reply to post by delusion
Is the theory that they couldn't have gone to the moon because the pictures are visible light ones, so they must have faked it all? Do you think they
knew this before the Apollo 11 mission?
I never said they didn't go to the Moon, (though how they got there is another matter!) and in fact my theory was based on those images from the FUVC
device that I am sure must have been on the Moon to acquire the images that it did. They knew about the lighting conditions on the Moon alright,
that's why they practised landing and surface operations using goggles fitted with ND filters that allowed as little as .002% light transmission.
They were in the desert, so that's .002% of a pretty bright location, but equated to a 100 watt bulb about 9 feet above their heads. The lux values
are very low, but the human eye is an amazing device for sure, and can see well at some very low light levels, though colour vision quits long before
the absolute sensitivity is reached. Thats why you don't generally see colour in Moonlight, or the colours are all muted.
And all pictures of the moon that are real are taken with other spectrums than visible light?
No, there is visible light on the Moon, but it is produced quite close to the surface by the action of solar UV interacting with the electrons in the
Lunar mesosphere, you can't really call it an atmosphere, to 'thin', but there are sufficient electrons for some visible light to be produced. Some
of the films were very high speed and UV sensitised, as can be seen from images like Aristarchus, that appear to glow. Also some of the astronauts
were seen to have glows around them while on the surface, detected in UV.
These pictures were claimed to be taken in visible light from hubble. Are they faked?
No they are not faked per se, but when they say visible light, it is rather emissions from 'glowing' elements that fall into the visible light
range, 400-750nm. But, these are specral lines, and you need spectroscopy to make them visible to our eyes. Your eyes can not detect the planewaves,
the instruments can. This diagram lists the spectral lines of Hydrogen, which is the most often used as it is the most abundant element. You see the
Balmer series is mostly in the visible spectrum range, but again, your eyes could not detect it, the instruments can. They then assign 'false'
colours to the images they aquire, which are all monochrome, that is, the instruments do not detect colour. They are black and white, if you like.
It's kind of a cool theory sure, but what's the piece of evidence that makes you believe it in the first place?
The lack of images from the ISS or Space Shuttle or other orbital missions that have never shown the Sun or Moon, when NOT looking sideways through
the Earths ionosphere. I have a thread, a bit long now, on the Thunderbolts site where, if you are interested, you can see how I tried to work through
it all, stumbling along the way no doubt, but I think I'm almost there:
Good questions though!
(Just a quick reply at the moment, will get back to you with more ASAP.)
You can find lots of Kaguya videos at jaxachannel on Youtube. Here's one to get you started: www.youtube.com...
There is something not right about that movie. The moon is moving very slowly under the camera, and yet the Earth rises quite quickly. Also the Earth
seems to jiggle sideways and does not seem to rise smoothly. Maybe an optical illusion, but I'd say it looks very fake, not raw footage. Seems they
have to mess with everything to make it look right.
You mention 'movies' they made from the spectrographic cameras, can you link at any please?
Maybe I was thinking of the Chandrayaan-1 'movie'. (Try finding images for that mission though, there is next to nothing available though they took
tens of thousands of images.)
There are a couple of very large 'videos' from Selene on this page:
The Earth from NASA's Discovery Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3). They could make a movie from stills from that instrument too I suppose.(slow to respond
but does load)