Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by DJW001

Originally posted by FoosM
Well Ok lets get to it:

Okay, let's.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/618c1423093a.gif[/atsimg]

Those are light sources (see arrows).

Correct: it is not the Sun. The ladder is in the shadowed side of the LM.

They look like spot lights to me.

Why? Why do these look like spotlights to you? Do you see a pool of light from these spotlights anywhere? Again, I note the plural. Why would a special effects team that was trying to recreate the "inky blackness" of a shadow in a vacuum use filler lights? It would ruin the entire effect.

[img]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9a701c248bce.gif[/atsimg]
[/img]

Oh come on, those are spot lights. Those spots are on the top portion of the helmet.
So dont tell me some nonsense its from the ground.
If its not spots, it must be some powerful stars.

"Oh come on..." Very persuasive reasoning. Those reflections are indeed on the top part of the helmet, suggesting they are coming from nearly directly overhead. (Two correct observations!)

the Earth always stays in the same place in the lunar sky. From the latitudes and longitudes of the Apollo landing sites, this was always within 30 degrees of vertical. In other words, the Earth, the second brightest light source on the Moon was always pretty much directly overhead. The source of that blue, point-like reflection on the astronaut's helmet and the shiny bits of the LM is the Earth! The more complicated patterns you see glistening on the helmet in the closer shots is due to the earthlight shining through overhanging rendezvous radar antenna rig, plus back-scattered light being reflected of the downward slanting LM windows.

So you are telling these readers.... those light reflections, which look like spots, on the helmet and the ladder is due to the glow of the Earth? And reflections and refractions of said Earth bouncing off the LM? You believe this deep down in your gut? The Earth glow causing 'spot like' light reflections on the um... helmet and ladder (which is vertical) yet doesn't seem to make the multiple shadows... as a secondary light source... You see where this is going? You got the Earth that is powerful enough to cast light on the on but we never see two shadows of the LM, Astros, rocks...

You think this Neil is being lit by that same Earth light your speaking of?
Here:


Lets watch this on video:

First thing you notice is that the LM's shadow is basically the same proportion to the LM itself. Meaning its not stretched. We know of course, that the Sun should create long shadows during moon mornings. Clearly this is not a long shadow of the LM. And there seems to be this a halo around the top of the LM's shadow indicating where the light is coming from. Which seems at a high angle. And we can see that the light basically the light tapers off from that point towards the edges.

Now if you are telling me because the Earth was high in the sky casting light on the moon that it created this proportionate shadow of the LM, then OK, I guess I didnt know that was possible. Because its definitely not from the Sun.

Now watch when Neil goes down the ladder... you see how bright he is near the end. Even though he says how dark it is? Is he visible in the shadow of the LM because of Earthlight? And if so, why doesnt Earth light help him to see?

Whats this bright spot in the middle of the picture?

Is that caused by the Earth too?
Why is it bright there, and nowhere else?
Its not part of horizon.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f5e92a0bb26c.gif[/atsimg]

Now watch when Neil goes down the ladder... you see how bright he is near the end. Even though he says how dark it is? Is he visible in the shadow of the LM because of Earthlight? And if so, why doesnt Earth light help him to see?

The Earth glow causing 'spot like' light reflections on the um... helmet and ladder (which is vertical) yet doesn't seem to make the multiple shadows... as a secondary light source... You see where this is going?

With the brightness of the image ... How bright a camera's view is cannot be used to make estimates on human vision. I don't have the specs for that camera, but notice how white the glare is in your chosen video? These are referred to as 'blown out' highlights - I haven't checked to see if they're completey blown out for the record. The image is losing detail in its whites to capture detail in the blacks since the two areas are quite contrasted. You can do similar experiments to demonstrate this with most prosumer cameras.

And you would not expect a reflected light source to neccessarily make other shadows.

www.photoanswers.co.uk...

Reflectors such as this are often used to bounce ambient light in photographs and films. This can create hard edged high lights on a subject, but will not generally create any shadows. Often the light is too soft or not concentrated to do this and it is used for fill light (it may diffuse a shadow), or its just often quite directional to create highlights or edges on a character.

Also reflected light is going to be absorbed more by reflective surfaces. There's a lot that goes into bouncing light around, it's not as simple as having sudden new and powerful light sources. Please note I'm not stating that reflectors were used on the moon exactly, but you can look at any number of films documentary and fiction to see the use of reflected light. Or even just get some coloured objects and place them next to each other with a light on them. The colours from both objects will add a soft reflected light to the nearby object.

Load up any 2.5D or 3D compositing/editing program and do some experiments with shadows interacting, and different light sources. Most applications these days should be able to handle this. Even just some primitives and some lights and editing the materials should give a rough idea. Though please note that often editing programs do not process shadows perfectly and can often add the two shadows together incorrectly.

However, most should provide you with an understanding of how a shadow is formed, why it is formed, and why not all light sources create amazingly sized shadows.





[edit on 16-7-2010 by Pinke]

I trust everyone is noticing that as soon as anyone bothers to debunk each new frame of video that FoosM doesn't understand, he does NOT spend any time at all apologising for it, and acknowledging his IGNORANCE.

He simply moves on to the next ten things he doesn't have a clue about.

By all means keep encouraging him, but you are being played, imo.

Notice that FoosM's support seems to have now completely dried up - even his fellow deniers are ignoring him, by the looks. For good reason.

FoosM, aka "FoosMasoos", plays this game everywhere he goes.

Sorry to double post, but I may be opening up a can of something not nice if I don't include some necessary detail - also there may be a horrible situation if people start trying to simulate lighting using their compositing programs without the necessary knowledge of how light works. There are tools to make light work 'correctly' in these programs and you will have to have knowledge of these to create a true moon simulation.

I'm more posting this for persons who are interested rather than Foosm.

This is just going to be some information about light just to give people an idea of how complex this can be when discussing the moon lighting.

A glimmer or glint in these scenes would be caused by specular flares from light reflected towards the camera from shiny surfaces or elements. You can create such a flare in a very dark environment with the correct material. I'll leave the investigating of this up to yourself, but it would be very strange spot lights to only cause a glint. The specular highlights in this image seem quite normal. There is an alien running comically in a garden at night somewhere on this website that has some specular flares I believe, but I can't find the thread.

Light also scatters due to particles in the air or atmosphere. I imagine on the moon it would be easier for light to travel more directly to the camera, so light would be a little different on the moon. I won't pretend to be an expert on the moon in this way, but brightness and directness of the light may be a factor in the interpretation of it being a studio.

When light travels directly to a camera the outline of the source light is pretty clear. When light hits particles which are in the air and such like it will head off in other directions 'halos'. The more stuff in the air - the more of a halo which can result in volumetric light etc ...

I'm not a physics expert so please go easy, but indirect light is our main source of colour in the universe. Obviously there are direct light sources such as the sun or a spot light which exist, but often this light bounces off other things and reflects to create most of the things we can see. Most surfaces are pretty diffuse and bounce light around. This is why lights bounce from one object which is close by ... ie a red ball will make a nearby object have a red cast.

Light also doesn't always behave as you might expect. The standard concept is that direct/hard light casts hard edged shadows and raises contrast, and more diffuse light has weak or soft edged shadows if any shadows at all. This also applies to lots of reflected light.

These rules can be varying though ... Studio lighting with many lights often diffuses hard edged shadows created from single light sources. This is one reason why I would find the lighting on the moon not to involve any studio lighting. The moon has fairly hard shadows much of the time and not much diffuse light from many other sources. Another example is sharp direct light to a subject from the same direction as the camera can flatten detail/decrease contrast despite being a hard light.

Anyway, I will stop rambling now. Hopefully some of this information is useful and helps you conduct your own thoughts and experiments.




[edit on 16-7-2010 by Pinke]

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

If Stanley Kubrick was busy faking the moon landing, who was filming "Clockwork Orange?" (1971)

1971 was the premier date. It was shot in 1970.

Plus, what makes you think there is sooo much footage in Apollo 14?
There isnt much. And most of it is static shots. So even if both projects happened on the same year it would have been possible to film both. Also, Im guessing Apollo 11, 12 were shot the same time. 13 by itself (Kubrick busy filming) 14 by itself. And 15, 16 and 17 at the same time. In other words, a lot of it was pre-filmed long before it was broadcasted.

www.indelibleinc.com...

Are you also implying that the entire Apollo program was filmed in England?

In 1962, Kubrick moved to England to film Lolita, and he would live there for the rest of his life.... After 2001, Kubrick initially attempted to make a film about the life of Napoleon Bonaparte. When financing fell through, Kubrick went looking for a project that he could film quickly on a small budget. He eventually settled on A Clockwork Orange (1971)..... ["The Shining" (1980)]...was shot entirely on London soundstages, with the exception of second-unit exterior footage, which was filmed in Colorado, Montana, and Oregon. In order to convey the claustrophobic oppression of the haunted hotel, Kubrick made extensive use of the newly invented Steadicam, a weight-balanced camera support, which allowed for smooth camera movement in enclosed spaces.

en.wikipedia.org...

I dont understand, what are YOU implying? Filmmakers can only film in the countries that they live in?

You really need to do some very basic research before expounding your theories to the world.

Oh I do, thank you very much, I could advise the same to you before you make replies.

I don't have time to analyze the rest of your over-sized post at the moment, but I can give you a sneak preview in three words: "earthlight" and "specular reflection."

Earthlight, pleeeze... I cant wait for you to show us how.

In other words, that's your story and you're sticking with it. Four years to shoot "2001" but only two to shoot the entire Apollo program, including at least one mission that was flown before "2001" was finished. Tell me, FoosM, was Douglass Trumbell involved? Has your research proven his involvement as well? Oh, and if you'd read all the posts before responding, you'd have seen how. Stop. Read. Think. Respond. It will save you further embarrassment,

reply to post by FoosM

So you are telling these readers.... those light reflections, which look like spots, on the helmet and the ladder is due to the glow of the Earth? And reflections and refractions of said Earth bouncing off the LM? You believe this deep down in your gut? The Earth glow causing 'spot like' light reflections on the um... helmet and ladder (which is vertical) yet doesn't seem to make the multiple shadows... as a secondary light source... You see where this is going? You got the Earth that is powerful enough to cast light on the on but we never see two shadows of the LM, Astros, rocks...

You think this Neil is being lit by that same Earth light your speaking of?
Here:


Lets watch this on video:

YouTube Link


First thing you notice is that the LM's shadow is basically the same proportion to the LM itself. Meaning its not stretched. We know of course, that the Sun should create long shadows during moon mornings. Clearly this is not a long shadow of the LM. And there seems to be this a halo around the top of the LM's shadow indicating where the light is coming from. Which seems at a high angle. And we can see that the light basically the light tapers off from that point towards the edges.

Now if you are telling me because the Earth was high in the sky casting light on the moon that it created this proportionate shadow of the LM, then OK, I guess I didnt know that was possible. Because its definitely not from the Sun.

Now watch when Neil goes down the ladder... you see how bright he is near the end. Even though he says how dark it is? Is he visible in the shadow of the LM because of Earthlight? And if so, why doesnt Earth light help him to see?

The LM's shadow is being viewed through the window of the LM, foreshortening it as the angle of the camera is now closer to being in parallel with the incoming sunlight. The readers already understand this. Why do you keep asking about my gut? Are you dyspeptic? The "spot like" reflection was caused by the fact that "Ed had his visor up," providing the highly finished surface that creates specular reflection. It is gratifying that you finally admit that multiple light sources create multiple shadows. When there is a great disparity between the intensity of the sources, the brighter one tends to wash out the weaker one's shadow. The weaker one "fills in" the stronger one's shadow, often causing it to change color. Think: does moonlight cast a shadow at night? Yes. Does the Sun cast shadows by day? Yes. When the Moon and Sun are both up during the day, how many shadows do you cast? As for Armstrong's vision, the lunar surface is very bright, so his eyes are adjusted accordingly.

Originally posted by DJW001
was Douglass Trumbell involved?

Going completely off topic (but still far more useful than anything FoosM has posted) - I have always been a *huge* fan of Trumbull's work. For those who haven't heard of him, apart from 2001 he also worked on Star Trek - The Motion Picture, Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind, and Blade Runner. Not a bad resume, and he was also heavily involved in the development of IMax...

