It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NVIDIA Simulation Debunks Apollo 11 Moon Landing Hoax

page: 2
35
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   

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.


Why spend money to prove something that already is a known fact?
Besides there is orbiter imagery of the landing site with flag and track marks the whole nine yards.




posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Landing stuff on the moon seems reasonable. The moon could have just about anything manmade on it. A machine could have landed and scooped up some moon rocks and come back to Earth.

The astronauts didn't move around like they weighed only 60 lbs, They should have been able to jump into the LEM without the ladder. Or jump really high and fall back really slow. And they never did.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

Taking a picture of the moon from earth doesn't prove a man has walked on it. I'll just wait until they put the next man on the moon for verifiable proof.

I don't know when we will truly have the capability to do so, could be after my lifetime but one day we will do it.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace
Cool stuff. I have always understood that light in that shadowed part of the Apollo image comes from sunlight reflected off the lunar surface. It's a no-brainer, really. The Sun is blindingly bright, and even the relatively dark surface of the Moon (similar to worn asphalt) would reflect enough of it for a photo like that.

Mythbusters did an excellent physical simulation which proved this point.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
As for the point that the technology didn't exist in the 60's to fake it, excellent point detailed by this excellent video:



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAZ21
a reply to: ngchunter

Taking a picture of the moon from earth doesn't prove a man has walked on it.

Wow. That has literally nothing to do with anything I just said. Wow. I'm actually shocked at how massive the gulf in that non-sequitur is. I did not say ANYTHING about "taking a picture of the moon from earth to prove man has walked on it."
edit on 19-9-2014 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: eightfold

So who set up the camera?



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

Voodoo 5...lol that thing had 4 GPU's on one card. Two things had to happen when using that card:

1 - your electric bill went up

2- your room was never cold in the winter

Edit: My bad the 6000 had 4 GPU's the 5500 had 2
edit on 19-9-2014 by Nucleardoom because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Or jump really high and fall back really slow. And they never did.

False. A priori assumption which does not take into account ANY of the actual complications including:
The fact that they could barely bend their legs inside their space suits and had to jump flat footed.
The fact that their very lives depended on the life support system that they were wearing on their backs which was also very massive and offset their center of gravity such that they would fall on their backs if they jumped too hard

And yes, Charlie Duke did just that and was very lucky he didn't damage his PLSS. He realized immediately after he had done it how stupid that was.
www.youtube.com...
edit on 19-9-2014 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

You believe in satellite imagery pics, that could easily be manipulated?

This site is meant to be about denying ignorance. If people are so ready to believe in things, it makes sense how religion has fooled the whole world, and how Jesus did a few magic tricks and people thought he was the son of God.

You always need to ask, is what I'm being told the truth? Why did this event happen? When did this event happen? What was the significance of such an event?

It's only when we are shown a trick twice, that we begin to understand that's all it really is..
edit on 19-9-2014 by DAZ21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAZ21
a reply to: ngchunter

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.


There's plenty of proof. We've got all the image data, the Chinese images of the landing site etc etc etc. Nobody's going to sponsor a whole mission just to check that there were previous missions. :-)

Seriously, I could spend all day listing the existing evidence. There's no point in turning the thread into a debate about all the other if's and's and maybe's about the landings, there's thousands of posts that've already covered them all.

What do you make of the simulation?



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: ugmold
a reply to: eightfold

So who set up the camera?


To take a picture of Aldrin emerging from the LEM? That would be Armstrong. You know, the first guy on the moon's surface?



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Nucleardoom

Haha, yes. : ) My electric bills were huuuuuge.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAZ21
a reply to: eightfold

But that's what annoys me...

With technology today it would be a thousand times easier to pull off a moon landing.


Not really. What has improved is electronics, communications and computing. The main issue of getting to the moon and back is a great big rocket to escape Earth's gravity and carry a payload to the moon.



Also, if they did put some rover up there at least with a high definition camera and went to the site of the moon landing, I'm sure there would still be evidence of the moon landing. This would once and for all prove the moon landing was in fact real and they'd finally shut every one up.


It would, and I can't wait for them to do that, but you need to persuade someone with the money to pay for it.




It's almost as if they don't want to prove they've walked on the moon...


They don't need to, because they went.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ugmold

Who set up the camera? : )

Neil Armstrong did. It's all heavily documented. While stepping outside the capsule he deployed a thing called the Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly (MESA). That provided the footage of the first step.

Armstrong was then 'on the ground' to film Aldrin stepping out, which is what we're talking about. I think they were using Hasslebad chest mounted cameras with Kodak film, although I could be wrong as (like you), I can't be bothered to use a search engine. ;-)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

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? 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??

And if this exists already can someone post it, because I can't find anything anywhere...


Wow! There are already people complaining about a Mars mission and the costs....except that a Mars mission makes sense due to various reasons.

There is from a scientifically point of view NOTHING interesting on the moon, so why should we spend millions/billions on new moon projects "to shoot HD footage of rocks, rocks and more rocks"?



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I myself believe in the secret space program and think there is a lot more going on than people realize when it comes to the moon. As for the landing itself I think they did go but I also think some of the footage was filmed on Earth. Then again I like the idea that Earth is in quarantine and ET's warned us off the moon and that's why we've never been back.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: eightfold

Ok on the simulation I'm still not convinced.

We see through one of the legs of the craft, there is a shiney object, which I'm taking is the suit from one of the astronauts. Now if that astronaut was standing filming the one we see jumping around then it's possible the light could have bounced from him and lit up the area in question. But instead we know that the other astronaut is on the other side, which is the shine we see through the crafts leg. This would mean that the light would hit the astronaut that we see jumping, but it would hit the other side of him that we don't see.

The side we view from should be dark and in shadow. I've got a lot of experience using programs and software which they used to recreate this scene, and everyone knows you can add various light sources and play with many advanced functions. To just take this at face value and say wow I guess they were right is very naive.

Especially as it has obviously been created by the side trying to prove that the moon landing wasn't a hoax.

To verify this I'd need to look at the modelling and construction of the scene and the lighting effects in question to say for definite that yes, this is legitimate. Otherwise it's as much evidence as the moon landing footage itself.
edit on 19-9-2014 by DAZ21 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: DAZ21

Take a look at the links from ngchunter, specifically the Mythbusters ones. Basically the same thing as this Nvidia simulation except they show the entire setup so you can tell where the light source is, etc.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAZ21
a reply to: eightfold
The side we view from should be dark and in shadow. I've got a lot of experience using programs and software which they used to recreate this scene, and everyone knows you can add various light sources and play with many advanced functions. To just take this at face value and say wow I guess they were right is very naive.

Then show where the simulation is fake, it's an open source engine. It's not up to us to prove a negative. And oh by the way, physical simulations with the same type of camera used in Apollo show that you're wrong too.
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
Indirect lighting from the lunar surface itself around the LEM is why the scene should NOT be "dark and in shadow."
edit on 19-9-2014 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Helium 3, and its abundance on the moon's surface. He3 is the ideal fuel for nuclear fusion, just like the sun. It is one of the few elements to have more protons then neutrons. That is what makes it attractive for fusion research. The only He3 on earth I think comes from the atmosphere around nuclear tests done prior to the test ban treaty. Here is an article that talks about it and why it could fetch 40 times it weight in gold. a reply to: NoRulesAllowed



www.popularmechanics.com...



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join