Strong arguments versus weak arguments.

[Glom]

I always wonder if HBs in this kind of situation imagine themselves as Juror 2 from 12 Angry Men?  That they "just ask simple questions" bit by bit, but by the end of the movie they find they've convinced the whole jury that there was a conspiracy?  Then they naturally get frustrated when it doesn't work out that way, especially when they get confronted by obstacle after obstacle in actual evidence.

Absolutely. That's why the new ones so often melt down when people don't gasp "You're RIGHT! Why didn't I see it, I was a fool!"

Not to mention any names beginning with DakDak.

[advancedboy]

1. Relevance of stars  in photography. If the moon missions were real, they wouldn`t bother about stars, the stars would be simply all over the pictures. I mean they wouldn`t bother about their location, because they would be where they had to be. The problem arrives when they fake the moonlanding. then the whole issue changes. I didn`t say that it is impossible to fake starfield. It simply increases expenditures  and increases complexity. The problem is that you can`t pretend to fly to the moon on monday, and present starfield that was photographed a month ago, because position of the sun in the photographs and the consequent shadows would change as well. And location of planets as well. Because the earth is not rotating in a single location but travelling in space, the starfield changes as well. There are many videos, that show how NASA has been tampering with paint brush. I will try to find them.
2. Photographing stars. One could assume that the surface albedo is enough to enlighten the spacecraft and astronauts even if the sun is right behind them. What is strange that the same surface is unable to light up rocks on the shadow side and most of them look to be in complete darkness. You could assume that astronauts are in white color and is the reason. Well, the lunar lander is not all white. You could assume that it is the surface albedo that allows the light to bounce back on the astronauts. Well, the lunar lander is much higher off the ground, and even darker parts are nicely lit. That is a bit suspicious. Another issue, the lower the light that illuminates the object is, the less light will bounce back from the surface, implying less exposure of the shadowed side. many pictures of Apollo have the sun pretty low at the horizon, yet the shadow side of the astronauts are nicely lit, while shadow of the rocks leave them in complete blackness.
 Here is a video of Petrie island. You can get there by car or bus as well, as it is some 5 miles away from Place D`orleans. look at the sand. Not a hint of it being on the pavement. You think somebody is sweeping the area everyday? No, it is the chemicals they have added to the sand. There are many here from Canada s well, I suppose, you could figure out this one pretty easily. Ain`t a conspiracy here.

[advancedboy]

I don`t know of course, it could have been that the lifeguard had lied to me, but it kinda sounds silly to lie about such an insiginificant matter. It could have been, that the whole beach area was sifted for coarser sand, although I didn`t feel it to be coars, it was simply moist  or humid by touch. here is another vid of this place. And believe me it is not rain, because I was there many times, and the sand is constantly in this shape. When digging deeper in the sand it stll has the same pattern, there is no dry sand underneath, neither there is sand that would be wet, as in full with water.
here is the vid--

[advancedboy]

Here is a video of NASA tampering with pictures. I would ask you to ignore the whole video, as it  is not convincing at all, except, please stop at 10:11 and tell me what is that you see there?

[VincentMcConnell]

LOL. 10:11 was part of a video made by an individual formerly known as "NASAvsPETE". He is a proven troll, liar, schizophrenic, psychotic and unintelligent person who has no valid input on anything short of talking to himself...

[Count Zero]

2. Photographing stars.

Nothing you say after this has anything to do with photographing stars.

One could assume that the surface albedo is enough to enlighten the spacecraft and astronauts even if the sun is right behind them.

Correct.  Also note that the lunar regolith has retroreflective properties, which makes it reflect more light back towards its source than would otherwise be expected based on albedo alone.  This is why a full-moon is several times brighter than a half-moon, instead of just twice as bright.

What is strange that the same surface is unable to light up rocks on the shadow side and most of them look to be in complete darkness. You could assume that astronauts are in white color and is the reason.

Correct, but it's hardly "strange".  It is to be expected, if you do the math:

Albedo of surface (including rocks):  ~7%
Albedo of astronaut's spacesuit:  ~80%

Sunlight:  100%
Sunlight reflecting off the lunar surface, then off the spacesuit:  .07 x .8 = .056 or 5.6%
Sunlight reflecting off the lunar surface, then off a rock the same size as the astronaut:  .07 x .07 = .0049 or 0.49%

Thus the astronaut in shadow is going to be more than 10 times brighter than a rock the same size.

Well, the lunar lander is not all white. You could assume that it is the surface albedo that allows the light to bounce back on the astronauts. Well, the lunar lander is much higher off the ground, and even darker parts are nicely lit. That is a bit suspicious.

No it's not.  This is a photo of the LM's shadow taken from up in one of the windows:



Note the brightness around the top from the retroreflection mentioned earlier.

Now here is the same shadow (part of it, actually - the whole thing wouldn't fit in one frame) taken from ground-level near one of the LM's footpads:



For the lander or any other object facing away from the sun, there's going to be less reflected light on its lower portion because its shadow blocks more light than it does for the higher portions.

Last word on the subject of lighting:  The solar flux at 1AU from the sun is ~1,400 watts per square meter.  If we assume an albedo of 7% for the moon's surface, then the reflected light from that surface will be

1,400 x 0.07 = 98 watts per square meter.

In other words, the light reflecting from the lunar surface is roughly equivalent to a 100 watt lightbulb on every visible square meter of surface.  That is plenty for photographing in the shadows, and enough to make the stars invisible for someone who's not looking for them (because he's - you know - studying the moon).

[Abaddon]

Here is a video of NASA tampering with pictures. I would ask you to ignore the whole video, as it  is not convincing at all, except, please stop at 10:11 and tell me what is that you see there?

Start with the usual inept photoshop slider manipulation to highlight jpeg compression artifacts in the black sky malarkey.

ROFL, individual pixelation/compression artifacts on the slope of a mountain are really a staircase.

After 3.5 minutes of that garbage, I had to stop.

Too funny.

[Jason Thompson]

1. Relevance of stars  in photography. If the moon missions were real, they wouldn`t bother about stars, the stars would be simply all over the pictures.

What are you talking about? The stars will not show up on the pictures because they are too faint to do so without long exposures that would wash out the foreground.

The problem is that you can`t pretend to fly to the moon on monday, and present starfield that was photographed a month ago, because position of the sun in the photographs and the consequent shadows would change as well.

Who said anything about using a photographed starfield? If a reasonably competent astronomer could tell if stars were in the wrong positions, a reasonably competent astronomer could work out the correct position and make a starfield that is correct for any given date. We have been able to do this for centuries now.

What is strange that the same surface is unable to light up rocks on the shadow side and most of them look to be in complete darkness. You could assume that astronauts are in white color and is the reason.

Yes, you could, and it is.

Well, the lunar lander is not all white. You could assume that it is the surface albedo that allows the light to bounce back on the astronauts. Well, the lunar lander is much higher off the ground, and even darker parts are nicely lit.

The lighting on the LM is quite consistent with being on a retroreflective surface such as the lunar regolith.

[Jason Thompson]

Here is a video of NASA tampering with pictures. I would ask you to ignore the whole video, as it  is not convincing at all, except, please stop at 10:11 and tell me what is that you see there?

I see JPEG compression artifacts, as I would expect to. Digital photo manipulation by playing with photoshop settings does not equate to serious photographic analysis. Now if he were to perform a similar experiment using the original film that the picture was captured on and not a multi-generation digital copy of a copy of a copy compressed for online presentation, he might have a case...

[nomuse]

1. Relevance of stars  in photography. If the moon missions were real, they wouldn`t bother about stars, the stars would be simply all over the pictures.

Non-responsive.

You have had the reason why it is impossible to include lunar surface activities and a starfield in the same photograph.  You have been directly questioned as to whether you understand these reasons.  You have been challenged to provide any refutation, any explanation as to why you believe the impossible is actually possible.

No.  You don't get to simply waltz over the question, ignore all the responses you have been given, and proceed with some other argument based on that foundation of bent soda straws.

I mean they wouldn`t bother about their location, because they would be where they had to be. The problem arrives when they fake the moonlanding. then the whole issue changes. I didn`t say that it is impossible to fake starfield. It simply increases expenditures  and increases complexity. The problem is that you can`t pretend to fly to the moon on monday, and present starfield that was photographed a month ago, because position of the sun in the photographs and the consequent shadows would change as well. And location of planets as well. Because the earth is not rotating in a single location but travelling in space, the starfield changes as well. There are many videos, that show how NASA has been tampering with paint brush. I will try to find them.

Oh, really?  I am going to make a direct demand of my own.  Show me you understand the definition and derivation of the term "parsec."  For extra points, please explain what fraction of the field of view of the Hasselblad images this stellar motion would entail.

2. Photographing stars. One could assume that the surface albedo is enough to enlighten the spacecraft and astronauts even if the sun is right behind them. What is strange that the same surface is unable to light up rocks on the shadow side and most of them look to be in complete darkness. You could assume that astronauts are in white color and is the reason. Well, the lunar lander is not all white. You could assume that it is the surface albedo that allows the light to bounce back on the astronauts. Well, the lunar lander is much higher off the ground, and even darker parts are nicely lit. That is a bit suspicious. Another issue, the lower the light that illuminates the object is, the less light will bounce back from the surface, implying less exposure of the shadowed side. many pictures of Apollo have the sun pretty low at the horizon, yet the shadow side of the astronauts are nicely lit, while shadow of the rocks leave them in complete blackness.

Again with the Gish Gallop.  Again I respectfully suggest you stick to ONE subject until you can show you understand it.

There are three factors you haven't considered.   One is that the lunar surface is a dark gray, quite a bit darker than any painted portion of the LM.  Two is that objects like the LM stick up above the surface, and thus have a view angle to more lit ground.  A rock near the ground can "see" mostly its own shadow.  You can see this quite clearly on something like the famous "man on the moon" picture from Apollo 11; the legs are much darker than the rest of the body, and it isn't just the lunar dust that is causing that.  Three is that parts of the LM are not "lit," per se.  Which is to say; they are coated in reflective materials.  You aren't seeing diffuse reflection of the light that is falling on them; you are seeing what the mirror sees.  Which depending on the angle of the bit of foil in question, is usually black sky, or lit surface.

Here is a video of Petrie island. You can get there by car or bus as well, as it is some 5 miles away from Place D`orleans. look at the sand. Not a hint of it being on the pavement. You think somebody is sweeping the area everyday? No, it is the chemicals they have added to the sand. There are many here from Canada s well, I suppose, you could figure out this one pretty easily. Ain`t a conspiracy here.

Whatever.  You may not be the person you are looking a lot like, so take this as a friendly word -- this forum has a history, and part of that history was an extremely lengthy and weary discussion of magic sand.  No-one wants to go there again.  Trust me on this.

[ChrLz]

A couple of small observations (yes, just sniping from the shadows.. but I think someone's gotta say it..).

1. Why are posters complaining about the Gish Gallop and then happily jumping onto every new topic advancedboy introduces, despite the fact that he hasn't acknowledged one of his errors to date?  (If he has, I apologise for missing it amongst the drivel he has posted so far.)

2. I'd just like to congratulate advancedboy on his remarkable grammatical improvement in just the space of a few days.  It's interesting - this seems to be quite common among Apollo-denial enthusiasts, like fattydash/dastardly and decisively (at ATS), who slowly transmogrify from people who need their sisters and best friend Timmy to help, into misinformation trolls specialists who nevertheless seem to be quite adept, at least literarily...

3. In relation to 1, may I suggest that advancedboy is made to commit to his very best evidence, and then that topic is comprehensively covered and conceded as appropriate BEFORE allowing the next twenty distractions? 

Wasn't the intent of his initial gambit about weak arguments obvious?  And here he is, playing all those weak arguments out simultaneously..   Sheeesh.

.. And I'd like to see that postcard go to Latvia...

[raven]

Apollo did take pictures of stars, but only when using long exposures. The Far UV pictures in particular have been used to show that the astronauts were indeed on the moon.

[ka9q]

1. Relevance of stars  in photography. If the moon missions were real, they wouldn`t bother about stars, the stars would be simply all over the pictures.

You seem to have completely missed the points made about exposure times. Sol, our own sun, has a visual magnitude of -26.74. Sirius A, the next brightest star in our sky (i.e., the brightest star in the night sky) has a magnitude of -1.47. More positive stellar magnitudes correspond to dimmer stars, with 5 stellar magnitudes corresponding to a brightness ratio of 100:1. Each decrease of -1 in magnitude is therefore an increase in brightness of 100^1/5 = 2.512:1. The ratio of the brightness of Sol to Sirius is therefore

= (100^1/5)^{-1.47 - (-26.74)}
= 12.82 x 10⁹.

