(Yes, of course I know that's not the Enterprise-D and that TNG came out in 1986, but you try making a better debunking joke.)
To be fair star trek was impressive for the time
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)
memes
9948 readers
258 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Most of the time anyway...
In my opinion the rough edges give the show charm and character, theres a certain magic to imperfection
Looks legit, what's the point here?
Wasn't 2001 also made at that time? As I recall, that was incredibly realistic (mostly), far more so than a cheap TV show
(Not saying that 2001 is proof, just that ToS isn't a great comparison)
Similarly to the conspiracy that inspires this meme, the meme itself also doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
But that's a low-budget show. The Apollo Program had billions to invest in VFX.
I've been to the NASA space center and they've got a very vivid recreation of the moon landing in a museum. I have no doubt you could have faked the video. But how they got a moon lander and a flag up there remains a mystery.
Also, we landed on the moon six different times. Even if you're skeptical of Neil and Buzz, it kept happening through Cernan. By Apollo 17, it was barely newsworthy.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11354908/?ref_=ttep_ep8
I guess the VFX reference isn't widely known, nor it's direct enough.
load more comments
(2 replies)
And the old saying "three people can keep a secret, if 2 are dead" comes to mind. The number of people who would know, just in astronauts, tells me someone would've squealed.
There was a movie in the 1980's that used this premise, but the astronauts weren't supposed to know (I think), or were only told pretty late. Capricorn One (with OJ Simpson if memory serves). Not a great movie, hell, not even good, just an interesting concept.
The number of people who would know, just in astronauts, tells me someone would’ve squealed.
There are definitely conspiracies that have happened in the US that have stayed (officially) sealed for decades at a time. There's also no shortage of (unofficial) leaks and Deep-Throat style informants willing to sell you a story about the moon landing being a hoax.
I wouldn't say the problem is that nobody squealed. I'd say the problem is that folks who claim they were in the room when Kubrick shot the B-roll for the moon landing from a Hollywood sound stage are not sources that stand up to prolonged interrogation.
Capricorn One (with OJ Simpson if memory serves).
I've heard of it. Mars instead of the Moon. An interesting premise.
I'm also partial to For All Mankind as a "What If" of the US and Soviets continuing the space race for another forty years. Both explore interesting concepts about the intersection of politics and space exploration.
For sure.
Stuff can be kept secret, it's just difficult, and is usually accomplished via all sorts of obfuscation.
Like doing something layered deep within something else, making it appear to be a day-to-event (hiding materiel in containers labeled as something else, making it weigh and move normally, then having military deliver it as usual, because who would think these drums of fuel are actually heavy water, or something like that).
The moon landings were live. Quite a bit harder, I'd think.
I have no doubt you could have faked the video.
Nope. In order to fake the video with a live background and real shadows, you would have to have had a single sun-equivalent light source to make all of the shadows point in the exact same direction, while at the same time no light whatsoever coming from any other direction.
CGI wasn't a thing in 1969. Ultimately, if you wanted to fake a moon landing in 1969, you would very quickly find out that it would be far simpler and far less expensive to just go to the moon.
load more comments
(2 replies)
It would have been cheaper if Kubrick hadn’t insisted on filming on location
I thought Kubrick filmed it in a movie studio... on Mars.
However, for its time TOS effects were often really good. People expected the typical B-movie styles but got believable visuals.
Often. On the other hand...
Although I admit I found them fascinating when I was a little kid.
Are you kidding me? Those things were fucking creepy. And the sounds they made? Uggghh...
Of all of my memories of watching TOS in my youth, there were two that stick by me the most.
The first was sitting down to watch it with my brother on October 23, 1983 when I was six years old. Just after it started, there was a special news bulletin about some dumb bomb exploding in some place I'd never heard of and my brother- much older than me- kept telling me to be quiet and stop complaining so he could hear the news. Right as the bulletin ended, the credits for Star Trek started playing. It made me cry.
The other one was seeing those aliens for the first time and thinking, "I guess aliens don't have to look like us." It was a profound thought for a child no more than eight years old.
I saw a rebuttal that said the special effects at the time couldn't have faked it.
What, Star Trek?
As a mod on both the Ten Forward and Star Trek communities, I can tell you that Star Trek TOS is 100% true and accurate.
Especially this part:
Yeah but look at how the shadow on the wall in the back isn’t in sync with the dancing. Checkmate atheists.
TNG came out in 1987. I sure hope someone got fired for that blunder.
It looks fine on a CRT at 480i
My favorite debunking is an old YouTube video called "moon hoax not" where a filmmaker explains that the due to technology limits of the time, faking the multi-hour live broadcasts in slow-motion, which millions of people were watching, would be impossible without there being telltale signs of it being spliced film (the splicing, film grain, etc.). Since slow-mo video (distinct from film; TV broadcasts were video) at the time could not play back more than a few seconds of footage, at most, it would have to be high-speed film played back at normal speed. Assuming you could find or make a high-speed camera fit to task. While the first landing had awful video quality, later missions had much higher quality and the film fakery would be impossible to completely hide. People these days massively overestimate the video (and film) technology that was available in 1969. (IIRC. It's been years since I've last rewatched it.)
I feel like Captain Disillusion would have done a video on the moon landings if they were faked ... unless he was in on it, hmm.
Oh, I know this video!
I remember playing it for somebody, and you could tell they were trying so hard to disagree with it in their head. I imagine they still believe it was fake, but it was funny.
Flawless 4K special effects have been available for over 100 years, but the government’s been hiding them!
Re-hoaxed :)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
you try making a better debunking joke.)
Are you kidding me? Lemmy is way too contentious to encourage me to do that - I am leaving posting to the professionals like you!
I believe in you. If you fill yourself with determination, you too can use comedy to challenge people and also complain about those people canceling you loudly on NBC.
load more comments
(3 replies)
IT'S BEEN A LONG ROAD
You appear to follow the Vulcan philosophy of IDIC: I Debunk Idiotic Claims.
Yeah, but think about what the GOVERNMENT could afford! They were SUPER rich back then!
load more comments
(1 replies)
Faking the moon landing would have been a massive coverup requiring the cooperation of at least one foreign nation. (Australia, because of Parkes)
During the Nixon administration. Nixon couldn't even cover up one little burglary.
load more comments
(11 replies)