News - Nvidia debunks lunar landing hoax claims - using Maxwell GPUs

[Brian224]

One thing I never understood about the conspiracy thing is the concern over the absence of stars. Am I the only person to have cycled from the countryside into a town at night and noticed how many stars disappear from view because of the streetlights?

If our town council could afford lights as bright as the sun I wouldn't expect any stars to be visible.

[crossy]

good god what are nvidia trying to pull with this one.... yes it's a nice showcase of maxwell but lets be honest here unreal engine 4 is not production grade for one thing and there is no way that a 3D generated image will look the same as one produced with real people and real lighting. I do photography (film) and I do 3D rendering so I know what goes into both aspects.

From listening to the NVidia presentation I got the distinct impression that they chose UE4 specifically to give them a way of showing off real-time rendering rather than something you'd want to submit for a CGI Oscar. Plus, there's that sneaky between-the-lines aspect of "Ooo, look what we can do with UE - just imagine your game done to that level of quality. Still want that Radeon? Thought not"

[KendrickDM]

The question is not that they were on the moon but were the moonshot photographs studio fakes, to which the answer is yes.

Why, Radiation fogging of the film, Gamma rays would have created a quality of photograph which could only be published after re-shooting in a studio.

Depth of field - there is none, everything is in focus which shows Stanley Kubricks hand.

Not one astronaut used a viewfinder to aim a camera on their chests subeject to the entire bodies movement, the images should have been the most blurred in space.

Hold a decent camera to your chest with both hands and try to photograph a washing pole - see what I mean.

[crossy]

The hoax is still a thing?

Apparently it is - see the evidence given below.

The question is not that they were on the moon but were the moonshot photographs studio fakes, to which the answer is yes.
Why, Radiation fogging of the film, Gamma rays would have created a quality of photograph which could only be published after re-shooting in a studio.
Depth of field - there is none, everything is in focus which shows Stanley Kubricks hand.
Not one astronaut used a viewfinder to aim a camera on their chests subeject to the entire bodies movement, the images should have been the most blurred in space.
Hold a decent camera to your chest with both hands and try to photograph a washing pole - see what I mean.

I'm not even going to dignify that with a reply.

[LSG501]

The question is not that they were on the moon but were the moonshot photographs studio fakes, to which the answer is yes.

Why, Radiation fogging of the film, Gamma rays would have created a quality of photograph which could only be published after re-shooting in a studio.

Depth of field - there is none, everything is in focus which shows Stanley Kubricks hand.

Not one astronaut used a viewfinder to aim a camera on their chests subeject to the entire bodies movement, the images should have been the most blurred in space.

Hold a decent camera to your chest with both hands and try to photograph a washing pole - see what I mean.

you don't know much about photography do you.....or the specially adapted hasselblad cameras and the film that went into them.

But then you have only posted 5 times so there is an element of trolling potential in your post

[KendrickDM]

The question is not that they were on the moon but were the moonshot photographs studio fakes, to which the answer is yes.

Why, Radiation fogging of the film, Gamma rays would have created a quality of photograph which could only be published after re-shooting in a studio.

Depth of field - there is none, everything is in focus which shows Stanley Kubricks hand.

Not one astronaut used a viewfinder to aim a camera on their chests subeject to the entire bodies movement, the images should have been the most blurred in space.

Hold a decent camera to your chest with both hands and try to photograph a washing pole - see what I mean.

you don't know much about photography do you.....or the specially adapted hasselblad cameras and the film that went into them.

But then you have only posted 5 times so there is an element of trolling potential in your post

Says the obvious troll...

The hoax is still a thing?

Apparently it is - see the evidence given below.

The question is not that they were on the moon but were the moonshot photographs studio fakes, to which the answer is yes.
Why, Radiation fogging of the film, Gamma rays would have created a quality of photograph which could only be published after re-shooting in a studio.
Depth of field - there is none, everything is in focus which shows Stanley Kubricks hand.
Not one astronaut used a viewfinder to aim a camera on their chests subeject to the entire bodies movement, the images should have been the most blurred in space.
Hold a decent camera to your chest with both hands and try to photograph a washing pole - see what I mean.

I'm not even going to dignify that with a reply.

Which bit about there being an ideological cold war on since 1947 did you miss....

[LSG501]

edit: deleted... can't be bothered, just added to ignored list

[aidanjt]

The question is not that they were on the moon but were the moonshot photographs studio fakes, to which the answer is yes.

This is among the stupidest things I've ever read. Why would they bother with studio filming of the moon landing when they could film on the moon, only with the perfect lighting you'd only get from a star reflecting off the planet and the regolith on the moon? And finally, the whole point of bringing the camera along was to document what they were doing. So why bother recreating material you already have at a lesser, unrealistic quality? Especially when doing so would blow up your budget and risk turning the Senates' already beady eyed attention into a scalp hunt.

Why, Radiation fogging of the film, Gamma rays would have created a quality of photograph which could only be published after re-shooting in a studio.

Yeah, shielding against radiation is not that hard to do with knowledge of photon interaction with given materials at a particular frequency.

