Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by Gibborium


Here you go...

EARTH:
So here we have the sun casting light as expected, or should I say the way i am used to seeing it. Light is dispersed equally over the entire visible surface that the sun can see.



MARS:
Another example of the sun dispersing light as expected when it is "daytime" where the sun is sending light.



Now we have the MOON:
Sun is in the photograph. WHY is the surface of the moon NOT covered in light, yet the space suits facing the sun are bright white? Shouldn't the entire surface be illuminated? Note the dark corners and trail off of light occurring not far from the men on the surface.




This to me is very interesting....and yes, even a tad suspicious.

IroncladFT
Now we have the MOON:
Sun is in the photograph. WHY is the surface of the moon NOT covered in light, yet the space suits facing the sun are bright white? Shouldn't the entire surface be illuminated? Note the dark corners and trail off of light occurring not far from the men on the surface.

This to me is very interesting....and yes, even a tad suspicious.

I'm thinking it may have something to do with the Sun being relatively low in the sky.

The low sun angle would strike a vertical surfaces (such as the astronaut) more directly than it would the mostly horizontal surfaces of the ground. Plus, the little mounds and ruts and general graininess of the ground are creating more shadows across that ground. In addition, the albedo of the white spacesuit is greater than the albedo of the grey lunar soil.




Exposure settings may also have something to do with it, but that would not explain why the astronaut is brighter than the ground. However, It may explain why the ground and the shade side of the astronaut look a bit underexposed. The photographer-astronauts seemed to have been working with two different exposure issues here: low sun angle across the horizontal surface of the moon, but direct sunlight on the vertical surfaces of the astronaut and the LM.

The Hasselblad cameras used by the astronauts had manual exposure settings, and the astronauts used a guide printed on the film magazines to help them decide what exposure setting to use for a particular scene, based on the location of the Sun, whether the scene was in sun or shadow, etc.



Image Source - The Apollo 11 Hasselblad Cameras

Considering that the Sun is in front of the astronaut, he probably had the exposure setting set very low, which let less light into the camera, which in turn may have resulted in the ground looking a little underexposed.

Different exposure settings can make for very different photographic results of the very same scene:

The astronaut is brighter tgan the lunar surface because his suit is very bright. He'll also be picking up light reflected back from the lunar surface.

All of the apollo missions landed in lunar morning with the sun low in the sky to avoid problems from overheating and with a side benefit of bwing able to pick out hazards during landing.

Changing light cconditions during longer missions can be seen quite easily as the sun rises in the sky.

reply to post by IroncladFT


Those comparison photos aren't very fair, because the sun is only in the frame on one of them! That photo of the moon has the sun shining directly into the camera, which will have two effects:

1) the exposure must be very short because otherwise the brightness of the sun would wash out the whole frame

2) if you are shooting into a low sun, then you are seeing the shadowed side of every little lump and bump on the surface. If the astronaut turned around through 180 degrees then the surface would appear much brighter, because then he would be seeing the sunlit side of every bump.

Look at the picture on this page. Notice how the surface appears brightest in the area around the astronaut's shadow. That's because if you are looking directly away from the sun then all the little shadows on the surface are hidden by the little objects, lumps and bumps etc that are casting them.

Also, remember that as others have said, the albedo of the moon is rather low. We think of it as being bright white because that is how it looks against the dark sky, but it is actually only about as "bright" as a grey asphalt car park.

Moon dust is actually rather dark grey, as you can see in photos of the astronauts' suits when they got covered in it. So it's no surprise that a white space suit looks much brighter than the surface of the moon when it is sunlit.

reply to post by IroncladFT


Soylent Green Is People, onebigmonkey, and Rob48, all gave good explanations of the comparisons for your photographs. I would like to add that both Earth and Mars have atmospheres. The affect of an atmosphere will cause distant things to become lighter and harder to see. This is one of the things we automatically sense on Earth and helps us to determine distance. The Moon has no atmosphere to interfere with distance and allows things that are far away to seem crisp and clear which causes photos from the Moon to look a bit odd. If I recall correctly, on one Moon landing there is some dialogue about this very thing. Also, in your pictures, the Earth and Mars both seem to have the Sun overhead while the Moon picture the Sun is low and the camera is almost point directly into the Sun. And, the sky on the Moon is black which creates a dark backdrop unlike the lighted sky (due to the atmosphere) of the Earth and Mars.

So let's recap what has been shown with the comparison of the pictures you posted

1 Low Sun angle on the Moon
2 Looking almost directly into the Sun in the Moon photo
3 Reflection of the Sun away from the photographer creating shadows from the uneven terrain
4 Reflection on the is greater due to them being white and having a greater albedo than the Moon surface
5 Exposure variables in each picture
6 Reflection of the Moon's surface lights up the shadow side of the astronauts because of the suits high albedo
7 Not shown, but put forth, the differing Sun angles in the longer missions create variance in the angle of reflection on the Moon
8 Atmosphere does have an affect in the appearance of distance
9 Black sky (Moon) verses reflective skies (Earth and Mars)

I hope this helps clarify the differences in your photos.

It does help..and thank you all for your input. Like I said, I was genuinely asking because I was curious/suspicious. My brain tolls me a moon with no atmosphere should be lit up bright as hell since there is NOTHING in the way of the suns rays. The amount of light on the space suit vs the ground is what really made me question it. I looked up many other moon pics with the sun in various positions and it varied, so I see what all of you are saying.

Glad to be of service

By way of illustration (and also because it is very cool), here is something I just did with images taken by Apollo 15's metric mapping camera that I plotted in google moon. It shows how the terminator moves over the course of the mission.



The positions of the terminator matches the timings recorded in the mission transcripts.

IroncladFT
My brain tolls me a moon with no atmosphere should be lit up bright as hell since there is NOTHING in the way of the suns rays.

This bit is also important. The reason we are lit up so brightly during the day is precisely because of the atmosphere in the way, thanks to a feature known as Rayleigh scattering. Where there is no atmosphere all you see is the reflected light from any surfaces, not light scattered by molecules in an atmosphere. We have an intuitive belief about what we think we should see on the moon because of our experiences on our home planet. The conditions on Earth, however, are very different in terms of how light behaves, distances to the horizon and surface curvature.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

This is also what makes some people think that the moon photos were taken in a studio because the horizon "looks so close". The horizon on the moon is closer than on Earth, of course, because it is so much smaller, but lots of the photos taken by astronauts on the moon do show features many miles away.

Because there is no air to add haze to distant views, which is a big
visual cue to distance here on Earth, those distant mountains look crystal clear and close up. Added to this, there are no easy reference points for size such as trees. This makes it very hard, in a still photo, to distinguish between a small hillock nearby and a huge mountain miles away.

For example look at this photo: www.hq.nasa.gov...

See the prominent dark outcrop on the hill just above and to the right of the centre crosshair (about halfway to the next crosshair to the right)? That is 18km away from where Cernan was standing when he took the photo, yet it looks like a shortish walk across the valley.

That same lack of reference points also makes it hard to tell the viewing distance of shots of the surface from orbit. If given a random image it is often hard to tell whether you are looking at an area a few km across or a few hundred km across. There are craters of all sizes, so whatever zoom level you're at you tend to see the same kind of view. It's almost like a fractal landscape.

choos


from what i can see after calculating the mythbusters jump.. the ropes have lengthened the mythbusters jump a fair bit..

i got a total airtime of 0.934 seconds for the mythbusters..

which gives them falling from their apex in 0.467 seconds.. if there were no ropes a fall of 0.467 will equate to a height of 1.07m.. the mythbusters did not jump 1.07m at most they jump maybe 50cm..

its difficult to compare john youngs jump at 2.46x and the mythbusters at 1x speeds since the ropes in the mythbusters skews their airtime..

thats what you are seeing, originally i thought the height was why it was skewed but its not, its the ropes on the mythbusters skewing their jump up.

Most people just change a claim willy-nilly, and hope to hell nobody notices. At least you crafted a nice little story and hope I buy it..

I don't buy it, sorry to say.

The calculations didn't work out so well, did they?

Of course not.

You post calculations up the ying-yang, but you can't post that one.

Make up an excuse for it, then!

......

You suddenly realize something about the Mythbusters jump you never saw in the umpteen times before!



The Mythbusters rope is wonky, and so it can't be used anymore.

Good one, really.

choos
so now that we have come full circle again.. if they were able to get john youngs jump to be the perfect height and perfect time, how did they do the same for the dust??

Dust again?

Are you kidding?

turbonium1

Most people just change a claim willy-nilly, and hope to hell nobody notices. At least you crafted a nice little story and hope I buy it..

I don't buy it, sorry to say.

The calculations didn't work out so well, did they?

Of course not.

You post calculations up the ying-yang, but you can't post that one.

Make up an excuse for it, then!

......

You suddenly realize something about the Mythbusters jump you never saw in the umpteen times before!



The Mythbusters rope is wonky, and so it can't be used anymore.

Good one, really.

oh you dont believe do you?? fine ill get screen shots of it apparently you are too good to check it yourself..



frame 10 time of 0.333
frame 24 time of 0.800
frame 38 time of 1.267

total air time 0.934seconds
fall from apex time 0.467

estimated height from if falling for 0.467seconds is 1.07m

does it look like the mythbusters jumped 1.07m?? no it doesnt

Dust again?

Are you kidding?

yes dust again.. i realise you would like to neglect the dust since you cant control its rate of fall and everything but unfortunately for you its there and cannot be ignored..

it is the largest flaw in JW's 1.5x speed slow down, and you realise this.. ignoring it wont make it go away..

so how about it?? why is it that no physicist in the entire world of any nationality has not said that the dust does not fall/behave according to lunar gravity??

choos

why is it that no physicist in the entire world of any nationality has not said that the dust does not fall/behave according to lunar gravity??

That's easy...

The entire "they never went to the moon" hoax theory is a load of bollox!

reply to post by choos


Oh dont worry i, sure they had harnesses on the dust as well. Cant believe you two are still arguing over this its obvious the myth busters jusp did not in any way approximate a jump on the moon. It looks clumsy especially when you see Jamie walk around in his space suit trust me he noticed the difference in gravity.In fact having worn one myself ill tell you in earths gravity there very bulky and restrictive.

reply to post by dragonridr

The full EVA suit worn by the Apollo astronauts weighs about 200lb on Earth doesn't it?

Astronauts contradict each other:



Should Apollo 13 have cooked the astronauts or put them into a deep freeze?

reply to post by FoosM

Should Apollo 13 have cooked the astronauts or put them into a deep freeze?

Both. Crispy on one side, frozen on the other. Experiment with a microwave if your mother will let you.

DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Should Apollo 13 have cooked the astronauts or put them into a deep freeze?

Both. Crispy on one side, frozen on the other. Experiment with a microwave if your mother will let you.

Yeah. I'd like to hear Alan Bean's detailed explanation, because his hypothetical scenario seems to be talking about an LM that is totally in the Sun without having any parts in the shade radiating the heat back out -- but we know that wasn't the case with the real scenario of Apollo 13.

Alan Bean has never indicated that he thought Apollo 13 was fake, and he in fact has captured the plight of Apollo 13 in his famous artwork.

DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Should Apollo 13 have cooked the astronauts or put them into a deep freeze?

Both. Crispy on one side, frozen on the other. Experiment with a microwave if your mother will let you.

I believe we should believe you DJ over an actual real life Apollo astronaut?

reply to post by FoosM


I went and read your debates on the old "Aussie Whips.." thread (link in your sig). Very impressive and I tend to side with you. It all seems so fabricated IMO. I'm not completely shut off to men walking on the moon but the more I dig into it; it becomes more clear. Especially the video of the astronauts in LEO but were claiming to being 130,000mi out using a window to portray an earth from near lunar orbit. I mean, WTF? Armstrong is even stating to be 130k out when it's totally obvious they're using trickery.

cestrup
reply to post by FoosM

 

I went and read your debates on the old "Aussie Whips.." thread (link in your sig). Very impressive and I tend to side with you. It all seems so fabricated IMO. I'm not completely shut off to men walking on the moon but the more I dig into it; it becomes more clear. Especially the video of the astronauts in LEO but were claiming to being 130,000mi out using a window to portray an earth from near lunar orbit. I mean, WTF? Armstrong is even stating to be 130k out when it's totally obvious they're using trickery.

That video gets it completely wrong on that one.

You can't get an entire Earth in shot from LEO - it's not possible. You have to be waaaaay out in space to do that. You can get a view of earth from geostationary orbit but as the following video (that I compiled from successive shots taken by Apollo 11 on the way to the moon) they clearly aren't in a stationary position above the same spot. The Earth actually gets smaller in each photo, but I stretched it to fit.



That shot of Earth is part of long sequence of Earth footage - only a small portion of which usually gets shown. It was broadcast live on TV to Earth and footage from those shots made the front page of many newspapers. What people claiming it was in LEO never bothered to research is that featured in the footage is a hurricane - Hurricane Bernice. It only existed in the formation for one day - the day they filmed it from space.

Here's a view from the video, the still photos taken at the same time, and a weather satellite view pf the storm.



If you're going to rely on that man's testimony, you need to bear in mind that he doesn't know what he's talking about and never uses all the evidence available, just the bits that suit his story.