| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 311906
10/13/2007 9:50 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Your also forgetting the Moon is a very poor reflector, only 7% of light is reflected, Quoting: SpaceCadet
I did not. Note above I mention that the filled-in shadows occur in pictures with blown-out highlights. What exposure do you need to open up to before ordinary sunlight becomes over-exposed?
light off in the horizon would not reflect very far at all. Quoting: SpaceCadet
Light doesn't get tired. As we like to say when lighting a subject, if you can see the light, the light can see you. Which is to say; if you can see a bright mountain, then you've got a bright light shining on your face. All that matters is the angular size.
Also if light hitting the ground in front of the astronauts shaded areas bounces off grains of sand/dust, little rocks, ect, at a 7% reflection in a straight line onto another grain of sand, it would only bounce off that second lot of grain of sand/dust/rocks-7% of 7% reflected light, ect, that is a very weakened continual amount of reflection indeed. Quoting: SpaceCadet
Diffuse reflection. The better theoretical model is to assume that every part of the surface reflects light evenly in all directions. Every tiny bit of surface becomes a wide-angle light source. The light falls off according to inverse-square law.
But again, why discuss it in a chat room? Go outside and you can observe every one of these effects. Take a moment or two and hold a book or iPod or docile cat out and see how the shadows fall, how light interacts. It's all there to be discovered if you just go outside.
It is just not possible and against all laws of science, that the astronauts body parts seen in the shade are all evenly illuminated and with no completely blackened unseen spots! Quoting: SpaceCadet
They aren't. I have yet to see an Apollo photograph in which an astronaut was evenly lit. Every single one has changes of density that reveal the direction and type of the lighting in his environment.
Here's your experiment. I know, it's tough to compensate for having a nice bright sky out there (the greatest natural diffuse source in the world). Try getting a halogen worklight and shining it on a concrete garage floor. Now wad up a white t-shirt and throw it in the center of the light pool. You will see shadows of all ranges of density across that shirt. Some of them may be very dark -- some you might even call "black."
But then, that's what I see in the photographs. Some of the shadows reveal nothing at all. Other shaded areas still catch some light.
It just takes a little observation. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312008
10/13/2007 9:57 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Theres really no different between the sky on the Moon and the sky DURING DAY TIME on Earth. The fact that the sky on Earth is blue because of the atmosphere and it is black on the Moon makes no difference. You cannot see stars during the day.
The lunar surface is very bright. Brighter than the brightest day in the hottest part of the world. This is obvious when you think about it. There are no atmosphere or clouds on the moon. In comparison to this bright surface, the stars are VERY dim. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
If the surface is so bright, then how come the shadows in the photographs are pitch black? |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 311906
10/13/2007 10:11 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Hazard is exaggerating a little. Moon is about as bright as old asphalt. Brighter than dirt, darker than sand. Much less bright than snow. Plus there is only direct sunlight; all that nice diffuse skylight isn't around to bounce off the ground.
But when you say "the shadows" you really have to be specific. It entirely depends on which shadow, which picture. The Apollo astronauts had several exposure settings available. "Up-sun" pictures did not usually use the same settings as "down-sun."
In a very general sense, when shooting "up-sun" the camera was looking at the shadowed side of the astronaut, and exposure was set to bring out the reflected light. The surface was also not that bright from the camera's point of view, because of shadow-hiding -- basically, each bit of sand and rock was also showing it's shaded side to the camera.
When shooting "down-sun" the surface was nice and bright, and the astronaut very bright. You can easily see the difference in the pictures; the surface will often look drab, even mottled. In these cases the exposure was set for full sunlight and shadows were deep indeed.
But those are general rules. The specific circumstances of a particular photograph are capable of violating them. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 311906
10/13/2007 10:15 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Typing in a hurry there. "Shadow-hiding" is technically the increase in brightness when all those little shadows are invisible to the observer. It is stretching the term to use it to talk about the effect down-sun, when most of what you see are shadows. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/13/2007 10:51 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
How do you know stars did not exist to Apollo astronauts? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 289861
Because they, and NASA, said so:
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
---
...stars are not readily seen in the daylight lunar sky by either the human eye or a camera because of the brightness of the sunlight [sic] surface.
---
[link to history.nasa.gov]
---
ARMSTRONG 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.
ALDRIN I don't remember seeing any.
---
[link to www.spacestory.com]
---
At the last astronaut reunion, someone said, "Story, you know something I really regret? I had three space flights and never saw the stars."
---
[link to history.nasa.gov]
---
Collins reports: "Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. The sky is full of stars, just like the nights on Earth. But all the way [4] here we have just been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through monoculars, but not recognize any star pattern."
---
[link to history.nasa.gov]
---
To add to the dramatic effect, we can see the stars again. We are in the shadow of the Moon now, and the elusive stars have reappeared.
--- |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/13/2007 10:53 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
In contrast, of course, space shuttle astronauts, private astronauts, and test plane pilots all saw a sky carpeted with stars. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/13/2007 11:11 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
[link to history.nasa.gov]
---
When the sun and the illuminated earth's surface is not within the field of view, it is possible to look into space and maintain dark adaptation. Under these conditions, Astronaut Cooper reported that the dayside sky appeared less dark than the night sky, and the threshold of star visibility correspondingly raised by as much as two magnitudes. Two hypotheses suggest themselves to account for this observation. The more probable one is that this results from a high altitude dayglow possibly that of the atomic emission at 6300 Å.
A second less likely hypothesis is that the sky appears less dark during the daytime as a result of scattering due to smell solid particles. The argument against this proposal is as follows. If the glow were due to small solid particles, they would have to be at a level low enough so that the sun could not reach them during the night; otherwise, this glow would be apparent from the ground all night long. Since astronomical twilight is defined by saying that at the end of astronomical twilight the zenith has reached full night-time darkness, it is clear that at this time, the dust particles, if any, must be out of the sunlight. It is known that astronomical twilight occurs when the sun is 18° below the horizon; and it is a matter of simple trigonometry to show that at this time an object more than about 350 kilometers high would still be in the sunlight. Hence, if there is a layer of dust particles, they must be below 350 kilometers.
Now, Astronaut Cooper reports that the dayglow as he saw it drowned the light of stars fainter than about the fourth magnitude. This is about the same thing that happens on a night of full moon; the fifth and sixth magnitude stars become very difficult or impossible to see. Hence, the brightness of the sky as Astronaut Cooper saw it was more or less like the brightness of the sky on a night of full moon. We know that from the g round the sky causes a loss of about 30 percent in the light reaching the earth; and, thus, we may think of it as if there were small particles covering about one third of the sky. Above the spacecraft, the sky is so much reduced in scattering power that it scatters only as much light from the surf as the whole atmosphere scatters from the moon. Since the full moon is about 100,000 times fainter than the sun, it follows that the amount of scattering material must be such as to cover about 0.3 of 1/400,000 of the sky, or roughly, one millionth. By the usual laws of optics, this means that in a column one square centimeter in cross- sectional area and 350 kilometers in [340] length, there must be enough matter to cover one millionth of a square centimeter.
It will be shown that this is too much matter. The most efficient size of particle for producing scattered light is about 1 micron in diameter; smaller particles perform the electrical equivalent of bobbing up and down on the light waves without disturbing them, and larger ones simply block the light. A 1-micron particle blocks about 10-S square centimeters; hence about 100 such particles are needed in the above- mentioned column Since the volume of the column is 35 cubic meters, the density is about 3 particles per cubic meter.
A spacecraft moving at 8,000 meters per second will then encounter 24,000 such particles per second per square meter. Actually, however, micrometeorite counters, which are adequately sensitive for these very small particles, show between 1/100 and 1 particle per second per square meter outside of showers. Rates of thousands of particles per square meter per second are never observed (ref. 15). Hence the layer cannot consist of micron-size particles. Neither can it consist of particles of other sizes, because the counts are even lower for these. There is approximately the same amount of mass in each logarithmic increase in size; and the other sizes are less efficient. The hypothesis of a dust layer thus fails by a factor which can be conservatively estimated as 10,000.
--- |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/13/2007 11:14 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Once again let us remember the immortal words of Professor Lindenbrook in the 1959 film, "Journey to the Center of the Earth":
[link to www.script-o-rama.com]
---
A scientist who cannot prove what he has accomplished has accomplished nothing.
--- |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 311906
10/14/2007 1:05 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Interesting ideas. I'd have to read the whole article to understand where it is coming from, but my feeling is there are simpler factors at work. To my understanding, for instance, the human eye can't see below 5th magnitude without dark adaption. The full chemical dark adaption in the human eye takes some thirty minutes to accomplish. So, knowing the kind of schedule the astronauts were under, I doubt any had a chance to fully adapt.
Also can't rule out the helmet itself, and any possible contaminants on it. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289861
10/14/2007 6:09 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Your also forgetting the Moon is a very poor reflector, only 7% of light is reflected, light off in the horizon would not reflect very far at all. Also if light hitting the ground in front of the astronauts shaded areas bounces off grains of sand/dust, little rocks, ect, at a 7% reflection in a straight line onto another grain of sand, it would only bounce off that second lot of grain of sand/dust/rocks-7% of 7% reflected light, ect, that is a very weakened continual amount of reflection indeed.
It is just not possible and against all laws of science, that the astronauts body parts seen in the shade are all evenly illuminated and with no completely blackened unseen spots! Quoting: SpaceCadet
You seem to forget that the moon, despite all of this reflections, is bright enough to make shadows on earth at night. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289861
10/14/2007 6:10 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Once again let us remember the immortal words of Professor Lindenbrook in the 1959 film, "Journey to the Center of the Earth":
[ link to www.script-o-rama.com]
---
A scientist who cannot prove what he has accomplished has accomplished nothing.
---
So what would you consider proof man landed on the moon? |
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/14/2007 6:26 AM
 | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Your also forgetting the Moon is a very poor reflector, only 7% of light is reflected, light off in the horizon would not reflect very far at all. Also if light hitting the ground in front of the astronauts shaded areas bounces off grains of sand/dust, little rocks, ect, at a 7% reflection in a straight line onto another grain of sand, it would only bounce off that second lot of grain of sand/dust/rocks-7% of 7% reflected light, ect, that is a very weakened continual amount of reflection indeed.
It is just not possible and against all laws of science, that the astronauts body parts seen in the shade are all evenly illuminated and with no completely blackened unseen spots!
You seem to forget that the moon, despite all of this reflections, is bright enough to make shadows on earth at night. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 289861
Yes, 7% reflected light of 100% light from the Sun, clever isn't it! |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289861
10/14/2007 6:43 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Yes, 7% reflected light of 100% light from the Sun, clever isn't it! Quoting: SpaceCadet
So, in other words the moon gets bright enough to make shadows on Earth, but not somehow works differently when illuminating the astronauts?
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
As explained over there (with a nice picture to top it off), reflected rays scatter in all directions. In other words, illuminated lunar surface (the soil) around the shadows in which the astronauts are, reflects its light into the shadows illuminating the astronauts as well. The same way it reflects its light towards the our planet to illuminate it (and make shadows, given the absence of other light).
Oh yeah, by the way, about four pages ago you said something about shutter speeds, and I responded to it. I never really got a response from you. Willing to get back to that? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 264194
10/14/2007 6:47 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
were is hazz and barls?
i have a REAL question about apollo....and not just the woo woo standard crap and shit throwing...
the way the astronaut "jumps up" from the lunar surface looks weird...i have never heard a good explanation for it...i know the gravity is only 1/6 of the earths and that the space suites are not like the average clothes, vaccum and all that..
but, is there any good explanation for this "weird" way to got back up on your feet..
hazz or barls only please....the rest of you seems a little...hmmmm....uneducated in this matter. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289861
10/14/2007 6:49 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
the way the astronaut "jumps up" from the lunar surface looks weird...i have never heard a good explanation for it...i know the gravity is only 1/6 of the earths and that the space suites are not like the average clothes, vaccum and all that..
but, is there any good explanation for this "weird" way to got back up on your feet.. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 264194
I'm not hazzard or barls, but still... got any examples, so we can see what you mean? |
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/14/2007 7:14 AM
| | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Yes, 7% reflected light of 100% light from the Sun, clever isn't it!
So, in other words the moon gets bright enough to make shadows on Earth, but not somehow works differently when illuminating the astronauts? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 289861
Yes your correct, its simple really, the Earth has an atmosphere that scatters the 7% reflected direct light from the Moon, so yes, light does work differently here on Earth. On the Moon however where there is no atmosphere only a vacuum, light travels in a straight line only, and of course on the Moon it gets bent/reflected off in different angles/directions on curved/jagged/flat surfaces of sand/dust particles, small/large rocks, ect.
Oh yeah, by the way, about four pages ago you said something about shutter speeds, and I responded to it. I never really got a response from you. Willing to get back to that? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 289861
No I'm not willing, I've already said what I had to say on it, and what people want to believe is correct about it, is up to them. I'm not going to argue about the issue with anyone. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289861
10/14/2007 7:25 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
On the Moon however where there is no atmosphere only a vacuum, light travels in a straight line only, and of course on the Moon it gets bent off in different angles/directions on curved surfaces, ect. Quoting: SpaceCadet
The point is that when light hits a rough surface (like the moon surface), light is scattered off in all directions. This is called "diffuse reflection". Diffuse reflection has little to do with atmospheres.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Diffuse reflection occurs on the moon. Light hits the rough moon surface, and is being sent off to all directions (only 7% of the original sunlight, though). One of those directions can be going towards an astronaut standing in a shadow. One of those directions can also be earth.
Earth's atmosphere has little to do with the moon reflecting enough light to create shadows on earth. Of course, the moon light is being scattered by the atmosphere, but this is not what creates so much brightness to make shadows. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289861
10/14/2007 7:30 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Yes your correct, its simple really, the Earth has an atmosphere that scatters the 7% reflected direct light from the Moon, so yes, light does work differently here on Earth. On the Moon however where there is no atmosphere only a vacuum, light travels in a straight line only, and of course on the Moon it gets bent/reflected off in different angles/directions on curved/jagged/flat surfaces of sand/dust particles, small/large rocks, ect. Quoting: SpaceCadet
The reflecting off part is exactly what makes the astronauts to be visible in a shadow. |
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/14/2007 7:33 AM
| | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
On the Moon however where there is no atmosphere only a vacuum, light travels in a straight line only, and of course on the Moon it gets bent off in different angles/directions on curved surfaces, ect.
The point is that when light hits a rough surface (like the moon surface), light is scattered off in all directions. This is called "diffuse reflection". Diffuse reflection has little to do with atmospheres.
[ link to en.wikipedia.org]
Diffuse reflection occurs on the moon. Light hits the rough moon surface, and is being sent off to all directions (only 7% of the original sunlight, though). One of those directions can be going towards an astronaut standing in a shadow. One of those directions can also be earth.
Earth's atmosphere has little to do with the moon reflecting enough light to create shadows on earth. Of course, the moon light is being scattered by the atmosphere, but this is not what creates so much brightness to make shadows.
Like I've already said previously, the Moons surface is not perfectly flat and smooth, there is folds/dips and raise bits of sand/dust/small rocks reflecting light that supposedly illuminated the shaded parts of the astronauts. The astronauts would not have an even amount of illumination in the shade, there would be darkened spots on them, slightly lighter spots than dark, and even more lighter spots, it would not be constantly the same even amount of illumination all over the astronauts. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/14/2007 7:42 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
So what would you consider proof man landed on the moon? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 289861
As I have mentioned in other threads, our society has two standards of proof: one for science and exploration, and one for human activity.
The standard for science and exploration is reproducibility. If a scientist claims amazing new results from an experiment, he tells in detail exactly how he ran his experiment. Other scientists then run the same experiment and attempt to verify the results. If they do so, the experiment was a breakthrough. If they cannot, it is merely an anecdote.
Similarly in exploration. If an explorer claims to have seen an amazing new land with exotic new beasts or objects, he tells in detail exactly how to get there. Other explorers then go to that same place and attempt to verify the same sights. If they do so, the exploration was a discovery. If they cannot, it is merely a legend.
By these standards, the moon walk is merely an anecdotal legend.
Our society has another standard of proof, for human activity: sworn corroborated testimony from eyewitnesses. Our legal system, both criminal and civil, relies heavily on sworn eyewitness testimony with cross-examination from skeptics. Other matter cannot be considered reliable evidence unless humans give sworn testimony as to who collected and preserved the evidence. Any destruction or hiding of evidence is obstruction of justice--a crime in itself and strong evidence of much greater crime.
By this standard, the moon walk is blarney. No one is willing to testify to the moon walk under oath with cross-examination by skeptics. Crucial evidence--the original higher-resolution video of the Apollo 11 moon walk--has been "lost." |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 264194
10/14/2007 11:01 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
There were some astronauts that did report seeing stars on the Moon while standing in the shadow of the LM and taking the time for their eyes to adapt.
Others did not report seeing stars as they were busy working. What's the point? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312115
10/14/2007 11:40 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
There were some astronauts that did report seeing stars on the Moon while standing in the shadow of the LM and taking the time for their eyes to adapt.
Others did not report seeing stars as they were busy working. What's the point? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 264194
Yeah, sure.
"Hey Buzz, look over there! I saw a star!"
"Neil, now you know darn well we cant see stars up here. Quit foolin around and get back to work. We got a whole bunch of important stuff to do, what with the dune buggy driving and golf playing we have to be filming!"
"Buzz, dang it, I swear I saw a star."
"I told you to get back to work, son. Stars, please. Next thing you know you'll be saying you saw a planet, or some other foolishness."
"Ok, but I know what I saw".
"If you were working, like me, you wouldnt have any time to see stars".
They could make a comedy series out of this.
That is actually what they should say, when asked about stars- "I was just too busy working, didnt see any". |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 297306
10/14/2007 12:46 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
...didn't see any flame/exhaust from the ascent engine either, but it can be seen from the shuttle's thrusters (same fuel mix). Debunkers are side-stepping that question. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 264194
10/14/2007 12:46 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
that is what i said with my last post!!
how anyone can make this "did you see any stars" nonsense into -the moonlandings were faked- i will never understand. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 264194
10/14/2007 12:54 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
...didn't see any flame/exhaust from the ascent engine either, but it can be seen from the shuttle's thrusters (same fuel mix). Debunkers are side-stepping that question. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 297306
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!
TRY READING A LITTLE BEFORE POSTING, UNLESS YOU ENJOY LOOKING LIKE A COMPLEATE IDIOT....
This is from one of hazzards posts...
--------------------------------------------------
We cannot see any flames from the lander takeoff from the moon because the lander rockets used a combination of hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide.
These substances burn with practically an invisible flame in a vacuum.
---------------------------------------------------
Get it!!?, the "evil nazi shill payed lying debunkers from hell" are not "side stepping" anything, it is you fine educated nice people that has a problem with reading and understanding. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 312236
10/14/2007 2:06 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Like I've already said previously, the Moons surface is not perfectly flat and smooth, there is folds/dips and raise bits of sand/dust/small rocks reflecting light that supposedly illuminated the shaded parts of the astronauts. The astronauts would not have an even amount of illumination in the shade, there would be darkened spots on them, slightly lighter spots than dark, and even more lighter spots, it would not be constantly the same even amount of illumination all over the astronauts. Quoting: SpaceCadet
Let me try again. The closest reflectors are a body-length away (aka, the ground right at their feet.) These are diffuse reflectors (meaning they shine equally in all directions). Which means, the smallest "bright spot" would also be the size of a human body.
You want bright spots? Go outside, take a white sheet of paper, find out how close you need to hold it to a surface before you see a spot.
For all practical purposes the density of the reflections is much larger than the size of the astronaut. If you want to see these density changes you expect, they are easy to find; compare two astronauts, compare elements over the surface of the LM, compare different pictures.
Again, your mental model seems to be one of lots of fist-sized mirrors. You seem to be expecting it to look like a disco under a mirror ball.
Actually, a diffuse reflector can be modeled as a set of small mirrors. As a set of millions of microscopic mirrors. A truly diffuse reflector shows no specular highlights, and produces no caustic reflections.
(In the real world most objects have a combination of diffuse, specular, and fluorescent modes. There are very few true diffuse surfaces. They are a mathematical model, similar to the black-body radiator. Close enough to calculate on, but not a total description of all effects.) |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 312236
10/14/2007 2:10 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
...didn't see any flame/exhaust from the ascent engine either, but it can be seen from the shuttle's thrusters (same fuel mix). Debunkers are side-stepping that question. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 297306
The shuttle does not have "thrusters." It has the SSME main engine, and it has the two SSRB's -- solid rocket boosters. If you look closely, you can see two flames from the solid rocket boosters, but something different from the main engine. You will also note two other elements during a shuttle take-off; ignition transients, as a cold fuel-rich mixture is pumped out, and the sound suppression system (which is a large part of the white clouds and all that fuss you see during the first moments of lift-off.) |
| IDW
User ID: 312020
10/14/2007 2:21 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
...didn't see any flame/exhaust from the ascent engine either, but it can be seen from the shuttle's thrusters (same fuel mix). Debunkers are side-stepping that question.
The shuttle does not have "thrusters." It has the SSME main engine, and it has the two SSRB's -- solid rocket boosters. If you look closely, you can see two flames from the solid rocket boosters, but something different from the main engine. You will also note two other elements during a shuttle take-off; ignition transients, as a cold fuel-rich mixture is pumped out, and the sound suppression system (which is a large part of the white clouds and all that fuss you see during the first moments of lift-off.) Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 312236
Nomuse, I have a suggestion for you. Wait until you have real proof to get behind Apollo.
No amount of money is worth ones dignity and self respect.
Your parroting a braggards story, a liar. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 308933
10/14/2007 2:55 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
There were some astronauts that did report seeing stars on the Moon while standing in the shadow of the LM and taking the time for their eyes to adapt.
Others did not report seeing stars as they were busy working. What's the point? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 264194
Sorry, you do not have the right to make up your own nonsense and stuff it into the astronauts' mouths.
When you have sworn testimony from the astronauts as to exactly where they went and what they saw, let us know. Until then, you are merely spinning tall tales. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 312115
10/14/2007 2:56 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Can anyone post of photo of them using lasers to "bounce" off of the moon "reflectors"?
Since this is the claim most used by believers, it should be easy to show a photo of them "firing the lasers" up to the moon. |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | |
|
