why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]

Yes, they do. Convex visor distorts it some but they do match.

Nowhere in your article did it say how much of the dust "rose above the surface when disturbed and hung there far longer than could be explained by the moon's weak gravity". Care to prove your contention that it was any more than a very small amount?

Who knows. That's the frustrating thing about hoaxies.

They won't tell you what it is they think they see. If you press them, they'll go "No, you tell me."

If you guess, then (even if guessed exactly what they were thinking), they'll quickly re-group and shoot it back as an insult, "Of course it wasn't that! Nobody would be stupid enough to think that! Straw man! Straw man!!ONE-TY"

Or any more than a few cm, which is how I always read it when I first heard of the effect.

I understand you have a short attention span but try to make it halfway through the second paragraph
[link to www.time.com]

they brought lights with them on the moon so they could see

Still doesn't say it was any more than a small amount or more than a few centimeters.

I'm looking at more detailed articles on electrostatic levitation of lunar dust -- still general reader, but more detailed. There is apparently a fairly-well understood mechanism of a lunar dust fountain, driven by the Sun. But the course of the dust particles lifted by this fountain is strictly ballistic.

There is no mention in any source of dust hanging the way fine particles will on Earth, in atmosphere. There simply isn't any grossly similar mechanism.

They didnt have Hollywood on their side

ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT IS ONE BRIGHT LIGHT!
THEY ARE SUPPOSEDLY GOING TO MARS SO THAT AFTER THEY MESS UP THIS PLANET THEY GO LIVE THERE...THEY ALREADY HAVE ESTABLISHED BASES AND PLACES ON MARS...JUST HAVEN'T TOLD US!

I agree 100% that the whole program was faked; the first image in the OP shows internal reflections of a bright light source.
You know what? It AIN'T THE SUN! The intensity of sunlight on the surface of the Moon would be like noon at the equator, only about 10% brighter. What you see in the first image, even if the exposure was fast, is NOT the brightness & high contrast that would be expected. All light coloured objects would be dazzlingly bright & would probably fog a greater part of the image in a conventional film camera. To compensate this extreme brightness, the shutter speed & iris would have to be adjusted accordingly. In that case, any object not in direct sunlight would have failed to appear in the image at all.

Also, the composition & quality of the images is way beyond what would be expected under the supposed circumstances.
Two guys in bulky suits with immobile, pressurized gloves, in a hostile setting, (& running to a very tight life support schedule!), with cameras attached to their chests could never produce such high quality pictures. Producing photographs of the quality presented would have been a mission in itself.

And if that wasn't evidence enough, as you said... no jet blast marks under the LEM = busted 100%.

Which is not what the OP thinks. He thinks those are visible light sources...NOT reflections from the out-of-frame Sun.

Isn't it interesting how hoaxies almost never correct each other?



Brightness is not contrast. But, yes; at the exposure settings of that photograph, you would expect to see objects in direct sunlight to be over-exposed.

Which they are. Those objects being, for instance, the visible edge of the pressure suit. Those are clearly over-exposed; you can even see the bleed.

The ground is being lit an an oblique angle, AND you are looking part-way into the shadow side. So it is darker.

So you get the numbers right, and the understanding right, but you don't look closely at the actual photograph to see if that matches up.




Same thing said in a different way. But what is the actual exposure ratio? I can easily capture the shaded side of an object from pure bounce light under several different conditions. I've even done it against a black-painted floor.

What are the visible objects in shade here? Well, really, there is only one; the pressure suit. Which is extremely white, something like 5x the reflectivity of the lunar surface.

(The surface of the LM is a different problem; it is not a lambert surface at all, but an irregular mirror; what you see is a distorted image of what it "sees.")





And then you roll out the usual regurgitated hoaxie talking points, almost as if none of the above was your actual experience and your actual thoughts either, but was just a retread of something you read or saw somewhere.

The gloves were far from immobile. The pressure gloves were nearly skin-tight neoprene with expansion joints, with removeable overgloves on top (which were not air tight). The Hassies were modified for use with those gloves and extensively trained on Earth in the same configuration. The camera was not "attached" to the chests but instead sat in a bracket which itself hung from straps, placing it just below chin level.

The composition is not particularly good, in my own creative opinion, with as a for-instance the signature Apollo 11 picture being tilted and the top of Buzz's pack cut off to boot. And if you examine the whole roll you will find plenty of poorly exposed shots, weirdly angled shots, and of course a few pictures of thumbs as well (actually, the more common was boots, as the camera was accidentally triggered while being moved).

And the "tight schedule" is a transparent reference to one of Jack White's signature stupidities. It pretty much ranks as, "How could they have possibly found time to film Ben Hur with all the work they were doing making a movie?"




And yet you still don't seem sure you've added enough straw to your camel. At least one more, you think. I'm surprised you didn't trundle out the "ten feet of lead," or whatever that old tripe has morphed into by now.

An extra point for calling it the "LEM," tho!

