Moon landing was real and WE CAN PROVE IT, says Nvidia It's only a product promo, but it's a smart one: Nvidia reckons the judicious application of its graphics technology can debunk one of the world's favourite “moon landing was a hoax conspiracies”. As a demo of the VXGI – voxel based global illumination – technology included in the company's new Maxwell graphics architecture, a …
Showing proof to a conspiracy theorist just demonstrates to them that the conspiracy goes even deeper.
I don't think we needed Nvidia's input. Apollo hoax theorists don't need debunking, because every theory they dream up has already been shown to be total hogwash based on ignorance.
"Showing proof to a conspiracy theorist just demonstrates to them that the conspiracy goes even deeper."
Of course nobody ever landed on the moon. Someone just sent some Nvidia chips back in time to 1967 and the whole Apollo programme was simulated in a graphics workstation.
Dear Just Enough,
Why are there no STARS in space?....Not a single spec of light anywhere on the NASA photos?
As regards the 'Fluttering Flag' a NASA mouthpiece, a few years ago, claimed that the flag was "Designed" to Flutter as though it was being blown by the wind....the interviewer didn't press the mouthpiece about the mechanism that would have been needed to do this or ask to see the original engineers drawings that NASA should still have on file in their archives. This would have been quite a 'feather in the cap' of the individual or group of people involved in producing this object, which was bespoke and would have had to have been designed and fabricated from scratch...but the thing you're all forgetting is that the reason they didn't land on the Moon is that there is NO CONCRETE on the Moon.......i shall explain my pet theory later on....maybe
Why are there no STARS in space?....Not a single spec of light anywhere on the NASA photos?
Because NASA was totally fecking clueless and got some cheap black-painted dome installed by barely-literate chinese migrant workers instead of properly hiring Stanley Kubrick to do full-star awesome super-effects like he did a year earlier with "2001 - A Space Odyssey".
It's simple really. Then they had to set up O.J. Simpson for murder because the Mars Landing Project bombed when the Face on Mars was discovered (and what was underneath) and whistles got blown out of proportion, but that is another horror story involving Agent Orange and Oswald.
"Why are there no STARS in space?....Not a single spec of light anywhere on the NASA photos?"
This is actually a good argument against it being faked...stay with me champ...
If you were faking it, what is one thing you would fully expect to show in a photo taken from the moon - stars. So a fake would completely have stars 'cos who in their right mind pretending to be taking a photo on the moon would leave out stars?
Frankly I don't care either way but I do love watching the action. Continue.
Dear i like crisps
Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I meant.
There are no stars on the photos because they were taken during daytime and consequently exposed for very bright sunlight. See, because you are used to the sky being black at night on Earth, and you can see the stars at night, you make the erroneous assumption that black sky = night = visible stars.
The flag was designed to extend, as if being blown by the wind. That, of course, doesn't make the flag move. What makes it move is being attached to a springy aluminium post that is being moved by an astronaut.
> Showing proof to a conspiracy theorist just demonstrates to them that the conspiracy goes even deeper.
Of course, the landing was faked! Governments are simply too inefficeint to actually pull off something so big. Ever wonder why BRICs haven't done it after so many years ?
And it was possible to do it, free market would've done it years before any govt could, even if it was at the behest of a govt.
Clue: Tie a tea towel to a broom handle and wiggle the broom handle back and forth. Observe what happens.
I don't know why conspiracy theorists still think they're being really clever by pointing this one out. They're actually being really really dense.
Mythbusters did a special on the moon ages ago!
remember, there is NO air on the moon, also gravity is very low.. this is what slows things down, air resistance, and the weight of the cloth..
so on the moon, the flag has to be held up by a bar on the top of the flag - and while they were planting the flag, of course it would move a lot - - it kept moving by itself, due to NO air resistance!!
Yeah, I used to be like that. I was all "Their earthquake special was just an excuse to show Kari Byron being jiggled on an earthquake simulation table." Then I remembered seeing Kari Byron being jiggled on an earthquake table, and I forgot what I was thi
I presume (and hope) that was sarcasm! It's my understanding that if the flag was set in motion by handling, then, because it is in a vacuum (i.e. no air or drag, for the uninitiated), it will just keep moving.
Being a bit of a photographer, the lack of stars is easily explained by the exposure required to capture the astronauts and the surface. There is no way that any minuscule light source such as stars would have effectively been seen in the same frame. The contrast range is just too great. I fail to understand why this seems to have been quoted as definitive proof by the conspiracy theory mob. They don't seem to have done their homework on rudimentary photography.
"It was a tit for tat agreement - the Russians kept schtum about the hoax Moon landings in return for the Americans not revealing that Sputnik was in fact a balloon."
But that would imply the Russkies threw the Space Race at a time when a lot of national pride was on the line in the middle of the Cold War (not to mention less than a decade after the Cuban Missile Crisis). IOW, the Soviets were competing with the Americans. If the landing was fake all the Russians had to do to deflate the Americans was to film themselves first. Why throw the race if the solution was so simple? If they pulled it off, Sputnik could be safely ignored or simply blown off as American lies.
In fact the best evidence against the hoax is the recording technology available at the time. It was physically impossible to do what the hoaxers claim was done.
Good outline of the technological issues involved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs
"In fact the best evidence against the hoax is the recording technology available at the time. It was physically impossible to do what the hoaxers claim was done."
What about black tech. No one knew the Americans had a practical and flying stealth fighter for decades. Even the SR-71 (which was still low-radar) was black tech. Under the auspices of black tech, it may have been possible to have tech beyond anything possible in the civilian world.
> "moon landing was a hoax consipiracies"
Moon landing was faked, but it wasn't a hoax.
Think about it, if it was really possible with the 60s technology, someone would have done it before any redtape laden institute could - they simply don't have the incentive to complete the project and be out of a job! Sheesh, you sheeple have no grasp of how macro-economics works! So you just talk about obscure details which can be argued in 10 different ways as long as the result is what people want to hear. Flag waved or not waved, shadow was right or wrong - all that is irrelevant!
Another way to think about it is: NVidia is not going out on limb to prove world war 2 was real. Why ? Because it was, there is no need to prove it. But there is an entire industry ("mythbusters", books, blogs), based on proving the moonlanding. Why ? Because it was a coverup and whenever the wind blows, there are people who have to put the cover back.
Still don't believe me ? Read 1925 Yakov Perelman's explanation on why Newtonian physics renders it impossible.
If you still think I am a not job, open your ipad and try to find a valid explanation for why to project was "shutdown". Because there is nothing to shutdown! If moon landing was possible someone would've invented it for billionaires liesure by now - that's how market forces work!
Yeah, conspiracy theories are the mental equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nanananana I can't hear you na na na na".
People conspire on a daily basis - from surprise birthday parties to price-fixing amongst competitors - hoodwinks at this scale are implausible for all sorts of reasons, from motive to execution.
Sidenote: The first *hardback* edition of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy has blurb for Capricorn One on its back cover (and not a plain blue back cover). Capricorn One is film and novel about a faked manned mission to Mars.
Anyway, so now the stars are visible. Hold on, the tin hat brigade said the reason they were blacked out was because at the time NASA hadn't got the tech to show their correct positions from such a different perspective, so would be caught out and had no option. So now we *can* compare them lets get on with it!
Unless...drat, they could be digitally inserting them today at the positions they are known to have been in back in '69. Oh my head hurts...
> NASA hadn't got the tech to show their correct positions from such a different perspective
Well, naturally: the stars are painted on Nut's tummy and and we'd have to calculate the parallax shift, but we don't know if her belly button is an innie or an outie.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
