Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
How many of you actually believe the Moon Landing was fake?
Comments
-
No you's are done with it, and have been from the beginning, through nonsensical arguments, without a grasp of what I'm saying and demonstrating over and over.I take it that we're done with the pointless posting of red herring b/w photos and disputing that the car shots are Kodachrome then?The limited dynamic range of the moon stock is another red herring - it's demonstrably running out of steam on the ground shadows and stats - but coping fine with white to mid tones. It's shows all the traits of tranny stock exposed to the lighter end of tonal range that it's well capable of capturing, and absolutely no evidence of secondary light sources beyond the obvious - the ground surface (bright enough to cast shadows on earth on a full moon night), the rather large plane of reflective gold on the module (evidently strong enough to throw a shadow of Aldrin's front pack hose on his right arm) , Armstrong's suit, and (possibly?) the earth itself - which reflects more light than the moon does, given it's larger surface area.
Ok the lander and surface are reflecting light according to you, this reflected light would be traveling in an upward direction and also from his left (right on the picture), so we have one light source coming from behind and to the right of his left side (sun), another from the ground and somehow these light sources also made it into the crease of inner bent elbow even though the should be a shadow there.
Another place a shadow should appear but doesnt is the backpack section to the left (his right) of his helmet and the the top of his right shoulder.
[/QUOTE] 0 -
-
Ok the lander and surface are reflecting light according to you, ...
Actually, it's according to Mr Snell and the entire scientific community.... this reflected light would be traveling in an upward direction and also from his left (right on the picture), so we have one light source coming from behind and to the right of his left side (sun), another from the ground
No, this statement is, according to Physics, incorrect.
What is going on is diffuse reflection. Every point on which the incoming light strikes reflects according to Snell's law.
Every piece of dust: in front of, behind of, to the left of, to the right of, the astronaut is a secondary source of reflected light.
There are literally trillions of secondary reflected light sources around the astronaut. That's why he appears the way he does.
The dust in front of the astronaut is reflecting light back towards the astronaut. With no atmosphere to interfere, disperse, refract, or what not, we see the effect of that light on the astronaut.
This is your fundamental error. You do not understand how light is reflected.
First, you're treating the moon like a plane - specular reflection.
Second, you are neglecting so many major sources of light.
Again, have you considered the position of the Milky Way? If light from Milky Way can cause a shadow on Earth, it surely must illuminate the astronaut.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
A picture where the surface didn't do its reflective job like it did in the previous picture.
I'd have thought that a man with a light meter would grasp the concept of variable exposure settings?
But you're surely not claiming that the moons surface doesn't reflect light, are you? There's evasion, and evasion.0 -
-
Personally I've never really doubted they really happened, and while I have considered the possibilty and read a good amount of the arguments for that, for me there seem to be reasonable rebuttals/explanations for all of them. Haven't read all the thread this time round because a lot of the issues are quite technical and somewhat heavy reading.
With that in mind, and sorry if this was posted already, but I saw a link somewhere else on boards to Joe Rogan debating it with an astronomer on Penn Gillette's radio show. it was a good debate and distills a lot of the arguments into a listenable half hour or so, recommended.
Rogan comes at it as someone who is pretty much a skeptic otherwise, but thinks the moon landings were faked.
Now maybe he's a shill because he is friends with Jillette, and Jillette is a skeptic, but he did seem genuine.
He also seems to have researched it pretty well, is a good speaker and was able to make his case coherently and at least give an idea of how someone normally a skeptic could doubt the moon landings.
At the same time, "the Bad Astronomer" gives some pretty good explanations of where Rogan is wrong, satisfactory to me anyway.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Actually, it's according to Mr Snell and the entire scientific community.
No, this statement is, according to Physics, incorrect.
What is going on is diffuse reflection. Every point on which the incoming light strikes reflects according to Snell's law.
Every piece of dust: in front of, behind of, to the left of, to the right of, the astronaut is a secondary source of reflected light.
There are literally trillions of secondary reflected light sources around the astronaut. That's why he appears the way he does.
The dust in front of the astronaut is reflecting light back towards the astronaut. With no atmosphere to interfere, disperse, refract, or what not, we see the effect of that light on the astronaut.
This is your fundamental error. You do not understand how light is reflected.
First, you're treating the moon like a plane - specular reflection.
Second, you are neglecting so many major sources of light.
Again, have you considered the position of the Milky Way? If light from Milky Way can cause a shadow on Earth, it surely must illuminate the astronaut.
All this is great stuff and all that, I'm not disputing there is reflection from the moon, about 7% is reflected, but 100% of light hitting one side (the back) and 7% (well even less because not all of the 7% reflects back, maybe 3-4%), still not near enough to illuminate the front.
So we have 100% on his back, some of 7% filling his front, still far too much of a difference.
The fill light on his front would require over 80% of the light to reflect back at his front in the image, which is impossible under the conditions. so scrap that aswell.
Edit:
Heres your illustration:
Specular reflection 100% hitting the surface 7% reflected away.
Diffused reflection 100% hitting the surface, 7% diffused light scattered in all directions, lowering that that7% to an even lower percentage.
Still way too far away from the 70-80% reflection that would be needeed to illuminate his front away from the sun.
Next.....0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
namloc1980 wrote: »Are you saying that while they were in the studio someone forgot to shine the "in-fill light"??
How about this?
The angle of the sun is coming from his right side, and also right of the photographer, not from in front of them. I'm still not seeing any detail on his foot in shadow though with all that scattered light flying in all directions.0 -
-
Personally I've never really doubted they really happened, and while I have considered the possibilty and read a good amount of the arguments for that, for me there seem to be reasonable rebuttals/explanations for all of them. Haven't read all the thread this time round because a lot of the issues are quite technical and somewhat heavy reading.
With that in mind, and sorry if this was posted already, but I saw a link somewhere else on boards to Joe Rogan debating it with an astronomer on Penn Gillette's radio show. it was a good debate and distills a lot of the arguments into a listenable half hour or so, recommended.
Rogan comes at it as someone who is pretty much a skeptic otherwise, but thinks the moon landings were faked.
Now maybe he's a shill because he is friends with Jillette, and Jillette is a skeptic, but he did seem genuine.
He also seems to have researched it pretty well, is a good speaker and was able to make his case coherently and at least give an idea of how someone normally a skeptic could doubt the moon landings.
At the same time, "the Bad Astronomer" gives some pretty good explanations of where Rogan is wrong, satisfactory to me anyway.
The expert ripped apart by a stand up comedian, thats funny.
Yea, that and this:
Moon poses radiation risk to future travelers
Radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected
updated 12/17/2009
Future lunar explorers counting on the moon to shield themselves from galactic cosmic rays might want to think about Plan B.
In a surprising discovery, scientists have found that the moon itself is a source of potentially deadly radiation.
NASA plans to use the information to design shelters and operating procedures for future human excursions to the moon.
"The moon is a source of radiation," said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO's cosmic ray telescope. "This was a bit unexpected."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34470642/ns/technology_and_science-space/
Surely being there 40 years ago would have told them this, a simple test of the "moon dust and rocks"?.....No?0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVNUGFkSGYA
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement