Nah. I am focusing on the relevant. That they had no way to fake those early videos at the level they exist. Today they still haven't achieved anything with computer generated ones that are as realistic as those if you zoom in on them.
Calling it fake when the evidence they presented could not be faked at the time to me seems like choosing a dogmatic path.
If you can show me a way that those videos could have been made that would not leave noticeable artifacts in the process then you might convince me. Until then simply saying they are fake doesn't cut it.
As to things like deep fakes today... I often tell people seeing is no longer believing. Why? Most things can be easily faked.
The Nuclear explosions could likely very convincingly be faked today if a lot of effort was put into it. Every example I've seen still has the artifacts if you know what to look for.
People, static things, animals, vehicles, etc. Those can easily be faked today.
Complex particle systems with the sheer number in those explosions and behaving the way they do. That is very difficult.
"choosing to focus on all the irrelevant crap"
You mean the fact the videos from early on were not faked?
How is that irrelevant?
EDIT: Another way you might convince me. Prove to me we have time machines, devoted a ton of time to faking the video today or in the future and sent someone back into the 1940s to present the faked videos.
If this was not a complex particle system you'd have an easier time convincing me as people do amazing things with special effects. One place they still fail at is particle systems.