Apollo and sunlight

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

  1. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    A large parabolic reflector would work just fine.

    From Clavius' own description:

    Clavius - the truth behind the moon landings:
    http://www.clavius.org/bibzz1.html

    The filming was done at night, so that sunlight would not intrude. The lighting was provided by a single 18 kW studio light placed so that it would illuminate a patch of ground 150-200 feet (50-70 meters) away. At that distance the light rays -- while not exactly parallel -- are close enough that the error in shadow "lie" on the surface is less than the "noise" created by the irregular ground (1).

    NOTES
    1. At a distance of 200 feet the angular error in lighting direction per transverse foot is 0.29°. That is negligible for most of the camera angles used in the reconstruction. Once a light source is sufficiently far away, it behaves more like an infinitely distant light than a nearby light.


    You mean this quote here?

    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.

    That is not an opinion - that is a fact!

    It's Not!

    intensity_12.jpg
     
  2. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I have a rhetorical question for you, doesn't it bother you at all being so very ignorant of any of this, yet still posting rubbish? The spotlight illuminates an area that is painfully small compared to the Apollo video and film footage. Parallel beams do not light large areas, unless the "beam" comes from something the size of the Sun.

    So no! Parabolic mirrors do not work fine, all they do is assist in concentrating all the light into one direction. The quote you used doesn't mean what you think it means, it merely says that using the spotlight at that distance is similar in angular size to the Sun.

    That is not a fact it is a lie. Here is a new gallery of all the Apollo pictures raw scanned without color or contrast corrections:-

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums

    Point me to one that backs up your bullcrap claim.

    Maybe one of these days you will come up with an original thought instead of copying crap from around the internet. Another rhetorical question, why have you used a multi-generational, unknown provenance, crap copy of that photograph, instead of the original scan?

    Here is a resized version of the original scan:-

    5903_cropped_medium-res.jpg

    Even your inept observational skills cannot fail to notice the original has none of the problems you claim it has. But, then again, your lack of integrity and unwillingness to be proven wrong gets in the way so I doubt you have the balls to admit it.

    That particular photograph has had a brilliant analysis performed on it, about 1/3 of the way down this page:-

    http://www.mem-tek.com/apollo/ISD.html


    Now, why don't you quit being a coward and answer the OP!

    How did they light that huge area on the video?
     
  3. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    It means that the rays of light from the parabolic reflector closely simulate the suns rays in terms of the shadows they produce.

    You need to more closely read the original quoted posts:

    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.

    Two of these three photographs were supposedly taken in the intense light of the sun on the atmosphere-less moon - and one was taken at night on the earth with a small studio light 200 feet away...

    Can you guess which one was taken on the earth?


    A astronaut55.jpg B intensity_09a.jpg C astronaut54a.jpg
     
  4. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Parabolic mirrors are used to concentrate all the light in one direction. The beam is narrow, the area lit is miniscule and as far as shadows produced, the light has to be at a far enough distance so that parallel shadows are produced, or close enough not to be discernible. Even with a massively powerful light, it still won't light anywhere near what we see IN THE VIDEO AND FILM record!

    No I do not. It is a lie and provably so - it is also off topic and irrelevant and you repeating it doesn't suddenly make the idiotic claim true. Your two pictures A and C below show no such evidence of this and they are not even original raw scans.

    Nowhere does this thread claim that at least some of the Apollo photography cannot be created on Earth with the correct set up. In fact, I shall go so far as to say I don't care whether or not it can or can not. This thread is about the video and film record and your persistent cowardice in avoiding this is obvious.

    Unless you address the OP in your next post I shall start reporting your posts for deliberate off topic crap!

    No. I don't need to guess. I know.

    Wow, are you the comedy photoshop boy!

    [​IMG]

    The irony, the pure irony. The picture you used has clear areas only 50 yards beyond, where the light is clearly not illuminating the surface.

    For the cowardly:-

     
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    As said many times before. For the cowardly to avoid.
     
  6. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If there any viewers around who are unsure, ask yourself this: how come the serial forum spammer doesn't have an answer for how this was done? No answer has been given, yet this film clearly shows an impossible to fake film on the Moon.
     
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    An invitation to the serial forum spammer:- How about responding to the OP. You continue to exhibit cowardice and denial, the "viewers" are surely interested in you explaining how NASA were able to do such astonishingly accurate film.

    A black sky, a vast area of perfectly lit terrain, single crisp dark shadows. We see mountains very far away that don't get bigger. We see the reflectivity change as the direction of travel changes, perfectly consistent with the retro-reflective nature of the lunar surface. We see distant rocks getting closer so it is easy to estimate the distance travelled as being a few kilometres.

    That is one magical moon set. That would be because it was set on the Moon.
     
  8. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well, many months go by and the serial forum spammer is too much of a coward to explain this VITAL and fundamental issue. Every single video and film shows perfect illumination. The film in the OP has no explanation on Earth that can work.

    THAT is why this dishonest person will never address this properly. He knows the missions were not faked. All he has is this very strange need to make duplicate posts all over the web.
     
  9. BodiSatva

    BodiSatva Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2014
    Messages:
    411
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Anybody that thinks the landings were faked is quite literally an idiot.
     
  10. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,502
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Very true.
     
    BodiSatva likes this.
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I have reported the above post by Scott/ cosmored/ Rocky/ fatfreddy88/ drifty, for spamming. Not only is this a demonstration of the sheer insanity involved, but cowardice in the extreme. The video in the OP closes he whole case. It is completely impossible to fake such a thing particularly from 1971, THAT is why the serial forum spammer cannot respond properly.

    He boasts that he wins debates yet fails to even address major evidence. He complains that he gets his posts deleted when he knows full well that they are deliberately off topic spam to get that very thing!

    His pathetic debunked to death wall of spam, addressed here and almost completely ignored, because of course they are all "moot" and nobody has any "credibility" except him because nobody believes his horse crap! You could not make up such self reinforcing delusion.

    http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/?m=1
     
  12. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    A piece of continuous footage. The sky is jet black, yet miles and miles in every direction is illuminated extremely brightly and every object without fail has single and solid jet black shadows. Every single shadow points in the same direction. When the lunar rover heads across Sun, the reflection from the terrain fades down because the surface had known retro reflective properties. In the far distance we see massive mountains that never increase in size because they are so far away. Their orientation varies with the direction of the rover. The area covered is demonstrably very large comprising several square miles. Always evenly lit.

    No wonder this serial forum spammer cannot answer this OP!! He knows this footage was taken on the Moon, there is NO other explanation that could possibly fit.
     
  13. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    3,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Idiots (and maybe Russians) do claim that, yes.
     
  14. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    3,452
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only organization with a vested interest to debunk the 1969 moon landing(s) is Russia.
     
  15. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,502
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your posts get deleted because they are old and tired and worthless.

    There is no evidence that the lunar missions were faked. All of your attempts have been debunked and massively failed.
     
  16. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    18,816
    Likes Received:
    7,070
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So some think the moon landings were a hoax? ha ha. While I think conspiracies have and do exist, this isn;t one of them. One of the interesting conspiracies which never came to pass, supposedly called off by JFK, was the plan for the CIA to blow up an airliner drone and claim loss of life, blaming it on castro. Some in our govt really wanted to invade cuba and take castro out. And with the right president would have probably blown up that airliner.

    I would not be surprised if some of the moon scenes were done on earth, and added with the others to show russia how big and bad we were, beating them in this geopolitical driven race.
     
  17. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The proof that the missions were faked* is pretty clear so this thread isn't about whether the footage in this video was faked. It's about how it was faked.




    There are several scenarios I suppose. I was reading the comment section of the video.
    (excerpt)
    ---------------------------------------
    It matches with photos because the photos were taken at the same spot in the desert duh.
    ---------------------------------------

    Its having been shot in a desert is one plausible scenario.

    http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/comment/28159
    (excerpt)
    -------------------------------------------
    Now look at this next picture. It’s a picture of astronaut Buzz Aldrin taken in Mauna Kea Hawaii. If you look at the mountains behind him, you’ll see it’s the same mountain NASA used in faking the picture below it that was used in the Apollo 17 mission. Just look to the right side of the picture and you’ll see it’s the same mountain NASA photo shopped from the one behind Buzz Aldrin in Hawaii. By the way, I wonder what all the movie production vans are doing sitting behind him?
    -------------------------------------------

    http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_11.html

    It's easy to make a section of desert look like the moon.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...hes-Arizona-desert-simulate-surface-moon.html
    http://apollofake.atspace.co.uk/

    I know that at the 3:45 time mark it's said that the mountain in the background matches Google Moon but how do we know that they aren't in on it too?




    *
    http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
    http://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo1.htm


    http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
    (excerpt)
    ----------------------------------------
    One of the main anomalies that leads me to believe that the Moon footage was taken on a film set is the fact that the same mountains appear on different Apollo missions which are supposed to be landed several hundreds of miles from each other. In the following sequences you will even see the camera pan across the landscape that at one point includes the Lunar Landing Module. In another shot from the same mission, we see the very same mountains, but no Lander? How can this be when the mountains appear to be exactly the same distance away from the camera?
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
  18. Soupnazi

    Soupnazi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2008
    Messages:
    16,631
    Likes Received:
    2,502
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong.

