Through The Light
The Joint Conspiracy Lyrics

We have lyrics for 'Through The Light' by these artists:

Dillytek Hold tight ′cause all you've got to do Is fight for…
Jean Castel It's me, myself and I tonight So many things to figure…

The lyrics are frequently found in the comments by searching or by filtering for lyric videos

TRACKS

Genre not found

Artist not found

Album not found

Search results not found

Song not found

Most interesting comments from YouTube:

Jan Strzelecki

2y↑1

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.

Jan Strzelecki

4y↑4

He didn't attempt to explain the lack of any blast crater in the photos.
That's because he didn't have to, since there shouldn't be any crater in the first place.

I always think of the video and audio where the LEM
It's "LM". Lunar Module.

They were traveling horizontally so had to eventually stop their forward motion, rotate and descend to the lunar surface
And they did. By the time they were 100 feet above the lunar surface their forward motion has been almost entirely arrested.

I can't imagine the 1/6th gravity of the moon would have been pulling the LEM down that fast
I'm sorry, but your incredulity is not evidence.

Kathleen R

TheCapri48 Gaming ---- Here is an article about Michael Collins in The Atlantic from last July (the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11). It includes a quote from Collins' book about what he saw on the dark side of the moon when he was orbiting.
--- "Collins’s description of the other side of the moon, shrouded in darkness, is lovely and infuriating at the same time because, hard as we try, we can’t fathom the view: “Outside my window I can see stars—and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void; the moon’s presence is defined solely by the absence of stars.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/07/michael-collins-moon-landing-apollo-11/594238/

Also, Armstrong didn't really say in the press conference that they 'didn't see any stars.' --- When I saw that somewhere, I wanted to know if it was true, so I googled it and easily found a transcript of the press conference. ---- Here is what Armstrong ACTUALLY said:
"We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye WITHOUT LOOKING THROUGH THE OPTICS. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see."
It sound to me like they COULD see stars when looking 'through the optics'. It also sounds to me like they DID see some stars when they were photographing the solar corona, but he didn't recall "what (which) stars we could see."
Right after that, Collins says, "I don't remember seeing any." But he says it in a way that sounds like he is surprised that Armstrong just said that he saw stars from the moon, because he doesn't remember seeing any.

Here is the transcript.
https://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/FirstLunarLanding/ch-7.html

Here is the video if you want to hear him, and the way Collins says "I don't remember seeing any." Start at 44 mins 20 seconds.
https://archive.org/details/VJSC_1425Q_Apollo11_F.A.C.T.S._PartQ.wmv

All comments from YouTube:

Mark Flynn

5y↑2.1K

This guy sounds like me trying to hit the minimum presentation time in class.

Caphook. YY

GADU ( masonery) = holo.•.G.•.ram fourth dimmensional. Matrix has you, Neo. Stars = ✨🛸 Anunnaki mothership Space, samsara wheel.
💉💉💉 Grapheno.

J Spencer

😆😆😆😆🤣🤣🤣🤣

Striney S.

😂😂😂

Sergey Kasimov 🔥

2y↑1

my channel proves him wrong with my moon landing video

Rayman Mufasa

This presentation is horse ish and one dimensional

25 More Replies...

eastbandit23

4y↑1.1K

Few small words for this guy
Few giant moments of silence between each word

zxccxz164

lololol more wasted time of my life

Erikas L.

3y↑2

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

Icarus

3y↑3

lmao

A dad who Games

3y↑4

Savage

Moe A

3y↑4

🤣🤣😭😭😭😭😂😂😂😂

1 More Replies...

Ryan

4y↑966

I'm glad this bloke wasn't first bloke on the moon, he'd still be up there giving the first words speech.

sofa king gully

😂😂😂😂😂

Balbroa Wake

@Jacob Eby same lmao 😂

Jacob Eby

3y↑2

This literally made me laugh out loud

Bunsenn

3y↑1

@Robert Bright If it wasn’t real, then tell me exactly how they faked it, in all of your infinite wisdom.

Caca Man

@Robert Bright if it never happened.....then why is it so hard for one human to go on the moon?

20 More Replies...

The AViator

3y↑258

Lol he even got the “that’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind” quote wrong MULTIPLE times

AlcoDelco Lolex

2y↑1

It was LEAP not STEPx2

Robert Ashton

3y↑4

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.

Top Weeb

3y↑18

Even Neil got the quote wrong

D20doodles Doodles

3y↑38

This speach was a lot harder then expected and took twice as long as the moon landing.

zxccxz164

hahahaha it took 10 mins into 14 min video before he 'debunked' anything....did he???

Muhammad Affiq

4y↑406

Legend has it the speech is still going on after 5 years

Browncoat In A Box

6 years now and nope not even half way done

Ananjay D

It has been six years and it is still going😭😭😭

Jetty McFly

3y↑1

6 years and counting

Mr Botak

And still can convince me...

Wetimus Prime

After 5years and 6 months

2 More Replies...

Vitor Feleja

4y↑44

you know it's funny that Nvidia comes out and explains this this way and not NASA or any other space agency

Buster McNutt

2y↑1

Exactly my thought😂😂😂 Like why not send a rover to the moon?? If there’s one on Mars, the why the hell not send one to the moon & get some BADASS 4K photos of earth?? NVIDIA doing it (which is a company that ironically makes graphics cards for rendering 3D animation) makes me even more skeptical LMAO! It’s beyond laughable😂😂😂

willy wonka

You a L

Not a soviet spy

3y↑451

"you thought it was a photograph didn't you?"
No not at all

karel degreef

2y↑1

So he faked this whyle explaining the moonlanfing isn't fake and so thus implying and explaining that Nvidia can fake this even better ?
sounds completly logic to me 😀
sadly Stanley Kubrick isn't alive anymore to explain other stuff that "realy" happend 😉

kuha PMD

3y↑1

Moon is plasma

kuha PMD

It's an image

- Syahmi

3y↑1

The boots conspiracy is the dumbest among all conspiracies 😂😂

Jean-baptiste Poquelin

3y↑1

@Alwafi Charki As fake as moin landing!

10 More Replies...

John Irby

4y↑104

"That's one small step for man....one giant step for mankind." - Nvidia

Mark Shaw

Leap

unnamed

4y↑3

😭

Esben Maaløe

3y↑43

This speaker masters the art of the dramatic pause without any drama to the fullest extent.

loverman of sky

And you know how to extract humor from context.

Animal Language

2y↑3

Well! Geez! I'm glad they were able to simulated EVERYTHING.

Todd Lee

2y↑5

Impressive - he didn’t start laughing during the presentation.

Joe Smith

4y↑9

1:29
No way they forgot to put a door on the outside.
They built replicas of these, and tested them here.
On the ground.

Harrison Kemp

5y↑93

He has made me believe the conspiracies

zxccxz164

2y↑2

ahahaha so true! this would fail high school science class project

Emrys Hadrian

@Daniel Bennett 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,

lucky

2y↑1

😂

Daniel Bennett

2y↑1

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.

Angele

@D Ray lol

Ozzy Helix

3y↑4

even better way of proving the moon landing happened would be to use ray tracing to simulation how light behaves when it comes in contact with teflon or lunar dust or the lunar module

Aviation Lover

3y↑1

@Ozzy Helix No does not.

Ozzy Helix

@Yazzam X so do you believe the moon land was fake?

Yazzam X

3y↑2

No need, since everyone who has tried to replicate this scene (or similar) using REAL objects and lights or computer simulations arrive at the SAME conclusion, which is that objects in the shadow of the LM are illuminated by light reflecting off other surfaces, hence debunking the hoax claim (made in books and documentaries and videos and presentations) that everything in shadow should be completely black :-)

Pranormal subliminals daily through TV.

4y↑91

"We have simulated every thing to death" quote of this video.

specific78

3y↑92

If you are having trouble sleeping just listen to this dude

ShEePiN w0Lfc0VeRinG

HA!!!!!!!!

Dimi

Did you mean if you have trouble shitting, cose his geriatric narative will do it for ya

Prisco Ramirez

Thanks this helped me sleep

Vipul Bandodkar

3y↑4

My eyes never felt so tired

William Rodriguez

4y↑3

The moon is reflective, the sun is too bright, if you try it from a city with bright lights you might see the same thing.

KeeeeenW

3y↑2

Original quote: “That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind”
Huang’s version: “That's one small step for man, one giant step for mankind”
Going to moon is just a giant step, not giant leap. Nvidia is a giant leap.

ezockilluminati

4y↑9

You know they are desperate for us to believe the lie when you get Nvidia involved

Yayman Yayman

U use technology and science

The Joshua Loftin

@hiphiphooray tell me how you transmit an electronic signal 238k miles in the 60s.

wol verine

4y↑7

The entire problem with all the information presented on today's media is that you need to believe it in order for it to be true. :)

AviArts

...what? No.

Atlas

4y↑4

Nope, information is true regardless of how many people believe in it.

TheoStuss

4y↑2

May I ask you, why when watching your thumbnail title photo, the horizon of moon is as high as the astronaut's eyes? This is only possible if someone took photo while holding the camera in front of his own eyes, provided that both persons are approximately as tall as the other one. If, as the astronauts were supposed to, the photo was taken form the chest where the camera was fixed, then the horizon should be seen underneath the level of the shoulders: https://www.cnet.com/news/nasa-now-aims-to-return-astronauts-to-the-moon-within-5-years/ ; So tell me NVIDIA, why is this the case. Everybody can try that with his camera when he is at the seaside or on a wide plain.

oldbloke135

OMG, not only do these people think the Earth is flat, they think the Moon is flat as well! Aldrin is clearly standing in a hole and the ground behind him obviously isn't level either. The clue is that the "horizon" you mentioned is sloping at about 15 degrees!! The horizon behind Armstrong, reflected in Aldrin's visor, is right where it should be, at Armstrong's camera level.

seigeengine

4y↑1

@TheoStuss And thank you for admitting to everyone you're spineless.

TheoStuss

@seigeengine I did not know that one of them was a dwarf and the other one a giant.

seigeengine

4y↑1

That reasoning only applies if the two people are equal heights and standing on flat terrain. The Moon is certainly not flat (you can clearly see, for example, the astronaut in the photo is standing in a depression). It also doesn't work if the horizon isn't flat, although It doesn't look like that's a factor here.

Some Dank Boi

3y↑3

Imagine if this was re-rendered with RTX

Jack Harper

New terms to spin clients into thinking & believing that Nvidia actually has something to offer the client that their rivals do not.

Can Mingir

3y↑7

Really, one effort going moon and another effort to prove it is real!

Team33

3y↑1

60 years later !!! Are these people aware of Jeff Bezos' and Elon Musk's space programmes ?
do they think that those are just cartoons in high definition ? hologrammes on Youtube ?
Jesus. What a way to waste your life away !
He even seems bored at his own voice !

Jason Wade

2y↑3

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.

Jan Strzelecki

2y↑1

Dan Rebeiz

6y↑91

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.

Leaf

@Jay Thomas lol

C Jones

@Jay Thomas Sometimes the space men they say its bumpy.sometimes they say its smooth.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗙𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡

3y↑3

it pains me seeing lots of the people here try to debunk obviously proven moon landing and whenever proof is provided they miss it as govenremnt proproganda or whatever like dude

babelfishdude

5y↑9

I'm surprised that people don't know that if you fire a retrorocket to slow down from mach 24 to zero to safely land on the moon - you pretty much will get zero usable audio recording because of the roar of the engine as it resonates through the structure. But then again, not everyone studies these things.

Island Star TV

5y↑2

which doesn't prove any of the images are actually in space lmao

6 More Replies...

allen alesna

4y↑1

I even think that Neil situated himself specifically there and took the shot as the light bounced from him and unto Buzz. Coz when you do photography in the old skool film way, those small details matter. There were no hypersensitive film stocks. There were high ISOs yes, but it's not like the case now of digital sensors. You have to get it right at least 80% as shot. Then if need be, work some in the darkroom.

Justwantahover

The best debunk I heard is from "Vintage Space" channel. It's the nature of the ejecta from the moon rover's wheels. It goes in an arch path right behind the wheels. If it was on earth the gravity is stronger and even with sand you don't get that arch pattern. And on earth the dust would have blocked the view, but not on the moon (and the dust is supposed to be really fine). But we can easily see everything on the moon with the moon rover (no dust mixing with the air). A huge vacuum chamber 4 miles wide could explain the dust not blocking the view, but doesn't explain the arch movement of the ejecta. And a land site where there is no dust (just sandy stuff and tiny stones) could explain the lack of dust in the air but still not the arch movement of the moon rover's ejecta. The sandy little stones would basically just stay on the ground (with the higher gravity, like it does on earth). The only explanation is a vacuum and extremely low gravity compared to earth. Thank You Vintage Space! Look her up and see the video yourself (or any moon rover footage).

Justwantahover

@seigeengine Exactly, and flat earthers would hate that.

seigeengine

4y↑1

You get an arc on Earth as well, it's just a smaller one. What causes fine particles to not form that arc path on Earth is the atmosphere, since swirling gas catches the particles and they end up as clouds. Without an atmosphere, each bit of sand or whatever behaves like a bowling ball would on Earth, arcing on a ballistic trajectory.

Bunsenn

3y↑10

To all the people saying it was CGI, look up CGI from the 60s. You will be very underwhelmed.

dlg78

@Jon Smith apart from all the light sources will be wrong

Nick Rose

@Jon Smith You of course neglect to talk about the hundreds of hours of film. Sigh. Pathetic

Jon Smith

3y↑2

only the young claim Cgi, because they never knew the world without it. No serious landing disbeliever would even mention CGI. Photos can be faked without CGI. Photograph a sufficiently detailed model or set and you'll have a fake with no signs of tampering. Images cannot prove Man walked on the Moon, but they can be used as evidence of fraud.

Bas

4y↑51

This is exactly the kind of video i need to listen to so i can fall asleep

XXforhireXX

4y↑1

wow you discovered that the moon is reflective. well done.

Jan Strzelecki

4y↑1

Sadly, some people have to be reminded of that fact.

Shawn

4y↑67

The audience was hanging (themselves) on his every word.

Jimmy Grant

3y↑1

He is doing what we call "grasping"

MERHAWI GHIRMAY

We know that far moon surface is different from earths...which make sense...can you guys also simulate the engine thrust effect on the moon surface Relative to that picture.

Robert Lefebvre

He didn't attempt to explain the lack of any blast crater in the photos. I always think of the video and audio where the LEM is giving the second by second report on the decent and they show and they report the dust being blown up when they were still 100 feet over the lunar surface. They were traveling horizontally so had to eventually stop their forward motion, rotate and descend to the lunar surface (the first successful landing of the LEM ever). I can't imagine the 1/6th gravity of the moon would have been pulling the LEM down that fast and it probable could have settled upon the surface like a spent helium balloon does on Earth (which would explain the lack of a blast crater) but if that were the case I would expect some audio saying they were waiting for the weak lunar gravity to pull them down.

Jan Strzelecki

4y↑4

Jimmy H.

3y↑2

Notice how he has to build up the whole story with pause for suspense and even how they barely made it with 40 seconds of fuel left

LewisFTM

4y↑1

We need to see this done with rtx

marco hanse

Captain Cook discovered Australia and Cook claimed Australia in the name of the Queen. Neil Armstrong landed on the moon and Neil didn't claim the moon in the name of the U.S.A.? A waist of $80 billion!

Anonymous Google

4y↑91

I thought my presentations in college were bad, he makes me look like a genius. Lol

AreYouSure AboutThat

3y↑4

Mkay. @ 9:52
They changed the angle from where they started before they cut to the sky.
If you bring it down to .25 speed, you can easily make out details of the module and stars at the same time.

In the first angle before playing with the exposure, they didn't have their pont of view looking directly at the sun.