I always find it funny that the same people who th aink landing on the moon is a technological impossibility are the same people who believe in eldritch sciences, like pinpoint steering of hurricanes and mind control.

your problem is obvious....you can't see. the visor clearly shows the shadow is not the same way.

whenever the trusters run into a 'problem', they just lie about it.

wow, so yesterday, two rockets were launched to study the 'treacherous' van allen belts.

it appears that NASA by sending these probes is admitting that they don't know jack shit about the belts while the shills here have told us they know every square inch of the belts and how much radiation is contained within them at any point.


[link to www.vancouversun.com]

Last Edited by Brubaker on 08/31/2012 11:48 PM

WHich means either Van Allen is a shill, or he was paid to make that comment about how ridiculous it was to assume that one couldn't cross the van allen belts.

Why are the shadows in the picture at different angles to the mirror image in his visor????

I think you are right....lens flare, LOL

Could you PLEASE get off your horse long enough to define what you mean by "the same way."

My belief is that you aren't able to visualize in three dimensions; that you somehow think that reflections in a mirror should appear to be aligned with their originals.

You may mean something else. But I am not prepared to guess at what you may be thinking.

I've never visited New Dehli. So I guess I don't know if buildings there are only four feet tall but made of solid gold, the people sing from day till night and the national industry is the racing of tree frogs?

There's a HUGE difference between wanting to know more, and being completely ignorant. We know something about the belts, but we have been studying them CONSTANTLY since their discovery -- tens of dedicated missions from dozens of different nations, multiple models refined over time, etc.

What? Do you honestly think the space sciences learned everything there is to know at some moment in the late 60's? Be kind of pointless to still have national space agencies after that, wouldn't it? Or bother to send astronomers to school.

What DO they teach them in those schools these days!

They aren't.

They may APPEAR to be at different angles to an unskilled observer, but you need to consider;

1) The nature of the reflector,

2) spherical perspective.


Or are you one of those people who think shadows must be parallel in the projection of a picture plane?

Not knowing everything is not the same as knowing nothing.
We still build weather stations.


Don't lie.
The VARBs are a dynamic environment.
Its behaviour is influenced by solar weather, which is ever changing.

However, accurately predicting the life-expectancy of satellites that operate inside the belts very much depends on having good data on the radiation environment.
We're talking billions of dollars worth of hardware, much of it owned by private companies.
They'd be pissed if the data was so inaccurate that their assets burned out before they're expected to.



There you go again with the slander.
Among grown-ups we have this thing called providing evidence for one's claims.

Also, why would anyone assume that Van Allen was the world's only authority on this issue.
Simple fact is that NO domain expert in the world agrees with ANY hoaxie claims.

You might want to get a dictionary and actually look up the word 'shill', BTW.

No, they want to know MORE about it as future missions may not have the luxury of a planned trajectory going around the majority of them like they did during Apollo. You can only use those trajectories at certain times. If you want to go back and forth more often you'll have to go through the thicker parts hence the wanting to know more about the belts as a whole.

The LEM descent rocket was capable of generating 10,000 Lbs of THRUST!

Not so much as a drepression under the rocket nozzle in this photo!

CAPABLE being the operative word. they wouldn't have been using full thrust when trying to land. They would have been throttled down. Then when you take that thrust and divide it by the area of the thrust nozzle you come up with about 1 pound per square inch. not really that much. Add that to the fact that they cut the thrust off a few feet above touch down.

But you're wrong about there not being a depression. There was a slight depression with some of the loose dust swept away

And it is the LM by the way. Why do the hoaxers insist on using the wrong name? Another symptom of their lack of research?

I fail to see what you see. Obviously you have better vision than me.

With that said.

Either you are talking about the lens-flare, where different types of lenses can have different optical 'artifacts' depending on their size and how the light hits them.

Or you are talking about the uneven nature of the ground. The ground at this site was not level (it sloped), further the landing took place at lunar Dawn - meaning that for the moon the sun has 'just' risen a few days ago.

A lunar day is about 29 days.

Also understand the process used to take images. The camera(s) the astronauts used were slightly modified in order to be attached to the front of their space suits. In order to point the camera they had to position their whole body. Other modification were made to enable them to use their gloves in order to shoot the camera.

The static cameras, those set up on tripods were positioned early 'morning' the first day, by the next earth day the sun would move sufficiently to cause all manner of ghosting, lens-flare and other optical artifacts.

Your cellphone has a very tiny lens. The lens on the Cameras used back then were 'huge' in comparison. The larger the lens the more area that can take up light and the more lens-flare artifacts one can get.

In your images I see lensflare (the triangular patches of light upper left) I also see foreshortening and optical illusions of shadow and light on a ground surface that is uneven and rugged.

Assuming for a moment that the Moon Landing was Hoaxed.

Do you honestly think that back in the late 1960's and early 1970's that Film Producers didn't know how to compensate for things? Do you honestly thing if this was a real hoax that any evidence of that hoax would be found in the images released?

+1

Apollo was Hoax City, from the get-go.

Yep, they sure do want to know more; they know nothing today, and knew even less in the mid-sixties.

The only ones that don't need to know more are the shills on this site as they knew everything about them 45 years ago.

Back then, the outer belts were not even known, but the astronots, with no radiation monitoring equipment whatsoever, knew exactly where to fly through and they didn't know the outer belts existed. No animal was sent to the moon first; but a tin can, with astronots in clown suits made multiple round trips.