Talk about voxels and cones too dry to pique your interest in real-time lighting tech? Then have a peek at this re-creation of the lunar landing from last week's GAME24 livestream, which convincingly proves that man actually did set foot on the moon.
Use playback speed of 1.5X You're welcome.
Why 1.5x?
Best idea lol thx
Omg .. thanks alot
WARDified Gg thanks buddy for that tip
WARDified Gg your a gangster
Few small words for this guy Few giant moments of silence between each word
Bwahhhaa
🤣🤣😭😭😭😭😂😂😂😂
Savage
lmao
For em flat Earthers and conspiracy theorists to understand each word there needs to be a pause in between each word, so that they can process the info
Him saying “look, this is the actual photograph” at the beginning had me starting to believe the conspiracy theories until he said it was their computer generated one.
🤣
It's obviously their crappy recreation
@@SoulDelSol Feel free to make a better one and present it here.
Is the photos you take with your cell phone real or computer generated?
space suits could not contain air in a perfect vacuum, they'd blow up like a balloon
It's so cool that CGI can make up the answers to all these questions. My grandpa use to say that if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh.....
It is a light simulation. He explained that and obviously it went over your head and probably also your grandpa's.
2020 CGI, relatively easy. There was no CGI in 1969.
There was no CGI in 1969 dumbass. So how did they take photos of the Moon with parallel light rays showing a black sky? The parallel light rays had to have been from the Sun and the black sky had to have been because there's no atmosphere on the moon hence no color in the sky. We went to the Moon
That's a BINGO!!!
That's my new go to slogan thanks '
I'm glad this bloke wasn't first bloke on the moon, he'd still be up there giving the first words speech.
Ryan HahahH great
@Suzie.q Popcorn123 ontop of the 12 who've been there already ?
@Suzie.q Popcorn123 get well soon
@@ryansta oh no... you drank the juice... lol
Right... so convincing but yet it never happened. So convenient that NASA no longer possesses that ultra sophisticated technology from the 1960's that could take us back to the moon. People are so dumb or brainwashed or just too proud to admit they have been duped.
*When you prepared 1 minute speech, but u gotta take 15minutes- Talk like this bruddah*
when you trying to be like Steve Jobs
even when setting the video speed to 2.0 you are left with uneeded gaps
You young people are becoming more like HAL as described in Arthur's book. Human response to HAL's questions were a nitemare in lost time for him. Instant gratification seems to be a real thing. Oh, the book is called '2001 a space odyssey' Just an observation by me.
Yea, tried that, didn't help. Then it came to me. The video is just plain boring.
You are the exact point. In less than 15 mins., the research of a highly advanced state of the art engineering company puts to scientifically prove the photo was definitely taken ON THE MOON, and you are bored. Pathetic.
“I’d go to the moon in a nanosecond. The problem is we don’t have the technology to do that anymore. We USED to, but we DESTROYED that technology, and it’s a painful process to build it back again.” - Don Pettit
It sure is. And guess what they’re in the process of doing right now?
An absolutely accurate statement to those who understand everything "technology" entails. It includes all the specialized tooling, fixtures, and jigs; all the specialized assembly areas; special launch sites and gantries; thousands of legal contract; an experienced administration team; and the vast corporate knowledge of almost 400,000 scientists, engineers, technicians, and a host of others. All of that is gone.
@@marksprague1280 they never had any of it, they lied.
@@sandwichman2247 Prove that claim, loudmouth. You're lying through your teeth.
You guys keep repeating one poorly worded sentence from Petitte. What he meant was "the technical infrastructure - rocket engines, capsules, launchers, derricks, plus all the equipment designed to turn out that stuff from the 1960s, has long been decommissioned, junked, recycled, repurposed, or rusted away. Also, all the people that worked on that stuff during that time have long since retired or have passed away.
The initial "picture" looked ridiculously fake. Then he admitted it like it would be shocking to hear lol
im yelling
tbf this was 9 years ago 💀
So this is what you're doing instead of updating my drivers?
mine get updated just fine.
daro l “MiNe gEt uPdAtEd jUsT FiNe”
Dude fr
@@JurassicGecko hahah
It's almost as pathetic as when actors like Robert DeNiro and Meryl Streep talks about political issues....
Creates a simulation of the moon landing to tell us that the moon landing was not a simulation. Thank you.
It is a simulation of the lighting, not the moon landing itself. But I guess you need to apply that kind of sloppiness to keep your belief in a hoax.
@@Schmidtelpunkt I thumbed up your comment cause your assumptions about my beliefs don't apply to me. I don't actually believe the moon landing was a hoax. But to rebut your first point, we don't actually understand the full behaviour of light and we don't exactly know know what it is either (see double slit experiment) so can we really rely 100% on the results of a 'simulation'? I.e. If the data is not verified then how can an outcome based on that data be verified? Ultimately it doesn't matter though because we're all living in a computer simulation that's going to get wiped out by a global cataclysmic flood soon anyway...
The moon landing was a total hoax, there is no need to argue. Since the 80's the United States had very powerful technology, things we do not understand but existing... however it's only a theory perhaps.
@@PrimePhilosophy We understand enough about how light behaves to be able to simulate this. Our simulations have enough accuracy to do this, it's fairly basic anyways, eg pixar movies run on this model
@@kerman214 "We understand enough.." - Isn't that like having faith in a belief?
