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: 5
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I still don't buy the moon landing.




posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boeing777
I still don't buy the moon landing.

And youre still not denying ignorance.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ngchunter

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...


Suit and astronaut inside of suit together weighed 60 pounds.

Weight != Mass. Two different things. Still flat footed, still offset center of mass. Everything I said stands.


Jumping out of the LM door to a landing the surface of the moon would have less impact than jumping up and down on Earth.

Doesn't matter. There is still a lot of mass involved and a lot of inertia, and to make matters worse you'd be landing on your life support system on a jagged lunar surface and rocks that could damage it. A 60 pound astronaut (who still has about 163 kg of MASS) falling from about 17 feet up (the height of the LEM) on the moon would land with a velocity of about 14.4 km/hr and hit with a force of about 1306 joules. To put that in perspective, a major league hitter can swing a 40 ounce bat somewhere around 60 mph or so.
www.acs.psu.edu...
That works out to an energy of only about 408 joules. So falling from the LM door to the surface on your back would result in several times more energy imparted to the PLSS than a major league baseball player swinging a bat as hard as he can at it. That doesn't sound safe or less impactful to me. An average 20-29 year old male can jump about 19.7 inches high. The force of a 50kg male jumping that high is only about 245 Joules. Any questions?


And yes, I already showed you the jumps that proved the really could jump high if they wanted, if you want to live in denial that is your issue.
edit on 19-9-2014 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: ugmold

originally posted by: ngchunter

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?


No, of Armstrong with his "One small step for man....

Well that would be Armstrong when he pulled the lanyard to deploy the MESA which had the Westinghouse camera already inside of it ready to activate.
www.hq.nasa.gov...


Thanks.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ngchunter

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...


Suit and astronaut inside of suit together weighed 60 pounds.

Weight != Mass. Two different things. Still flat footed, still offset center of mass. Everything I said stands.


Jumping out of the LM door to a landing the surface of the moon would have less impact than jumping up and down on Earth.

Doesn't matter. There is still a lot of mass involved and a lot of inertia, and to make matters worse you'd be landing on your life support system on a jagged lunar surface and rocks that could damage it.

And yes, I already showed you the jumps that proved the really could jump high if they wanted, if you want to live in denial that is your issue.

Again that's right, the backpack had to be countered intuitively to maintain a centre of gravity, as long as that was done, one foot in front of the other..AKA walking, was the best way to go. The total garb with backpack was 180lbs.
Anyway, I find it curious why NVIDIA felt the need to prove the very first Apollo 11 pictures as if the Moon landings were considered a hoax, we know Apollo 11 went there, why not just land, what's the difference?
edit on 19-9-2014 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boeing777
I still don't buy the moon landing.

That's because you are in the third dimemsion..it says so in your Avatar.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Can someone answer one of the most/if not the most obvious question for these debunkers.

Wouldn't Russia have proven that we didn't land on the moon if we indeed had not?

It's quite obvious the moon landing was to show the world how superior we were technologically over the Russians, yet I have never heard a good excuse for this. Unless it's as simple as, "Russia couldn't have known whether we did or did not because they had no satellites, no telescopes, and no technology to prove or disprove."

Yet, the most apparent answer to this conspiracy is the US did land on the moon because Russia and now China have gone there and would probably LOVE to shoot down one of the greatest moments in American history. But I'm sure certain conspiracy theorist will just say that Russia and China are ruled by some super secret society that rules America too and that's why they haven't blown the cover on the "faked moon landing."

It's simply not rational to believe the whole thing was faked. No matter how much of a conspiracy theorist I am, I am not beyond logic.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 07:36 PM
link   
This is easily the coolest article/video ive seen all day, excellent find and thanks for posting.

There were always other factors that were left out like ambient light reflections that simply could not be complicated for recreation that are sorry for the pun, highlighted here.

Of course off the back off this is the very exciting future generations of gaming immersion thats going to look and feel more real than ever for gaming enthusiasts.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Ok, rather than worry about the whole, did we go to the moon nonsense (so much proof we did it boggles the mind), I'm going to point out a few things that limit nvidia/unreals results.

