Nvidia uses new global illumination tech to test hoax claims

[Allan F]

I don't think youtube really cares what the comment contains. If enough users (or perhaps the same user enough times) flag a comment as spam, it disappears. Youtube cannot manually review every comment flagged as spam and evaluate it.

[beedarko]

I don't think youtube really cares what the comment contains. If enough users (or perhaps the same user enough times) flag a comment as spam, it disappears. Youtube cannot manually review every comment flagged as spam and evaluate it.

I wasn't insinuating any wrongdoing on Youtube's part, other than perhaps the odd software glitch which has gone unaddressed.  No I think it's more likely that someone or a small group simply didn't like the content of my messages.  Of course if that's the case, I have no way to prove it, and those on the HB side typically don't find it necessary to come out from under their protective cloak of anonymity long enough to admit to such deeds.

[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?

Oh, well, piffle!http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/Smileys/default/angry.gif
That might be it. I'll have to open a new account to test that. I didn't know that being blocked would prevent me from seeing someone's comments.

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?

[ka9q]

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.

Well, actually...

Although the stars would be in the same relative positions, the earth and moon have very different axial orientations. The earth's axis is tilted about 23.5 degrees from the ecliptic normal while the moon is only about 1.5 degrees. I.e., Polaris is not the moon's North Star. You'd have to account for this in locating stars in the lunar sky.

In 2000, the moon's north pole pointed at approximately RA 270 degrees (18 hr), dec +66.54 deg. That's in the middle of Draco, and unfortunately there aren't any bright stars nearby.

[HeadLikeARock]

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.

Well, actually...

Although the stars would be in the same relative positions, the earth and moon have very different axial orientations. The earth's axis is tilted about 23.5 degrees from the ecliptic normal while the moon is only about 1.5 degrees. I.e., Polaris is not the moon's North Star. You'd have to account for this in locating stars in the lunar sky.

In 2000, the moon's north pole pointed at approximately RA 270 degrees (18 hr), dec +66.54 deg. That's in the middle of Draco, and unfortunately there aren't any bright stars nearby.

Given the level of complexity that the hoax must have been capable of attaining, it would still have been a breeze to model the lunar starfield using a planetarium. The flip-side to Kaysing's comment that it would have been really easy for astronomers to know the stars positions viewed from the moon were wrong, is that they must have known where the stars should have been. And if they knew that, then it would be relatively simple to fake them.

To be honest, I don't know why hoaxers keep on repeating this claim anyway. It's very easy to refute, and very easy for anyone to verify for themselves. 

[raven]

Indeed. Like the alleged need for a crater under the LM, the visibility of tracks from and under the rover, and crosshairs 'behind' objects, one must ask why NASA didn't simply fake it this way if this was how it was supposed to be. Even Percy's insistence on whistleblowers does not cut it, as surely NASA would be watching these people for possible goofs, intentional or otherwise.

[darren r]

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:

This photo is astonishing. They've gone to great lengths to eliminate the effect of the light reflecting off Neil Armstrong. I assume they used this reconstruction to claim the original picture was faked?

[smartcooky]

Given the level of complexity that the hoax must have been capable of attaining, it would still have been a breeze to model the lunar starfield using a planetarium. The flip-side to Kaysing's comment that it would have been really easy for astronomers to know the stars positions viewed from the moon were wrong, is that they must have known where the stars should have been. And if they knew that, then it would be relatively simple to fake them.

As I said earlier (you may have missed it) they could have faked a lunar star-field, but if they were trying to make a convincing hoax, why would they? It may be convincing to the general public for whom might seem intuitive that there ought to be stars visible, but it would be a dead give-away to any serious photographer, who would immediately be suspicious if stars were visible in a photograph of a bright sunlit landscape taken with 1 - 10 millisecond exposure times.   

To be honest, I don't know why hoaxers keep on repeating this claim anyway. It's very easy to refute, and very easy for anyone to verify for themselves. 

Nor do I when you consider that a visible starfield would be proof of a hoax. The absence of stars is neither here nor there as proof of hoax goes, but it is certainly what any photographer would expect to see!

[JayUtah]

This photo is astonishing. They've gone to great lengths to eliminate the effect of the light reflecting off Neil Armstrong. I assume they used this reconstruction to claim the original picture was faked?

They use this reconstruction to accuse the Mythbusters of having faked their image.

[Tedward]

Thought it would be easy for the antipodean detractor to pull apart the software and hardware and show how it is wrong. No good saying he made a film about it. I made a film at an air show but that does not make me a pilot.

[dwight]

Oh please Tedward. It is blatantly -obvious- that you are not JW, otherwise your video would have made you a pilot, ATC, and baggage handler all rolled into one.

[beedarko]

They use this reconstruction to accuse the Mythbusters of having faked their image.

JW's personal experiment was done with the intent to discredit NASA, and the conditions of that 'recreation' were even less faithful than the Russians, as his little blacked-out diorama completely blocked 270 degrees of incoming light.

When asked why he didn't at least include some kind of analogue to simulate the bounce reflection of Neil Armstrong's suit, his reply was, "I didn't think there was any need to".

[JayUtah]

When asked why he didn't at least include some kind of analogue to simulate the bounce reflection of Neil Armstrong's suit, his reply was, "I didn't think there was any need to".

Because he doesn't understand the problem.  This is why he gets the wrong answer.

[nomuse]

Well, at least he figured out light bounces. I've talked with hoaxies who think that requires an atmosphere.

(How they think they see, I do not know.)

[smartcooky]

Well, at least he figured out light bounces. I've talked with hoaxies who think that requires an atmosphere.

That will be the same hoaxies who think rockets won't work in space because there is no air for the exhaust to push against 

Go figure!!