    It is not a question of whether the evidence is clear or unclear.

    The issue is why you continually claim there is evidence when everything you have posted AS evidence has been debunked crushed and proven false.

    You have no evidence and the absolute proof of the landings being real has destroyed your fiction
     
  19. Nonsensei436

    Nonsensei436 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,450
    Likes Received:
    960
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This faked moon landing conspiracy reveals the full scope of its crazy when you ask them why they think the moon landings were faked.

    As in, what was the motive for faking them.
     
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This thread proves beyond any shadow of doubt that the Moon landings happened. Your pathetic and useless claims are so ignorant it beggars belief. You failed completely to address the substance of the OP and choose to come out with more off topic crap and truly astonishingly stupid claims.

    What you "suppose" and arm wave away is irrelevant. I missed the explanation!

    YouTube moron. Please ask him to explain where the mountains are in this desert. Ask how it is night time yet perfectly lit. Ask how the mountains never get any nearer. Ask him where all the grey soil came from!

    Ludicrous. Clearly you know full well this is on the Moon. It is night time, there are mountains, evenly lit Sun illuminating everything. We have dark soil and it changes in retro reflective visibility when they travel cross Sun. No desert on earth has those mountains.



    This moronic claim is up there with flat earthers. The mountain on close examination is not the same, it appears in countless video footage. The idea that this imbecile thinks it was Photoshopped in 1972 is just patently absurd. The fool who came up with this is the now deceased Jack White, a great big phoney who doesn't even know what photogrammetry is!


    The terrain looks like the Moon, the soil doesn't
    , the gravity doesn't, the sky is blue and the shadows are diffused by atmospheric reflection. One jaw dropping thing that doesn't even occur to you is that the only reason you know about this is that NASA told the public. What brainless idiots aregoing to hoax 6 missions and release stuff like that?!

    The team at Google are now in on this moronic conspiracy. You ridiculous person.

    The mountains are many miles away. There is no pollution of the view from atmosphere and heat haze. In the case of the LM, there are obvious differences between near the LM and a couple of miles away. As usual this oft repeated bull crap comes without any coherent analysis to back it up.


    Now answer the OP properly you cowardly spammer. Explain the full visual record and give examples of something comparable.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018
  21. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    These two videos are about sunlight on the moon.

    Physics of the Apollo Moon Reflection


    The Mystery of the Apollo Sun
     
  22. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Firstly, this is a gish gallup and nothing whatsoever to do with the OP. Yet again you cowardly avoid the substantial and significant evidence it represents!

    Secondly, these two videos are nothing to do with sunlight on the Moon. They are evidence that your "chemist" is another in a long line of igorant fools who know nothing about the subject they comment on. They purport to deal with the reflection of the Sun on the helmet. They do not. They show how stupid a hoax believer can be in dealing with reality.

    His one point labored in the extreme over 25 minutes of quack opinion, suggests that the sun reflection must be smaller because of the convex visor.

    What it fails miserably to take into account is the nature of the material, how it diffused the light and more importantly, the way the vidicon camera itself overloads with excessive light.

    I made two videos that completely, without question debunk this stupid observation. Behind this idiotic claim lies the even more ludicrous one that we are seeing a vast super light that illuminates the entire scene evenly.

    As noted and indisputably so, something that big would illuminate areas in shadow on the opposite side, simply by virtue of its size. This is inescapable.

    Video 1 shows quite clearly the bullcrap about the size of the sun's reflection on a convex surface:-



    Video 2 irrefutable shows the large reflection completely disappear when a 2cm rod passes in front of it. To anyone with a braincell, that conclusively shows that the object casting the reflection is indeed as small as expected!



    Now perhaps this coward can answer the OP, "the viewers" can see he has no answer to it.

    Just like the digging a trench video. No meaningful response. Just evasion.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2018
  23. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    18,816
    Likes Received:
    7,070
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only evidence we have is that some of the scenes were shot on earth, and some were shot on the moon.

    I guess the faked the death of grissom too, just to make it seem real, as we were working towards going to the moon?

    We had one astronaut who left a picture of his family on the moon, and even if we got a picture of that picture, as proof, you would have to claim another conspiracy, that the picture of the picture left on the moon, was also faked. That is how these conspiracy theories work, you must keep adding additional conspiracies in order to keep the original one intact.

    As I said, there are real conspiracies but this is not one of them. But then, you actually have some people who believe the earth is flat, and that somehow this secret has been kept hidden for hundreds of years, involving 10s of thousands of people who had to be in on the conspiracy, from america to china.

    This nonsense as well as the flat earth nonsense is one way you can get the people to dismiss a real conspiracy, which did happen, and which was badly consequential for the american people.
     

Share This Page