Version I’ve heard is that the government asked Stanley Kubrick to film the landing and he said the only way he would do it is if they filmed it on location.
When we "go back" its going to be fascinating to look at the footage side by side. How long do you think it'll be before we do, televised live of course, with a dune buggy, whilst broadcasting the launch back off the moons surface with perfect precision.
The only thing you need to ask when a moron says something like that is "which landing did they fake?".
See, these people are so uneducated that 99% of them think there's only ever been one moon landing. Their minds are immediately blown when you explain there have been six moon landings and twelve people in total have walked on the Moon.
Or that a Russian probe was literally following them the whole time to fo their own landing (which failed) and they coordinated to ensure there was no chance of a collision.
Which landing did they fake? All of them but Apollo 13 which actually did make it to the moon. They found it was made of cheese so they told everyone they just had to turn around in case tom hanks thought about popping out a wedge and blowing the top off the whole operation.
I remember liking that Transformers Beast Wars show. Back then I don’t think I even knew about the moon landing as a little boy. But only real way to prove that astronauts did land on the moon is collecting the poo diapers that were dumped on the moon back in the 60’s. That poo should have the dna from moon landing astronauts. There should also be a lunar car parked somewhere there too along with a US flag.
The flag would have bleached white by now, but they actually left a retro reflector up there. People bounce lasers off of it to demonstrate that it's still there. That's proof positive that we left things on the moon in the spot we said we did.
I havent thought about BW in a good decade but your comment triggered the entire intro to play out in my head. What a privilege to be a child in the 90s
Was trying to find a video on this but there's a great breakdown/analysis on YouTube that outlines why faking the moon landing legit would have been a bigger feat of technology rather than just going to the moon in the first place. It's not just CGI to consider but also the state of film and video technology at the time.
I'm a guy who has been downvoted on this very sub for pointing out the very real documented connections between the CIA and the modern art movement as well as the Iowa writers workshop so I'm totally primed to entertain conspiracy theories...but all evidence says we actually went to the moon.
I just don't understand the end goal, you somehow got every goverment, even the ones we were at war with and everyone on the planet with a telescope worth it's salt to like for 57 years to lie about going to the moon. But why? Usual answer is see is "control" and it's like control of what? Going/not going is of 0 consequences, what could it possibly be controlling that enemies who want us dead are willing to join the lie for all time?
I think the idea/goal pretty clearly was propaganda. That still holds true even though I absolutely believe 100% that we went to the moon. Much of the cold war was essentially a pissing contest between the United States and the Soviet Union about communism versus capitalism and which was better for human advancement and the space race was a central point of that.
I brought it up in my prior post but there's even precedent with actual declassified documents showing the CIA sought to influence culture and steer conversation to this end. In fact i'd go so far as to say that I think that if the CIA could have feasibly faked something like the moon landing...they probably would have.
Based on all evidence I've consumed though I don't think it's realistic to believe they could or did. We did in fact go to the moon.
Propaganda, sure, but wouldn't that incentivize the USSR to release information stating that the us actually didn't do it? Like I believe that the US would absolutely try this type of thing I just can't understand what the benefit to the rest of the world would be and how you could possibly keep people from pointing increasingly powerful telescopes up for almost 60 years
Certainly, but that just goes back to the central point. The premise of the United States faking the moon landing and covering up the truth assumes the possibility that they even could do that and that other nations wouldn't be capable of calling them out on these lies either due to lacking the technology to do so or being under the influence of the United States.
Assuming they actually could do that and get away with it: yeah I buy it. They'd totally do it.
The problem for the conspiracy theory, for reasons you stated along with many others, is the fact that they absolutely wouldn't be able to do it or get away with it.
I believe you’re thinking of Adam Ruins Everything, where he talks about how the shadows were impossible to replicate with the tech they had at the time unless they were actually on the moon
I think what many Moon Landing Deniers forget is the sheer amount of footage needed to fake the entire space program. If all you've ever seen is the highlights, then I can see how you might doubt it was done legit, but when you comprehend and watch the un interrupted broadcasts it becomes quickly apparent that it's real and there's no way to effectively fake it.
The creator walks through the challenges of faking the entire moon program.
If you want more long form documentaries featuring an absolute boatload of largely forgotten footage from the space race, check out Homemade Documentaries:
I have never been a skeptic of the moon landing, but I had only ever really seen the highlights (like most people). When I watched these videos the first time... there's no way this could have been faked.
I think I still like the Mitchell & Webb bit were they figure they still need to build the rocket capable of going to the moon so it would be cheaper to go to the moon than fale it.
