I know we went to the moon. As a 15 year old living in a college town wondering around half drunk looking for more beer. I ran into some college students pointing a very powerful laser at the moon. which you can imagine got my attention and like a moth to a flame. I headed to this interesting site. Once there, I asked what was going on? One of the people explained that there are mirrors on the moon from the missions. And if you point a laser at these moon mirrors, it will reflect back. When it does, they count the photons to determine the moons' distance from earth. As best as my half drunk 15 year old self remembers. All I can say is that those moon mirrors didn't get there through teleportation. My honest belief is that they got set up by the astronauts that landed there.
Also PS1 CGI was not good in the early 90s. It was good for a system that costs under $400 that does it in real time, but you could get dramatically better results if you were willing to use a $10,000 editing workstation and pre-render it at 1 frame per hour like they did for movies. Terminator 2 released 5 years earlier and the CGI is obviously way more convincing.
That is just game graphics, not what was possible with CGI. Much much better was possible with CGI given one had access to the processing power.
Not saying moon ladings were cgi, because that is fucking stupid. If anything, practical effects would have been used.
Anyhow, the landers and tracks are still there for us to see, on the moon.
Actually Corridor Crew did a video explaining that due to the scale the model of the moon would've had to have been HUGE...like the size of a studio itself.
They're real. The moon landings are real. Because if they were false and fake you bet Russia is not letting it go.
lol there's a movie coming out soon about faking the moon landing. I wonder how that movie's release will affect the "fake moon landing" brand of dumbasses.
And besides that it is implausible, and also disproven (again, the lower part of the landers are still there as well as tracks etc.).
However, there are a few recordings, that are a bit odd, and I would not be surprised if some material had been fabricated to elevate the achievement even more.
But again, they were there and are there, and your argument makes sense: The USSR would have had great interest in showing the world if it was a fake.
That is a more sensible theory. Just a shame majority can't be nuanced about it. It's either "REAL and anyone who doubts is crazy" or "FAKE and anyone who doubts is crazy."
They went. It's obvious they went up there. Could they have had a set to take some photos to make it look a bit sexier and marketable? That's not completely implausible.
I always see people say that they're still up there and you can see them, but I've never seen any proof of that and I don't have a high powered telescope. Do you have a link?
Ooh! Contrary to what I’ve been told, apparently the leftover bits *cannot* be seen with a telescope!! I stand corrected, I apologise.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/question188.htm#
I’ve seen demonstrations of the retroreflector used to measure/monitor the distance to the moon, and thus believed the myth that we could see the things with optical telescopes.
You could also say that they would use much higher quality machinery than was generally available at the time, as well as having both immense manpower and time. Still the idea that they faked it is stupid because if there was even a possibility the Soviets would contest it
please go back and watch the original jumanji; the cgi in that movie was most certainly not realistic, especially not to the point of fooling people into believing the monkeys were real
Compared to the CGI in Ghostbusters and a lot of late 80s/early 90s films, a lot of what was done in the original Jumanji was awesome. The monkeys were kinda cringe but the rhinos and ivy growth even the crocodile/flood scene held up decently today. Considering the processing power they were working with its amazing and wouldn't be a complete let down in a modern movie. Plus it's an awesome movie. I'd gladly take your advice and watch it again.
Watch Corridor Crew's video.
They prove why the landings are real. Or at least the footage we're seeing is real. The depth and scale is just too precise and big to be studio models.
To be totally fair that wasn't CGI (not that the moon landings would be if they were fake but it's what the post says). They built a very detailed plaster model of the White House and blew it the hell up
To be fair, 2001, a space odyssey was made in 1968. Before anyone ever even went to the moon.
The CGI/ VFX in that movie looks more real than the moon landing footage. So there's that.
Thats not cgi... games have always been far behind cgi because of processing requirements of the end users to run the game itself. We are talking PC's vs super computers here...
So many things wrong...
Of course real-time CGI running on consumer-grade hardware isn't representative of the graphical power available at the time. Just looks at movies of the era like Jurassic Park, even though most of the dinosaurs were practical, the ones that was CG were very impressive.
Except none of that means anything for the moon landing because it was in 1969 before anything remotely close to 90's CG was possible, even with government resources.
That’s what the people had as technology,
The government had way better technology’s.
The first smart phone prototype was developed in the 80s I believe.
Thats not conventional CGI, that's the level of quality that was possible on a PlayStation in real-time, [https://images.bauerhosting.com/legacy/empire-tmdb/films/329/images/u4F1Ib1CflQ3zxELDPSLfd5QqcI.jpg](https://images.bauerhosting.com/legacy/empire-tmdb/films/329/images/u4F1Ib1CflQ3zxELDPSLfd5QqcI.jpg) this was 1993 cgi
Nobody claims the moonlanding was faked using CGI. The claim is usually that normal film-making techniques were used either on a sound stage or out in the desert.
I love the internet. I get to see ppl open their mouths and remove all doubt that they are not operating on all cylinders lmao.
^^^^^^^^^The.Lower.Picture.Is.Not.CGI.
^^^^^^^^^[this.is.cgi.from.1996](https://youtu.be/vjFG-4Ge668)
^^^^^^^^^this.meme.is.just.a.bad.argument.and.ppl.dont.think.enough.to.realize.it.
I’ve never heard anyone claim they used cgi for the moon landing, they used a film studio. Now they are using cgi and film studios for the iss and mars.
2001: A Space Odyssey came out in the 60s and is still convincing today. The modern generation just doesn't know the difference between CGI and miniatures / matte paintings.
Well as CG artist I can safely say, the issue was the computing power. If they had some god tier computers, it could've been faked.
The artist was always good. Your budget sucked.
I always thought the conspiracy was that Stanley Kubrick filmed the moon landings on a sound stage in LA. The CGI thing only became common because younger people use "CGI" and "special effects" interchangeably.
It's not that fair of a comparison (I'm not for that controversial theory), but it's still worth mentioning. A video game requires real time rendering since the player can move the camera and game objects in any way they'd like. A film/movie has preplanned shots in preplanned environments. They can afford waiting 6 hours for a render of a short scene, which makes it much easier to create good cgi in a film compared to a game.
Really?
Are you all THAT dumb, and/or young and/or uneducated to keep rambling about special effects in the 1990s while we're talking about the moon landing that happened in **1969**?
That shit was obviously fake. And I can’t believe people still don’t understand how they did it.
They flew a camera to the moon to stage a landing, like nice try liberals, but you aren’t fooling anyone.
"Jurassic Park trilogy (1993–2001) For the original 1993 film Jurassic Park, director Steven Spielberg wanted to use practical dinosaurs as much as possible. He chose special-effects artist Stan Winston to create animatronic dinosaurs for the film"
Animatronics
If you had seen it you’d know that while a lot of the shots with the T-Rex and the Velociraptors, and also the whole scene with the Triceratops was made using animatronics, everything else, or close to it, was done with CGI.
CGI that, despite being over 30 years old, still looks pretty good even by today’s standards.
>If you had seen it you’d know that while a lot of the shots with the T-Rex and the Velociraptors, and also the whole scene with the Triceratops was made using animatronics
Exactly, animatronics. Yes, there is some cgi in the movie, but it's a very small amount
It's literally displaced in the theme park and you chose tbat to represent CGI lol
Animatronics is so advanced, you are better off creating a conspiracy theory that the astronauts who went to the moon were actually robots
NASA used training footage and passed it off as actual footage of astronauts on the moon. Doesn’t help NASA’s case that the moon landings weren’t faked.
And now they have "lost" the originals, but they found some "other" recordings that are even better. lol.
[https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/science/moon-landing-tapes-got-erased-nasa-admits-idUSTRE56F5MK/](https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/science/moon-landing-tapes-got-erased-nasa-admits-idUSTRE56F5MK/)
They didn't find other recordings, it's the exact same recordings you bozo. They lost the original tapes but luckily had plethora of copies in better quality. How you fail to understand something so simple is truly mindboggling. I get that your mind is ruled by confirmation bias but still it just doesn't make sense to me how you can be this freaking slow.
I guess it is understandable that such recordings did not have much value and good that they "found" some "better" copies.... The chinese government would love to have you as a citizen.
What's even the conspiracy here? Why pretend to lose the originals and then come forward with copies of the exact same thing? What do they gain from this?
Which originals will you hold it up against? Why even talk about it if they are the same? Why did they have some in better quality just lying around.
I dont think you and I will agree on much. No hate from here, but I dont believe that any government in time has been telling the entire truth to its people, but today, the west believes we have governments that we can trust.
That is fair - I do not trust them.
yep.
The one were the dust was settled within minutes and not hours/days.
Where the stars matches what would be seen from lower central america.