And all 5 audience members burst into applause.
Lol we never went to the moon.
Lol yes we did.
"you thought it was a photograph didn't you?" No not at all
Like its obviously a render
My thoughts exactly😂
lol is obviously fake
R\iamverycool
@@studentcopyofburgerking8108 wow what a loser lmao.
It's like listening to the sloth in Zootopia.
lmao
It's painful
Lee Wells lol!
It came after 1 hour of product presentation, imagine how exhausting it is to talk. Give him a break, it is so exhausting to presenting a 2 hours presentation.
He has to talk slowly for low IQ people like you to keep up. 😂😂😂😂 seriously a grown man making references to cartoons proves it! 😂😂😂😂 that's why he is up there and you're on the couch. 😂😂😂
How come the black skies of the Moon contain no stars in Chang'e photos? The answer: The stars are there, they're just too faint to show up.
Right. For the same reason people in an inner city can look up and see virtually no stars...and people in the country can look up and see thousands of them. Less light around YOU and in your eyes means you can take in more light from things far away...thus making it possible to see those things.
According to Armstrong he said “one small step for a man, one giant leap (not step) for mankind.”
one giant LIE
@@Amine-gz7gq how do ya figure?
This speaker masters the art of the dramatic pause without any drama to the fullest extent.
And you know how to extract humor from context.
Speaker could play this science fiction story as criminal comedy drama in our village tent theatre every sunday
sounds like Armstrong careful answers to Repporters.
Calculon!
@@kundziabu1743 they play your conspiracy theories as background. They're quite amusing
Legend has it the speech is still going on after 5 years
U made my day!
LMAO !
After 5years and 6 months
And still can convince me...
6 years and counting
People who understand photography, manual override (not the insta-camera on your cellphone) will understand this far better than most. Great presentation 👍🏻! Helps if you’ve had ongoing studio work with cameras, aperture, film, darkroom and digital imaging.
"Apollo Program" Producer: Walt Disney deceased at that time. Co-producer: Wernher Von Braun. Director: Stanley Kubrick Art Director: John Hoesli. Writer: Arthur C Clarke. Photographer: Geoffrey Unsworth. Total cost = 169.51 billion current dollars...
You forgot all the thousands of people who worked on it WITHOUT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM REVEALING THE SCAM!
@@Garfield.Farkleyou clearly don't understand how knowledge classification works inside the government and even more specifically, inside the DoD. It's 100% possible because 99.9% of participants in a top secret project have no clue what they're working on other than the individual task in front of them, only a handful of people are read into the entire project, in many cases, it may only be one person. The "war rooms" you see in the movies aren't real, they don't exist for black projects.
There are millions of evidences to prove it happened. The photographs taken by the Indians of the 2 moon landing sites (Apollo 11 and Apollo 12) is easy evidence.
This speach was a lot harder then expected and took twice as long as the moon landing.
hahahaha it took 10 mins into 14 min video before he 'debunked' anything....did he???
Underated comment 🤣
You mean the "fake moon landing" right?
Watched with 2X Speed haha
...and that's saying something because we all know how many takes Stanley Kubrick would demand to get every shot juuuuuuuuust right :)
Stanley Kubrick DID film the moon landing. It's just that he's such a perfectionist that he *filmed on location*
I'm going to swipe this comment.
Stanley Kubrick never would've allowed intersecting shadows on his set... Don't belittle him by comparing his work to the blatantly faked Moon landing footage.
1995-02-06 Were you always like this or did you have a serious cranial trauma recently?
Nice insult. Do you have anything of substance to contribute to a conversation or...?
1995-02-06 Do you?
They recently just flew a satellite or something or around the Moon and back one of the reasons was to take radiation readings. Now if they'd have gone to the Moon already don't you think they would already have had these readings
It is the nature of technology that those readings increase in precision. You should start reading more than headlines, maybe then you will be allowed to have an opinion.
They did crash tests on cars in 1970, why do they still do them now? 🙄
it's a new spacecraft with different properties. how can anyone be so simple.
Didn’t the lro and the Chinese space probes confirm the moon landings and the rover tracks
@No Channel think u can check out the lro photos and videos online of the Apollo landings
Pretty much every lunar mission that could see the _Apollo_ landing sites have reported seeing them, yes.
Yup
@@lance3748 yup , moon hoaxers are so funny Prob trying to find meaning in thier lifes
@@Jan_Strzelecki yup
this man pauses for like 5 mins after ever 2 words
yeah
This so called "expert" doesn't provide a single factual evidence.. I still think the landing did indeed happen, but obviously this show is just about making money out of naive people..
@@runenexman6587 "naive people" that would be you whenit comes to this
@ERIC SANDSTROM or. OR. Hear me out: his teleprompter could be updating slowly.
He pauses every 2 words because he cant handle his on bullsheeat
"We have simulated every thing to death" quote of this video.
But Collins said he couldn't see the stars. Armstrong said he couldn't remember. 🤔🤔🤔
First how did they get through the van allen belt ?
First, please state which source you trust for proof of belts of radiation around the Earth that is completely invisible and completely undetectable from outside the belts, and hence can ONLY be detected by sending spacecraft into them. My point being, you appear to trust NASA when they say there are invisible belts of radiation around the Earth, and yet you don't trust the *same* NASA when they say the *same* invisible belts of radiation are not a problem to pass through in a few hours, as they did during Apollo?
Answer: Quickly! Van Allen himself said you'd have to spend a WEEK in the densest part of the belts to receive a fatal dose; the Apollo astronauts passed through in 15 minutes. Exposure time matters.
@@Tim22222 but I've seen actual Nasa interviews where they were implying that no one has been to the other side of the Van Allen belt .
@@prometheussnow3647 - No my friend, you've seen NASA interviews where you jumped to your own false conclusions. Perhaps you can present one example, but remember YT doesn't allow links so either name the video or post enough info to direct others to your source.
@@prometheussnow3647 "I've seen actual Nasa interviews where they were implying that no one has been to the other side of the Van Allen belt ." You saw it falsely then. Probably talking about NASA engineer Kelly Smith, where he doesn't say that at all.
Nvidia, maker of computer graphics and visual processing chips, they are in charge of "debunking" the "moon landing"? This seems totally legit...
Are you high?
Wrong, they are debunking the debunking of the moon landing.
And a much of no name conspiracy nuts are "in charge" of debunking the landing yet you'll never question their qualifications. Plus they aren't "in charge" of it. They did it just because they wanted to.
Some Americans are so supersticious and believe in all kind of stuff
The machines feet don’t even sink in to the dust- they would have
Lol he even got the “that’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind” quote wrong MULTIPLE times
Even Neil got the quote wrong
Armstrong's mic cut off the word "a". He attempted to correct the misperception, but 50+ years later, everybody still gets it wrong. I'm over it.
It was LEAP not STEPx2
That's been debunked on Reddit.
Yes, heeheehee
one small step for man in hollywood stage about moonlanding, one giant laugh for mankind
And one more witless, asinine and unoriginal comment for a conspiracy believer.
A giant crock
The buggy would have been fun to drive around on the moon 🤣
This is all very impressive, but can it run Crysis in 4K?
Matt no
All of NASAs computers back then together probably couldn’t run crisis lol
Every computer on Earth back then wouldn't be able to out number crunch a single iPhone.
Only 2k
stutters in 1080 | 16bit
Its better that he pauses instead of going "ummm" "uhhh"
ikr
He has always been a shitty speaker...makes me wonder why he is CEO.
Cam Kustka Maybe he has the money, better than him just buying a speaker though
Cam Kustka Well, there are many other tasks as well when it comes to CEOs. He might be a good leader, bright / quick to figure out things and so on. There are lots of people who give good presentations, but it doesn't mean they are smart or that they're good leaders...
Sampling Reality LIKE ME! I'm great at public speaking, terrible at leading
The cameraman was the first to set foot on the moon.
True! The camera man was Neil Armstrong.
So after watching this all the "conspiracies" about the landing have valid reasons to doubt the landing was real!
No they don't! All of their doubts have been answered, they just don't care.
The only thing in doubt is your ability to chew gum and walk simultaneously.
@@Tim22222 could you point me to genuine proof of the landing?
@@realeyes2458 What proof would you accept?
@@Tim22222 any proof.
I think that "how about lets turn Neil on and off" is the best thing I have heard all day
brb renaming my WiFi Neil.
Buzz Aldrin admitted to a young child Zoey, recently, we didn't go to the moon.
@@johnkean6852 nope
New Conspiracy.
Conspiracies are fun. After fooling estimate of 100,000 direct NASA employees, 1,000,000 contractors (Grumman, Boeing, Lockeed etc) and 300 million USA people. NASA screwed up and used 2 light bulbs in making the lunar landing videos.
It is lit by one source. The sun.
Yeah - they come up aces in securing the silence of a huge number of people in on the supposed "conspiracy", and then they leave out an extra light bulb by mistake.... A pretty ludicrous hypothesis, ain't it...?
Scott Hix Why do people not realise that going to the moon and producing some fake video for Apollo 11 are not mutually exclusive. When Nixon was told the film coverage would be poor and grainy he hit the roof and additional film was made in a studio to supplement the film from the moon to fully exploit the event and get value for the expense ! End of story - no real conspiracy. If you believe NASA and the Govt are cynical enough to fake the moon landing you must believe they would be willing to add some fake footage to improve the coverage.
Tom Chapman - Years ago I delved into a multitude of moon landing hoax video's and I learned a great deal about space travel and the moon landing. Yes I believe there's more than enough evidence to support it, but the fact it was questioned made me want to learn the science behind it for myself. I've only really seen polarized points of view, you're the first person I've come across to say, "going to the moon and producing some fake video for Apollo 11 are not mutually exclusive". Well done, thanks for the provoked thought.
My favourite movie director made the Apollo moon landing television live presentation in 1969. Stanley Kubrick. The man was a science fiction master.He thought out all the correct lighting details and gravity effects and I recommend everyone watch 2001 a space odyssey .It was put out before the moon landings and looks like every nasa video they ever did ,enjoy.
Feels like high school when you need a 5 minute speech but only have 40 seconds of dialogue
Buzz aldrin told the toggle switch for ignition got snapped off. His idea was to stick a pen in the socket to ignite the engine for lift off. If he hadnt done that they would be still there stuck foreever on the moon.
Sounds so ridiculous it must be true ... the script writers should have been sacked
No. I didn't think it was a photograph.
I like that.
Me neither, average cgi at best. Solicit Applause!
Agreed. Sorry nVidia. KZhead is HD these days. The image looked CGI the whole time. Granted it was very photo realistic, but photo realistic is not the same as real.
Me neither. Funny how they sell it as a group conclusion, more than inviting you to reach that conclusion
The lander looked great. Buzz's boot though. X(
Someone else could have given a whole other lecture just in his dead air
Lol
Hi dad
Anyone that has even the most basic knowledge of photography/astrophotography knows why you cant see the stars in the photos, or why the astronaut is lit up in shadow. The moon is lit up like a firecracker, light reflects off the moons surface from all angles. As for stars, once again, the moon is so bright that the exposure time is reduced to stop the image being over exposed, this means the less bright stars do not show.
🙄 You know these kooks can't work a camera.
This guy has mastered the art of painful narration.
Too bad they destroyed the technology and lost the 4000 telemetry tapes that would prove it.
Name the technology that was destroyed please. Is it the Saturn V rocket that can be found in museums? Or the Command Module that can be found in museums? Or the Lunar Module that can be found in museums? etc
The lost telemetry tapes only contained NASA's BACKUP of the SAME Apollo 11 moonwalk footage that we've ALL seen already.
Yazzam X, I don't know what technology Don Pettit was talking about but that's what he said. And the telemetry tapes that they lost contained the real science data of the moon landings that would prove they went. I'm not talking about video tapes.
@@truthseeker6369 - Destroyed as in we can't use that old technology today my friend! Hence the Space Shuttle is now destroyed. Concorde is now destroyed. But lookup the soon to be launched SLS rocket which will take people back to the moon in 2023.
@@truthseeker6369 - Read about the tapes in NASA's own report here; goo.gl/62FGDH Notice it's ONLY about the TV broadcast of the first mission, stored on telem tapes. Nothing about data! Conspiracy theorists twisted that into something it wasn't, i.e. they lied :-)
If you are having trouble sleeping just listen to this dude
My eyes never felt so tired
Thanks this helped me sleep
Did you mean if you have trouble shitting, cose his geriatric narative will do it for ya
lol
How did they get those photos through the radiation belt
Kept them in their container, and went through the thinnest parts of the belts, in a very short amount of time.
@@randyschissler5791 LOL
While flying through the belt, the film was inside its container inside the storage box inside the Command Module. It was fine.
@@Jan_Strzelecki what storage box was the crew in?
@@marxman00 They were in a Command Module, which was able to block some of the radiation, if that's what you're faking concern for.
Apollo 11 was not alone. Orbiting above was Russia's remote moon lander Luna 15 which arrived 3 days earlier & recorded the descent of Apollo 11. Russia's then President congratuled Nixon via its national media Prada. This thereby debunked all the Conspiracy Theories!!
I searched ''you can't find conspiracy theory videos on KZhead anymore'' and this video popped up.
Lmfao.
Last week I went back to replay the videos I found and saved showing the problems with the photography and other things that didn't look right or sound right about the Apollo program and none of them would play back, and in my new searches they won't come up. I just get all the stuff like this.
@@darthvaper7157 if they went to the moon 50 yrs ago and they somehow cant go again
@@Stickman_Productions If you believe these things get 'lost' you probably believe everything they tell you. If things of this caliber get lost they didn't exist in the first place.
BINGO!
Who the hell thought the first image was a photograph? Did you LOOK at those boots?
Frabbledabble the boots were the dead giveaway. Apollo 11: The Open Sandbox Game. lol
+John Doe JUST... NO!
+Frabbledabble yeah, what kind of debunk is that? wtf..
+John Doe hey John, nice to meet you
I suspected something was amiss when I saw the wonky boots and pixelated shadows lol.
Lucky that Buzz Aldrin didn't lock the door on the hatch - Especially as they didn't have a handle to actually do that with - yeah that was really lucky. smh
Totally false! How do you guys come up with such nonsense?
It was a JOKE! Sheesh, how obtuse can you get???
What’s next, is he going to try and convince me that Santa and the Easter bunny are real too?
No, if you had been able to follow the presentation, you'd see that it was more like the hoaxers claimed Santa would exist and this was debunked using a simulation explaining why Santa would be vaporized at the speed required to reach every child on earth within 24 hours. The hoaxers claimed light could not fall in a certain way and the simulation shows: It can.
The moon landing is real tho
Now you just have to explain how the thrust from the lunar lander managed not to disturb a single grain of dust underneath.
Now you are going too far, Amun. You are actually thinking.
Simple, go outside stand up and try blowing on the ground and get the dirt to move, it won't because you don't have a strong enough blow force to do so, similar situation to the LEM, it was throttled down significantly as to not create a crater and damage the LEM with debre.
But the force of a human can create a foot print. Shame on you Amun for using common sense
@Amun Ra The so called "Glitter Bomb" is because the Assent Module of the LEM separated from the Descent Module leaving the Landing Gear and Retro Rocket Structure for the landing on the Moon, on the Moon. They're all still up there, so what I'm saying is the Burn for the Assent wasn't into the Surface but into the Descent Gear as they separated....
