The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: garygreen on October 16, 2018, 10:41:41 PM
-
big giant caveat: this is effectively just an advertisement for their ray-tracing tech, and they haven't published any results that i'm aware of, so i absolutely do not take this at face value. nor should anyone. but hopefully this will lead to a fun discussion anyway.
https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2018/10/11/turing-recreates-lunar-landing/
The demo team built on work they did four years ago, when they collected every detail they could to understand the iconic image. They researched the rivets on the lunar lander, identified the properties of the dust coating the moon’s surface, and measured the reflectivity of the material used in the astronauts’ space suits.
To update our original demo, NVIDIA engineers rebuilt the scene of the moon landing in Unreal Engine 4, a game engine developed by Epic Games. They simulated how the sun’s rays, coming from behind the lander, bounced off the moon’s surface and Armstrong’s suit, to cast light on Aldrin as he stepped off the lander.
All of this only heightened the fidelity of our latest demo — and re-confirmed what we’d discovered four years ago. That the illumination of the astronaut in the photo wasn’t caused by something other than the sun — such as studio lights — but by light doing what light does.
here's a video of the work they did four years ago:
https://youtu.be/O9y_AVYMEUs
-
This is just based on the high moon surface reflectivity value which NASA was claiming to explain the criticism at the time.
-
This is just based on the high moon surface reflectivity value which NASA was claiming to explain the criticism at the time.
The moon reflectance was ruled out in this video, but another thing was ruled in.
I won't spoil it for you, if you still wanted to watch the video.
-
This is just based on the high moon surface reflectivity value which NASA was claiming to explain the criticism at the time.
Have you even watched the video? Because it actually isn't, that is a partial explanation but other things had to be accounted for.
When they did that they got a pretty good match to the original photo.
It's always amusing that people who have no actual expertise in this area pontificate about "Must be fake. If that was real then <insert made up thing here>"
The "thing" might be "you'd be able to see the stars" or "Buzz Aldrin is in shadow and shouldn't be seen" or whatever. Those things are dealt with in this video.
A load of experts who actually have accurate modelling software (we know it's accurate because, well, when they render scenes they look realistic) show how the original image is lit exactly how you'd expect if you understand the way light scatters and reflects and it's waved away. Odd.
-
The entire basis for the moon landing being fake is that the video looks almost identical to a Stanley Kubrick film and many people don't think that's just one big coincidence.
-
I don't think that is the basis. Maybe for you, but a lot of people just have a mindset that "they" are up to something. And they probably are. But they doesn't mean everything is fake or "not as it seems". There's plenty of 3rd party evidence for the moon landings and most of the "evidence" for fakery is from people who quite honestly have no expertise in this area.
The idea of a moon hoax starts with the conspiracy theory mindset, all the "evidence" is just a combination of confirmation bias and ignorance.
-
big giant caveat: this is effectively just an advertisement for their ray-tracing tech,
This video talks about Maxwell technology. That's not ray tracing. Since Maxwell, there has been Pascal (the 10 series) and now Turing for the 20 series. Only top end Turing has RTX. Maxwell is nVidia 7 series and 9 series. So this video is from 4 generations of Nvidia ago. Not Ray Tracing.
Luckily it is now available, so you don't have to live any more of your life without ray tracing.
-
Here is the NVIDIA render next to the Apollo photo, showing that the moon is very luminous and reflective, and can light up the back side of the lander:
(https://www.geforce.com/sites/default/files-world/screenshots/Screen%20Shot%202014-11-06%20at%201.10.28%20PM.PNG)
However, if the lunar surface is so luminous and reflective, then why aren't the shadowed areas of the rocks and craters on the moon's surface also illuminated?
Rock from nasa.gov:
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17-21493and96.jpg)
Crater:
(https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/images/crater_lg.gif)
-
This is just based on the high moon surface reflectivity value which NASA was claiming to explain the criticism at the time.
You may want to re-watch the video b/c their work is not “just based on the reflectivity value that NASA claimed.” There’s a lot more to it, as Mysfit alluded to. But here’s a hint, the surface is a minor aspect.
Here is the NVIDIA render next to the Apollo photo, showing that the moon is very luminous and reflective, and can light up the back side of the lander:
However, if the lunar surface is so luminous and reflective, then why aren't the shadowed areas of the rocks and craters on the moon's surface also illuminated?
And yes, there are apparently shadows on the moon where shadows should be.
-
This is just based on the high moon surface reflectivity value which NASA was claiming to explain the criticism at the time.
You may want to re-watch the video b/c their work is not “just based on the reflectivity value that NASA claimed.” There’s a lot more to it, as Mysfit alluded to. But here’s a hint, the surface is a minor aspect.
The video claims that the lunar surface is very bright and reflective, and is providing most of the light. Around the 4 minute mark they claim that they couldn't get it "quite right" and bring in the reflectivity off of Neil Armstrong's space suit.
They show a render at 4:07 on what the reflectivity looks like with the lunar surface only:
(https://i.imgur.com/jByiBK6.png)
Yes, they do claim that the lunar surface is quite reflective.
-
Yes, they do claim that the lunar surface is quite reflective.
I agree, the lunar surface looks quite reflective. When I look up at a full moon, it looks quite reflective.
-
Yes, they do claim that the lunar surface is quite reflective.
I agree, the lunar surface looks quite reflective. When I look up at a full moon, it looks quite reflective.
Ha. I was going to make the exact same point.
My evidence for the moon being somewhat reflective is...look at the moon and notice how you can see it.
My evidence for the moon not reflecting 100% of light that shines on it is...look at the moon and notice that you don't go blind, compare and contrast with trying to look at the sun.
I took this photo of the moon:
(https://image.ibb.co/dPrt6o/moon.jpg)
I don't have the best camera in the world but even with the zoom on my camera you can see shadows. Of course there are shadows, I don't know how reflections from the moon's surface could hit another bit of the moon's surface, but if light bounces off the moon's surface and scatters then of course that light could illuminate an object above the surface like, say, an astronaut.
Tom's post is a perfect example of what I said above, people who have no expertise pontificating about how things "should" look and thinking they know better than people who have spent years developing software which models the way light behaves and demonstrably renders accurate images.
-
Yes, they do claim that the lunar surface is quite reflective.
I agree, the lunar surface looks quite reflective. When I look up at a full moon, it looks quite reflective.
What does this argument have to do with the fact that there is no illumination on the backside of this rock and others?
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17-21493and96.jpg)
Tom's post is a perfect example of what I said above, people who have no expertise pontificating about how things "should" look and thinking they know better than people who have spent years developing software which models the way light behaves and demonstrably renders accurate images.
What is your expertise to tell us what the rock above should look like on a very reflective and luminous moon?
You are simultaneously arguing that deep dark shadows on rocks and craters are fine while claiming that the surface of the moon is incredibly reflective and luminous.
-
You are simultaneously arguing that deep dark shadows on rocks and craters are fine while claiming that the surface of the moon is incredibly reflective and luminous.
It clearly has some reflective properties, that's why we can see it.
That doesn't mean that there aren't shadows.
The earth is reflective too - more reflective than the moon, actually, on average. We still have shadows.
As for that particular photo, the sun is clearly illuminating one side of the rock, I can't see anything the other side of it which would reflect light back on to the dark part. If you look at the astronaut in the background you'll notice that he is casting a shadow too. It's interesting that the side of his leg is quite dark but the side of his helmet is brighter, I don't know if the helmets were just more reflective or if light is reflecting from some other part of his suit, maybe you could write to the guys who modelled the Buzz Aldrin photo and ask them to model this too, the way light scatters and reflects is complicated.
But as I guess you think this photo is fake anyway, what do you think is going on? Is it CGI? If so then what, have they rendered the light wrong? If that photo is from Apollo then they would not have had the CG technology to make it so what. Is it a painting and the artist drew the light wrong? If it was shot on a sound stage then the light is what it is, I don't see how that could be wrong.
Apart from confirmation bias and ignorance do you have any actual evidence that the photo is faked? If so, please present it.
-
Yes, they do claim that the lunar surface is quite reflective.
I agree, the lunar surface looks quite reflective. When I look up at a full moon, it looks quite reflective.
What does this argument have to do with the fact that there is no illumination on the backside of this rock and others?
I guess I’m not following your rock shadow hypothesis.
The contention Nvidia tackled was how, in that famous photo, was Buzz Aldrin illuminated when he was in the shadow of the Lunar Lander.
At around 4:10, they talk about how they added bounce light to simulate light reflecting off the surface. It wasn’t nearly good enough to replicate the image.
At around 4:50, the ‘aha’ moment. Enter Neil Armstrong and his suit as the missing source of light. Neil was actually a bounce for the sun.
At about 5:20, they talk about the reflective values. The surface is about 12%. A lunar space suit reflective value is around 80-90%.
"The famous shot was snapped by Neil Armstrong -- who was off to the side of Aldrin in full view of the Sun -- wearing a 85 percent reflective spacesuit that contained five layers of the highly reflective fabric Mylar blended with four layers of the flexible yet durable material Dacron on top of an additional two layers of heat resistant Kapton."
https://www.cnet.com/news/nvidias-new-gpu-sinks-moon-landing-hoax-using-virtual-light/
The point being, it was Neil’s suit that bounced the sunlight onto Buzz as he descended from the shadow side of the Lunar Lander.
-
Mythbusters did an episode on the faking of the moon landing. They were saying that the ground was reflective!! A reflective ground!!?? Just goes to show you that people will believe pretty much anything that the media shoves down their throat.
-
Mythbusters did an episode on the faking of the moon landing. They were saying that the ground was reflective!! A reflective ground!!?? Just goes to show you that people will believe pretty much anything that the media shoves down their throat.
Can you see the moon? I can, and I know from the shadows that it is being lit by a light source so the fact I can see it tells me that it is reflecting some of that light.
Note, some. Not all. If it reflected all of the light from the sun then it would be as bright as the sun.
How do you think you see the ground on earth if the ground isn't reflecting light which shines on it?
-
The point being, it was Neil’s suit that bounced the sunlight onto Buzz as he descended from the shadow side of the Lunar Lander.
I do get what Tom is saying, if you look at the video then they did realise that it was Armstrong's suit which was providing some of the illumination and when they accounted for that they got a pretty good match to the original photo. But Tom's point is that even before they did that, Aldrin is partially illuminated. So his question is "how come Aldrin is illuminated when the back side of the rock in this other photo isn't".
And the answer is that the back side of the rock is analogous to the back side of the lander, and most of that is in darkness too.
The headline is something can only be seen if light reflects off it, that's how we see anything. And when you're taking a photo it's worth bearing in mind that exposure is a factor, in the video they set the exposure high enough that you could see the star field they put in the background of the model but then the rest of the image became an over-exposed, white mess. A common piece of "evidence" for the landings being a hoax is "why can't you see the stars", the video explains why.
The way light bounces and scatters is complicated, I'm always interested that people who have no expertise in this area think they know better than people who have built complex models which render demonstrably realistic looking images. I'm not blindly accepting their work either, but understanding a bit about the way light works I can see the logic in that video and Armstrong's suit makes perfect sense as an additional light source, in the little clip from Apollo you can see his suit brightly shining from the other angle.
-
-A common piece of "evidence" for the landings being a hoax is "why can't you see the stars"-
It always struck me as absurd that the Global powers behind the moon hoax would spend millions of dollars to hoax a moon landing by carefully and completely faking a trip to outer space and then realize," Oops, we forgot to put stars in outer space."
-
It always struck me as absurd that the Global powers behind the moon hoax would spend millions of dollars to hoax a moon landing by carefully and completely faking a trip to outer space and then realize," Oops, we forgot to put stars in outer space."
While I'm not convinced that the moon missions were faked, I have to object to your description here. Most moon landing conspiracies I've engaged with suggest that the budget was relatively small, because the less you spend, the more you get to steal.
This is normally cognate with arguments that the lunar module looks as if it was made out of cheap tin foil, that huge amounts of decisive evidence mysteriously disappeared or were accidentally deleted, and that the evidence that remains is of uncharacteristically low quality for the time period.
Regardless of whether we choose to agree with the argument, the argument is not that a lot of money was spent to deceive people, but rather that people were gullible enough to accept something sub-par.
-
It always struck me as absurd that the Global powers behind the moon hoax would spend millions of dollars to hoax a moon landing by carefully and completely faking a trip to outer space and then realize," Oops, we forgot to put stars in outer space."
While I'm not convinced that the moon missions were faked, I have to object to your description here. Most moon landing conspiracies I've engaged with suggest that the budget was relatively small, because the less you spend, the more you get to steal.
This is normally cognate with arguments that the lunar module looks as if it was made out of cheap tin foil, that huge amounts of decisive evidence mysteriously disappeared or were accidentally deleted, and that the evidence that remains is of uncharacteristically low quality for the time period.
Regardless of whether we choose to agree with the argument, the argument is not that a lot of money was spent to deceive people, but rather that people were gullible enough to accept something sub-par.
