An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

OK, pepsi78, thanks for that picture of Antares. It actually refutes your claim regarding another light source. You do not see any secondary shadows do you? NO, because the 'fill-in' light is, indeed, simply reflected from the surface.

Well that is imposible if you understand the level of luminosity, 7% the moon soil does not act like a mirror, for what you speak of to take place you would need a biger level of ilumination on the moon.



[edit on 18-12-2007 by pepsi78]

reply to post by pepsi78


7% of the incoming sunlight is still a bunch of light. I have some sunglasses that only allow 9% of the incoming light to pass through to my eyes. Guess what, I still can't stare at the sun because it's too bright. That's more than enough to act as a fill light.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Perhaps there are better teachers out here .

Ah! So you ARE an English teacher after all

Happy Holidays I think I will leave this thread for awhile

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by pepsi78

 

7% of the incoming sunlight is still a bunch of light. I have some sunglasses that only allow 9% of the incoming light to pass through to my eyes. Guess what, I still can't stare at the sun because it's too bright. That's more than enough to act as a fill light.

That does not mean that it will reflect light enough to light up the astronauts and the lem from the front while the sun is behind.
It can't be done here on earth , there is a logic in photography , and it can't be done on the moon, if so please explain your logic.

MY GOODNESS!!!!!!!! THIS HAS GOT TO BE THE LONGEST THREAD IN ATS HISTORY!!!

reply to post by pepsi78

How much light do you think an 8.5x11 piece of paper can reflect? Not a lot. Yet that's a technique I use as a photographer to fill in shadows on someone's face when I photograph them outside in the sun.

It's the same principle. See all that lit-up terrain? It's reflecting light onto the lander and astronauts and is more than enough to fill in shadows so they can be exposed on film.

reply to post by Lambo Rider


Not even close. Try searching for 'SERPO'. That got over 1000 pages from memory.

I also can't believe this band wagon is still chugging along. Does anyone have a run down on the most compelling evidence for both side of the argument?

How much light do you think an 8.5x11 piece of paper can reflect? Not a lot. Yet that's a technique I use as a photographer to fill in shadows on someone's face when I photograph them outside in the sun.

Are you telling me that the astronauts used a pig pice of paper to reflect thge light?
I don't really get it.

It's the same principle. See all that lit-up terrain? It's reflecting light onto the lander and astronauts and is more than enough to fill in shadows so they can be exposed on film.

The luminosity 07% is not enough to lite up the lem like a christmass tree, the lem should be n total darknes, when you are shooting here on earth against the sun I don't think you would get much clarity.

Originally posted by pepsi78

How much light do you think an 8.5x11 piece of paper can reflect? Not a lot. Yet that's a technique I use as a photographer to fill in shadows on someone's face when I photograph them outside in the sun.

Are you telling me that the astronauts used a pig pice of paper to reflect thge light?
I don't really get it.

The point that nataylor was trying to make was, if one can fill in the shadows on ones subject by reflecting light off a 8.5x11 piece of paper. Then imagine what the ground, all around the LM, would do to a subject on the Moon

The luminosity 07% is not enough to lite up the lem like a christmass tree, the lem should be n total darknes, when you are shooting here on earth against the sun I don't think you would get much clarity.

The lunar surface is similar to that of an asphalt road in terms of shade of grey. That will reflect more than enough light to illuminate the LM.

The point that nataylor was trying to make was, if one can fill in the shadows on ones subject by reflecting light off a 8.5x11 piece of paper. Then imagine what the ground, all around the LM, would do to a subject on the Moon

This is absolutly ilogical, the soil from the moon is not some hocus pocus mirror, if I were to go in the middle of the night and some one would turn a flashlight behind me I would be in darknes from the front, have you ever seen an eclipse? when the sun is behid the moon ..the moon is in total darknes.

The lunar surface is similar to that of an asphalt road in terms of shade of grey.
That will reflect more than enough light to illuminate the LM.

your breaking my heart, that is the most ironical argument I've herd all day.The soil of the moon is not vertical for light to bounce back in the direction its comming from any way, it will reflect forward and not backwards, as far as I'm concerned they did not have vertical mirrors to reflect light back.

Next thing you will tell me that an astro-not was standing in the sun and it reflected on the lem

Tell me since you are driving on a road with your head lights on , on gray asphalt as you say, how much light is reflected in the back of your car from the head lights, my 2 cents that it would be pitch black behind your car if it were not for your stop lights.



[edit on 19-12-2007 by pepsi78]

reply to post by pepsi78



The analogy about the solar eclipse is totally off. In that case there is no sunlight reflecting off the surface of the moon, you're looking at the moon's night side... so why would you expect to see anything reflected off? Look at how much the FULL moon lights up earth at night. Just go out on a full moon and compare it to a night with no moon. And that's after the moon's light has had travel and disperse for 400,000 kilometers. Just look at it and see how bright it is, that's a lot of light. Even very short exposures with a camera will show the moon quite clearly, thanks to it's high reflectivity and the throwback effect. 7-9% is quite a lot, and you have to remember that the apollo cameras weren't set to expose the sun properly, they were set to expose SUNLIT objects properly, therefore it only takes a fraction of the sun's light being reflected to make objects appear somewhat illuminated. And you also have to account for the fact that lunar regolith has the unique property of tossing the most light straight back at the direction it came from, just compare the brightness of the moon a day or two from full moon to the completely full moon to see this effect in action.

[edit on 20-12-2007 by Jbird]

reply to post by ngchunter


You can't shoot against the sun, go ask any photorapher, the reflection level is just as on earth, there is no magical moon soil to reflect the light in the same direction from where is coming from.
It's so hard for you guys to just admit you know, in stead you find all sort of irational explenations, that the moon is gray, that the earth is iluminating the moon.
Since the lem is blocking the light from behind , there is no way that the light can bounce some how in the front of the lem , because it's blocked from behind, it's only logical, as you can see the lem is standing in it's own shadow from the front but it's details are visible, that means that some where there is a light bulb above placed vertical.

If you can show me a picture besides on the moon where someone is shooting against a light source with out a flash and an object apears lid up then I'll give up.
But I know you can't find such thing, because no such thing exists.
And about the moon, the moon is always dark luminosity of 7 % means you can see no more that 100 meeters in front of you, the horison
is covered in darknes because there is no light scatering.

here is how the moon really looks, it's dark.


And now compare it to this one.

This is totaly fake, looks like they had a big projector, it lid up the suronding area.


I guess I'm waiting for you to provide a picture where an object seatig in darknes lid from behind is visible from the front, good luck in finding that picture.



[edit on 19-12-2007 by pepsi78]

reply to post by pepsi78



Oh really, the reflectivity of the moon is the exact same as the earth? Nope. Lunar regoleth casts light straight back, but it's not a mirror as you pointed out; it scatters light as well, something a mirror shouldn't do. That means that it doesn't matter that the LEM is casting a shadow, the entire terrain around it is lit up like snow. Just try to shoot "against the sun" on a snowfield; you'll still see your subject. The moon is not dark, if it were then the full moon wouldn't cast so much light on earth. The moon is a great source of illumination. Care to prove that "7%" is dark? By the way, the lunar albedo at full moon is 12.5% thanks to the throwback effect, that means that 12.5% sunlight is directly reflected back towards the source. Care to prove that that's not enough for dimly lighting the LEM? Care to prove that this property of lunar regolith should be expected on earth? Your picture depicts the lunar surface, not objects on the moon, and not when the sun is at the same angle as in Apollo 11's surface pictures. In fact, the angle of the sun here is very very low, you're looking at sunset or sunrise conditions on the moon, not the conditions present at apollo.

[edit on 19-12-2007 by ngchunter]

Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

[edit on 20-12-2007 by Jbird]

By the way, the sun is clearly in front of the camera here, yet the scene is still visible, the people are illuminated by the snow around them, just like astronauts are illuminated by the bright lunar regolith around them on the moon.

Oh really, the reflectivity of the moon is the exact same as the earth? Nope. Lunar regoleth casts light straight back,

There is no light skatering, there is no atmosefere on the moon, light skatering here on earth is posible due to our atmosfere.

That means that it doesn't matter that the LEM is casting a shadow, the entire terrain around it is lit up like snow.

You can shoot against the sun here on earth during the day and you would not be visible in details.

The person is in it's shadow, the rocks are covered in shadow as you can see.




Acording to you this picture should light up from the front, as you can see the reflection is sideways , once an object blocks the sun the front part is coverd in darknes, acording to you the sun should be able to iluminate the front part of the moon.

Here you go the whole clif is in darknes, nothing is visible as details in the clif, the clif is in the water , water if very reflective, click on the picture to view the entire picture.




I have nothing more to comment, some poeple will say about anithing to sustain the apolo adventures on the moon.



[edit on 19-12-2007 by pepsi78]

Mod Edit: New Forum Image Linking Policy – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 20-12-2007 by Jbird]

reply to post by pepsi78


Pepsi, you don't seem to have a good understanding of how optics works. Allow me to try to explain.

Light comes in from the sun. As the rays of light hit the surface of the moon, they reflect off it. You are correct in that it only reflects a small percentage of the light coming in, but it does reflect some of it. Since the surface of the moon is not mirror smooth, some of the light is reflected in all directions (this is called diffusion). The proof of this is that you can see the surface of the moon in the photographs. If the light wasn't reflected at all, no light would be able to enter the camera to take a picture. This diffusion of the surface is totally not dependant on an atmosphere. Yes, an atmosphere adds additional diffusion, because the molecules and dust and whatnot in the air also diffuses light, but a surface can diffuse light by itself with no need for an atmosphere.

Imagine you are standing on a giant mirror in total darkness. Now someone shines a spotlight on the mirror at a point several meters in front of you. You wouldn't be able to tell the light was even hitting the mirror because the light would all be reflected back upwards, none of it towards your eye. But now imagine you rough up the surface of the mirror. The surface isn't a flat plane any more. It has little bits that point in all directions. So now when the spotlight is shined on it, the light bounces off in all directions. Some goes back at the spotlight, some towards your eye. Now since the light is getting to your eye, you can see that there is a light hitting the mirror.

Same principle on the moon. You can see that the surface is reflecting light, since that light makes it into the camera that they took pictures with, it also means that some of the light is cast onto the surface of the LEM. That's enough to take the shadowed areas out of complete darkness.

Try this some time. Go into your bedroom in complete darkness. Take a flashlight and point it at the ceiling. Turn the flashlight on. By your reasoning, only a small circle on the ceiling that the flashlight falls on will be illuminated. but that's not the case. You'll see that it lights up the whole room somewhat. That's because the light is reflecting off the irregular surface of the ceiling and being diffused. Same thing would happen in a vacuum. The atmosphere has nothing to do with this effect.

reply to post by pepsi78




Wow, you still don't get it? Your first picture is underexposed, that's why there's no details in the person. I provided a picture where this wasn't the case. Just because you can provide examples of underexposed photos doesn't mean backscattering isn't happening. Once again, total solar eclipse pictures are irrelevant, but here's something amusing, reflected sunlight from the earth also reflects off the moon, an effect called "earthshine." This CAN be seen during total solar eclipses, it's just not usually detected with the fast exposure settings most people use to photograph an eclipse. Here's proof:



So much for your already-irrelevant point. So there you have it, another source of indirect light on the LEM and astronauts is the earth, which was always high in the sky during apollo EVAs in order to maintain contact with houston. But as mentioned before, if the moon didn't reflect a significant amount of light in all directions, then it wouldn't be such a bright object in our night sky. And considering that brightness decreases exponentially with distance and we're 400,000 km away, the moon is very bright up close. The moon reflects about 13% light directly back thanks to very small glass beads in lunar regolith, but it reflects in all directions away from itself, called diffuse reflection. It should be shocking to anyone that the LEM and other objects are indirectly illuminated in apollo photos. In fact, we should expect them to be illuminated about 10% as much as everything else.

Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

[edit on 20-12-2007 by Jbird]

Sorry I haven't been around lately -- Real life stuff has kept me busy...

I have a common sense observation and two easy experiments that I have performed:

1. Observation: As ngchunter stated above, the full moon throws out a lot of light here on Earth. A bright full-Moon provides enough light to read by. I will grant you that it is not enough light to light up a short-exposure picture (such as was the exposure settings on the Astronaut's cameras), but that light traveled 385,000 km (230,000 miles) before it lit up the letters in my book. Just think how much that same reflected light would light up an LEM 10 meters away. Common Sense.

2. Experiment #1: I wanted to know how much reflected light is required to be able to see something clearly. My tools were a bright flashlight, or torch to those of you in the UK (I used a Mag-lite Brand), a light meter (I own one, and use it occasionally in my line of work), and a very dark room.

I shined the flashlight on one wall. The light levels measured 212 lumens where the light was hitting the wall. The light reflected off of the wall in front of the flashlight to the opposite wall. The light meter measured 19 lumens of reflected light. That was 9% of the light shining directly on the first wall by the flashlight. The reflected light wall was lit up enough to make out all of the features on that wall, such as a photograph of the Brooklyn Bridge I had hanging on the wall. I could see that photo clearly in the reflected light.

This wasn't a strictly scientific experiment, since results will vary depending on the flashlight used, the color and texture of the wall, and the distance between walls, but it makes a common sense point that reflected light is enough to light up objects. If 9% of light reflected from my flashlight could light up a wall, I tend to think that 7% of bright sunlight could light up the LEM.