But I think his finest work was done on two lesser known movies - Silent Running, and Brainstorm. Silent Running is quite a gem, but imo Brainstorm is just an amazing film for its time. In some ways it is quite flawed - Natalie Wood died towards the end of the shooting so they had to do some fast thinking to get the final edit to work - but it has a truly brilliant premise, and is a very scary/freaky/thought-provoking film...

And it has Christopher Walken in it, so it is a must see...

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Now we are including film studios, directors, photography assistants, their assistant's assistants, wardrobe managers, props managers, set coordinators, as well as half of NASA and higher up government officials.

Why have none of these people, or even their children or grandchildren not written a credible autobiography or come forward to tell the story; whether for some pragmatic sense of duty or for the quick million-dollar check they would receive for the movie adaption?

Show whatever photos, stills and videos you will like, say whatever you wish, but the Moon Landing Hoax doesn't hold water during even the smaller stages of logical testing.

This has grown into a ridiculous religion, proving mans natural need for a more controllable world.


[edit on 7-16-2010 by WolfofWar]

Ummm... sounds like you are including all those people.
I dont see anyone else doing it.

I want to know from anyone of you, if you signed a contract with the state- whether it was the US or USSR, that stipulated severe punishment for breaking Top Secret information, would you? And let me add, you signed that contract under your own free will.

Would you risk your families by even telling them what your doing?

Your career?

To tell the truth, reveal Top Secrets to the public?

Knowing what the government can do. Im talking about disappearing people, causing "accidents", smear campaigns, you would risk all that? I mean make your life a living hell.

Be honest. And give a good reason why you would, and how you think what you say would have any effect.

If you wouldn't, then why would anyone else? And therefore I dont want to hear this petty excuse anymore on this thread. At least not when responding to one of my posts.

I bet none of you would.
None of you have the testes to go against the government.
Especially if you got paid, have been offered a good position in life, and participated in the act.

Get real.

Originally posted by FoosM
Whats this bright spot in the middle of the picture?

It's Neil Armstrong.

Originally posted by Pinke

Now watch when Neil goes down the ladder... you see how bright he is near the end. Even though he says how dark it is? Is he visible in the shadow of the LM because of Earthlight? And if so, why doesnt Earth light help him to see?

The Earth glow causing 'spot like' light reflections on the um... helmet and ladder (which is vertical) yet doesn't seem to make the multiple shadows... as a secondary light source... You see where this is going?

With the brightness of the image ... How bright a camera's view is cannot be used to make estimates on human vision. I don't have the specs for that camera, but notice how white the glare is in your chosen video? These are referred to as 'blown out' highlights - I haven't checked to see if they're completey blown out for the record. The image is losing detail in its whites to capture detail in the blacks since the two areas are quite contrasted. You can do similar experiments to demonstrate this with most prosumer cameras.


And you would not expect a reflected light source to neccessarily make other shadows.

www.photoanswers.co.uk...

Reflectors such as this are often used to bounce ambient light in photographs and films. This can create hard edged high lights on a subject, but will not generally create any shadows. Often the light is too soft or not concentrated to do this and it is used for fill light, or its just often quite directional to create highlights or edges on a character.

Also reflected light is going to be absorbed more by reflective surfaces. There's a lot that goes into bouncing light around, it's not as simple as having sudden new and powerful light sources. Please note I'm not stating that reflectors were used on the moon exactly, but you can look at any number of films documentary and fiction to see the use of reflected light. Or even just get some coloured objects and place them next to each other with a light on them. The colours from both objects will add a soft reflected light to the nearby object.

Load up any 2.5D or 3D compositing/editing program and do some experiments with shadows interacting, and different light sources. Most applications these days should be able to handle this. Even just some primitives and some lights and editing the materials should give a rough idea. Though please note that often editing programs do not process shadows perfectly and can often add the two shadows together incorrectly.

However, most should provide you with an understanding of how a shadow is formed, why it is formed, and why not all light sources create amazingly sized shadows.

Ahhhh thank you PINKE.
Finally someone admitts its possible to use fill lighting without causing extra shadows.
Anybody would know that who works as a professional photographer or in the film business. The control of light and shadow is the art of film and photography.

