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: 8
35
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey




Light does not need an atmosphere to produce a reflection.


The type of light our eyes detects is only produced by an atmosphere, and then it can be reflected. The image you link to is taken from Earth, try taking that image from space and see what it looks like. What does deep space look like from orbit? Well, according to Chris hadfield it is totally black when looking away from Earth, into the void. And none of the 200+ astronauts who have been on an EVA, the only people who know what space looks like from out there, never mention the view of the stars, planets, the moon, or even the Sun.
Find me comments from any of these people that talks about the view of the heavens while looking AWAY from Earth. I didn't find any.
Anyway, I'd like to see the simulation run using an f/22 exposure setting, I suspect that would give a much closer aproximation to light levels on the Moon.




posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN
You should be looking for this stuff yourself Gary, but, here you go:

Michael Collins sees stars on Spacewalk

In "Carrying The Fire" by Michael Collins, (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York copyright by Michael Collins 1974) Collins says as he is getting ready to exit Gemini 10 for a spacewalk (page 221), "My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady. Of course I know that a star's twinkle is created by the atmosphere, and I have seen twinkle-less stars before in a planeterium, but this is different, this is no simulation, this is the best view of the universe that a human ever had."



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: eightfold

as much as i admire opensource as a programmer myself, i hate, hate, HATE, the way 'opensource' is thrown around at every occassion to support some claims.

don't get me wrong, i'm not saying they didn't prove a case. all i'm saying is that the exact data used (3d models, material definitions, light source definitions, whole scene data) is just as important as the code used to render that data.

so unless they've released all project files and not just ready to use binary, your statement about opensource is pure BS.

oh btw, they've integrated voxel global illumination into unreal engine 4 to do it. is that opensourced as well?


(post by Semicollegiate removed for a manners violation)

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: DAZ21

And how all the manned missions stopped and we supposedly haven't stepped foot on the moon since. That doesn't make any sense either.


That has always seemed strange to me as well. However, with this data it's clearly not because we can't get there. No way around, this is conclusive.
edit on 20-9-2014 by dr1234 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

We have been over this many times with you, citing astronauts seeing stars and planets when looking away from the Earth or the Moon, but you choose to ignore that.

When you look away from the sunlit Earth and into space (especially if you have your sun visor down, as they usually do), of course space will appear black.

How did the Apollo astronauts navigate using stars on their way to the Moon?

(See, we have to get off-topic in this thread just because you choose to parrot the same old story, but hey, this shares similarity with hoax believers).



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




"My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon."


Yes, as Edgar Mitchell said,“The Stars were ten times brighter than when viewed from the Earth" [in cislunar space].

But wait a minute...
Bill Anders (Apollo 8) "The sky was a sort of grey, you couldn't see stars very well..." describing cislunar space in An Evening with the Apollo 8 Astronauts (Annual John H. Glenn Lecture Series).

Neil Armstrong (Apollo 11) “The sky is a deep black when viewed from the Moon as it is when viewed from cislunar space, the space between the Earth and the Moon. The Earth is the only visible object other than the Sun that can be seen although there have been some reports of seeing planets. I myself did not see planets from the surface but I suspect they might ...er ...be visible." Armstrong speaking to Patrick Moore on the BBC astronomy program The Sky at Night in 1970.

So who to believe?
And the Gemini 10 mission, well, they took a picture in UV of the stars, but not in the visible, not that I can find anyway. I'm sticking with Hadfields comments, it's totally black out there.

Gemini 10 image of the stars:
images.jsc.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

So you're quite happy to ignore quotes about stars even when you quote it> Have you any idea how many times stars are mentioned when they fixed positions using them> I've shown you photographs taken from cislunar space as well as from lunar orbit, but you always ignore it because it doesn't match your totally incorrect view of physics and photography.

Here's a good one for you. It's taken with the Apollo Metric camera, which was housed outside the CSM and therefore has no atmosphere anywhere near it.

