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: 9
35
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 01:03 AM
link   
a reply to: eightfold

You don't even need UE4 or Maxwell supported GPUs to do this test. VXGI tech simply allows global illumination to be rendered in real-time, meaning you can play a game / simulation at 30 or 60 frames per second and calculate the lighting on the fly even with animated / dynamic objects in the scene.

You don't need to be able to do real-time rendering to do this global illumination test. Most 3D modeling software (such as 3D studio max) contains lighting systems that will do the same global illumination lighting, however not in real-time, and it can take several seconds or minutes or even hours to render one scene depending on how many "bounces" you want a single ray of light to do.

3D Studio Max is often used by video / photographic forensics experts and even engineers to simulate real world lighting to prove an image / video was taken at a certain date and time, and or to plan where sunlight will end up inside and outside a room, and how it will light an interior.







edit on 21-9-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: galadofwarthethird

We know that you can make a computer simulate any lighted scene, real or imaginary.

The key is, they are only using a lighting system that simulates real lighting, and you can do the test your self if you wish.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 02:07 AM
link   
The lighting in some pictures and video of the landings were part of what aroused my curiosity of weather we actually landed or not. It's interesting to see the single light source recreate similar conditions.

A few years ago I spent 3 weeks reading through the transcripts of all the Gemini and Apollo missions to sate my own curiosity, and can honestly say that we defiantly went to, and landed on, the Moon. Nobody in their right mind would go into detail such as exists in those transcripts to create a fake.

Come to think of it who in their right mind would spend 3 weeks reading those transcripts. LOL



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: K3vMan

Indeed. There are Apollo transcripts of turds floating inside the Command Module (they had to poo into plastic bags, then put some disinfectant in there, so it's no big surprise that some of the "product" has escaped).

Why would NASA include these incidents into a faked mission? And why fake the failed Apollo 13 mission?
edit on 21-9-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: eightfold

-shrug-

never said i did or didn't believe...

what i said was it doesn't actually prove anything...and it doesn't..



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 03:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace
a reply to: K3vMan

Indeed. There are Apollo transcripts of turds floating inside the Command Module (they had to poo into plastic bags, then put some disinfectant in there, so it's no big surprise that some of the "product" has escaped).

Why would NASA include these incidents into a faked mission? And why fake the failed Apollo 13 mission?


And furthermore, these transcripts are not just words on a page, they are the words heard in the press room as they were transmitted to bored journalists. They weren't just typed up and handed out for people to swallow whole, this is what people heard, or saw on the screens during live broadcasts.

Getting back on topic, what you tend to find here is that people who question the lighting of the photographs, or the 16mm footage, or the TV broadcasts, are people who know absolutely nothing about the subject, just as people who claim you should be able to see stars and photograph them have no understanding of how cameras work, or have never actually been outside their tinfoil lined basement room.

If all they have is "well they would say that", "I wouldn't do it like that..." and "yeah but it still looks kind of funny...", then they should just admit defeat and work on another subject.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: galadofwarthethird


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.


Luke didn't build Threepio, his father did. :p



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Computer simulations of events or not, I believe the Apollo 11 Moon landing happened.

The landing took place 22 years after the Roswell UFO crash. By that point the U.S. government must have reverse engineered something from that recovered extraterrestrial technology to get them into space safely.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
It goes against all logic to actually believe everything they say though, not sure why believers of the moon landing take everything they heard and saw as absolute truth.

To this day not one good clear picture of anything exists, must be just sheer laziness and not caring.

Oh I love the arguments that we already know everything about the moon, and it is so close, and it would cost 10,000 times more in todays money to go there.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

What on earth are you on about?

The computer simulation shows that enough light is reflected back to light the shadowed parts.

There are plenty of good and clear photos from the Apollo missions, check out the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal

Are moon hoax believers prepared to engage their minds and engage in meaningful discussions, or do they just throw some general accusations around and move on?



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: eightfold

i wasn't sarcastic, it IS pure BS.

