The problem with the CGI argument is that there is all kinds of footage from Skylab, for example, the predates CGI by at least a decade plus.
Skylab footage can be found that:
- Is not CGI because it didn't exist at the time
Or so we're told.
We had badass CGI decades before we were exposed to badass CGI? I've never seen any evidence of this. If you have some evidence of such, lay it on me.
- No "cable" systems as combination of movements preclude any known single take cabling techniques
Or so we're told.
"So we're told" is sort of a toddler's response. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present.
- Clips exist that are far longer than the 30 seconds or so max of a vomit comet
A vomit comet isn't the only scenario.
What are some other scenarios that allow for weightlessness like a vomet comet where there is no water, cables, or CGI?
- And they are obviously not under water
Many clips suggest they are.
Many clips suggest they are not. What about those?
So back in the early seventies they were either up in what we consider Space and in a weightless environment or I don't know what. No other explanation seems to fit.
Of course, to you because you believe it all. I wouldn't expect you to think any differently, to be fair.
Obviously, I wouldn't expect you to "think" differently, to be fair. That's not what I'm after. I'm looking for evidence, you know, facts and such. Not "So we are tolds", which means literally nothing as i could say that about almost everything.
I just can't figure out how they did these super long uninterrupted shots with some complex movements with GCI (didn't exist at the time), Vomit Comet (Too long), Underwater (Too long and doesn't at all look underwater considering movements), Cabling (Can't see how you could moved in all axis directions simultaneously, pirouette, move around fixed objects, etc., all in single long takes)
You have to watch on Youtube, but's kinda interesting 6+ minutes of jumping around (Start around a minute in):
Here are some highlights that I can't explain away other than by the conventional reasoning: