Faking the moon landings

[gillianren]

I mean, one of the skills they taught me in higher education was how to analyze primary documentation, including when not to trust it, but sure, blind memorization.

[bknight]

the picture below shows a rock with its shadow side in total darkness. Did the person taking that photo forget to don his ultra-reflective spacesuit?

AS17-145-22163 - High resolution version shows the rock is illuminated, likely by the reflective spacesuit.

The high resolution images are a great way to help show HBs their errors.   
But in the end it is like talking to a wall the evidence gets lost on the surface and never sinks in where it could do good.

[JayUtah]

Here it's not resolution that's the issue so much as the contrast modifications inherent to (and in some cases, intended by) film duplication.  Even when great care was taken with the dupe masters, there's still considerable difference in contrast and detail between the Roll 39 dupe master and the original Roll 39.

[bknight]

Here it's not resolution that's the issue so much as the contrast modifications inherent to (and in some cases, intended by) film duplication.  Even when great care was taken with the dupe masters, there's still considerable difference in contrast and detail between the Roll 39 dupe master and the original Roll 39.

I stand corrected in this instance. 

[JayUtah]

I stand corrected in this instance. 

Not too corrected.  Your most important point remains valid:  if you want to use photographs as evidence, use the best version or copy of the photograph you can obtain.  Depending on the analysis required, you may need multiple copies of the photograph and an understanding of the parameters that affect each copy.

[smartcooky]

AS17-145-22163 - High resolution version shows the rock is illuminated, likely by the reflective spacesuit.

Actually, that makes a lot of sense.

Firstly, the lens flares top left are a tell-tale for the approximate position of the sun. The white spacesuit will reflect directly down at about the correct range of angles to illuminate the shadow sides of those nearby rocks

Second, and perhaps, most important of all, notice how the nearest rock has the greatest level of shadow-side illumination, and it falls off for the more distant rocks? That's the inverse square law in action; the fall in intensity of the illumination is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source. That the drop off is so dramatic means that the source must be close to the nearest rock, for example, the space suit or perhaps the LRV. If the source of the illumination was some distant bright floodlight as HBs erroneously claim, then those shadow faces would be, relatively speaking, more equi-distant from the source, and would therefore, show roughly equal illumination.

[Matt D]

You see, this is the problem with you people, as you take everything you are told as the gospel truth and therefore no one is allowed to question it
...
There are people who swear they have seen the earths curve from a plane, but they only see it because they want to see it, simply because their minds are too gullible and weak to distinguish between reality and fantasy. (I’m still not a flat-earther, but I’m getting there).
...
I have now came to the conclusion that if space does in fact exist in the manner we have been educated to believe,
...
but receiving a higher education and passing your exams, just means that you had a good enough memory to put down on paper all the BS fed to you in class.

For somebody making a point to clarify that he is "not a flat earther," it's interesting that when reading this post I was struggling to dab the squares on my "Flat Earth Bingo" card fast enough to keep up.  Hopefully, he returns to talk about how the spectacles of sunrise and sunset are just illusions caused by "perspective" and how moonlight is colder than darkness, so I can call bingo and collect my prize (which is presumably a Coolpix P900 camera, FE signature series). 

Anyway, the use of the above rhetorical beats - copied verbatim from the FE manifesto - would seem to indicate that the poor guy has been hanging out in Youtube's anti-science ghettos of late.  If you think Apollo denial is sad, you ain't seen nothin' yet... yikes. I did notice a few months ago this guy was already posting videos from "popular" flat earth channels to make his spurious Apollo arguments, which perhaps was a harbinger of things to come. I just hope he's not clicking the Patreon links on those videos; he may have cast away his critical thinking faculties, but there's no reason why he needs to cast away his money as well.  It's always truly sad to see people get caught in this kind of tractor beam.  Doubly so for a guy of his apparent age, who is now probably looking at spending his twilight years undermining his personal relationships in a conspiratorial tailspin. 


 

 

[JayUtah]

Actually, that makes a lot of sense.

Firstly, the lens flares top left are a tell-tale for the approximate position of the sun. The white spacesuit will reflect directly down at about the correct range of angles to illuminate the shadow sides of those nearby rocks.

Yes.  As I said, I tested with modern Beta cloth, which by casual inspection has noticeably different optical properties than Apollo-era Beta cloth.  I have access to an A7L ITMG, but not so much access that I can do detailed albedo measurements at different angles.  My off-the-cuff guess is that modern Beta cloth is more diffuse a reflector.  Fig. 12 here http://www.clavius.org/bibzz2.html, is illustrative.

Second, and perhaps, most important of all, notice how the nearest rock has the greatest level of shadow-side illumination, and it falls off for the more distant rocks? That's the inverse square law in action; the fall in intensity of the illumination is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source.

Indeed, and at least one of my tests reflected this (pun intended).  Any effect from the suit will be most visible on the closest objects.  If the effect is profound, the difference will be profound.

[bknight]

Actually, that makes a lot of sense.

Firstly, the lens flares top left are a tell-tale for the approximate position of the sun. The white spacesuit will reflect directly down at about the correct range of angles to illuminate the shadow sides of those nearby rocks.

Yes.  As I said, I tested with modern Beta cloth, which by casual inspection has noticeably different optical properties than Apollo-era Beta cloth.  I have access to an A7L ITMG, but not so much access that I can do detailed albedo measurements at different angles.  My off-the-cuff guess is that modern Beta cloth is more diffuse a reflector.  Fig. 12 here http://www.clavius.org/bibzz2.html, is illustrative.

Second, and perhaps, most important of all, notice how the nearest rock has the greatest level of shadow-side illumination, and it falls off for the more distant rocks? That's the inverse square law in action; the fall in intensity of the illumination is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source.

Indeed, and at least one of my tests reflected this (pun intended).  Any effect from the suit will be most visible on the closest objects.  If the effect is profound, the difference will be profound.

You are referring to your video shoot in the desert?

[JayUtah]

You are referring to your video shoot in the desert?

Yes.  The picture I cite is where I first noticed just how pronounced the reflective effect was, since we could see the illumination pattern clearly.  Then I got hold of some Beta cloth (it's not just for space suits) to do some more controlled experiments.  I know I have that somewhere...

[Zakalwe]

Cambo's not a flat earther yet but he's getting there.

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tells thee.

[bknight]

<snip BS>
In case I don’t see ya, good afternoon, good evening and goodnight!

Don't let the door hit you in the rear end as you depart, TROLL.

[gillianren]

For somebody making a point to clarify that he is "not a flat earther," it's interesting that when reading this post I was struggling to dab the squares on my "Flat Earth Bingo" card fast enough to keep up. 

Oh, most conspiracists use the same rhetoric.  And all of them think they're saying things we've never heard before.

[smartcooky]

<snip BS>
In case I don’t see ya, good afternoon, good evening and goodnight!

Don't let the door hit you in the rear end as you depart, TROLL.

Yeah. We'll have a going away party, and put up a big banner that says "Nice to see ya back!"

[bknight]

<snip BS>
In case I don’t see ya, good afternoon, good evening and goodnight!

Don't let the door hit you in the rear end as you depart, TROLL.

Yeah. We'll have a going away party, and put up a big banner that says "Nice to see ya back!"

Unfortunately you will correct in the long term.