The Unreal Engine is good, but it's designed for games, fast refresh rates, numbers in/numbers out as fast as possible. This means that the calculations to work out the scattering of how light bounces of every surface are very basic. The quality, intensity, vector and colour temp of light changes for every surface it interacts with, multiple orders of times. Unreal Engine does a quick approximation, but that's why games are still at that level where its easy to tell it's been computer rendered and isn't real life.

If it was good enough - the likes of Pixar and Dreamworks would use it for their films. They don't. They use a very computer intensive method of Raytracing to produce each frame which takes into account the many surface bounces of light and produces far more believable results. You can do it at home on your PC, but it might take a full day or more to produce 1 frame, depending on the level of accuracy in calculating all the bounces of light and how it scatters. Hence, they use massive computer 'farms' to render the movies to cut down time, but it's still an intensive process.

So, without even watching the OP's source (lazy I know), I have little doubt that what ever level of "proof" NVIDIA are claiming - I know they have cut mathematical corners and an approximated result, is not an accurate result.

edit on 19-9-2014 by Qumulys because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter


This is why I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that it isn't worth it to debate the matter with hoax believers.

About time. Ever stop to think that since the "it never happened" crowd will never change their stand that that is what they are purposefully doing?

To bad we can't see them in their natural environment. We'd be looking at each other, pointing at them and going Uh huh… I knew it.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ngchunter

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...


Suit and astronaut inside of suit together weighed 60 pounds.

Weight != Mass. Two different things. Still flat footed, still offset center of mass. Everything I said stands.


Jumping out of the LM door to a landing the surface of the moon would have less impact than jumping up and down on Earth.

Doesn't matter. There is still a lot of mass involved and a lot of inertia, and to make matters worse you'd be landing on your life support system on a jagged lunar surface and rocks that could damage it. A 60 pound astronaut (who still has about 163 kg of MASS) falling from about 17 feet up (the height of the LEM) on the moon would land with a velocity of about 14.4 km/hr and hit with a force of about 1306 joules. To put that in perspective, a major league hitter can swing a 40 ounce bat somewhere around 60 mph or so.
www.acs.psu.edu...
That works out to an energy of only about 408 joules. So falling from the LM door to the surface on your back would result in several times more energy imparted to the PLSS than a major league baseball player swinging a bat as hard as he can at it. That doesn't sound safe or less impactful to me. An average 20-29 year old male can jump about 19.7 inches high. The force of a 50kg male jumping that high is only about 245 Joules. Any questions?


And yes, I already showed you the jumps that proved the really could jump high if they wanted, if you want to live in denial that is your issue.


The height to the top of the lander is 17 feet, the height from the door to the lunar surface is more like 6 feet. That would be like jumping or dropping down 1 foot at 360 lbs, which isn't risk free i'll admit, but is done a lot by working people on Earth. Probably would have been done for convenience at some point over the several astronaut days on the moon.

Mass = Weight X Constant. They are directly proportional and are effectively the same.

Even so, G on the moon is 1/6 of Earth. That means the acceleration caused by G on the moon is 1/6 as fast. Not only would the astronaut jump higher but he would fall 6 times slower.

Sometimes when divers, ice skaters, and gymnasts rotate around their axis they are moving in 0g. The slow rate of fall would have allowed the astronaut to fall on his ventral side if he couldn't keep his balance. What's more, jumping down from 4 to 6 feet would have felt natural in 1/6 Earth gravity and it would have looked uniquely different.

Any stunt done on the moon would have felt like a natural short cut, not like a maximum effort, perhaps not even a conscious effort.

None of them ever showed a 6 times slower decent rate of anything.


edit on 19-9-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Haha likewise...

You know I don't blame you for not seeing it from the other side. I know it must be hard to take as an American, when you're told that your country's greatest achievement is a lie. It's emasculating to your ego and so it makes you blind at looking at all of the facts.

Let's get something straight. If it didn't have evidence in fact of a hoax, then there wouldn't be a debate about it. The fact that there's a good argument on both sides of the fence should be worrisome for believers. In fact there's more evidence for the moon landing being a hoax then there is for calling religion a hoax, yet people choose not to believe in God based on the lack of evidence.

No side will bow down, why? Because the non believers will always demand more evidence, while the moon landing believers point to the little evidence that exists and fail to look at the evidence against their case. again kind of reminding you of a religious nut that sees only what they want to see.

Like I said, moon landing believers, it's more personal to them, it plays on the mind like religion does to fanatics. There's just no winning with you guys. It's like you use the evidence of the moon landing like the religious do with the bible. Picking the bits that are relevant at that point in time and can't be swayed from your opinion. All the non believers are asking for is to show us some definitive evidence.

The truth is you can't, and thus the moon landing will always have a conspiracy tag until we get some solid proof .



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
None of them ever showed a 6 times slower decent rate of anything.
They did, that's why the other claims about the moon landing being hoaxed claim the film or video or whatever was used to hoax it was slowed down, to fake the lower descent rates. Your claims don't even match the claims of other moon hoax theorists.

You can try to time it but the hammer falls way faster in the Earth footage than the moon footage:




posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ngchunter

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...


Suit and astronaut inside of suit together weighed 60 pounds.

Weight != Mass. Two different things. Still flat footed, still offset center of mass. Everything I said stands.


Jumping out of the LM door to a landing the surface of the moon would have less impact than jumping up and down on Earth.

Doesn't matter. There is still a lot of mass involved and a lot of inertia, and to make matters worse you'd be landing on your life support system on a jagged lunar surface and rocks that could damage it. A 60 pound astronaut (who still has about 163 kg of MASS) falling from about 17 feet up (the height of the LEM) on the moon would land with a velocity of about 14.4 km/hr and hit with a force of about 1306 joules. To put that in perspective, a major league hitter can swing a 40 ounce bat somewhere around 60 mph or so.
www.acs.psu.edu...
That works out to an energy of only about 408 joules. So falling from the LM door to the surface on your back would result in several times more energy imparted to the PLSS than a major league baseball player swinging a bat as hard as he can at it. That doesn't sound safe or less impactful to me. An average 20-29 year old male can jump about 19.7 inches high. The force of a 50kg male jumping that high is only about 245 Joules. Any questions?


And yes, I already showed you the jumps that proved the really could jump high if they wanted, if you want to live in denial that is your issue.


The height to the top of the lander is 17 feet, the height from the door to the lunar surface is more like 6 feet.

Sorry, I was wrong; the height of the lander is about 21 feet.
www.astronautix.com...
www.astronautix.com...
In the above diagram it's 275 pixels tall, which translates to about 13.1 pixels per feet making the little astronaut about 5 feet tall. From the footpad to the door is about 11.4 feet. If you wanted to stand up at the door and jump from there to the lunar surface and you were about 5 feet tall, that means the PLSS pack would be falling from a total height of no less than at least 14 feet or so. The top of the PLSS would fall from a height of... about 16.4 feet. Instead of making drastic underestimations, try actually doing some research into these things sometime.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Mass = Weight X Constant. They are directly proportional and are effectively the same.

Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mass and weight are two different things. The mass does not decrease simply because it's on the moon. You just failed physics again. An astronaut who weight 60 pounds on the moon has about 163 kg of mass.
en.wikipedia.org...

And by the way, yes they did show a slowed descent rate. You're just lying now.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
None of them ever showed a 6 times slower decent rate of anything.
They did, that's why the other claims about the moon landing being hoaxed claim the film or video or whatever was used to hoax it was slowed down, to fake the lower descent rates. Your claims don't even match the claims of other moon hoax theorists.

You can try to time it but the hammer falls way faster in the Earth footage than the moon footage:





Once?

Something fell on camera once?

How is that normal or natural?

Couldn't they toss some garbage out of the door and show what 1/6 gravity looks like?

It would have fallen 6 times slower than Earth.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Once?

Something fell on camera once?

Lots more than once, if you would bother to sit down and watch the actual lunar footage from the various missions. There are hours upon hours of footage. And lots of footage of various things being thrown away, falling, dropping, etc. Try actually doing some real research and crunch some real numbers before spouting off. You won't though, like I said, this arguing is pointless.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Once?

Something fell on camera once?
The case of the moving goalposts again. You said:

"None of them ever showed a 6 times slower decent rate of anything."

None. Of anything.

So one example is enough to prove that false.

Now what happens, I show you more and you move the goalposts again? No, watch the videos, and you see lots of things falling slower, including the video ngchunter already posted of the astronaut jumping higher than he should have, who descended way more slowly than he would have on Earth and then worried he may have damaged his suit when he fell.

Even the moon hoax theorists admit stuff falls slower, that's why they claim the video was slowed down!
edit on 19-9-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ngchunter

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...


Suit and astronaut inside of suit together weighed 60 pounds.

Weight != Mass. Two different things. Still flat footed, still offset center of mass. Everything I said stands.


Jumping out of the LM door to a landing the surface of the moon would have less impact than jumping up and down on Earth.

Doesn't matter. There is still a lot of mass involved and a lot of inertia, and to make matters worse you'd be landing on your life support system on a jagged lunar surface and rocks that could damage it. A 60 pound astronaut (who still has about 163 kg of MASS) falling from about 17 feet up (the height of the LEM) on the moon would land with a velocity of about 14.4 km/hr and hit with a force of about 1306 joules. To put that in perspective, a major league hitter can swing a 40 ounce bat somewhere around 60 mph or so.
www.acs.psu.edu...
That works out to an energy of only about 408 joules. So falling from the LM door to the surface on your back would result in several times more energy imparted to the PLSS than a major league baseball player swinging a bat as hard as he can at it. That doesn't sound safe or less impactful to me. An average 20-29 year old male can jump about 19.7 inches high. The force of a 50kg male jumping that high is only about 245 Joules. Any questions?


And yes, I already showed you the jumps that proved the really could jump high if they wanted, if you want to live in denial that is your issue.


The height to the top of the lander is 17 feet, the height from the door to the lunar surface is more like 6 feet.

Sorry, I was wrong; the height of the lander is about 21 feet.
www.astronautix.com...
www.astronautix.com...
In the above diagram it's 275 pixels tall, which translates to about 13.1 pixels per feet making the little astronaut about 5 feet tall. From the footpad to the door is about 11.4 feet. If you wanted to stand up at the door and jump from there to the lunar surface and you were about 5 feet tall, that means the PLSS pack would be falling from a total height of no less than at least 14 feet or so. The top of the PLSS would fall from a height of... about 16.4 feet. Instead of making drastic underestimations, try actually doing some research into these things sometime.


Wiki says Apollo Lunar Module height is 17 feet 9 inches

en.wikipedia.org...

Lunar Egress Module is 12.33 feet and some of that is the exhaust cone as I recall from a model of it I had, so the door was about 18 - 9 feet or about 9 feet from door to surface.

Higher than I thought, not a job requirement, but still doable with the right frame of mind.

The astronauts never look like they weigh 60 Earth lbs.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Mass = Weight X Constant. They are directly proportional and are effectively the same.

Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mass and weight are two different things. The mass does not decrease simply because it's on the moon. You just failed physics again. An astronaut who weight 60 pounds on the moon has about 163 kg of mass.
en.wikipedia.org...

And by the way, yes they did show a slowed descent rate. You're just lying now.


I never said mass decreases, I said weight, mass X acceleration (acceleration is a constant) decreases. The moon has 1/6 less gravitational acceleration than the Earth, and therefore 1/6 less Force than the Earth.

The astronaut weighs 360 Moon pounds on the moon, but that is only 60 Earth pounds. The astronauts are from Earth, they are used to Earth pounds. They have the equivalent force on their feet as 60 pounds on Earth.

360 lbs [mass x accel] x 1/6 [accel / accel] = 60 lbs [mass x accel]

Same mass, 1/6 the force.

Astronaut weighs the equivalent of 60 lbs. And the acceleration due to gravity is slower.




top topics



 
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join