Nvidia uses new global illumination tech to test hoax claims

[JayUtah]

Nevermind the fact that different satellites would have to be active at the same time for different people around the world due to line of sight issues...

Reminds me of the elaborate concoction Mike Dinn and some other communications expert said would have to be the case to simulate communications from the lunar-bound spacecraft in order to fool the folks at the ground stations.  IIRC, Dinn said he could never get it to work for all cases, but even to approximate it took an extensive setup.

Because he didn't think radio waves could penetrate the belts either.  IIRC, in his mind, radioactivity meant active in the radio frequencies and the signals would be lost in the noise.

Elect that man to Congress!

[ka9q]

IIRC, in his mind, radioactivity meant active in the radio frequencies and the signals would be lost in the noise.

Well, if the alleged problem is that the "space radioactivity" generated noise, it wouldn't matter if the satellites were above or below it, the receivers would still pick up all that "radioactive noise".

In actual fact, charged particles ("space radiation") can actually block radio signals, but only if the frequency is low enough and the particle density is high enough. This is what happens to the HF ("shortwave") spectrum in the ionosphere. Signals below the critical frequency are reflected, signals above it get through with a little extra delay. This delay is usually one of the largest residual error sources in GPS even though it operates well above the critical frequency.

The charged particle densities in the Van Allen belts are far too low to have much effect on radio signals that make it through the ionosphere. What matters is the volumetric density of the charged particles, not their individual energies.

Charged particles trapped in a magnetic field can also generate radio noise because accelerating a charged particle generates a photon. Jupiter is a well-known radio noise source for this reason. The earth does it too, but is much weaker.

[cjameshuff]

My favorite is the guy on the David Icke forum that believes low altitude satellites are possible but not anything in or past the Van Allen belts.  His theory for geostationary satellites was a large constellation of low satellites that are networked and switch to active when they are in just the right position.  Nevermind the fact that different satellites would have to be active at the same time for different people around the world due to line of sight issues, or that there would have to be hundreds if not thousands of satellites to simulate a single geostationary bird that way.  And why he thought satellites couldn't get past the Van Allen belts?  Because he didn't think radio waves could penetrate the belts either.  IIRC, in his mind, radioactivity meant active in the radio frequencies and the signals would be lost in the noise.

Anyone remember "Let Me Enlighten U"?
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?81998-two-absolute-definitive-answer-proving-man-on-the-moon-is-not-a-hoax/page3&p=1382028#post1382028

[onebigmonkey]

Oh noes - the blunder has trashed the NVidia claims!!!

What's more - our old pal Adrian is getting in on the act!

[ka9q]

I can't bring myself to watch it. His voice is like fingernails on a blackboard. Can someone take one for the team and give us a synopsis?

[onebigmonkey]

I can't bring myself to watch it. His voice is like fingernails on a blackboard. Can someone take one for the team and give us a synopsis?

From JW's synopsis:

In summary, NVIDIA claims that Buzz Aldrin was illuminated in shadow primarily by light reflecting off Neil Armstrong's spacesuit and to a lesser part the lunar surface.

However, comparing NVIDIA's cgi image of Aldrin solely lit by the lunar surface with real life experiments taken on surfaces with the same albedo as the moon - not to mention photographs from Chang'e 3 and Lunokhod which show shaded objects in darkness unless the sunlit landscape is overexposed - it becomes clear that NVIDIA has upped the albedo setting on their cgi lunar surface to be far greater than the 0.12 claimed in their video. The actual albedo they used is probably 0.4. This is further evident by the fact that NVIDIA's cgi image with the light reflecting off Neil Armstrong's suit is only marginally brighter than without him.

And the claim that Neil Armstrong was the light source can be debunked by the fact that in the Apollo 12 telecast Pete Conrad had to stand right up close to the ladder or MESA to cast significantly bright reflections on his LM's ladder - and that's even with the landscape overexposed! Not to mention the fact that the first pictures of Aldrin descending the ladder were allegedly taken when Neil Armstrong was almost completely shrouded in the LM's shadow. As shown by the corresponding telecast. And yet Aldrin looks exactly as bright as he did in the later photos.

