NVIDIA Simulation Debunks Apollo 11 Moon Landing Hoax

I have always believed we landed on the moon, however this:

originally posted by: eightfold
...NVIDIA...


...Open Source...

... is hard to believe.

we went thier 6 times, and thousands of people worked on the program.
So, how coud we fake it that many times with that big of a crowd??

We went, period.

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: eightfold

The tech to fake the moonlanding did not exist in the 60's.
Everything else is mere details.

Case closed!

I don't go either way in this debate but isn't your claim bit of an oxymoron? Let's say we really did send humans THROUGH THE VACUUM OF SPACE, but the tech to fake it didn't excist? Anyone else see irony or am I just crazy?

a reply to: DogMeat

400,000 people to be precise. And if we didn't go,then Kennedy Space Centre has to be the biggest and most accurate theme park in the world,but having been there and been close enough to ALMOST touch it,I really have no doubt that what I'm seeing with my own eyes really did carry humans to a world that's not our own and back.
Nothing and again absolutely no so called 'evidence' I've ever seen has even given me the glimmer of a though that said 'Hey,maybe he's got a point and it is a conspiracy after all'.To my dying day I'll take with me to the grave the knowledge that twelve Americans with balls of steel actually did walk on the moon.

originally posted by: Flesh699

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: eightfold

The tech to fake the moonlanding did not exist in the 60's.
Everything else is mere details.

Case closed!

I don't go either way in this debate but isn't your claim bit of an oxymoron? Let's say we really did send humans THROUGH THE VACUUM OF SPACE, but the tech to fake it didn't excist? Anyone else see irony or am I just crazy?

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...

this is the irrational part I do understand...with our intense interest in space, to have never gone back since the 60's is just so suspicious...we are now 50 YEARS PAST, a half a century since then...and...we have still never went back?....for any reason?????...something is wrong.

originally posted by: Imagewerx
a reply to: DogMeat

400,000 people to be precise. And if we didn't go,then Kennedy Space Centre has to be the biggest and most accurate theme park in the world,but having been there and been close enough to ALMOST touch it,I really have no doubt that what I'm seeing with my own eyes really did carry humans to a world that's not our own and back.
Nothing and again absolutely no so called 'evidence' I've ever seen has even given me the glimmer of a though that said 'Hey,maybe he's got a point and it is a conspiracy after all'.To my dying day I'll take with me to the grave the knowledge that six Americans with balls of steel actually did walk on the moon.

6 missions landed, 2 moon walkers per mission (plus one command module pilot), so 12 Americans walked on the moon.

a reply to: jimmyx

I think it's because the Moon is close, we can observe it from Earth. We've brought back samples, and have orbited craft to photograph it.

There's nothing that requires us to spend the money to go back -- there's literally no real big reason to.

Sure, H3 may exist as a fuel source ... but there are current forms of energy on Earth that are cheaper to extract. Humans are like mold, we go where we NEED to go to survive. We eat up all our resources locally and then move on.

originally posted by: Flesh699

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: eightfold

The tech to fake the moonlanding did not exist in the 60's.
Everything else is mere details.

Case closed!

I don't go either way in this debate but isn't your claim bit of an oxymoron? Let's say we really did send humans THROUGH THE VACUUM OF SPACE, but the tech to fake it didn't excist? Anyone else see irony or am I just crazy?

You are not thinking logically. Post ww2 tech was what lead to the moon landing (it was all about rocket science), Wernher von Braun helped NASA.

The tech to fake it only exists today due to decades of development in digital media. Digital media was not decades in development while ww2 was going on, so they would not have been able to fake it.

Watch this movie and then lets see you say "u don't go either way in this debate".



ETA: a reply to: ngchunter Lol hunter beat me to it....

originally posted by: Flesh699

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: eightfold

The tech to fake the moonlanding did not exist in the 60's.
Everything else is mere details.

Case closed!

I don't go either way in this debate but isn't your claim bit of an oxymoron? Let's say we really did send humans THROUGH THE VACUUM OF SPACE, but the tech to fake it didn't excist? Anyone else see irony or am I just crazy?

The best tech NASA could get together as the very best at the time was the flight computer that had just 16 kb of memory,the average TV remote control now has more than that.They didn't have the tech to electronically convert the slow scan TV pictures from the moon to the faster scan rate used by broadcast TV,so they put a broadcast TV camera inside a makeshift wooden box pointing at a monitor showing the slow scan images from the moon.Now Maplins sell TV standard convertors for about £30 that are about the size of a couple of packets of cigarettes that work just about anywhere in the world.
Proper CGI that would have been needed to simulate people working in weightless conditions wasn't available until 10 years after the first moon landings.This was of course ILM (Industrial Light and magic),a company formed to make the first Star Wars film.NASA even had to use ILM and their motion tracking cameras to film the first Shuttle test flights because they didn't have anything of their own that could do this.

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: eightfold

The tech to fake the moonlanding did not exist in the 60's.
Everything else is mere details.

Case closed!

2001: ASO and Stanley Kubrick disagree.
It's more likely we faked it than went.

a reply to: ngchunter
Yes and sorry,typed it too quickly but have corrected it now.

originally posted by: jimmyx

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...

this is the irrational part I do understand...with our intense interest in space, to have never gone back since the 60's is just so suspicious...we are now 50 YEARS PAST, a half a century since then...and...we have still never went back?....for any reason?????...something is wrong.

It was a very different time, and we spent far more of our budget on NASA back then than we do now. We don't build Saturn V rockets anymore. Soon we'll have the SLS but unfortunately the Altair lander was cancelled. Believe me, those who went regret that we stopped going.

Lunar orbit is very much in the cards for the Orion spacecraft. It's quite possible though that the next president could direct NASA to procure a lunar lander after the SLS is operational. The SLS itself is the biggest expense and rate limiting step to getting back to the moon. At the moment though the direction is to tow an asteroid into lunar orbit for future exploration by an Orion spacecraft, followed by missions to Mars.

originally posted by: stargatetravels

originally posted by: combatmaster
a reply to: eightfold

The tech to fake the moonlanding did not exist in the 60's.
Everything else is mere details.

Case closed!

2001: ASO and Stanley Kubrick disagree.
It's more likely we faked it than went.

Wrong. 2001: ASO looks nothing like the actual Apollo footage and is missing multiple crucial points in the actual Apollo footage that prove it was real and could not have been faked with 60's technology. Try watching the above video.

originally posted by: jimmyx

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...

this is the irrational part I do understand...with our intense interest in space, to have never gone back since the 60's is just so suspicious...we are now 50 YEARS PAST, a half a century since then...and...we have still never went back?....for any reason?????...something is wrong.

Yes indeed, something is very very wrong. Nvidea telling the world it was the space suit of Armstrong who did the lightning.

Sorry people, apollo is a hoax !

a reply to: ngchunter


You said we didn't have the technology, we did.
We had the film sets, sfx and motivation.
I'm not saying it was faked or that I belive it was faked, just that it's possible it was.
If you honestly think it was easier to actually go there, land, take off and get back to earth than it was to use sets, studios and sfx, then I don't know what to say quite honestly.

It's not arguing whether we did land or not, just that we could have faked it - it would be much easier than actually going.
In reality it was probably a mix of the two.

a reply to: ngchunter
a reply to: stargatetravels

Furthermore, Kubrick was not using a 10fps non-interlaced slow-scan tv camera.

a reply to: DAZ21

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

And cost a thousand times more.

a reply to: intrptr

Not really, if we could use the state of the art of yesteryear today, it will be relatively cheap. I mean there's no reason why we can't use old technology and knowledge, it got us there once right?

originally posted by: jimmyx
this is the irrational part I do understand...with our intense interest in space, to have never gone back since the 60's is just so suspicious...we are now 50 YEARS PAST, a half a century since then...and...we have still never went back?....for any reason?????...something is wrong.

The USA decided to concentrate their time and resources on developing the Shuttle program (which, at its heart, had national defence applications such as spying and weapons delivery system) and the International Space Station. After the courageous "conquering" of the Moon, the decision was to "conquer" the low earth orbit, which is much closer to home and of more immediate importance.