'you can create those models yourself, define all materials and check it in the same way'.

sure. just like you can write your own unreal engine from scratch.

now, don't think i don't know the difference - i was working with 3d graphics professionally years ago, using lightwave, and i'm a programmer. obviously, recreating the whole 3d scene is a lot easier.

still, they've recreated that scene and they claim it proves something - so they should opensource it all - scene description, models, materials, everything. saying that 'you can do it on your own' is quite the opposite of being open about how stuff works, it's quite the opposite of opensource.

besides, imho the only undebatable proof would be a complete scene/object/material data that is possible to render using an opensource SOFTWARE renderer. unreal engine uses gpus, in this case - gpus made by nvidia, and i guess there's nothing open about their hardware implementation of VXGI, so you cannot really prove that it doesn't contain any bugs. generic cpus on the other hand are pretty well documented. gpus do a lot of 'magic' things, where you provide some input and get some - expected to be correct - output. cpus - not so much, all they do is very basic math, with very well documented accuracy.

oh and btw, as much as i understand it, unreal engine 4 isn't really opensource at all, so next time do your research properly. you can get access to their github repository if you'll get a PAID subscription plan. so why don't you check out if the project files are available to the public at all before making such claims?

as i've said. BS.
edit on 21-9-2014 by jedi_hamster because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace
Are moon hoax believers prepared to engage their minds and engage in meaningful discussions, or do they just throw some general accusations around and move on?


I'm pretty sure they just throw some general accusations around, then disappear. They do so in hopes of finding like minds whom only read general accusations, take them at face value, then disappear.

Most also believe we only went to the Moon one time!



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Ok, if people distrust computer simulations that much, one can do a practical experiment using actual physical materials. In a completely dark room or container, put some charcoal or dark grey material on the floor, set up a model of the LM with a little astronaut, set up a camera and a bright light in correct places, and take a picture.

Personally, I don't need any simulation to understand that sunlight was reflecting off the lunar surface and lighting the shadowed part of the LM and the astronaut. But having a computer simulation prove it is a nice bonus.
edit on 21-9-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: jedi_hamster

You may be a basic programmer, but you are no graphics programmer that is for sure. GPUs don't do any "magic" things. They are just dedicated tiny super computers basically. They are more suited for repeatable mathematical tasks, and can do more instructions per clock compared to a standard CPU. Programmable shaders do most of the work, and allow graphics programmers to move most graphics related work onto the GPU instead of the CPU. But it's nothing special really.

You are trying to claim Unreal Engine 4 mixed with a special GPU from NVIDIA are doing some magical light rendering that nobody else can do, and that is just not true.

The demo shown in the OPs video of VXGI simply uses a global illumination algorithm based on a metropolis light transport (MLT) variation which impliments the metropolis-hastings algorithm. This method of rendering has been around for quite a while now, and there are multiple SOFTWARE ONLY (some freeware) implementations already available.

For example:
NVIDIA Iray - www.nvidia-arc.com...
Indigo Renderer - en.wikipedia.org...
Kerkythea (FREE)- en.wikipedia.org...
Maxwell Renderer - www.maxwellrender.com...
LuxRender (OPEN SOURCE) - en.wikipedia.org...

Like I said in one of my lasts posts... The only thing special about NVIDIAs GPU and UE4 is that they can do the rendering in real-time. Currently, software-only implementations of the same lighting renderer exist, but can not render in real-time, and can take several minutes or even hours to render scenes depending on complexity of the scene and light settings. Some professionals have CPU farms just to do entire CGI movies.

NVIDIAs GPU design just has a built in function that will turn a 3D scene into voxels quickly, which then makes the lighting algorithm (which has been around for a while) quicker.

Anyone can do the same experiment done by NVIDIA with free open source software. The scene is actually quite simple, and you wouldn't even have to go into the same detail as NVIDIA did on the lunar lander to prove their ultimate conclusion (that Armstron's suit was reflecting lots of light, and acting as a light source).
edit on 21-9-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

While I appreciate the reply, this does not prove anything. It does however make the photo as a reality of being taken on the moon plausible. It does not prove that it was actually taken on the moon. That was my main point. Thanx, Syx.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: jedi_hamster

You may be a basic programmer, but you are no graphics programmer that is for sure. GPUs don't do any "magic" things. They are just dedicated tiny super computers basically. They are more suited for repeatable mathematical tasks, and can do more instructions per clock compared to a standard CPU. Programmable shaders do most of the work, and allow graphics programmers to move most graphics related work onto the GPU instead of the CPU. But it's nothing special really.