KimDahl77

3y↑8

This video has been made possible by Nvidia and NASA. Thank you for watching!

zxccxz164

hahaha - christ can't they do a decent video?!?!?!! all the tech we have today...and some guy rambles with no real list of what he will be talking about...

Yazzam X

Where 6 years should have been more than enough time for hoax believers to carry out similar CG simulations to prove them wrong, especially in this era of real-time ray-tracing :-)

Sam Dilworth

4y↑2

What would have happened if Buzz Aldrin closed the hatch when he got out of the rover when they landed on the moon?

seigeengine

4y↑1

They'd have had to force it open. Again, the landing module was very thin aluminum because it had to be super-light, so it wouldn't have been too hard to do.

Roger

4y↑39

"Isn't that beautiful?" shows cgi graphics

Prime Philosophy

5y↑23

Creates a simulation of the moon landing to tell us that the moon landing was not a simulation. Thank you.

jake

5y↑2

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.

Prime Philosophy

@Herr Schmidt 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...

Herr Schmidt

5y↑3

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.

bicivelo

3y↑27

Even Armstrong messed up his own line. It was "One small step for A man, one giant leap for mankind."

Stale Shortcake

He might've been emotional at that moment, you could even hear the astronauts quivering as they spoke in honour to the President.

Janice Frantz

There was also a "but" before "one giant leap".

Conor Thomas

3y↑1

@N3RD right right

N3RD

3y↑7

he didn’t mess it up, just the radio didn’t pick up the ‘a’

MRN

4y↑1

I don’t think it would be too hard, with a group of say 25-50 top level space engineers and other govt workers. In the midst of the space race, to decide that we must win the race to the moon so they begin to write blueprints and get other engineers that aren’t in on it to build the rocket and equipment. But then in the HQ you have all of your team operating equipment that is basically a giant simulator and they don’t know that. All they know is that all the numbers look as if they should if it was actually happening according to these “master scripts”. With just enough top level people in on it, it wouldn’t be that unbelievable to fake a mission using dozens of other people that weren’t in on it

MRN

seigeengine why

seigeengine

Yes, it would be incredibly hard to do that.

not a world Peace after all

3y↑2

I can proved this easily. Answer me this, at night, does the moon shines and lights the streets? If the moon can light up the earth in that distance, then why cant it in a meters away

JayJay Aviation

3y↑2

If you watch the video, he explained this

Jan Strzelecki

3y↑3

It can.

Albert-Jan Scholtalbers

Always wondered how they left the moon without any thruster output/flame or engine noise in cabin......

Gutekx x

@Albert-Jan Scholtalbers on moon you dont need a lot of power

Albert-Jan Scholtalbers

@J Calhoun Creating a lot of power/trust, without sound and vision. Very strange they don't use this technique on planet earth with rockets and cars.....

Albert-Jan Scholtalbers

@J Calhoun Yup, as you can see in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BsrzO7aXNs
To get a reaction/thrust in vacuum you need heat and oxygene. And certain temperature gives certain colour.

Linx

3y↑6

"Reality is stranger than fiction"

dodgerfreak0834

If the moon really reflects light from the sun it would be much brighter. Look at the moon when ever anyone gets a chance and compare the amount of brightness the moon does have to the moon landing. Clearly a huge difference.

Thomas Wright

It was filmed at night

Nick Rose

3y↑4

Well done Einstein. You should send a letter to NASA immediately outlining your findings. Just make sure you explain how much light should have been evident in the moon landing films, and the calculations you used to come up with your findings. Perhaps a simulation like the one in this video and you can even give a presentation of your amazing conclusions.

Damian Poole

3y↑16

We have simulated everything!!

But we forgot ray tracing!!!

edy G

I love how the circunference of the sun despite the gianormous distance it does look very similar from the earth as they show it in the moon landing in early videos

Chunchunmaru •

4y↑2

The moon is way closer to the earth than the sun
In fact in astronimical units earth-moon distance is insignificant
No wonder that the apparent size of the sun is similar

james gavali

5y↑15

The LEM also had a lot of zip ties, they hold together great in space.

Jarl S

5y↑1

Yea, i heard all the rain, sleet, hail and hurricane gusts of wind in space would have ripped those to shreds.

DAYY1987

I'd love to keep believing they went to the moon but this doesn't convince me of anything. I understand that "lighting issue" isn't really a conspiracy. This doesn't address any of the major issues that I'd like addressed.

Bradley Rex

@Jan Strzelecki Well considering there has not been a manned mars mission, that seems like speculation. The limiting factor on the Apollo missions was fuel, and they did alter course slightly to avoid the belts. Van Allen himself explains they avoid the inner belt completey, and 99% of the outer less radioactive belt.
I think some people are confused by the Orion test mission that purposely transited the worst of the VAB to test the effects of radiation on the spacecraft with an actual mission. They take the 7 minute "Trial by Fire" video NASA put out as Mars mission planning. When it's actually infotainment intended to get school children interested in science. And Orion is intended as a general use vehicle with Mars being a possible destination. Current planned missions are to the moon.

AMC2283

@Peace Lover no one criticism really ties it for me. All the criticisms in the context of 1969, plus too many other events with too many criticisms does.

Jan Strzelecki

@Bradley Rex It had to do with the position Mars is in, and the duration of the Mars mission.
In short, the best, most efficient Mars trajectory goes right through the high radiation regions of the Van Allen Belts, unlike the lunar trajectory, which can be angled away from those regions.
Mars is also much further than the Moon, so even if we could avoid the brunt of the Van Allen Belts' radiation, we'd still have to content with the deep space radiation for at least a year (as opposed to two weeks for Apollo missions).

Peace Lover

I don't think the shadow issue should be disregarded(if you put your mind to it). Light from studio light such as bulb goes in many directions so there are many directions of shadows, while sunlight strikes parallel to the earth. Also keep in mind there is indirect light too which may cause additional shadows but they were in open area so shadows should not come from different directions. In open areas like they were there is a lot of direct light

Bradley Rex

@Peace Lover Why not fly around the Van Allen Belts? Like Apollo?

5 More Replies...

SimpleOne2

...and this was 6 years ago. Imagine what they could do today

el di

4y↑60

The first man who went to the moon is the cameraman of NASA😁

JokerMoment

they left him there too. goodbye heroic
cameraman

Goldie McKernan

2y↑1

@Benny BooBoo Bear That the Van Allen belts didn't affect.

Goldie McKernan

Also known as Stanley Kubrick.

Benny BooBoo Bear

@TMinusLiv uhhh not a moon conspiracist or anything, but the moon is terribly dark compared to the earth, there was an awesome picture of the moon in front of earth, you could see the difference. But yeah.

Benny BooBoo Bear

@The Joshua Loftin yeah..those cameras had something revolutionary called *film*.

9 More Replies...

mrgavsterman

3y↑26

If this is the best they could do with cg 6 years ago there's no way they couldve faked this in 1969

Alfie Moon

We just about have the technology to reach the moon and back today, let alone back then. Getting there is simple but returning is extremely difficult. With regards to CGI, it’s possible but it’s most likely the scene was just recreated on earth. If you see what technology the government had pre Vietnam war such as satellites that could read the letters of a book from space and using lasers to create hurricanes, it may have been possible though.

Swaganomics 101: Jimmy Rustles

3y↑4

@dlg78 This dude must be fresh off his 3rd booster or something. The cognitive decline is real.

dlg78

@ZetaSystem this video is proof

ZetaSystem

3y↑1

@robert you dont have proof either you dim wit

robert

3y↑2

@ZetaSystem dude, we all know you are the real clown for even thinking it wal filmed in a basement. you don't even have proof, besides of your own incredulity. (which is not a proof)

4 More Replies...

Ro lf

5y↑17

How did they get the exposure right in such challenging lighting conditions?
By the way, thank you!

Glywnnis Wells

Thats why we dont see the atars

marc gabel

5y↑6

With a camera mounted on there chest with no view finder and operating controls with gloves. Amazing pics

Comptonopolis

3y↑18

Imagine if they accidentally locked themselves out

Comptonopolis

@RpGJuNki3 No, Michael Collins stayed in orbit while Neil and Buzz landed on the surface.

RpGJuNki3

Not possible. There was third astronaut inside.

ousmo Fall

3y↑1

@Cameron Moose What a pickle then 😹

Cameron Moose

3y↑2

That would've certainly been a pickle

Sai Purohit

4y↑15

It would be faster to reach the moon than listen to his speech

Anthony Ros

😆

Stardust Chimp

4y↑5

Nvidia: *Spends years building simulation proving to flat earthers the moon landing is not a hoax. *
Flat Earthers: *Lacks IQ to understand explanation. *
Me: "Oh I see...

NASA animated the moon landing. Duh"

Kathleen R

@The Meowing Kitty Nope. That's not at all what an astronaut said. And that statement just shows that you heard that on YouTube or on a podcast somewhere, and you haven't done a single SECOND of research to figure out what was really said. --- I KNOW what was really said, but then I've done the research. --- Furthermore, any moron can fake a set for a planet. What you CAN'T fake is, a negative that, with the correct chemicals, will produce a photograph. --- The negative and the subsequent photograph is all the proof required.

The Meowing Kitty

4y↑1

@Kathleen R a nasas astronaut said from his own mouth that we cant go again to the moon because they destroyed the technology they had.
now why would the greatest achievement in history to create a technology that not only can go to the moon but take them back safely why would they destroy such an amazing invention plus search devon island in google images and see how easy it is to fake going on another planet

Kathleen R

@The Meowing Kitty We have pictures! Taken with film cameras. Cameras that have film that must be developed into negatives and then those negatives are printed as a photo. 👍 Now your turn.

The Meowing Kitty

@Kathleen R what makes you think for a minute that we landed on the moon?

Kathleen R

4y↑1

@Rafael Dosantos López What makes you think for a minute that we never landed on the moon?

2 More Replies...

Niño Alvin Delima

3y↑4

it's a giant "leap", not a giant "step"

80sKid Gaming

3y↑1

How did dey actually made corrections to their camera without actually seeing the real photos so that the picture taken is not blinded by the suns light? Can someone pls explain to me

Jan Strzelecki

3y↑4

They already knew what the lighting conditions on the Moon would be, after landing several probes.

Romeo

3y↑7

How can you get such an iconic statement wrong?

Azza H

3y↑2

Classic case of conspiracy theorists talking like they know everything and are too clever for everyone when the truth is the EXACT opposite

JesterBear

That rocket engine has no thrust. Thrust blows dust around, especially when the dust is only 1/6th the weight it would be on earth. According to the people claiming to land on the moon, they were stepping in about 6 inches of very fine dust. Something to think about.

seigeengine

4y↑2

@JesterBear Rockets push against the exhaust. This is basic grade school science stuff, mate. Exhaust goes one way, rockets goes another. Action and reaction.

JesterBear

@seigeengine so what is the rocket "pushing" against to provide thrust? The vacuum of space? You can't have thrust without thrusting against something to provide lift.

seigeengine

4y↑1

The rocket engine has plenty of thrust. Moving gases blow dust around. This effect is amplified in an atmosphere because high speed streams of gas drag along surrounding air, meaning you end up with large volumes of moving air. Also, dust blows up in clouds in an atmosphere because the air swirls chaotically. This doesn't happen without an atmosphere, so the dust kicked up just gets blown away on ballistic trajectories, which you clearly see in video. It wouldn't remove dust from the area because the overall pressure when they landed was the equivalent of a hard exhale (do the math yourself if you don't believe me), the exhaust is quite a ways above the surface, and they're in a vacuum, so the gas rapidly expands in all directions, plus what I mentioned earlier.

Lee Wells

4y↑1K

It's like listening to the sloth in Zootopia.

Rob_ Scott3

lol 😂

Chang Fong Chua

Haha yeah

Alwafi Charki

lol

the janitor

Whole time I'm thinkin GET ON WITH IT

Lee Wells

3y↑1

@bpoon2k2 LOL!!!!!

7 More Replies...

Alex Smith

Nvidia should do a simulation of how long an aluminum foil spacecraft can survive in a vacuum.

TimReed22222

2y↑3

Since the LM was made of much more than "aluminum foil," your comment is ridiculous.

JoJo Jr.

4y↑12

Even after speeding 2x,i had a 5 seconds pause and i am amazed 😂

TheCapri48 Gaming

Ok about the exposure I get it but what about when they asked about the stars they said they didn't see any stars - my question is when traveling to the moon in the middle of earth and the moon did they have access to a window to see the stars

Kathleen R

@seigeengine I looked and Collins wrote in his book about the stars that he could see while orbiting. ---- (I will reply also to TheCapri48Gaming. )

seigeengine

They were asked if they didn't see stars at a very specific point in time. They said no. Furthermore, it would be hard to see stars in general, as it was day on the Moon, they were wearing tinted visors, and they inside of the craft was lit.

Whether they saw stars on the way with their eyes... I don't know. i haven't seen any commentary on that, though I haven't really looked.

james cole

3y↑2

The photo of the astronaut stepping off the lander he is in shadow but he is lite by the reflection off the other astronauts space suit and the sun light off the ground .

A E

5y↑171

The actual quote is "One small step for man, one giant LEAP for mankind."

Jeff Warren

The actual quote is "One small step for A man...
the A didnt get picked up.
Btw...we never went.

Mitch Goldstein

The ACTUAL quote is: "One small step for A man; one giant leap for mankind." - Not kidding.

Bill B

Dante that’s hilarious considering the massive amount of today’s technology the was derived from the space program.

Bill B

Greg Ostrowski simple minds are simply amused.

Brandulph Christophersen

@Baz10 :-D You made my day with that one, hoss!

14 More Replies...

F4LLEND4RK

4y↑20

Upon first seeing the 'photograph' it thought to myself it's surely not, it looks like a man made graphic.
>He insists it's a photograph.
I think 'alright then, if you say so'.
"Come one 'fess up you thought it was a photograph, right"
Ugh

zarjesve2

So NVDIA now can make perfect landing on Mars! ;)

Osmien

3y↑1

Flat earthers and people who don't believe Apollo 11 landing.... A curse to mankind.

minatormyth

4y↑5

That took me 3 hours to watch. I kept drifting of only to wake up towards the end, then I had to rewind back to the last point I could remember. Which was usually seconds in😳

Sandy Miller

5y↑12

If the material on the moon surface would reflect the sunlight more efficient it would lighten up the non shadow areas too so the difference of non shadow and shadowed areas were the same as on earth. Am i right ?

Roger Liles

2y↑3

Yes you are right.

Matt Macken

3y↑11

This is an amazing presentation, unfortunately for those who believe in conspiracy theories, it'll only reinforce their beliefs.

Heavy Rain

3y↑2

Because they lack education.

Heavy Rain

3y↑2

@Jean-baptiste Poquelin
... It's a delusion. We finish each others sentences ☺

Jean-baptiste Poquelin

3y↑2

Maybe because It's not only a theory...

Tom Rio

If NASA scientists honestly admit in 2012 that they still haven’t worked out how to properly shield the spacecraft from the radiation emitted from the Van Allen belts, how the hell did we send human beings into space covered in aluminum foil suits?

seigeengine

"Help. I can't figure out why you'd put a layer of thin reflective material in a spacesuit. I'm literally braindead."

caav56

By biting the bullet and setting trajectory to go through the weakest spots in belts and do it fast. Back then, risks like this were a norm in life for both astronauts and cosmonauts.

Twinrehz

4y↑1

Quick, turn on ray-tracing, maybe I'll fall for it this time!
In all seriousness, I've yet to see any computer graphics generated image that has me truly questioning if it's real or not. CGI has this strange, unreal quality that constantly gives it away. Note that I'm specifically talking about when entire scenes are created in computer graphics, like in the video, I don't mean any image that contains some CGI elements mixed with a real scene.

Dean Smith

4y↑1

What is really happening on the moon is beyond imagination.

