okay, this could take a while, and it’s going to become increasingly difficult to tackle so many arguments at once, but here goes…
tracer (part one): i don’t think 25,000 mph is inherently highly suspect. my point was that it would be easy to put some people in orbit around the earth for a few weeks and say they went to the moon. i don’t think there can be any doubt that doing so would have been significantly easier than actually pulling off the apollo missions.
that doesn’t mean we didn’t go to the moon, of course, just that it wouldn’t have been all that difficult to fake it, as msmith537 had stated.
jmullaney: what does big and round have to do with surface reflectivity again?
rickjay: no, it doesn’t explain the high quality photos, but it would have been (and probably still is) significantly easier to produce a fake, high quality still photo than to produce a fake, high quality film. and (whether you believe the conspiracy or not) it’s worth asking why nasa sent up such great still cameras but such crappy movie cameras.
someone who is more familiar than me with the link system ought to post the photo link, but really if you follow the OP’s link, you’ll find plenty of what’s being discussed.
as to seeing things on the dark side of the LEM… sure, a LITTLE light could reflect of the ground. but the moon isn’t made of polished metal—it’s just a bunch of rocks and dirt. i’ve been snowblinded before, and even caught some nasty glare off of puddles on the road at sunset, but i’ve never seen dirt reflect enough light to give the impression of a separate lighting source, no. have you?
i’ll take your word for it on the secret channel thing, but i still wouldn’t mind a link to some of the evidence that other nations detected the signal coming from the moon. i haven’t seen that sort of thing on the debunking web sites yet.
as for the repeater, couldn’t NASA theoretically have sent a signal from the orbiting capsule-full-of-earthbound-moonwalkers to a repeater (that had been planted on the moon by an unmanned probe), which would in turn transmit the signal to earth on the publically-announced radio band? again, just theoretically. COULD it have been done?
tracer (part two): actually, the article is was quoting was only making ONE point. i’ll reprint it here, unedited, for clarity:
QUESTION: "Photographs – fill lighting
‘Astronauts’ and the ‘LEM’ (‘Lunar’ Excursion Module) seem to be rather suspiciously brightly-lit, even when every other object around them seems to be lost in deep shadow.
Naturally. The astronauts’ space suits and much of the skin of the LEM are both of a much higher reflectivity than that of the Lunar terrain. They are not grey or dark; they are bright white or silvery or gold metal.
Besides, there is not one source of light on the Moon – there are several. There is the point source (the Sun) – and there is Earthshine. Earth is very bright – actually five times brighter than the Moon – and so supplies fill lighting in many photos.
Additionally there is the surface terrain itself, which will add a little more fill lighting to some scenes.
Finally there is the suit worn by the photographer, which can serve as a shiny, white ‘reflector board’ for some scenes."
there is only ONE phenomenon being addressed here: the apparent brightness of the space suits and LEM.
the author attributes this phenomenon to (1) the inherent reflectivity of the suits, by which we must assume he means their reflection of sunlight (2) the effect of the earth shining on the astronauts/LEM from an angle fairly opposite the sun (3) the inherent reflectivity of the lunar surface, which, though not visible very shiny in photographs, is apparently reflective enough to contribute to the illumination of the astronauts/LEM—but not enough to illuminate any of the other objects, which the debunker accepts are “lost in deep shadow” (4) the suit of the astronaut FACING the illuminated astronaut/LEM, who, being illuminated himself, reflects light onto the astronaut/LEM’s already shiny surfaces. right—just add all those factors up and it makes TOTAL sense…
i’m no optics expert, but your illustrative example seems flawed to me. the gist seems to be that the small, shiny mirror provides a reflection that is small but dense with photons, while the larger, dingier one reflects more actual light, but over a larger, more diffuse range.
but as for the notion of “shining both mirrors onto a wide panorama”… i think your analogy breaks down here because the lunar surface IS the wide panorama–it would be more a matter of putting the big dull mirror on the ground face up, then putting the shiny mirror face up on top of that, then shining a bright light at both from above and measuring which reflects more light. even this visualization ends up a little skewed, but it seems that under those basic circumstances, for any photographic purposes, you’d still end up seeing a bright spot where the little mirror was, and not notice any apparent brightening of the smaller mirror due to accumulated diffuse reflections off the dingier mirror.
in any case, it’s not as though the whole of the moon’s marginally reflective surface was focused on Tranquility Base. it still seems to me that any reflections off the lunar surface would have been far too diffuse to provide any significant “fill lighting” for the astronauts/LEM.
pldennison: yes, i know they were in the sky at the same time, that was my point. as for your first link, it looks intriguing, but it’s a bit technical for me. what missions are being discussed? moon missions? and how significant is a degree in this case? what’s being measured? degrees of brightness? i need a little more info to be able to repond adequately.
your second link was a dead end. damn!