You are trying to claim Unreal Engine 4 mixed with a special GPU from NVIDIA are doing some magical light rendering that nobody else can do, and that is just not true.

The demo shown in the OPs video of VXGI simply uses a global illumination algorithm based on a metropolis light transport (MLT) variation which impliments the metropolis-hastings algorithm. This method of rendering has been around for quite a while now, and there are multiple SOFTWARE ONLY (some freeware) implementations already available.

For example:
NVIDIA Iray - www.nvidia-arc.com...
Indigo Renderer - en.wikipedia.org...
Kerkythea (FREE)- en.wikipedia.org...
Maxwell Renderer - www.maxwellrender.com...
LuxRender (OPEN SOURCE) - en.wikipedia.org...

Like I said in one of my lasts posts... The only thing special about NVIDIAs GPU and UE4 is that they can do the rendering in real-time. Currently, software-only implementations of the same lighting renderer exist, but can not render in real-time, and can take several minutes or even hours to render scenes depending on complexity of the scene and light settings. Some professionals have CPU farms just to do entire CGI movies.

NVIDIAs GPU design just has a built in function that will turn a 3D scene into voxels quickly, which then makes the lighting algorithm (which has been around for a while) quicker.

Anyone can do the same experiment done by NVIDIA with free open source software. The scene is actually quite simple, and you wouldn't even have to go into the same detail as NVIDIA did on the lunar lander to prove their ultimate conclusion (that Armstron's suit was reflecting lots of light, and acting as a light source).


22 years of assembler programming experience, amongst other things. you were saying?

as for gpus, i'm aware how they work. your problem is that you can't read with understanding though.

'built in function' - these are your words. as built in as texture mapping. no public details about the inner workings of that specific implementation of said function, because it's obviously nvidia's advantage. same goes for every other part of that rendering process that's running on the gpu and isn't depending solely on shaders (which weren't opensourced anyway), but depends on nvidia's architecture - from the most simple to the most complicated elements.

i'm perfectly aware that the whole thing can be calculated purely in software, using truly opensource software.

what i'm saying is that calling what nvidia has done (which is a great thing, btw) an opensource proof is PURE BS. semi-opensource unreal engine (you have to pay for it), closed scene data/models/materials and closed hardware platform running the whole thing.

and please, stop that 'anyone can do the same thing with opensource software' crap. that's NOT an argument in this discussion. it's like saying that because you're free to code your own operating system, that makes microsoft windows opensource.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Arguing over the nitty gritty of how rendering is achieved and who owns it is moot - the point is that they have used realistic models of the behaviour of light and materials to replicate the Apollo images and have done so in a way that demonstrates that the things that people often accuse NASA of 'getting wrong' somehow are in fact exactly what should happen.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: HomerinNC
Oh ya. My bad, your right. I suppose then my model was wrong based that it had wrong facts in there, though according to the model itself it would be right because it showed Luke building it. So technically I am right and luke did build c3po based on the computer model. Or really who the hell cares, if you wanted to prove that the moon landing did happen you will likely have to go back up there. And even if you did that, people still would be arguing for or against that it happened. But at the very least it would move this whole thing to the fringes of internetspace were only a few would care, the only thing it would do is not stop it, but merely quiet it down.

Really NASA should just send some probe to the moon, with some super advanced HD camera which would likely cost them a fraction of the whole moon mission was back then, and all just so to get people to shut up about it. But apparently its much harder to do that now then it was in 1969, could just be lack of interest and funding, or it could be that the grays dont let them go to the moon as they still have some bases there. Or who knows, and who cares.



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey

when someone claims that the whole thing is 'opensource' and 'anyone can check it out', i call out such BS.

there is NO way in hell to analyze the process, when data used is unavailable, rendering engine used has to be paid for, and the hardware part is simply a black box with most things openly programmable, but some known only to nvidia.

would they use opensource software like blender for purely software rendering, and made all the data available, the opensource claim would be valid. as it is, it is not.

call me picky, but i'm just pissed at constant abuse of 'opensource' term. it is used to push claims over and over again, sometimes simply because of ignorance (as i suspect is in this case), sometimes because of an agenda (android for example - fanboys claim it's secure and the best because it's open, when in reality core apps are not, vendor addons are not, so implying to anyone that he can get a random android smartphone and have purely opensource software on board without flashing his own rom and loosing some core apps in the process, is a lie).

what pisses me even more is that such use of opensource term for 'propaganda' purposes creates a bad vibe around the term, hurting the image of truly opensource solutions, and it is usually done by people that never released a single damn line of their own code to the public, or even wrote any code in the first place.
edit on 21-9-2014 by jedi_hamster because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: eightfold

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.
I find that the overall unrealistic narrative is the most compelling evidence that we did not go to the moon. What I mean by that is the overall story - In 1961 Kennedy announces this ambitious goal, and eight years later, guys are landing on the moon as if it were Hawaii. When we look at how long it takes to develop a new military airplane based on new technology, or even commercial aircraft... it takes 15 years or more. We're supposed to believe that the Apollo program was developed and executed in 8 years... impossible. We STILL DON'T HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO LAND A MAN ON THE MOON. Reading NASA's websites carefully underscore the point.
Then, it is simply astounding that so many historic Apollo artifacts are lost - the telemetry tapes containing THE ORIGINAL FILM FOOTAGE have been lost by NASA, just like the blueprints for the Saturn V, just like the blueprints for the Lunar Excursion Module. We simply have to believe in an astounding number of problematic facts - the large number of missing moon rocks that were given as gifts during the Goodwill Tour (after the astronauts returned, they went on a world tour). In 2009 Holland tested its moon rock, presented to the prime minister in 1969 by Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, and it turned out to be petrified wood. Then we're supposed to believe that our astronauts flew 240,000 miles to the moon... and back.... six times... landing 12 guys... without a hitch, but since 1972 we haven't sent a manned space flight further than 350 miles. 45 years have passed since Apollo 11... so manned spaceflight is the only field of technology where we find one enormous success, and then no achievement that comes even close.
If you read NASA's own webpages, today everything seems to be a problem. Potential manned missions to the moon or mars would have to solve the problems of "gravity wells", and radiation... none of which were problems from 1969 to 1972, years of peak solar cycle incidentally. Then, we're supposed to believe that Apollo 11 astronauts took something like 1,200 pictures, with those inflated rubber gloves and no view finder, but they only spent 2.5 hours each outside the LEM. And they also had to plant the flag, unload stuff, walk around, collect rocks, etc... Where did they find the time to take 1,200 pictures.
And we have to appreciate the complexity of blasting off from the moon and then re-linking with the orbiter that was flying 17,000 miles per hour around the moon. And just the temperature on the moon surface, 250 degrees, would present enormous problems. Then there are the many examples of doctored photographs... opponents of moon hoax theorists always propose some supposedly "plausible" explanation for each of these problematic areas, although it's hard to argue they took two ladders, but the question remains, why are there so many things that need to be explained regarding the Apollo missions? Why isn't there any footage of an astronaut jumping a few feet into the air in such low gravity? Why does the entire narrative seem preposterous? And then when you look at some of the pics, the damned LEM looks like a cardboard and tinfoil construction, held together with scotch tape, in some of those pictures.
Finally, with high res capability satellites above the moon, why don't they show us some close-ups of the landing sites, where Apollo stuff still rests? NASA has provided "proof" in the form of extremely low resolution pictures, where we see tiny little dots... Google Earth provides far higher quality images... why don't they just show us? Because, a close look would reveal that we've only sent unmanned flights and equipment.




top topics



 
35
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join