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

a reply to: AgentSmith

I've been privileged enough to listen to Alan Bean, Charlie Duke, TK Mattingley and Gene Cernan speak, and it has been a pleasure to shake them all by the hand. I am looking forward to doing the same with Fred Haise in a couple of weeks.

These guys have not hidden away, they have not refused to speak about their experiences, they are available at many public events to meet and talk with.

I would take their personal accounts over those of keyboard warrior attention seekers any day.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Indeed! Amazing people, such a shame some try and trample over others achievements because they haven't accomplished what they want in life.

I still find it funny that if Jarrah ever finds someone that wants to mate with him, when the kids ask "Dad, Dad we heard you met a man that walked on the Moon, what was he like? What did you say to him?"

He'll have to reply -

"Oh kids... I was young and foolish then. I just started mumbling about petrified wood and everyone laughed at me. If only I hadn't been so arrogant and seeking attention on that YouTube site I might have actually appreciated the privilege of being in his presence and asked him something worthwhile."

People like Jarrah, Foos etc remind me of someone climbing a tree. They get quite far up and then can't reach any more branches - so instead of trying harder or accepting they've reached their limit - they try and cut anything higher than them down so they can be at the top of the tree.

I wonder how Jarrah's physics degree is going? It's been some time since he started it and he failed miserably at doing the most simple maths when trying to calculate radiation dosages the other day on one of his latest videos. How embarrassing to have to keep being corrected like that, really don't know why anyone looks up to him - it's humiliating!

Enjoy meeting Fred Haise! Maybe you should congratulate him on getting out of the studio safely when the tank exploded - or not.

UPDATE:

Published on 10 Dec 2014
Last September NVIDIA announced that with their Maxwell GTX970/980 graphics cards and Global Illumination software, they were able to determine the cause of Buzz Aldrin being illuminated on the shaded side of the Lunar Module in the Apollo 11 photographs.

Only last month did they finally release that demo. Predictably, they didn't dare release it with adjustable albedo settings, and so the user cannot know how bright the cgi landscape actually is. But as luck would have it, the demo comes with a "Colour Only" mode, which allows one to see the colours of the surfaces without any lighting. After a simple comparison of the Red Green Blue values of the colours used, it has become clear that the computer generated lunar surface was NOT 12% as NVIDIA claimed, but 30.6%.

Special thanks go out to NVIDIA customer Bo Chen.

Jarrah's rebuttal.

a reply to: FoosM

Jarrah appears to have forgotten to consider at a minimum the following,

1) The different definitions of albedo which compensate for various factors when giving a value
2) That the figure he uses for what the Moon should be is an average
3) The phase angle and how it affects the albedo of the regolith

If viewing the Moon with your eyes isn't enough to show you how it's albedo varies across the surface, this table should help:

The following is a list of the "visual normal albedo at 5% phase angle" of various lunar features. These numbers can be used to directly compare to terrestrial surfaces (reference cited below):

Darkest areas: 8.6%
Tranquillitatis south of Plinius: 9.1%
Plato's floor: 9.6%
Serenitatis east of Linne: 10%
Imbrium south of Plato: 10.4%
Nectaris: 11.4%
Ptolemaeus floor: 13.1%
Arzachel: 17%
Tycho ejecta: 20%
Aristarchus: 20%
Aristarchus interior: 22%
Bright spot in Deslandres: 24%
Proclus E wall: 28%
Stevinus A, Abulfeda E: 30%

These values are, as you can see, considerably higher than the other lunar albedos given. For comparison, the albedo of a green golf course is about 13%, roughly the same as that of the Cayley Formation which covers the floor of Ptolemaeus. So you see, the moon is not quite as dark as is often claimed - something about in the middle range of lunar brightnesses is just as bright as a grassy yard at noon.

web.archive.org...

And of particular interest are the results correlating the analysis of soil samples retrieved from the landing site and measurements from the LRO - www.lpi.usra.edu...

If anything Jarrah has proven the simulation to be accurate..

a reply to: AgentSmith


Nice that you criticise Jarrah's findings, but what about NVIDIA?
Thats a major company who is using the moon landings and the conspiracy surrounding the landings
to promote their product. Do you not question their decision not allowing us to
play with the albedo settings ourselves? What is there to hide ?

originally posted by: AgentSmith

And of particular interest are the results correlating the analysis of soil samples retrieved from the landing site and measurements from the LRO - www.lpi.usra.edu...

But that is akin to using the bible to prove the bible.
How can we trust NASA's word if we believe NASA is behind the hoax?

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: AgentSmith

And of particular interest are the results correlating the analysis of soil samples retrieved from the landing site and measurements from the LRO - www.lpi.usra.edu...

But that is akin to using the bible to prove the bible.
How can we trust NASA's word if we believe NASA is behind the hoax?

Because unlike Jarrah and his educationally stunted friends and admirers, the data do not lie. NASA's data matches that of the USSR, Chian, Japan and ESA when it comes to lunar composition, structure and everything else.

Jarrah's lies have never proved the data wrong, so all he can do is nitpick at metadata, and he gets that wrong.

a reply to: FoosM

Yet Jarrah constantly uses NASA information when he thinks he's proving a point. So the data is only valid when Jarrah (mistakenly) thinks he's proving one off his fantasies yet it's no longer valid when it disproves them... Interesting, and predictable, response there Foos..

Nice that you criticise Jarrah's findings, but what about NVIDIA?
Thats a major company who is using the moon landings and the conspiracy surrounding the landings
to promote their product. Do you not question their decision not allowing us to
play with the albedo settings ourselves? What is there to hide ?

No not really, having worked for companies like that it's not unusual for their internal bureaucracy to result in seemingly illogical behaviour, usually in a misguided effort to protect their intellectual property and techniques. At the end of the day it's all independently verifiable, as Jarrah thought he had done - of course, he was wrong as usual. I'm going to assume right now that he isn't continuing with that astrophysics degree he claimed he was doing, if not then he's proving every day he's way out of his depth.

So after a couple of days, do you actually have a worthwhile response comprising of an argument backed up by data and a sound knowledge of physics? Or are you going to resort to straw men and circular reasoning ?

Jealous countries will never stop trying to trump over the fact.

Oh yeah... and those Lunar Rover tire tracks that you can see on the moon - today are a fabrication as well!! Quite a trick NASA played. ha ha.

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Images Offer Sharper Views of Apollo Landing Sites

article and pictures link

a reply to: MarkJS

Sadly our 'special' friends only claim that as they are 'official' photos they can't be trusted. Once again if they think they have spotted something that will give any credence to their beliefs they are happy to use any data, including images, produced by NASA or any other source - however when you can use said data to debunk their wacky ideas they pull out the old 'you can't trust it as it's official' card as Foos did a couple of posts back when I demonstrated how Jarrah had once again made himself look like the clown he is.

I remember some years back on this board I used data from a Bulgarian radiation experiment on an Indian lunar probe to show that the radiation levels through the Van Allen belts, en-route and at the Moon were within acceptable levels and backed up the Apollo findings - their argument was that NASA somehow tampered with the data.... You just go in circles with these guys, they haven't been able to accomplish anything significant in life and suffer from delusions of grandeur, so this manifests in the construction of their fantasy worlds in which they can be king. Waste of oxygen in my opinion and an insult to humanity, but there we go.