Because it was blown away at landing
"Contact light" the first words said on the moon by Buzz Aldrin.
First word was actually "Houston"...
***** nope
"Contact" was the first word on the moon Houston wasn't
A man using William Shatner's acting technique and computer simulations to explain why we should believe we really landed on the moon. Great job, captain Kirk! 😂🤣😂🤣
Coward. The moon landings happened
Ok it sounds plausible but just wondering, how did Neil and Buzz know how much to adjust the camera light by? The cameras were strapped to their chest and there was no screen on top of the device to know. They were pretty much taking photos on the blind
Cameras used by Apollo astronauts were equipped with ASA 160 film (equivalent ISO 160 in digital cameras). And they were instructed to use the following camera exposure values: shutter speed 1/250s, aperture f/5.6 (in shadow), and f/11 (sunlit). The Hasselblad cameras had oversize levers to accommodate their bulky gloves.
As Randy said. The previous Apollo missions had the same Hasselblad cameras to test exposures passing around the moon. They practiced using the cameras for months beforehand, going on treks with the cameras strapped to their chest. If you go look at the original photos, you will notice most are not properly framed; the most famous photo of Buzz is at an angle and he is top of frame, it is usually cropped and black added to the top when you see it reproduced. And the exposure wasn't perfect either.
they have plenty time for perfect shot but not care about hazard environment such as limited oxygen , extrem temp. , radiation , (many charged particle) on the moon 😆
@@yoskarokuto3553 They took years and billions of dollars in development and training missions to account for all those things. The temperature on the surface at the landing site ranged from -66 deg C to 24 deg C, easily handled by the suits. There is no atmosphere, so no ambient temperature, only direct sunlight, also why the suits had such high reflectivity and the cameras were silver. The radiation on the moon allows for astronauts to stay on the surface for up to 6 weeks without protection, not accounting for sun flares, after that they need protected moon bases, which is planned.
@@randyschissler5791 STRANGE, The Hasselblad designer and maker of the Camra, states clearly on YT video, that the camera had no alterations for the asstronuts at all. And the viewfinder, for focussing etc, would not be visable with the suits restrictions.
Am I the only one that marvels at the fact that not everybody understands these simple principles of light, reflection, exposure, etc? I don’t remember ever learning these principles in school. I just remember discovering these things on my own as a child/young adult.
The astronauts dont understand it some see stars and some do not
r/iamverysmart
Jay, exactly, some are air sick some are dust clogged eyeballs
You mus be a painter, not everyone pays attention to details like that
You seem very smart...your not a Millennial then I take it!
Impressive - he didn’t start laughing during the presentation.
In between takes possibly a hundred for each scene before he was able to get through that scene without laughing and said humans are suckers
🤣
👍💯👏
Why would he?
@@DemonDrummer - Cause he's a lier.
Should have been titled... "Nvidia Tries Very Hard to Prove that We Actually Went to the Moon."
Not really - they just debunk one theory. Which is already one too many for hoaxers to understand.
it should have been "nvidia dismantles the most common moon landing conspiracy theory"
How TF could they simulate the moon's atmosphere without any data to create the simulation from? That data doesn't exist lmfao
The moon landing was Stanley Kubrick's greatest accomplishment!
In the singular? So you didn't even realise that there were six missions in total which not only means that you have no knowledge of the Apollo Programme whatsoever, but would be completely oblivious to Kubrick's actual commitments and whereabouts throughout this supposed staging.
The audience was hanging (themselves) on his every word.
He is doing what we call "grasping"
Clinton’s got them again! Lol
Amazing how this guy can take something so exciting and put me to sleep with it. :(
Nova Malone
Like your conspiracy theories put the rest of us to sleep.
reflects the first apollo11 conference, not one apolloists comments joy, all just whine about the bad comments.
0:45 He says that Neil Armstrong landed the lunar module on the moon with 40 seconds of fuel left. Is that correct? So how did they return to the control module?
They landed with 40s of _descent_ fuel. The ascent stage had its own separate fuel supply.
ExxonMobil brought them gas via AAA
@@Tim22222 That seems rather too well planned.
@@Lonesome.Cowboy You can see the footage itself on KZhead. As they descend you can hear them counting down the altitude and the fuel ticking down from 8...7...6... It's a bit tense watching the footage honestly but yes, it was very well planned, very precise.
One small step for man, one giant LEAP for mankind.
Nah, it's actually one giant STEP for mankind Source: whoever the hell this guy is
One giant LIAR
How does a debunking video only leave me thinking even more that it's true?
@FanOf Dueling project much?
@FanOf Dueling time is relative
@FanOf Dueling what's your point? lol! You are clearly illuminating your own Idiocracy by presumably making the assertion that your comment is immortalized in fact & cannot be challenged or questioned
@@SassyBagels lol “Cause you’re dumb” will be on his Tombstone
@FanOf Dueling 'time' doesn't make truth less relevant. In reality, it adds relevance. DAH
Has anyone thought about possibility of broadcasting analog TV 240,000 miles with perect clarity from the moon buggy with a couple of batteries that also powered the jeep with the body panels removed? I guess the Van Allen Belts worked as an amplifier.
You'd need massive radio telescopes to pick up a signal like that.
It was slow-scan, rotating color wheel "TV", and yes, they DID use massive radio-telescopes to pick up the signal!
@@gdavisloop 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
🤣🤣🤣
@@debraolson7553 What, are you saying we DON'T have big radio telescopes on Earth?
The phone call with the president, the radiation belt, the person filming the landing all prove that it happened in their dreams.
No they don't! The phone call was a simple patch in Houston, the radiation belt is not an obstacle for short trips, and no one filmed the landing *dummy.* Is there anything else you're wrong about you need correcting?
have you never heard of the radio and it was a camera atached to the side of the ship that filmed the landing
Engineers at the time used pencil and paper drawings..........compared to today 3D mapping and imagery. This is the most compelling video I've seen for the argument we DID go to the moon.
no we didn't.
NEXT video in Nvidia's debunking series: "How I Know OJ Was Innocent"
Are you twelve?
@@seigeengine No, no. That's his IQ. ... drools a lot.
He wasn't
Ha!Ha!Ha!ha!ha!ha!
And sandy hook next lol
Remember folks the camera crew always gets there first before the astronauts
and the lawyers, too, in case Armstrong slipped on the ladder and chose to file a workman's comp claim.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Stanley, without a camera crew ... is akin to NASA, without a starry-eyed audience.
Ever heard of a tripod buddy?
@@donavishaka5906they haven't heard of anything except being hard headed and uneducated in science, Best thing is leave them alone and let them be wrong LOL !!!!
The moon landing was filmed using front screen projection. The moon landing footage looks identical in side by side photos of science fiction space movies from the 1960s, which is also the same decade front screen projection was invented by the guy who directed the shining if I'm not mistaken.
_The moon landing was filmed using front screen projection._ It was not physically possible to film _Apollo_ footage using front screen projection. It possesses several limitations which are glaringly absent from the _Apollo_ footage: It requires the camera to be static (which is not what we see in the _Apollo_ footage), It required diffused light, with no hard shadows (which is not what we see in the _Apollo_ footage), And it couldn't feature any reflective surfaces on the set (which is not what we see in the _Apollo_ footage). The above is true even if the Moon landings are fake. _The moon landing footage looks identical in side by side photos of science fiction space movies from the 1960s,_ A select few does, but the vast majority does not. _which is also the same decade front screen projection was invented by the guy who directed the shining if I'm not mistaken._ You are. Front projection was invented by Will Jenkins in 1955.
Pretty smart they chose to go during a full moon 🧠
He has made me believe the conspiracies
Everyone knows we landed on the moon now. Have you ever watched unacknowledged it shows stuff from the government had to release because of the freedom of information act you should check it out.
😂
@@danielbennett1734 the sam FOI from australia and us government admitted that covid wasn't isolated but noooo, no one looks that up cause they dont want to,
ahahaha so true! this would fail high school science class project
we've never been to the moon period
the boot looked too weird, it didn't look like a photo
+Ray People do keep saying that in these comments. But I think they are overdoing it. Remember that the boots had not been used before, so they should be as clean and smooth as if just pulled off a store shelf;) Well, OK, a more experienced eye can catch the fact that the shading is too even even for that. But the difference is just not that big, the presenter was still being accurate when he said it looked like a photo. It is pretty close
I didn't read comments. Also the the astronaut looked weird. Like animated. But I thought it was because of shitty picture. It's like the new rogue one movie with the animated actor. A friend of mine didn't notice at all that it was animated, until I told her. But I had no trouble noticing. Animation is getting really good, and we are almost there. But not just yet. My problem with this is that the CEO of nvidia claims that you can't tell any difference. That is just wrong. I know it's just a sales speech trying to make nvidia look good. But it's a lie when you can tell the difference
+Ray That was their CEO? My, my are they in trouble! No company can thrive with a CEO with such poor presentation skills. The major duty of a CEO is making presenters to investors and share holders! But I don't remember him ever claiming that "you can't tell any difference": only that it is hard to spot the difference. And it turns out for people with graphics experience, it is not even very hard.
its not that hes just stepping a a tiny hill thingy so it looks like it got cut off
I could tell instantly it wasn't real because of the boots as well. After I noticed the boots a few other things as well.
So the sun reflects backwards from those crazy moon particles to illuminate the backside of the LEM?
Yes.
Yes, just like on earth.
Who took the photo of "The first man on the moon"? And who recorded the video of "our" astronauts blasting back to earth?
There is no photo of the first man on the moon as Armstrong held the camera. On the EVA shots he is only present as a reflection in Aldrin's helmet. The lift-off only has been captured for Apollo 17. The camera left behind was mounted on the rover and remote controlled.
I remember sitting in my grandmas farm house in Michigan watching Apollo 8 circle the moon. My 'hillbilly' uncle went outside and sat on the porch and looked up and said, "there ain't no one flyin around the moon". I asked him why not. He said, "They can't get there". I asked why. He said, "the sky is in the way" - they can't get past the sky".............................................................................
All these years later and your Uncle was RIGHT! lmao
@Kevin Prager you study science?
Kevin Prager That’s not very specific.
wow.... you must be right, cause you study science!
