NVIDIA Simulation Debunks Apollo 11 Moon Landing Hoax

names of the astronauts who have walked on the Moon, and most people would be able to list Neil Armstrong, and maybe even Buzz Aldrin. But can you name the rest of the Apollo astronauts who made it down to the lunar surface? In total twelve people have walked on the Moon. Besides Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin – who were the first two astronauts to leave their bootprints on the Moon — there were also Pete Conrad, Alan Bean, Alan Shepard, Edgar Mitchell, David Scott, James Irwin, John Young, Charles Duke, Eugene Cernan, and Harrison Schmitt.

Interestingly, out of the dozen people who walked on the Moon, no one ever did it more than once.

a reply to: Quadlink

True. but John Young and Gene Cernan both went twice - once to orbit and once to land. Jim Lovell also went twice, but obviously never got down to the surface.

It has been my privilege to meet three of the people on that list of moonwalkers.

Excellent, so it has taken 40 years and a sophisticated computer program, to reproduce the quality of a 1960s vintage camera, stuck on a man's chest, that he could'nt adjust or twiddle the knobs because of thick gloves.

Bravo chaps.

I think it is fairly well proven that man walked on the Moon.

What has always been in dispute, is whether the photographs (some of them) the famous ones, were actually taken at the time, on the moon.

Funny how the Pictures of walking off the LM etc are Sooooo perfect, but pictures of the astronauts walking to the Saturn 5 elevator and getting dressed in their Moon outfits are all blurry and amateurish.

I think it is still highly likely that the "Official" Moon spectacular photos, were taken in a film studio,, and may not even be of Armstrong or Buzz at all...just random people.. actors. Armstrong and Buzz may have Never known that the photos were staged. (tho that seems unlikely).

I still cant take photos as good as their "Chest" ones, with a modern digital camera.

We do know that Stanley Kubrick was consulted by NASA. Dont we?

originally posted by: gort51
Excellent, so it has taken 40 years and a sophisticated computer program, to reproduce the quality of a 1960s vintage camera, stuck on a man's chest, that he could'nt adjust or twiddle the knobs because of thick gloves.

Bravo chaps.

I actually think that's a strong argument in favour of history - look at what they had to develop to create the effect of being on the lunar surface. Did they have this then? Mo. They had to go to the moon. They could make some adjuestments to settings - they had large paddles that could be moved with gloves.

I think it is fairly well proven that man walked on the Moon.

What has always been in dispute, is whether the photographs (some of them) the famous ones, were actually taken at the time, on the moon.

Funny how the Pictures of walking off the LM etc are Sooooo perfect, but pictures of the astronauts walking to the Saturn 5 elevator and getting dressed in their Moon outfits are all blurry and amateurish.

That's not true - there are many photographs on the surface that are very badly composed, out of focus and so on. When I publish photos on the web for people to admire, I don't show the bad ones. NASA did the same with the ones they issued to the press. Look at the entire photo library and you'll see how many bad ones there are.

A lot of the pre-launch images are TV stills, and the stills themselves are taken by completely different cameras in completely different conditions.

I think it is still highly likely that the "Official" Moon spectacular photos, were taken in a film studio,, and may not even be of Armstrong or Buzz at all...just random people.. actors. Armstrong and Buzz may have Never known that the photos were staged. (tho that seems unlikely).

I still cant take photos as good as their "Chest" ones, with a modern digital camera.

So where were the sets? Who delivered the materials? Who built them? Who dismantled them? Who were the fake astronauts? How did they get all the time and date specific images of Earth from the lunar surface and on the way there and back?

The astronauts spent quite some time learning how to use the best cameras and lenses available. Maybe you need to take some photography classes? Or buy a better camera

We do know that Stanley Kubrick was consulted by NASA. Dont we?

No, we don't. Kubrick consulted NASA and NASA provided a lot of help. Kubrick used a lens that NASA used, but he had to buy it from the manufacturers just like they did.

a reply to: smurfy

For me the most convincing evidence - not that I need it are the videos of them driving around in the moon buggy. It is apparently happening in a lower gravity. Second is the money, effort, and preparation put into every detail of the mission which is tremendous. The meticulous details into the designs of things - like the space suit they used. (I saw a really good long documentary on it btw, which is why I experienced these things.) Many, many people poured their entire lives into the several missions to the moon.

originally posted by: gort51
Funny how the Pictures of walking off the LM etc are Sooooo perfect

In terms of the camera and film, they used the best that they had at the time. They used the 70mm film, which has superior resolution to the regular 35mm film. It was still better than your compact camera or iPhone, because it didn't have pixellisation and jpeg compression.

As for the Apollo astronauts taking perfect pictures all the time, it's a myth. They took plenty of poorly-composed images, out of focus images, underexposed or overexposed images, and accidental images. Have a browse through the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal to see hundreds of the images, including the bad ones.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

~~~

P.S. just for the fun of it, I decided to make a mosaic of Armstrong's images of Buzz exiting the LM:

www.pictureshack.us...
Interactive version: photosynth.net...

a reply to: eightfold

If anything, this proves a single light source could produce such an anomaly. Nothing else.

As to whether the moon landings were faked, here's my take. I believe the U.S. did land on the moon. However, I don't believe the footage shown to the public was authentic. Here's why:

realitysandwich.com...

And considering Stanley Kubricks tendency to include hidden messages in his films, the following scene from his 1980 film The Shining, is the nail in the coffin for me:

www.youtube.com...


To me, Kubrick is depicting one of two things in this scene. Either it's his experience with the sinister global elite during the filming of the faux moon landing, or the events which really took place during the actual moon landing...


I can only imagine what horror they must have faced if the old hag in the bathtub is the analogical representation...

hmmm unreal !!.... if you can simulate something it must be real.

a reply to: eightfold

unreal
But 2 questions where is the video of the simulation i couldn't find it.
Which physics engine is used ? and is it possible to just for fun change gravity on decent. I'm curious what the walkingspeed is a different g.

originally posted by: wildespace
P.S. just for the fun of it, I decided to make a mosaic of Armstrong's images of Buzz exiting the LM:

www.pictureshack.us...
Interactive version: photosynth.net...

I just realised something when looking at this mosiac, which further debunks the claim that the shadowed part was lit by an artificial light on the NASA stage. The shadow from the LM falling on the ground is completely black. If there were an artificial light as claimed, that part of the ground would get some light just like the LM and Buzz did. But the shadow is black, which corresponds with there being only one light source (the Sun) and the reflected light bouncing upwards (to illuminate the LM and Buzz).

originally posted by: gort51

Funny how the Pictures of walking off the LM etc are Sooooo perfect

Perfect?


Not really...


Ummm...


NO.


Perhaps you were thinking of this one?


That's the edited version. This is the unedited one:


It's centered on Aldrin's shin, severely tilted and very close to cutting off the top of Aldrin's head, ruining one of the most iconic images of the Space Age. NASA freely provides the original anyway, and it is magazine editors and public affairs types who pretty it up for public consumption. So it is with many of the photos you see, not just of moonwalks, but news stories, advertisements and your friends' vacation photos.

originally posted by: gort51
We do know that Stanley Kubrick was consulted by NASA. Dont we?

No, we don't, and no they didn't. I don't know why people hold-up "2001" as the apotheosis of accurate special effects. When I look at it, I see shot after shot of egregious errors in accuracy, exposures and continuity. One of these days I'm going to list them shot-by-shot.

a reply to: shadowsinthecave

Egad! There's so much wrong here, it'd take a week to wade through it all. Here's what I have time for now:

originally posted by: shadowsinthecave
With due respect, it doesn't take much to convince you. Lighting is one small shard of evidence, and if you've looked into it, the lighting anomalies and photographic evidence of doctoring is extensive. However, I urge you to go beyond lighting and examine the differences between the film footage and photographs of the LEM ladder. The descent ladder in the film footage of the Apollo 11 is NOT THE SAME LADDER AS IN THE STILLS. The film footage shows a large sturdy ladder, very much like an aluminum ladder that house painters use, whereas the stills show a tiny little prissy ladder, which is the kind of ladder you would expect on the moon. The differences are hugely obvious.

Demonstrably wrong. Here is the ladder as shown on TV:


Here is the ladder as photographed (cropped from AS11-40-5872):


That rectangular thing is the holder for the American flag.


You can read about it here, and see the the astronauts removing it and setting-up the flag here.

a reply to: eightfold

People ! We went to the MOON ! More time needs to be spent fixing real problems, and less time making up this crap.

This is off topic. a reply to: Nucleardoom

Come on buddyTo what end?
a reply to: DAZ21

originally posted by: DAZ21
a reply to: ngchunter

Hmm... The fact that your telescope is many miles away and a rover on the moon would prove, one we could land on the moon and two film the landing site evidence for proof.

If we've done it already, then let's do it in this millennium. Why would you even argue against not going again, if we can prove it once and for all?

And to those arguing that my wanting proof is ignorance, is just stupidity. I need actual 100% verifiable truth before I believe in anything. Yes I'm willing to go up there too. There'd be no denying then.

Soooo NASA should go there again so a luddite like yourself would believe they went in the first place?
That seems like a good reason to spend billions of dollars.

You say you need "100% verifiable truth before I believe in anything"?
What would you consider "100% verifiable truth"to be?
Why isn't the evidence which has been around for nearly half a century enough for you?

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: DAZ21
That's quite interesting.

But why don't we have modern astronauts with modern cameras on the moon showing us in high definition today?

We don't build Saturn V's anymore.

At the very least can they send up a remote control vehicle with some HD camera attached that we can get some real visuals of the moon surface rather than telescope imagery??

I'm sorry, since when is there a mutual exclusivity between "HD cameras" and "telescope imagery?" I happen to have an HD camera for my telescope? The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter also has an "HD camera" on its "telescope" LROC.
apollo.mem-tek.com...
apollo.mem-tek.com...
apollo.mem-tek.com...
apollo.mem-tek.com...

Those are way cool. I can see the lander and the tire tracks from the rover. Thanks for posting that!

My God these moon hoax threads are painful. Here's a simple thing for you to consider: Before you post, if your statement in the face of facts and proofs is going to be ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE TO "Yeah, well it just doesn't feel right to me" please do the rest of us a favor and don't bother. If that's all you've got, you are either trolling or willfully ignorant, both of which run contrary to the purpose of this site and are just a huge waste of everyone else's time...

a reply to: raytheo

but like most things if you work backwards so that the guy can bounce 8ft off the moon surface it will require certain parameters and assuming normal physics you can tell the settings of the software

I always wondered.. why arent there any pictures of stars in the background or even pics of stars in space? with no atmosphere no skyies and clouds you should have the best view EVER im talking about trillions of stars..

And a another thing bothering me is that Russians who was way ahead of USA in the space race in 50s-60s..

Im talking about first in space satellites space stations and cosmonauts/astnonauts hours in space.

Problem they had was the radiation of the sun.. otherwords the cosmonauts would get sick or could die if they were to far away from the earth protecting shield -

you would need to use other materials with no windows on the craft what could block some radiation but that would it make to way to heavy... so they used robots instead

eather way 1969-72 with No problem at all do the moon landings and then NEVER again.. WHY?

Even today when china went to the moon NO astronauts... You would think that over 40years there would be at least 1 more try if it is so easy?

IT really doesnt make anysense- to build robots instead send astronauts if there is no health issues..