And this is why many people, from photographers to filmmakers, have issues with Apollo photography when they see photos like these knowing there is no atmosphere on the moon to scatter light.

THE BLACK SKY AND WHITE SUN

On Earth, the sun appears yellow. If you were out in space, or on the moon, the sun would look white. In space, there is no atmosphere to scatter the sun's light. On Earth, some of the shorter wavelength light (the blues and violets) are removed from the direct rays of the sun by scattering. The remaining colors together appear yellow.

Also, out in space, the sky looks dark and black, instead of blue. This is because there is no atmosphere. There is no scattered light to reach your eyes.

We shouldnt see this

www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

I mean look at this, the ground is dark! There is light fall out.

www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Why is the SUN so BIG? Was there a zoom lens on the camera?

www.lpi.usra.edu...


Sun rays, halos shouldnt happen in a vacuum. Should it?

Or this:

www.lpi.usra.edu...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/25a707f8987a.jpg[/atsimg]

Obvious fill lighting.
That cant be done from Earth shine, or reflection off the ground.

I mean look at the earth here,
www.lpi.usra.edu...
dont tell me that caused reflections spot light reflections on the Astros helmet and ladder.

And if its a matter of longer exposures, hand holding the camera would definitely caused blurry pictures. You simply cant capture such a static such without usually using flash. The Astro was coming down, and Neil would have had to lean back to take the photo. Too much motion for a picture that looks like it was taking with a flash.

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
Whats this bright spot in the middle of the picture?

It's Neil Armstrong.

Oh my goodness!!!! I am trying to ignore FoosM's rubbish, but this one is just a CLASSIC!!! Thanks for the heads up, jra...

And FoosM, thanks for that one, as it is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of everything that you are doing wrong.

Here's a link to the Apollo 11 journal page:
history.nasa.gov...
Scroll down about half way, to "Journal Text: 109:42:28 to 109:43:41. MPEG Video Clip:" and then download the FULL video.
Here's a direct link to it, for the terminally lazy (right click and save, it's about 8Mb)..
history.nasa.gov...
Watch carefully at the end, from about 50s in, as first his shadow, then Neil himself moves into shot. As he moves, the bright spot fades and vanishes, proving that it was Neil's spacesuit that was brightly reflecting the Sun through that little gap.

That's what a REAL RESEARCHER would have done, to prevent making a complete and utter FOOL of himself. It's pretty simple.

If a REAL RESEARCHER (that's not a FoosM) sees something odd, like a too bright object in an image, he will first of all consider all the possible reasosn for it. There are several, but let's skip that step, becasue it isn't even necessary..

Because before even getting remotely concerned about an 'anomaly', a REAL RESEARCHER (that's not a FoosM) would OF COURSE look at the original, full length, source information and look to see if the reason was obvious. They would also look for any other footage, but again, in this case it wasn't necessary.

JUST BY EXAMINING THE FOOTAGE IN FULL, YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE IT WAS ARMSTRONG.

Now you have to ask - did FoosM just parrot some other idiot? Could he not think for himself about what might be a bright object in the background, and then... look? And did he *deliberately* mislead the forum, by using footage that was edited to exclude the evidence he didn't want anyone to see? Or was it just incompetence?

If it wasn't incompetence, then what sort of ignorance is required to think he will get away with it?

FoosM, you are at best incompetent, at worst... - no, I'll get a warning for saying what I think. I just hope the mods are watching this very closely, because I think this behavior stinks, and it is ruining this forum.


Now FoosM, is going to HAVE to apologise on this one. I'll be interested to see how (and how quickly) he goes about doing so.

My second post on this subject addresses some of this, but really it's not worth going into in a lot of depth.

You seem to have taken the point and sort of 180'd it and agreed with it to make a totally different point? >.>

Foosm, ever heard of lens flares and other optical effects?

There's your answer.

Going back to the topic of this thread, here's an interesting series of videos offering a critical look at Jarrah's videos:



From this introductory part, you can find the parts that follow on youtube. Should be a fun watch, and is quite the expose of the kind of charlatan Jarrah White is.

Not quite unlike a certain person promoting the moon hoax in this thread, actually.