@@theultimatereductionist7592 wow. Really? You said that? Bad enough that you thought it.
I used to believe they actually went to the moon, now thanks to this video I"m all skeptical.
Liar :-)
@@yazzamx6380 😑
@@kenkaneki1398 😑
@@yazzamx6380 😑
Yes it often the de bunkers that convince you the most
trillion dollar corporation tells you to obey
Flat earthers : "Oh Nvidia is part of the Illuminati!"
they might very well be. all major corporations and the key ppl are...
I sincerely did NOT believe it was a photograph. The suit looks very cheesy and untextured
By George, I do believe you've proven there is cheese on the moon.
Exactly. It felt some average video-game's screenshot at best
And somehow people think NASA could do BETTER 50 years ago 🤔
Its astroneer
Nick Hahn You do know that we went back to the moon a half dozen times after this landing.
The news in 2154 NASA - "We're finally going to go back to the moon in 2160."
It's definitely not the first time. In the early 2000s, George W Bush was talking about sending men back to the moon quite vociferously.
@p r o x y I remember. They kept getting bolder each time until they were packing up dune buggies and cruising around in the deser... I mean moon.
you can't go back when you've never been there
2024
@@sidmartin8348 thats why we arent going back to Mars
Absolutely Amazing work.
Sure, you can debunk the moon landing was faked but you can’t debunk that there is an actual stairway to heaven.
Here's my question - When on Earth, the moon in the sky is a certain size. When on the moon, the earth is a similar size. Yet, the earth is 4 times larger than the moon. Shouldn't the earth be bigger when looking from the moon?
Depends if it's at perihelion or not.. After all, the moon changes it['s size a lot too. Even so, we don't *actually* know how big the earth is compared to the moon, relatively speaking. The photo wouldn't mean anything, since it would just vary in size depending on how much background is shown . If they had cropped the photo it would have looked much bigger..
@@sgdeluxedoc - If we actually went to the moon, wouldn't we have a pretty fair estimate on the earth/moon ratio? Just take a look at the midpoint of the journey. Besides, I believe the accepted ratio is that the moon is about 1/4 the size of the earth (which, by the way, is pretty unheard of - moons are typically much smaller than the planet they orbit).
Wow that other guy's comment is moronic. The key you're missing is that the cameras being used to take those photos are not the same. You can make the moon look huge on Earth just by zooming in with a camera. You've undoubtedly seen photos where the moon looks enormous because it's been zoomed in. Go look up moon photos and look for ones that you can see land too. See how misleading they can be? You can't just blindly compare photos taken from different cameras or even the same camera set up differently and expect everything to look the same size. So yes, if you were to be standing on the moon looking at Earth, it would appear larger than if you were on Earth looking up at the Moon, but remember that you are not doing that. You are looking at photos, taken by cameras that aren't your eyes.
Oopsie!
Atmosphere dude. Hola seems common core really failed so many.
America: We landed on the moon! Also America: No we didn't! It was a hoax! Also America: Yes we did! Meanwhile, the rest of the world: America landed on the moon.
elmohead Exactly
Even the Soviet Union, their rivals, knew that it was genuine.
elmohead - yeah, sorry for the inconvenience... technical difficulties.
thats a good point
Hum, you just said something i didn't realise. Wonder how many russians think it's a fake. ATM the only people i met who think that a fake are americans.
My favorite comment someone had said when making it clear this wasn't faked was " to fake this mission so elaborately from take off to re-entry would have cost more than landing on the moon. It was decided to cut cost and go ahead and land ".
you almost got it. they ve sunken so much $$ into the mission and could not do it, so they hired Kubrick
Faking it costs a lot less money, than to actually land men on the moon.
@@MacLuckyPTP Who was so much of a perfectionist he demanded to film it on location
3 BMW ads in less than 10 minutes KZhead is officially worse tan network television
Jeez... if this guy talked any slower he'd be talking backward.
+John Ryan he debunked only one aspect- there are many more - divergent shadows, an astronaut pulling an "anti-gravity" feat, perfect exposure and framing despite astronauts not being able to see the viewfinder, and the gloves too cumbersome to adjust aperture settings, the earth the wrong size, not even the smallest disturbance of dust beneath the landing module. Starting to sound fishy yet?
He thinks were all brain dead.
Jacopo Peterman came to say the same thing.
Thats what happens when you script this stuff to be so careful to not get caught in a LIE...this is a joke.
The Moon has no atmosphere so how do you make dust clouds ? Were talking about using a wide angle lens to frame a subject at a great distance.most surface images on apollo were taken using one of two wide angle lenses. The Moon or Earth. As the focal length becomes shorter, the perspective difference expands, making a close subject appear that much bigger and remote objects even smaller-this is called exaggerated perspective.
The LEM also had a lot of zip ties, they hold together great in space.
Yea, i heard all the rain, sleet, hail and hurricane gusts of wind in space would have ripped those to shreds.
500° in space they would have melted
@@johnkean6852 uh its called insulation lmao
@thePiercingTruth that was an outer layer
@thePiercingTruth ????
Buzz left the door of the LEM open ... "because they had forgotten to design a door handle on the outside of the LEM door." Yup. Oh my.
You like making stuff up?
Not true.
