NVIDIA Simulation Debunks NASA's photo evidence of Apollo 11 Moon Landing

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: FoosM
Ok, onebigmonkey... you say watch the video.
Now Im going to challenge you to identify the point in time when Neil took 5862.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

I need to see a camera point up, or Neil leaning back to take that photo while he was standing next to the ladder.

I know you were not talking to me, but look at 19:04 on that YouTube video or at 2:23 on the video from this link, a 3:23 video that starts at 109:37:34.

What he said. You can see when he takes the photo, and that he is lit.

I woul actually put it at 18:52 in the video I linked to, where you can clearly see him arch his back, and also that his suit is lit.



There are flares from the LM where the light is reflected frpm his suit.

Now how about stopping demanding things from other people, stopping parroting Jarrah's BS and come up with some answers of your own, like how come you can see small craters that match up with the LRO images, and how come the Earth photographed in that same magazine shows weather patterns that match exactly the satellite photos, as well as the land masses in exactly the right configuration for the time they photographs were taken?

a reply to: FoosM
I have never understood this conspiracy conceptualization.

Specifically, why fake something that will be forever evidenced as such.
If I recall correctly, for the dust to be rearranged to the point that the footprints would disappear, would absorb our remaining history on this planet. It is not tenable that they would still be defending a FALSE landing when other nations are now working the same explorations. Unless you consider that all nations MUST fall into a supporting position of the USA's greatest technological effort it would have been exceedingly stupid to lie about the event.

The Russians, Chinese, Japanese and Indians don't like us enow to collaborate in making us appear glorious.

This conspiracy fails in so many ways. Please stop.

originally posted by: FoosM

NVIDIA has explained there HAD to be another light source for Buzz,
and the shadow side of the LM, to be so well lit for the camera equipment to expose for it correctly
without having the lunar surface blown out or over-exposed!

umm.. they said that to show the stars the lunar surface would be blown out or over exposed.. why are you deliberately mixing a seperate scenario with this scenario??

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: FoosM
Ok, onebigmonkey... you say watch the video.
Now Im going to challenge you to identify the point in time when Neil took 5862.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

I need to see a camera point up, or Neil leaning back to take that photo while he was standing next to the ladder.

I know you were not talking to me, but look at 19:04 on that YouTube video or at 2:23 on the video from this link, a 3:23 video that starts at 109:37:34.

Yes, I would contend that Neil leans back for the photo around 18:52 to 55. And you can see Neil is predominately in shadow. With only a portion of his body in the Sun. There is not enough surface area on his suit that would
explain the amount of fill in light created for the camera to pick up- One shoulder? Partial Helmet?
Especially not a shot of Aldrin coming out of the porthole.

Considering Aldrin was moving, and probably Armstrong as well, it would take a bright flash to minimize the motion
blur the camera would pick up to take a photo in the shadow.

On Earth, air scatters light and allows objects not in direct sunlight to be still well-lit. This is an effect called Rayleigh scattering, Rayleigh scattering is the reason why... you can still read a magazine perfectly well under an umbrella at the beach.

On the Moon there is no air, no Rayleigh scattering. So shadows are very dark...

www.universetoday.com...

originally posted by: largo
a reply to: FoosM
I have never understood this conspiracy conceptualization.

Specifically, why fake something that will be forever evidenced as such.

This conspiracy fails in so many ways. Please stop.

Not really, because nobody has been able to land on the moon to verify the manned moon landings.
And NASA probably knew it would take a long time for anybody else to come close to making it.
They were right about that. Its been 40 years and counting. By the time it could happen,
NASA could claim the harsh environment of the moon had weathered away what was left there.

Why are you worried about people investigating?
Why would you not want to know for sure if man landed on the moon?

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: FoosM

NVIDIA has explained there HAD to be another light source for Buzz,
and the shadow side of the LM, to be so well lit for the camera equipment to expose for it correctly
without having the lunar surface blown out or over-exposed!

umm.. they said that to show the stars the lunar surface would be blown out or over exposed.. why are you deliberately mixing a seperate scenario with this scenario??

What are you talking about?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: FoosM
Ok, onebigmonkey... you say watch the video.
Now Im going to challenge you to identify the point in time when Neil took 5862.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

I need to see a camera point up, or Neil leaning back to take that photo while he was standing next to the ladder.

I know you were not talking to me, but look at 19:04 on that YouTube video or at 2:23 on the video from this link, a 3:23 video that starts at 109:37:34.

What he said. You can see when he takes the photo, and that he is lit.

I woul actually put it at 18:52 in the video I linked to, where you can clearly see him arch his back, and also that his suit is lit.

You call that lit up? Neil is clearly mostly in shadow.

a reply to: FoosM

So, his suit is lit. Whereas before you claimed he was in shadow.

The rest of your post is just moving the goalposts and what we can safely call "making crap up" to try and justify the fact that you were wrong. Jut like Jarrah's garbage it is just "probably, what if, maybe, perhaps".

You were wrong. Admit it and get over it.

a reply to: FoosM

Is there light flaring off his suit, yes or no? Is he completely in the shade like you claimed, yes or no?

What about when he moves into much brighter sunlight to get shots of Buzz coming down the ladder? Is he brightly lit or in the shade?

Admit you were wrong.

originally posted by: FoosM
There is not enough surface area on his suit that would explain the amount of fill in light created for the camera to pick up- One shoulder? Partial Helmet?
Especially not a shot of Aldrin coming out of the porthole.

Considering Aldrin was moving, and probably Armstrong as well, it would take a bright flash to minimize the motion
blur the camera would pick up to take a photo in the shadow.

To know that we would need to know the camera settings when the photo was taken, but, as far as I know, we don't have that information. As we don't know either if Aldrin was moving or not at that precise moment or, if he was moving, if he was moving too fast to appear as we see on the photo, we cannot really know what happened, but we know that it was possible that things happened as they say.

PS: what is knowledge of photography? I ask because I showed the Nvidia video to my sister, a professional photographer, and she said that it all made sense.

originally posted by: FoosM
You call that lit up? Neil is clearly mostly in shadow.

Don't forget that he is not flat, the fact that we only see the side facing the camera doesn't mean that he only had that relatively small area in the light. Also, as Aldrin was more to the left on that image, if he had taken a photo of Armstrong we would see a bigger area being lit, as the point of view is closer to the direction from where the light is coming.

Even if we forget, err... Every other post you've ever made - you proved you're full of crap when you gave this loser video your stamp of approval here Foos:

originally posted by: FoosM
But it was a video from AWE130 that flipped the evidence around and propose that the NVIDIA simulation actually PROVES the photos had to be faked that was the coup de grâce:

link:
www.youtube.com...

In the video, NVIDIA claims they HAD to use another a light source.
This is what people debunking NASA evidence have been saying all along.
The photos were not possible without another light source!

So now we have NVIDIA admitting that another light source
was necessary. Apollogists, or Apollo believers, have to either
debunk NVIDIA, or accept their assertion. Luckily for them, NVIDIA
claimed that they found the light source, and that light source was Neil.

But wait, there is a big problem with their assumption! As the videos explain...
Neil took the photos in the shade!

(a point I believe I made along time ago in a thread far far away)

In the video the video poster uses stills to make out that what is clearly Neil lit up by the sun is a spotlight, anyone who has watched the actual footage can see that it's Neil - but they employ the same tactics in pure deception as you, Jarrah (assuming it isn't you anyway) and just about every other Moon hoax fantasist.
NVIDIA clearly state that the additional light source is Neil Foos, and no he was not in shadow.

originally posted by: FoosM
Yes, I would contend that Neil leans back for the photo around 18:52 to 55. And you can see Neil is predominately in shadow. With only a portion of his body in the Sun. There is not enough surface area on his suit that would
explain the amount of fill in light created for the camera to pick up- One shoulder? Partial Helmet?
Especially not a shot of Aldrin coming out of the porthole.

Considering Aldrin was moving, and probably Armstrong as well, it would take a bright flash to minimize the motion
blur the camera would pick up to take a photo in the shadow.

On Earth, air scatters light and allows objects not in direct sunlight to be still well-lit. This is an effect called Rayleigh scattering, Rayleigh scattering is the reason why... you can still read a magazine perfectly well under an umbrella at the beach.

On the Moon there is no air, no Rayleigh scattering. So shadows are very dark...

www.universetoday.com...

Foos Foos Foos... why you cut out the end of the quote?

On the Moon there is no air, no Rayleigh scattering. So shadows are very dark and, where sunlight hits, very bright. Shadowed areas are dramatically murky, like in the LROC image above, yet there’s still some light bouncing around in there — this is due to reflected light from the lunar surface itself.

Is that bit inconvenient to you Foos? And also, why do you not see that as there is no scattering the light reflected from Neil won't diffuse like it would on Earth and actually end up being brighter when illuminating objects in shadow anyway?

What you selling Foos?..
Books? DVDs? YouTube views? Ads? Hits?

Because you sure as hell aren't carrying out any accurate analysis or even attempting to try and use any form of reality to prove an actual point because you believe it. You don't come across as a complete idiot, contrary to the content of your posts, so I'm guessing that it's some other motive.
The ATS script should be modified to move your posts automatically to the HOAX! forum where they belong.

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: FoosM

NVIDIA has explained there HAD to be another light source for Buzz,
and the shadow side of the LM, to be so well lit for the camera equipment to expose for it correctly
without having the lunar surface blown out or over-exposed!

umm.. they said that to show the stars the lunar surface would be blown out or over exposed.. why are you deliberately mixing a seperate scenario with this scenario??

What are you talking about?

this is what you said
"NVIDIA has explained there HAD to be another light source for Buzz, and the shadow side of the LM, to be so well lit for the camera equipment to expose for it correctly without having the lunar surface blown out or over-exposed!"

NVIDIA mentioned that the lunar surface would be blown out or over exposed when the camera is set for exposure to show stars..

Humans went to the moon, and it was a wonderful thing. For your own sake, like I say on these threads, be sure to meet or telephone one of the Moon-walking astronauts before they all leave us, especially Buzz Aldrin. Everyone here is lucky to be alive at the same time that the first men who walked on the moon are walking the earth, for this time will not come again. As for those who don't believe it, you are missing the awe-inspiring knowledge that humans first walked on the moon not very long ago, within your or your parents lifetime. Relish that fact.

a reply to: Aleister

Well said, I've been privileged enough to meet Ed Mitchell (twice, I actually saw him again the other day when he gave a talk - certainly a character that would fit in on here!), Charlie Duke and had dinner sat next to Buzz Aldrin and his now ex wife Lois. All fantastic and very interesting guys with some fascinating stories to tell.

I feel sorry for people like Jarrah White who managed to waste a rare opportunity for most people (especially wannabes like him) getting to ask Buzz a question and just ended up whining out an embarrassing question about the piece of Moon rock that made it's way to the Rijksmuseum in Leiden and was since found to be a piece of petrified wood... Because it couldn't possible be that someone had swapped it at some point over the years.. It was never properly confirmed to begin with anyway I believe. *rolls eyes*...

Funny how he didn't like the local press exaggerating the incident so he felt the need to defend himself by publishing the emails and video footage. Of course, it's all faked - why should we believe Jarrah? Videos can be faked, emails can be faked... Not so fun the other way round is it Jarrah :-(

I digress anyway, yes fantastic people - real heroes - and time is running out to meet them. I fear the next generation of space faring people to go beyond orbit are more likely to be reality TV stars at this rate, thanks to the way the world has gone.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

You can actual tell that the last image is an actual footprint?

Its ironic that NVIDIA claims to have Debunked NASA's photo evidence of Apollo 11 Moon Landing, yet companies could have easily just returned to the moon to prove the theories.

Let alone the moon dangers and space heat in the space suits.

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
Its ironic that NVIDIA claims to have Debunked NASA's photo evidence of Apollo 11 Moon Landing, yet companies could have easily just returned to the moon to prove the theories.

Let alone the moon dangers and space heat in the space suits.

Easily?? Just pop up there and have a peek?
And prove what 'theories'? The fact humans landed on the moon doesn't need to be 'proven' if that's what you mean.
The vague hypothesis they didn't that's pushed around by some people as a 'theory' is what needs to be proven - which can never be done - as they went.

a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

Where did I claim it was?

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter
Its ironic that NVIDIA claims to have Debunked NASA's photo evidence of Apollo 11 Moon Landing, yet companies could have easily just returned to the moon to prove the theories.

You need to work on your understanding of the word 'irony'

Let alone the moon dangers and space heat in the space suits.

Yeah how about them! It's like no-one realised there were any dangers and did nothing to plan to avoid them.

Oh wait...that's exactly what they did.