Hey Dean,
Are you saying you have to have atmosphere to achieve a glare, or is it a
function of the camera and light?
Blake,
My distinct impression is that you need atmosphere to achieve glare; not
reflection, but glare. Glare is sideways reflection caused by light which
difracts off of particles in the atmosphere. Somebody correct me if I am
wrong.
I don't know, but I would think that lens
flares are valid even in space. Again, I don't know. For all I know, the
moon has some kind of atmosphere. Doesn't look like it through my
telescope!
Well, your telescope perceives reflection, but I don't think you can say
that it is glare. Especially since the light passes through the Earth's
atmosphere, that's such a big disturbance right there.
But heck, I don't know everything.
Yeah, but almost.
Here's my concern about back light, scattered light, and the shadow
arguments. The moon surface reflects light back up to the astronauts.
Having
no atmosphere doesn't negate this law of physics. The secret is to examine
the shadows on the ground that lay on the surface. On earth, we can see
within the shadow laying on the ground, because atmosphere is scattering
the
light back to the ground and everywhere. If you look at the moon shadows
on
the surface, they are black as night. Light is not being scattered, but is
being reflected up. This is something I would expect to see.
This is a good point, but there could be various explanations.
The photo you have on your sight is the best evidence for non-parallel
shadows I've seen. It's conceivable that there are several spotlights
centered in one place in the distance, pointing out fan-like to cover all
the ground, which would cause non-parallel shadows on objects far apart.
However, the LEM is too far away to prove conclusively that its shadow
isn't
parallel with the rocks in the foreground.
It is a good one. But that photo, which I will have to look up, of the NASA
sign ONLY being lit up on the back side is another good piece of evidence.
The chances of that happening naturally are 1,000 to 1.
I've lost faith in the debunkers. I've seen them make ridiculous claims
about shadow lengths, flagpoles, and such, that I don't trust them. You've
got the best photo of all, but is that enough to convince me? One photo?
It is always a matter of plowing through the misinformation and wackos.
The Paper Moon video is high grade. Not that the narrator was Dick Cavett or
Johnny Carson, but nobody's perfect. He presents photographic evidence that
is good, what can I say. It doesn't cost too much. He put all the arguments
under one roof, every argument that I ever heard, and then a couple more. It
is a one-stop deal. Once you've seen it, you have investigated the issue
thoroughly.
And for that matter, I don't think they had the technical skills to pull
off
such a fake. Murder, yes, but special effects? No way.
The special effects weren't that good. In the Paper Moon video, you can even
see struts in one corner of a frame where it isn't completely blackened out.
I'll look for that one photo which I mentioned of the sign lit up.
Later,
Dean