Originally posted by FoosM
And this is why many people, from photographers to filmmakers, have issues with Apollo photography...

Name some please. I've never seen any professional photographers or film makers claim to have any issues with the Apollo photography.

We shouldnt see this

www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Why not? Lens flares are caused by the light passing through the glass lens. It has nothing to do with an atmosphere or lack there of. The glass is a medium that the light has to pass through, it will cause the light to scatter.

I mean look at this, the ground is dark! There is light fall out.

www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Here's a tip. Use a higher resolution source for your images.

AS15-85-11363

Why is the SUN so BIG? Was there a zoom lens on the camera

Due to the brightness of the Sun, it causes it to bloom and make it seem larger than it is. Just like in this image.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Obvious fill lighting.
That cant be done from Earth shine, or reflection off the ground.

In what way is it "obvious"? How did you rule out the reflection off the ground? There are many many kilometers of brightly lit Lunar surface all around as far as the eye can see. It would be more than enough to illuminate the shaded side of the LM.

reply to post by CHRLZ

FoosM, you are at best incompetent, at worst... - no, I'll get a warning for saying what I think. I just hope the mods are watching this very closely, because I think this behavior stinks, and it is ruining this forum.

You have done the right thing!

I wanted to say my piece last night, but I thought things over and it would have done no good and I'd been in trouble.

Now is the time that we that RESEARCH APOLLO; should make this issue here known as Foosm; to the the mods so they can take action against such utter ATS nonsense.

This is a member forum, we as members have to right to speak about individuals that have nothing useful to post except constant drivel with no merit.

He still hasn't admitted he knows nothing about Thermal Dynamics, he actually didn't mention anything that he has been wrong about yet that I know about.

FOOSM IS NOTHING BUT SPAM ON ATS!





[edit on 16-7-2010 by theability]

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

So you are telling these readers.... those light reflections, which look like spots, on the helmet and the ladder is due to the glow of the Earth? And reflections and refractions of said Earth bouncing off the LM? You believe this deep down in your gut? The Earth glow causing 'spot like' light reflections on the um... helmet and ladder (which is vertical) yet doesn't seem to make the multiple shadows... as a secondary light source... You see where this is going? You got the Earth that is powerful enough to cast light on the on but we never see two shadows of the LM, Astros, rocks...

You think this Neil is being lit by that same Earth light your speaking of?
Here:


Lets watch this on video:

YouTube Link


First thing you notice is that the LM's shadow is basically the same proportion to the LM itself. Meaning its not stretched. We know of course, that the Sun should create long shadows during moon mornings. Clearly this is not a long shadow of the LM. And there seems to be this a halo around the top of the LM's shadow indicating where the light is coming from. Which seems at a high angle. And we can see that the light basically the light tapers off from that point towards the edges.

Now if you are telling me because the Earth was high in the sky casting light on the moon that it created this proportionate shadow of the LM, then OK, I guess I didnt know that was possible. Because its definitely not from the Sun.

Now watch when Neil goes down the ladder... you see how bright he is near the end. Even though he says how dark it is? Is he visible in the shadow of the LM because of Earthlight? And if so, why doesnt Earth light help him to see?

The LM's shadow is being viewed through the window of the LM, foreshortening it as the angle of the camera is now closer to being in parallel with the incoming sunlight. The readers already understand this. Why do you keep asking about my gut? Are you dyspeptic? The "spot like" reflection was caused by the fact that "Ed had his visor up," providing the highly finished surface that creates specular reflection. It is gratifying that you finally admit that multiple light sources create multiple shadows. When there is a great disparity between the intensity of the sources, the brighter one tends to wash out the weaker one's shadow. The weaker one "fills in" the stronger one's shadow, often causing it to change color. Think: does moonlight cast a shadow at night? Yes. Does the Sun cast shadows by day? Yes. When the Moon and Sun are both up during the day, how many shadows do you cast? As for Armstrong's vision, the lunar surface is very bright, so his eyes are adjusted accordingly.

So the shadow became proportionate because the viewer was at a higher position?
Is this some kind of special moon physics? You all believe this psuedo science ?


