Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: turbonium1

In what universe do you live where they only way to apply a force is through direct human contact? "If a flag waved without a touch, that would have proven it is on Earth" is probably one of the dumbest things I've ever seen you say . . . and that's quite the accomplishment. So static charge and/or kicked up dirt just don't exist on the moon or what?

Or the passing astronaut may have shook the ground as he walked, and that shaking transferred through the ground to the flagpole.

Why did you always claim the flags had only waved when touched, or moved, beforehand?

And why did you always claim no flags waved when not touched, or moved, beforehand?

Because you realized that flags can't wave on the moon, unless moved or touched first, which causes the flags to wave..

Your side challenged the hoax side 'See any flags waving completely untouched? Not a chance!'


You challenged our side to show a single flag waving without anyone nearby, to prove air caused it to wave...


We proved it, much later ...

An untouched flag waved without anyone nearby it.


Your argument was toast.

So you spew up another one... as usual.


Now the flags CAN wave on the moon, without being touched!!

Sad.

originally posted by: choos

it is a disturbance that compressed the surface causing it to be more reflective.. already explained to you..

and it is being compressed over a large area....... which has already been explained to you..
there is no physical change to each individual particle..which has also already been explained to you..

Basing your theory on nothing...


Compressing the surface?

I'd like to see examples of it - past, or present.

A compressed surface is due to a physical change. On the surface. A real feature of some sort. Not a mirage.

The reflections are randomly directed, in the compressed area, as the surface below this area is very uneven, and would be angling the sunlight hitting it....in all directions.

Get it?

originally posted by: choos

all that patch of lunar regolith is doing is reflect more sunlight directly into the camera..
all that patch of lake is doing is reflecting more sunlight directly into the camera..

the idea of comparing them is that depending on the viewing location both of those patch of bright spots changes does it not??? or you think that as long as the sun is somewhere in the sky that patch of lake will always appear white???????

The lake is a flat surface, not like the uneven surface we have here.

The lake isn't reflecting more sunlight because of one area being distinct from the rest of the lake. It is not a real feature of the lake surface, which we have. It is 'compressed', or whatever...right?

And the reflections would certainly be random, as I said.


How can it be an uneven surface, somehow reflecting the light in only this single direction?!? Get serious...

originally posted by: turbonium1

Basing your theory on nothing...


Compressing the surface?

I'd like to see examples of it - past, or present.

again, you make posts to prove you read but dont understand nor remember what anyone else writes.. you clearly have demonstrated, yet again, you have not read nor understood anything we have linked to you, proving, yet again, you prefer ignorance to truth.

but here is the same old picture showing that compressed regolith reflects more light.

A compressed surface is due to a physical change. On the surface. A real feature of some sort. Not a mirage.

a chance to the surface, not to the particle as you have been implying.

The reflections are randomly directed, in the compressed area, as the surface below this area is very uneven, and would be angling the sunlight hitting it....in all directions.

Get it?

no i dont get it, because you are talking gibberish..

a compressed area gives a more uniform surface area that reflects more light, a compressed area doesnt allow as much sunlight to penetrate as deep into the regolith therefore reflecting more light.

and again ill have to post this image since you dont understand:


see the compressed regolith from the bootprint.. it is brighter than the surrounding very loose regolith.. do you know why the regolith around the bootprints is darker than the regolith outside the red circle?? (ive asked you this before)

originally posted by: turbonium1

The lake is a flat surface, not like the uneven surface we have here.

the lunar regolith that was compressed by the LM engines is compressed than other untouched areas.. it will make the compressed area brighter..

but again, you arent understanding the purpose of this lake image.. what is the difference between this lake image and viewing the same lake from the bank with the sun behind you???? are you still going to claim that the water is white in that spot??

The lake isn't reflecting more sunlight because of one area being distinct from the rest of the lake. It is not a real feature of the lake surface, which we have. It is 'compressed', or whatever...right?

And the reflections would certainly be random, as I said.

you arent getting it, this lake example is about viewing angles!!
if you viewed this same image but with the sun behind you would you still see that white patch of water???
the same goes for the lunar regolith, if the sun was behind the astronaut would they still see glare off the surface of the moon??

How can it be an uneven surface, somehow reflecting the light in only this single direction?!? Get serious...

because this lake image is viewing with the sun in front.. if the sun was behind the viewer would that big bright patch still be visible??

originally posted by: CB328
and yes, experts have studied and found problems with Nasa pictures, etc.

yet you are unable to show us these NASA pictures, or show the actual qualifications of the "experts"....

a reply to: hellobruce

Indeed. The word 'anomaly' has taken on a talismanic shield of steel for the hoax and UFO crowd, conjuring up a world of shady operatives, secret backrooms and hordes of airbrushers. Invoking the 'Patronus Anomali" spell instantly condemns the photographer and photograph and protects it from more mundane explanations like film and developing flaws, lens flares and natural lighting.

