Nvidia Proves Moon Landing Photos Authentic

[Denamic]

Sooooo proving a picture wasn't faked by making an exact, realistic fake picture?

*hands conspiracy theorists some gasoline for their fire.

I don't think you know what the word 'fake' means. A fake is something not real intended to deceive. This is a simulation.

the idea here is that if Nvidia can easily create an identical picture accurately on a single GPU that fits in a large coat pocket, who is to say government with millions of resources could not create identical picture as well?[footnote]i dont actually believe in the conspiracy, but i can see how this can give conspiracy supporters actually fuel rather than disprove it[/footnote]

Of course they could do it. Anyone with high-end 3D modeling software and the knowhow could. This is nvidia taking on a project for publicity while showing off their hardware and software. Also, I'm not sure why you're replying to me with this because I never said anything related to what you replied with.

I suggest you look at your post number 29 then. you may have forgotten it.

I see what you're saying. No matter how many billions you have, you couldn't do this kind of simulation in the 60s. The hardware and the software simply did not exist.

i was more implying with the millions at hand you could build the actual set instead.

You can't replicate the light on the moon in our atmosphere. You'd need sunlight, but you can't replicate the conditions necessary for these results without light pollution. You could create very similar results, but they would be different from what this simulation came up with. In other words, this simulation would prove the doubters correct.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

So I have a theory: Conspiracy theorists are themselves a conspiracy! Paid government agents sent out to convince stupid people that the government have things so under control that voting is pointless. Then they can just re-elect incumbents over and over again!

If you do point that out, people just say that that's also a conspiracy.

Descartes is twisting in his grave.

OT: I sure hope this line of cards makes it's way to laptop formats soon! I want to get a decent laptop that would allow me to play games for 4 years, as my lifestyle will become significantly too mobile to allow for desktop gaming as much.

Things are looking impressive, not let's get some great games to go along with that beastly hardware!

 

[Strazdas]

Sooooo proving a picture wasn't faked by making an exact, realistic fake picture?

*hands conspiracy theorists some gasoline for their fire.

I don't think you know what the word 'fake' means. A fake is something not real intended to deceive. This is a simulation.

the idea here is that if Nvidia can easily create an identical picture accurately on a single GPU that fits in a large coat pocket, who is to say government with millions of resources could not create identical picture as well?[footnote]i dont actually believe in the conspiracy, but i can see how this can give conspiracy supporters actually fuel rather than disprove it[/footnote]

Of course they could do it. Anyone with high-end 3D modeling software and the knowhow could. This is nvidia taking on a project for publicity while showing off their hardware and software. Also, I'm not sure why you're replying to me with this because I never said anything related to what you replied with.

I suggest you look at your post number 29 then. you may have forgotten it.

I see what you're saying. No matter how many billions you have, you couldn't do this kind of simulation in the 60s. The hardware and the software simply did not exist.

i was more implying with the millions at hand you could build the actual set instead.

You can't replicate the light on the moon in our atmosphere. You'd need sunlight, but you can't replicate the conditions necessary for these results without light pollution. You could create very similar results, but they would be different from what this simulation came up with. In other words, this simulation would prove the doubters correct.

So there is no way to create artificial light that would imitate such light polution in a controlled studio if money is not a limit?

 

[barbzilla]

Couldn't we have just pointed to the moonrock we brought back as evidence? Or the reflector array we set up on the moon, the flag, or really any of the physical evidence could have simply proven this.

 

[Varrdy]

You could fly a conspiracy nut to the Moon and show him the original landing sites, with all the debris and LM lower stages that were left behind and they would still refuse to alter their braindead, inane, self-important and deluded rantings. I've had more luck getting religious people to accept reasonable arguments and evidence than I have conspiracy theorists!

 

[Denamic]

Sooooo proving a picture wasn't faked by making an exact, realistic fake picture?

*hands conspiracy theorists some gasoline for their fire.

I don't think you know what the word 'fake' means. A fake is something not real intended to deceive. This is a simulation.

the idea here is that if Nvidia can easily create an identical picture accurately on a single GPU that fits in a large coat pocket, who is to say government with millions of resources could not create identical picture as well?[footnote]i dont actually believe in the conspiracy, but i can see how this can give conspiracy supporters actually fuel rather than disprove it[/footnote]

Of course they could do it. Anyone with high-end 3D modeling software and the knowhow could. This is nvidia taking on a project for publicity while showing off their hardware and software. Also, I'm not sure why you're replying to me with this because I never said anything related to what you replied with.

I suggest you look at your post number 29 then. you may have forgotten it.

I see what you're saying. No matter how many billions you have, you couldn't do this kind of simulation in the 60s. The hardware and the software simply did not exist.

i was more implying with the millions at hand you could build the actual set instead.

You can't replicate the light on the moon in our atmosphere. You'd need sunlight, but you can't replicate the conditions necessary for these results without light pollution. You could create very similar results, but they would be different from what this simulation came up with. In other words, this simulation would prove the doubters correct.

So there is no way to create artificial light that would imitate such light polution in a controlled studio if money is not a limit?

I'd not go so far as to say it's impossible, but it would have to be a single obscenely powerful lamp mounted on a very tall structure, or you'd get multiple shadows, diffused contours and wrong angles on the shadows. Lamps like that didn't exist in the 60s either. And to top it off, they'd have to simulate an environment they've never been to with guesswork based on far less data than we have today. They'd no doubt get details wrong.

There's also the evidence that shows it is in fact a low gravity and no atmosphere environment, like their bouncing and the flag swinging like a pendulum when nudged when it would stop moving quickly in the resistance of an atmosphere. I guess the bouncing could be explained by wires, but just to make the flag behave like that, they'd have to be in a giant vacuum chamber.

All this would take a giant amount of resources and leave a paper trail the size of a cross-country highway. There would be lots and lots of evidence outside of details in in pictures and videos.

 

[Varrdy]

I must be misunderstanding this. They "proved" the moon landing was authentic... by proving that such a picture could be faked?

The scene was indeed reproduced (faked implies they were trying to pass it off as the real thing) but you forget that the the technology used in this case wasn't around in 1969.

 

[Strazdas]

I'd not go so far as to say it's impossible, but it would have to be a single obscenely powerful lamp mounted on a very tall structure, or you'd get multiple shadows, diffused contours and wrong angles on the shadows. Lamps like that didn't exist in the 60s either. And to top it off, they'd have to simulate an environment they've never been to with guesswork based on far less data than we have today. They'd no doubt get details wrong.

There's also the evidence that shows it is in fact a low gravity and no atmosphere environment, like their bouncing and the flag swinging like a pendulum when nudged when it would stop moving quickly in the resistance of an atmosphere. I guess the bouncing could be explained by wires, but just to make the flag behave like that, they'd have to be in a giant vacuum chamber.

All this would take a giant amount of resources and leave a paper trail the size of a cross-country highway. There would be lots and lots of evidence outside of details in in pictures and videos.

well i guess it really is hard to fake it then. thanks for answers.


as far as papertrails go, government is best at hiding papertrails. they managed to have a secret military base under a resort hotel for decades before someone found it completely by accident. they built a massive apocalypse bunker under a WORKING resort hotel, while it was working. so yes, government CAN do massive things unnoticed.