• Jack_Burton
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    2 days ago

    To be fair, 2001: A Space Odyssey came out a year before the moon landing.

    • swagmoney
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      also me, with my anti-dopamine monochrome filter because I’m a lil screen addicted piss baby

    • baguettefish@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      Rural parts of the country either just got their TVs or didn’t even have TV, only radio, and to go from very low tech like that to one day hear about someone landing on the fucking moon is a bit insane. I can imagine how someone might not believe it.

      • blave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        People then actually stand outside of appliance stores to watch the TVs that they had in the display window because they didn’t have TVs at home.

    • Macchi_the_Slime@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      They really do. They see the handful of small clips that everyone knows, but they don’t know that at the time it was an hours long live broadcast. I saw a breakdown of the Moon Landing Hoax from just the cinematography aspect years ago. It basically requires that you believe they used technology that wouldn’t be “officially” invented for like 20 years.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      I don’t believe in the hoax but it would be easy to have a pre recording. I think the most damning is the lighting they would need to replicate the shadows. Not really available at the time.

      • blave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 days ago

        Now, it would be very easy. But, at the time, not enough was known about the lighting in the circumstances, etc., to make a convincing fake with the equipment available.

        Well, perhaps it would fool people back then, but it wouldn’t fool anyone in the last few decades.

        I never really considered the question of whether or not it was real, just pre-recorded instead of live. I would’ve presume that would’ve been the case anyway, just in case something horrific happened. They probably didn’t want 100 million people watching that.

          • blave@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            That’s another big deal that people never seem to mention: the Soviets would’ve had an absolute fucking field day, calling us out for faking such a huge thing. It’s not like nobody was watching.

        • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 days ago

          Well, everyone watched Challenger fall back to earth live so I imagine the only delay was the 2 second transmission distance from the moon.

          • blave@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            I was living in Orlando at the time. I saw that with my naked eye. It was six years old, and it fucked me up.

  • Rhaedas@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 days ago

    Some of the early Star Trek shots were pretty decent, especially for their time. Not moon landing level accuracy, but models and practical effects hold up well. 2001 was incredibly well done.

  • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    Star trek had some amazing special effects, not realistic but still impressive for the time (arguably they still have a certain charm to this day).