>This is the strongest counter argument to this one I've found, and in light of the flaws we sometimes catch in today's deepfakes, I find it a compelling line of argument. >And the deepfakes today are usually creepy good, when they aren't green screening Biden's hands in front of the press mics. And that's the classified technology, not your civvy-tier-tech, spank-bank-stash of AOC sucking dick. The idea that they had better in the 60s is magical thinking on a tranny PMS level. AI generated CG is still in it's infancy and still glitches a lot, this does not prove that physical effects techniques (which were mature in the 1960s) could not produce a believable result. >I'd be super interested in hearing counterarguments from anybody with the AV chops to engage this from a technical angle. I've seen that video, it's a retarded strawman. He's saying that because there wasn't commercially available equipment back then to fake the moonlanding videos using digital video playback that it must have been live and they couldn't possible have pulled off a fake all in one take like that. * They could easily have prerecorded it on high quality film, then transmitted a projection. This was common practice in studios at the time. * The footage is low quality enough that we have no idea if it was a single take. There's enough noise and glitches that it could easily have been splicted together from multiple takes.