Fair point....
Still if someone is going to cheap out on some aspect of fake space travel, you'd think that stars would be the one thing they wouldn't skimp on. Even the cheesiest sci-fi movies from the 1950s had stars.
-
While I'm not convinced that the moon missions were faked
My head is spinning at the idea you could believe that the earth is flat and even contemplate that the moon landings could have happened.
How do you square that circle?
-
According to the wiki on this site the moon is 3000 miles away. I have been on a flight from Chicago to Hong Kong that was much farther than that. The conspiracy theory seems to say that NASA faked the 239,900 mile trip (commonly quoted distance). There are recordings of the astronauts talking back and forth to mission control and the theory states that there should be a 2 second delay between comments between ground control and the astronauts due to the large distance. If the moon is only 3000 miles, then you wouldn't expect a noticeable delay. Maybe NASA didn't fake the trip to the moon, but the stated distance. Since the differences in distance are 100 to 1 you would expect that the project would be a whole lot more expensive to go 100 times the number of miles. A short trip would be a whole lot cheaper and 'they' could pocket the difference in cost.
-
According to the wiki on this site the moon is 3000 miles away. I have been on a flight from Chicago to Hong Kong that was much farther than that. The conspiracy theory seems to say that NASA faked the 239,900 mile trip (commonly quoted distance). There are recordings of the astronauts talking back and forth to mission control and the theory states that there should be a 2 second delay between comments between ground control and the astronauts due to the large distance. If the moon is only 3000 miles, then you wouldn't expect a noticeable delay. Maybe NASA didn't fake the trip to the moon, but the stated distance. Since the differences in distance are 100 to 1 you would expect that the project would be a whole lot more expensive to go 100 times the number of miles. A short trip would be a whole lot cheaper and 'they' could pocket the difference in cost.
I had the same thought a ways back. 3000 miles is less distance than a flight from, say, NYC to London. If the moon is even closer, maybe we did land on it. Granted slightly different direction, "up" instead of “over”, but so damn close.
Using FET, landing on the moon is far more plausible than the RE model of it being 239k miles away. Conspiracy being that NASA did go to the moon, placed reflectors, hit some golf balls and drove around in a buggy, but are hiding the fact that it’s so close to earth because of money, pride, luminati/masonic and/or whatever conspiratorial proclivity suits your whimsy.
-
The conspiracy thesis could also explain why NASA hasn't just sent a rocket up and off in any direction towards the edge with a camera and all kinds of measuring equipment. Since a dome isn't part of the theory then a rocket could easily take images of the edge and what is beyond. If there were some kind of black energy barrier, then that could be measured as well. The biggest problem with that is that NASA would really be shooting themselves in the foot. All of their own theories would be out the window with a mission they designed. I wouldn't look for that to happen any time soon.
-
-A common piece of "evidence" for the landings being a hoax is "why can't you see the stars"-
It always struck me as absurd that the Global powers behind the moon hoax would spend millions of dollars to hoax a moon landing by carefully and completely faking a trip to outer space and then realize," Oops, we forgot to put stars in outer space."
I've been saying the same thing for a very long time. That and "you'd think by now, especially after all the sharp tools keep pointing out the missing stars, that they'd figure it out".
-
My head is spinning at the idea you could believe that the earth is flat and even contemplate that the moon landings could have happened.
How do you square that circle?
Unlike the RE'ers here, I'm not an absolutist. I embrace the possibility that I'm wrong, and I continuously look at new possible outcomes - especially ones that challenge me.
-
My head is spinning at the idea you could believe that the earth is flat and even contemplate that the moon landings could have happened.
How do you square that circle?
Unlike the RE'ers here, I'm not an absolutist. I embrace the possibility that I'm wrong, and I continuously look at new possible outcomes - especially ones that challenge me.
I'd say there are an equal number of RE and FE absolutists here. You, perhaps, may not be one of them. But thanks for speaking for all of RE.
So do you fall into the camp you've mentioned before of those FErs who believe that Apollo happened, but astronauts were mistaken in what they saw?
-
According to the wiki on this site the moon is 3000 miles away. I have been on a flight from Chicago to Hong Kong that was much farther than that. The conspiracy theory seems to say that NASA faked the 239,900 mile trip (commonly quoted distance). There are recordings of the astronauts talking back and forth to mission control and the theory states that there should be a 2 second delay between comments between ground control and the astronauts due to the large distance. If the moon is only 3000 miles, then you wouldn't expect a noticeable delay. Maybe NASA didn't fake the trip to the moon, but the stated distance. Since the differences in distance are 100 to 1 you would expect that the project would be a whole lot more expensive to go 100 times the number of miles. A short trip would be a whole lot cheaper and 'they' could pocket the difference in cost.