We CANNOT get through the Van Allen belts safely.
Sure we can. We can fly through in around one, two hours, when actually dying from radiation would take one _week._
looking at the comments section, its just hard to tell who is dumb and who is sarcastic
Poe's law.
Billy McAuliffe Or you.
The dumb ones are those that remain unaware of the intended deception behind the video, which is that using a single photo's aperture settings to explain 3 minor issues, can substitute for proving any major issues they don't realize exist.
Stop licking lead paint
lead paint, loose a few iq points? Not nearly as damaging for him as what you do... inject aluminium and mercury into your body causing major brain damage possibly even autism...So that's done worse for your than a little lead pain for him ;) lol
Everyone's criticising this guy's slow speech but i found it quite fine
That's cause no one but you has a half empty bottle next to them.
Except he’s lying, other than that its ‘fine’. It’s all fake. m.kzhead.info/sun/qNaappWqiKCsgK8/bejne.html
@@xonerate371 Yeah...no
his speech is perfectly fine to me.
I think it’s fine too
Why didn't you also modeled the Horizon which appears to be just a few feet away in all the images shot on the moon... The more we have advanced in the field of science and technology the more it confirms that it was simply not possible with the primitive technology of 1969.
If you had done the maths to find out where the horizon should be and how far it is away, you would have at least had the option of making a point. But you didn't. You just say it "appears" as if your incompetent eyeballing would be worth anything. And, no, the opposite is true: The more we advance, the more loose ends attach firmly to the story, as landing sites can be found by satellites in moon's orbit, footage can be analyzed using deep learning technology and new features can be found in the samples based on knowledge not existent at the time of the missions and therefore impossible to fake.
Lol. Yea there is no haze on the moon. So the horizon is sharp as a tack and there is no way to guess its distance. Not possible on Earth...
The curvature of the Moon is also 4 times more than that of Earth.
Just watched 2hrs of non stop footage on the moon and the shadows did not move an inch! How does that work? And why does slightly less gravity make everything move in slow motion??? And lastly.. How the hell does that little landing module have enough fuel and power to take off and get back to earth? Where's the fuel tank and massive rockets?
Firstly, a typical day on the moon lasts 30 Earth days. That is why the shadows don't move. That means, 3 days on the moon is the equivant of the sun moving the same distance as 2.4 hours on Earth. Less gravity gravity means that things don't accellerate as quickly when they fall because there is less force being exerted on them. And as for the size of the module - the rocket leaving Earth has to carry over 2800 tonnes into low earth orbit. The module on the moon has to carry a smal craft made of aluminium and 2 people and some rocks, around 1 tonne when you take into consideration the 1/6 travity of the moon. Furthermore, there is no weather, atmosphere or air resistance on the moon. It only needed enough fuel to carry 1000kg, 100km into moon orbit.
_Just watched 2hrs of non stop footage on the moon and the shadows did not move an inch!_ Wrong. When we compare first and last frames of _Apollo_ 11 EVA footage, we can easily see that the shadows _did_ move. _And why does slightly less gravity_ 1/6th is not "slightly less" _make everything move in slow motion?_ Because if you move fast is low gravity, you risk overbalancing and falling down. _And lastly.. How the hell does that little landing module have enough fuel and power to take off and get back to earth?_ It doesn't. It only has enough fuel to rendezvous with the Command and Service Module.
Surely Kodak film is usable outside the atmosphere protection from radiation
mmm, shielded by metal Hasselblad 70mm film magazines?
T T wouldn't even pass unprotected through the airport xrays...
It melts at 150°f. The temp was 250° in the sun. -250° in the shade. It either froze or melted. No film
What melts at 150F? Chocolate? The film they used was polyester based and polyethylene melts at nearly 490°F. Kodak calls is "Ester". You are probably too young to remember slide shows, but film that melted at 150 degrees would not have worked to well in a slide or movie projector.
@@TexMex421 Stop ruining their conspiratard "facts." LOL
*grabs popcorn and starts reading comments* this is gonna be so much fun =D
"Comments are the new content."
@@princeoftheves1549 As long as they are productive, its a great thing. But often these things are polarized.
"We have been to the moon" says this foolish man- the rocket had to to travel through the Thermosphere where the temperatures are 200 degrees to 2000 degrees centigrade and then if it made it through the Thermosphere it has to travel through the Exosphere where temps are 0 to 1700 degrees.
What's the density of the air in the thermosphere/exosphere compared to that at sea level? Answer that question and you will know the answer to yours.
Objects FREEZE in the thermosphere as you'd know had you done research outside of hoax sites. It's too dilute for convection to occur so no matter how hot the particles are, you aren't touching enough of them to transfer heat faster than every other point on the surface loses heat from thermal radiation.
"We modelled the entire surface of the moon" - but the horizon is only a few feet away, just like on the "real" photos...
Which strongly implies that this is how it's supposed to look like on the Moon, now, doesn't it?
@@Jan_Strzelecki But the moon isn't a 100-foot square flat, it's a massive sphere.
@@joejoejoejoejoejoe4391 The surface is maybe not as noticeable as here, there isn't a lot to make from what you see. you can see how far a tree is here, but on the moon all you see is small rocks and dust. You don't know exactly how far you can see, especially on photos