Dean Smith

@TROTH It will all come to light in 2047.

TROTH

So you got information on whats happening have you , ha ha ha !!!!

David Lawrence

5y↑10

After seeing your video, I sped out to purchase an Nvidia Quadro GV100, which sells for approximately $9-$10,000, slammed it into my PC and watched not only the moon landing but I included every conspiracy laced theory I could find on the web and now everything I questioned is crystal clear. Thank you Nvidia! Aww... Shucks.

Melanatedone

Lmao

William Bennett

4y↑1

After ten years of endeavour on a manned moon landing project Russia hopefully expects to achieve in 2034. This from a nation that has superceded America in high level tech to the extent that America will never regain it.

Jan Strzelecki

4y↑5

... When, exactly, did that happen?

Robert Lefebvre

Does the moon phase that the image capture match up with the actual lunar phase at the time of the landing? The sun is very low in the lunar sky. Does that angle in the picture match what would have actually been there on that day?

Robert Lefebvre

@Bradley Rex None from you. Apparently you don't know.

Bradley Rex

"Does the moon phase that the image capture match up with the actual lunar phase at the time of the landing? " Why not check for yourself? What is your expectation here?

Robert Lefebvre

@Kit Canyon I didn't realize posting resulted in psychoanalysis. Do you have any credentials in that area? And again, I see a problem with your reading comprehension. As I said, I'm not researching; I'm asking if anyone else had. That is like a night and day difference and for some reason you fail to see that.

Robert Lefebvre

@Kit Canyon I guess you can't read. I asked about one small aspect of the Apollo missions. You somehow took my question about one small aspect to claim to know what or how much research I've done about other Apollo topics. But no one has provided any references so it looks like no one has researched those questions.

Robert Lefebvre

@Kit Canyon A smart person asks if anyone else has done the research and gets their notes :-)

3 More Replies...

진

3y↑1

You can see satellite pictures of the actual landing modures and foot prints still.
Also no need to worry about it cuz when artemis 2 initiates we can all have a look if it was true or not

Lord Joe Mott

4y↑3

It’s quite sad when you think about it. We as a race manage to do something literally out of this world and we have to do something like this to prove it was real.

Jay Cee

5y↑108

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?

Jb Jb

Pure brilliance, should be like size of sun . Also impossible to take any picture of planet with no moon

Jay Cee

@Agents Hat - BUT, the earth wouldn't look the same size (as the sun) if you were on the sun looking at the earth.

Agents Hat

5y↑1

The further something is the small it looks we know the earth is small than the sun but the sun looks small while on earth

Bill1949 WT

@gary miller ....and the only way to SEE that 4:1 ratio is to be at a point in space that is equi-distant from Moon and Earth, with both bodies in view at the same time. It CANNOT be determined from a photo taken from either of those 2 bodies.
This makes the initial 'size' reference by @Jay Cee totally irrelevant!

Bill1949 WT

5y↑1

@DanDeMan - Absolutely correct Dan!! Those who say 'we didn't go there', don't seem to have the mentality to grasp that very clear fact.
I've asked a number of people here this question:
"WITHOUT EVEN GOING OUTSIDE, just hold up your outstretched arm and IMAGINE that the moon is visible to you - then make a gap between your index finger and thumb that you estimate as being ONLY JUST big enough to accommodate the diameter of the imagined moon.
What is the size of that gap?"
So far, not one of the 'we didn't go there' brigade have even attempted to answer that question - so how qualified are they to guess how big the Earth should look in a photo taken from the moon, on a camera where the 'width' of the lens angle is unknown to them? They have no clue - and are just trying to APPEAR to be smart - & failing badly.

44 More Replies...

roy Yung

4y↑1

Thank you for calling it a LEM!! I grew up in Bethpage where they designed and built the LEM. my best friends dad was in charge of the wiring of the LEM. GRUMMAN who built the LEM employees 85, 000 people round fhe clock. There was a wiring harness between the decent & accent stage. It ran through a guillotine that had to sever the wiring harness the moment the engine lit. If it failed the astronauts would be stranded

Herr Schmidt

@Jan Strzelecki I am on the hipster side here - acronyms are more fun when they have vowels. And "excursion" just makes it sound smarter. From a branding point of view, I totally favour LEM.

roy Yung

@Jan Strzelecki haha its LEM. You didnt know any of the 100s of engineers who built it, i did they ALL called it LEM. U can call it whatever you want it will ALWAYS be know as the LEM that Grumman built by the people who designed and built it

Jan Strzelecki

@roy Yung But it's not LEM. It's not Lunar Excursion Module, but plain simple Lunar Module.
Referring to it by it's early name is a very hipster thing to do 🙂

roy Yung

@Jan Strzelecki says who?? The engineers who designed and built it ALWAYS called it the LEM. In Bethpage there is a monument for the LEM

Jan Strzelecki

But it's not called LEM. It's called LM.
Lunar Module.

TheCapri48 Gaming

4y↑1

He should have also commented on the lunar lander when it took off from the moon and you see the camera follow it all the way who was controlling the camera was it NASA why not use hat same camera so we can see what's on the moon right now

seigeengine

4y↑1

Ed Fendall was controlling it from Earth using pre-programmed commands to make pre-calculated movements based on timing alone, since real time control wasn't viable for time-sensitive tracking, though it was used elsewhere, where you can see the camera have a significant delay before it pans to track the astronauts.

Limited battery life and the fact that lunar dust would quickly destroy the optics.

Gibbojnr 246

3y↑2

I’m sure ppl have already said this but it’s “one giant LEAP for mankind “

Izuky Photography

Alguien con conocimientos básicos de fotografía se percata que todo lo que dijo este Sr. No tiene ningún sentido. No es conspiración, simplemente es increíble.

Fernando Aldekoa

O sea que, una empresa que se ha dedicado toda su vida a la fabricación de tarjetas gráficas para ordenadores, según tú ¿No tiene ni idea de fotografía?
Te descalificas tú solito.

Erik Arnqvist

6y↑13

It was very obvious that the image shown was NOT the real photo. Still very well done by IGNs team.

Reticuli

6y↑1

Very well done, yeah. Had me fooled until about a minute before he gave it away.

X-Fun

Erik Arnqvist
Bruh

Erik Arnqvist

X-Fun That does sound more likely.

X-Fun

Erik Arnqvist
It was Nividia's team. They make GFX cards.

scrufy kitn

2y↑2

@Nick Rose on the moon with 1/6 gravity, we should jump up nearly 3 meters high, but our guys only managed to jump up same as on earth, why? The dust thrown up from the wheels of the moon buggy would have gone way up in the air but it went only as high as it would on earth. This is conclusive!

TimReed22222

2y↑2

ALSO: It would be worth taking a physics class & learning the difference between weight & mass.

Even though they only weighed about 60 lbs. on the moon with all that gear, they had the same mass as someone weighing 360 lbs on earth! That kind of inertia is difficult to overcome.

Randy Schissler

2y↑3

Notice that the dust thrown up from the wheels of the moon buggy, never creates a dust cloud and lingers in the air like it would on earth.

Herr Schmidt

2y↑2

"on the moon with 1/6 gravity, we should jump up nearly 3 meters high"
If all other factors stay the same: a guy wearing sports clothes which allow free movement jumps and lands safely on a matress. Now if you would look at the moon landing video, you would see no sports clothes but bulky and heavy suits, with backpacks shifting the center of gravity and an environment which would end a billion dollar mission, should the suit leak air. So that is "why".
Concerning the dust of the moon buggy - please quantify your claim. How far should the dust have gone and why? Keep in mind that your vague tummy feeling is fooling you, because the movement you see is not slow motion, even though everytime the rover moves vertically it looks slowed down. That is why the rover is moving much slower than you imagine it is. Which also explains why the dirt is not thrown up as far as a common dune buggy. Oh, and of course the mudguards which were there to keep dust from getting thrown towards the vehicle. Or maybe you can find a video of a buggy with a similar setup and the same speed confirming your claims. Because else you clearly have nothing "conclusive" at all. Like all hoaxers.

edguitar stanley eisen

Nvidia has always been such a respected authority in....video cards.

Nick Rose

And that is what this video is about. Showing how powerful their video cards are that they can reproduce the picture of the moon landing in such detail, and which models how the light works on the moon so exactly, it looks identical to the first picture.

BurkeyBear !

4y↑2

How about debunking with real world imagery instead of CGI that you can manipulate however you choose.

seigeengine

4y↑1

You're acting like they're not demonstrating what everyone with a brain already knew.

William Sifton

It looks like he proved lunar landing was real🙂

darthdave666

5y↑14

Always wondered how they got that big old moon buggy into the lander on subsequent missions must have been a tight squeeze as they left it behind as scrap for the monies 🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂🙂

Joseph Allen

Your funny

the kundalini honey badger

@FanOf Dueling bollocks

Squirrel Sniper

@FanOf Dueling lol... ok

FanOf Dueling

5y↑1

It folded up first off, second off it sat in a compartment on the edge of the lems box

matt

3y↑2

we are expected to believe they went out and walked on the moon without even having a handle on the door to get back in lmfao so obvious they never had intended on leaving the lander, they didn't even think about how they'd get back in

DE J

3y↑1

It's rather more salient that the SINGLE THING they would NEVER DO and infact you can hear them on radio mentioning it, would be to close the hatch behind them. Any air that might leak from their systems back into the depressurised LM would make it basicly impossible to open the hatch, handle or not, and strand them on the moon. It's the typical creationist type drivel "take something we shouldn't see and that could even be evidence against it if it was, and pretend since it's not there it's somehow proof".

Jan Strzelecki

3y↑2

@Yazzam X And the funny part here is, if the Lunar Module didn't have a handle on the outside, it means that the astronauts wouldn't be able to actually close it in a manner preventing them from opening the hatch again! 😄

Yazzam X

3y↑1

[rolleyes]

Coy

3y↑16

5:58 noone thought that was a photograph lol

JorgeMtzb

@Student copy of Burger King It was pretty obvious it was a render, just look at the astronaut. That's not how the texture of the suit would look.

Coy

3y↑7

@Student copy of Burger King it didnt look like a picture even before it moved. If you thought that was an actual photo you should probably get your eyes checked

Student copy of Burger King

3y↑1

He was talking about BEFORE it moved

Parallax27 Official

And these are the best “scientific” debunks they could come up with??!🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️
Goodness sakes haha
This presentation should have been about 3 min long..... if that.

Herr Schmidt

3y↑1

No, this is just the debunk of the lighting claim of the hoaxers. Because that is what nVidia are experts of. They leave everything else to other experts. You know, unlike hoaxers.

Load More Comments...

More Comments

just now