• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

Oh, sorry, Jay! I thought the smiley at the end of my post would indicate that I wasn't serious. I was making a joke about the CTers who prattle on about paid shills assisting in the vast disinformation cover-up lunacy.

I couldn't thank you enough for sharing your knowledge and expertise, and for your limitless patience for the idiocy expressed by the likes of Dr. Sox.
 
BazBear said:
Is that why there's no money in the budget for the legendary "I corrected Jay" t-shirts?
Click to expand...

I actually don't have anything to do with those. Nor should I. Those are awarded entirely by people who aren't me, and who presumably get their government shill paychecks with greater regularity than I.
 
nomuse said:
Well...unless there was a lot more sophistication in the later stages of the render than is described by the article, you'd practically have to "tweak it" in order to get a decent replica.

I didn't see anything in the article about a film model, especially not one that compensates for the shifting of the response curves in the push and pull darkroom methods used to bring out the most detail possible.
Click to expand...


This post has me wondering - was the Ektachrome used E3 or E4 process? I was using E4 in high school/college ca. 1972-77, so...

The reason I ask is I don't recall if Kodak provided push/pull instructions in the kits. I'm sure a pro-level lab would have that. But more to the point, wouldn't the NASA labs have processed most of the magazines per spec, given that the exposure instructions were of the nature of what they used to put in the consumer packs (e.g. "for bright sunlight, use...")?
 
nomuse said:
Well...unless there was a lot more sophistication in the later stages of the render than is described by the article, you'd practically have to "tweak it" in order to get a decent replica.

I didn't see anything in the article about a film model, especially not one that compensates for the shifting of the response curves in the push and pull darkroom methods used to bring out the most detail possible.
Click to expand...

That sort of post processing effect has been available in realtime for a few years, it would be interesting to know if they took that into account. If not it ought to be possible to create different FSFX settings for different film development settings. The demo obviously covers a physically-based exposure model already.

Also I didn't specifically see anything about the directionality of the reflection of the lunar surface, but I would think they've done that, writing that into a surface shader is trivial, so if they've done any amount of research that should be in there.

ETA - Given that this is a marketing exercise there may be a certain amount of *ahem* flexibility of actuality between what the marketing guy says and what the devs are actually doing. Devs are geeks so getting stuff as accurate as possible would be a thing, it's the "as possible" that's the question, but I'm not seeing anything that raises any flags.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
I actually don't have anything to do with those. Nor should I. Those are awarded entirely by people who aren't me, and who presumably get their government shill paychecks with greater regularity than I.
Click to expand...

I was providing the image for a while, but since I decided that I had better things to do with my life than arguing with idiots, like banging my head on a brick wall or watching paint dry, I haven't been doing so. If anyone wants to take over...
 

Attachments

  • J-Shirt.gif
    J-Shirt.gif
    12.3 KB · Views: 11
JayUtah said:
The usual suspects are already accusing Nvidia of adjusting the lighting parameters (e.g., surface reflectivity) to make the photos come out the way they "should."

Honestly I contemplated doing something similar back when I first started writing my web site. I had access at the time to bleeding edge computer graphics hardware and techniques. But after doing a few demonstrations I realized that there's no way I could substantiate to everyone's satisfaction that I hadn't fudged the numbers.
Click to expand...

Of course, if you had persisted and produced a good simulation the hoaxers would point to it as proof of a moon hoax, after all, if a single individual can do a good simulation then many individuals with full government tech at their disposal could do a much better one.

It's truly a lose/lose situation.
 
BazBear said:
Is that why there's no money in the budget for the legendary "I corrected Jay" t-shirts?
Click to expand...

I'm selling the ever so much more popular "I got corrected by Jay Utah" t-shirts.
 
drewid said:
That sort of post processing effect has been available in realtime for a few years, it would be interesting to know if they took that into account. If not it ought to be possible to create different FSFX settings for different film development settings. The demo obviously covers a physically-based exposure model already.

Also I didn't specifically see anything about the directionality of the reflection of the lunar surface, but I would think they've done that, writing that into a surface shader is trivial, so if they've done any amount of research that should be in there.

ETA - Given that this is a marketing exercise there may be a certain amount of *ahem* flexibility of actuality between what the marketing guy says and what the devs are actually doing. Devs are geeks so getting stuff as accurate as possible would be a thing, it's the "as possible" that's the question, but I'm not seeing anything that raises any flags.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I also thought they may have included anisotropy but it didn't make it into the text of the article.
 
JayUtah said:
Well, Dr. Socks was never one to pass up a diarrhea-related conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
It's common sense nobody in their right mind would clear a sick Astronaut to go into the weightless void and no government that is totally committed to protecting it's citizens would allow ANYBODY to fly to their country from the Ebola ravaged countries in Africa.
 
Skinny Splash said:
It's common sense nobody in their right mind would clear a sick Astronaut to go into the weightless void
Click to expand...

Begging the question. And strangely, that's exactly the same argument Patrick made, in exactly the same layman's way. It's what convinced a lot of people here that we weren't really talking to a doctor. A lot of what "Patrick" claimed, allegedly under the guise of medical practice, really didn't ring true to other medical professionals.

While we're on that subject, why is it that when I set it up for Dr. Patrick Teleki, MD, to discuss the matter in person with NASA Ames Research Center flight surgeons, he fled? Did he ever explain to you why he wouldn't share his official medical findings with other licensed physicians?

And what are the chances two brothers would be so equally obsessed with poop-related arguments?
 
Skinny Splash said:
It's common sense nobody in their right mind would clear a sick Astronaut to go into the weightless void and no government that is totally committed to protecting it's citizens would allow ANYBODY to fly to their country from the Ebola ravaged countries in Africa.
Click to expand...

If memory serves correctly (and it may not) he got sick after they were under way. Your brother was of the opinion that NASA should have immediately aborted the mission, and that the fact that they didn't share his opinion somehow supported his view that it was all a hoax (logic was not his strong point).

As for Ebola, I think there is a lot to be said for sending people to help control the epidemic in Africa (with proper precautions, of course) rather than imagining we can prevent any contact with the region (we can't).
 
Skinny Splash said:
It's common sense nobody in their right mind would clear a sick Astronaut to go into the weightless void
Click to expand...

So I'll ask you the same thing I asked after a previous version of this claim. What is your experience as a flight surgeon? What is the basis of your judgment for this claim? What astronaut was sick but cleared for a flight and how do you know that?
 
ArmillarySphere said:
Thank you. I had just about managed to forget about his poop fixation, and you had to go bring it up.
Click to expand...

I for one welcome our poop fixated and flinging poster I get a certain pleasure from watching posts being deleted and sent to AAH - probably like this one! lol
 
Skinny Splash said:
..... no government that is totally committed to protecting it's citizens would allow ANYBODY to fly to their country from the Ebola ravaged countries in Africa.
Click to expand...
So if a country decides to allow its citizens to travel to an African country to treat ebola victims and prevent further deaths should those doctors and other good people be forever denied a chance to return home? Surely you can't be that heartless.

Ranb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom