>>4188707>More photos of a movie set doesn't make it more real.If it was a movie set it would be plainly obvious on 6x6 film. It could not be hidden. Even today that shit is hard to hide with CGI (they always miss something). Back in the 1960s it was impossible. Did you even look at the picture I attached to that post? "Muh Space Odyssey" is an obvious Hollywood fake, and that was the best anyone could do in the world up until that time.
>They wouldn't have used matte paintings for backdrops but instead used front screen projection.That's also plainly obvious at Super35 resolution. You think it would be less obvious at 6x6?
>>4188723The archive includes ground photos, flight photos, and all Apollo missions, not just the ones that landed on the moon. That only lends to its credibility though. Trying to fake that many photos, shots of the Earth from space at different distances/times, shots of the moon at different locations, etc, etc. would have required hundreds, if not thousands, of sets, paintings, etc. Even if the FX tech had existed to make convincing fakes back then, it would have been more FX work than any major film. Than all major films up to that point. Try to imagine duplicating all the Earth shots while making sure the weather matched the real weather at the time of the shot, without CGI, and without getting caught due to the high resolution of 6x6.
We went.