I'm impressed he thinks Apollo 12 is real...

[darren r]

I can't bring myself to watch it. His voice is like fingernails on a blackboard. Can someone take one for the team and give us a synopsis?

There's no voiceover, just badly-spelled captions. Although there is part of a pro-hoax belief song continually played over it that gets annoying. The singer sounds like Tom Lehrer. Was he a hoax believer? Depressing if he was.

Anyway, Adrian's claim is that the 'bright light source' at Armstrong's position was a spotlight, not Armstrong.

His reasoning is that
a) Armstrong is standing in the shade of the LM and obviously nothing that's in the shadow of something else can reflect light and
b) the spotlight is turned on before Armstrong steps off the ladder, as seen in film taken by Buzz Aldrin from the hatch, which appears to show the Lunar surface brightening slightly. It also shows a slight shift in the angle of the LM's shadow and a burst of light in the top left corner of the shot, which would suggest, to me, that something, or someone, on the LM moved slightly, allowing more sunlight into the picture.

The pictures taken by the TV camera on the boom arm showing the light source at Armstrong's position also, again to me, I might be wrong, show that it moved slightly to the right like, you know, someone stepping sideways to get a better picture.

[darren r]

As an addendum to my previous post ; I was obviously critiquing Adrian's video, which had the good sense not to use a voiceover. Having just watched a few seconds of Jarrah's, I wish he'd done the same.

[ka9q]

a) Armstrong is standing in the shade of the LM and obviously nothing that's in the shadow of something else can reflect light

I explained to him a long time ago that one can prove Armstrong was standing in sunlight from the lens flares in several of those pictures. They wouldn't be there if he was in shadow.

Obviously, this simple logic had no effect.

[ka9q]

What is the lunar albedo as a function of phase angle? It's a lot brighter around zero degrees -- the opposition effect -- but JW steadfastly refuses to even acknowledge this point. I think he knows he can't refute it.

[Miss Vocalcord]

The pictures taken by the TV camera on the boom arm showing the light source at Armstrong's position also, again to me, I might be wrong, show that it moved slightly to the right like, you know, someone stepping sideways to get a better picture.

It is NVIDIA was so nice to cut the video at exact the right time to give the fake moon landing believers something to shoot at (and us probably a good laugh? ).
This is a video where you do see the 'bright light' is indeed Neil Armstrong:

(you can even see Armstrong's reflection is Aldrin's helmet)

[ka9q]

And in his Hasselblad photos of Aldrin descending the ladder, you can see Armstrong's suit reflecting off the aluminized Kapton covering the side of the LM descent stage.

[JayUtah]

What is the lunar albedo as a function of phase angle? It's a lot brighter around zero degrees -- the opposition effect -- but JW steadfastly refuses to even acknowledge this point. I think he knows he can't refute it.

He can't.  We typically consider albedo at zero and at 5-degree phase angles.  However for maria surfaces the 5-degree albedo is around 12-14 percent.  As to his response, it's just wishful thinking.  "They got results that dispute my belief, therefore they must have fudged the numbers."

In the TV footage Armstrong is clearly standing in the sun during Aldrin's egress.

[nomuse]

I was about to say, "oh, that's exactly how I would light the scene -- ERS right where the camera is, motivated by nothing, and fire that instrument up in the middle of the shot."

But then I got thinking a little. And I've actually done it. I call it "opera spots" and it involves using an actual follow-spot (not Ellipsoidal Reflector Spotlight) fuzzed out with diffusion and often dulled down with lavender or blue gel, focused on the head and shoulders of an actor so you can see a little facial expression in what is otherwise a textured, strongly-colored, key-lit chiaroscuro stage picture.

(And, yes, your spot-ops will hate you for it).

Sigh. They can't even see how much he is UNDERLIT? I guess they never spent that class time in estimating lighting angles off a picture.

[gillianren]

The singer sounds like Tom Lehrer. Was he a hoax believer? Depressing if he was.

Is; he's still alive.  And given the "Wernher Von Braun" song, I should be greatly surprised.