The moon landings are false?

[Raider5678]

Hello.

I recently found out there are some people who don't believe in moon landings. I decided to researched it to see why and now I'm finding myself in dout of them being real. One of the biggest, is why are there no stars in the picture?

Another one I'm wondering about is why are there multiple light sources? Shouldn't the sun be the only light to make shadows?

Here's a link to the main arguments

http://listverse.com/2012/12/28/10-reasons-the-moon-landings-could-be-a-hoax/

 

Please please please explain these. Their making me dout the moon landings.

[StringJunky]

Hello.

I recently found out there are some people who don't believe in moon landings. I decided to researched it to see why and now I'm finding myself in dout of them being real. One of the biggest, is why are there no stars in the picture?

Another one I'm wondering about is why are there multiple light sources? Shouldn't the sun be the only light to make shadows?

Here's a link to the main arguments

http://listverse.com/2012/12/28/10-reasons-the-moon-landings-could-be-a-hoax/

 

Please please please explain these. Their making me dout the moon landings.

Easy to explain:

 

1. Why is there no stars? Photographic film has a maximum contrast range that what it can record is way below the actual contrast range (contrast is the difference in reflected light intensity between the lightest areas and the darkest areas) of the sunlit moon and the star-filled dark sky. You can either capture the light and shadow detail on the moon, with a featureless black sky OR a star-filled sky with bleached-out, featureless land detail on the Moon's surface; you can't have both in the same picture. Put simply, it's the limitations of the recording media that causes the starless sky in the Apollo moonlanding images.

 

2. Why are there different shadow angles? if you look at the shadow of the module in the following image, which is on flat ground, its shadow angle is different to the rocks in the foreground. Note that the rocks are on top of a little hill and it's that incline, on the right-hand side of the rocks, that causes the light to fall at a different angle when compared to that of the lander. Put simply, the rock shadow is not falling on flat, horizontal ground like it is with the module

 

 

Rest assured, that every conspiracy theory and doubt has been solidly and evidentially refuted; the moonlandings happened.

Edited July 22, 2016 by StringJunky

[pzkpfw]

I highly recommend this site: http://www.clavius.org/index.html

 

And this forum: http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/

[swansont]

Hello.

I recently found out there are some people who don't believe in moon landings. I decided to researched it to see why and now I'm finding myself in dout of them being real. One of the biggest, is why are there no stars in the picture?

 

 

Do you often see stars in the daytime here on earth?

 

OMG, we're all faked!

[StringJunky]

Do you often see stars in the daytime here on earth?

The Moon doesn't have a significant atmosphere to cause enough photon scattering to obscure the dark sky but if you stand in the shade one will, apparently, see the brighter stars according to one of the Apollo astronauts.

[Markus Hanke]

Absolutely no offence intended towards the OP, but I find it hard to fathom that in the year 2016 there are still people out there who genuinely believe these ridiculous conspiracy theories ( moon landing hoax being only one example amongst many others ). I can only surmise that it is somehow part of human nature; I'm not a psychologist, but it must be because thinking you know something that the vast majority doesn't makes people feel superior and "relevant". I don't know, it is just really beyond me, and I'm not sure whether I should laugh or cry over this. Possibly both at the same time.

[swansont]

The Moon doesn't have a significant atmosphere to cause enough photon scattering to obscure the dark sky but if you stand in the shade one will, apparently, see the brighter stars according to one of the Apollo astronauts.

 

 

If you have to stand in the shade to see them, then you don't need scattering from an atmosphere to obscure them. But the underlying issue is the same: there is too much ambient light for the stars to be visible. An issue of contrast. But nobody is confounded by not seeing stars in the daytime on earth.

[StringJunky]

 

 

If you have to stand in the shade to see them, then you don't need scattering from an atmosphere to obscure them. But the underlying issue is the same: there is too much ambient light for the stars to be visible. An issue of contrast. But nobody is confounded by not seeing stars in the daytime on earth.

I agree that contrast is an issue in both cases but if you stand in the shade on Earth in the daytime you won't see stars

[rangerx]

I decided to researched it to see why and now I'm finding myself in dout of them being real.

 

 

This is a science forum. I'd suggest reading actual facts from legitimate scientists instead of listening to nonsense from nut jobs might be a better premise for research.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment.

 

An S-band radio beacon was left on the moon by the Apollo 17 mission, transmitting FSK telemetry on 2276.0 MHz. Although it no longer operates, it could be heard by anyone on earth with an RDF (radio direction finder) and a TNC (terminal node controller), including amateur (ham) radio operators or other technical institutions who have nothing to do with space flight.

Edited July 22, 2016 by rangerx

[imatfaal]

I agree that contrast is an issue in both cases but if you stand in the shade on Earth in the daytime you won't see stars

 

yes you will - it just needs to be very good shade. Bottom of the Monument Zenith Telescope in London - or (a little scarier bottom) of a deep well etc.. Or a perfectly adjusted telescope looking in the opposite side of the sky from the sun will allow you to spot Sirius or Canopus if you are lucky

[StringJunky]

 

yes you will - it just needs to be very good shade. Bottom of the Monument Zenith Telescope in London - or (a little scarier bottom) of a deep well etc.. Or a perfectly adjusted telescope looking in the opposite side of the sky from the sun will allow you to spot Sirius or Canopus if you are lucky

Interesting. OK. So what you are saying is that there isn't sufficient deflection/scattering to completely obscure the night sky when positioned right. BUT the Earth's denser atmosphere does make it alot harder to see it.

[Carrock]

yes you will - it just needs to be very good shade. Bottom of the Monument Zenith Telescope in London - or (a little scarier bottom) of a deep well etc.. Or a perfectly adjusted telescope looking in the opposite side of the sky from the sun will allow you to spot Sirius or Canopus if you are lucky

From http://www.snopes.com/science/well.asp

 

 

 

A very little scientific reasoning, even without experiment, will be sufficient to dispose of it. For, what is it which hides the star in the daytime? It is merely the glare of our atmosphere illuminated by the Sun's rays. As the atmosphere extends to a height of 50 miles or more above the Earth's surface, a shaft or chimney 100 to 200 feet high could do but little to take away that glare, and anyone who has ever actually looked up from the bottom of such a shaft (as I have from the bottom of a colliery, 900 feet below the surface) must have been struck not by the darkness of the little disc of sky visible, but by its dazzling brilliance.

NASA has wisely given up disproving Apollo hoax theories.

 

It's easier but just as pointless as proving each and every biological structure has not been intelligently designed.

[swansont]

I agree that contrast is an issue in both cases but if you stand in the shade on Earth in the daytime you won't see stars

But the photos weren't taken in the shade. The fundamental reason there are no stars in the pictures is the same as on earth: too much light that is not coming from the stars.

[dimreepr]

Light pollution is a big problem in the UK, even in the sticks.

[EdEarl]

It must be impossible to see any of the moon landers from Earth with any existing telescope. I wonder if the Thirty Meter Telescope or the European Extremely Large Telescope (39.3m) will be able to take a picture of them.

[Mordred]

I certainly know my 12' Dodelson mount skywatcher can't lol. Picks up craters roughly 8 km in size though.

[EdEarl]

Wikipedia says the E-ELT will have a 0.001 arc second resolution for some instruments, but doesn't say which ones. If I did the math right, that means it might see something about 2m across on the Moon.

Edited July 22, 2016 by EdEarl

[swansont]

It must be impossible to see any of the moon landers from Earth with any existing telescope. I wonder if the Thirty Meter Telescope or the European Extremely Large Telescope (39.3m) will be able to take a picture of them.

They left corner cube arrays on the moon. You can detect a reflected signal using them. That's how we know it's receding from us.

[EdEarl]

They left corner cube arrays on the moon. You can detect a reflected signal using them. That's how we know it's receding from us.

Good evidence, except for conspiracy theorists, but they probably wouldn't believe an image from the E-ELT either.

[dimreepr]

Conspiracy theorists don't really like evidence.

[DimaMazin]

They left corner cube arrays on the moon. You can detect a reflected signal using them. That's how we know it's receding from us.

There is nesessary to leave a foil on reverse side of the Moon to stop the escaping from us . Otherwise the proof can escape.

[Sensei]

I loaded photo "The Waving Flag" from your link, to Photoshop,

and used magic wand tool,

with 0 tolerance,

to check what are colors in black cosmos space area.

 

And this is what I got:

 

 

 

 

 

On the right Info panel there is mentioned color f.e. 1,1,1 (RGB) or 1,3,2.

 

JPG is introducing errors in image after compression/decompression, so single pixel difference will be blended to a few pixels around it.

 

Does it look familiar to somebody, some star constellation, especially 4th screen-shot from the top.. ?

Edited July 24, 2016 by Sensei