And no the moon doesnt always cast a shadow on Earth because the moon is not always full. And neither was the Earth during Apollo 11. So your argument holds no water. Sorry. You can go on with all kinds of info that is not relevant to what we are seeing. It would be impossible for the Earth to create a spot like reflection on the ladder.

If this is the best answer you guys can come up with, its sad. Just sad.

Did the Earth also erase the missing tire tracks of the MET due to some kind of fancy lighting effect?

Originally posted by FoosM
And this is why many people, from photographers to filmmakers, have issues with Apollo photography when they see photos like these knowing there is no atmosphere on the moon to scatter light.

Sun rays, halos shouldnt happen in a vacuum. Should it?

There is a metal pole which runs up a stair case outside one of the offices near where I work. It had specular highlights on it this evening with nothing but ambient light, and I assume it will have specular highlights on Sunday evening when I return to the studio.

I will film it for you if after you see the specular highlights on this piece of metal you drop the 'I'm so correct' attitude.



Many posts have been relevant, and it is rude to say other wise.

Furthermore:

en.wikipedia.org...

Composition

The elements sodium (Na) and potassium (K) have been detected using Earth-based spectroscopic methods, whereas the isotopes radon-222 and polonium-210 have been inferred from data obtained by the Lunar Prospector alpha particle spectrometer.[2] Argon-40, helium-4, oxygen and/or methane (CH4), nitrogen gas (N2) and/or carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2) were detected by in-situ detectors placed by the Apollo astronauts.[3]

The average daytime abundances of the elements known to be present in the lunar atmosphere, in atoms per cubic centimeter, are as follows:

* Argon: 40,000
* Helium: 2,000-40,000
* Sodium: 70
* Potassium: 17
* Hydrogen: fewer than 17

This yields approximately 80,000 total atoms per cubic centimeter, marginally higher than the quantity posited to exist in the atmosphere of Mercury.[4] While this greatly exceeds the density of the solar wind, which is usually on the order of just a few protons per cubic centimeter, it is virtually a vacuum in comparison with the atmosphere of the Earth.

In fact, the Moon is often considered to not have an atmosphere, as it cannot absorb measurable quantities of radiation, does not appear layered or self-circulating, and requires constant replenishment given the high rate at which the atmosphere is lost to space (solar wind and outgasing are not primary components of the Earth's, or any stable atmosphere yet known).

The Moon may also have a tenuous "atmosphere" of electrostatically-levitated dust. See moon dust for more details.

Dust is an excellent environment to cause volumetric light. The light on the moon is suitably different that the images appear correct to me based on the information I know.

I'd point out that smoke machines can be used to make light appear heavier, and most persons wouldn't even perceive the smoke on the camera but I think you might then move on to accuse Kubrick of bringing his 2 litre Jem smokie to the moon party.

You appear to have taken some of my statements severely out of context to build a new case regarding this.

Edit: (Extra reading showing the above theories are correct)

Recommended reading:

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by FoosM

So the shadow became proportionate because the viewer was at a higher position?
Is this some kind of special moon physics? You all believe this psuedo science ?

So you still don't understand how shadows are formed, do you. Set up a ladder on the ground in the sun. Look how long the shadow looks from the base. Now climb to the top and look down. Please file a full report on your results. It will be immediately obvious if you actually performed the experiment or not.

And no the moon doesnt always cast a shadow on Earth because the moon is not always full.

You are joking, aren't you? Please tell me you're joking.

Here is a bigger version of the picture showing the MET (a gloryfied wheelbarrow, in essence).

If you look to the top left of the picture, you can see the obvious tracks of the MET. They aren't as clear on the cropped version of this picture (AS14-66-9340), probably because they got trampled upon by footsteps.

Now i looked this up in 2 minutes. Foosm, what's stopping you from doing the same? If you can spend such a lot of time in making all these posts here, why can't you use that time to do some real research. Do yourself a favor.. you might learn something.

reply to post by FoosM

And no the moon doesnt always cast a shadow on Earth because the moon is not always full. And neither was the Earth during Apollo 11. So your argument holds no water. Sorry. You can go on with all kinds of info that is not relevant to what we are seeing. It would be impossible for the Earth to create a spot like reflection on the ladder.

Further proof you have no idea what your are saying on ATS!!!!

Simply Pathetic Foosm!