Why the Moon Landings Could Have Never EVER Been Faked: The Definitive Proof

page: 27
43
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by 1nquisitive


Nice photo, but the shot is backlit (as shown by astronauts shadows). If this is the case, why is astronaut's front flooded with brilliant light?


You and I differ on our definition of "flooded with brilliant light" but the simple answer is, he's standing on a fairly reflective surface, wearing a highly reflective space suit (had to be that way for cooling purposes) with the sun at a very low angle.


Complete balderdash. The reflectivity of the lunar surface is approximately equal to that of asphalt.

Also, his frontage is brilliantly flooded, the fact you try and say it isn't shows you're ludicrous.


Then by your logic (and very obvious lack of knowledge of photography, lighting, light bounce and light scatter), a person standing in a asphalt parking lot, turned away from the sun.....will not have their front lit at at? Or be very, very dark?

I see someone still has not learned about photography and lighting.




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Nice photo, but the shot is backlit (as shown by astronauts shadows). If this is the case, why is astronaut's front flooded with brilliant light?

It's the light reflected or scattered off the lunar surface. I wouldn't call it brilliant, it's very soft and is fainter that the direct light from behind.


If the surface is so brilliantly reflective then why are the dark (away) sides of lunar stones/rocks not as well lit as the astronaut's frontage?
edit on 25-2-2013 by 1nquisitive because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by 1nquisitive


Nice photo, but the shot is backlit (as shown by astronauts shadows). If this is the case, why is astronaut's front flooded with brilliant light?


You and I differ on our definition of "flooded with brilliant light" but the simple answer is, he's standing on a fairly reflective surface, wearing a highly reflective space suit (had to be that way for cooling purposes) with the sun at a very low angle.


Complete balderdash. The reflectivity of the lunar surface is approximately equal to that of asphalt.

Also, his frontage is brilliantly flooded, the fact you try and say it isn't shows you're ludicrous.


Then by your logic (and very obvious lack of knowledge of photography, lighting, light bounce and light scatter), a person standing in a asphalt parking lot, turned away from the sun.....will not have their front lit at at? Or be very, very dark?

I see someone still has not learned about photography and lighting.


Not so. On earth we have lots and lots of other topological features/objects for light to bounce off of. Also, with the added reflective objects on earth you still would not achieve that same brilliance (the astronaut's frontage) as seen on the above shot.

So on the moon shouldn't we expect to see LESS reflectivity?



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by wildespace

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Nice photo, but the shot is backlit (as shown by astronauts shadows). If this is the case, why is astronaut's front flooded with brilliant light?

It's the light reflected or scattered off the lunar surface. I wouldn't call it brilliant, it's very soft and is fainter that the direct light from behind.


If the surface is so brilliantly reflective then why are the dark (away) sides of lunar stones/rocks not as well lit as the astronauts frontage?


Because the reflectivity of the suit is much higher than that of the moon's surface.

You pointed that out yourself: the moon's surface has a low reflectivity of light (but not so low that it's can't). however the suits and much of the equipment have a high reflectivity factor, and do not take much light to be seen.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Complete balderdash. The reflectivity of the lunar surface is approximately equal to that of asphalt.

Also, his frontage is brilliantly flooded, the fact you try and say it isn't shows you're ludicrous.


Utter hogwash. Yeah lunar surface is about the same in reflectivity as asphalt, which is alot.

If you say it's brilliantly flooded then you are ridicilous.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
If the surface is so brilliantly reflective then why are the dark (away) sides of lunar stones/rocks not as well lit as the astronauts frontage?


Because light is mostly reflected upwards. The astronaut, standing tall above the surface, catches a lot of that reflected light, while the rocks don't, because they are lying low.

Large rocks do catch the reflected light:

edit on 25-2-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
If the surface is so brilliantly reflective then why are the dark (away) sides of lunar stones/rocks not as well lit as the astronauts frontage?


Because light is mostly reflected upwards. The astronaut, standing tall above the surface, catches a lot of that reflected light, while the rocks don't, because they are lying low.


So the astronaut should appear darker the lower we look then?



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


It's simple really. Think of angle of incidence. The ground is horizontal, the astronaut is vertical. A large portion of the light hitting the ground bounces away from the camera, a large proportion of the light hitting the astronaut bounces toward the camera.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrwiffler
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


It's simple really. Think of angle of incidence. The ground is horizontal, the astronaut is vertical. A large portion of the light hitting the ground bounces away from the camera, a large proportion of the light hitting the astronaut bounces toward the camera.



That makes little-to-no sense, to me at least.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


That picture of the large rock, I've never seen that before. Thanks. Was it likely thrown to the surface from a meteor strike?

The fellow who's countering arguments has to flail away at each fact, and isn't doing a very good job of it. To the knowledgable "moon voyages" were real people of this thread, what piece of contrary data ever presented gave you pause for a minute? What is the anti-moon crowds most convincing piece of evidence, if any? Kind of a debate question, give me your opponents best evidence (and to the moon-trip-as-hoax, the same question). Thanks.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive



Nice photo, but the shot is backlit (as shown by astronauts shadows). If this is the case, why is astronaut's front flooded with brilliant light?


With regards to the stars (YET AGAIN) have you ever been in a really long road or rail tunnel and when you get out the other end daylight almost blinds you, well for the astronauts if any sunlit surface or object was in view your eyes AUTOMATICALLY adjust to that light level,


The eye takes approximately 20–30 minutes to fully adapt from bright sunlight to complete darkness and become ten thousand to one million times more sensitive than at full daylight. In this process, the eye's perception of color changes as well (this is called the Purkinje effect). However, it takes approximately five minutes for the eye to adapt to bright sunlight from darkness. This is due to cones obtaining more sensitivity when first entering the dark for the first five minutes but the rods take over after five or more minutes.


The astronauts DIDN'T have 20-30 mins spare!!!

Apart from the Moon surface reflecting the sunlight you also have the lander in front of him, also exposure times for taking pictures of the Moon even from Earth are very short a FRACTION OF A SECOND here is an example.

www.flickr.com...

The exposure details for that shot 1/80 ƒ/14 ISO 200 300 mm

1/80 th of a second aperture f14 iso 200 (film/sensor speed) using a 300mm lens on the camera!

First iso 200 is not fast my camera will go up to iso 16,000, f14 is a small aperture the HIGHER the number the smaller the opening so less light gets through my 300mm lens goes from f5.6 -f32.

If you don't have any knowledge of photography or the photographic process you may make wrong assumptions many members here are semi pro or pro photographers or like myself it's been a hobby for 30+years.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


I'm not sure, but I think the rock is the result of a big impact. The rock was dubbed the House Rock because of its size. Apollo 16 astronauts had trouble determining its size and the distance to it because of the lack of atmosphere. www.hq.nasa.gov...

Here's the House Rock seen in the distance (the largest rock behind the astronaut): www.hq.nasa.gov...

And here's the video of the astronauts approaching it:



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
reply to post by Aleister
 


I'm not sure, but I think the rock is the result of a big impact.


Quite probably. It's right on the rim of North Ray Crater.


Originally posted by wildespace
The rock was dubbed the House Rock because of its size. Apollo 16 astronauts had trouble determining its size and the distance to it because of the lack of atmosphere. www.hq.nasa.gov...

Here's the House Rock seen in the distance (the largest rock behind the astronaut): www.hq.nasa.gov...

And here's the video of the astronauts approaching it...


