Nvidia Debunks Conspiracy Theories About Moon Landing

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 …




  1. But that didn't explain why the flag is flying?
    It didn't explain why they never attempt to go back to the moon.
    It didn't explain why the Russia is not going there
    It didn't explain why they fake the Earth shot as they're moving away

    Why? Because they never did land on the moon.

  2. So basically we made a computer generated picture to prove to you we don't use CGI to lie to you. Couple of questions though.
    Why don't moon rocks you've claimed to have brought back to earth glow just like you claim the moon does?
    And if your claims are true why not take the pictures with all the defaults you claim in order for the people to understand the moon better, which is what any good scientist/explorer would've done. And in that sense why not take a picture of the sun from the moon? Pictures of everything you could find actually? And if the moon landing was so important how is it remotely possible that NASA home of some of the smartest minds in the world LOSE the original moon landing tape? I figured something that important you would have locked uo somewhere and protected, but that's just me, I'm not a genius like you guys. I guess accidents happen but why did NASA not reveal this info to the public instead of waiting until 2006, conveniently right around the time this certain movement started growing. Anyways I'm sure all of these coincidences are just that,

  3. The more I watched this the more I felt this was a sales pitch to get favour, and probably work, from NASA. I mean, imaging going all the way to the moon without a camera with exposures that could take photos of the stars.I mean he has just  told us that the famous "hoax busting" lunar reflectors were not actually needed to get laser light bounced back. What did the call it "Opposition Surge" What utter garbage.There are other things like them telling us that there is NO silhouettes yet the shadows are pitch black, surely they would be even slightly grey. I reiterate they are making the evidence fit the crime.These guy are sales pitch liars.

  4. Understandable that you guys recreated each detail of the moon with a couple of low resolution pictures from 1969. You guys must be geniuses! also could you recreate my bedroom just by glancing at this comment? Thanks!

  5. Perhaps before you proceeded with the lecture it was wise to know the specifications of the camera used on the moon. It seems that your statements on exposure were mistaken. You need a knowledge of photography, not graphic cards regarding this issue. Also, on your simulation of the sun and the stars, what parameters did you use for computer vision? Why would the lunar module be exposed since the exposure was taken on the shadow side? Also, did you use parameters on Earth? That will not hold on the moon.

  6. ironic that a computer graphics card maker is debunking computer generated images (cgi) of the moon landing hoax,… the fact that they need to and tried to debunk this and not nasa.. says a lot…

  7. The soil reflecting light like a mirror and Armstrong acting as a lamp post, wow this is as far fetched as it gets!!! + Somebody explain how the astronauts adjusted the exposure of the Hasselblad with those bulky fingers.

  8. how f did Nvidia get to model reflections on off moon surface, did they go there and map out he terrain? No doubt Nvidia can explain how photos have objects covering the Crosshands engraved on the camera lens. Perhaps they can model that too.

  9. You went a long way and spent a lot to prove this….I just look at the Russians who tracked everything and would have blown NASA out of the water if they faked it.

  10. This doesn't prove anything. Of course you can try to use a simulation and then make it do exactly what they want to prove… Lol how about you try and prove that the same back grounds weren't used in multiple photos, the sped up film looks like normal gravity, and how they could get through the radiation fields without burning up

  11. Your in a aluminium cup ontop of a 10.000 pound thruster working on half power.
    Going down.. Must be shaking a bit and some noise too.. But the incredible noise reduction micophones made talking no problem.

  12. How come we never saw photos pointing up.
    Because i you look away from the light up with no atmosphere sure you must see stars.
    I can see stars in the afternoon..
    In daylight…


  14. If these photos were taken on the Moon and the astronauts adjusted the F stops to get the right exposure, (as this guy states), then where are the "bracketed" photos? This is what every photographer does when having only manual control of the Aperture settings, when faced with setting up his camera for the best light setting in a new environment. They wouldn't have known what was the best f stop, until they tried it. So they would have "bracketed" shots i.e. take a photo one f stop above, then one below the guessed at f stop. This would mean 3 photos with 3 different f stop exposures, then choosing the best one and staying with that exposure setting to ensure perfect exposure. As we have access to all photos taken in number sequence, we can check this out. But on none of the camera film spools was this done. They couldn't check the photos till they got back to Earth either! So barring a very few misplaced camera angles, virtually every photo is perfectly framed and exposed, with no auto settings, no view finder and a camera strapped to their chest. If you believe that is possible, then you know nothing about the Hasslblad camera or photography. Don't get me started on Kodak Ektra film on the Moon at over 100 degrees C in the day, n -170 degrees C at night, mine used to be useless if left in the car on a hot or cold day and let's not forget the manipulation of the crosshairs in the photos, that can't be changed because their embedded in the camera, not the film. Studio photos! Whether they went or not, those pictures are 100% fake!

  15. Can you imagine training all those months and years to go to the moon, then finally going there and coming home safely, then about 35 years later the latest generation of morons start saying you never went there. I don't blame Buzz for punching that guy in the nose!

  16. Very poor defence…The alleged "reflecting surface" is under or all around the subject? Under of course, and the surface under the astronaut is completely dark because of the shadow of the (alleged) lunar module, did they have reflecting panels all around as in the professional studios? …And not even a small crater under che rocket engine (should be huge…) and the feet of LEM without one grain of dust.. Ridiculous video


  18. I don't believe the USA ever went to the moon, but I agree with this "debunk". I think in a bright reflective surface you would see this way. I've been in situations why I saw this in my life here on Earth. But it proves nothing.

  19. This guy is stating common sense. It doesn't prove that a moon landing ever happened. We will never actually know if whether or not it actually did happen…that is the only fact. We will never know. Nobody knows anything about anything

  20. How can they model the moon particles reflective properties without having moon particles? This guy is just ASSUMING how reflective they would be.

Leave a Reply to Rudel23 Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *