Moon Landings

Sciences, Space Exploration, Cosmic Charts and Horoscpoes. Did Man really walk on the moon? Everything you need to know and more.

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Arbiter » Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:14 pm

Heiligenschein is a bright spot of light around the shadow of the observer's head, cast on dewy grass land.
The dew droplets on the grass act as lenses


Yes.. and the lunar soil contains what? Microscopic glass spheroids?

But you know that of course!

Face it.. there's nothing wrong with any of the 'back-lit' photo's on the Apollo missions. You don't deny light reflects back you're just arguing about the amount and you have no measure... NONE of what is required... to do that of course you would have to also recreate the settings of the Haselbload camera in your experiment... also what kind of wattage did you have for your light source? Anything like the power of the sun on the Moon? What's 7% of an incredibly bright light source?

Did your 'black table' 'experiment' include any lunar type regolith?

At least the asphelt experiment had a grey bobbly surface and a high powered light source!

Busted.
User avatar
Arbiter
On Parole
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby eric144 » Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:02 am

Arbiter wrote:
Heiligenschein is a bright spot of light around the shadow of the observer's head, cast on dewy grass land.
The dew droplets on the grass act as lenses


Yes.. and the lunar soil contains what? Microscopic glass spheroids?

But you know that of course!

Face it.. there's nothing wrong with any of the 'back-lit' photo's on the Apollo missions. You don't deny light reflects back you're just arguing about the amount and you have no measure... NONE of what is required... to do that of course you would have to also recreate the settings of the Haselbload camera in your experiment... also what kind of wattage did you have for your light source? Anything like the power of the sun on the Moon? What's 7% of an incredibly bright light source?

Did your 'black table' 'experiment' include any lunar type regolith?

At least the asphelt experiment had a grey bobbly surface and a high powered light source!

Busted.


That's childish especially when I had to tell you the standard geek answer. I clearly explained that the real expert on the television said it was Neil Armstrong and there is no doubt that the Campbell soup can is lit by the idiot taking the photograph. Does Asphalt have the properties of reflecting back preferentially - no ?

The point is that even if you believe Plait which I absolutely don't, there is no way to test this stuff scientifically.
User avatar
eric144
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:07 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Arbiter » Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:31 am

eric144 wrote:That's childish especially when I had to tell you the standard geek answer.


It's not childish and no you didn't.

Back lighting is a fact! The web sites I linked to demonstrate the principle perfectly.

The astronauts were back-lit.. it's a fact! You can not argue with that!

You are just arguing about the amount of back-lighting... you have no way of proving the reflective regolith on the moon's surface doesn't reflect enough for those photo's.. I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim.. the photo's themselves are proof enough.. you are making the extraordinary claim and you have no proof.

If you were Neil Armstrong standing in the shadow of the lander and you looked in the opposite direction of the sun... would you see darkness?

Certainly not! Because the light is being reflected backwards towards the lunar lander. The lundar landscape would appear brialliantly lit.. it was! That light is what lights up objects in shadow on the moon.

Is there a singe hoax believer prepraed to admit they were wrong? is there one prepared to admit they have changed their position and will admit that back lighting is a reality regardless of intensity?
User avatar
Arbiter
On Parole
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby eric144 » Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:50 am

Arbiter wrote:
eric144 wrote:That's childish especially when I had to tell you the standard geek answer.


It's not childish and no you didn't.

Back lighting is a fact! The web sites I linked to demonstrate the principle perfectly.

The astronauts were back-lit.. it's a fact! You can not argue with that!

You are just arguing about the amount of back-lighting... you have no way of proving the reflective regolith on the moon's surface doesn't reflect enough for those photo's.. I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim.. the photo's themselves are proof enough.. you are making the extraordinary claim and you have no proof.

If you were Neil Armstrong standing in the shadow of the lander and you looked in the opposite direction of the sun... would you see darkness?

Certainly not! Because the light is being reflected backwards towards the lunar lander. The lundar landscape would appear brialliantly lit.. it was! That light is what lights up objects in shadow on the moon.

Is there a singe hoax believer prepraed to admit they were wrong? is there one prepared to admit they have changed their position and will admit that back lighting is a reality regardless of intensity?



I'm replying to this immediately because it is so easy. The clever man on the television says you are wrong and the clever man employed by NASA (Jay Windley) to debunk the conspiracies also says you are wrong.

http://www.clavius.org/bootspot.html

The fact that I have to show you where to find the debunking information show that you are a very poor geek indeed.

All you have to do is try an experiment of your own with an object sitting on a 7% reflective surface (black)

Here is a photograph on the moon.

Why isn't the side of the lunar module away from the sun lit up ?

http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5872.jpg

and why does the light fade off into the distance ?
User avatar
eric144
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:07 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Arbiter » Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:17 am

eric144 wrote:All you have to do is try an experiment of your own with an object sitting on a 7% reflective surface (black)


Using what candlepower light source?
Using what exposure setting on my camera?
Flat surface or uneven?
Using what kind of black surface - shall I use microscopic glass spherules?
Shall I have a miniture figure in white included in the experiment?

The principle of backlighting has been demonstrated to you in the web sites I linked to, you even accept it. You are merely arguing about the amount of light... so.. when Neil Armstrong looked at the surface of the Moone with his back to the sun.. did he see darkness or a brightly lit landscape? Where did that light come from?

The Clavius website you linked to actually is backing up what I'm saying so I don't know why you say it isn't.

As for the other photo... do you know the exposure setting? Do you know if any light balancing was done when developing the picture? What does it prove? Does it prove the pictures are fake? How?
User avatar
Arbiter
On Parole
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby eric144 » Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:30 am

Arbiter wrote:
eric144 wrote:All you have to do is try an experiment of your own with an object sitting on a 7% reflective surface (black)


Using what candlepower light source?
Using what exposure setting on my camera?
Flat surface or uneven?
Using what kind of black surface - shall I use microscopic glass spherules?
Shall I have a miniture figure in white included in the experiment?

The principle of backlighting has been demonstrated to you in the web sites I linked to, you even accept it. You are merely arguing about the amount of light... so.. when Neil Armstrong looked at the surface of the Moone with his back to the sun.. did he see darkness or a brightly lit landscape? Where did that light come from?

The Clavius website you linked to actually is backing up what I'm saying so I don't know why you say it isn't.

As for the other photo... do you know the exposure setting? Do you know if any light balancing was done when developing the picture? What does it prove? Does it prove the pictures are fake? How?


All I'm saying is that the photograph and many others show that your position, namely the idea of of light being reflected back from the surface preferentially in one direction as the reason for Aldrin being lit is a lot of silly nonsense.

Tell me why the light fades off to the distance in the photo ?


This photograph shows that the landscape is indeed lit but that objects in shadow are completely black.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histo ... 8-7096.jpg

Objects down sun are lit on earth mainly due to atmospheric scattering.
User avatar
eric144
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:07 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Arbiter » Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:25 am

eric144 wrote:Tell me why the light fades off to the distance in the photo ?


The hasselblad cameras had manual exposure settings - three at least - "up sun", "down sun" and "cross sun"... the picture looks under exposed to me - possibly a wrong setting - the pictures were also adjusted/balanced when they were developed.. do you know the process?

Did you take that into account in your 'black table experiment'?
User avatar
Arbiter
On Parole
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Arbiter » Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:28 am

Objects down sun are lit on earth mainly due to atmospheric scattering.


Lunar regolith also has interesting light scatter properties.

It's the glass spherules... did you consider that in your 'black table' experiment?
User avatar
Arbiter
On Parole
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Arbiter » Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:06 am

Spot the difference...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aldrin_Apollo_11.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AS11-40-5903HR.jpg

It's the same photo.

What can have happened here?

Perhaps one is under developed?
User avatar
Arbiter
On Parole
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby eric144 » Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:19 pm

Do we agree that the idea of of light being reflected back from the surface preferentially in one direction as the reason for Aldrin being lit is a lot of silly nonsense then ? It's clear that the side of the lunar module away from the sun is in darkness.

As for over exposure, how can exactly the same photograph be exposed differently. NASA themselves have put three different versions of the Aldrin spotlight photo on their website because it was altered in 2001 then in 2003. Makes me feel suspicious they are hiding something.

Let me explain my position here. I am not saying the moon landing was a hoax merely that the debunkers don't have a clue what they're talking about and that even NASA professionals like Phil Plait often write nonsense. I debunk the debunkers. Did you hear the radio programme where a comedian ripped Plait to pieces ?
User avatar
eric144
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:07 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Arbiter » Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:36 pm

eric144 wrote:Do we agree that the idea of of light being reflected back from the surface preferentially in one direction as the reason for Aldrin being lit is a lot of silly nonsense then ?


Did you ignore everything I said? Regolith? Glass spherules?

It's clear that the side of the lunar module away from the sun is in darkness.


Exposure setting is..? Developing setting is...? Enhanced light balance setting is...?

As for over exposure, how can exactly the same photograph be exposed differently. NASA themselves have put three different versions of the Aldrin spotlight photo on their website because it was altered in 2001 then in 2003.


It's the same photo with different balance adjustments..? You think the dark one is the correct one? Why?

Makes me feel suspicious they are hiding something.


What exactly?

Let me explain my position here. I am not saying the moon landing was a hoax merely that the debunkers don't have a clue what they're talking about and that even NASA professionals like Phil Plait often write nonsense.


It's not nonsense.. the websites are great examples of explaining back lighting... back lighting is a fact in shadow on the mooon.

Do you understand photography and the choices faced in the production of pictures?
User avatar
Arbiter
On Parole
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby eric144 » Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:56 pm

Arbiter wrote:
eric144 wrote:Do we agree that the idea of of light being reflected back from the surface preferentially in one direction as the reason for Aldrin being lit is a lot of silly nonsense then ?


Did you ignore everything I said? Regolith? Glass spherules?

It's clear that the side of the lunar module away from the sun is in darkness.


Exposure setting is..? Developing setting is...? Enhanced light balance setting is...?

As for over exposure, how can exactly the same photograph be exposed differently. NASA themselves have put three different versions of the Aldrin spotlight photo on their website because it was altered in 2001 then in 2003.


It's the same photo with different balance adjustments..? You think the dark one is the correct one? Why?

Makes me feel suspicious they are hiding something.


What exactly?

Let me explain my position here. I am not saying the moon landing was a hoax merely that the debunkers don't have a clue what they're talking about and that even NASA professionals like Phil Plait often write nonsense.


It's not nonsense.. the websites are great examples of explaining back lighting... back lighting is a fact in shadow on the mooon.

Do you understand photography and the choices faced in the production of pictures?


What I mean in very simple terms is that you don't have the education or intelligence to understand third year school science never mind the optical properties of glass spherules or anything else that relates to this discussion. All you are doing is parroting websites I provided you with. You can't argue because you are completely and utterly clueless except to say that all the photographs have the wrong exposure which is silly because the astronauts couldn't adjust the cameras on the moon's surface due to their pressurised suits. The cameras had preset positions for exposure.

As none of the photographs in question seem massively over or under exposed we can reasonably assume that isn't the reason for the fact that in one Aldrin is lit up like a car in the middle of a motorway and in the other there is no sign whatsoever of backlight caused by the lunar regolith.

It's the same photo with different balance adjustments..? You think the dark one is the correct one? Why?


Because it is the one that has appeared in a myriad of places since 1969, it is also the first version to appear on the NASA website.
User avatar
eric144
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:07 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby eric144 » Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:12 am

If you are going to use expert witnesses in a discussion you must ensure they have no material connection to eiher side of the debate. In this case, both Plait and Windley have links to NASA (Plait works at NASA Goddard).
User avatar
eric144
Been Cautioned
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:07 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Arbiter » Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:21 am

eric144 wrote:What I mean in very simple terms is that you don't have the education or intelligence to understand third year school science never mind the optical properties of glass spherules or anything else that relates to this discussion.


Ad hominem.

No need for that.

refute what I say.. don't attack me or my perceived intelligence.

Are you saying I'm wrong about the light scattering properties of lunar regolith?

All you are doing is parroting websites I provided you with. You can't argue because you are completely and utterly clueless except to say that all the photographs have the wrong exposure which is silly because the astronauts couldn't adjust the cameras on the moon's surface due to their pressurised suits. The cameras had preset positions for exposure.


Refute what I said then... the Hasselblad cameras had a least three manual exposure settings... "up sun", "down sun" and "cross sun".. which ones where used and what effect did that have on the pictures you have a problem with. Do you know anything about these cameras?

Also... when faced with producing pictures from the source material what choices are there with regards to colour composition and white light/contrast values? Could the same picture produce different results? Do you know the choices made by the people who have produced Apollo pictures over the years? Do you actually think that ANY photograph represents exactly the scene at the time? Do you understand photography?

Code: Select all
As none of the photographs in question seem massively over or under exposed we can reasonably assume that isn't the reason for the fact that in one Aldrin is lit up like a car in the middle of a motorway and in the other there is no sign whatsoever of backlight caused by the lunar regolith.


See above.

It's the same photo with different balance adjustments..? You think the dark one is the correct one? Why?


Because it is the one that has appeared in a myriad of places since 1969, it is also the first version to appear on the NASA website.


Based on a choice by the photo producers at the time.. it wasn't an issue.. they could have made other choices about light colour and contrast.

Basically you have to tell us this.... do YOU think it is impossible for Astronauts on the moon to have produced those pictures? If so then tell us why.
User avatar
Arbiter
On Parole
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: Moon Landings

Postby Arbiter » Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:21 am

eric144 wrote:If you are going to use expert witnesses in a discussion you must ensure they have no material connection to eiher side of the debate. In this case, both Plait and Windley have links to NASA (Plait works at NASA Goddard).


Why?

Tell us why they are wrong instead.
User avatar
Arbiter
On Parole
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Sciences - Space, Moon Landings - Astronomy - Astrology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
cron