Here's plenty of evidence of CGI :
And Aerostatic Balloons carrying Satellites is what they've been using for at least 2 decades, not just some test.
And Aerostatic Balloons obviously cannot reach Space.
There is no hard proof that any Satellite or Spacecraft ever got out of the Van Hallen belts or Exosphere.
I'd like to believe in Space Exploration but unfortunately without evidence it is only a fantasy, and the only evidence actually points to a Conspiracy to deceive humanity.
Instead of sending me compilations of "CGI Proofs" how about you send me one with direct source and timestamp (not only that the video saying how they fake it is clearly viewed in an editting program and is extremely blurry just so it's hard to make it out, so practically you have to believe his word). On the video on faking watching the first three minutes makes me literally immediately click off, what they are clearly saying in the video is that NASA apparently has augment reality contact lenses? Do you know how big this technology would be and ontop of that in real time? Most of this technology is recent development and is extremely bulky. So now please come back with some actual evidence then rather go off what other people tell you what to believe.
the 2nd video I agree is debatable, though augmented contact lenses already exist (military has them and samsung even has a consumer model coming), and it's the only way to explain why the "astronaut" is moving an object which isn't there.
But in the 1st video there's lots of undeniable evidence of CGI (transparent arm etc), harnesses , under water diving (bubbles in space?).....if you can't see it is because you don't want to see it.
Could I have original sources for 1st video (I'd rather have a reputable source that can't be influenced by flat earth, just to prove your point do it), it would be quite nice. Also please give me some proof for the contact lenses, because just modern day headsets for VR require powerful computers to run and they have to plugged in all the time. Yes wireless alternatives now exist but still nonetheless the technology is quite bulky and the resolution for these "Virtual" images wouldn't be quite life like atleast in real time with such "small devices".
If you knew what video information looks like in the code, you would know that is exactly what you see when there is a disturbance in the signal.
It proves nothing except that a video downlink can be imperfect at times.
I hope you get damaged further.
"Waaaaa, I downvoted you but now I'm getting downvoted and it's not fair and you're all a bunch of meanies WAAAAAA!"
LOL