It is of a crater on the far side of the moon totally occluded from Earthlight.

What is lighting it?




posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN
Yes of course the iris of the human eye will close when on the lit surface of the moon, making stars hard to see, so that's a pretty odd place to expect to see stars when you yourself mentioned spacewalks where you don't have the moon's surface reflection to close your iris. Also those visors are pretty dark, so you have to take that into account.

You already have the evidence you seek but you choose to ignore it, so you're not really seeking it. What's the saying? "Denial isn't just a river in Egypt?" Works better spoken than it does in print but you're in it.




edit on 20-9-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Double post


edit on 20-9-2014 by Arbitrageur because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: eightfold


That's it for me, I'm now 100% convinced we went. My issues have been answered. Being a coder myself I know how close game engines are to reality in terms of their light modelling.

What do you lot think?


i think your conclusion is silly.....even the Nvidia rep said "can i prove the whole thing wasn't shot on some hollywood studio? no"

in other words, it doesn't actually prove anything...it's just a really awesome simulation, that very effectively demonstrates the power of this new chip...

what i took away from the whole thing is that the video was basically a commercial for maxwell, the simulation was impressive, and basically Nvidia saying "we are God, and maxwell is Jesus Christ, now give us your money"
edit on 9-20-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: eightfold

That's pretty cool I suppose. As for proving anything? I think the real question is sure you can prove that the moon landing took place using highly sophisticated programs and a new videogame engine and lots of work and coding. But really with this technology you can also prove that Luke Skywalker really did build c3po back when he was only a kid on tatooine. Ya that would finally shutup those who say that a 10yr old could never put together such a sophisticated robot at that age, its totally like proof they even did a simulation of it.

What I am trying to say is that using technology you can pretty much prove anything you wanted to, with that technology you can make any environment you wanted to, you can make space clown going in circles on unicycles on the moon and make it appear lifelike that you would not know the difference, even though its quite obvious space clown riding unicycles on the moon is highly unlikely.

Or you can do just a topography of it and introduce more normal settings to depict the moon landing do to the data you have on it, point is using computers and today's graphics power you can do anything you wanted to, and it does not really prove anything but that fact. Really, if they wanted to shutup everybody about this moon landing thing, then they could just send somebody out there and televise it again or whatever, now a days facebook posts by astronauts to there account would be taken as more high quality proof, or at least more so then using a sophisticated program to recreate something based on data you choose to impart there in. But really who cares if we landed on the moon or not, its all pointless. I mean if we did...Then OK whatever. If not...Then OK whatever, people need things to believe in.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 05:48 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.

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


Why dont you sent a rover up there and glue an iphone to its arm? Its cheap, easy and with technology today you should be able to.

It's almost as if you dont want answers....



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: bjarneorn



Are they going to use the HOAX, to prove to the world, that the HOAX wasn't a HOAX?


No. It's a visual simulation of the moons environment and what we took up there... if that matches up with what was seen in the original footage (which it does) then where's the issue?



Are people here for real, or what????


Yup.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Qumulys



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.


Of course it's an approximation. If you'd watched/read the sources you'd understand quite how accurate that approximation is to reality...

Feel free to, you know, do some research before replying...


Stationary Lights Rendering - Unreal Engine 4



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: galadofwarthethird



I think the real question is sure you can prove that the moon landing took place using highly sophisticated programs and a new videogame engine and lots of work and coding. But really with this technology you can also prove that Luke Skywalker really did build c3po back when he was only a kid on tatooine.


That's a pretty obviously logically flawed point. You could prove how the footage was filmed, not that C3PO is real or that tatooine is a real planet. You could demonstrate that multiple light sources would be required to film the scenes to accurately recreate the footage inside a computer simulation, in the same way as the moon simulation demonstrates that only 1 light source (the sun) is required to create the moon footage.

As I said in the original post, it (in my mind) 100% debunks the idea that multiple light sources were required to film the footage, which was always my concern with the landings.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

It demonstrates there was one light source in the moon footage which was one of my main concerns.

All my other queries have been dealt with by learning about the relevant areas of concern. The van allen radiation belts, the power of the Saturn rockets, gravity on the moon etc etc... the fact that there are third party images of the landing sites helps too.

You might find my conclusion silly, but I find it silly that people *still* don't believe that the landings happened in the face of all the evidence that proves otherwise.
edit on 20/9/14 by eightfold because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: nOraKat
Sometimes I believe that the purpose of claiming it was hoax was to bring ridicule to conspiracy theories in general, thus helping to conceal the real ones.

Some may think.. "These conspiracy theories are ridiculous, just like the conspiracy that the moon landing was a hoax, people will believe anything.."


Good point, there is so often the element of lowest common denominator replies from those who would push, dare I say an agenda against what I must say are some very good points and threads about many conspiracy theories, and to be fair, some of those who do not believe the Moon landings happened..or were hoaxed, have also had their moments. That is the place where the chaff can be separated from the wheat. It was made difficult on the part of NASA and other agencies when pictures got doctored or 'sexed up' worse than that, it then had the 'No Mooners' calling a hoax, while others, (conspiracy theorists accepting the Moon landings) were crying a cover-up about Aliens on the Moon, sometimes you could get both in the same thread either way. Thing is, why take sides rather than discuss without hyperbole.
In the case of the Moon landings there is enough evidence pictorially for people to understand that the Moon landings were an actual event, Earth pictures taken by the astronauts themselves on the day/s for which there is no contradiction.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: jedi_hamster


so unless they've released all project files and not just ready to use binary, your statement about opensource is pure BS.


No, it's not 'pure BS.' I said you could inspect the code of *the engine* used to do the rendering. I said it was 'independently modelled' (ie modelled by NVIDIA) inside an open source engine.

As I said, (in theory) anybody could independently replicate the results by modelling the scene themselves. I meant, much like peer review, you could rebuild the model, put in your material definitions and replicate the scene, verifying it in the same way as scientist would.

Quote from my post is below... stars are added to draw attention to the (pretty obvious, literal) qualifiers...



...this is all based on *independently modelled* events inside an *Open Source game engine*.

*Anybody can inspect the source code of the engine* to ensure there's no jiggery pokery going on ,*in theory anybody can simulate and model the scene themselves.*


Read it again? Tell me where the BS is? I don't see any.

For clarities sake, by 'jiggery pokery' I mean 'changing the way light is normally simulated inside the engine to fit what's seen in the original footage.'



oh btw, they've integrated voxel global illumination into unreal engine 4 to do it. is that opensourced as well?


Ok... tech explanation ahead...

All lighting inside the engine is voxel based (there are no lightmaps in UE4). The new cards have hardware VXGI pipelines and to use them VXGI would have to be integrated into the engine codebase.

I've not licensed it myself but I'd assume that for the VXGI tech to be of any use to anyone NVIDIA will have forked the UE4 code then got EPIC to merge it with the master UE4 branch.

Interesting side note - it was an intended feature of the engine but Unreal pulled it at the last minute due to concerns over compatibility with the next gen consoles

I'd recommend checking out the sources before calling BS or being sarcastic. Just sayin'. You could even contribute to the thread by checking out if the project files exist if you like. That'd be, you know... useful.
edit on 20/9/14 by eightfold because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: eightfold
But he is in the computer simulations, therefore that means hes real or that skywalker built him when he was 10 yrs old, or else the computer simulation model would not work.


OK dude, but just so you know you can create any and all types of light sources in a game engine that you so choose. However to tell the truth you arguing with the wrong guy. I really, really, really, dont care if we landed on the moon or not. I was just pointing out that using a computer simulation does not really prove anything, because you can create a computer simulations to prove anything you so wanted especially when the sole context of proof is in the simulation.
edit on 10pmSaturdaypm202014f6pmSat, 20 Sep 2014 22:44:01 -0500 by galadofwarthethird because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join