For my third point, I need to refer to one of your posts from a few days ago...

Originally posted by pepsi78
1 I can see stars with my own eyes.
2 I can see stars from a picture taken by a camera.
Conclusion , I can see, 1 and 2 the same way.
Now for other things exposure, brightnes, contras.

Points of pro apollo adventure fans.

The pictures do not have stars because the sun is so bright it would make stars not apear on the pictures.
Wrong, we have nasa to thank for that, it's all explained, we can see stars during daytime with out an atmosfere.

Light from earth is so intense that it will block the view of the stars when pictures are taken.
Also wrong, the moon is very low in ilumination, rocks berly have shadows on the moon, the earth as a light source is not enough to block stars.

But it's not about only the stars, the pictures , the lighting, everything is fake.

You have misrepresented the reason for not being able to see stars in photographs from the Moon. It is NOT because "the sun is so bright it would make stars not appear on the pictures." The reason is that the LENGTH OF EXPOSURE (the amout of time the shutter is open) and F-STOPS (size of the lens aperture) for the cameras used by the Apollo astronauts was set for bright sunlight, since the Moon is a bright place. That exposure time may be perfect for taking photos of a sunlit Moon and Astronauts in white suits, but it is not long enough to allow stars to be seen on the photos. It's not because the sun is blocking out the stars, but because the camera is not letting in enough starlight to make the stars visible.

...Which leads me to the other experiment I did (I actually did this about a year ago to prove to myself that the stars would no be visible in Apollo pictures)....

3. Experiment #2: I took my camera and set the shutter to the correct settings for bright sunlight (the Apollo Astronauts' cameras were set to an aperture setting of f5.6 and a shutter speed of 1/250 second for brightly-lit scenes to f8 aperture and a shutter speed of 1/125 second for relatively dimmer scenes.)

Then I used this camera (with these daylight settings) to take a picture of a very starry moonless night sky. With my eyes, I could see hundreds or maybe thousands of stars. I took various pictures at various daylight camera settings. When I looked at these pictures, I could see NO STARS. To be honest, I did see one object which may have been Venus, but that was on one of the longer shutter settings (and in fact, jra had a post a few weeks back that said that Venus may be visible in some of the Apollo photographs). There was no sun in my night sky to block out the stars -- it all had to do with the camera aperture and shutter settings.

I suggest you try this yourself, but you need to use a camera that allows "manual" settings -- you can't use a camera that has automatic shutter settings, or the shutter will stay open for a long time in the dark, trying to let in enough light. Although I wouldn't be surprised if most automatic cameras would have a long enough shutter speed to actually allow the stars to be seen.

By the way, I don't doubt that NASA has photos from space with stars showing. If the camera settings were set to long exposures, then I fully expect to see stars, whether the sun is shining or not. In fact I have seen some photos of what looked like stars...here's one:

There are some things in the sky that MAY be stars -- but also notice how overexposed the rest of the picture is: The Moon is bright white and the Earth is an overexposed blob. The astronauts walking on the Moon possibly could have allowed the shutters to stay open long enough - and opened the lens aperture wide enough - to allow the stars to be visible, but then everything else would wave been overexposed.

Wrong shadows, no stars, fake pictures are old issues.

Hello, yankees


You never went to the moon, you never landed probes on mars, you never
landed probes on saturn, you never hit a comet, you have not technology to land anything even in your garden.
There is no video that shows Lunar module landing backwards on the earth, there is no video that shows your probes tested on the earth.
Only artist pictures exist or 3d animated cartoons.

It is boring to talk to people that simulate not to understand in order to defende the faked landings on the moon, on mars, on saturn.
The most ridiculous thing is Tempel 1 with the face of a bad animal.
You, dear yankees, are only biggest swaggerers.
At NASA there is a lot of jokers, swindlers, buffoons that write, write, write,
to explain their technology to all the world.
Have you never seen Boeing, Hewlett Packard or other big companies to explain their technology?
NASA jokers do that because their technology is only technology fiction.
They would like to have that big technology but, if they had that, they would keep it secret, top secret.
THEN YOU ARE DEFENDING PEOPLE THAT ARE ONLY BIG SWINDLERS, JOKERS.
IF YOU LIKE THAT, CONTINUE TO DEFEND THESE BUFFOONS.

Holy crap. Smart2000, jra-2, Big Brain, skeptic friend is back. He really can't take a hint, can he? Isn't there something the mods can do to ban him permanently?