Depth of field - there is none, everything is in focus which shows Stanley Kubricks hand.

You know, setting a flat depth of field is a thing. A useful thing when aiming and focusing on particular objects is far too difficult (like wearing a clunky space suit and not being able to put the view finder in front of your eye), and is actually undesirable, like when you're recording for scientific documentation purposes. Also, Stanley Kubrick couldn't move about at lunar gravitation. And frankly, if Stanley Kubrick was able to create sets of that flawless quality, then why didn't he do the same for his movies?

Not one astronaut used a viewfinder to aim a camera on their chests subeject to the entire bodies movement, the images should have been the most blurred in space.

Hold a decent camera to your chest with both hands and try to photograph a washing pole - see what I mean.

Due to suit design, they pretty much had to have their body orientated towards what they want to look at anyway, and with helmet casing being exactly symmetrical in being within the astronauts field of view, guestimating where the middle is isn't very hard. And because of the moon's much lower gravitational acceleration, their movements had to be very slow, gentle, and careful, and a foot step results in a lower impact anyway due to lower inertia and landing on very soft ground, meaning negligible shaking, and so no, no blurring. You're applying Earth-scale physics to an actual moon landing. When you should actually be applying them to the moonlanding studio conspiracy. That's silly.

Anything else?

[Smudger]

What about on Diamonds are Forever where James Bond drives through a fake moon landing set? Proof indeed. FACT.

[Brian224]

Depth of field - there is none, everything is in focus which shows Stanley Kubricks hand.

Not one astronaut used a viewfinder to aim a camera on their chests subeject to the entire bodies movement, the images should have been the most blurred in space.

Hold a decent camera to your chest with both hands and try to photograph a washing pole - see what I mean.

Try taking a photograph on a sandy beach in full sunlight (no clouds on the moon) and see how high a shutter speed you can set (even with 25ASA) whilst stopping the lens down enough to get a close hyperfocal distance, then think about it again.

As far as radiation fogging the films is concerned, the overall radiation exposure of the astronauts was well within nuclear safety guidelines and would not have fogged the film in a film badge. Why do you think the film in a metal camera back would have had a greater exposure?

[KendrickDM]

Depth of field - there is none, everything is in focus which shows Stanley Kubricks hand.

Not one astronaut used a viewfinder to aim a camera on their chests subeject to the entire bodies movement, the images should have been the most blurred in space.

Hold a decent camera to your chest with both hands and try to photograph a washing pole - see what I mean.

Try taking a photograph on a sandy beach in full sunlight (no clouds on the moon) and see how high a shutter speed you can set (even with 25ASA) whilst stopping the lens down enough to get a close hyperfocal distance, then think about it again.

As far as radiation fogging the films is concerned, the overall radiation exposure of the astronauts was well within nuclear safety guidelines and would not have fogged the film in a film badge. Why do you think the film in a metal camera back would have had a greater exposure?

Depth of field still applies, the cameras worn by the crew of Eagle had fixed depth of field - there are no magic cameras which take perfect photographs of everything at once. Where are the bloopers which would still have have scientific value.

The source of the consipracy theories was to do with the 'too perfect' media message which was used against the Soviet Union in the cold war by NASA with 'too perfect' photographs in an envronment where film is damaged by cosmic radiaton visible to astronauts as light flashes, cosmic radiation has the energy to entirely ignore the shielding offered by a few millimeters of Aluminium hull and a camera case, and they would have had artifacts created by crompton scattering, the film was exposed to 11 days of this, rolled film was exposed to 11 days in total during mission time.

[crossy]

Which bit about there being an ideological cold war on since 1947 did you miss....

Having worked for MoD for a long time perhaps I know a bit more about it than you obviously do.

May I commend the following thread on the Phys/PhysOrg news site "Moon Landing Conspiracy Battles, Regarding film & radiation fogging" as it covers the pro- and anti- arguments quite well with a selection of informative links. By the way I love this comment that the mods added:

[Moderator: Banned for denial of scientific expertise and substituting conspiracy hypotheses, confirmation bias and Dunning-Kruger overconfidence.]

Talk about banning someone with style...!

The whole "it was faked" 'theory' doesn't hold water for me even ignoring the scientific evidence to the contrary. For that conspiracy to work you'd need the involvement of hundreds, if not thousands of people. A secret that widely held (remember the old cliche about the likelihood of exposure being proportional to the square of the number of people who know it) would have leaked by now.

Ignoring that little fact, as you point out there was a propaganda war going on between US and USSR. Given the fact that the KGB seemed to be able to penetrate the highest levels of the US establishment, why haven't they leaked it since surely it would be very much in their interests - even now - to do so? They haven't because the conspiracy doesn't exist.

I'm sorry to say if you seriously believe that "(lizard based) conspiracy" nonsense then I question your gullibility, failing that I've got access to some millions of dollars in a Nigerian bank account that I'd like your assistance in recovering.

What about on Diamonds are Forever where James Bond drives through a fake moon landing set? Proof indeed. FACT.

Shush! Don't encourage them! Besides, I'm too busy trying to book passage through the Star Gate to the alpha site before this happens

May the force be with you, live long and prosper.