Buzz Aldrin moon landing scene lighting recreated

Debunking Lunar Landing Conspiracies with Maxwell and VXGI

Hey ner0 thanks for posting

Do you think that video solves the lighting mystery ?



Apparently one of the counter-arguments is illumination consistency seen in sequential images ? ...

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.

link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIFBz2t3Ov0

Obviously one would need to study the other imagery for comparisons.

Cheers

I'm not sure if it solves the mystery or not, just thought it was an interesting approach to it, by using an artificial light simulation.
As for the video you posted, the debunking of the debunking, I don't really know what to think.
I won't address the arguments or the counter-arguments themselves, but instead I'll just point out that NVIDIA makes money from selling hardware that recreates physical objects, interactions, and environments as close to reality as possible. I don't think NVIDIA has any stake in actively misleading people, the "debunking" is merely a publicity stunt: "wow, their 3D lighting is so realistic that they can tell apart fantasy from reality!"

There's the question of how well did NVIDIA engineers and artists research the (lunar) environment in order to accurately simulate it's lighting properties, or did they just mimic the photos without caring about authenticity? I would assume they know a bit more than Jarrah White on the subject. But then again, what do I know?!

ner0 wrote:I'm not sure if it solves the mystery or not, just thought it was an interesting approach to it, by using an artificial light simulation.

Thanks ner0 for the reply and yeah I agree it's an interesting experiment.

As for the video you posted, the debunking of the debunking, I don't really know what to think.
I won't address the arguments or the counter-arguments themselves,

No problem bro, I understand, this subject is extremely complex and requires alot of research time just to examine the data and consider all the possibilities.

but instead I'll just point out that NVIDIA makes money from selling hardware that recreates physical objects, interactions, and environments as close to reality as possible. I don't think NVIDIA has any stake in actively misleading people, the "debunking" is merely a publicity stunt: "wow, their 3D lighting is so realistic that they can tell apart fantasy from reality!"

Yeah pretty good publicity stunt really. The Moon hoax topic is popular and for some people a hot button. I couldn't say either way about any hidden agendas because there's no way for me to know what (if anything) was going on behind the scenes. The whole thing may be completely innocent but with this subject I can't totally rule anything out either. just saying.

There's the question of how well did NVIDIA engineers and artists research the (lunar) environment in order to accurately simulate it's lighting properties, or did they just mimic the photos without caring about authenticity? I would assume they know a bit more than Jarrah White on the subject. But then again, what do I know?!

Well I'm sure they spent a good amount of time researching things but unfortunately there's no way to know for sure what all the conditions really were (albedo, reflectivity properties etc.) at that exact time and place on the Moon .... so really imo, it's all just guesswork.

Also .... Not sure about "mimicking photos" because it appears the focus was really on just one photo.

I believe it's this one ....



http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5868.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5868HR.jpg

Link - http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html#Mag40



I don't have much internet time lately so I'm probably not gonna post alot more on this subject anytime soon but I will say after looking at the other relevant images, I don't think the simulation even comes close to explaining the illumination mysteries.

Just my opinion of course.

Cheers