Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

(re light from the Sun)


..Shakes head wearily and wanders off, wondering what ever happened to basic education...

weed, djw, why bother..?

jcgmed is an Apollo defender.
And he (assuming he is a he) has made several videos claiming to debunk videos of various hoax proponents. His series is called "Moon Dehoax"

Im curious how many of you Apollo defenders will defend this particular video of his:

Moon Dehoax: The Lost Stars




I dont know about the stars, but one of the photos he has presented

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Gots some issues.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/294d18e66d85.gif[/atsimg]

whats up with the number 31 ?
What does that number represent?

And where is the video camera?
Why does the wheel look funky, like its doing some kind of gangster lean?

Well you know what.
Lets take a closer look and compare the rover with a rover from another photo of the same mission.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

so we get something like this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2f8e36e70e04.gif[/atsimg]

Now...

Now...



Im just speechless.
If this isn't evidence of blatant fakery I dont know what is.
Im just going to highlight the obvious blaring discrepancies between the two photos.
Now I tried to match the size of the rovers relatively close.
So its a little easier to play a little game


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2fc59908c06c.gif[/atsimg]
files.abovetopsecret.com...

The first thing you will notice, at least I noticed, is the size of the antenna.
In one photo its larger and higher than the other (see blue lines)

Then it seems like the astronaut is too large in comparison.

Then you got missing items.
Starting with the video camera I mentioned earlier.
The white box on the back of the Rover.
The panel

Then you got differences in thickness of Rover parts between the two photos.
For example the pole attached the antenna.

And whats up with the right front wheel? In one photo is seems to extend too far.

I also wanted to highlight with the blue box the reflection on the wheel cover in both photos.
They look very similar yet the shadows between the two pictures go different directions.

Those are some of the things that just stand out.
Im pretty sure now that the method of fakery they used with the photos
was to work with miniatures.

Originally posted by CHRLZ
(re light from the Sun)


..Shakes head wearily and wanders off, wondering what ever happened to basic education...

weed, djw, why bother..?

One word..
Rude....

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by CHRLZ
(re light from the Sun)
..Shakes head wearily and wanders off, wondering what ever happened to basic education...

weed, djw, why bother..?

One word..
Rude....

1. 'Rude' isn't a very good answer to my question "why bother"?

2. Your contribution on this topic was:

Are you saying, given the sun is in the same relative position, the light on the Moon will be identical to light on Earth?

Do you seriously not know the answer to that question? Let me ask a similar one:
Could they breathe without assistance in space or on the Moon?
Could someone breathe without assistance at very high altitude, say 40,000ft?
How much different is the light from the Sun at, say 40,000ft?
The answer to those questions is related, has been covered before in the thread, and is, frankly, even below the usual Apollo denial standard. Next, I'm guessing it will be back to the "how could they/the cameras survive in that heat..?" routine, showing that your average denier cannot possibly grasp the difference between what happens in air, versus a vacuum. It just shows the ridiculous circles that foo goes in, either because of poor memory, or trolling, or perhaps this is just his 15 minutes of 'fame'...

If you have some useful point to make, rather than just trolling and supporting foo for the fun of it (which I find incomprehensible too, but there you go), then please make that point.

I don't walk away from serious, well-considered questions from someone that has a basic grasp of the concepts being discussed, or has at least taken a little time to properly investigate the topics at hand.

I see little sign of that here.

reply to post by CHRLZ

1. 'Rude' isn't a very good answer to my question "why bother"?

What question would that be as I didn't see one..
All I saw was a derogatory off topic comment.

If you think my question, which was merely directed at weedwhackers comment, was silly then best you simply say nothing rather that posting a childish insult..

I'm not trolling for anyone CHRLZ..
About time you paid some respect to people that merely ask questions..
If you can't act civil then I suggest you seek help with your problem..

Originally posted by FoosM
And where is the video camera?

Right on the front the of the rover, same as in your comparison picture (although it is rotated to the left):

Originally posted by FoosM
Why does the wheel look funky, like its doing some kind of gangster lean?

Sorry, I don't see any "gangster lean." You know that the rover used 4-wheel steering, right? So when turning to the right, the front of the front wheels angle to the right and the front of the back wheels angle to the left.

Originally posted by FoosM
Im just speechless.
If this isn't evidence of blatant fakery I dont know what is.

I think we can all agree with that statement.

Originally posted by FoosM
Then you got missing items.
Starting with the video camera I mentioned earlier.

The camera is right there, as posted above.

Originally posted by FoosM
The white box on the back of the Rover.

You mean the removable sample collection bag?

I really don't understand why people have such poor 3D visualization skills these days, what with 3D video games and all.

reply to post by FoosM

So? You can spin it all kinds of ways DJ (ahhh now I know why your handle is DJ ), but Windley was still wrong.

Why? Be specific. A few pages ago you implied that I was a liar because I pointed out that you always agree with Jarrah and never acknowledge his mistakes. Well? All you've done is claim that Windley and I are wrong. Why? Because we disagree with Jarrah?

How about this randomly selected Jarrah post:

3) "We're going to find out that if we use an identical camera,
loaded with identical film we wont get stars" The only problem is, as
I said above, you are not using an identical environment. You were
taking star photographs in an atmosphere, where light is easily
absorbed and scattered in all directions by molecules in the
atmosphere: no wonder you didn't get stars!

Yahoo again.

Remember what we've learned about exposure? Why can't we see any stars in that picture of the Moon I will refrain, out of courtesy, from posting? It has nothing to do with the atmosphere, does it? After all, you can take pictures of the stars from the Earth's surface, can't you, despite the presence of an atmosphere? You just have to set the exposure correctly. Jarrah seems oblivious to this simple fact.

reply to post by nataylor

Sorry, I don't see any "gangster lean." You know that the rover used 4-wheel steering, right? So when turning to the right, the front of the front wheels angle to the right and the front of the back wheels angle to the left.

It also appears that the wheels move but the Mud Gaurd is fixed..
That accounts for the odd look IMO..

Originally posted by backinblack
It also appears that the wheels move but the Mud Gaurd is fixed..
That accounts for the odd look IMO..

No, the wheel covers move with the wheels. I don't see anything that looks odd about it. It was just parked while making a right turn.

Originally posted by backinblack
What question would that be as I didn't see one..

No, obviously not, and you didn't see any in the second post either, it seems?

If you think my question, which was merely directed at weedwhackers comment, was silly then best you simply say nothing rather that posting a childish insult..

Righto then - consider it done. You said it. - and then re-inforced it by NOT answering or even acknowledging my questions.

About time you paid some respect to people that merely ask questions..

When they listen to the answers and answer questions pointed at them, and actually bother to think things through, I shall indeed pay respect.

Will that be happening anytime soon?

I suggest you seek help with your problem..

Nice. Taking that high ground again, bib?

And I see you immediately jumped on board about the LRV looking 'odd'. So, that 'oddness' would be based on what prior knowledge of yours?


I'm so glad there's no trolling happening here.

reply to post by CHRLZ


Honestly mate, I thought you were reasonable..
Obviously I was wrong..

You are the troll..
Attacking anyone, useing any BS means, if they don't agree with your stance..

Kinda sad really..
I could argue the rest of your post but in truth, I can't be bothered..
You go on your merry way thinking you are smarter than me..

Originally posted by CHRLZ
(re light from the Sun)


..Shakes head wearily and wanders off, wondering what ever happened to basic education...

weed, djw, why bother..?

Actually I changed my mind..
Here's the post..
NOW, please point out the question...

Or was it mere trolling???

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by CHRLZ
(re light from the Sun)
..Shakes head wearily and wanders off, wondering what ever happened to basic education...
weed, djw, why bother..?

Actually I changed my mind..

It's your prerogative, but if you do it too often...

[There's] the post..
NOW, please point out the question...

It's the bit just before the question mark. Can't find it? - here, I'll bold it for you:

weed, djw, why bother..?

First thing you will note - it wasn't directed at you but as it is a public forum, you are very welcome to answer. Here, I'll even give you a couple of suggested answers, depending on which side of the fence you are sitting on today..

A1 - You guys should bother because I (bib) genuinely don't know what light does differently in a vacuum to an atmosphere, and if there are any other effects that I should be aware of.

or
A2 - I agree, this thread is getting ridiculous - this light in a vacuum stuff was covered ages ago.

Which would you prefer? Or do you have another? Anyway, let's make this worthwhile. If your preferred answer is A2, then I'm glad you agree.

If it is A1, then here's the stuff you should have read earlier in the thread:
In a vacuum, light doesn't behave *much* differently, but there are the following considerations:

1. The presence of an atmosphere scatters some light (hence our blue sky). Not a great deal is lost (only about 10-15% at earth sea level, which is bugger-all when talking about exposures and seeing stars). In regard to general viewing/photography, it had very little effect except for two biggies:

1.a. no blue sky, despite it being broad bright sunlit daylight (that's why the cameras were adjusted to daylight exposures, and why you cannot possibly see stars in the images..)

1.b. no haze/fog/smog/dust, so *distant* objects were not 'hazy' as they are on earth. Hence the astronauts having problems estimating distances, hills looking much closer than they were, etc.

2. The lunar surface is 'backwardly reflective' due to its composition. The effect is called heiligenschein, and can be seen here on earth in dewy grass, and when flying above clouds. If you look at your shadow in those you will find it has a bright halo effect. The light is NOT scattered evenly by the lunar regolith, but more comes back directionally toward the source - this fact helped in some images to provide useful fill-lighting in shadows. (Photographers use this effect when shooting at the beach or in snow - you generally don't need reflectors in those situations)

Other than that, and the fact that the Hasselblad cameras used wide angle lenses and a reseau plate that caused excessive flaring at times, there was no significant difference...

There.. you see how information can be provided? Google what I have explained, and you'll see it is all true - if you dispute anything, feel free...

But wait a second...

while you are Googling, you will probably find yourself confronted with links to this flaming thread, going back a couple hundred pages. I get mighty sick of repeating myself, because some people are so flippin lazy, and unwilling to do a bit of work, or even check this very thread, before asking questions.

Or was it mere trolling???

Good question. Let the audience decide, I say.

reply to post by CHRLZ


I'll change my mind as often as you come up with stupid posts..
So expect it often..

The rest of your post?

Again mere troll speak..

I'm not pro any side of this debate but your ridiculous posts leave me questioning your agenda here..
Do you wish to debate facts or merely insult anyone that disagrees with you for NO reason?

reply to post by CHRLZ

1. The presence of an atmosphere scatters some light (hence our blue sky). Not a great deal is lost (only about 10-15% at earth sea level, which is bugger-all when talking about exposures and seeing stars). In regard to general viewing/photography, it had very little effect except for two biggies:

Now see how you are misleading?
You are quoting an average based on all conditions..

The moon landings were all arranged so the sun would be low..
Now how about telling us the loss of light when the sun is low on earth?
You know, the light reflecting of the atmosphere etc...

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
And where is the video camera?

Right on the front the of the rover, same as in your comparison picture (although it is rotated to the left):

Originally posted by FoosM

Then you got missing items.
Starting with the video camera I mentioned earlier.

The camera is right there, as posted above.

I really don't understand why people have such poor 3D visualization skills these days, what with 3D video games and all.

You can say that again, how many games do you play?

Im not talking about the camera you are pointing to
Here let me make it easier:



Where is "C" ?
Your arrow is pointing to "B" !
My circle was referring to the missing "C"

Where is the this camera that is covered in GOLD:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1ddba6792372.gif[/atsimg]

I called it a "video" camera, not a "film" camera

And I do actually know where they placed it in the photo.
Or I assume its where they placed it.
But that placement is off compared to the photo Im comparing to.

[[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1ddba6792372.gif[/atsimg]

I see the rovers tracks but where do they go?

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by FoosM
The white box on the back of the Rover.

You mean the removable sample collection bag?

Yeah, where is it, or where are they?
And how many bags did the rover carry?
What did they do, collect rocks and leave them at the stations in the bags?
Are they hanging off the astronauts?

But, is that all you got ?
Those are the issues you want to address?
Not to oversized astronaut?
Or oversized antenna?
The number 31?

Wait, there was one thing you did mention

Sorry, I don't see any "gangster lean." You know that the rover used 4-wheel steering, right? So when turning to the right, the front of the front wheels angle to the right and the front of the back wheels angle to the left.

Yeah except both back wheels are not turned to the left. Only the one does.
The other, maybe.... slightly, but definitely not to the same degree as the other.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

1. The presence of an atmosphere scatters some light (hence our blue sky). Not a great deal is lost (only about 10-15% at earth sea level, which is bugger-all when talking about exposures and seeing stars). In regard to general viewing/photography, it had very little effect except for two biggies:

Now see how you are misleading?
You are quoting an average based on all conditions..

No misleading at all. It wasn't an average - I stated QUITE CLEARLY, that I was talking about at SEA LEVEL. Looking towards the horizon would OF COURSE involve more losses (gee, maybe that's why the Sun is often reddish at sunset, :duh.. And gee, if there was a fog/clouds/dust, you mightn't see the sun (or stars) at all. So do tell - how would an 'average' be useful? What would YOU suggest, and why?

The REASON I used that figure (which would have occurred to you if you thought before posting), was that all the stuff about atmospherics was mainly aimed at the star visibility issue, and the claim they would be much brighter - they aren't. And how does someone image the stars from earth, TYPICALLY? At near sea level, looking up, perhaps? Maybe even at night?

And that 10-15% gets far less as you go up a mountain...

Strangely, most times astronomers don't take their best images thru clouds or fog, or aiming their scope or camera very low to the horizon...

So... that 10-15% is highly applicable to the issue. And OF COURSE it can vary up to 100% depending on conditions, and down to 5% or less at high altitudes. I thought most people would not need that sort of explanation...

The moon landings were all arranged so the sun would be low..

Yes, well done. (All missions left before what would be ~10:30am on earth (that crude analogy is copyright chrLz)).

Now how about telling us the loss of light when the sun is low on earth?

Sure. I am here but to answer any question, no matter whether it has a point or not.....

1. When the sun is just below the horizon, the only light is that scattered into the pre-dawn sky. Not much.
On the Moon, it would then effectively be zero.

2. At 'noon' (meaning the moment it is closest to directly overhead) the light will be at it's brightest on both earth and moon, varying just by the 10-15% referred to earlier (see how that figure was a handy one to pick?)

But what about in-between? Well, it does get a little trickier. On earth, the varying amount of atmosphere the sun travels through due to its angle affects both the amount of light (there is a small additional variation due to the scattering effect) and the amount of heat (of course the heat is absorbed by the atmosphere).

On the airless Moon, it is *only* the angle that affects the light and heat transfer to any object, and of course that angle affects the shadows and the heiligenschein. The effect can be worked out by some sinusoidal calculations...

...but before we go there..

I've substantially answered your questions, despite the fact you refuse to answer mine. Now, do tell us where are you heading? Would you like to dispute anything? What mathematics would you like, and why should I bother going further?

If this is a dead end, I shall be even less impressed, so I hope there is some point to your requests.

So, remembering the thread subject, your point is.............................................?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

So? You can spin it all kinds of ways DJ (ahhh now I know why your handle is DJ ), but Windley was still wrong.

Why? Be specific. A few pages ago you implied that I was a liar because I pointed out that you always agree with Jarrah and never acknowledge his mistakes. Well? All you've done is claim that Windley and I are wrong. Why? Because we disagree with Jarrah?

How about this randomly selected Jarrah post:

3) "We're going to find out that if we use an identical camera,
loaded with identical film we wont get stars" The only problem is, as
I said above, you are not using an identical environment. You were
taking star photographs in an atmosphere, where light is easily
absorbed and scattered in all directions by molecules in the
atmosphere: no wonder you didn't get stars!

Yahoo again.

Remember what we've learned about exposure? Why can't we see any stars in that picture of the Moon I will refrain, out of courtesy, from posting? It has nothing to do with the atmosphere, does it? After all, you can take pictures of the stars from the Earth's surface, can't you, despite the presence of an atmosphere? You just have to set the exposure correctly. Jarrah seems oblivious to this simple fact.

DJ, can you take pictures of stars during a typical Earth day? No, not normally.
Can you take pictures of stars during a Moon day? Yes, with the right exposures.

Thats how I read JW's quote without looking into its context of the conversation.