Calling yourself an expert, fabricating a CV and inventing a secret NASA past (that NASA will, of course, deny) is a sure fire way of clickbaiting your way to an income and selling your book.

originally posted by: choos

but here is the same old picture showing that compressed regolith reflects more light.

And it is actually seen from the surface! Your Apollo surface image proved my point. Thanks

originally posted by: choos
a chance to the surface, not to the particle as you have been implying.

Seems that every time you talk about me "Implying" something, I know that this is something you made up....without a doubt.

It is your own argument that contends there was a physical change to the surface. Whether it is 'compressed', or 'a subtle and gradual change over the area', or whatever else your side comes up with....there must be a real, physical change to the surface' .

originally posted by: choos
no i dont get it, because you are talking gibberish..

a compressed area gives a more uniform surface area that reflects more light, a compressed area doesnt allow as much sunlight to penetrate as deep into the regolith therefore reflecting more light.

Talk about gibberish...

I said the surface is UNEVEN.

Whether the soil is compressed, or very loose, or anything in between...the actual terrain below that soil is UNEVEN.

Compressed soil that covers a small hill, and the area around the hill, will not reflect more sunlight in one direction. It will reflect in all directions, because the light is hitting the surface at all angles. Right?

I have shown you sources on the issue of reflections, on surfaces. This shows that you have completely ignored the scientific explanations given to you.

Reflection is when light bounces off an object. If the surface is smooth and shiny, like glass, water or polished metal, the light will reflect at the same angle as it hit the surface. This is called specular reflection.

This explains why your 'lake' comparison doesn't work...just in case you haven't yet grasped the problem.

You are comparing a smooth, flat, shiny surface - glass, water, or polished metal - to an UNEVEN surface.

Diffuse reflection is when light hits an object and reflects in lots of different directions. This happens when the surface is rough. Most of the things we see are because light from a source has reflected off it.

sciencelearn.org.nz...

There is diffuse reflection on the lunar surface, because it is uneven. Just like ground on the Earth is uneven.

Another source for you...


Reflection off of smooth surfaces such as mirrors or a calm body of water leads to a type of reflection known as specular reflection. Reflection off of rough surfaces such as clothing, paper, and the asphalt roadway leads to a type of reflection known as diffuse reflection.


Whether the surface is microscopically rough or smooth has a tremendous impact upon the subsequent reflection of a beam of light.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

From the above source...

In physics class, the behavior of light is often studied by observing its reflection off of plane (flat) mirrors. Mirrors are typically smooth surfaces, even at the microscopic levels. As such, they offer each individual ray of light the same surface orientation. But quite obviously, mirrors are not the only types of objects which light reflects off of. Most objects which reflect light are not smooth at the microscopic level. Your clothing, the walls of most rooms, most flooring, skin, and even paper are all rough when viewed at the microscopic level.

The lunar surface is rough, at the microscopic level, in case you don't know that yet.

'Compressing' the lunar soil may indeed make it reflect more light, because it is more smooth, flat, compacted.
But at the microscopic level, it is still rough. That is why we see it in your Apollo 'surface' image, and (supposedly) from lunar orbit.

Do you understand this now?

originally posted by: choos
and again ill have to post this image since you dont understand:

see the compressed regolith from the bootprint.. it is brighter than the surrounding very loose regolith.. do you know why the regolith around the bootprints is darker than the regolith outside the red circle?? (ive asked you this before)

Well, I've just finished explaining why it is brighter, and why it is seen from the surface, too


One more point - the area of 'compressed soil' you claim was created by the LM includes the footprints in your Apollo surface image, right? But you only mentioned the footprint is compressed soil. However, the area you said is compressed soil is not seen, is it?

The images from lunar orbit supposedly show a physical disturbance, which is all around the LM. They are referred to as Blast Zones, in papers. These are the specific features I am talking about here. Nothing else.

The surface images do not show any Blast Zones around the LM.

It does not matter whether or not these Blast Zones are more reflective than the undisturbed soil around it.

The Law of Reflection, which is taught in High School Physics classes, is very clear on this matter. The lunar soil will reflect sunlight in all directions, because it is a rough surface, at all times.

Think of your 'footprint' as a smaller-scale Blast Zone, if you wish. The principle is the very same.



I've shown you the sources, yet again. If this doesn't get through to you, then nothing will.

originally posted by: choos

the lunar regolith that was compressed by the LM engines is compressed than other untouched areas.. it will make the compressed area brighter..

but again, you arent understanding the purpose of this lake image.. what is the difference between this lake image and viewing the same lake from the bank with the sun behind you???? are you still going to claim that the water is white in that spot??

you arent getting it, this lake example is about viewing angles!!
if you viewed this same image but with the sun behind you would you still see that white patch of water???
the same goes for the lunar regolith, if the sun was behind the astronaut would they still see glare off the surface of the moon??

One more time, to make sure you get it right...

The lake has a smooth surface, at the microscopic level. If the lake is perfectly still, It will reflect all sunlight in the same direction. This is what is called specular reflection[/b].

The lunar surface has a rough surface, at the microscopic level. It will reflect sunlight in ALL directions. This is called diffuse reflection.


You now have no excuse for comparing a lake to the lunar surface.


But I'm sure you'll keep right on saying it, anyway..

edit on 10-12-2016 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: turbonium1

The moon has a flat surface at the microscopic level. That lake may look smooth but it was ripples and wavelets - it is not a glass surface.

Your fundamental problem is a lack of knowledge that you refuse to address despite the best efforts of everyone from whom you demand information.

originally posted by: turbonium1

'Compressing' the lunar soil may indeed make it reflect more light, because it is more smooth, flat, compacted.
But at the microscopic level, it is still rough. That is why we see it in your Apollo 'surface' image, and (supposedly) from lunar orbit.

its taken you far, far too long to admit this..

oh and BTW the LM engine is compressing the lunar regolith.

and for your information, rough surfaces can also be arranged so that overall it can reflect more light.
(eg. think of a suede cushion, run your hand one way and it becomes smooth and shiny, run a finger in the opposite direction and it makes a dark line, why?)

now, back to the bootprint image i keep posting:
why is the regolith around the bootprint darker than the bootprints itself? why is it darker than the surrounding regolith??
why do you keep avoiding explaining this darker patch of regolith?

originally posted by: turbonium1

One more time, to make sure you get it right...

The lake has a smooth surface, at the microscopic level. If the lake is perfectly still, It will reflect all sunlight in the same direction. This is what is called specular reflection[/b].

The lunar surface has a rough surface, at the microscopic level. It will reflect sunlight in ALL directions. This is called diffuse reflection.

You now have no excuse for comparing a lake to the lunar surface.

But I'm sure you'll keep right on saying it, anyway..

you still dont understand the point..

many times i have told you that the lake image is about VIEWING POSITION AND LIGHT SOURCE POSITION. change either one and the reflection changes.

both surfaces are reflecting sunlight.. both surfaces just so happen to be reflecting more sunlight to the camera than the surroundings. change the position of the camera AND/OR change the position of the sun and the reflection changes.

when was the Apollo lunar landings?? lunar morning or mid lunar day??
would the sun be higher in the sky during lunar morning or day?
what is the camera height above ground for surface images and the orbit image?

also why is the area around the bootprint darker than the bootprints itself?? why is it darker than the surrounding regolith?? has it got something to do with reflecting less light because it is loose kicked up regolith??

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

The moon has a flat surface at the microscopic level. That lake may look smooth but it was ripples and wavelets - it is not a glass surface.

You're seriously claiming that the lunar surface is flat....at the microscopic level?

You know the lunar surface is made up of soil, right?

Do you know about all the lunar soil samples we've already tested, here on Earth?


Have they ever claimed the soil to be flat, at the microscopic level?


If you think so, show me your evidence, please.....

a reply to: turbonium1

Please do us a favor and read upon the composition/geology of the moon before you begin spouting BS questions again:

Lular Soil
Geology of the Moon

The citations are on the bottom for any arguments on being able to edit the Wiki saying it's not to be trusted.

Your questions and arguments are below a 1st graders level; they have the ability to learn and think for themselves when they are wrong, you do not.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

One more time, to make sure you get it right...

The lake has a smooth surface, at the microscopic level. If the lake is perfectly still, It will reflect all sunlight in the same direction. This is what is called specular reflection[/b].

The lunar surface has a rough surface, at the microscopic level. It will reflect sunlight in ALL directions. This is called diffuse reflection.

You now have no excuse for comparing a lake to the lunar surface.

But I'm sure you'll keep right on saying it, anyway..

you still dont understand the point..

many times i have told you that the lake image is about VIEWING POSITION AND LIGHT SOURCE POSITION. change either one and the reflection changes.

both surfaces are reflecting sunlight.. both surfaces just so happen to be reflecting more sunlight to the camera than the surroundings. change the position of the camera AND/OR change the position of the sun and the reflection changes.

when was the Apollo lunar landings?? lunar morning or mid lunar day??
would the sun be higher in the sky during lunar morning or day?
what is the camera height above ground for surface images and the orbit image?

also why is the area around the bootprint darker than the bootprints itself?? why is it darker than the surrounding regolith?? has it got something to do with reflecting less light because it is loose kicked up regolith??

You're comparing water to soil, which is truly absurd.

Worse, I'd already cited sources that said water is TOTALLY UNLIKE soil!!


Water is a smooth surface, at the microscopic level.

Soil is not a smooth surface at the microscopic level.


They reflect sunlight in different ways, as we know...

Both of the surfaces are hit by sunlight, let's say...

Seeing the reflection, or not seeing it - point of view - is relevant to a smooth surface.

As the sources stated, a smooth surface reflects sunlight in one, same,, direction. Seeing the reflection depends on the angle of view, therefore.

Soil is not smooth, at the molecular level. It cannot be made into a smooth surface at the molecular level, either.



On your last argument, above...

A rough surface may indeed have more reflectance at certain areas, compared to elsewhere on that surface....sure...

You seem to believe that a footprint doesn't fit with my argument...because you're asking me how I could ever hope to explain it....is that correct?

Well, I've just explained it to you...once again.

You are confused about what I'm saying here, or just pretend that the problem doesn't exist..


I've told you to think of your shiny, reflective footprint as a tiny Blast Zone....

Let's compare them..

The footprint is more reflective than the area around it, yes?

The Blast Zone around the LM is also said to be more reflective than the area beyond it, as well.


So why do we see the footprint as more reflective, in surface images? After all, it is very smooth, and flat, right?

Aren't you claiming the footprints can even be seen in images taken from lunar orbit, as well?

Now why would we see these footprints from lunar orbit? Are the footprints more/less reflective than the surrounding surface, from lunar orbit? What is the reason, if not more/less reflectance?

A footprint is seen from the surface, many footprints are seen from lunar orbit, too.

Yet, the Blast Zone is not seen from the surface...it can only be seen from lunar orbit?


Nonsense.

a reply to: turbonium1

You have missed the point as usual. You are claiming that the lake in choos' picture is perfectly flat, hence it's reflection. It is not, and no large water surface will ever be because there are ripples and wavelets unless you look a a tiny tiny fragment of it and take that as representative.

Your claim is that the moon is not flat (despite many photographs showing a level surface with no major undulations), but take any small fragment of it and it is.

Same point. Get it?

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: turbonium1

Please do us a favor and read upon the composition/geology of the moon before you begin spouting BS questions again:

Lular Soil
Geology of the Moon

The citations are on the bottom for any arguments on being able to edit the Wiki saying it's not to be trusted.

Your questions and arguments are below a 1st graders level; they have the ability to learn and think for themselves when they are wrong, you do not.

What is supposed to be relevant to the specific issue at hand, from this link?

You think I'm supposed to try and find any of this crap for you, or what?

a reply to: turbonium1

There is not much to read there, at a 6th grade level it would take 10minutes at best.

It actually does explain it, you just happened to not be able to,understand what you are reading; you're expecting to find a preset group of words that are in your head while skimming the writing instead of actually reading it, understanding it and comprehending what it says.

I am not your parent, your teacher, your college professor or your mental health case worker; I am NOT going to dumb it down onto your level and explain it to you as I would to a 5 year old, if you cannot be bothered to read and understand what is there and be blind instead, that is your choice.

Eyes wide shut.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

You have missed the point as usual. You are claiming that the lake in choos' picture is perfectly flat, hence it's reflection. It is not, and no large water surface will ever be because there are ripples and wavelets unless you look a a tiny tiny fragment of it and take that as representative.

Your claim is that the moon is not flat (despite many photographs showing a level surface with no major undulations), but take any small fragment of it and it is.

Same point. Get it?

Here is the basic point - just read on, and (hopefully) you'll get it...

Look at the sources, which I've already cited...

A smooth surface reflects light in the same, single direction. It means that At the molecular level, it is smooth. The sources mention a few examples of this, like glass, polished metal..and water, in a perfectly still, calm lake.

Since you don't understand this basic concept, I'll try and explain it, further,,,

They are not saying lakes ARE perfectly still, and calm, at any time, Nor are they saying that glass, or polished metal, are ever perfectly smooth surfaces, either.

They are saying that at the molecular level they are smooth. Do you get the point, here?

This explains why a lake often reflects as a smooth surface, since it's smooth, at the molecular level. Nothing is perfect, and this is simple enough for (most) people to grasp.

A rough surface is the opposite case. It reflects sunlight in all directions. Not in the exact same direction.


Like it is with the lunar surface - it is a rough surface, at the molecular level.

And, you should now get it....

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: turbonium1

There is not much to read there, at a 6th grade level it would take 10minutes at best.

It actually does explain it, you just happened to not be able to,understand what you are reading; you're expecting to find a preset group of words that are in your head while skimming the writing instead of actually reading it, understanding it and comprehending what it says.

I am not your parent, your teacher, your college professor or your mental health case worker; I am NOT going to dumb it down onto your level and explain it to you as I would to a 5 year old, if you cannot be bothered to read and understand what is there and be blind instead, that is your choice.

Eyes wide shut.

Spouting Genius scene, take 205.

One can hardly imagine that our world once had no trolls....until the internet came along.