I've always loved that video. It really shows how hard it is to gauge size & distance on the Moon.
Note that (as usual) the behavior of the kicked dust as the astronauts lope along is consistent with 1/6th G and vacuum. This behavior cannot be replicated on Earth - not even with today's CGI technology.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 06:04 AM
link   
A correction to my earlier post with the image of a big rock: it was a different one from the same Apollo mission, called the Shadow Rock. www.hq.nasa.gov...




posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


Thanks!! I've never seen the House Rock vid or the House Rock itself either. What else have I missed??? The house rock can probably be seen with earth-based telescopes, and if so, and it was "mapped" then that would be another proof of man's visit to a small semi-planet.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aleister
reply to post by wildespace
 


Thanks!! I've never seen the House Rock vid or the House Rock itself either. What else have I missed??? The house rock can probably be seen with earth-based telescopes, and if so, and it was "mapped" then that would be another proof of man's visit to a small semi-planet.



Wrong the Hubble could not see it, it can only resolve objects about 300ft across at the distance of the Moon.

You can see some nice close ups of the crater here LRO ACT-REACT Map

Some quick instructions on how to use it

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It will show up on there if the LRO has pictured it , pictures on here have a resolution of 50cm/pixel some down to 26cm on low orbits of the Moon.



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aleister
reply to post by wildespace
 


Thanks!! I've never seen the House Rock vid or the House Rock itself either. What else have I missed??? The house rock can probably be seen with earth-based telescopes, and if so, and it was "mapped" then that would be another proof of man's visit to a small semi-planet.



Too small to be seen from Earth, but the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter sees it and other Apollo sites from the lunar orbit.

LRO sees the House Rock
wms.lroc.asu.edu...



One fun thing you can engage in is matching the rocks and craters seen in Apollo photos with those in LRO images.
edit on 26-2-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Hi. Sorry for the late reply. I do not see many people with open minds in this forum, mostly dogmatism, and patriotism, mixed with a little aggression. However, I'm going to try posting one more time on ATS...

RE this video...www.youtube.com... which was post in reply to me saying

"Proof of 1/6th gravity would be hard to ignore for me"

In that video the kids experiment is done in his bedroom. I don't think there is a vacuum in his bedroom, so this video proves nothing. I am surprised that no one on ATS pointed this out, or thought this good physics... Also, the pendulum experiment used is a very odd choice when you consider that a 1 meter pendulum has a period of exactly 1 second on Earth.

I am willing to be convinced. Prove to me that there was 1/6th gravity on the moon. That will convince me.

However, if this/these videos are the best there is I have to ask why.

In this forum I have seen people talking vaguely about dust being kicked up, and suggesting that by looking at it you can see proof. I don't. I see dust acting differently than what I'm used to seeing, possibly because it's in a vacuum on earth, but possibly because it's on the moon. I don't know. I can't tell. I don't know how you lot who clam that you can tell know. ... Lets see someone show a breakdown of some dust being kicked up in a vacuum on earth, and then compare that to the footage from NASA. Actually slow it down... Use a timeline, model the physics, and show the motion of the dust.

That will prove it one way or the other. IMO They could not have faked 1/6 gravity...

So... Where is this footage which demonstrates 1/6th gravity done in a vacuum? I'm sure NASA must have such facilities in which an experiment could be set up and performed. NASA could do this. It would totally kill this conspiracy. I would shut up. Virtually everyone who questions the moon landing would have to shut up... It would prove it. Have they done this?

Let me answer that for you... "No. NASA is not going to dignify you idiots with a response, and we are not waiting our time. We have nothing to prove to you"...

Yep. That's what they would say...

Odd that considering that NASA could prove that they went to the moon they have not... NASA virtually never attempts to prove anything about the moon landing. They could prove it. There are many ways they could prove it. They have not. Not to my knowledge anyway.

That is why I question the moon landings...



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrN9k
reply to post by eriktheawful
 



So... Where is this footage which demonstrates 1/6th gravity done in a vacuum?


heres one they done earlier nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...



posted on Mar, 4 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by suicideeddie
 


Here we go again...

Your link demonstrates that the hammer was dropped in a vacuum. Not that it was dropped on the moon.

Please read my post again. You have not understood my point.

I want proof of 1/6th gravity. Give me that, and I'm convinced...
edit on 4-3-2013 by MrN9k because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
43
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant