Apollo and sunlight

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Betamax101, Apr 2, 2016.

  1. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    It has been claimed that the Apollo landings were performed on Earth on a staged set. Here is just one film from the official record that makes a complete mockery of that claim:-

    [video=youtube;3OVh0gm5vtc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OVh0gm5vtc[/video]

    As a truly laughable response, it has also been claimed that this page below demonstrates that the pictures were taken with artificial light.

    http://www.clavius.org/bibzz1.html

    Notwithstanding that that completely avoids the question posed! The answer to that very point was made directly below the quoted statement.

    "That is not the point here. The conspiracists claim that these photographs are impossible without supplementary light (i.e., "fill" light in lighting terms) requiring multiple light sources. They say they cannot be produced with a single light source, which would have been the case had they really been on the moon -- the single light source being the sun. But this experiment proves that a single directional light source can produce the appropriate diffuse interreflections for the Apollo photography, contrary to the conspiracy theory's claims. In this particular experiment, it doesn't matter whether the light source is artificial or natural. It's only important that the light source be directional, fairly distant, and the only light source.

    The conspiracists' objection to this experiment isn't based on science. They haven't shown what specific aspect of the artificiality of the light source defeats the experiment. They can only make vague, handwaving arguments about the "artificial" light source and hope that generates enough uncertainty and doubt to undermine its credibility with the layman.

    But in fact the experiment shows how little the conspiracists actually know about lighting and photography. They perform no experiments. They simply show example photographs under what they claim are identical conditions (but ignore aspects such as photo exposure), or simply provide edited versions of the photos that show what they believe should have happened. That's not proof; it's just an elaborately stated opinion that happens to be wrong."



    So, the question is:

    How was this so called Moon set lit so that there is always one set of shadows on every object?

    Another example of long footage, extremely big areas, evenly lit terrain and single shadows:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0438bdGbS0

    That video features a zoom in on the Earth(30:18), numerous verifiable lunar motion/hops and massively long kicked regolith(41:50).
     
  2. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    For those that claim these mountains are projections or backdrops or whatever they can pluck out their butts, here is a video that quite simply destroys that argument. Hadley Rille on the moon and a camera zoom of many hundreds of metres, brings small boulders into focus showing this cannot possibly be a backdrop or projection, but worse still, we have shaded areas, single shadows and the rest of the area lit up with bright sunlight and a black sky.

    [video=youtube;CeDiCJdUJWE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeDiCJdUJWE[/video]

    The silence from the hoax community is very telling.
     
  3. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This next video is a magnificent debunk of the backdrops bull. Watching from the start, an astronaut carries an Apollo experiment package for hundreds of yards on the Moon. As the camera zooms in on him to keep the picture, we see many things.

    The distant mountains don't get any nearer because they are miles away. A very large rock to the left of the latter image at 2 minutes 20 seconds, can be seen to be obviously much further away than him, and still even more obviously nowhere near the distant mountains. It looks dead flat because the terrain is all the same color and there are no distance indicators, but just watch as the astronaut disappears down a trough.

    You guys can run away from simple evidence like this, but it beats the crap out of the hogwash you are supplying.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?annot...&feature=iv&src_vid=mKFyPGGPppk&v=-mrhAW_8T1c
     
  4. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    From the Clavius website: http://www.clavius.org/bibzz1.html

    Well, first of all, I see a problem with this statement:

    pre·sume v.

    1. To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary
    2. (Law) to take as proved until contrary evidence is produced


    Of course, it was "presumed to approximate many aspects of the lunar surface" but they made a big mistake because the most important aspect it does not approximate is "albedo" (reflectance) of the surface. This is a desert area - and desert areas have some of the highest albedos among landforms! The Sahara desert has an albedo of .40, so it reflects 40% of the light hitting it.

    Tetzlaff, G. (1983). Albedo of the Sahara. Cologne University Satellite Measurement of Radiation Budget Parameters. pp. 60–63.

    Take a look at the desert area where this supposed hoax-busting demonstration was performed:

    desert.jpg

    The average visual Bond albedo of the earth-facing side of the moon is .072 (7.2%). This is what has led to the repeated statement that the moon is blacker than even very black terrestrial materials. Flocked paper, often used for light traps and in telescope darkening material, has a very low albedo of about .06 (6.0%), for example. The moon is, according to various accounts, "darker than blacktop" or "darker than a black sheet of construction paper." These are, of course, oversimplifications - neither blacktop or construction paper have the special characteristics of the moon - and we can debate this figure - but the general characteristic is that the moon is very dark with low reflectivity - certainly much less reflective than the Mojave or Sahara desert.


    Does this? desert.jpg look like this? asphalt.jpg


    And we have not even discussed the effects of atmospheric dust, fog, water vapor, haze, smoke and even the air molecules themselves on diffusion of light...

    The Clavius attempt to disprove the conspiracy has actually given strong evidence that the Apollo moon photos were taken with artificial light in a desert environment in the atmosphere!
     
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That is not a mistake.

    Okay, I've taken a look. It's fine.

    Let us take it as read that the Mojave desert has a higher reflectivity than the Moon. Though I would strongly argue details of the albedo of the Moon, the average takes into account darker areas not facing orthogonally to the sun and higher latitudes which alter the phase angle. Viewed directly above, the brightness of the Moon is considerably brighter than the average.

    http://planetary.brown.edu/pdfs/4739.pdf

    But all irelevant to the original premise of this thread!

    Ridiculous. Another subject you are clueless about. The Moon looks nothing like newer asphalt! Taking an average, and applying it to an Earth comparison is just idiotic(see above).

    And why would we? What have they got to do with anything related to this thread?

    No they haven't. The albedo on the Moon varies by its phase angle as well as shaded areas and latitude variations in light reflectivity. The Clavius shot pictures using a single huge spotlight that couldn't illuminate one thousandth of the area covered by Apollo astronauts. Yet we were clearly able to see the shaded areas in photographs.

    Now, what the hell are you going on about anyway? This thread is about how the terrain was illuminated on the supposedly faked sets! Using an example that fails miserably to do this is more an indication of your ongoing ineptitude.

    inept
    /ɪˈnɛpt/
    adjective: inept
    having or showing no skill; clumsy.
    synonyms: incompetent, unskilful, unskilled, inexpert, amateurish, crude, rough; clumsy, awkward, maladroit, unhandy, heavy-handed, bungling, blundering, bumbling, botched;

    How did they light the huge areas we see in the videos posted above?

    [video=youtube;aBVjjPzU8SQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBVjjPzU8SQ[/video]
     
  6. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    In your first post you quoted:

    What Clavius proved here is that a single light source illuminating a highly reflective desert area can produce reflected light diffusion enough to account for what is seen in the Apollo photographs.

    I think I clearly answered that question at least for the photographs supposedly taken on the moon.

    Clavius made some false assumptions and used some faulty logic - and as a result ended up with a false conclusion.
     
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You irritating troll! I quoted that because you brought the damn crap up on the other thread! It was off topic to the question and you know it is,

    Bovine Excrement of the highest order. Clavius illuminated the desert with a flimsy spotlight that as pointed out produced nothing like the illumination from the Sun, barely lit up the area they were in and certainly was not even remotely adequate to illuminate the whole area they were in for hundreds of yards. The Apollo record has hours of footage as shown above where we see massive spans of terrain all evenly lit and one shadow. The "highly reflective" desert is also nothing like the lunar regolith which has properties that can easily be verified as being classed as retro-reflective. Back in the direction of the light source.

    No you did not you. Your inept observation compared a spotlight to the Sun, an illumination area not even remotely comparable and an albedo not as extreme as your inept research claims. It also ignored the retro-reflective nature of the Moon. You couldn't have been more inaccurate if you tried:roll:

    Hogwash and avoiding the question.

    I have produced a considerable amount of video evidence that you studiously ignore. Coward, just like Cosmored.



    How is the huge area we see in the video lit? The sky is black, how is that done?
     
  8. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well what comedy we have here. The serial forum spammer makes his stock denial and hogwash claim, whilst not even noticing that his fellow hoaxhead quoted the site. That was off topic.

    Clavius is not a disinfo site. It is the property of one person, there are no "posters" on it. The spammer refers to the forum owned by someone else entirely where pretty much every person there is an expert in one of the fields that involved. None of them believe in the moronic moon hoax.

    So your whole post was an off topic lie and avoided the OP completely. Is it a prerequisite for an HB to be a coward?
     
  9. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    The sky looks pretty black here:

    fake_15.jpg

    :)
     
  10. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The dishonesty and evasion from these 2 people is a testament to the strength of their pathetic claim. Neither has addressed the question and neither will, with an answer that has any degree of thought, feasibility or honesty. This is the same avoidance as shown in the other two threads:-

    http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/441261-apollo-moon-hoax-film-makers-corrupt.html
    http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/443515-dust-free-sand-strawman-claim.html

    My signature tagline is an accurate representation of the kind of mentality being shown here.
     
  11. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I am glad that you agree with me:

    Does this? View attachment 42230 look like this? View attachment 42231
     
  12. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You have got nothing. You are just playing the smartass and ignoring the OP - you are just as pathetic as Cosmored and out of the same mould. Did your "common-sense" notice the inverted commas? I disagree with you on almost every piece of garbage that you post and your reason for acting the fool eludes me.

    The entire lunar surface is illuminated by the Sun, it is retro-reflective and nothing whatsoever like your repeat spam comparison. The desert is illuminated by a single spotlight.

    So a simple question to be added for you to evade:-

    Which is going to reflect more light, the fully lit lunar surface, even with your highly inaccurately generalised 7% of Sunlight, or the desert reflecting 40% from a single spotlight?

    The Sun 130 watts per square foot. The spotlight, not so much:roll:

    I am quite comfortable in stating that only a troll or an idiot would conclude the latter, so I suggest you show some real common sense and a modicum of integrity!


    How did they light such enormous areas, with only one shadow and no lights in the visors except for the Sun?
     
  13. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Of course, the greater the intensity of the incident light the greater will be the intensity of the reflected light.

    The angle of incidence will greatly affect the intensity of the light reflected back upon the astronaut - and I assume your question compares the fully sunlit lunar surface (the sunlight angle of incidence of 90 degrees directly overhead) with that of the Clavius spotlight at less than 10 degrees incident angle and about 75-100 feet away.

    So yes, the fully sunlit lunar surface should reflect more light than the Clavius example of the desert with a small spotlight - and your point is?
     
  14. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So please clarify what incident light we are getting from a spotlight at low angle?

    The lunar surface is renowned for its retro-reflective properties which return light back to origin.

    You assume that why? The lunar surface was lit by Sunlight ranging from 13-45 degrees. Even at lower angles, it is very bright. But once again, if we are going to raise this puny inept point, please clarify what light we are getting from a spotlight at 10 degrees!

    Gee, you can't work it out? You claimed that Clavius proved the pictures could only have been faked on Earth, when it proves a massively brighter, fully lit, retro-reflective lunar surface would have no trouble creating the pictures we see. The ones where ignorant hoax believers claim shaded areas would not be lit.

    Once again you cowardly avoid the premise of this thread. You cannot possibly have an answer for how that huge area was lit so brightly.
     
  15. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Does this desert-set.jpg look like this? 40_A15Sta8.jpg
     
  16. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    You need to clarify your question. The Clavius spotlight is 18kw. Figure it out yourself.

    Who said that? the Apollo astronauts?

    Apollo astronauts reported that a true full Moon is about 30% (0.2 magnitudes) brighter than what we see here on Earth.

    It does not look too retro-reflective here, in fact, it kind of looks like asphalt:

    intensity_02.jpg

    Because you made the statement "fully lit" - and that means 100% - and that means that the sun needs to be at a 90 degree incident angle.

    I did not say that - what I said was this:

    It does not look so brightly lit to me:

    intensity_03.jpg intensity_07a.jpg

    maybe they used this 1890 technology?

    View attachment 42149
     
  17. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Utter bovine excrement! I asked you specifically how much incident light there was from a 10 degree spotlight(since you raised this point), you avoided it of course. And now you claim a spotlight at that 10 degrees elevation has more illumination than a similar area illuminated by the Sun at a higher elevation, is that what you are saying?

    Run along now, go chase some cars or something.
     
  19. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Question dodged.

    People who study the Moon and understand it!

    https://the-moon.wikispaces.com/Retro-Reflection+phenomena

    Camera exposure, direction of sun.

    It means 100% of the surface not shaded is illuminated by the Sun.

    I could not care what you wish to garner your crap claim with, it is still crap. I have proven it so, but you just keep trolling away.

    I suggest you watch the video in the OP, taken with a film camera. Your selective and ignorant use of pictures with varying exposures ignores yet again the multiple videos posted in evidence.

    You cannot be serious. You are claiming that spotlight is capable of evenly lighting acres of land as bright as we see in the Apollo video/film accounts? I don't believe you think that, nobody can be that dumb.
    Now try again. How did they light the area:- see video in OP and directly answer this, and don't tell me it was a stupid spotlight!
     
  20. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I think that a giant spotlight could illuminate a very large area...

    spotlight6.jpg

    A man stands next to a large searchlight on a platform on top of Echo Mountain in Los Angeles, California. A reflection of the Echo Mountain House is visible in the lens of the searchlight. In 1894, Lowe installed on Echo Mountain a three million candlepower searchlight purchased from the Columbian Exposition held in Chicago. The searchlight's reflecting mirror was 60 inches in diameter, and was manufactured by Mangin, in Paris, France. The beam from the light had a 35-mile projection, and was advertised as being able to illuminate the island of Catalina from its mountain perch. By the 1930s, however, the light was considered a public nuisance and was shut off permanently.

    This Giant Searchlight Once Scanned L.A. From the Mountains Above:
    http://southland.gizmodo.com/this-giant-searchlight-once-scanned-l-a-from-a-mountai-1616978277
     
  21. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I asked you specifically to address the OP, the video shows a rover traversing a black sky area with the terrain lit for visibly miles. It also changes as the rover heads across sun, with the phase angle altering.

    I didn't ask for more insanity about a single spotlight illuminating these areas evenly as seen in the videos! Did you bother clicking the links and seeing what it looked like? Obviously not!

    Here is a section from the page:-

    "This dazzling beam blanched the flatlands below. It wandered the streets of Pasadena. It streamed through the windows of San Gabriel farmhouses with the ardor of day. Lowe's publicist claimed you could read a newspaper under its light from 35 miles away. It was definitely visible 60 miles away on Catalina Island, a hot white dot hovering just above the horizon. Some watched the show with amusement. Children lit signal fires or flashed red lights to attract the operator's attention. The mischievous ones bounced the sunbeam back with hand-held mirrors."

    It didn't illuminate the whole area at once!

    http://www.idaillinois.org/cdm/ref/collection/fmnh/id/815

    ajaxhelper.jpg

    Now quit yanking everybody's chain and answer the OP, anyone would think it was the same as the other threads you can't answer.
     
  22. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    C'mon Beta, there has to be some distance between the light and the landscape so the light can spread out.

    Maybe 1890 spotlight technology was not good enough. How about 1940 technology?

    spotlight17.jpg spotlight18.jpg
     
  23. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I would appeal to this common sense you claim you have, but it s not evident.

    Spotlights produce beams and small illuminated areas. If you track back very far, the beam spreads out, but the power diminishes and it still won't light up a large area evenly. The major problem is that it needs to behave like the sun, illuminate vast areas, but still produce dark shadows. The so called superlight, debunked by me with two videos, would need to be so big that light on one side of it would illuminate the opposite dark side of a shaded area and vice versa.

    Now I ask yet again, how was the area in the op video lit up. Stop this ridiculous crap about spotlights.

    The bottom line is that, just this video proves they were on the moon. There is no feasible explanation and you and that spam artist know this. Why you can't see this is baffling.
     
  24. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Absolutely wrong! I guess you don't understand parabolic reflectors very well. A burning carbon electrode and a large parabolic reflector would produce plenty of parallel light for most of what we see in the Apollo record.

    What do you make of this?

    fake_11.jpg

    Apollo Sun a Giant Light Bulb:
    http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/as12sunbulbrevise.jpg

    A good discussion of this here:
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread288384/pg1

    But the nature of the lighting is evident when you turn up the contrast a little on any given image, from any given Apollo mission, of almost any given scene. The subject of the photo is always illuminated and then the light intensity quickly falls off as you move toward the edge of the photo.

    They all look and feel like they are filmed at night in a stadium, because they were. These are not daylight scenes, this much is obvious. Presenting evidence people will accept is another thing entirely however.

    These photographs are most likely fake and I am yet to see real daylight scene photographs from the surface of the moon. - Yandros
     
  25. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Meh! I just explained it quite simply to you, but obviously not simple enough. Parallel rays are what these spotlights do already, their beam width is the limitation by which they can illuminate! The big one you showed had this exact problem, nice and bright but very narrow.

    Parabolic mirrors may well mimic the Sun's parallel properties but it needs to be as big and/or closer/brighter. Any attempt to do this makes the size of it too big by some considerable distance and even then it would not illuminate the terrain the way we see it done. One edge of the big light would illunminate the opposite side of the shadow.

    Hogwash. Jack White was a terminally ignorant moron who had no photogrammetry skills. As I said I debunked his crap years ago:-

    http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/superlight-contention.html



    Please don't quote some more stupid opinions from 3rd parties. Answered perfectly by expert people rather than ignorant conspiracists:-

    http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?140507-Sun-s-glare-shape-in-Apollo-pictures&

    The space suit reflects something in the order of 80% of all light, so will naturally be the brightest object in any picture.
    Once again, your attempt at diversion is pitiful, answer the OP video and question. The rover covers a couple of kilometres at least.

    How was it all lit so perfectly?
     

Share This Page