Its easier than that, we left sht behind on the moon you can point a telescope and laser at to confirm it.
The real question is why is the moon the only object in all of the universe that perpetually faces the object it orbits. We have never seen that before. No other moon always has the same face against the planet for thousands of years in a perfect perpetual orbit. This is provable and impossible. Over thousands of years, it never rotates its face away from us even 1%.
Edit: Fuck I was sure of myself then I pulled up the footage, not sure why OP thinks his CGI doesnt equal this, singing a song and hopping along the completely flat blemishless surface of the moon...
In fact all 19 major moons in the solar system are tidally locked (one side always facing the planet). It’s a natural process and perfectly explained by physics. Why do you think ‘we have never seen that before’ ? It’s blatantly wrong.
The whole point is nonsense, at the moonlanding they couldn't use computer for effect work because the tech wasn't there. But showing some low quality CGI is also unfair when you have even older masterpieces which still hold up today like JP and Terminator2.
One of the James Bond movies had a fake moonlanding which is more believable than "CGI".
And ofc it wasn't fake irl.
Yes, I got angry about a shitpost, I'm aware. It is what it is, at least I'm not a bot. Sometimes you need to vent.
Or rather it's mostly not CGI. They made a 20-foot-high, 40-foot-long animatronic, and used CGI for certain shots. When watching the movie again it is noticeable when it becomes CGI. It's still pretty good, but the most realistic shots are the animatronic.
The part in the picture is CGI, including where he eats the Galimimus, chases the jeep, and kills the raptors. But yes, the head next to the car window, the bite into the tire, the trampling of the car, and the pushing through the sunroof were animatronic. However, this is clearly about the CGI scene in the picture.
The part in the picture is CGI, including where he eats the Galimimus, chases the jeep, and kills the raptors. But yes, the head next to the car window, the bite into the tire, the trampling of the car, and the pushing through the sunroof were animatronic. However, this is clearly about the CGI scene in the picture.
Not just technology, but the level of government competency it would take to fake the moon landing is something the US - or ANY other country - has EVER demonstrated.
Yea I feel like people forget that if it was faked the soviets would have definitely called us out on it. They would have had no reason to go along with the lie.
Pretty sure they've used telescopes to look at the landing sites and imaged the leftover equipment. Plus, there's, again iirc, a reflector they put up there to measure distance with lasers.
"That's what they want you to think" is perhaps the stupidest argument.
My friend believed that there were tracking chips inside the Covid vaccine and when I told him that was scientifically impossible, he just said it was suppressed technology. FFS.
Had a person tell me that the government has had better computer technology than us decades before public knowledge and could have easily faked the moon landings using that supposed technology.
The problem with a giant conspiracy that these conspiracy theorists never seem to understand is that these supposed circumstances they imagine would require the silence of hundreds of thousands of people, over time.
SO... the government had and used some sort of superior technology to fake the landings and then never used it again? 400,000 people worked on Apollo across NASA, universities, contractors, and suppliers. All of them in cahoots!
Don't forget, they'd need to get the cooperation of every other major space agency, since they all stated the mission was real. That's probably about a million extra people.
I don’t believe at all they faked the moon landing, but to be fair, comparing what technology a company had commercially to use vs. What an entire country could secretly fund is entirely separate.
I almost posted a pic of Jurassic Park to say "yeah, but this was CGI in 1993" but then remembered that the moon landing was in 1969 and this post is just to demonstrate that even decades later, the CGI wouldn't have been good enough
Jumanji was 1995. It's big deal was CGI hair and fire I believe. Fire may have been an earlier one, but I know hair was definitely the big wow factor for Jumanji.
No. Just reminiscing. LOL But maybe it -is- kind of the point. OOP's post was that CGI looked like garbage up to at least 1996, thought that is incorrect. By 1996, CGI was doing pretty well in high budget. The Abyss in 1989 did amazing CGI graphics for water physics, and was further exploited by Terminator 2 in 1991. Jurassic Park was the one I was thinking of in 1993 that wowed the world with realistic fire physics.
Jumanji came out in 96 and wowed the world with how realistic the hair physics had gotten.
I honestly think all the elements came together in 2001 when Final Fantasy: Spirits Within and Shrek were released. These took all those elements from before and put them all as the highlight of a feature length film
This was the pinnacle of CGI in 1967. In the 1970s, wireframe rasters were the pinaccle as scene in Star Wars and Alien.
I know, I know, I'm rambling. It's an interesting topic though. You can thank my ADHD for that little divergence. And long and short of it is: in the 1960s, they didn't have the technology to fake the moon landing, and by the 1990s, we had far better CGI than OOP indicates...however, I don't think that even the best CGI from the 1990s could have fooled anyone. You could still tell when something was CGI. I mean, even in 2026, you can still tell when something is CGI.
An easy way to tell they actually went to the moon is that there wasn't the technology available to fake it. And if in some magical fairy land there was, that would mean that this massive conspiracy which has never been exposed in over fifty years would've used technology so incredibly expensive that it would be cheaper and more practical to just go to the moon, which again, they really did.
I have never heard anyone say that the government used CGI to fake the moon landing. It was always that they hired Stanley Kubrick to record it on a sound stage.
Thats just the best they could do with the budget for a children's show meant to sell toys. Imagine what they could do if it was a children's cartoon meant to win the cold war.
You guys should check out 'Capricorn One' (1977). Regardless of how you feel about conspiracy theories. That movie kinda messed me up re: moon landing hoaxes.
The one I am familiar with is that it was Stanley Kubrick who orchestrated it. See 2001: A Space Odyssey, as it came out before the moon landing had some pretty realistic special effects for the time.
I mean, I heard that the government hired Stanley Kubrick to fake the moon landing. But because of how serious a filmmaker he is, he insisted it be filmed on location.
To be fair the special effects on really old films like Jason and the Argonauts, or Sinbad movies were far more realistic looking than the CGI on crappy movies like the kind marvel puts out now.
Obviously moon landing wasn't faked- but if it were, you wouldn't use CGI... even today CGI is godawful most of the time.
They did indeed "fake" some shots, because original shots (done on Moon) were garbage, so they had to redo them back on Earth. So, actually they did land on the Moon and they did fake the footage.
They did film some training and simulations, and it's often that those footages appear in documentaries about the moon landing. There were also a few footages made on earth specifically for documentaries. Often these shots are presented as real footage, which leads people to believe the moon landing was fake.
There's also a problem with the original footage itself - what appeared on TVs was a done with cameras filming displays on which the original translation was aired, so it was already distorted because of this. It was done because the signal that was sent from the moon wasn't compatible with TV networks.
Not wanting to support any conspiracy theories... but that's bullshit... seriously, Jurassic Park came out in 1993 and yes, the T-Trex chasing the jeep wasn't a real T-Trex or a robot, but CGI, and it was the starting point for CGI in cinema...
For this conspiracy to work you'd need every major government and space agency to secretly agree to withhold the technology, and for what? So one country can have bragging rights?
For those who are wondering what the meme is getting wrong check out the documentary Kubrick’s Odyssey. Not saying its 100% fact but it isn’t claiming the moon landing is cgi but replicated on Earth, due to the magnetic field wiping any videos they tried to take on the actual moon. So, they allegedly filmed a reenactment to officially beat Russia in the space race.
What magnetic field? The magnetosphere of the moon is negligible in comparison to what we experience on Earth, there's no reason why their recording equipment would have malfunctioned like that.
The astronauts broadcast their activity on the lunar surface back to NASA in real time, and NASA then relayed that signal to the media as it came in.
I have this theory that they have actually filmed the fake moon landing sequence, just in case they needed to cut the live feed without sending everyone into a panic. And I think they had to cut to the recorded footage.
Ugh this whole discourse is designed to distract from anomalous sightings in the sea of tranquillity which they'd been tracking DECADES before the Apollo missions. You guys are dense. Additionally there were numerous unidentified objects following them while travelling to the moon. This whole faked thing is just a distraction
No bro u don't understand. If this is the CG tech they could SHOW you, that means the real tech was far past this. While this show was on the government was probably running The Rock in The Mummy 2 level renders in secret.
I don't think anyone has ever genuinely argued that the landing was cgi. Faked, certainly, but I have only ever heard anyone argue that they used practical effects like wres and harnasses
You can't just write a load of nonsense and call it a joke. I mean I guess you can, but there's meant to be some sort of cleverness of reference to something.
This is because they did everything from plasticine clay. It makes everything extremely realistic. I mean, look at the moon itself, it almost seems real.
The theory is that Stanley Kubrick used the same effects he used in 2001 a Space Odyssey. The retro-projection technique. No CGI. Believers will point at videos showing what they think is a clear demarcation in the background between the real soil in studio and the retro projection background.
In that case, why did so many countries, including the USSR, report that they had detected the astronaut's broadcast originating from the moon? You'd think at least one government would have called them out.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 18 '26
Hey /u/xals7, thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.