2 years researching to get a Ph. D.
Goes to work doing research.
Runs some experiments and trials.
Writes scientific paper.
Gets paper published.
Has paper peer reviewed.

Bloke on the internet: "Bullshit!"

Which is pretty much what Cypher9 has done. 3 dudes who literally work in VFX look at the footage and explain how that would have been impossible to fake using 1960's technology, Cypher9 doesn't bother to refute any of what they say, he just offers an argument from incredulity. Convincing.

There's plenty of 3rd party evidence for the moon landings. The Australians were relaying signals for NASA, Jodrell Bank in the UK was monitoring the mission - and a rival one from the USSR which was unmanned but attempting a soft landing before Apollo 11 to steal their thunder. I believe it's the Chinese who not too long ago released photos from one of their craft in orbit around the moon which is high enough resolution to see the landing sites. Then there's the laser reflectors which are still used.

And the entire counter argument from people who think it was all a hoax is "nah".

They didn't mention the VABs even once during the conference when the belts are the No.1 NASA given reason why we can't get into deep space today. Why? One of the astronauts Alan Bean, didn't even know where the belts were when asked. To my mind, it's irrational to just ignore these gaping holes in the story and says more about a person's desperation to believe the moon landings actually happened than anything else. Allaroundtheworld should examine his beliefs and stop ignoring uncomfortable truths.

[AATW]

They didn't mention the VABs even once during the conference when the belts are the No.1 NASA given reason why we can't get into deep space today.

Can you provide a source for that assertion? It's certainly a consideration and if you watch Apollo 11 - the recent film about the mission - you can clearly hear at one point mission control reading off the radiation exposure of the 3 astronauts. They were monitoring it. But they went through the belts fast and while they were exposed to some radiation it was well below the lethal dose.
They were exposed to around 14 rads/hour, a lethal dose is 300.

To my mind, it's irrational to just ignore these gaping holes in the story

But it's not a gaping hole is it? Yes, the Van Allen belts are a thing. Yes it was of concern to NASA during the Apollo program and would be a consideration for future programs.
But if you don't dwell in them too long it's perfectly possible to go through them without too much damage.

EDIT: One thing worth noting. The Van Allen belts were discovered by instruments on NASA missions, so...

[Tron]

You only have to look at the Apollo 11 conference to see that not one of the team had been to the moon.

I agree with Kokorikos that maybe they just didn't like talking to the press, at that particular moment anyway.  I saw clips from the whole interview and they seemed quite animated about certain topics they were discussing.   

Generally speaking, selling new and exciting ideas to people isn't always easy.  Anything paranormal or extraordinary like the moon walks can make people feel uneasy at times.   Its a craft itself and the people need to be willing to accept it.

[Tumeni]

You only have to look at the Apollo 11 conference to see that not one of the team had been to the moon.

... or, more likely, to see that they had just emerged from a three-week quarantine, and had not yet been with their families since leaving for the start of the mission.

They didn't mention the VABs even once during the conference when the belts are the No.1 NASA given reason why we can't get into deep space today.

Van Allen's instrumentation went into space on NASA rockets. The only reason you know the VABs are there is because of NASA, yet you cite them as if they prove some fakery on NASA's part.

Also, I think you're misquoting the "reason why we can't get into deep space" ... NASA has said that the Orion craft will need testing to ensure that its instrumentation will survive longer exposure than the Apollo craft had, but that's it.

Moore asks ; "could you see stars IN THE SOLAR CORONA"

The video author appears to miss the joke in Collins' response. ("I didn't see any") He was the only one not on the surface, and not doing the experiment concerned.


EDIT footnote

The astronauts said farewell to their families prior to mission start.

Mission start July 16, 1969, 13:32:00 UTC

Splashed down July 24, 1969, 16:50:35 UTC, transfer to quarantine trailer

Return to land, transfer to quarantine suite at NASA to begin three weeks of quarantine, until August 10

The press conference took place on August 12, long after the initial euphoria would have worn off

I think we can excuse them a little fatigue and weariness with the whole thing...