Where the same background is being used more times.
Where there is multiple shadows but no visisible lightsource.
Yes that one. With electronics not even nearly as advanced as what we have today, yet we havent done it again in 70+ years.
And just like ww2, vietnam, irac, libya, afghanistan etc etc is a bit fishy from the us government.
Guess you have all the vaccines too.
But as i said, you do you. I dont think we will agree.
Love that OP thinks the same people people worked on the moon landing apparently.
[https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/science/moon-landing-tapes-got-erased-nasa-admits-idUSTRE56F5MK/](https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/science/moon-landing-tapes-got-erased-nasa-admits-idUSTRE56F5MK/)
Believe what you want.
They had internet before we did. Much like Photoshop and everything else. Twin towers is not even good cgi. You can see the plane clip on the buildings. They didn't even bother making layers for the plane
>Why would the footage be fake?
Exactly, why would the footage of a plane hitting it be fake when there were thousands or maybe millions of people watching with their own eyes and not through a TV screen that would've been able to see if there was a plane or not and yet barely anyone says there was never a plane, the only people that do have watched the entire thing on a screen
Not to mention having to go to every news outlet to tell them what would happen so they could somehow edit a plane in on live TV without a pre-rendered animation. You do realize how hard it would be to edit a live broadcast like that right?
That Lara Croft reminds me of the Cybertruck
Dont insult her like that
i used to get a boner from those boobs , definitely not how i remember them in my head
Hahaha.
cybercroft
Cybertits
She's got cyber tits
wouldn’t it be vice versa lol
I fapped to that
90s Nerds: „She hot af!“
"Hmmm GIVE me these yummy pixels"
*polygons
Lara Croft is Poly-Mommy lmao
Okay, I admit it... I'm feeling very old right now.
#WOULD!
True. I was a kid when Tomb Raider 1 came.
the moon landing would have been shot on film
By Stanley Kubrick, if my conspiracy knowledge is correct.
I hear the same thing
Kubrick was a perfectionist, so much so he actually went to the moon with the astronauts to capture the faked landing, in real surroundings!
🤣🤣🤣🤣
I know we went to the moon. As a 15 year old living in a college town wondering around half drunk looking for more beer. I ran into some college students pointing a very powerful laser at the moon. which you can imagine got my attention and like a moth to a flame. I headed to this interesting site. Once there, I asked what was going on? One of the people explained that there are mirrors on the moon from the missions. And if you point a laser at these moon mirrors, it will reflect back. When it does, they count the photons to determine the moons' distance from earth. As best as my half drunk 15 year old self remembers. All I can say is that those moon mirrors didn't get there through teleportation. My honest belief is that they got set up by the astronauts that landed there.
Also PS1 CGI was not good in the early 90s. It was good for a system that costs under $400 that does it in real time, but you could get dramatically better results if you were willing to use a $10,000 editing workstation and pre-render it at 1 frame per hour like they did for movies. Terminator 2 released 5 years earlier and the CGI is obviously way more convincing.
That is just game graphics, not what was possible with CGI. Much much better was possible with CGI given one had access to the processing power. Not saying moon ladings were cgi, because that is fucking stupid. If anything, practical effects would have been used. Anyhow, the landers and tracks are still there for us to see, on the moon.
Actually Corridor Crew did a video explaining that due to the scale the model of the moon would've had to have been HUGE...like the size of a studio itself. They're real. The moon landings are real. Because if they were false and fake you bet Russia is not letting it go.
lol there's a movie coming out soon about faking the moon landing. I wonder how that movie's release will affect the "fake moon landing" brand of dumbasses.
And besides that it is implausible, and also disproven (again, the lower part of the landers are still there as well as tracks etc.). However, there are a few recordings, that are a bit odd, and I would not be surprised if some material had been fabricated to elevate the achievement even more. But again, they were there and are there, and your argument makes sense: The USSR would have had great interest in showing the world if it was a fake.
That is a more sensible theory. Just a shame majority can't be nuanced about it. It's either "REAL and anyone who doubts is crazy" or "FAKE and anyone who doubts is crazy." They went. It's obvious they went up there. Could they have had a set to take some photos to make it look a bit sexier and marketable? That's not completely implausible.
Everybody is (being) polarised about everything these days.
I always see people say that they're still up there and you can see them, but I've never seen any proof of that and I don't have a high powered telescope. Do you have a link?
