Nvidia uses new global illumination tech to test hoax claims

[HeadLikeARock]

I am absolutely LOVING this video! Jarrah White is claiming NVidia ramped the surface albedo up to 40%. I think he should just hold his hands up and say "Fair dinkum, I was wrong on this one".

Will he?

Naaaah!

[Bryanpoprobson]

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?

As I understand things angular parallax can be used to gauge the distance of stars to a distance of about 100 parsecs. That is using Earth based telescopic observations, oh but wait, that is also assuming a baseline of 2AU's. The Moon is only 250,000 miles away so that there would be very few stars indeed that showed any angular parallax. WOW no wonder NASA didn't show any stars..

I have often wonder over the source of the contention that, stars would be easily visible shining out of the "inky blackness" of the vacuum of space, even with the sun visible. I think that Science Fiction writers, including my favourite Isaac Asimov, always stated that this would be the case, basically they were wrong. Even today, if a Sci Fi film shows outer space, they always show a clear background of stars. I just wonder if this has been the cause of all this stars nonsense?

[JayUtah]

I have often wonder over the source of the contention that, stars would be easily visible shining out of the "inky blackness" of the vacuum of space,

The presumption of atmospheric attenuation is usually cited.  Conspiracy theorists believe that from Earth, most of starlight is absorbed by atmosphere.

Even today, if a Sci Fi film shows outer space, they always show a clear background of stars. I just wonder if this has been the cause of all this stars nonsense?

Possibly.  Kubrick knew stars wouldn't be visible.  He was a master photographer, and really more of a cinematographer than a director. And he knew they wouldn't appear to move.  But he intentionally violated science in favor of cinematic effect for the Discovery scenes by showing a visbible, moving starfield behind it.  He needed some way to convey the impression of motion.  That's still why they do it today.

[JayUtah]

I am absolutely LOVING this video! Jarrah White is claiming NVidia ramped the surface albedo up to 40%.

Yeah that has to be it. 

[AstroBrant]

(snip...)
Possibly.  Kubrick knew stars wouldn't be visible.  He was a master photographer, and really more of a cinematographer than a director. And he knew they wouldn't appear to move.  But he intentionally violated science in favor of cinematic effect for the Discovery scenes by showing a visbible, moving starfield behind it.  He needed some way to convey the impression of motion.  That's still why they do it today.

I think it's unavoidable for filmmakers to show stars moving in the background. If I made a movie, I would probably do it myself...begrudgingly.

In one of my videos on the errors in the moon segment of "2001," I showed a scene of the shuttle flying across a plain. I noted that even though Kubrick did show some stars in the sky, he seemed to be trying to split the difference between popular conceptions and reality.

[AstroBrant]

(snip...)
 Even today, if a Sci Fi film shows outer space, they always show a clear background of stars. I just wonder if this has been the cause of all this stars nonsense?

I'm sure that's it. There are also the artists' conceptions people see in books, magazines, etc. In addition, I think there is a general mis-perception about the actual brightness of stars, and the fact that they unconsciously apply their dark-adapted perception of stars to other visual contexts. They aren't aware of how much the "exposure" of their eyes changes from dark surroundings to brighter ones.

Great to see you here. Looking forward to future conversations.

[AstroBrant]

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.

Kaysing thought it would be impossible to fake the star positions, but he thought it would be "remarkably easy" for NASA to fake microscopic zap pits in meteorites found on earth.

[Zakalwe]

I have often wonder over the source of the contention that, stars would be easily visible shining out of the "inky blackness" of the vacuum of space, even with the sun visible. I think that Science Fiction writers, including my favourite Isaac Asimov, always stated that this would be the case, basically they were wrong. Even today, if a Sci Fi film shows outer space, they always show a clear background of stars. I just wonder if this has been the cause of all this stars nonsense?

Its not only film-makers. The New Scientist magazine is currently carrying an advert for (IIRC) subscriptions. It features an image of Curiosity on the Martin landscape, with the Sun beaming into the camera, complete with lens-flare. In the background is a massive star-field. I grimace everytime I see this advert!

[AstroBrant]

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

Went there. Looked. Didn't find him anywhere.
I only found one comment thanking him. Could this be related to the horrible YT comment-removing glitch?

[Bryanpoprobson]

Went there. Looked. Didn't find him anywhere.
I only found one comment thanking him. Could this be related to the horrible YT comment-removing glitch?

I have the same problem..

[Allan F]

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

Went there. Looked. Didn't find him anywhere.
I only found one comment thanking him. Could this be related to the horrible YT comment-removing glitch?

I just checked again, and his comment is no. 2 from the top. Could it be because he has blocked you? Can you see his comments on other videos?

[beedarko]

I am absolutely LOVING this video! Jarrah White is claiming NVidia ramped the surface albedo up to 40%. I think he should just hold his hands up and say "Fair dinkum, I was wrong on this one".

TBFDU claims he helped the Russians with their photographic comparison study of this image. I'd be curious to know if they measured the albedo of "their" Neil Armstrong:

Will he?

...respond to probing, relevant questions with detailed, honest answers?   

Naaaah!

 

[beedarko]

Went there. Looked. Didn't find him anywhere. I only found one comment thanking him. Could this be related to the horrible YT comment-removing glitch?

I noticed a few of my posts, asking questions of TBFDU, were gone quite soon after creation.  I'm not that familiar with the modern day YouTube, so I don't know if it's possible for another user to censor one's comments, but for now I'll attribute it to this "glitch" and just repost them.  I'm looking forward to his responses, which I'm certain will be prompt, courteous and on point.   

[Allan F]

If enough users report your comment as spam, it will disappear. I have had it happen a lot of times in threads with many hoaxers - my comments are dropped or invisible to other users. I have tested this with another youtube account (a "dead" one - one I only use for testing).

[beedarko]

If enough users report your comment as spam, it will disappear. I have had it happen a lot of times in threads with many hoaxers - my comments are dropped or invisible to other users.

Interesting.  I don't think my disappearing posts would qualify as spam - they only contained questions to JW about how he arrived at his albedo figures, and whether he believes Nvidia was coerced by NASA to produce these results.  Oh, and also why his Russian team had factored in no equivalent to Armstrong's suit in their simulation. 

Do you suppose some might equate "spam" to "high discomfort level of posed questions"?