That is, our sun is almost 13 billion times brighter than Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky. Do you seriously think that Sirius, to say nothing of the many other stars that are considerably dimmer, should "simply be all over the pictures" exposed for a sunlit lunar scene?

Yet you're wrong even in your assumption that Apollo returned no star pictures from the lunar surface. Though there are no stars in the hand-held Hasselblad pictures, nor should there be any, Apollo 16 set up a far ultraviolet telescope in the shadow of the lunar module. Why UV? The earth's atmosphere is opaque to far UV so astronomy in this spectral range can only be done in space. Using time exposures of tens of minutes, far longer than the 1/125 or 1/250 sec exposures of the astronauts' own Hasselblad cameras, this telescopic camera took 178 pictures of various stars, nebulae, the Large Magellanic Cloud (one of the mini-galaxies neighboring our Milky Way galaxy), and the earth surrounded by its own ultraviolet glow.

Although the earth remains nearly motionionless in the lunar sky (it actually librates or "wobbles" a few degrees over the month), the moon nonetheless rotates once per month so the star field does move slowly across the lunar sky. And lo and behold, the earth in these UV pictures is surrounded by a set of stars that happen to be in exactly the right places for their times and location.

I now eagerly await your attempts to move the goalposts by claiming that these pictures could have been faked. That would have been impossible for the simple reason that this was the first far-UV camera flown in space. Unlike visible-light stars, NASA simply lacked the information it would have needed to fake lunar UV pictures at that time. (These stars have since been verified by other UV cameras flying on subsequent robotic missions from several countries.)  In other words, these UV pictures are much better proof of an actual lunar landing than any hypothetical visible-light star pictures, ones you knew did not exist and therefore thought safe to pretend you would have accepted as proof.

What is strange that the same surface is unable to light up rocks on the shadow side and most of them look to be in complete darkness. You could assume that astronauts are in white color and is the reason. Well, the lunar lander is not all white. You could assume that it is the surface albedo that allows the light to bounce back on the astronauts. Well, the lunar lander is much higher off the ground, and even darker parts are nicely lit. That is a bit suspicious.

Not only is this not suspicious, it is exactly what should happen. The shadowed side of a tall object like the LM is brighter than the shadowed side of a small rock because the LM is exposed to far more sunlit surface area than the rock.

Further, the lunar surface is not a simple diffuse scatterer. It returns much more light toward the source than other directions. This is known as the "opposition effect", and it's the reason the full moon is something like ten times as bright as a half moon, not twice. The sun was low in the east during every Apollo landing, so the west side of the LM, facing down-sun, was lit especially well by sunlight preferentially scattered back toward it.

This same optical property of the lunar surface is responsible for the "heiligenschein", a familiar phenomenon in Apollo photographs in which the shadow of the astronaut taking a picture is surrounded by a bright halo.

Why does the heiligenschein occur? Because the lunar surface is extremely rough and fine at small scales due to constant bombardment by hypervelocity micrometeoroids. Among other things, it also completely rules out the notion that the surface actually consisted of "coarse wet beach sand" because it simply doesn't behave like it.

[Echnaton]

1. Relevance of stars  in photography. If the moon missions were real, they wouldn`t bother about stars, the stars would be simply all over the pictures.

Once again I'll ask you; do you ever go outside and look at the sky? 

Have you ever stood under a street light, looked at the stars and noticed how few you could see?  Have you ever been in a football game at night and looked at the sky?  It is mostly or entirely black.  Now to extend this further, take a film camera to a football game and take a picture of the crowd and the sky.  If the crowd portion is properly exposed, the sky will be black.  It is a simple experiment.  Even a properly exposed photo of a person under a street light would not show stars.  And remember, the lunar photos were shot in full daylight. 

Have you ever gone into the country and tried to photograph stars?  You can't do it with a hand held camera because you can't hold it still for long enough.  For someone who claims to be interested in industrial design and efficiency, it would seem to be the least you could do before making wild claims. 

Your posts are becoming ever more desperate, take a look at the world around you and learn something about nature, it will ease your discomfort.

Finally, have you considered the photographs of stars that were taken?  How do these fit into your rationale for a hoax. 

[Jason Thompson]

1. Why are posters complaining about the Gish Gallop and then happily jumping onto every new topic advancedboy introduces, despite the fact that he hasn't acknowledged one of his errors to date?

Because it highlights his tactics while avoiding the impression that he is asking unanswerable questions or has something we can't or won't address.