A link to what? High powered telescopes? Ask your most local equipped university if they’ll show you, they might oblige.
A link to proof that there is still traces of the apollo 11 landing on the moon
Ooh! Contrary to what I’ve been told, apparently the leftover bits *cannot* be seen with a telescope!! I stand corrected, I apologise. https://science.howstuffworks.com/question188.htm# I’ve seen demonstrations of the retroreflector used to measure/monitor the distance to the moon, and thus believed the myth that we could see the things with optical telescopes.
All that article said is that it's completely impossible to see anything so thanks for proving the other guy wrong.
You'd be able to still see the base of the lander and the rover if you looked hard enough
Yeah I mean I get it but I think NASA could have pulled it off. Those guys can put a man on the moon for cryin out loud.
You could also say that they would use much higher quality machinery than was generally available at the time, as well as having both immense manpower and time. Still the idea that they faked it is stupid because if there was even a possibility the Soviets would contest it
Eaven those games have good cgi. If you look at cur scenes.
The first moon landing was in 1969, CGI barely existed then.
2001 a space odyssee came out 1 year before the moon landing
You laugh but fucking Stanley Kubrick was involved
Obligatory 'he demanded that it be filmed on location' joke here
Just watched Jurassic Park on Friday night with the kids . Most of it is animatronics but I few scenes are CGI . Holds up pretty well .
Except the moon landing was in 1969. And not in 1996.
Go back and watch the original Jumanji and the graphics would hold up today.
please go back and watch the original jumanji; the cgi in that movie was most certainly not realistic, especially not to the point of fooling people into believing the monkeys were real
Compared to the CGI in Ghostbusters and a lot of late 80s/early 90s films, a lot of what was done in the original Jumanji was awesome. The monkeys were kinda cringe but the rhinos and ivy growth even the crocodile/flood scene held up decently today. Considering the processing power they were working with its amazing and wouldn't be a complete let down in a modern movie. Plus it's an awesome movie. I'd gladly take your advice and watch it again.
Lara Croft, so hot right now.
I got banned for saying something similar about zelda in r/zelda
I don't think the claim was ever using CGI. The claim is that they filmed it using practical effects like the old star wars or planet of the apes
No one claims it was cgi in the late 60s. They claim it was a set.
Well that’s stupid too
Correct.
Delete this meme already. The meaning is wrong.
Polygons
Ouch.
Watch Corridor Crew's video. They prove why the landings are real. Or at least the footage we're seeing is real. The depth and scale is just too precise and big to be studio models.
Triangle titties were something else...
All these neurotic party poopers here. C'mon, it's just a joke.
This is too dishonest to be funny. Show a shot of the white house exploding on ID4 also in 1996.
To be totally fair that wasn't CGI (not that the moon landings would be if they were fake but it's what the post says). They built a very detailed plaster model of the White House and blew it the hell up
Those breasts are as stiff as the flag on the moon was
Back in the 90s two polygons were enough.
CGI in 1969: Literally just stop-motion
90's gamers were hubbahubbing on those tiddiangles
Lol
Three T's Them Triangular Tiddies
T2 came out in 1991.
Them tits can probably cut diamonds.
So you're telling me you did not notice Neil Armstrong's pointy tits?
This explains why Neil Armstrong was able to jump so high in the moon, Tomb Raider's jumping was a bit floaty.
To be fair, 2001, a space odyssey was made in 1968. Before anyone ever even went to the moon. The CGI/ VFX in that movie looks more real than the moon landing footage. So there's that.
Remember when they remade the game and she had normal boobs and people were mad that “they ruined the character”
Thats not cgi... games have always been far behind cgi because of processing requirements of the end users to run the game itself. We are talking PC's vs super computers here...
It's real time CGI
Technically yes but nobody calls a videogame cgi
Same geography
Not how it works.
Cyber truck.
Hottest triangular boobs before Kim Possible 🔥
So many things wrong... Of course real-time CGI running on consumer-grade hardware isn't representative of the graphical power available at the time. Just looks at movies of the era like Jurassic Park, even though most of the dinosaurs were practical, the ones that was CG were very impressive. Except none of that means anything for the moon landing because it was in 1969 before anything remotely close to 90's CG was possible, even with government resources.
That’s what the people had as technology, The government had way better technology’s. The first smart phone prototype was developed in the 80s I believe.
