Nvidia uses new global illumination tech to test hoax claims

[beedarko]

I hadn't seen this until today, and it's absolutely brilliant.  I completely geek out over this stuff.

The guys at Nvidia use the new Maxwell GPU to render global lighting scenarios in real time, and decided to apply that process to the Apollo 11 landing site photos.  They focus specifically on the famous shot of Aldrin descending the ladder as taken by Armstrong - a favorite of hoaxters due to their belief that Aldrin should be in shadow.  They also address a few other claims, including the oft-quoted "no stars" issue.

I think this documentary provides a nice respite from silly ghost claims and "whispers" from the anonymously challenged.

Enjoy.

[dwight]

I was duly impressed by the nvidia crew. I was not so impressed by the HB who just couldn't resist the usual sprouting of nonsense 2 posts in. The TV rebuttal in the comments is I.

[Halibut]

That is awesome, thank you. This is what REAL photo analysts can do!

[raven]

Heh, I was pretty damn sure Armstrong's suit would provide some answers why Apollo and the Mythbuster's photos diverged. They still busted the myth, but this does one better.

[beedarko]

That is awesome, thank you. This is what REAL photo analysts can do!

I was especially pleased with how they produced a 3D version of the scene as if it had no reflected light qualities at all, and then compared that to the rendering with realistic lighting properties like reflection and refraction, etc.

Most hoaxters are fairly one-dimensional in their thinking, which might explain why they seem to more easily identify with the flat illumination example.  The interviewee also said this more simple style of lighting is common in 3D gaming, which produced another minor "aha" moment. 

[dwight]

It is just a matter of time before the dimwit hoaxer responses start rolling in. Perhaps Armstrong's ghost can enlighten us further?

[beedarko]

It is just a matter of time before the dimwit hoaxer responses start rolling in. Perhaps Armstrong's ghost can enlighten us further?

Please God, no.

edit:  The Blunder has discovered it, and is apparently "crying foul".   

[dwight]

Oh look he-must-not-be-named showed up. And lo and behold, with swiss watchmaker-precision, he is crying foul. Good thing, though, otherwise, as I stated, I'd be unable to set my watch accurately without it.

oops. beedarko I see you updated your post just as I was adding mine.

[AstroBrant]

That was so cool my monitor fogged up!

I see people commenting on you-know-who having seen this. I can just imagine how he is trying to disassemble it. Once upon a time this would have provoked him into making about a ten-video series. That's a video I'll actually want to watch, as long as he doesn't talk too much.... Alas, I have little hope of that. :-/  I thanked him once for using titles instead of audio narration. From now on, my name for him will be Wunder-Blunder.

I've seen that clip of Bill Kaysing before, but I must not have been paying attention. Wow, he was actually stating that the relative positions of the stars would have been different on the moon! Well, he repeatedly demonstrated that astronomy isn't one of his strong suits. In fact, I can't think of any strong suits he had, other than maybe how to survive as a recluse in the desert.

Looking forward to more from these Nvidia people.

[AstroBrant]

Oh look he-must-not-be-named showed up.
(...snip)

Where?

[Allan F]

Open the video on it's youtube-page, you'll find him right there.

[Allan F]

I can't think of any strong suits he had, other than maybe how to survive as a recluse in the desert.

He didn't do so well on that part either - he died there.

[smartcooky]

I've seen that clip of Bill Kaysing before, but I must not have been paying attention. Wow, he was actually stating that the relative positions of the stars would have been different on the moon! Well, he repeatedly demonstrated that astronomy isn't one of his strong suits. In fact, I can't think of any strong suits he had, other than maybe how to survive as a recluse in the desert

You know, that is one of the claims which I never quite understood, i.e what was the reason they made this claim? It is self defeating

If real astronomers would have tumbled to the stars being in the wrong positions, then with all the alleged extensive fakery going on, it would be the simplest thing for them to make fake stars in the correct positions, right?

Well, no, there is a problem with that too. If the alleged fakers had made stars visible in those lunar surface photos, real photographers would have said "Oi, you should not be able to see stars in those photos due to the f-ratio required to exposed the surface."

So, a lack of stars does not prove anything, but the presence of a star field would be a dead give-away of fakery.

[Halibut]

Wow, he was actually stating that the relative positions of the stars would have been different on the moon! Well, he repeatedly demonstrated that astronomy isn't one of his strong suits.

That one just amazes me. All they would have to do is think for a few seconds about how far the earth moves in its orbit around the sun compared to hpw far away the moon is to realize the stars wouldn't look any different! You don't even need a calculator.

[onebigmonkey]

And when you look at the low light photography done during Apollo missions that did capture stars, they are exactly where they should be