Jump to content
|Topic||Stats||Last action by|
|Cleveland crowd protests over 12-year-old shot by police||
|Windows tablet question||
|Common Core spurs jump in home-schooling||
|Woman Steals Car, Unintentionally Levels a Building||
|Enthusiasm Lost For Linux On The Desktop||
Posted 29 November 2012 - 07:05
Posted 29 November 2012 - 07:37
Posted 29 November 2012 - 09:49
One light source?
(on the moon, you should only have ONE light source...should be the sun, but I'm not trying to get into details here...I'm tired, and want to go to sleep.)
Posted 29 November 2012 - 17:51
Moon is full here right now, and OMG...you can see a brighter spot over the top of yourself than usual! SHOCK! AWE! /s
Seriously, though, it's full here...and you can see almost anything outside here that you want to....there's even a few packs of coyotes you can see with a bright enough flashlight...though, you can still see them without it. What's the point of my rambling? There is none...but I guess I'm backing up I am Reid's claim....which is true. The moon is full. (on the moon, you should only have ONE light source...should be the sun, but I'm not trying to get into details here...I'm tired, and want to go to sleep.) Good night, my neowin brothers and sisters! May your imaginations run wild, like mine does....and I'm sure Hum's does.
Posted 27 August 2013 - 02:34
The identical backgrounds argument is nonsense, since the photographs don't actually have identical backgrounds.
Look at the intersection of a more distant mountain to a closer one. It's clear that the second photograph is taken some distance to the right of the first photograph.
From this piece of crap: http://www.debunking...m#_Toc344913268
Posted 27 August 2013 - 02:47
I would like to call BS, but that's because I have faith that in this day and age, we have telescopes that can see the moon in very high detail, I'm sure someone could spend the time scanning the lunar surface and find the Flag, abandoned Rover, old Modules etc...
Lol the sun was a giant light bulb,
it technically still is a giant lightbulb
Even if this happened, people could call BS on those photos too. Look save up some money and get up there yourself. Why not start a kickstarter fund to build a rocket to go to the moon and prove it yourself.
Posted 27 August 2013 - 02:52
The shadow side argument is also crap. Of course the shadowed side of an astronaut on the moon should be somewhat lit. He's standing on a giant reflector extending for miles in every direction, all of it brightly lit by the sun.
Look at his visor! You can see what's being reflected right there in the visor. The suits are white for the purpose of being as reflective as possible. Think of a white car vs. a black car on a sunny day here on Earth. The white car doesn't get nearly as hot because the white color reflects more radiation (including visible light) away instead of absorbing it, giving the appearance of white, and the cooler temperature. Whiteness and reflectivity of the suit help keep the astronaut cool.
From this steaming pile: http://www.debunking...m#_Toc344913262
Posted 27 August 2013 - 02:55
We went to the moon. There are satellite pictures that show the American flag still standing up along with the what's left of the lunar orbiters.
But by now the flag will have been bleached white by the Sun, any Aliens will think France were the first to visit the Moon.
For me the biggest proof that America DID land on the Moon was the Soviet Union, they would have been tracking that thing all the way to the Moon to prove it went there, you think the USSR wouldn't have jumped at a chance to show the World that the Americans faked it.
Posted 27 August 2013 - 03:00
(on the moon, you should only have ONE light source...should be the sun, but I'm not trying to get into details here...I'm tired, and want to go to sleep.) Good night, my neowin brothers and sisters! May your imaginations run wild, like mine does....and I'm sure Hum's does.
The Earth reflects back light to the moon, just as similarly as the moon reflects back light to Earth. The sun isn't the only source of light in space.
Posted 27 August 2013 - 03:00
Very interesting topic, Hum, especially for the opened minded! Love stuff like this! Leads you to a kind of "come to your own conclusion" type of story, if you will. Good read!
Posted 27 August 2013 - 03:15
The non-parallel shadow argument is nonsense, too (like all hoax evidence).
Although the topography (hills, valleys) of the lunar surface can make the shadows to appear not parallel, as well as lengthen and shorten them, the effect is mostly due to perspective. Simply put, a 3-dimensional scene has the property that objects and distances further away from the camera appear SMALLER than objects and distances close up. The same holds true for shadows and distances between shadows.
If you stand on railway tracks and look one direction, the rails (which are definitely parallel) will appear to converge in the distance. The distance between the rails appears to shrink as the rails get further away.
From this 5-coil steamer: http://www.debunking...m#_Toc344913261
Images of this effect on Earth follow. Google Images for "nonparallel shadows" to see more.