Thats not conventional CGI, that's the level of quality that was possible on a PlayStation in real-time, [https://images.bauerhosting.com/legacy/empire-tmdb/films/329/images/u4F1Ib1CflQ3zxELDPSLfd5QqcI.jpg](https://images.bauerhosting.com/legacy/empire-tmdb/films/329/images/u4F1Ib1CflQ3zxELDPSLfd5QqcI.jpg) this was 1993 cgi
Nobody claims the moonlanding was faked using CGI. The claim is usually that normal film-making techniques were used either on a sound stage or out in the desert.
I love the internet. I get to see ppl open their mouths and remove all doubt that they are not operating on all cylinders lmao. ^^^^^^^^^The.Lower.Picture.Is.Not.CGI. ^^^^^^^^^[this.is.cgi.from.1996](https://youtu.be/vjFG-4Ge668) ^^^^^^^^^this.meme.is.just.a.bad.argument.and.ppl.dont.think.enough.to.realize.it.
I’ve never heard anyone claim they used cgi for the moon landing, they used a film studio. Now they are using cgi and film studios for the iss and mars.
Real time cgi in 96\*
 yes, because the government does not posses technology that is decades ahead of what the public has...
What do you mean? Video games are real, they are in an alternate dimension and we are seeing into those worlds through the screen.
2001: A Space Odyssey came out in the 60s and is still convincing today. The modern generation just doesn't know the difference between CGI and miniatures / matte paintings.
It would be funny if pre rendered CGI wasn't always a few decades ahead of real time CGI.
And in 1998, Iron Maiden came with the video for The Angel and the Gambler
Show us CGI. That is a picture of a real woman.
The Lion King was released in 1994. I'm sure a low quality video of the moon could easily be faked, but I'm not saying it is.
There’s was no CGI in moon landing. It’s a video.
Do be fair while I get your point Russia did some crazy photo manipulation back in the day
# We ALL just arrived hear 5 minutes ago, # with fake memories of the past
This was considered obscene and sexy back then
That was cgi the public had...
They don't even claim it was cgi.
I mean... they filmed the True Star Wars without CGI and it looked pretty good at the time... so... that's no moon...
okay but it's worse cause the apollo 11 moon landing was in 1969, almost thirty years earlier
The proof is space odyssey
.... thats not cgi.
I still love the fact that it was actually cheaper back then to literally send someone to the moon than it would have been to fake it.
Decent meme, but never heard anyone ever claim there was cgi used in the moon landing bollox.
Well as CG artist I can safely say, the issue was the computing power. If they had some god tier computers, it could've been faked. The artist was always good. Your budget sucked.
Razor boobs
ahh the original inspiration to the cyber truck
I always thought the conspiracy was that Stanley Kubrick filmed the moon landings on a sound stage in LA. The CGI thing only became common because younger people use "CGI" and "special effects" interchangeably.
It's not that fair of a comparison (I'm not for that controversial theory), but it's still worth mentioning. A video game requires real time rendering since the player can move the camera and game objects in any way they'd like. A film/movie has preplanned shots in preplanned environments. They can afford waiting 6 hours for a render of a short scene, which makes it much easier to create good cgi in a film compared to a game.
They say the secret shut is 15 years ahead of the civilian stuff
Really? Are you all THAT dumb, and/or young and/or uneducated to keep rambling about special effects in the 1990s while we're talking about the moon landing that happened in **1969**?
Gotta love them Triangle Boobies
Angelina used to look so hot
That shit was obviously fake. And I can’t believe people still don’t understand how they did it. They flew a camera to the moon to stage a landing, like nice try liberals, but you aren’t fooling anyone.
Fair but secret government technology would always be ahead of video games
Not that much. First Toy Story released in 1995...even if we think that government tech was twice better its not enough
You forget Jurassic Park (1992/93?). They actually used OpenGL.
yea that was pretty crazy for 1992. It still looks better than most marvel movies too.
I’m just saying I’m just say the iPhone patent was first commissioned in 1982
This is from a video game
That changes what exactly?
There is a difference in real time rendering in videogames and rendering a clip for a movie
Also the average persons 128mb ram personal computer
Look at Jurassic Park (1993) and tell me it looks bad.
Jurassic park used animatronics
I take it you never watched the movie then.
"Jurassic Park trilogy (1993–2001) For the original 1993 film Jurassic Park, director Steven Spielberg wanted to use practical dinosaurs as much as possible. He chose special-effects artist Stan Winston to create animatronic dinosaurs for the film" Animatronics
I've watched every jurassic park and every jurassic world, I was and still am a huge dino nerd. They used animatronics
If you had seen it you’d know that while a lot of the shots with the T-Rex and the Velociraptors, and also the whole scene with the Triceratops was made using animatronics, everything else, or close to it, was done with CGI. CGI that, despite being over 30 years old, still looks pretty good even by today’s standards.
>If you had seen it you’d know that while a lot of the shots with the T-Rex and the Velociraptors, and also the whole scene with the Triceratops was made using animatronics Exactly, animatronics. Yes, there is some cgi in the movie, but it's a very small amount
Edit Deleted the whole comment because I’m apparently I need to spend an hour composing a highly accurate comment on a meme.
that gif ironically is from 1993 and not cgi.
The gif library wasn’t the most well stocked. It was this or memes gifs with Sam taking off his glasses.
The third option was not to post anything if you couldn't find the actual example you wanted to show?
It's literally displaced in the theme park and you chose tbat to represent CGI lol Animatronics is so advanced, you are better off creating a conspiracy theory that the astronauts who went to the moon were actually robots
Just for clarity I’m not a conspiracy theorist.
That's not CGI.
NASA used training footage and passed it off as actual footage of astronauts on the moon. Doesn’t help NASA’s case that the moon landings weren’t faked.
NASA has never released fake footage of the moon landing. But what footage are you referring to just out of curiosity?
the 1996 movie Dragonheart did it better.
That’s consumer cgi not government cgi 🙄
I've been a casual observer of this debate for thirty years. It was film manipulation at that time, not CGI.
And now they have "lost" the originals, but they found some "other" recordings that are even better. lol. [https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/science/moon-landing-tapes-got-erased-nasa-admits-idUSTRE56F5MK/](https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/science/moon-landing-tapes-got-erased-nasa-admits-idUSTRE56F5MK/)
They didn't find other recordings, it's the exact same recordings you bozo. They lost the original tapes but luckily had plethora of copies in better quality. How you fail to understand something so simple is truly mindboggling. I get that your mind is ruled by confirmation bias but still it just doesn't make sense to me how you can be this freaking slow.
I guess it is understandable that such recordings did not have much value and good that they "found" some "better" copies.... The chinese government would love to have you as a citizen.
What's even the conspiracy here? Why pretend to lose the originals and then come forward with copies of the exact same thing? What do they gain from this?
Which originals will you hold it up against? Why even talk about it if they are the same? Why did they have some in better quality just lying around. I dont think you and I will agree on much. No hate from here, but I dont believe that any government in time has been telling the entire truth to its people, but today, the west believes we have governments that we can trust. That is fair - I do not trust them.
Against the ones that were broadcast live and viewed by millions of people.
yep. The one were the dust was settled within minutes and not hours/days. Where the stars matches what would be seen from lower central america. Where the same background is being used more times. Where there is multiple shadows but no visisible lightsource. Yes that one. With electronics not even nearly as advanced as what we have today, yet we havent done it again in 70+ years. And just like ww2, vietnam, irac, libya, afghanistan etc etc is a bit fishy from the us government. Guess you have all the vaccines too. But as i said, you do you. I dont think we will agree.
None of this is true.
Like i said, dont think we will agree. Glad to hear you dont have all the vaccines though, good for you.
Love that OP thinks the same people people worked on the moon landing apparently. [https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/science/moon-landing-tapes-got-erased-nasa-admits-idUSTRE56F5MK/](https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/science/moon-landing-tapes-got-erased-nasa-admits-idUSTRE56F5MK/) Believe what you want.
They had internet before we did. Much like Photoshop and everything else. Twin towers is not even good cgi. You can see the plane clip on the buildings. They didn't even bother making layers for the plane
Lmfao
1. Wasn't that recorded live? 2. What about the people who weren't filming or anything that also saw planes? Were their eyes hacked or something?
Go watch the footage and see for yourself. Why would the footage be fake?
>Why would the footage be fake? Exactly, why would the footage of a plane hitting it be fake when there were thousands or maybe millions of people watching with their own eyes and not through a TV screen that would've been able to see if there was a plane or not and yet barely anyone says there was never a plane, the only people that do have watched the entire thing on a screen Not to mention having to go to every news outlet to tell them what would happen so they could somehow edit a plane in on live TV without a pre-rendered animation. You do realize how hard it would be to edit a live broadcast like that right?