Turbs, I think at the end of the day you have stretched this 'argument' so far, and now it has snapped. It seems of late you have resorted to using a single word in a quote as a literal view on events. I often see you quoting definitions from dictionaries etc. You have no problem accepting the reason that the pictures don't contain stars, so why the insistence that the human eye should? They work in very similar ways. This theory of yours has stagnated beyond all belief, I'm actually growing weary of it as the arguments you are presenting become more and more like typical logical fallacies. We've all learnt a lot debating this, and that's what it's all about - learning, so why don't we hash out the next point?

This was a comment from an article cited earlier...

For comparison, the albedo of a green golf course is about 13%, roughly the same as that of the Cayley Formation which covers the floor of Ptolemaeus. So you see, the moon is not quite as dark as is often claimed - something about in the middle range of lunar brightnesses is just as bright as a grassy yard at noon.

http://jeff.medkeff.com/astro/lunar/obs_tech/albedo.htm

So, according to this article, the mid-range brightness of the lunar surface is about the same as a grassy yard at noon. Recall the images I posted of a golf course, one of which I modified by "removing the atmosphere"?



A "grassy yard at noon", such as the grass on a golf course, does not reflect an intense bright light back up into our eyes. (One may wear a visor or a hat to block out the sunlight coming down from above, but I've never heard of anyone wearing a visor around their neck to block out bright reflections coming from the grass!)

If we had no atmosphere, do you really believe that "a grassy yard at noon" would wash out all the stars from our view? If you do, then what quantifiable evidence exists to support that claim? I'm quite certain that there is no such evidence, just like there isn't any for the Moon argument.



Perhaps that's because there isn't any empirical evidence. Of course, you believe that there is such evidence - the claims of the Apollo astronauts. Indeed, that is what you claim is the evidence which proves your argument.



No, you're not wrong. I didn't address it because, first of all, there is no valid evidence that the lunar surface is bright enough to have any such effect to begin with. You first have to quantify/measure your source, before we can consider what effect that source may or may not have on something else!



You may have missed my earlier posts regarding this issue. I pointed out that these are invalid comparisons, because on Earth, this phenomenon is caused by our atmosphere (scattering the light). But, as we know, the Moon has no atmosphere. Apples and oranges, as they say.

I said...

I've made a valid argument based on the scientific evidence. It's only reasonable that I have asked you for the scientific evidence which supports your counter-argument.



No, you're actually claiming that my source is wrong. Didn't you even notice that this statement...

Albedo is the ratio which the light reflected from an unpolished surface bears to the total light falling upon that surface.

...was italicized and linked in my post? Here's two more sources, which have the very same definition of albedo...

http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/281/

http://dict.die.net/albedo/

There are many other sources besides these, which have the same definition, either word-for-word, or with slightly different wording. And you claim they are all wrong? I must admit, I'm very impressed with your superior, authoritative knowledge on this matter. I bet all these sources would really appreciate it if you were to inform them about their errors!



Well, if that isn't exactly the sort of scientific evidence I've been asking for, then I don't know what else is!!

Come on, Waspie_Dwarf. Once again, a comment about how "dazzling" the lunar surface is, with a completely unfounded claim about how it impairs seeing stars.



What facts?!? Facts require valid scientific evidence, and you've provided zilch.

No. I simply agreed with his statement, as it stood. You can spin it any way you want, and leap to grandiose conclusions. I've come to expect such tactics from you, so hey, just keep on going - knock yourself out.



Ha! Turbonium has put a lot of effort into presenting this guy as someone to rely on completely, and does the guy return the compliment? No way:

"...the Lunar hoax crackpots..."

You really have a knack for putting your own bizarre spin on things. I post a single comment from someone, and say that I agree with that comment. You take that, and spout off a bunch of nonsense - I regard him as "someone to rely on completely". I've "put a lot of effort into presenting him" that way.

As I said, keep knocking yourself out with this claptrap. I've come to expect it from you.



Look again at what you've been arguing...

The full moon has a considerable effect on the ability to see stars, ask any amateur astronomer if you don't believe me. If a full moon covering less than a quarter of a square degree of sky can affect eyesight to make the fainter stars impossible to see, what effect do you think standing on the lunar surface with the moon filling half of the sphere around you is going to have?

Faulty logic. You can't extrapolate the effect of the Moon's brightness on seeing stars from Earth, to that of someone seeing stars on the Moon.

Our atmosphere scatters light - whether it's sunlight, moonlight, starlight, or city lights. It makes our sky blue in the noon-day Sun. It makes the stars twinkle at night. It washes out the stars from the Manhattan nights. And it also makes it harder to see stars during a full Moon.

There are other problems with your argument, but this will suffice.

So how is this "quantifiable evidence?" Yet again double standards, You put forward an opinion but demand numbers in return.

What quantifiable evidence exists to prove that Apollo 11 astronauts MUST have been able to see the stars on the Moon. Remember "could have" doesn't cut it here. You are claiming that the fact they didn't see any stars is proof that the entire Apollo programme was faked. To do that you have to show that they must have seen stars. If it is possible that the simply did not have time to look then you have no proof. If it is possible that the visors they wore (and you have ignored repeatedly) prevented them seeing the stars you have no proof. If the fact that Armstrong said he "did remember" means that if it is possible that he was concentrating so hard on other things that he simply did not remember that detail later then you have no proof. If it is possible[/b[ that they were never dark adapted enough to see the stars you have no proof. If it is [b]possible that the bright reflections from the lunar surface were sufficient to prevent them seeing stars, you have no proof. If just one of those scenarios is possib;e then you have no proof. That is the way that science works.

It's that horrible little burden of proof thing rearing it's ugly head again. When you put forward a hypothesis (in this case Apollo 11 astronauts didn't see stars then Apollo was faked) it is for you to prove your case. It is for you to put forward the quantifiable scientific evidence. It is not for you to say, "this is my version of the truth, prove I am wrong". This is how "valid, scientific evidence" is ascertained.

Why do you turn the burden of proof on its head every time? Why do you put forward a hypothesis and then expect other people to prove you are wrong? I suspect it is because really you understand how weak your case really is.

The reason some (or most) of the photos don't show stars has been explained (at least somewhat) with scientific, quantifiable evidence. Experts in photography have addressed that in quantifiable terms. Shutter speeds, exposure settings, etc. will have an effect on capturing various levels of light from existing sources.

But where is there any scientific, quantifiable evidence which supports the claim about the lunar surface being bright enough to prohibit the seeing of stars?

A camera does NOT work very much like the human eye. A camera captures an image in a fraction of a second. The human eye sees that "image" continuously. A camera captures different amounts of light with different settings - shutter speed, etc. The human eye does not. A camera can only capture a small range of what the human eye can see.

You may have grown tired of this argument, but let me tell you something...

All the counter-arguments I've heard lack something absolutely critical - scientific evidence. I've heard so many different arguments on this issue

- the camera responds to light just like the human eye.
- the Moon is so bright, it's painful to look at through a telescope.
- the Moon is so bright, it's "dazzling".
- Apollo astronaut _____ said ______
- look at how bright tarmac looks under a hot Sun.

I could go on and on. I appreciate the efforts of those in making these points, but the fact is, they all amount to squat. No science, no valid evidence.

I'm soon going to bring up a different angle on this issue. That may be good news to you, or maybe not. But I do think it will help to show you the validity of my argument.

We all said that the statement had to be qualified, you said it was absolute, you refused to look at any conflicting evidence even from people with relevant observational experience, it was one of us that had to ask the guy what he really meant.
In the event it turned out you were quite right not to enquire further, but not in the way you thought.

If a bright object taking up a tiny fraction of the sky has an effect, why is it faulty logic to expect the effect to be greater when the same bright object takes up half your field of view?

If the atmosphere was the only factor, astronauts in earth orbit would report seeing lots of stars in the daytime. As they only report such sights at night, I have to conclude that you are wrong on this one. Incidentally, I am still waiting for some sort of evidence for your claim of seeing stars from inside a room with the lights on.

You have gone on and on...
However, you neglect that the objective observations of technically and scientifically trained individuals, observations that were consistent, and repeated, ARE SCIENCE...are valid evidence.




The validity of your argument has been shown to be inescapably nil, Turb.

This pattern is becoming dull.
No offense, but I said something to the effect that you trust the words of a PhD who presented a theoretical statement without consideration or inclusion of the specific details pertinent to Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface.

You said something to the effect that I was demeaning the words of an expert. I fo course was not, but rather was stating the obvious (and begged you to get a clarification, which you declined to do).

Once it was shown that this PhD essentially echoed the comments you'd been given by many of us (and made what was a derogatory comment associated with that, unfortunately...but understandably) you discount him yourself...obstinately stating that his initial and obviously incomplete comment was STILL SUFFICIENT to support your argument.


I don't get it.

The argument is over. You don't readily see stars in space, or on the lunar surface in sunlight.

Im not sure if this has been mentioned yet... given that there are now over a hundred pages to this one.... There are a lot of amateur astronomers out there with amazing telescopes. Couldn't we just train the scopes on the moon and see the flag and plate left? or any of the equipment left behind...This might not be possible, but its just a thought.

I'm pretty sure it has been mentioned. There are no telescopes on Earth or above it that have the resolution to make out the objects left on the Moon.

Turbs, I appreciate the time you take to respond. You're debating several people on slightly different aspects of the same thing here, and you're taking your time to respond to everyone in a polite manner which counts for a lot in my book.

As for your comparison of the grassy yard... it's not a complete comparison because there isn't just the surface brightness to factor in. You're missing out a few things.

1. Very bright light source (sun). My opinion is that it would very likely be impossible to see any stars at all while looking upsun.
2. Bright Earthshine. The Earth's angular size form the moon is about 2.5x that of the moon from the Earth. As you've pointed out, the average albedo of the earth is about 3x that of the moon. The Earth is going to be considerably brighter from the moon, than a similarly phased moon is from Earth. Of course, we need to factor in things like where exactly in the sky the Earth is, but there's no doubt it's another bright light source in the sky. It's easy enough to show that the Earth isn't in the same direction as the sun. The closer to the equator, the higher in the sky the Earth will be... the further away, the lower in the sky.
3. Local surface brightness. Taking a photo of a golf course, and photoshopping the sky out to show stars doesn't cut it as evidence I'm afraid. It's my opinion, backed up by my own experimentation, that star visibilty would be reduced, but not eliminated, by surface brightness. I don't believe you'd see a bright swathe of stars, but would be able to view individual stars.
4. Sun visor. I think you misunderstood my opint - I'm not concerned with how the sun visor reduces overall surface brightness, but how it reduces the brightness of stars. EVer tried stargazing with sunglasses on? Neither have I, but I don't suppose they'll help much.



My experiment was done at night - so no sunlight was scattered by the atmsophere.

I don't really want to drag this particular issue out any further Turbs, so I'll let you have the last say about the points I've raised above re the Earth being a bright light source, and the sunvisor making stars less bright.

Cheers

Castor,


It had been mentioned in the previous thread.
Frenat is correct, we simply do not have a telescope with the capability to image objects that are 250,000 miles away---the largest of which would be in the area of 4-5 meters accross.


You speak to flags (which have most likely completely deteriorated in the lunar radiation flux over the past 35+ years), and the "plate" left behind...which was about a 6" square piece of metal attached to a LM descent stage landing strut...behind a ladder (assuming you're referring to the small commemorative plaque which each mission had attached to it's LM???)....

...If we did have the capability to actually resolve a LM descent stage on the surface, we still couldn't see those things. Further, we don't need to, because we took thousands of pictures on the Moon, many of which imaged those very objects on the lunar surface.

Now I "said it was absolute"?!? Rubbish.

This is the last time I'm going to spell it out for you. This was his complete answer, to a question about why stars glow at night but not during the day...

"Stars do glow during the day, but we can't see them because of the glare of sunlight. When the sun is up, the blue color in sunlight gets scattered all over the atmosphere, turning the sky the familiar bright blue color. This blue light is much brighter than the faint light coming from the stars, so it prevents us from seeing them.

If you were standing on the Moon, for instance, where there is no atmosphere, you would see the stars both day and night."

I noted that both of his comments supported my argument...

1. That it is our atmosphere, scattering the sunlight, which prevents us from seeing stars during the day.
2. That if you stood on the Moon, you would see stars during the day (and night), because there is no atmosphere to scatter the sunlight.

postbaguk asked me to contact him for further clarification, because he (postie) said it did not jibe with the experiences of the Apollo astronauts, etc. That's when I said...

From my point of view, his comment does not need any further clarification. The comments make perfect sense to me as they stand.

Furthermore, this entire issue began with the claim by Armstrong about not being able to see any stars on the Moon during the day. I am the one who has been disputing the veracity of that claim, so why would I consider it a problem when it didn't jibe with Dr. Kornreich's comment?? Why would I feel it needed further clarification? Because it didn't jibe with the very comments from the Apollo astronaut that I was disputing?? No. That is absolutely ridiculous.

Your spin on this issue is a fine work of fiction, I'll grant you that much.



Again, you're way off on this, as I just pointed out above. There are plenty of other forums, where creative writing is welcome. But it isn't here.



I find it amusing that some people think I refused postie's request to contact Dr. Kornreich out of fear or concern for his reply. I hardly find it surprising that he cited an Apollo astronaut to support his response. Or do you honestly think I was expecting or hoping he would say that he considers Apollo was staged or something?



Because you are not making a valid comparison. It's like saying that since the Moon looks so bright from 240,000 miles away (on Earth), that if you were standing on the Moon, the lunar surface must be so intensely bright that it would blind you instantly. That is obviously not true. It's faulty logic.

Our eyes adapt to light changes whereas cameras don't. Therefore as the sky gets dark it appears that the Moon is dazzling. In fact, it is only a dull grey colour. If we could surround the sky with full moons then the sky would still be only 1/4 as bright as one Sun in the sky even though the sky would be filled with 105,000 full moons. A full moon is 465,000 times fainter than a sunny day. The only reason why we are able to see features outside by moonlight is that the eye is amazingly adaptable. A sheet of white paper by moonlight is 2,000 times darker than black velvet in sunlight. Yet some people are able to read a book by moon light.

The surface brightness of the Moon is not uniform and hence a quarter phase Moon is not half as bright as a Full Moon. The Moon is a sphere, so more light is reflected back when the Moon's face is directly towards us. The Moon is brighter in the middle and greyer towards the terminators. The Moon's surface is covered with valleys and mountains that don't reflect much light back. A first quarter Moon is therefore about 1/10 the brightness of a Full Moon. Approximately 2.4 days before Full Moon results in a brightness that is half of a Full Moon.

http://www.museum.vic.gov.au/planetarium/s...ystem/moon.html



Atmosphere is certainly a factor. I never said it was the only one.

I already cited Shuttle astronauts who did report seeing stars (or being able to see them) during the daytime in LEO, so you're wrong on that.

I don't have a digital camera right now, but I'll try and find a way to take a photo and post it, and prove my claim.

No, that is not valid, quantifiable science. Even if they were on the Moon (which I don't believe they ever were) and reported their observations, it would only be considered testimonial evidence, not quantifiably valid scientific evidence. Furthermore, all the testimonies are exclusively from people within a single group. There is no independent corroboration, which means you have nothing but the word of members within a single group to go on.

The science doesn't support your argument, which is clearly the true reason why you haven't shown any.

Anyway, something else will soon be posted that relates to this issue.

..and you repeat that claim a few lines down:

From our point of view, his statement certainly needs qualification as to exactly how easy it would be to see stars from the moon. If it is difficult, there is no conflict with Arrmstrong's statement.

Apply your own faulty logic using the figures you quote: A full moon, 465,000 times fainter than a sunny day, affects ones ability to see stars. Filling the sky with full moons, ie giving perhaps a bit more than twice as much light as actually standing on the moon, is 105,000 times as bright as a full moon, or about a quarter as bright as a sunny day. It isn't going to blind you, but it is sure going to affect your ability to see stars.

I said "lots of stars", which none of your astronaut quotes did. No, the Shuttle statements require exactly the same clarification as Kornreich's: how easy is it to see stars? You quote "look away from the sun", but they also have to look away from the sunlit earth and any sunlit parts of the Shuttle. The situation is the same as it is for Apollo, possible but not easy.

Since when Turb?
Since when is empirical observation, repeated six times, not science?


Please don't hand me that stuff about everyone being from the same organization. That's already been discussed, and it's irrelevant. Only NASA and it's crews could go to the Moon. They're still the only ones who can.

Perhaps we should've sent someone untrained for spaceflight to go along as an independent observer?!




It is valid scientific observation, done by engineeers, professionals, and scientists!
Six separate groups of them, over the course of three years!
I cannot believe you're actually maintaining this position.


However, YOU DON'T BELIEVE THEY EVER WERE ON THE MOON, which is the thrust, the impulse driving these rather shallow arguments. You speak of only NASA astronauts observing this completely understandable phenomenon on the Moon, yet today, we have astronauts from all over the world who observe the same phenomena on orbit....no jumbles of stars in the sky during the day light passes. What do you need?

Your own words spell it out:





This is a perfect and precise illustration of what I told you before.
You are completely blinded by your BELIEF, and despite the fact that your own source contradicted you, you still maintain that his statement supports your argument, when it was obviously incomplete and didn't take into consideration the salient facts concerning astronauts on the lunar surface?


The case was closed when he responded to Gav.

You have this tendency to pursue the smallest issue in an attempt to support your beliefs. You do a hell of a job in this respect, I'll grant you. It is most unusual to use that much intellectual energy in the persuance of a fallacy. I would suggest that such effort might be used to actually understand the basics involved in the sciences involved here.

You have blantantly declared that the obviously incomplete statement of someone supports your argument and that it needs no further clarification. This is weak, and is painting a pretty poor picture.

We implored you to contact YOUR SOURCE for a clarification, but you refused. Gav did it, and that closed the case, because his clarification was exactly what you were told it would be.


The astronauts obviously couldn't see thousands of stars in the lunar sky...because of the bright light all around their field of view.

Your own source said so...yet, you keep maintaining that it wasn't bright on the Moon. Yet, you ignore the rather curt remarks of your own source, and say he based it on the statements of Apollo astronauts (he fully understands why they wouldn't see many stars, if any on the Moon during daylight, and he accepts the observations of the highly trained men (including two Dr.s, mind you, trained observationalists)) who were actually there.

You ignore that, using his incomplete statement as support for your beliefs.

This has now become unbelievable.


You don't "believe" that anyone was ever on the Moon.


Why?

All you've done is exhaust thousands of words on ten seconds of Apollo 12 video which is self-explanatory to the educated in the matter, and now, this...rather untenable argument regarding visibility of stars in broad daylight. You used a great deal of energy on these two aspects, which are really non-aspects, trying to prove that men were never on the Moon???

What in hades make you think, with all of your innate intelligence, that this was somehow impossible?


That, I'd love to hear.

It's not easy at all. You have to have anything reflective out of the field of view, which is mighty tough in broad daylight operations, which always involve hardware.

You've got to be in the dark.
You've got to have the cabin lights off (if you're inside...otherwise, your visor should be up and you should take some time to adapt anyway).
You've got to allow some time for dark adaptation.

Then, you can visualize the star field.


Otherwise, forget it.

You may find it amusing.

I do not. I find your refusal to do something so very reasonable disturbing (he was, unknowingly, of course, your source, and it was rightly your responsibility to flesh the issue out, being that you were the one using his statement). Further, your insistence on maintaining that his statement satisfied your argument, despite it's obvious incompleteness, is a sign of intellectual laziness that is rather untoward. This blind adherance to something so untenabble and obviuously incomplete is a clear sign that your beliefs, where ever they come from, have over-ridden your ability to be critical and logical.


