Moon landing hoax

Mahatma coat · 13-02-2010 2:35pm

Just checked the thermometer in the Merc, 24C at 11:34PM :cool::)

Anyway Back OT, the reflectiveness of the moon explains a lot of the points, but still dosent explain away a few of the key issues regards the reflections and shadows, the multiple directin shadows of taller objects in a barren cratered ALMOST flat area fore example

uprising2 · 13-02-2010 2:36pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

Why would it not reflect back?

Because light travels in a straight line, I've already answered your question, look back, I'm not going to spend my time repeating myself everytime someone logs in to join the debate.

SkepticOne · 13-02-2010 2:36pm

uprising2 wrote: »

Listen the lunar surface reflects about 10%, that's 1/10th of light hitting it. Try to understand that.
Moonlight is 1/10th that of sunlight, how many times have you stared at the sun on a sunny day, how many times have you stared at the moon on a clear night, now take into account your iris opens and closes to adjust for light, your iris is widest when looking at the lovely moon, and smallest looking at the sun, which still isn't sufficient to stop it blinding you.

I don't think you're taking into account that the moon is very far away when you are looking at it from the earth. It doesn't have the same power to illuminate that it would have if you were standing on its surface.

SkepticOne · 13-02-2010 2:38pm

uprising2 wrote: »

Because light travels in a straight line, I've already answered your question, look back, I'm not going to spend my time repeating myself everytime someone logs in to join the debate.

It travels in a straight line until it hits something then it is reflected in a number of directions including back in the direction of the object emitting the light.

uprising2 · 13-02-2010 2:46pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

It travels in a straight line until it hits something then it is reflected in a number of directions including back in the direction of the object emitting the light.

Thats why I said many post's ago that a reflector would have had to be used to illuminate the front of the asstonauts suit, lunar reflection just wouldn't be strong enough no matter how much scatter, and light scatter/diffusion only decreases the amount of light/reflection.

uprising2 · 13-02-2010 2:52pm

Listen I've spent enough time on this for now, before anyone comes up with new theories just check back and see if it has already been addressed, check links provided, sometimes a bit of blue type can reveal answers to questions your about to ask.

SkepticOne · 13-02-2010 3:00pm

uprising2 wrote: »

Thats why I said many post's ago that a reflector would have had to be used to illuminate the front of the asstonauts suit, lunar reflection just wouldn't be strong enough no matter how much scatter, and light scatter/diffusion only decreases the amount of light/reflection.

Why do you think it would not be strong enough? It is true that every reflection not be as strong as original light source falling directly on a body but that does not mean it will be insufficient for a photograph.

uprising2 · 13-02-2010 3:11pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

Why do you think it would not be strong enough. It is true that every reflection not be as strong as original light source falling directly on a body but that does not mean it will be insufficient for a photograph.

Believe me the direction of the light on the faked image, would make it impossible for both the highlight and shadow to be exposed correctly, both are not that far away from each other in terms of luminance(in the pic, not real life), they both were caught with film that has a much lower dynamic range than our eye's and is impossible without a large silver reflector or secondary lighting.
Now my head hurts, I'm staying off this topic for a while.
Don't take my non response of other questions as a beaten man, I could do this all day.
Slan........for now!:pac:
PS dont be surprised if I answer something else in 2mins

, though I DON'T want to.

SkepticOne · 13-02-2010 3:31pm

uprising2 wrote: »

Believe me the direction of the light on the faked image, would make it impossible for both the highlight and shadow to be exposed correctly,

But the highlights are not correctly exposed as you can see in the picture below.

Mahatma coat · 13-02-2010 4:43pm

anyway, to try and broaden the discussion back out for a Sec, Wouldnt it have been more convincing if they had gone and fornd the rssian Lunar robot after they found their own, that should have silenced critics and won a Big PR victory 'Hey Russia take your spacejunk off our moon:D'

Did the LRO photograph anything other than the Apollo missions, surely some of the other nations Failed attempts left big enough craters or Debris fields

bytey · 13-02-2010 7:20pm

thats a damn good point , LRO has not taken pictures of any other hardware other than USA hardware- that in itself stinks to high heaven .

if you went to the moon, show us some russian hardware ....

in any case - the photo record is 100% obviously faked and manipulated .
anyone with half a brain cannot look at the apollo record and say ' yep that looks like a natural photo ' in all cases .

they have faked it or at least Heavily manipulated the pictures.

SkepticOne · 13-02-2010 7:50pm

bytey wrote: »

if you went to the moon, show us some russian hardware ....

Very strange logic at work there.

humanji · 13-02-2010 8:11pm

bytey wrote: »

thats a damn good point , LRO has not taken pictures of any other hardware other than USA hardware- that in itself stinks to high heaven .

if you went to the moon, show us some russian hardware ....

in any case - the photo record is 100% obviously faked and manipulated .
anyone with half a brain cannot look at the apollo record and say ' yep that looks like a natural photo ' in all cases .

they have faked it or at least Heavily manipulated the pictures.

So the Americans couldn't of gone to the moon, but the Russians did?

SkepticOne · 13-02-2010 8:18pm

uprising2 wrote: »

Here have a look at fill in flash, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fill_flash

Fill flash is a photographic technique used to brighten deep shadow areas, typically outdoors on sunny days, though the technique is useful any time the background is significantly brighter than the subject of the photograph. To use fill flash, the aperture and shutter speed are adjusted to correctly expose the background, and the flash is fired to lighten the foreground.

Why would people supposedly trying to fake the moon use fill flash or any other sort of fill in lighting?

PirateShampoo · 13-02-2010 8:23pm

This photo of Aldrin on the footpad of the Lunar Module is often used to support the moon landing hoax theory. The claim is that an alternative light source was used to illuminate the astronaut, who should be dark, as he's in the shade.

However, the moon's surface is highly reflective. If you look at the moon in the night sky, you do get the impression it glows, yet it is the light of the sun which is reflected. It is the reflection of sunlight of the moon's surface which illuminates the astronaut in the shadow

SkepticOne · 13-02-2010 8:31pm

The moon is actually a sort of darkish grey colour. We see it as bright because it is surrounded by the much darker blackness of space. However despite being a fairly dark colour, it still reflects light and this light is sufficient to illuminate objects in shadow from the sun.

squod · 13-02-2010 8:52pm

humanji wrote: »

So the Americans couldn't of gone to the moon, but the Russians did?

SkepticOne wrote: »

Why would people supposedly trying to fake the moon use fill flash or any other sort of fill in lighting?

Now we've passed denial and reached acceptance. Order is restored.

squod · 13-02-2010 8:54pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

The moon is actually a sort of darkish grey colour. We see it as bright because it is surrounded by the much darker blackness of space. However despite being a fairly dark colour, it still reflects light and this light is sufficient to illuminate objects in shadow from the sun.

PirateShampoo wrote: »

This photo of Aldrin on the footpad of the Lunar Module is often used to support the moon landing hoax theory. The claim is that an alternative light source was used to illuminate the astronaut, who should be dark, as he's in the shade.

However, the moon's surface is highly reflective. If you look at the moon in the night sky, you do get the impression it glows, yet it is the light of the sun which is reflected. It is the reflection of sunlight of the moon's surface which illuminates the astronaut in the shadow

You're saying that video cameras won't pick up this reflected light but still cameras will. Noice.

SkepticOne · 13-02-2010 9:09pm

squod wrote: »

You're saying that video cameras won't pick up this reflected light but still cameras will. Noice.

Both still and video cameras detect light reflected off objects. Otherwise you couldn't take pictures of things!

squod · 13-02-2010 10:05pm

SkepticOne wrote: »

Both still and video cameras detect light reflected off objects. Otherwise you couldn't take pictures of things!

Further endosement of the fakery at work, case closed.

rccaulfield · 13-02-2010 10:06pm

Im still astounded that uprising2 thinks light travels in straight lines only. light behaves just like sound in waveform! Lights resonates off surfaces just like sound waves. Your flawed argument suggests that if an astronaut on the moon is deaf in one ear and someone is shouting at him on the side of his deaf ear that he wont be able to hear him cos sound travels in staright lines and only came from one source. AGAIN......... astounded.

13-02-2010 10:09pm

rccaulfield wrote: »

Im still astounded that uprising2 thinks light travels in straight lines only. light travels in waves! Lights resonates off surfaces just like sound waves. Your flawed argument suggests that if an astronaut on the moon is deaf in one ear and someone is shouting at him on the side of his deaf ear that he wont be able to hear him cos sound travels in staright lines and only came from one source. AGAIN......... astounded.

Light does, in essence, travel in straight lines, unless of course it's reflected, refracted or diffracted.

Sound waves are different. Conflating two different phenomenon to make an argument doesn't make that argument valid.

rccaulfield · 13-02-2010 10:14pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Light does, in essence, travel in straight lines, unless of course it's reflected, refracted or diffracted.

Sound waves are different. Conflating two different phenomenon to make an argument doesn't make that argument valid.

its a realistic metephor/example that brings home the idea that light as you say reflects refracts or diffracts all over the place and to say strict shadows appear is ridiculous. The half deaf astronaut in my last home illustrates this point. Perhaps i should have said light behaves the same as sound.

13-02-2010 10:26pm

rccaulfield wrote: »

its a realistic metephor/example that brings home the idea that light as you say reflects refracts or diffracts all over the place and to say strict shadows appear is ridiculous. The half deaf astronaut in my last home illustrates this point. Perhaps i should have said light behaves the same as sound.

Yah, that's more accurate.

Uprising's argument is invalid because the moon's surface is very multiform. Light coming from behind the astronaut that hits the ground between him and the camera could be easily reflected back onto the astronaut: when it hits the surface it's diffused, and the diffused, reflected light can go in any way.

bytey · 13-02-2010 10:26pm

humanji wrote: »

So the Americans couldn't of gone to the moon, but the Russians did?

the russians sent ROBOTS
the usa say they sent MEN

try to keep up .

IF LRO is using pictures of the apollo hardware and the surveyour hardware , then they also need to include the russion stuff for completion , else appolo and surveyour are destined to be considered fakes.

bytey · 13-02-2010 10:30pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Yah, that's more accurate.

Uprising's argument is invalid because the moon's surface is very multiform. Light coming from behind the astronaut that hits the ground between him and the camera could be easily reflected back onto the astronaut: when it hits the surface it's diffused, and the diffused, reflected light can go in any way.

wrong , the moon surface is the same relectivity as dark concrete or tarmac - you will get very little reflection or diffusion to assist camera film.

it might appear bright on earth , but this is due to it being a 2000 mile wide object lit by an 800,000 mile one - anything would look bright in this scenario unless it was a perfect absorber.

PirateShampoo · 13-02-2010 10:31pm

bytey wrote: »

the russians sent ROBOTS
the usa say they sent MEN

try to keep up .

Zing :rolleyes:

bytey · 13-02-2010 10:35pm

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Zing :rolleyes:

your point being ???
or are you just going to post useless comments ?

13-02-2010 10:39pm

bytey wrote: »

wrong , the moon surface is the same relectivity as dark concrete or tarmac - you will get very little reflection or diffusion to assist camera film.

it might appear bright on earth , but this is due to it being a 2000 mile wide object lit by an 800,000 mile one - anything would look bright in this scenario unless it was a perfect absorber.

"Wrong"? What you've said doesn't negate my point.

The Moon's albedo is, on average, 0.12. This means that, on average, 12% of the light that hits the surface of the Moon is reflected back into space. That's a similar number to concrete's reflectivity, yes, but that doesn't negate the point I've made. It's not entirely unreasonable to assume that a sufficient amount of light striking the ground was diffused and reflected back towards the astronaut.

RoboClam · 13-02-2010 10:46pm

Maximum solar illumination is about 10,000 lumens per square foot from the sun to the moon. This would only the case if the sun directly hits the moon where the Apollo landings took place. However a typical Sun elevation during the Apollo landings was about 20 degrees, so the illumination per square foot was about 3,400 lumens. As you say, the Moon's surface reflects about 10% of the light it receives. So each square foot of surface reflected about 340 lumens. This is about the same as a 35-watt light bulb. So this explains the illumination observed.

Moon landing hoax

Comments