(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.)
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.)
Edit: TL;DR: Perfectly faking the multi-hour uninterrupted video broadcasts (i.e., either inventing slow-motion video that can last hours, or perfectly passing off a multi-hour film as video) in slow-motion would have been significantly more difficult than sending humans to the moon with 1969 technology.
Flawless 4K special effects have been available for over 100 years, but the government’s been hiding them!
Re-hoaxed :)
Now this one is really concerning!
I do find it amazing that it was literally easier to send humans to the moon than faking it in 1969
Like, isn't that an astonishing fact?
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.
This is the one thing that kills me with one of my favorite space movies, interstellar... they have that one scene at the school saying the landings were faked to bankrupt the soviets...like how the fuck did that make it into the movie.
It's not there as some commentary by Christopher Nolan that the moon landings didn't happen. It's there to show that schools are willing to teach a lie as long as it serves the narrative of "past oppulence is what destroyed our world, so get out there and be a farmer!"
O damn never thought of it that way. I went and looked it up further and you're spot on, it seems it was put into the movie to make people become farmers and not look to space. Basically try and solve the problems on earth.
That ~~guy~~ lady is a silly and you're supposed to think she's wrong. She's teaching lies in order to justify a bad worldview.
Fake moon landing, aliens built the pyramids why do some conspiracy theories insist on robbing humans of their monumental achievements. My guess is that people who create and share conspiracies like those are too dumb to realize that other people have different knowledge than they do.
It's probably because most of the people that believe these things are impossible can't even chew with their mouths closed.
They can barely walk and breathe at the same time
I do like how the moon landing deniers forget about the phrase "it's not rocket science" when pretending to know what they're talking about.
Also keep in mind that the astronauts communicated with Earth by radio. Anyone with even 1920s radio technology would have figured out that the astronauts weren't broadcasting from the Moon.
We were in the middle of a cold war with the soviets back in the 1960s. Proving the moon landing was fake would have been the propaganda coup of the century for them. What possible reason would they have to stay quiet about that?
If we could fake the moon landings, we also could have faked the Soviet Union.
We've always been at war with Eurasia
We were in the middle of a cold war with the soviets back in the 1960s. Proving the moon landing was fake would have been the propaganda coup of the century for them. What possible reason would they have to stay quiet about that?
That's always been my number one reason why the moon landing was definitely not faked. The Soviets never caught wind of it between 1969 and 1992? Come on.
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.
IT'S BEEN A LONG ROAD
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.
The problem with moon landings isn't that they can't be done, it's that they are dangerous as shit, with little reward. You'd get a better deal out of being sent to a remote desert island.
To orbit the moon, a space craft needs to move at about 1.5 km/s, or 3300 miles per hour.
So any landing starts with you going at 1.5 km/s and needs to end at the moons surface when you reach about 0 meters per second.
If anything goes wrong with your engines while you slow down, you smack into the moon at either near orbital speeds, or at fighter jet speeds. The window for having an engine failure and being slow enough to survive is so narrow that it might as well not exist.
That’s why Apollo used pressure fed, self igniting engines. As long as 2 valves opened, you had an engine. And Apollo landers had a totally separate ascent engine that worked exactly the same way, so if the landing engine failed, they could just drop the landing stage and return to orbit at practically any time during the descent. They even had a whole procedure of what to do if the ascent engine didn’t light when they were supposed to leave. Everything from jump starting the engine like a car with a dead battery, to physically getting access to the valves and manually opening them.
I hate the current plan for Artemis. I hate that in 55 years, we’ve only managed to make shit more complicated. The current plan is for a vehicle with no abort capability to ignite its 3 turbo pumped, liquid methane fueled engines at least 4 times to get from low earth orbit to the moons surface, with days between ignitions.
A capability that has never been shown to work or even exist in any capacity. Turbo pumps are finally machined pieces of engineering that need to behave exactly right, or they turn a rocket into either a bomb, or a giant tube that can’t move. And the current plan for Artemis calls for these finely crafted pieces of machinery to be subjected to the harsh environment of both space where they’ll sit for at least a week, and multiple ignitions, where they’re subjected to ridiculous temperatures and pressures.
Absolutely ridiculous. We never left an astronaut on the moon in the 60s and 70s, but by god are they trying to open the first graveyard on the moon these days.
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!
TNG came out in 1987. I sure hope someone got fired for that blunder.
To be fair star trek was impressive for the time
Most of the time anyway...
In my opinion the rough edges give the show charm and character, theres a certain magic to imperfection
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:
On the other hand, do you know one of the companies that supposedly made the Saturn-V?
Boeing.
At least their build quality was generally good back then. I wouldn't trust them to build a Saturn V today.
It looks fine on a CRT at 480i
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 !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
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.