If you "believe" that men never walked on the Moon, this type of argument is not going to get you too many points.
You are going to have to spell it out.


Why do you have these beliefs?
Again, you aren't going to be able to successfully argue a few obscure seconds of AS-12 video. It's already been fleshed out more fully than was done in 1970! And this argument about not being able to see stars, and your obvious bias as illustrated by this statement:




...which of course neglects the intellectually sound third option that they were on the Moon and saw no stars and weren't lying about it (and for the life of me, I can see no reason why you FAIL TO RESPOIND TO THESE THINGS WHEN I POINT THEM OUT TO YOU)...makes your paradigm abundantly clear.


These arguments are starting to become ridiculous. You are illustrating a serious lack of rationality in your aproach here.

You cannot see stars to any extent (especially to the extent that you maintained) in broad daylight anywhere in space. It's got to be dark to see them all. Why do you think we still insists on "visors down" when sunrise happens on orbit?

It's because the sun light is too bright in space. We did that on Apollo too. The reasons are obvious, and in those circumstances, seeing stars in the sky is the last thing one expects to be able to do.

When those observations are not corroborated by measurable evidence, or independently verified, or experimentally repeatable.

Empirical method is generally taken to mean the collection of data on which to base a theory or derive a conclusion in science. It is part of the scientific method..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_method

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Again, when the only evidence you have to support a claim is the word of Apollo astronauts, it is not valid, quantified, scientific evidence.



It's not irrelevant, MID. Consider it this way...

You argue that nobody else can land (or has landed) men on the Moon but NASA, while I argue that nobody has ever landed men on the Moon, including[/g] NASA. But either way, we can agree...

- their claims cannot be independently verified (as of today, and not for X years to come)

Since the claims [i]cannot be independently verified, you argue that it's irrelevant that they haven't been independently verified.

Can you see how there is a major problem with that argument? That it's not important if something cannot be independently verified? Think about it.



Don't you remember awhile back, when I suggested that they send Dan Rather to the Moon, on a one-way mission?

No, of course that's not what I meant. Again, my point should be clear from above - just because something can't be independently verified does not mean it's an irrelevant issue.



No. The observations of a handful of Apollo astronauts do not constitute valid, quantifiable, independently verifiable, or experimentally repeatable, scientific evidence.



I need valid, quantifiable, independently verifiable, experimentally repeatable, scientific evidence. The issue of astronauts in LEO has been dealt with - although they did report being able to see stars during the daytime, it is irrelevant to my specific argument - that the lunar surface is not bright enough to prohibit seeing stars.



No, you've misinterpreted my point. Look back at my post, and you'll see what I meant. I said that those are the only two alternatives - when taking it from my point of view. That is, assuming that we can see stars on the sunlit lunar surface, as I believe we can, then those would be the only two alternatives.

It may be my fault for not being clear enough. I'm guilty of rambling on in some of my posts from time to time - I hit the "Add Reply" button when I should be hitting the "Preview Post" button first!



Well, not exactly.

He did not mention anything at all about the lunar surface, which is the specific issue I've been arguing about. He just cited the claims of an Apollo astronaut, and then rephrased those claims within his own commentary. Trinitrotoluene first pointed out contacting him...

I have tracked down Dave's email address and I have emailed him asking for clarification on his answer. From all your posts I'd like to confirm that your argument is thus:

"The Apollo astronauts did not see stars from the surface of the moon, I contend that you would be able to see stars, thus the Apollo Landings are hoaxed".

I asked Trini about posting the question(s) first emailed to Dr. Kornreich, but have not heard back as yet. But I have a feeling that the specifics of Kornreich's response may be a reflection (no pun intended) of what Trinitrotoluene asked him, if it was phrased like his version of my "argument".

The case can only be closed with proper evidence, which has not been provided. I've pointed this out so many times, I hope it might sink in eventually.

On a side note, MID - you first suggested that none of the Apollo astronauts ever saw stars on the Moon, period...

"Neil said he never saw any stars from the lunar surface on the daylight side by eye.

This clearly means they couldn't be seen by eye on the daylight side...which is where they were on the surface. The reasons for this have been explained thoroughly, and are the result of the mechanics of the human eye, which is somewhat similar to the reason why a camera couldn't pick up stars when photographing brightly sunlit objects.

They absolutely could not, and should not have been able to pickup stars in that broad daylight condition.

That being said, if the astronauts could've shielded their field of view from the sunlight and focused their eyes through this shading device on a small segment of black sky, eventually they would've been able to see some stars in the blackness as their eyes adapted to the darkness within the shade, since there's no atmosphere which spreads the light around. But...they had no such device, and there was no purpose in devising some sort of cone one could slip over his helmet to block out all sunlight."

I assume you now consider this to be an error on your part, in light of the comments of the Apollo astronaut cited by Dr. Kornreich? I was under the same assumption as you, btw. Minor point, anyway.



Your last comment bears repeating...

"I would suggest that such effort might be used to actually understand the basics involved in the sciences involved here."

Sure, if you ever do post any relevant science. Not that you wouldn't have by now if there was any.



You're still not getting it. I've put this issue to rest, and have no desire to keep on rehashing it.



Same misguided assertion, as noted above.



Same unsubstantiated claim you've been making from day one.



I find this all quite amusing.

First, you (and postie) asked me to clarify his comment. I pointed out to you that I considered the comment fine as is, and felt that it needed no further clarification. But, because you felt it needed further clarification, you somehow came to the twisted conclusion that it was my responsibility to ask him. Your repeated insistence was met with my repeated explanation, which repeatedly fell on deaf ears.

Then, after Trini posts his reply, you continue admonishing me for shirking my supposed "responsibilty". Noble Trini, finally decided to do the "work" I should have done!

This was followed with a barrage of "See, I told you so"'s, and a declaration of "The Reason I Did Not Ask Him For Clarification". That reason, of course, being that I was afraid of the answer I would get, and so on.

NOW THE MOST IRONIC PART...

You consider the "case closed". Not a word about the lunar surface, much less a quantifiable, scientific explanation for how the lunar surface would prohibit seeing stars - in other words, nothing is mentioned about my actual argument.

But that's all very irrelevant to you - it's still "case closed".

Let's be clear about this - he cited an Apollo astronaut, who said that "bright things/objects" are what impaired them in seeing stars. And noted that they could see stars if they blocked those things/objects out of their view.

Exactly what case is closed, MID? It's not mine.



You will. Keep on reading.

The astronaut is in the LM shadow, but thanks to the amazingly intense light reflecting off the lunar surface (so it's been claimed), not only we can see him on the ladder, but even up inside the LM cabin, with outstanding detail....



Wow! Just how powerful are these lunar surface reflections?

More powerful in photographs than in video footage, apparently...



In the right-side photo, the astronaut is completely lit up. We can even see the little American flag, on the top section of his backpack (PLSS)

But not in this Apollo 16 video clip. In this still, the back of the PLSS is completely in shadow, and his legs are partially in shadow. The other astronaut is also partly in shadow.

The angle and direction of the shadows/sunlight is quite similar in both the photos and the video still. The terrain is fairly level in both examples.


How can a fairly level lunar surface reflect so much sunlight that it bathes an entire astronaut in bright light, and can even bend to light up a cabin door that faces perpendicular to that surface?

But not in the video.

Look at the right-side photo. How come the surface isn't reflective enough to light up the shadowed sides of the rocks, but still makes an astronaut and perpendicular-facing doors shine brilliantly?

Turbonium, no one who is familiar with a camera with manual controls would possibly have any problems with any of the photos you have posted above. Photographers certainly didn't when they saw them in 1969.

For example, even with all of the detail seen, in the top two Apollo 11 photos Aldrin is underexposed by about a stop. Why do you think that is?

Your dedication to saving the planet is to be commended Turbonium, however you can over do the recycling of old rubbish. I thought you were going to present something new, not yet more evidence that you don't understand photography.

It's time to practice what you preach. Just this once how about YOU provide some "quantifiable, scientific evidence" because "look at the pictures they aren't the same" is about as far away from that as it is possible to be.

What were the exposure settings for the still images?

What were the exposure settings for the video image?

How does the latitude of the film compare to that of the detectors of the video camera?

When you have provided these figures can you then explain why the shadows SHOULD look the same?

The effort you put forth in attempting to maintain an untenable position is amazing.

Thank you for the Wiki definition of the scientific method.
The people who wrote that weren't born when I learned it.



You're missing something here, something profound.

There was no phenomenon associated with this aspect of not being able to see stars in broad daylight on the lunar surface. It was, by scientifically literate people, ASSUMED that it was not going to be something that was possible to any great extent. It wasn't even considered as relevant to the mission. This assumption was based upon previously gained scientific knowledge.
The equipment for that mission was designed based on the comnpletely logical assumption that it was going to be very bright on the lunar surface. No science was planned or devoted to trying to see stars. Science was devoted to keeping that bright light minimized in their eyes up there, and on designing things like the OAT so it could image stars!


It's a no-brainer, Turb. This was not an issue. There was no need for "independent verification" of the fact. It was already known that it was not something that was important, and not something possible to any extent whatsoever. It's basic understanding...not evidence of a hoax.

I don't know how much more simply it has to be put.




No.
Can you see how it's irrelevant since it was already known that stars were not going to be prominently visible in the lunar sky during broad daylight conditions? No one needs to independently verify it. It's already understood. It's really rather basic stuff.







No independent, quantifiable, independently verifiable or "experimentally repeatable" scientific evidence is required. It was already a known fact of nature!

Do I have to be more blunt?





What you need is education in the pertinent aspects of your argument.
No offense Turb, but there is no need to experiment with what is already known to be a fact.









???
Then what's the post about?
What's this below?
Putting the issue to rest?




C'mon...
Your case was dead from the start. I don't have a case here. I know they couldn't see stars to any degree of significance from the lunar surface.
You're the one whose case is trying to show that they should've been able to.
That is closed.

That's called backlighting...also a profoundly effective thing on the lunar surface (no atmosphere,bright light bouncing off the surface all around them....), as described by Neil Armstrong within minutes of setting foot on the Moon in July 1969...and of course photography was done with what was one of the very finest film cameras on the planet.


I know...Armstrong was never actually there, of course. But you still have to prove that.





Always has been, especially in 1969, with what were highly advanced film cameras and relatively primitive video cameras.


This has already been addressed as well.


Are we going in a "new" old direction here?

Whether or not seeing stars was considered relevant to the mission has no bearing on my argument. So, if you claim it wasn't, I have no problem with that.

What is relevant to this issue, however, is your claim that they "assumed" that seeing stars was not going to be possible "to any great extent" because of "previously gained scientific knowledge"

That's great to hear, MID. Now, could you please provide any citation(s) for this scientific knowledge? I've been asking you to cite any scientific evidence for your claim, so I'd really like to see it.



Again, where is the scientific evidence/knowledge that proves they "already understood" that seeing stars would be very unlikey, or nearly impossible?



No, but you do have to be more substantiative in your claims. Much, much more. A "known fact of nature"?!? Come on, this is getting more ridiculous by the day. Back up your words with something concrete, MID.



I'm not offended in the least, MID. Likewise, I mean no offense when I say that you need to provide valid material to look at, before asking someone to educate themselves on it.

No, it's the counterclaim that's been dead from the start.



I certainly agree with you on that.

Backlighting?!? As it is commonly defined here?..

A type of spotlight, used in photography, that illuminates a subject from behind.

<a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/backlight?cat=technology" target="_blank">http://www.answers.com/topic/backlight?cat=technology</a>

If that's what you actually meant, then I would agree, 100% !!! But of course, I'm sure you did not mean it as defined above, and meant backlighting from naturally occurring sources.

So, how can natural "backlighting" (that is, lunar surface reflections) properly explain what we see in these photos, MID?

The shadow side of the LM is just as bright as the directly sunlit side!!!...



This is just ridiculous. Look at the right-side photo, which (supposedly) shows the directly sunlit side of the LM. Please explain how the fairly flat lunar surface would be able to reflect as much bright light onto the opposite, shadow side of the LM, as there is on the directly sunlit side of the LM??

100% reflectivity!! The Moon is NOT a gigantic disco ball, MID!!



I said...

More powerful in photographs than in video footage, apparently...



You misunderstood me, MID. I was referring to how the lunar surface reflections are - somehow - curiously brighter when someone takes photos than when someone takes video footage! You'll understand this when I include the previous sentence of my post..

"Wow! Just how powerful are these lunar surface reflections?"

"More powerful in photographs than in video footage, apparently..."

Now, what you are referring to is how the still camera was able to capture brighter images than the video camera was, I believe?

If that was your point, then I would agree with you here. But that doesn't explain away the discrepancies I'm arguing about...

I personally have no doubt we landed on the moon. It seems there is a conspiracy theory for every major event in the history of the earth. God versus Darwin and so on. Doesn't something at some point have to be true or happened as it was said to? When events are shown live on TV as like the World Trade Center was being shown after the first plane hit all of the sudden another plane comes in and hits the second tower live on national TV and on various news sources. Showing the second plane hitting on live TV it astonishes me anyone argues that no planes actually hit the buildings. I mean do the chases they show on live TV not actually happen?

Only a very small number of people are arguing that no planes hit the towers. The primary dispute is over the official cause of collapse(s), etc.

Look at that quote you put up earlier on how bright the full moon is. Apply what it says there to the situation on the lunar surface and what have you got? The lunar surface reflects a lot more light back towards the sun than in any other direction.

What does this mean for your two photos? Looking from the rear of the LM, downsun, the surface is bright, the astronaut and LM are bright, you need a shorter exposure. Looking from the front of the LM, upsun, the surface is dark, the LM is shadowed from direct sun but lit by the bright downsun surface, you need a longer exposure. Even so, the astronaut looks darker and the surface brighter in the upsun photo, showing that it was still a bit underexposed.

With this information, the situation is perfectly understandable, the relative brightnesses of the LM and the lunar surface are what you would expect.

What discrepancies? I've asked you to apply the standards you demand of others so I ask again, provide more than just your opinion, provide the facts and figures that back up your argument. What camera settings were used? What should we be seeing? Why is what we are seeing in these pictures wrong? What is it that you can see that millions of photographers around the world since 1969 have failed to see?

I know I'm asking for the impossible, you will never provide the "quantifiable, scientific evidence" you demand of others. That is understandable, because none exists to support you. However I am getting very tired of the double standards you are applying.

Turbs

The version of AS11-40-5862 you've posted has had the levels adjusted to improve contrast. Here is a scan of the image taken directly from the positive with no further image processing, and the same for the non-processed version of AS11-40-5927.



Compare it to the versions of the images image you posted.



You've also failed to allow for the fact that the Hasselblad camera had manual controls for aperture and shutter speed.

That makes more sense. It shows that the contrast and exposure of the sunlit Lunar surface in the lower left corner of AS11-40-5862 is identical to the surface in AS11-40-5927, meaning that the same exposure settings were used for both. My compliments to whoever did the image processing that they were able to bring out such detail in a way underexposed transparency.

Good spot postie, I had totally forgotten about post image processing.

Well of course not. Further, there is no direct photographic backlighting evident in this photo. Backlighting means the lighting device is behind the subject, and is in the view of the viewer, being covered by the subject, which is between the light and viewer.

In this picture, the Sun, which is the only light source, isn't behind the subject and in line with it. It is actually about 15 degrees above the horizon, and off to the right of the frame...which is rather obvious by the reflections off of the left side structures of the ascent stage.


I refer to natural backlighting, which of course is much more effective and sharp than it is on Earth due to the lack of atmosphere.

Your "agreement" here points to a misunderstanding of photgraphic backlighting. You're actually implying that regular behind the cameraman lighting was used to directly illuminate the scene.

That claim is old and thoroughly explained nonsense. If direct lighting was used...you'd see evidence of it in the many irregular folds of the descent stage's insulation.
The picture is obviously backlit by the natural sunlight coming off of the surface, the effect of which was explained by Neil Armstrong himself in this statement, 20 seconds after he became the first man to set foot upon the Moon:

"...I can see the footprints of my boots and the treads in the fine, sandy particles."

He saw this in the shadow.

And this statement, just 3 minutes later:

"Looking up at the LM...I'm standing directly in the shadow now, looking up at Buzz in the window. And I can see everything quite clearly. The light is sufficiently bright, backlighted into the front of the LM, that everything is very clearly visible."


But I know...such observations mean nothing to you, because Neil Armstrong was never on the Moon...






No, it is not.
You must understand that the camera was set to capture the subject, which is why the surface is over exposed and the bright reflections tend to white out.
You must also understand that the images you post are scanned and processed high res images, not the original prints, which are a little less robust in their detail.






It doesn't, Turb.
You're looking at two different camera settings, based upon the obvious difference in lighting conditions.
Further, if the shadowed exposure was in fact directly sunlit, you would see all of the mylar, not just the highlights and the deep shadows of the folds.
You're looking at digital processing.






Turb, you've got to stop this exagerrating and study the photgraphic techniques used in high and low light conditions. This is not a surprizing thing to see, nor is it in any way abnormal.

I believe that the majority of that work was done by Kipp Teague.
He is owed a great deal of gratitude for his work on over 800 Apollo lunar surface photos. Between he and Eric Jones (ALSJ), they have created one of the greatest historical archives on the planet, a living document if ever there was one.

True. I forgot about the post processing, so thanks for pointing that out. However, the unprocessed images only represent what the camera "sees". It does not accurately represent how the same scene appears to the human eye. A perfect example of this discrepancy is how the lunar sky appears in these images.

The sky was always reported to be pitch black by the astronauts (leaving aside the issue of whether or not stars would/should also be seen). This is obviously not how the sky appears in the unprocessed images.

The images were subsequently edited to portray a much more accurate representation of what would be seen by eye - such as a pitch black sky. Of course, we have already discussed how the camera does not capture the varying levels of light in photos that we can see by eye. That's the primary reason we make contrast and brightness adjustments to photographs - to try and recreate what the scene looked like to our eyes.

And, even before any processing, the shadow side of the LM is still completely bathed in light...



The lunar surface cannot bathe everything in light, like the shadow side of the LM. It is simply impossible, for several reasons.

- It is NOT a good reflector of sunlight, no matter how bright a full Moon may appear to be when looking at it from Earth. As all the sources I've cited have explained, it is no brighter than a grassy yard at noon on Earth. A grass yard does not bathe everything around it in in bright light - it isn't nearly reflective enough.

- Even if the lunar surface was incredibly reflective (which it is not), how would it be able to light up the top of an astronaut's head? Or light up the perpendicular-facing cabin door of the LM? The lunar surface around the LM is quite level, and any reflections can only come up from the ground, regardless of angle. The shadow side of the LM is evenly lit up, which is impossible if the lunar surface reflections were the source of light. There would be a directional effect.



No, I have taken this into account. It is not a factor.

I don't recall discussing the third party who says "Talk" during a conversation between Apollo and Houston. The relevant part of the transcript is here, from the linked video...

00:25 - HOUSTON: "Apollo 11, Houston. Goldstone says the TV looks great, over."
UNKNOWN VOICE: "Talk."
APOLLO (Aldrin): "Ok, Roger, were um zooming in on Earth."
HOUSTON: "Hello, Apollo 11, Houston, did you copy, over?"
APOLLO (Aldrin): "Roger, we copy..."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7...+hoax&hl=en

There was only a single channel between Houston and Apollo for the audio transmissions, so how come we hear some unidentified third party say "Talk"?