I had the same thought a ways back. 3000 miles is less distance than a flight from, say, NYC to London. If the moon is even closer, maybe we did land on it. Granted slightly different direction, "up" instead of “over”, but so damn close.
Using FET, landing on the moon is far more plausible than the RE model of it being 239k miles away. Conspiracy being that NASA did go to the moon, placed reflectors, hit some golf balls and drove around in a buggy, but are hiding the fact that it’s so close to earth because of money, pride, luminati/masonic and/or whatever conspiratorial proclivity suits your whimsy.
I don't see how you can believe in a FE and think that the moon landings happened.
From what I understand the idea is that UA is accelerating the earth upwards with respect to the flat earth but we are protected from that acceleration by the earth itself, otherwise we would be accelerated upwards too and be effectively weightless. The ether drift, or whatever it is which is accelerating the earth, goes round the sides of the earth and meets above it somewhere, the sun, moon and stars are above this point so they are accelerated upwards too which is why they don't crash into the earth. As you've stated, the moon is small and close, compared with what traditional science claims.
I hope that isn't all straw man, that is what I think the FE claim is. Let's try and see how that would apply to the moon landings. So the rocket would launch and I guess it would just go straight to the moon as orbit of a FE would be impossible - you could orbit in the sense of going round in circles above it but why would you? At some altitude the rocket would get caught by the ether drift (I'll keep calling it that for consistency) and I guess at that point the rocket and astronauts would be weightless as they would be accelerated at the same speed as everything else. Although...no, hang on, if they are being accelerated by the ether drift then they wouldn't be weightless, they'd feel the force of that acceleration. But they wouldn't need to use any rockets to stay above the earth, the ether drift would keep them accelerating along with the earth so the rocket would stay at the same altitude. Rockets could be used to get to the moon but then how would you land on it? How could you walk around on it if the rocket, you and the moon are accelerating a the same rate. You'd feel the force of the acceleration but the moon is accelerating too so you wouldn't be able to walk on the moon. Nothing is pressing you against the moon's surface. Unless the "top" of the moon also protects you from the ether drift in which case you could land on that but you'd be landing on the dark side of the moon and your weight would be the same as on earth because the moon is accelerating at the same rate the earth is - maybe this is where celestial gravitation comes to the rescue.
This is all making my head spin but if I'm understanding Pete right he's saying that he's unsure about the moon landings in the same way he is unsure about the flat earth - in the sense that he's prepared to change his mind about these things. But I really think you have to pick one. If the moon landings happened then the earth can't be flat, and if the earth is flat then the moon landings can't have happened. I don't see how both are possible.
-
A 20th century video of a moon landing would require a different script that what everyone thought they saw on the last mission. I think that a moon landing would be possible for both the FE and RE theories. In the FE theory, gravity is out. Humans and everything else is held onto the earth due to universal acceleration. Everything has mass and since mass is the property that resists acceleration, a force is required to keep something accelerating. That is why a person feels the force of the earth when standing upon it. The force comes from the earth accelerating upwards and the mass of your body resisting that acceleration. A spacecraft above the earth's atmosphere would have to have enough thrust to keep a constant acceleration, at the same rate as the earth's, plus a little more to close the distance to the moon. Once near the moon things could get a little tricky. Since the moon is spherical the spacecraft would have to land on the surface of the moon opposite the earth. The moon also must be accelerating at the same rate as the earth otherwise the distance between the earth and moon would be changing. A person standing on the moon then would feel the same upward acceleration at they do on the earth and would feel the same force on their feet as well as long as they were standing on the side opposite the earth. If they were standing on the side that faces the earth, I fear that they would fly off. I would also expect that a person would weigh the same on the moon as they do on earth. The videos I saw on the moon missions seem to indicate that the astronauts were bouncing around and very light on their feet. Was that all a fake? What also is unknown is what keeps the moon accelerating at the same rate as the earth. It is believed that the earth is being kept in constant acceleration by a dark energy force of some kind. Is that same force acting on the moon as well? Would that same force act on a human in the space between the earth and the moon? I would like to know the answers to these questions myself.