# Yes, It's Another Moon Hoax Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 19, 2001, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-its-another-moon-hoax-thread/82520 "2001-09-19T02:58:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![BickByro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/13edae/32.png) [@BickByro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BickByro)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2001, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-its-another-moon-hoax-thread/82520/41 "2001-09-20T23:59:10Z")
**Kamandi:** Thank you very much for the compliment. I may not be an expert in the various areas necessary to prove or disprove some of these points, but I like to think I’ve got a good handle on logical consistency. It’s nice to be seconded on that. Getting back to the leftover chemicals, then… Well, the smart-ass answer is that we’re not dealing with high school chemistry, we’re dealing with rocket science. But you’re right, we can’t know for certain that the chemicals were mixed exactly right. The question, still, is whether the “unreacted oxidizer” would actually have interacted with what I understand to be fairly inert moon rocks, and then whether the interaction would be enough to create a 300- to 1000-foot dark circle. Now, on to your three points. Point 1: Okay, the photo is heavily enhanced. The surface mark may well be faint. I’ll take your word for it, but I would like to know, other than the red filter, what enhancements do you think have been performed on the photo? Point 2: The “reason to believe” that the mark is due to scorching or charring is because the _scientist himself_ said that was what he thought did it. He did not say “this was due to the lunar rovar driving in concentric circles around the LEM such as to create a disk of disturbed material” or any such thing. And I still don’t buy that kicking around dust would change the reflectivity of said dust. Point 3: That’s all I thought a red filter did. Just wanted to be sure there wasn’t some weird infrared thing going on there. Thanks for the help! **Mangetout:** I was under the impression that programs like Photoshop could compensate for the over- and underexposure of digital pictures. But granted, digital and conventional cameras are not identical. It’s the only comparison I had to go on; I suppose I should bring a conventional camera under the same darkened patio, but I’m guessing that without my own darkroom, I’d probably end up with the same effect anyway. Damn! Now, the link compares motion picture footage against stills, yes—that was the point. I don’t think it’s unfair to compare film footage to still photos, at least when the difference in lighting is so radically different. Sure, the “film stock, camera, exposure, aperture, development process etc will be different,” but THAT different? I’m skeptical, though admittedly no expert in photographic or cinematographic technique. The illumination of objects in shadow is the question here, and even with my primitive knowledge of these things I have a hunch that if you somehow increased the brightness of a shadowed area enough to appear illuminated, the features that _were_ originally illuminated would turn almost white with brightness. Yet we don’t see this. Am I wrong to think that’s weird? The zooming in on Aldrin’s foot, by the way, is meant to show a bright point of light apparently shining off Aldrin’s heel-guard—a common hoax-theory point allegedly demonstrating that the man who is supposed to be in shadow actually has a light source pointed directly at him. But I didn’t really want to open _that_ can of worms; it just happens to be at the end of the clip. **CurtC:** If the camera operator had things that well planned out, he wouldn’t have lost the LEM for 10 seconds in the middle of the footage, now would he? And as regards the “synchronized ascent timing” theory, I still haven’t gotten an explanation for the discrepancy between the planned and actual launch times as listed in the Apollo 17 Lunar Surface Journal. As for whether I’m seriously postulating that NASA faked the ascent video… well, what did you think I was doing, just whistlin’ Dixie? ---
**Author:** ![Kamandi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5daacb/32.png) [@Kamandi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamandi)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-its-another-moon-hoax-thread/82520/42 "2001-09-21T01:13:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BickByro \* > … we can’t know for certain that the chemicals were mixed exactly right. I’m pretty sure that the oxidizer and fuel _were_ mixed exactly right. “Exactly right” meaning that there would have been excess oxidizer to ensure that all the fuel was burned. For that matter, there may have been excess fuel, so that all the oxidizer would be burned. It all depends on the nature of the chemical reaction and the engineering decisions made. > [@](#): > > The question, still, is whether the “unreacted oxidizer” would actually have interacted with what I understand to be fairly inert moon rocks, and then whether the interaction would be enough to create a 300- to 1000-foot dark circle. Why do you suppose that the moon rocks are “fairly inert”? They may be highly reactive in the presence of hot exhaust gas. Forgive me if this has been covered before. I’m coming late to this party and haven’t read the previous moon hoax thrads very closely. Why _wouldn’t_ you suppose that the exhaust of the lander would cause a visible disturbance in the lunar surface due to either or all of: – blowing around the dust exposing underlying dust of a slightly different reflectivity or color. Perhaps the surface dust had changed color or reflectivity over time due to chemical changes caused by bombardment by solar radiation. – blasting dust away, at least partially exposing underlying rock or somesuch of a slightly different reflectivity or color – causing a chemical reaction in the lunar surface due to the heat and/or chemical reactivity of the exhaust gases. This would be your scorching or charring. As far as the size of the circle is concerned, 300 to 1000 feet is quite a wide range, evidence of the extreme resolution of the satellite image (the dot covers only a few pixels) and of the probably very low contrast between the dot and the undisturbed surface in the raw data. > [@](#): > > I would like to know, other than the red filter, what enhancements do you think have been performed on the photo? Dunno. One would assume that the scientists would have divulged the methods used to manipulate the image. Like I said, it _appears_ to me that the contrast has been digitally enhanced. How this works is thus: the computer compares the brightness of adjacent image pixels. If the difference in brightness is above a certain threshold (such as at the edge of a gray square drawn on a white background), the computer increases the brightness of the lighter pixel and decreases the brightness of the darker one. Obviously, once you hit absolute black on white, contrast is at its maximum. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Bad\_Astronomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f05b48/32.png) [@The\_Bad\_Astronomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Bad_Astronomer)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-its-another-moon-hoax-thread/82520/43 "2001-09-21T01:18:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BickByro \* > \*\* > And I still don’t buy that kicking around dust would change the reflectivity of said dust. > \*\* Actually, it makes a HUGE difference. I have seen this myself, on a baseball diamond. Dirt and sand reflects very differently when disturbed than when it is smoothed over. Find a baseball diamond, go to the infield and try for yourself. View it at different angles to the sunlight, too. You’re in for a big surprise. The difference is astonishing. ---
**Author:** ![EagleEye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f04885/32.png) [@EagleEye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EagleEye)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-its-another-moon-hoax-thread/82520/44 "2001-09-21T03:03:37Z")
I am one of the non-believers. I ask these questions without “smart” tones, so please, don’t get mad at me. I saw a show on FOX a while back, and that changed my mind on what happened. Here are some things I remember. 1. Two shadows of rocks were going two different ways. I’ve heard that there was extra lighting, and I heard there wansn’t. Would that have anything to do with it. 2. You’ve discussed the flag deal, but the guy was standing away from the flag. Maybe it was just swaying from momentum, I dont know. 3. I heard them talk about this happening in Area 51, but I don’t remember all the details, so we won’t get into that. 4. They showed some pics, and the objects were overlapping the crosshairs of the camera. I don’t know if this could have happened from the “enhancements” or not, but I doubt it. 5. They multiplied the speed that the austronaughts(sp) ran by 2X, and it looked like they were just poppin’ around on the Earth. 6. My knowledge on the Global Radiation Belts are small, but isn’t the moon out? If so, I’m sure the radiation would have got them pretty quick. I mean, it’s the Sun we’re talking about here. Yeah, I know about the suits and everything, but I just don’t buy it. ---
**Author:** ![BickByro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/13edae/32.png) [@BickByro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BickByro)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-its-another-moon-hoax-thread/82520/45 "2001-09-21T05:36:57Z")
**EagleEye:** Though I appreciate your support, I’d like to stay on topic, to the extent that it’s possible in such a discussion. I’d suggest you search the SDMB for some of the other threads that have specifically addressed the Fox special (or check out [badastronomy.com](http://badastronomy.com) for a detailed rebuttal that will put you up to speed with some of the issues we’re discussing here). Having given your site a plug, **badastro** , I’m gonna wait till tomorrow morning to reply to the baseball field comment… But if anyone has a chance before then, could you tell me what the river-like trench is in the blast-spot photo at [space.com](http://space.com)? I was just looking at the photo again in preparation for tomorrow’s discussion when I noticed that there seems to be a canal on the moon. I doubt [space.com](http://space.com) would be stupid enough to call a picture of Mars the moon, but damned if that doesn’t look like a riverbed. Is that what the lunar canyons really look like? ---
**Author:** ![DaveW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@DaveW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DaveW)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-its-another-moon-hoax-thread/82520/46 "2001-09-21T05:58:23Z")
**BickByro** wrote: > [@](#): > > **CurtC** : If the camera operator had things that well planned out, he wouldn’t have lost the LEM for 10 seconds in the middle of the footage, now would he? Why not? He’s a human being, working analog controls. From what I recall of seeing a documentary that had a bit on this (don’t recall what it was called), the operator only practised getting the timing right for the first part of the ascent. That, and it _wasn’t_ planned out months in advance, like the rest of the mission(s). The zoom-out-and-pan-up-ahead-of-time bit was thought up days before, if I remember correctly. The rest of the tracking would perhaps have to be impromptu, depending on how much moving around the ascent stage did during lift-off. I can’t say how precise the trajectory was. By the way, check the comment at 187:21:27 and some of the video clips which follow. The operator, Fendell, is making sure the camera works right, and getting some last-minute practise. > [@](#): > > And as regards the “synchronized ascent timing” theory, I still haven’t gotten an explanation for the discrepancy between the planned and actual launch times as listed in the Apollo 17 Lunar Surface Journal. I just went and reviewed the place where you first pointed out this discrepancy (sorry for not looking at this when you brought it up): > [@](#): > > But how come, in the transcript cited by DaveW (time reference: 184:04:59), mission control says the astronauts will lift off at 188:01:43.85, but the astronauts claim to be “on their way” at 188:01:40, ignition having occured at 188:01:39? What am I missing here? Was 188:01:43.85 the time NASA was supposed to SEE the ignition or something? I don’t get it… What your missing is that it’s _miraculous_ that they took off four seconds **ahead of schedule**! Honestly, the Moon missions were plagued by things that usually took _longer_ than expected, and they tended to chop bits of the missions out as time grew short. Look at the comment at 185:32:32 - they were a half-hour _behind_ at that point. The 188:01:43.85 figure was probably an estimate. That estimate was given by ground control, and followed by (from 184:05:23 to 184:07:27 in the transcript) by G.C. telling the astronauts a bunch of stuff to cross off the checklists. They were changing the mission right then and there! Now, a good question might be, “why did G.C. feel so confident as to give them a launch time down to hundredths of a second?” Doesn’t make sense to me, but maybe the .85 actually means something different than what I think it means. > [@](#): > > As for whether I’m seriously postulating that NASA faked the ascent video… well, what did you think I was doing, just whistlin’ Dixie? The real question for you is, “_why_ would they fake just the ascent video?” ---
**Author:** ![Chas.E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e99b99/32.png) [@Chas.E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chas.E)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-its-another-moon-hoax-thread/82520/47 "2001-09-21T06:26:12Z")
Bick, I’m not overstating the case when I say they were coated with dust. If you look at most pictures, the astronauts’suits were positively darkened with dirt from the knees down, and filthy up to the elbows. Dust hehaves differently in a vaccum. There is no air to offer resistance, so the slightest static electric charge will attract dust. Dust will not “billow” without the presence of air, but you can kick it a long ways, even by accident. Remember, there were two astronauts working near each other, kicking dirt on each other, and they also found it was easier to “hop” than to walk, which kicked up lots of dust on every step. Go watch films of the lunar rover, you should see how much dirt the wheels kick up, and it falls in a distinctive parabolic arc, which can only happen in a vaccuum (my favorite hoaxer debunking argument). ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-its-another-moon-hoax-thread/82520/48 "2001-09-21T07:52:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BickByro \* > **Mangetout: I was under the impression that programs like Photoshop could compensate for the over- and underexposure of digital pictures.** Programs like Photoshop can alter gamma or contrast, bringing out underexposed details, but only if those details have been captured by the digital camera; on conventional film, the process of image capture is photochemical, in digital cameras it’s photoelectric; I expect the response curves for the two methods are very different. > [@](#): > > **Now, the link compares motion picture footage against stills, yes—that was the point. I don’t think it’s unfair to compare film footage to still photos, at least when the difference in lighting is so radically different. Sure, the “film stock, camera, exposure, aperture, development process etc will be different,” but THAT different?** Yes, maybe/probably THAT different! > [@](#): > > \*\*I’m skeptical, though admittedly no expert in photographic or cinematographic technique. \*\* Aha, perhaps not such a good idea to be drawing such bold conclusions then? > [@](#): > > \*\*The illumination of objects in shadow is the question here \*\* Well, it would be, if we were seeing the objects, but we’re not, we’re seeing photgraphs of them, there’s a qualitative difference. > [@](#): > > \*\*and even with my primitive knowledge of these things I have a hunch that if you somehow increased the brightness of a shadowed area enough to appear illuminated, the features that _were_ originally illuminated would turn almost white with brightness. Yet we don’t see this. Am I wrong to think that’s weird? \*\*Skepticism is one thing; evidence is another; brightness of illumination is just one of many factors in photography and spot processes can be used during the printing of still photos, or maybe they used a fill-flash (I don’t know if that’s true, but it’s what I would do) ---
**Author:** ![The\_Bad\_Astronomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f05b48/32.png) [@The\_Bad\_Astronomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Bad_Astronomer)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-its-another-moon-hoax-thread/82520/49 "2001-09-21T16:33:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by EagleEye \* > \*\*I am one of the non-believers. I ask these questions without “smart” tones, so please, don’t get mad at me. > \*\* I don’t get mad, I get busy. 😉 Go to my website, specifically [Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Bad TV](http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html). Read what I wrote, then go to [Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions](http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html) and go to the copious other sites linked there. Every “question” raised by that awful Fox show is answered in those sites. ---
**Author:** ![BickByro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/13edae/32.png) [@BickByro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BickByro)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-its-another-moon-hoax-thread/82520/50 "2001-09-21T18:13:19Z")
Okay, debunkers, you folks have got to get a little more organized. If you can’t even agree amongst yourselves, how are you going to convince me? **DaveW:** You said > [@](#): > > the operator only practised getting the timing right for the first part of the ascent. That, and it wasn’t planned out months in advance, like the rest of the mission(s). The zoom-out-and-pan-up-ahead-of-time bit was thought up days before, if I remember correctly. The rest of the tracking would perhaps have to be impromptu, depending on how much moving around the ascent stage did during lift-off. First of all, one would think that there wouldn’t be too much possible variation in the ways the ascent stage could “move around,” lest it miss its rendezvous with the orbiter. But beyond all that, bear in mind that I was responding to **CurtC** , who said > [@](#): > > [the camera operator] was informed as to the ascent timing and positions, and had spent a good deal of time preparing for this moment. If you read through the Apollo transcripts, what is apparent is that the people planning these missions had to think of a million things beforehand. The video of the ascent is a minor point, but it was well-planned. So which one is it, folks? Well-planned or thought up days before/impromptu? Or then there’s this one from **DaveW:** > [@](#): > > What your missing is that it’s miraculous that they took off four seconds ahead of schedule! Compare it to this, from **Santos L Halper:** > [@](#): > > [Mission control] knew ahead of time when the LM was supposed to take off to the second… Are we operating off urban legend here or do we actually _know_ what was going on? I do agree with you, **DaveW,** that > [@](#): > > a good question might be, “why did G.C. feel so confident as to give them a launch time down to hundredths of a second?” I have no idea what the answer to that one might be. And when you ask “why would they fake just the ascent video?”, I can only reply: because they had to. Now, **Bad Astronomer** , let’s take a look at some of the things you’ve had to say… First, there was: > [@](#): > > The exhaust was far too weak to excavate the lunar surface; all it could do was blow the dust around. However, it did leave scorch marks, I believe. That’s what Clementine allegedly imaged. Remember, this image isn’t verified. and from your Web site: > [@](#): > > …the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across… which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch!.. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly… lowering the pressure… In the end, only the dust directly under or a bit around the rocket was blown out by the exhaust. The rest was left where it was. Then there’s this one: > [@](#): > > …it makes a HUGE difference. Dirt and sand reflects very differently when disturbed than when it is smoothed over. Find a baseball diamond, go to the infield and try for yourself. View it at different angles to the sunlight, too… The difference is astonishing. You seem to have introduced three possibilities here: (1) The marks we see must be scorch marks left by the exhaust, because the LEM didn’t displace enough dust to create a crater (displaced disk of dust, whatever you want to call it) as big as 1 to 3 football fields. (2) The exhaust DID disturb enough dust to create a crater-like-thing as big as 1 to 3 football fields, and this disturbed dust has a HUGELY different albedo than the rest of the lunar dust. (Need I remind you how much this point would undercut your contention that “the brightly lit lunar landscape would also be a source of light that could fill in the shadows”? Not in the blackened circle around the LEM, it wouldn’t!) (3) The whole [space.com](http://space.com) article is bogus (“unconfirmed”) and there is, in fact, no black circle/blast crater/whathaveyou. It would be substantially easier for me to discuss this topic with you if you would do me the courtesy of picking an opinion and sticking with it. If a hoax believer were as shifty and noncommital as you, he’d be ridiculed outright (and I should know—I’ve been that guy). So why don’t you sit down, take some time, and figure out what you **actually** think instead of just throwing out a bunch of mutually exclusive explanations—and while you’re at it, you might take a crack at explaining that billowing dust cloud in the LEM ascent video. Before I address the rest of you, I’d like to take another close look at that [space.com](http://space.com) photo. In addition to the bizarre riverbed-like formation, there are a couple of other strange things going on. You’ll notice, for one, that the alleged landing site marked “A” is blacker than even the “small fresh crater” marked “C.” If the blackening is due to dust displacement (as per **basastro’s** baseball field analogy), this raises the question of why the under-1.5-psi LEM exhaust produced a mark darker than an actual _impact crater_, which would presumably have disturbed more (and more deeply buried, if that matters) dust. Anyone? Next problem: why are these “fresh craters” surrounded by black circles, anyway? My impression was that, since the moon lacks any weathering elements, a crater formed today should look exactly the same as a crater formed millions of years ago. Now, they can allegedly tell these things are fresh by comparing them to previous photos of the lunar surface; I’m not debating that. I just want to know why the new craters have this black ring around them. Shouldn’t ALL craters have such a black ring around them, then? Or is this a case of the “whitening effects of radiation on basalts” (see my response to **Kamandi** below)? Okay, now to answer some questions… **Chas.E:** Oh, I know they were dusty, I’m just smart-assedly pointing out the fact that they should not have had dust on their backs unless they fell down on their backs. The astronauts didn’t kick dust that high, and the lunar rover, though it did kick dust up pretty high, would have kicked it out and to the back, not forward onto the backs of the astronauts driving it. As for the famous “parabolic arc” evidence, we seem to be getting rather far from my original topic, but I’ll throw you a bone and give you my conspiracy theory: NASA used fine sand, not dirt/dust. Sand doesn’t billow. Sand, when kicked into the air, drops straight down, the same as dust would in a vacuum. But there may be something I’m missing here, and I freely admit that. Any thoughts? On to **Mangetout:** > [@](#): > > Programs like Photoshop can alter gamma or contrast, bringing out underexposed details, but only if those details have been captured by the digital camera So you’re saying regular film can be processed to bring out details that _weren’t_ captured by the film? That sounds rather impressive, but isn’t this process more commonly known as “forgery”? Perhaps you could explain how one coaxes unphotographed details from photographs… > [@](#): > > Aha, perhaps not such a good idea to be drawing such bold conclusions then? Yeah, but you’re sitting here telling me things like “yes, **maybe/probably** THAT different!” and “I **expect** the response curves for the two methods are very different.” Do you expect me to be convinced by **your** suspicions and expectations any more than you are by mine? Then you say > [@](#): > > brightness of illumination is just one of many factors in photography and spot processes can be used during the printing of still photos, or maybe they used a fill-flash I don’t know what a fill flash is, but if it’s artificial light, they didn’t use it (according to the party line, anyway). The real problem here is that NASA itself doesn’t do any debunking; they leave it to self-appointed “experts” like **Bad Astronomer** who don’t have any more access to the real facts than the rest of us civilians. If all NASA did was use spot processes, why don’t they just come out and SAY it instead of forcing the debunkers into ridiculous contortions about “reflected light from the lunar surface” or “there _was_ a second light source–the EARTH!!!”? It’d sure put an end to a lot of the debate, don’t you think? And I don’t want to forget **Kamandi** … Well, I don’t see why excess oxidizer is necessary to ensure that all the fuel was burned, as the definition of excess is “more than is necessary,” and NASA pretty much nixed anything more than necessary on the moon flights. But we’re really just getting into pure conjecture at this point… As for moon rocks being fairly inert, well, [http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/moon\_surface.html](http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/moon/moon_surface.html) says > [@](#): > > 1.The Maria are mostly composed of dark basalts, which form from rapid cooling of molten rock from massive lava flows. > > 2.The Highlands rocks are largely Anorthosite, which is a kind of igneous rock that forms when lava cools more slowly than in the case of basalts. This implies that the rocks of the Maria and Highlands cooled at different rates from the molten state and so were formed under different conditions. > > 3.Breccias, which are fragments of different rocks compacted and welded together by meteor impacts, are found in the Maria and the Highlands, but are more common in the latter. > > 4.Lunar Soils contain glassy globules not commonly found on the Earth. These are probably formed from the heat and pressure generated by meteor impacts. And [http://www.asi.org/adb/02/13/01/glass-production.html](http://www.asi.org/adb/02/13/01/glass-production.html) says that > [@](#): > > FeO is a significant component of lunar rock, ranging from roughly 3% to 23% of the rock weight fraction. This is why lunar rock is black. Which calls into question the whole “blackening” process anyway, but never mind that. I’ll be the first to admit that, not knowing what chemical products would have resulted from the ignition, I can’t be very specific as to what would prevent the rocks from interacting with said products. But seriously, have you EVER heard anything about “the NASA astronauts brought home moon rocks blackened by the exhaust from the LEM”? I’d never even considered the concept until I saw the [space.com](http://space.com) article. I’ve never seen anything that would lead me to believe moon rocks were any more reactive than similarly composed earth rocks. Now, as for your points of possibility… first, that the underlying dust is of a slightly different reflectivity due to the top layer being “brightened” by solar radiation. An interesting theory, but I don’t really know anything about the effects of radiation on the color of basalts. But the dust underneath the first layer would also have been the top layer at some point in lunar history, so there’s no reason to suspect it wouldn’t have been equally irradiated, even if that was a factor. As for “blasting dust away, at least partially exposing underlying rock or somesuch of a slightly different reflectivity or color,” the debunkers are very firm on the point that the LEM did NOT blow away enough dust to uncover rock (the answer to the “how could astronauts leave footprints when the LEM blew away all the dust” question). I’m still assuming the debunkers’ science to be correct unless I find logical inconsistencies in their arguments. I don’t quite get your point about the diameter of the circle. Yes, 300 to 1000 feet is a wide range, but that’s the range they gave. The spot may be small, but there are many other clearly visible, smaller features in the picture. Moreover, the feature is distinctly round, not the squared-off image you’d expect from something, as you say, only a few pixels across. So what’s the problem? ---
**Author:** ![Futile\_Gesture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f05b48/32.png) [@Futile\_Gesture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futile_Gesture)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-its-another-moon-hoax-thread/82520/51 "2001-09-21T18:52:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BickByro \* > And, in preview, I see **Futile Gesture’s** comments. Okay, as for enhancement, the article only mentions that the photograph was taken through a “red filter”—any photographers out there want to tell me how much difference that would make? > > In any case, are you seriously telling me that what they are detecting is that “this dirt has been moved around at some point in the last 30 years”? Don’t lunar dust grains pretty much look the same on all sides? What difference would kicking them around make that would be visible from space? And, in any case, why would the dust just coincidentally turn out to be stirred up in a perfect circle (and a perfectly _filled in_ circle, at that)? And where do you get the idea that the extravehicular activities of the astronauts had anything to do with this, anyway, since even the scientist who made the discovery believes “the alteration has been created by the lunar module’s engine during touchdown”? I don’t see any mention of the astronauts themselves as a possible cause. Got a cite you’d like to share? Red filter effectively darkens other colours. Why this should do the job I have no idea. Perhaps the disturbed dust reflects less red, and so appears darker. Dust grains don’t necessarily look the same in all directions, as they are not uniformly shaped. Averaged out over a large enough area the difference in orientation of some of the dust could be all that’s needed. Dust on the lunar surface does get evened out over time. The combined forces of gravity and constant contraction and expansion due to heating and cooling makes the dust settle and flatten. It’s amazing what can be achieved over centuries. This is why disturbed dust shows up. As to the astronauts being a cause, common sense leads me to conclude this. Their activities stirred up dust in just the same way as the rockets. ---
**Author:** ![Kamandi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5daacb/32.png) [@Kamandi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamandi)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-its-another-moon-hoax-thread/82520/52 "2001-09-21T19:52:06Z")
**Futile Gesture** ’s post just clued me into the error in my post about the red filter. **Futile Gesture** is correct in saying that a red filter _transmits_ red light and blocks other colors. I had it backwards. Don’t know why I did that. I blame it on the CIA. ---
**Author:** ![Kamandi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5daacb/32.png) [@Kamandi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamandi)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-its-another-moon-hoax-thread/82520/53 "2001-09-21T20:54:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BickByro \* > So you’re saying regular film can be processed to bring out details that _weren’t_ captured by the film? That sounds rather impressive, but isn’t this process more commonly known as “forgery”? Perhaps you could explain how one coaxes unphotographed details from photographs… No, no, no. The information _is_ all on the film. Photographic film has a very wide range of sensitivity to light. Unfortunately, it’s wider than the sensitivity range of photographic paper. Depending on how the paper is exposed to create a print from the negative, some areas on the film that are dark but _have detail_ will be rendered featureless black in the print, or some bright details on the film will be featureless white on the print. Darkroom techniques such as varying the exposure in different parts of the print will bring out these hidden details without over- or under-exposing the rest of the print. I’ve done this myself. > [@](#): > > And I don’t want to forget **Kamandi** … Uhh… thanks, I think. > [@](#): > > Well, I don’t see why excess oxidizer is necessary to ensure that all the fuel was burned, as the definition of excess is “more than is necessary,” and NASA pretty much nixed anything more than necessary on the moon flights. But we’re really just getting into pure conjecture at this point… I just want to emphasize that I meant excess to the _stoichiometric proportions_. Because of real-world limitations like imperfect mixing during the chemical reaction in the combustion chamber, more of one chemical may have been needed in order to ensure _complete_ reaction of the other. I agree that excess oxidizer in the exhaust is pure conjecture on my part. > [@](#): > > But seriously, have you EVER heard anything about “the NASA astronauts brought home moon rocks blackened by the exhaust from the LEM”? I’d never even considered the concept until I saw the [space.com](http://space.com) article. Me neither. But personally, I’d take “blackened” to mean “obviously darkened” considering, as you pointed out yourself, the rocks are pretty dark to begin with. We’re not talking about wood blackened by fire, here. > [@](#): > > I’ve never seen anything that would lead me to believe moon rocks were any more reactive than similarly composed earth rocks. Neither have I. Never said they were. > [@](#): > > Now, as for your points of possibility… first, that the underlying dust is of a slightly different reflectivity due to the top layer being “brightened” by solar radiation. An interesting theory, but I don’t really know anything about the effects of radiation on the color of basalts. Neither do I. > [@](#): > > But the dust underneath the first layer would also have been the top layer at some point in lunar history, so there’s no reason to suspect it wouldn’t have been equally irradiated, even if that was a factor. Not if a thick layer was deposited at the same time, created, say, by a large meteor impact. > [@](#): > > As for “blasting dust away, at least partially exposing underlying rock or somesuch of a slightly different reflectivity or color,” the debunkers are very firm on the point that the LEM did NOT blow away enough dust to uncover rock (the answer to the “how could astronauts leave footprints when the LEM blew away all the dust” question). I stand corrected. We can discount that possibility. > [@](#): > > I don’t quite get your point about the diameter of the circle. Yes, 300 to 1000 feet is a wide range, but that’s the range they gave. The spot may be small, but there are many other clearly visible, smaller features in the picture. Moreover, the feature is distinctly round, not the squared-off image you’d expect from something, as you say, only a few pixels across. So what’s the problem? I think the difficulty may be, as I said before, the contrast between the circle and the undisturbed soil is probably very low. Also, if we assume that the circle was created by dust blown around by rocket exhaust, we may also assume that more dust directly under the rocket was disturbed than that farther away. The circle wouldn’t look so much like a black circle on a white background as gradually changing shades of grey as you look radially from the landing point out to undisturbed soil. There would be no sharp edge, so varying amounts of digital contrast boost would produce circles of varying size. It would be very difficult to determine where the edge of such a feature was, kind of like trying to say where the edge of Earth’s atmosphere is. Sorry if that’s not clear, but it’s tough to explain without a picture, and I haven’t got a link. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-its-another-moon-hoax-thread/82520/54 "2001-09-21T21:07:40Z")
1. You point out that the launch schedule varied by at least a half hour, so how could have they known it to the second. If they were behind by a half-hour, the people on the ground would still know the exact ascent time to within a second, a few minutes before it happened. 2. If you look at the pictures at the Apollo Journal (links in other posts above), you’ll see several showing a blackened area just under the LM (see [this photo](http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5921.jpg)). Apparently, the blackening is caused by the finer dust being blown away, exposing the darker, hard surface below. At the page [http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html](http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html) , they explain > [@](#): > > We can see underneath the engine bell. Most of the surface in this image has not been disturbed as yet, and in the places where Neil and Buzz have walked, the disturbed surface is darker. Good illustration of this very common phenomenon. Jack Schmitt speculates that the Descent Engine plume swept away the smallest particles, leaving a higher than normal percentage of larger particles. The more jagged surface is a better reflector of sunlight than the normal surface and, therefore, appears brighter. Certainly, from orbit, the areas around the landed LM’s are brighter than the normal surface. As they walk around, the astronauts disturb this modified surface and, in effect, restore its normal condition. This could also explain why it would be darker around new craters - you’re seeing the hard surface, not the dust. They will eventually be covered with dust as mircometeors pummel the surface, turning it to dust too. That’s why there is dust covering the Moon. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-its-another-moon-hoax-thread/82520/55 "2001-09-21T21:14:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BickByro \* > \*\*Okay, debunkers, you folks have got to get a little more organized. If you can’t even agree amongst yourselves, how are you going to convince me? \*\*It’s not up to us to convince you; it’s the other way around. > [@](#): > > \*\*On to **Mangetout:** > > > [@](#): > > > > Programs like Photoshop can alter gamma or contrast, bringing out underexposed details, but only if those details have been captured by the digital camera > > So you’re saying regular film can be processed to bring out details that _weren’t_ captured by the film? That sounds rather impressive, but isn’t this process more commonly known as “forgery”? Perhaps you could explain how one coaxes unphotographed details from photographs… > \*\* I notice you had to cut short the quote to make it sound like I was saying that unrecorded details can be retrieved from film, but that’s not what I was talking about at all; I was attempting to highlight the fundamental difference between digital and conventional photography; neither technique can retrieve uncaptured detail, but with digital photography, you’re more likely to lose that detail in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Chas.E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e99b99/32.png) [@Chas.E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chas.E)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-its-another-moon-hoax-thread/82520/56 "2001-09-21T22:07:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > \*\*I notice you had to cut short the quote to make it sound like I was saying that unrecorded details can be retrieved from film, but that’s not what I was talking about at all; I was attempting to highlight the fundamental difference between digital and conventional photography; neither technique can retrieve uncaptured detail, but with digital photography, you’re more likely to lose that detail in the first place. \*\* Oh boy, this is my professional specialty, photographic sensitometry. But this is not the thread for a dissertation on sensitometry of digital vs. film. I’ll just say that you must remember that film photography is a process of mapping range of brightnesses in a lit scene through a lens onto the “response range” of a film emulsion. Many compromises are made. But with film, you can bring out latent details by matching film and papers with different responses. The astronomers know all the good film sensitometry tricks. I’ll leave it there because I don’t really see what is being asked here, how digi/film, red filters, etc. is relevant to the Apollo question. I musta missed something. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [September 21, 2001, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-its-another-moon-hoax-thread/82520/57 "2001-09-21T23:21:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Chas.E \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Mangetout \* > > \*\*I notice you had to cut short the quote to make it sound like I was saying that unrecorded details can be retrieved from film, but that’s not what I was talking about at all; I was attempting to highlight the fundamental difference between digital and conventional photography; neither technique can retrieve uncaptured detail, but with digital photography, you’re more likely to lose that detail in the first place. \*\* > > Oh boy, this is my professional specialty, photographic sensitometry. But this is not the thread for a dissertation on sensitometry of digital vs. film. I’ll just say that you must remember that film photography is a process of mapping range of brightnesses in a lit scene through a lens onto the “response range” of a film emulsion. Many compromises are made. But with film, you can bring out latent details by matching film and papers with different responses. The astronomers know all the good film sensitometry tricks. > I’ll leave it there because I don’t really see what is being asked here, how digi/film, red filters, etc. is relevant to the Apollo question. I musta missed something. \*\* **Chas. E** : It was because **Bick** was trying to make a comparison between digital photos he’s had problems with on his patio and the NASA photos. ---
**Author:** ![BickByro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/13edae/32.png) [@BickByro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BickByro)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2001, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-its-another-moon-hoax-thread/82520/58 "2001-09-22T00:32:40Z")
**Futile Gesture:** Thanks for the info on the red filter. I’ll get to the contrast issue a bit later. Now, yes, dust grains are not uniform, but by the same token they do not all face the same way—it’s not as though kicking a pile of dust will cause all the dust particles to flip to their “dark side.” As for whether dust on the moon gets evened out over time, well, if that’s true then NASA’s at least been lying to us by saying the astronauts’ footprints will be there forever! Then… > [@](#): > > As to the astronauts being a cause, common sense leads me to conclude this. Their activities stirred up dust in just the same way as the rockets. I’m not saying the astronauts _didn’t_ stir up dust, I’m saying that (1) they didn’t do it over a uniform 300- to 1000-foot circle and (2) the relatively small amount of dust they would have dislodged (compared, say, to a meteor impact) wouldn’t make a visible black mark on the moon anyway. And again, I remind you, the scientists who discovered the black mark do not think the astronauts are responsible for it. **Kamandi:** I believe you that > [@](#): > > Darkroom techniques such as varying the exposure in different parts of the print will bring out these hidden details without over- or under-exposing the rest of the print. But the problem is, not a single debunker site I’m aware of has cited this as the reason for the famous secondary-light-source anomalies like Aldrin’s descent and the American flag in the shadow of the LEM. Neither has NASA claimed to have used this technique. So while your explanation is possible, you seem to be the only one advancing it. I’d point out, though, that the shadowed areas on the moon are supposed to be BLACK. Really really black. In the absence of an atmosphere to disperse light, I’d think there wouldn’t be any buried details for one to bring out of the film. But I could be wrong… > [@](#): > > I agree that excess oxidizer in the exhaust is pure conjecture on my part. Okay. It would still be nice to know whether excess oxidizer would have caused the lunar surface to blacken. Anyone out there have some info on this? And what about the effects of prolonged radiation on the color of basalts. Anyone?? > [@](#): > > Not if a thick layer was deposited at the same time, created, say, by a large meteor impact. I guess anything’s possible… but I’m sure you’d agree with me that it’s impossible to prove that point, in these circumstances, one way or the other. > [@](#): > > I think the difficulty may be, as I said before, the contrast between the circle and the undisturbed soil is probably very low. Also, if we assume that the circle was created by dust blown around by rocket exhaust, we may also assume that more dust directly under the rocket was disturbed than that farther away. The circle wouldn’t look so much like a black circle on a white background as gradually changing shades of grey as you look radially from the landing point out to undisturbed soil. I think you’re drastically overstating the case. First of all, the circle doesn’t look like “a black circle on a white background”—it looks like a black circle on a varied, dark grey background. Other features in the photo (such as the “riverbed,” the “lake” it leads into, and some peaks of the surrounding mountains) show up as almost perfectly white by comparison. There are even some bright points in some of the small craters surrounding the alleged touchdown site. There’s no clear reason I can see to assume that the site is actually of particularly low contrast, looking at the range of brightnesses visible in the picture. The “regular” craters, with their shadowed and brightened sides, don’t look as though their shades have been exceptionally attenuated. To me, at least. Now, you make a good point about the fact that we should expect a dark center with gradually lightening rings, something we don’t see. But we _do_ see it in crater C (the dark center of which looks to be about the same size as the touchdown site), so clearly the technique used to take the photo does not preclude the capture of contrast gradients. Moving on to **CurtC…** > [@](#): > > You point out that the launch schedule varied by at least a half hour, so how could have they known it to the second. If they were behind by a half-hour, the people on the ground would still know the exact ascent time to within a second, a few minutes before it happened. The half hour thing didn’t actually get me going as much as the 4-second discrepancy between the planned and actual launch time. I’ve been under the impression all these years that the launch time was extremely critical, as a miscalculation could result in the LEM and the orbiter missing each other. Is this not the case? > [@](#): > > If you look at the pictures at the Apollo Journal, you’ll see several showing a blackened area just under the LM. Apparently, the blackening is caused by the finer dust being blown away, exposing the darker, hard surface below. Yeah, but we’re not talking about “just under the LEM.” We’re talking about one to three blackened football fields. > [@](#): > > Jack Schmitt speculates that the Descent Engine plume swept away the smallest particles, leaving a higher than normal percentage of larger particles. The more jagged surface is a better reflector of sunlight than the normal surface and, therefore, appears brighter. Certainly, from orbit, the areas around the landed LM’s are brighter than the normal surface. So you’re saying the LEM disturbed the dust such as to _brighten_ the surface? Doesn’t that pretty much shoot the “blackened circle” theory out of the water? Am I missing something? **Mangetout:** > [@](#): > > It’s not up to us to convince you; it’s the other way around. Oh, you can think that if you want to. But I’ve already demonstrated that the lunar footage we watched has not only a dust cloud anomaly but seemingly impossible camerawork. The ball’s in your court now. > [@](#): > > I notice you had to cut short the quote to make it sound like I was saying that unrecorded details can be retrieved from film, but that’s not what I was talking about at all Maybe not, but it’s what you said. Nothing I cut from the quote would have clarified the issue. I understand that’s not what you _meant_ of course, and perhaps it was mean of me to point out the strangeness of saying “Photoshop can only bring out details that have been captured by the digital camera,” as though it could bring out details on conventional film that were _not_ captured by the conventional camera. I apologize. But don’t get all snippy about my comparison of digital camera shots on the patio to photos on the moon, because I suspect that, for all your photographic experience, you’ve never been to the moon either. **Chas.E:** > [@](#): > > I’ll just say that you must remember that film photography is a process of mapping range of brightnesses in a lit scene through a lens onto the “response range” of a film emulsion. Many compromises are made. But with film, you can bring out latent details by matching film and papers with different responses. Okay. > [@](#): > > I don’t really see what is being asked here, how digi/film, red filters, etc. is relevant to the Apollo question. I musta missed something. Well, there are a couple of different issues being discussed. The red filter question only applies to the photo at [space.com](http://space.com), which was taken just recently. As far as digital versus regular film, the point got lost a while back, but the original conversation was **Mangetout** saying > [@](#): > > Um, you think they really went to the moon, but forgot to take pictures? Or did they forget to take the lens cap off? Or did Photo-Hut lose the film? Sorry, but why would NASA fake pictures of a real event? And me replying > [@](#): > > It’s possible that taking photos/films on the moon simply wasn’t an option without additional lighting, which, for whatever reason, they didn’t bring. I know that just the other day, I was trying to take pictures beneath a shadowed patio, and the contrast between the darkness beneath the patio and the brightness outside it rendered my subjects invisible—and that was with the benefit of atmospheric light dispersion—even though I could see them fine with my own eyes. Point taken that I was using a digital camera, etc. But as I mentioned earlier, objects in shadow on the moon should appear perfectly black, whereas the subjects underneath the patio in my photo were obviously not sitting in perfect black (even if that’s how it ended up looking in the photos!). ---
**Author:** ![Kamandi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5daacb/32.png) [@Kamandi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamandi)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2001, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-its-another-moon-hoax-thread/82520/59 "2001-09-22T01:14:11Z")
Okay, just a quick reply because I’m on my way out the door to start my weekend. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BickByro \* > I’d point out, though, that the shadowed areas on the moon are supposed to be BLACK. Really really black. In the absence of an atmosphere to disperse light, I’d think there wouldn’t be any buried details for one to bring out of the film. But I could be wrong… I’m at a loss as to why moon hoax believers claim this. As has been stated countless times before, the shadows can be illuminated by many sources, including sunlit moon surfaces, astronauts and the LEM, the last two of which are strong light reflectors, being primarily white. As has been mentioned before, the Earth itself is also a strong light source on the moon. Don’t believe me? On a dark clear night, look at the moon in quarter phase. You will be able to dimly see the shadowed portion of the moon. Why? It’s not directly lit by the sun. It should be featureless black, right? Wrong. That portion is illuminated by sunlight reflected from the Earth, bouncing off the moon and coming back to your eyes. That same Earthshine also hits the sunlit portion of the moon, lighting the shadows. The shadows are NOT exclusively black. ---
**Author:** ![Chas.E](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e99b99/32.png) [@Chas.E](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chas.E)\ **Post date:** [September 22, 2001, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-its-another-moon-hoax-thread/82520/60 "2001-09-22T01:32:45Z")
OK, I see. This is the classic “shadow detail” problem. Most CCDs don’t have very good sensitivity in the shadow areas, and digital usually doesn’t capture at enough levels for recording good shadow detail. In photo terms, they don’t have much “latitude.” Conventional film has some advantages in this area, it has a more gradual curve in the shadow range, more levels of detail can be wrung out of the “heel” of the curve if you expose and print it correctly. This also has a complex effect on contrast. But this is a long story. The short version of it is the old photographer’s maxim, expose for the shadows. You can get a pretty good shadow exposure if you know just how to expose it. The diffuse light off the surface provides a lot of illumination so you always get some shadow fill unless you’re shooting over a totally black surface. The lunar surface is pretty bright (note how bright it is in the night sky) and provides significant backscatter to fill in the shadows. NASA had researched the photographic needs with remote cameras on probes like Surveyor, they knew just what they were getting into. Surveyor also did some interesting light spectral analysis experiments with color filters, which might explain the red filter Apollo experiments, they’re taking more data samples with similar filtration. BTW, the Surveyor cameras were used for cool multifilter color photos. It was very much like this ancient process: [http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/making.html](http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/making.html) Cool, isn’t it? BTW, I was reading back in the thread about falling down in the dust… I suddenly recalled watching a moonwalk where an astronaut fell on his back, and they were greatly concerned that he’d broken the PLSS backpack, the antenna or some plumbing or something. I wonder what mission that was, I should try to dig it up. It’s a distant memory. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-its-another-moon-hoax-thread/82520.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/yes-its-another-moon-hoax-thread/82520.md?page=4)