Nvidia Debunks Conspiracy Theories About Moon Landing

a reply to: BigDave-AR

It's time for an upgrade, I'd love to go with something that's capable of this.

My modded GTX770 4GB did well for years but any modeling or ray tracing I do still takes time.

Maybe we did...
Maybe we didn't...

originally posted by: Kharron
a reply to: BigDave-AR

It's time for an upgrade, I'd love to go with something that's capable of this.

My modded GTX770 4GB did well for years but any modeling or ray tracing I do still takes time.

970 or 980 should do ya for pretty cheap now especially since the 11 series cards are getting ready to hit the market.

a reply to: Quadrivium

Already dealt with

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Arbitrageur


So a made up digital image proves what exactly?

originally posted by: TehDiz

originally posted by: smurfy
a reply to: Arbitrageur

There are more basic ways to prove the authenticity of the Moon landings, and there's no way round them.
the no stars meme, as all the other no Mooners suppositions was very weak anyway.

So prove it, with your basic ways.

Did so repeatedly here at ATS it has become passe......check out the gif of my signature for Start!

a reply to: Arbitrageur


Then there is this.....

www.youtube.com...

How is Nasa having to figure out ,anew, how to pass through the van allen belts if already did it in the 1960's and 1970's?

a reply to: norhoc

Again, debunked ad nauseam.

They are testing new spacecraft with much more sophisticated electronics designed for different mission profiles that require testing. They already worked out how to minimise exposure to the VAB in the 1960s. This is a new thing.

originally posted by: visitedbythem
Never a straight answer.
Defund NASA

Nitwits Adore Space Aliens

??

originally posted by: toysforadults
No one knows the truth but the astronauts themselves and they cant tell it.

Some of them tried but no one listens.

Uh, who, exactly? And where?

"In my dreams" is not an acceptable answer.

a reply to: JimOberg


No
Actual
Science
Applied

Nasa has more artists and graphic designers working for them than engineers

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Arbitrageur


So a made up digital image proves what exactly?

If you have the right parameters and sufficient compute power you can model nearly anything to a pretty high degree, the main factors they needed to know were available. Keep in mind this isn’t just a image it’s a simulation, now could they have had confirmation bias or just outright fudged the number? Of course but this is a step in the right direction towards knowing why the photographs came out the way they did it’s not going to change the mind of the hardcore deniers but there’s always going to be someone who will find something that they think is proof of a hoax or vice verse.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: TehDiz

originally posted by: smurfy
a reply to: Arbitrageur

There are more basic ways to prove the authenticity of the Moon landings, and there's no way round them.
the no stars meme, as all the other no Mooners suppositions was very weak anyway.

So prove it, with your basic ways.

Did so repeatedly here at ATS it has become passe......check out the gif of my signature for Start!

Satellite solar panel passing over the earth?

originally posted by: BigDave-AR
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed
Well as far as tech demos for GPUs go it was one of the most useful scenarios to model so I don’t blame them for the brilliant PR that it got them for not a whole lot more effort than has put into advanced tech demos.

Yes, I'm sure that's the reason. The video isn't a point-by-point debunking of every objection conspiracy theorists have, such as the Van Allen belts which aren't mentioned, it's a demonstration of nvidia technology and they wanted to model something to show it off, so why not this? It's a well known and popular historical event to model.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
Maybe we did...
Maybe we didn't...

We did have manned missions from 1969-1972, but Buzz is right, we didn't send a man back to the moon since 1972. There are conspiracy theorists who doubt that too, who think we have sent men back to the moon since 1972 and NASA is lying about that too, but a secret mission to the moon would be a really hard thing to hide, especially since every big rocket launch has to be reported to the Russians so they don't wonder if it's something else like a nuke launch.

originally posted by: Dwoodward85
2 - My issues of the moon landing have nothing to do with stars, my issues come with other things including lack of wheel tracks in certain photos, the fact that the astronauts refused to speak about it afterwards unless forced to and even then they looked miserable (first moon landing I'm talking about).

They did look exhausted at that press conference, and they probably felt that way. After returning from the moon, they spent two weeks in quarantine, then they did an around the world tour which if you've ever flown around the world you know what it can do to your circadian rhythms, and if you haven't, then try it sometime and see...that's what it does. You can feel exhausted until you adjust to the new time zone. But I don't see how that's any kind of proof or evidence of whether they went to the moon or not, it has more to do with their travel schedule and being thrust into the limelight and being expected to act like celebrities when they had no previous experience as celebrities, they were test pilots by background.

3 - The telemetry and data was lost, then found, then possibly destroyed, then found again, then lost and then destroyed and NASA scientists have already said "Even if we had the information we wouldn't know how to read it or rebuild the machines to read it".

Again I'm not sure why this makes you think they didn't land on the moon. If I found an old 8-track tape I'd have a hard time finding a tape player to play it, since I haven't even seen an 8-track player for a long time. NASA didn't have a historian running around saying "don't destroy those tapes", they were sitting in a warehouse where nobody needed them, and nobody was asking for them, until they ran into a tape shortage and then someone at NASA said they really needed some tapes. They were apparently given the Apollo 11 and many other tapes to use, though I don't think anybody at NASA was paying that much attention to what was on the tapes at that time, they just knew that someone at NASA needed tapes and they had a bunch on the shelf collecting dust they weren't using.

I've seen new people come into an organization and just start throwing things out without having much of an idea of what they are throwing out, all they know is it's not being used and they don't have infinite storage space for old junk that nobody is using, so it gets tossed. So it's not hard for me to picture the scenario at NASA where they give the apparently unwanted, unneeded tapes to someone who requested them, needed them, and wanted them. In hindsight maybe they shouldn't have done that but it's hardly evidence that the moon landing didn't happen.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So a made up digital image proves what exactly?

It's not exactly "made up". The 84,000 stars have a known brightness or magnitude as seen from the Earth or moon. The moon's surface has a known albedo or reflectivity, and the sun's output is very well known, so they can calculate how much light is coming from the sun, how much is hitting the moon, how much is reflecting from the moon, and compare that to how much light is coming from the stars. All of that information is known, you can see the moon's albedo for yourself from Earth.

So using that known data, the demo shows that stars are a lot dimmer than the moon's surface when you're standing on the moon. If you think their numbers are wrong you could input your own data and see what you come up with, but if your data and data input is accurate it should be very close to the same thing.

originally posted by: MteWamp
If there are real people, who are stupid, ignorant, uninformed, retarded, or just plain dumb enough to actually believe that we didn't go to the moon, there's an EXTREMELY small chance that they are even going to be able to comprehend the OP.

I would think they would be much more concerned with learning to do the important things, like how to eat, walk, or understand concepts like speech, learning to walk, or even the most basic social skills.

You know, survival stuff.

Hopefully, they won't reproduce, and contaminate the rest of the gene pool.

I just don't have much tolerance lately for stupid.

However, if some of them learn to actually communicate, you know, with actual people, bring it. Seriously.

You sound like a condescending, wannabe know it all.


If people can't comb through the copious amounts of fraudulent pictures and videos with today's modern technology, and come to the conclusion it was all a bad Hollywood production, they are simply in denial.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Quadrivium

Already dealt with

www.abovetopsecret.com...

did you EVEN read the thread you provided?????

a reply to: Arbitrageur
Actually, I have flown "around the world". You know what helps? Beer.
Flew from S.C., to Atlanta, to L.A., then to Taipei. We then flew to the south of Taiwan. Got off the plane and on a bus at 8am. They had a cooler full of beer and kept it coming throughout the week I was there.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Your point about their travel issues and all that is a good answer BUT it happened more than just that single time. It was almost every interview they gave. Hell after a while Armstrong flat out refused to talk about it unless he truly had to. I think I cannot remember an interview from Armstrong where he seemed in any way happy with going to the moon.

As for your second point about not having a historian there, let me ask you this you really expect me and anyone for that matter to believe that the most important moment in human history to happen, when we traveled away from our home world landed on another planet, rode around in a car, planted a couple flags played some golf and returned to home safely isn't important enough for them to keep the data and info? You don't need a historian to know how important that piece of history is. Why do I think they claim it's missing or been destroyed (over and over again) because people personal computers now and can literally go through anything and everything.

With all due respect, like I said there is more than enough evidence that we didn't go to the moon the first two times. Those are the things that I have read about, we have been there, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt but I do not think the first and second moon landings happened.

a reply to: Dwoodward85
The original tapes were slow scan TV which wasn't a broadcast compatible format, so the downloaded data had to be converted to a broadcast compatible format to be broadcast and copies of the broadcast recordings were kept. Watch this video which explains how that broadcast recording couldn't have been faked using technology available at the time:

Moon Landings Faked? Filmmaker Says Not!


You can choose to believe what you want, but there's no evidence to support your conspiracy theory that the tapes were destroyed to prevent someone going through them on a personal computer. They were re-used because someone else needed tapes and they weren't paying a lot of attention to what was on them. Maybe if you had requested them before they were re-used they would have still been available for your research, but unless you had the necessary equipment you wouldn't have been able to do much with them. You really need something backed up by evidence to support your claim because when you examine the other evidence they did land on the moon, it's overwhelming, so your idea of what you hypothesize they did for reasons you made up and have no evidence to support just doesn't stack up against that. You can put it on the scales of hoax or not, but the scales still tip overwhelmingly in favor of not hoaxed.

Whenever people go out of their way to prove something means they’re lying.