For fun:Lunar hoax lunatics.

[alokmohan]

Just for fun.http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/solarsystem/earth/apolloevidence.shtmlWhy not land up in this argument again?

 

[qso1]

Be advised, most of the posters will be quite irritated at the prospect of having to address the HB argument again. Me, I don't mind because I have only been regularly posting for a few months and always open to trying to show HBs the evidence for the landings being real that they might have missed.<br /><br />BTW, HB is hoax believer and so the question I have is, are you an HB?<br /><br />Never mind that question, I just reread the title of your thread. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

From the link you posted:<br />Conspiracy theorists argue that you ought to be able to see stars from the Moon. Yet there are no stars in any of the Apollo photographs.<br /><br />Me:<br />I knew the answer to this when I was 14 or 15. I had an interest in movie special effects and photography. The answer the site has is one I figured out and one that HBs ought not to use as evidence for faking lunar landings.<br /><br />Posted link exerpt:<br />The Van Allen belt is a band of high energy particles trapped in the Earth's magnetic field. It is often claimed that radiation from these belts would kill any astronaut passing through.<br /><br />Me:<br />What I find amusing...uh, amazing here is that HBs do not believe it when the scientific community says we landed on the moon, yet believe the same scientific community (Van Allen among them) when they say there is a Van Allen belt.<br /><br />Excerpt:<br />On the Moon, there is no atmosphere to scatter light. Therefore, regions of shadows should look completely dark. But this is not always the case with Apollo photographs. Conspiracy theorists say this is more evidence that the photographs are fake.<br /><br />Me:<br />Until recently, I discounted this claim. I havn't yet found an explanation but my previous explanation was that the planets reflect sunlight in empty space until I realized the planets are reflecting emitted light or photons whereas the EVA suit is being lit somehow by light reflected from the lunar surface rather than a direct source. A lighting expert might be able to explain it better. The website explanation was a "Could be" kind of explanation rather than a direct one.<br /><br />Excerpt:<br />Harry Faulkner - "I still believe it was real. And just think what a coup it would have been for the Soviet Union to have been able to show that it was all faked. If they had even so much as a whisper that it was faked - and their intelligence was very good - they'd have screamed 'fake' at the top of their voices. They never did." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[pocket_rocket]

When I was young, my father told me "if I hear those foul words again, I'm gonna smack you upside your head". I didn't believe him because he had never smacked me before. Next time I used the words---SMACK<br />The moral of this story is that some folks won't believe evidence till it smacks them upside the head. <br />There are a select few who lack pain sensors in the cranial area.<br /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

Stars:<br />Actually, you can see stars on the surface of the Moon, and on any spacecraft. You just have to not have the bright glare of the surface in your field of vision at the time, and allow your eyes some time to adjust. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Same as on Earth, really. There are a few photographs which capture stars and bright planets; they're mostly too dim to be seen, though, since the camera isn't set to capture them. But there are some notable exceptions. Some astronomy experiments were performed on the lunar surface, capturing stars in infrared, ultraviolet, and gamma ray, wavelengths difficult to study from beneath the Earth's atmosphere. Today, we study these frequencies with space telescopes, but the use of such telescopes is only possible today because the brief Apollo experiments demonstrated their value.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Until recently, I discounted this claim. I havn't yet found an explanation but my previous explanation was that the planets reflect sunlight in empty space until I realized the planets are reflecting emitted light or photons whereas the EVA suit is being lit somehow by light reflected from the lunar surface rather than a direct source. A lighting expert might be able to explain it better. The website explanation was a "Could be" kind of explanation rather than a direct one. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I'm no lighting expert, but my brother is. He agrees that it's clearly backscatter from the lunar surface itself. Portrait photographers create this effect themselves quite regularly, usually with a large sheet of metallic fabric stretched over a wire frame. There, the idea is to help fill in shadows on the subject's face, softening the overall effect. The lunar surface is quite reflective (although less so than the Earth's surface, which is mostly water) -- it's basically made of tiny beads of glass. It's also uneven, so this effect will not be very predictable <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

CalliArcale:<br />Actually, you can see stars on the surface of the Moon, and on any spacecraft.<br /><br />Me:<br />This I know is true but I was mainly looking at it from the photographic explanation since I'm never going to get to see it from space myself.<br /><br />CalliArcale:<br />That it's so bright really shouldn't be a surprise. It's so bright it actually illuminates the Earth, many thousands of miles away. You can almost read a book by the light of the full Moon, after all.<br /><br />Me:<br />It was one thing to point out the use of backscattered light in an Earth bound situation where a critic will easily say, we have an atmosphere. But you hit the proof I was looking for on the head as an explanation when you mentioned the Earthshine caused by the moon light reflecting on it which occurs through a vacuum.<br /><br />CalliArcale:<br />This may seem illogical to some, as he is so vocal about his anti-NASA and anti-government sentiment on this particular subject, but he uses Apollo photographs to show evidence of crystalline cities on the Moon. So he doesn't allege that Apollo was a fake;<br /><br />Me:<br />Thats for sure, without a real lunar landing, he'd have no case for ETs hanging around in strategic locations in space. When I first heard of him, he was just alleging the face on Mars was artificial. Then he got into the lunar artifact thing and whatever credibility he might have had with me, vanished.<br /><br />You may recall a poster we had here calling himself "Skyeagle409". He too believed in ETs and also accepted the lunar landings as fact. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>