So you doctored a picture to disprove an effort to prove that the picture wasn't doctored? How does that make any sense. The two picture might not be exact, but that's the best you're going to get with models and toy astronauts.
Also, how on Earth would a secondary light illuminate JUST the astronaut and nothing else?
@durkadurka2323 I hear you... That's why the Mythbusters episode is pathetic in the first place. But you can get a acceptable result even with models! They failed doing so!! In actuality the proved that NASA's picture is fake.... and obviously 'doctored' with their picture to make it work. This is what I show in the video, not more and not less!
@durkadurka2323 furthermore most of NASA's s pictures are edited together from multiple negatives. That's why the illumination is not consistence.
It has been 100 % proven that the Apollo 11 pictures are fake because of the light reflections on metal object on the astronauts suits. NASA realized their error and covered all metal parts in further missions.
(Last Mini-essay, I swear!) There couldn't have been a secondary source of light in the NASA photo, because the shadow of the astronaut would have been visible beyond the shadow of the LEM. If the lights where positioned so that the astronaut's shadow wouldn't be visible, then he would have been lit from above, not from below as he is in the photo. If lights where used, then the LEM would be sparkling like a Christmas tree; try pointing a flashlight at a piece of foil, and see how it lights up.
Also, the differences in lighting are too minor to be of any consequence to begin with. The results won't be exact, that would be asking too way much of some make-shift dust and a little plastic toy. The difference between the photographs and the video stills is also irrelevant, because they where with different cameras with different exposure times from different angles.
I would like to note that the lunar surface in the NASA photograph is much rougher, with more bumps and hills and rocks than the Mythbusters photo. It looks darker because it is more porous. The little astronaut model is the same: you can tell that it has more exaggerated folds and details on it, which cast shadows and make it look darker. The model was also a darker color than the space suit to begin with.
Ok lets say this picture is fake, but all the other stuff isnt. Even NASA let Mythbusters to test mits in theyr vacuum chamber. and if it is just a fake why would NASA pay to lounch rockets in space and then again drop them on Earth for no reason?
@barbaivica because they were on a race with russia to space... so they cud risk anything to get the victory of them having their man az the first one to hit the moon lol ;)
Beyond your explanation, there's another fact that few people bear in mind:
You can't recreate the moon shadows here on earth, unless you are in a vacuum. On earth, the light reflects in the air molecules surrounding the casted object, making brighter any other object standing in the shadow. Thus, an astronaut standing in a shadow casted on the moon, should stay almost unrecognizable.
@xzktplm actually, air particles don't exactly reflect light... They absorb, scatter it, and refract it. There is a huge difference. In distances as small as they used on the show, the amount of absorption, refraction, and scattering would be so negligible that it wouldn't really matter.
I'm not saying that they were right or wrong. What I am saying is the specific reason you give for them being wrong shows a grievous misunderstanding of what causes both ambient light and global illumination.
@luccaskunk Yes but No.... Yes under normal hygro level the difference is not much, but shine a light in some fog for example you see exactly what xzktplm is talking about.
And it is just an added fact! so stop nit picking! I get what he is saying.
@luccaskunk Air has a reflection too. That means the particles in the air. Anything has a reflection to some degree, even clear glass. In fact light "Scatter" is a reflection of light in different directions! Photons reflect to change direction.
First, you're being contraditory. If the air absorbs light, it can't refract it or reflect it. If I absorb something, I hold it with me. For example, a sponge absorbs water (the sponge holds the water)...
@xzktplm It's not contradictory at all. Air does not absorb all light that passes through it, just certain wavelengths and only to a degree. Sunglasses absorb light, but you can still see through them. To your sponge analogy, if you hold a sponge infront of a garden hose, you will see that the water passes through the sponge.
Air scatters blue light, and refracts all light. All transparent substances refract light. Even a vacuum has a refractive index.
@luccaskunk ...Secondly, the term «refraction» has nothing to do with this discussion. A light refraction occurs when it passes from a physical environment to another one. For example, we can say the light gets refracted when it passes from air into water, wich is not the case here.
It ain't certainly me who is showing a grievous misunderstanding of what light and illumination is all about.
@xzktplm I know what refraction is. You have a reading comprehension problem. I said that light does not reflect, then listed several things it does do. Also, I said "ambient light and global illumination", not "light and illumination". You missed the "ambient" and "global" qualifiers, probably dismissed them due to not understanding what I said. Look it up. I'm not here to educate you.
Do you realise that on moon there was a sun shining, not a simple lamp they used in mythbusters? You know sun, giant fireball. And it's even brighter on moon, since there's no atmosphere to absorb it's light
For some reason i can still see someone standing under the tree in a shiny day.
does he realise it was to scale, so the light was probably too bright and also probably too near, and even after photoshop the model isnt as dark as it should be. and anyway, the albedo of moon-dust is lower than 8%.
also, what do you mean "he should get a little "light" or "g" (first poster reply). and anyway, quoting can mess anything up, watch:
Hoax-believers are idiots, it has been proven they went to the moon, so NASA was right.
now to quote: "Hoax-believers are... proven... right."
@TheTrilbyWill Do you you realize that a too bright light source was mentioned as as possible error in the video! The moon albedo ranges from 6% - 12%. So to say the moons albedo is lower than 8 % is false.
Quoting is a very good way to reply directly to a specific part of a post. It may be confusing to an outside reader. But as direct answer to the one who wrote it - it is a very good way!
"also what do you mean ' he shoul get a little light or g' " welll you have to figure that out!
i find it funny that even russian scientists don't question the Moon landing. the guys that sent the first man into space, people with master's degrees and Ph. D's don't question the fact that man was actually on the Moon and brought a lot of materials from those trips (yeah, it wasn't just one or two), rocks, moon dust, etc...
i find it odd that people like you (Gigaloader) go against facts because... well i don't know, maybe you people don't have anything better to do
@otelio117 "i find it funny that even russian scientists don't question the Moon landing" This because you don't know how the world works. You should get a little 'Light' or 'G' for that matter!
Seriously, that's the best you can do? I imagine you also have a video with a similarly compelling argument proving the Earth is flat and that evolution is a conspiracy made up by the liberal media.
Also, "highlight," all one word, means a bright or reflective area in a painting, picture, design or even hair.
Go back to Photoshopping Megan Fox's head onto porn stars' bodies.
Remember, it takes a great man to resist resorting to name calling.
@mangolabs "Also, "highlight," all one word, means a bright or reflective area in a painting, picture, design or even hair" ....Don't get off on it! English is not my native language but thanks for telling me!
"Go back to Photoshopping Megan Fox's head onto porn stars' bodies" Always interesting to get a look in other peoples perverted minds, but you should not project it on others! You just expose yourself. And who is Megan Fox anyways?
"resist resorting to name calling. Idiot!" ?? Can U?
@Gigaloader Unfortunately, due to your limited grasp of English, the subtleties of my message were lost on you. I am not trying to put you down for this; a person cannot control where they were born or what their native language is. I am sure you speak English better than I speak your language. Where are you from? Perhaps I can use a reference from your culture to better make my point.
Although my comment WAS intended to get you riled up, it was also somewhat facetious.
@Gigaloader The Megan Fox thing was an American pop-culture reference. Google her.
I still disagree with your premise but I do not wish to insult you without your understanding the context and tone of my insult. BTW you never responded to the first part of my comment.
Really sad how unintelligible people are these days....oops did I post this on your video? I guess that makes you one of them.
Grow up dude. You are obviously trying way too hard to discredit the moon landings. You have no proof at all that they are fake. Your video was also very poor at proving anything seeing as how they took into account the reflectiveness of the moon.
You should stop believing all these conspiracy theories and actually think for yourself.
I personally feel pretty certain we did go to the moon, land and walk around. BUT this video makes a very compelling point, and demonstrates so very valid observations about the lighting differences. Their own shots did show a shadowed astronaut, not a lit one.
the moon is pretty mysterious. sometimes, even when we use science, we still have more things to figure about the moon, NASA wouldnt fake that, ther honest scientists
In this video the holes on the moon are so perfect! KKKKKK
It looks like a paper drawing on a large scale so that these guys .... Who would deceive, at that time hardly anyone had access to these liars and videos were still black and white! How could anyone dispute that time?? Wake up USA and people to see the truth! That there will still be a problem for the USA. LIED TO ALL HUMANITY! INCLUDING YOUR OWN PEOPLES!!! NASA = HOLYHOOD MOVIES!!!!
@gazno what is the point to recreate the exact Conditions as they did! We know there is surface reflextion, but is it enough! You have been "tested" an proven to be the Idiot Yourself!
@Gigaloader also the original photo is old and by now no doubt has been scaned into a computer and editing software has no doubt also been applied to make hepicture look like it was take recently instead of half century ago and that editing software could very well have made the photo look brighter than it was, actually after having looked at some of the photos from the magezines that had covered it when it first happened you can tell that these pictures have been scanned and restored.
@amolchan001 look... the picture is fake! There are many things wrong with NASA's picture.
Just download the original high resolution from NASA's webpage.
It was composed together from multiple pictures like a mosaic and then rephotographed.
How can a surface reflection shadow the ARM and life support PIPES on TOP and BOTTOM?
Further the backpacks bottom should be more illuminated if surface reflection but it is shadowed!!! Totally inconsistent with the rest of the picture.
@Gigaloader just to make sure i understand you (not trying to be a jerk) there was such a thing as high resolution back in the 60's? and I have no idea what you are talking about when you go off on the high light, but that might just be my ignorance in photography. what I do know is that until someone other than NASA sends a orbitor to the moon and finds (or doesn't) the landers there will always be people who do not think we went to the moon, personal i think we did, but who knows
@amolchan001 the transfer from a film to a digital picture should be with as many pixels as possible to ensure no quality loss. Thus it should be a high resolution picture because it comes very close to the original film! It doesn't matter that the picture was taken in the 60'.
@amolchan001 in fact in mythbusters picture the bottom of the backpack is illuminated (like it should be).
One more thing are the round metal buttons on the astronauts suit! Here we can very well see where the light came from - because of the high light which round metal objects show! The "high light" follows always the strongest light source and creates a ping!
What you are showing in the pictures isn't a brightness difference, but one of contrast. There is a lot of contrast on the surface in the real photo because the surface isn't smooth. You have rocks, among things casing shadows. All creating a varied mix of light and dark, overall decreasing the apparent brightness of the real photo and accounting for the slightly different look. As well as the fact that he moon as a 7-10% albedo, and they used a substitute with an 8% albedo, on a flat surface.
@manaman70 If you turn up the brightness on a picture you obviously have to adjust the contrast in order to avoid a faded (washed out) picture! This is why brightness and contrast goes along! What a dumb post!
@Gigaloader I am not talking about the settings on your TV goofball. I am talking about the fact that the contrast between the light and the dark areas of the surface of the moon create and appearance overall that the image is not as bright as it does in one with a flat surface, which gives it more of a overexposed look because of the uniform brightness compared to the other image.
@manaman70 exactly the opposing is the case consider the particle model ratio to the original. Mythbusters surface brightness should be appearing even slightly darker if done right! You just confirming it more!
@Gigaloader I am not talking about the adjustments you can make in photoshop. I am talking about a physical property. I am talking about increasing the perception of brightness by not having the contrasting areas of light and dark. You yourself described the Mythbusters image as looking overexposed. It looks that way because of the uniform reflection of light by the flat surface. There are a ton of optical illusions which demonstrate perfectly what I am describing.
@manaman70 There is not even a pixel what matches the mythbusters photo! The level of the surface behind the model is almost straight white if measured in photoshop! This is why i used the foreground because the overexposure is that extreme. Do you really think i haven't considered that! lol
@Gigaloader Yes I did and still do. I think you went into those with a strong bias towards your preconceived notion and evidence be damned you are going to believe what you believe. I would offer links to several optical illusions that show this concept in easy to understand terms, but youtube is a stinker when it comes to links. Still, doing a google search for the Checker-Shadow Illusion should bee a nice start.
@Gigaloader I am at a loss on how to refute your statement you just made. Mostly because I haven't a clue what point you where making, with the exception of clearly calling me wrong at the top. You think it's wrong that the image could appear brighter simply because of illusion when it is show in very simple and easy to understand terms in those optical illusions. They are not my optical illusions either. I have never created picture showing an optical illusion and thus claim no ownership.
@Gigaloader This account is four years old. I doubt I am an account hoping troll. I have never trolled you either I simply offered another very easy to understand reason for the apparent difference in the pictures, you however have decided to resort to personal attacks.
I am at a loss because your intentions are not plainly worded, but rather ramble. I can guess at what you intend, but I would rather you plain state them so that you cannot weasel way from with a "not what I meant" statement.
@manaman70 Dude there is nothing you can tell me I don't already know!
But here I explain your optical illusion for you.
I know that the surface itself has an effect on how it appears. First of all the mythbusters created not a totally flat moon set. It is very close to the original.
Further the dust (sand) particles are bigger in relation to the model than they are to the actual astronaut. So the reflection of light "in relation" on the model is less.
@manaman70 What does this mean!? It means if there is an optical illusion it would make the model surface even slightly darker! Optical brightness illusion need usually a big surface area which the model do not has!
In any case the there is no "optical illusion" which can account for such a big difference! I had to adjust the brightness by about !! 50% !! Just to match the surface in foreground. So I proved to you that contrast doesn't matter, then you come with illusions, what's next MAGIC?
@Gigaloader You keep twisting what I am saying assbackwards. The fake lunar surface appears brighter because it is flat. The real lunar surface appears to not be nearly as bright because it has a lot of contrasting light and dark areas due to the fact that it is covered in rocks, and not flat. You proved that you cannot understand that there is more then one meaning of the word contrast, I never changed my description. I only tried to make it understandable to you, the character limit is blows.
@Gigaloader I bought up illusions only because you can see the same effect simplified in easy to understand pictures you can find all over the internet. How differences in surrounding areas of light and dark can change a persons perception of how bright something is compared to something else.
We are comparing two photos here! and Yes we compare the brightness of the astronaut, this is the whole point of the mythbusters!!!!!!
So if there were so many optical illusions why even bother!!? The astronaut could appear a lot brighter or darker too! It is trivial to argue about it!
The "optical illusion" is only in your head I'm afraid to say!
@Gigaloader Now you are just getting pathetic and trying to phrase this in a way that it appears to be ridiculous. I said it's apparent brightness is due to the lack of contrasting light and dark areas. Optical illusions by nature do not have to be anything fake. There are many pictures online showing what appear to be geometric shapes hovering that rely on perspective to achieve the image. Everything in the image is real, it just looks different to the eye.
@manaman70 the problem is there is no optical illusion in this Picture! And you are delusionary that's all.
The more I think about it the dumber it sounds in this case! If you can think you can make a mix out of portland cement and dark charcoale look bright white, feel free and make a video. But make sure the exposure time is short! Lol
@Gigaloader You showed an apparent flaw, I offered an easy to understand explanation, since then you have done nothing but insult without offering a bit of proof aside from taking a digital low resolution image on a monitor (probably an LCD) decide it didn't match how you wanted and tweak it in photoshop until it did. If you can make a pig fart a plane in photoshop why the hell would I believe anything you do with it? You proposed it's fake, the burden of proof is on you, you dolt.
@Gigaloader The insults are petty and very childish on your part. Not once until now have I mentioned how ridiculous it is for you to actually believe we didn't land on the moon, or how ridiculous the notion is that if you can call question to this one image is somehow on it's own proves beyond a doubt the the entire thing was fake. It does nothing for you argument when you come across as mature as a young kid shouting "fake and gay" then snickering thinking he won some medal of trolling.
@manaman70 yes I troll on my own Video!??? ..... Bubble....bubble
What are you Smoking? Get off the computer and don't waste your Saturday evening on talking rubbish on youtube. I don't feel like responding from a smartphone anymore. Don't you have any friends to hang out with Tonight?
I told you already make a video and show me different until then you are branded as a nasa troll. Make a vid and I will respond to that everything else is speculation.
@Gigaloader I never said you where trolling, just coming across as mature as a kid who thinks he is trolling by posting the same tired garbage all the time. That said you act like it's news that someone would post a video on youtube to troll.
Now you try to portray me as not having a social life. Well I got news for you it's just a hair after 7PM your mom might have you in by 10, but us big boys get to stay out as late as we want. It's not even time for me to leave for Seattle yet.
@Gigaloader I notice you also tried to play that you have been responding on a smartphone as if that means you are out and about, seeing the world. It just means unlike me who has a little notification pop up in the corner of his TV when you respond you are taking time out over and over again to check for a response.
As for making a video: How about you make one first, one that couldn't be shown as two pictures and three lines of text and not lose anything.
@manaman70 I just looked into your account and it exactly like i said! HAHAHA
YOU ARE A TROLL!
Just buy reading a couple of your troll posts somewhere else! And it is of course on topics like 9/11 etc.
What are they paying you!? I hope you really believe in what you are doing!
Yeah, but I know sacrificed on the altar of world peace. And it is for the greater good. So lets lie all together until we drown in lies and we will change that back to the truth in our new Utopia.
@Gigaloader You're nuts. No seriously nuts. I never should have lowered myself to your level with insults. I heartedly apologize for that.
Still you want to have an actual debate where you only recourse for dismissing things isn't an insult I am game. I'm currently of the opinion you are unable to do that but feel free to prove me wrong at any point.
@Gigaloader Simply not agreeing with you does not make one a troll. I would have to be intentional posting to get a rise out of you to be trolling and to this point I only did that once when I was combative in my reply. And again, not talking about the mythbusters photo. Example: I show you picture of all white squares and image appears to be bright on an a screen. I take every other square and make it black and the picture overall appears darker, even through the other squares are unchanged.
@manaman70 Yes a checker board appears to be darker than a straight white board. And guess what... its albedo is a lot lower too! Duh ... if you black half the squares out!
But I get it you think the shadow cast of the stones and terrain creates the checker board! And now listen up!!! Because NASA's average moon albedo INCLUDES this. Albedo is the reflectivity of a surface as is! And it variates according to its topography (Moon Albedo 7-12%).
@manaman70 If we consider the particle size of mythbusters set to the size of the small astronaut figure the set is anything but flat!! You can clearly see they created an uneven surface to match the original photo. Just watch the video. And even if they would have a flat surface the overall brightness would increase only slightly! Nothing anywhere close to what we see in the photo.
Let me spell it out for you again : I had to lower the brightness to match the original by about 50%!!!!!!
@manaman70 And another thing - because you brought up that the mythbusters photo has more contrast! And you are correct - because this is exactly what they had to do in order to have not a faded picture! If you increase the brightness on a picture you have to increase the contrast too to keep the colors and shadows black!
So there you go I have answered all your questions! The Picture is fake and only a miracle can make the Astronaut appear illuminated bright as is!
@Gigaloader you do have way too much time on your hands don't you. sure the astraunant model is not as bright as the original but that could be explained by any number of reasons starting with the muthbusters were never on the moon. Yes genius they said they replicated the conditions of the moon, but you do have to take into account that there are several differences between the moon and the eart, including a lack of atmosphere. to be continued....
@Gigaloader remember back to whenever it was in school that you learned about the affects of an atmosphere play on the rays of the sun. remember that ight travels in waves and said waves are affected by the presence of an atmosphere. this interaction, or in this case, lack of interaction could explain it. remeber that if the myth weree true the model would not be able to be cearly seen which he is.
@Gigaloader remember back to whenever it was in school that you learned about the affects of an atmosphere play on the rays of the sun. remember that ight travels in waves and said waves are affected by the presence of an atmosphere. this interaction, or in this case, lack of interaction could explain it. remeber that if the myth weree true the model would not be able to be cearly seen which he is. continued...
@manaman70 Let me ad here that even if the model surface shows a slightly darker surface it only has to illuminate the much smaller model. So we can probably call it a wash. So all this should have been worked out by the mythbusters!
The picture is clearly fake! I am not twisting anything backwards! I'm telling you if there is an optical illusion it would make the model DARKER NOT BRIGHTER!
@manaman70 contrast is determined by the difference in the color and brightness of the object. Lets just say we decrease just the contrast on mythbusters photo, do actually realize what a washed out picture you become! What ever you do, brightness or contrast, you cant replicate NASA's picture. FAKE
Mythbusters is bullshit, they always go straight to NASA to "settle" the argument of whether we landed on the moon - which should not be done if NASA is under suspicion of faking it - it's like asking a murder suspect if they are guilty or not - of course they are going to say no - you need to verify it another way - but the twats presenting Mythbusters find NASA to be their first, last and only source of information when investigating the whole hoax scenario. VERY unprofessional !!
@hunchbacked I agree! The whole moon landing is falling apart because of the composed pictures. If you really zoom in on some pictures you can still see the cut lines. And they could not get the perspectives right. the worst photos are the apollo 11 photos. Look at the metal buttons and elbow connectors on their suits - they show a highlight with we can clearly see there was a "fill in" light.
there are none panorama moon pictures with identical stones in the same picture.
@SuperTurtlez this not the case! it doesn't matter what camera you use. its all about exposure time or light source! in order to compare the brightness of the astronaut the brightness of the moon surface has to match on both photos!
@SuperTurtlez Further light-shifting is not a problem of brightness. all it does is - it distorts the perspective. Plus the Mythbusters used the original hasselblad objective.
but it does not even matter much. the differences are too big!
So you doctored a picture to disprove an effort to prove that the picture wasn't doctored? How does that make any sense. The two picture might not be exact, but that's the best you're going to get with models and toy astronauts.
Also, how on Earth would a secondary light illuminate JUST the astronaut and nothing else?
durkadurka2323 1 month ago
@durkadurka2323 I hear you... That's why the Mythbusters episode is pathetic in the first place. But you can get a acceptable result even with models! They failed doing so!! In actuality the proved that NASA's picture is fake.... and obviously 'doctored' with their picture to make it work. This is what I show in the video, not more and not less!
Gigaloader 1 month ago
@durkadurka2323 furthermore most of NASA's s pictures are edited together from multiple negatives. That's why the illumination is not consistence.
It has been 100 % proven that the Apollo 11 pictures are fake because of the light reflections on metal object on the astronauts suits. NASA realized their error and covered all metal parts in further missions.
Gigaloader 1 month ago
(Last Mini-essay, I swear!) There couldn't have been a secondary source of light in the NASA photo, because the shadow of the astronaut would have been visible beyond the shadow of the LEM. If the lights where positioned so that the astronaut's shadow wouldn't be visible, then he would have been lit from above, not from below as he is in the photo. If lights where used, then the LEM would be sparkling like a Christmas tree; try pointing a flashlight at a piece of foil, and see how it lights up.
CyFiM 1 month ago
Also, the differences in lighting are too minor to be of any consequence to begin with. The results won't be exact, that would be asking too way much of some make-shift dust and a little plastic toy. The difference between the photographs and the video stills is also irrelevant, because they where with different cameras with different exposure times from different angles.
CyFiM 1 month ago
I would like to note that the lunar surface in the NASA photograph is much rougher, with more bumps and hills and rocks than the Mythbusters photo. It looks darker because it is more porous. The little astronaut model is the same: you can tell that it has more exaggerated folds and details on it, which cast shadows and make it look darker. The model was also a darker color than the space suit to begin with.
CyFiM 1 month ago
Ok lets say this picture is fake, but all the other stuff isnt. Even NASA let Mythbusters to test mits in theyr vacuum chamber. and if it is just a fake why would NASA pay to lounch rockets in space and then again drop them on Earth for no reason?
barbaivica 4 months ago
@barbaivica because they were on a race with russia to space... so they cud risk anything to get the victory of them having their man az the first one to hit the moon lol ;)
trevor7960 3 months ago
Beyond your explanation, there's another fact that few people bear in mind:
You can't recreate the moon shadows here on earth, unless you are in a vacuum. On earth, the light reflects in the air molecules surrounding the casted object, making brighter any other object standing in the shadow. Thus, an astronaut standing in a shadow casted on the moon, should stay almost unrecognizable.
xzktplm 5 months ago
@xzktplm I agree!
Gigaloader 5 months ago
@xzktplm actually, air particles don't exactly reflect light... They absorb, scatter it, and refract it. There is a huge difference. In distances as small as they used on the show, the amount of absorption, refraction, and scattering would be so negligible that it wouldn't really matter.
I'm not saying that they were right or wrong. What I am saying is the specific reason you give for them being wrong shows a grievous misunderstanding of what causes both ambient light and global illumination.
luccaskunk 5 months ago
@luccaskunk Yes but No.... Yes under normal hygro level the difference is not much, but shine a light in some fog for example you see exactly what xzktplm is talking about.
And it is just an added fact! so stop nit picking! I get what he is saying.
Gigaloader 5 months ago
@luccaskunk Air has a reflection too. That means the particles in the air. Anything has a reflection to some degree, even clear glass. In fact light "Scatter" is a reflection of light in different directions! Photons reflect to change direction.
Gigaloader 5 months ago
@Gigaloader Actually no, fog is water droplets suspended in the air. The water droplets are reflective, the air is not.
luccaskunk 5 months ago
@luccaskunk Excuse me?!...
First, you're being contraditory. If the air absorbs light, it can't refract it or reflect it. If I absorb something, I hold it with me. For example, a sponge absorbs water (the sponge holds the water)...
xzktplm 5 months ago in playlist Mais vídeos de Gigaloader
@xzktplm It's not contradictory at all. Air does not absorb all light that passes through it, just certain wavelengths and only to a degree. Sunglasses absorb light, but you can still see through them. To your sponge analogy, if you hold a sponge infront of a garden hose, you will see that the water passes through the sponge.
Air scatters blue light, and refracts all light. All transparent substances refract light. Even a vacuum has a refractive index.
luccaskunk 5 months ago
@luccaskunk ...Secondly, the term «refraction» has nothing to do with this discussion. A light refraction occurs when it passes from a physical environment to another one. For example, we can say the light gets refracted when it passes from air into water, wich is not the case here.
It ain't certainly me who is showing a grievous misunderstanding of what light and illumination is all about.
xzktplm 5 months ago in playlist Mais vídeos de Gigaloader
@xzktplm I know what refraction is. You have a reading comprehension problem. I said that light does not reflect, then listed several things it does do. Also, I said "ambient light and global illumination", not "light and illumination". You missed the "ambient" and "global" qualifiers, probably dismissed them due to not understanding what I said. Look it up. I'm not here to educate you.
luccaskunk 5 months ago
Do you realise that on moon there was a sun shining, not a simple lamp they used in mythbusters? You know sun, giant fireball. And it's even brighter on moon, since there's no atmosphere to absorb it's light
For some reason i can still see someone standing under the tree in a shiny day.
JarzynkaSQ 6 months ago
LMAO you are so stupid for posting this video man... open your eyes....
Swashoo 8 months ago
Who ever posted this video is a dumbass!!!
MrSasquatchable 8 months ago
does he realise it was to scale, so the light was probably too bright and also probably too near, and even after photoshop the model isnt as dark as it should be. and anyway, the albedo of moon-dust is lower than 8%.
also, what do you mean "he should get a little "light" or "g" (first poster reply). and anyway, quoting can mess anything up, watch:
Hoax-believers are idiots, it has been proven they went to the moon, so NASA was right.
now to quote: "Hoax-believers are... proven... right."
see?
TheTrilbyWill 9 months ago
@TheTrilbyWill Do you you realize that a too bright light source was mentioned as as possible error in the video! The moon albedo ranges from 6% - 12%. So to say the moons albedo is lower than 8 % is false.
Quoting is a very good way to reply directly to a specific part of a post. It may be confusing to an outside reader. But as direct answer to the one who wrote it - it is a very good way!
"also what do you mean ' he shoul get a little light or g' " welll you have to figure that out!
See?
Gigaloader 9 months ago
i find it funny that even russian scientists don't question the Moon landing. the guys that sent the first man into space, people with master's degrees and Ph. D's don't question the fact that man was actually on the Moon and brought a lot of materials from those trips (yeah, it wasn't just one or two), rocks, moon dust, etc...
i find it odd that people like you (Gigaloader) go against facts because... well i don't know, maybe you people don't have anything better to do
otelio117 10 months ago
@otelio117 "i find it funny that even russian scientists don't question the Moon landing" This because you don't know how the world works. You should get a little 'Light' or 'G' for that matter!
Gigaloader 10 months ago
Seriously, that's the best you can do? I imagine you also have a video with a similarly compelling argument proving the Earth is flat and that evolution is a conspiracy made up by the liberal media.
Also, "highlight," all one word, means a bright or reflective area in a painting, picture, design or even hair.
Go back to Photoshopping Megan Fox's head onto porn stars' bodies.
Remember, it takes a great man to resist resorting to name calling.
Idiot!
Well, I guess I'm just a good man.
mangolabs 10 months ago
@mangolabs "Also, "highlight," all one word, means a bright or reflective area in a painting, picture, design or even hair" ....Don't get off on it! English is not my native language but thanks for telling me!
"Go back to Photoshopping Megan Fox's head onto porn stars' bodies" Always interesting to get a look in other peoples perverted minds, but you should not project it on others! You just expose yourself. And who is Megan Fox anyways?
"resist resorting to name calling. Idiot!" ?? Can U?
Gigaloader 10 months ago
@Gigaloader Unfortunately, due to your limited grasp of English, the subtleties of my message were lost on you. I am not trying to put you down for this; a person cannot control where they were born or what their native language is. I am sure you speak English better than I speak your language. Where are you from? Perhaps I can use a reference from your culture to better make my point.
Although my comment WAS intended to get you riled up, it was also somewhat facetious.
mangolabs 10 months ago
@Gigaloader The Megan Fox thing was an American pop-culture reference. Google her.
I still disagree with your premise but I do not wish to insult you without your understanding the context and tone of my insult. BTW you never responded to the first part of my comment.
mangolabs 10 months ago
@mangolabs "Well, I guess I'm just a good man" Only an Idiot calls himself a 'Good Man'!
Gigaloader 10 months ago
lame vid
just spend ur time masturbate zzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ComboAoE 10 months ago
@ComboAoE I will do - and i fantasize about you while I'm doing it!
Unfortunately you don't have no video yourself on your channel, that would really get me going!
Thanks for voting so!
Gigaloader 10 months ago
Mythbusters got everything wrong, they're proven liars
xismxist 10 months ago
Really sad how unintelligible people are these days....oops did I post this on your video? I guess that makes you one of them.
Grow up dude. You are obviously trying way too hard to discredit the moon landings. You have no proof at all that they are fake. Your video was also very poor at proving anything seeing as how they took into account the reflectiveness of the moon.
You should stop believing all these conspiracy theories and actually think for yourself.
ccrg109 1 year ago
I personally feel pretty certain we did go to the moon, land and walk around. BUT this video makes a very compelling point, and demonstrates so very valid observations about the lighting differences. Their own shots did show a shadowed astronaut, not a lit one.
SGTRandyB 1 year ago
the moon is pretty mysterious. sometimes, even when we use science, we still have more things to figure about the moon, NASA wouldnt fake that, ther honest scientists
ImmortalMythbuster 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In this video the holes on the moon are so perfect! KKKKKK
It looks like a paper drawing on a large scale so that these guys .... Who would deceive, at that time hardly anyone had access to these liars and videos were still black and white! How could anyone dispute that time?? Wake up USA and people to see the truth! That there will still be a problem for the USA. LIED TO ALL HUMANITY! INCLUDING YOUR OWN PEOPLES!!! NASA = HOLYHOOD MOVIES!!!!
macmenus2008 1 year ago
dude.. ur an idiot. u cant get an exact replica of the moon landing. they are just testing out the theories
gazno 1 year ago
@gazno what is the point to recreate the exact Conditions as they did! We know there is surface reflextion, but is it enough! You have been "tested" an proven to be the Idiot Yourself!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader whatever makes you happy. If u think ur so right, y dont u send them a letter and ask them?
gazno 1 year ago
@Gigaloader are you like, HIGH?!?!
calm doown. there not on the moon if u havent noticed.
nothing can be absolutly PERFECT!!
its to bad that the mythbusters are to nice, not to KICK UR ASS!!!!!!!
dang, if i was a mythbuster, i wouldnt put up with ur crap!!!
ImmortalMythbuster 1 year ago
@ImmortalMythbuster I hope the mythbusters don't hurt their fragile feet when they kick my ass! lol
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader also the original photo is old and by now no doubt has been scaned into a computer and editing software has no doubt also been applied to make hepicture look like it was take recently instead of half century ago and that editing software could very well have made the photo look brighter than it was, actually after having looked at some of the photos from the magezines that had covered it when it first happened you can tell that these pictures have been scanned and restored.
amolchan001 1 year ago
@amolchan001 look... the picture is fake! There are many things wrong with NASA's picture.
Just download the original high resolution from NASA's webpage.
It was composed together from multiple pictures like a mosaic and then rephotographed.
How can a surface reflection shadow the ARM and life support PIPES on TOP and BOTTOM?
Further the backpacks bottom should be more illuminated if surface reflection but it is shadowed!!! Totally inconsistent with the rest of the picture.
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader just to make sure i understand you (not trying to be a jerk) there was such a thing as high resolution back in the 60's? and I have no idea what you are talking about when you go off on the high light, but that might just be my ignorance in photography. what I do know is that until someone other than NASA sends a orbitor to the moon and finds (or doesn't) the landers there will always be people who do not think we went to the moon, personal i think we did, but who knows
amolchan001 1 year ago
@amolchan001 the transfer from a film to a digital picture should be with as many pixels as possible to ensure no quality loss. Thus it should be a high resolution picture because it comes very close to the original film! It doesn't matter that the picture was taken in the 60'.
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@amolchan001 in fact in mythbusters picture the bottom of the backpack is illuminated (like it should be).
One more thing are the round metal buttons on the astronauts suit! Here we can very well see where the light came from - because of the high light which round metal objects show! The "high light" follows always the strongest light source and creates a ping!
Sorry Dude it is fake!!!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
What you are showing in the pictures isn't a brightness difference, but one of contrast. There is a lot of contrast on the surface in the real photo because the surface isn't smooth. You have rocks, among things casing shadows. All creating a varied mix of light and dark, overall decreasing the apparent brightness of the real photo and accounting for the slightly different look. As well as the fact that he moon as a 7-10% albedo, and they used a substitute with an 8% albedo, on a flat surface.
manaman70 1 year ago
@manaman70 If you turn up the brightness on a picture you obviously have to adjust the contrast in order to avoid a faded (washed out) picture! This is why brightness and contrast goes along! What a dumb post!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader I am not talking about the settings on your TV goofball. I am talking about the fact that the contrast between the light and the dark areas of the surface of the moon create and appearance overall that the image is not as bright as it does in one with a flat surface, which gives it more of a overexposed look because of the uniform brightness compared to the other image.
manaman70 1 year ago
@manaman70 exactly the opposing is the case consider the particle model ratio to the original. Mythbusters surface brightness should be appearing even slightly darker if done right! You just confirming it more!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@manaman70 contrast by itself has nothing to do with brightness!! You can't make a picture brighter by increasing just the contrast.
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader I am not talking about the adjustments you can make in photoshop. I am talking about a physical property. I am talking about increasing the perception of brightness by not having the contrasting areas of light and dark. You yourself described the Mythbusters image as looking overexposed. It looks that way because of the uniform reflection of light by the flat surface. There are a ton of optical illusions which demonstrate perfectly what I am describing.
manaman70 1 year ago
@manaman70 There is not even a pixel what matches the mythbusters photo! The level of the surface behind the model is almost straight white if measured in photoshop! This is why i used the foreground because the overexposure is that extreme. Do you really think i haven't considered that! lol
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader Yes I did and still do. I think you went into those with a strong bias towards your preconceived notion and evidence be damned you are going to believe what you believe. I would offer links to several optical illusions that show this concept in easy to understand terms, but youtube is a stinker when it comes to links. Still, doing a google search for the Checker-Shadow Illusion should bee a nice start.
manaman70 1 year ago
@manaman70 Your problem is - that you are wrong! Because your "optical illusions" could be applied - but just vice versa! LOL
The actual moon surface of the original photo "could" have such an illusion and appear brighter! The MB video itself shows different.
Don't get philosophical - because you just explained to yourself that the picture is FAKE!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader I am at a loss on how to refute your statement you just made. Mostly because I haven't a clue what point you where making, with the exception of clearly calling me wrong at the top. You think it's wrong that the image could appear brighter simply because of illusion when it is show in very simple and easy to understand terms in those optical illusions. They are not my optical illusions either. I have never created picture showing an optical illusion and thus claim no ownership.
manaman70 1 year ago
@manaman70 "" I am at a loss on how to refute your statement you just made. Mostly because I haven't a clue what point you where making ""
This is mostly because you troll on to many videos simultaneously and can't remember what you wrote where!
But if you re-read you own post you might refresh your memory! lol
And while you at it - upload a video on your own so other youtubers can't identify you right away as an "account creating" TROLL.
Who are you "spreadingthemuse" ? lol
Get out of here!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader This account is four years old. I doubt I am an account hoping troll. I have never trolled you either I simply offered another very easy to understand reason for the apparent difference in the pictures, you however have decided to resort to personal attacks.
I am at a loss because your intentions are not plainly worded, but rather ramble. I can guess at what you intend, but I would rather you plain state them so that you cannot weasel way from with a "not what I meant" statement.
manaman70 1 year ago
@manaman70 Dude there is nothing you can tell me I don't already know!
But here I explain your optical illusion for you.
I know that the surface itself has an effect on how it appears. First of all the mythbusters created not a totally flat moon set. It is very close to the original.
Further the dust (sand) particles are bigger in relation to the model than they are to the actual astronaut. So the reflection of light "in relation" on the model is less.
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@manaman70 What does this mean!? It means if there is an optical illusion it would make the model surface even slightly darker! Optical brightness illusion need usually a big surface area which the model do not has!
In any case the there is no "optical illusion" which can account for such a big difference! I had to adjust the brightness by about !! 50% !! Just to match the surface in foreground. So I proved to you that contrast doesn't matter, then you come with illusions, what's next MAGIC?
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader You keep twisting what I am saying assbackwards. The fake lunar surface appears brighter because it is flat. The real lunar surface appears to not be nearly as bright because it has a lot of contrasting light and dark areas due to the fact that it is covered in rocks, and not flat. You proved that you cannot understand that there is more then one meaning of the word contrast, I never changed my description. I only tried to make it understandable to you, the character limit is blows.
manaman70 1 year ago
@Gigaloader I bought up illusions only because you can see the same effect simplified in easy to understand pictures you can find all over the internet. How differences in surrounding areas of light and dark can change a persons perception of how bright something is compared to something else.
manaman70 1 year ago
@manaman70 I don't know if you get it!?
We are comparing two photos here! and Yes we compare the brightness of the astronaut, this is the whole point of the mythbusters!!!!!!
So if there were so many optical illusions why even bother!!? The astronaut could appear a lot brighter or darker too! It is trivial to argue about it!
The "optical illusion" is only in your head I'm afraid to say!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@manaman70 But this is a good one - The mythbusters moon surface appears almost bright white because it is an Optical Illusion"
This is very very funny!! lol
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader Now you are just getting pathetic and trying to phrase this in a way that it appears to be ridiculous. I said it's apparent brightness is due to the lack of contrasting light and dark areas. Optical illusions by nature do not have to be anything fake. There are many pictures online showing what appear to be geometric shapes hovering that rely on perspective to achieve the image. Everything in the image is real, it just looks different to the eye.
manaman70 1 year ago
@manaman70 the problem is there is no optical illusion in this Picture! And you are delusionary that's all.
The more I think about it the dumber it sounds in this case! If you can think you can make a mix out of portland cement and dark charcoale look bright white, feel free and make a video. But make sure the exposure time is short! Lol
You must be Nasa's main clown attraction.
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader You showed an apparent flaw, I offered an easy to understand explanation, since then you have done nothing but insult without offering a bit of proof aside from taking a digital low resolution image on a monitor (probably an LCD) decide it didn't match how you wanted and tweak it in photoshop until it did. If you can make a pig fart a plane in photoshop why the hell would I believe anything you do with it? You proposed it's fake, the burden of proof is on you, you dolt.
manaman70 1 year ago
@Gigaloader The insults are petty and very childish on your part. Not once until now have I mentioned how ridiculous it is for you to actually believe we didn't land on the moon, or how ridiculous the notion is that if you can call question to this one image is somehow on it's own proves beyond a doubt the the entire thing was fake. It does nothing for you argument when you come across as mature as a young kid shouting "fake and gay" then snickering thinking he won some medal of trolling.
manaman70 1 year ago
@manaman70 yes I troll on my own Video!??? ..... Bubble....bubble
What are you Smoking? Get off the computer and don't waste your Saturday evening on talking rubbish on youtube. I don't feel like responding from a smartphone anymore. Don't you have any friends to hang out with Tonight?
I told you already make a video and show me different until then you are branded as a nasa troll. Make a vid and I will respond to that everything else is speculation.
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader I never said you where trolling, just coming across as mature as a kid who thinks he is trolling by posting the same tired garbage all the time. That said you act like it's news that someone would post a video on youtube to troll.
Now you try to portray me as not having a social life. Well I got news for you it's just a hair after 7PM your mom might have you in by 10, but us big boys get to stay out as late as we want. It's not even time for me to leave for Seattle yet.
manaman70 1 year ago
@Gigaloader I notice you also tried to play that you have been responding on a smartphone as if that means you are out and about, seeing the world. It just means unlike me who has a little notification pop up in the corner of his TV when you respond you are taking time out over and over again to check for a response.
As for making a video: How about you make one first, one that couldn't be shown as two pictures and three lines of text and not lose anything.
manaman70 1 year ago
@manaman70 @manaman70 Do you know that youtube forwards your quirk responses to my email account and it pops up on my phone!
I don't even think you are legit because trolls have usually no videos to show for.
""As for making a video: How about you make one first, on""
You didn't really write that! What a loser you are!
If you checked if have a couple, what do you - NOTHING! Only fantasies about optical troll illusions!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@manaman70 But what do I expect from NASA who desperately tries to keep the lie alive!
Maybe we should change the topic to sociology isn't that what you guys are all about?
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@manaman70 I just looked into your account and it exactly like i said! HAHAHA
YOU ARE A TROLL!
Just buy reading a couple of your troll posts somewhere else! And it is of course on topics like 9/11 etc.
What are they paying you!? I hope you really believe in what you are doing!
Yeah, but I know sacrificed on the altar of world peace. And it is for the greater good. So lets lie all together until we drown in lies and we will change that back to the truth in our new Utopia.
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader You're nuts. No seriously nuts. I never should have lowered myself to your level with insults. I heartedly apologize for that.
Still you want to have an actual debate where you only recourse for dismissing things isn't an insult I am game. I'm currently of the opinion you are unable to do that but feel free to prove me wrong at any point.
manaman70 1 year ago
@manaman70 prove you wrong??? first you have to prove that you have to have an argument to prove you wrong!!!!
Let me see you argument was "the mythbusters photo is just an optical illusion".
This is a very easy way out for you - after I showed you that your contrast argument won't hold! lol
Hmm... well I just have to give it to you then! The Mythbusters photo is an illusion!! I really get it now... we went to the moon!
Go troll on your 9/11 videos! Quit trashing my inbox!!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader Simply not agreeing with you does not make one a troll. I would have to be intentional posting to get a rise out of you to be trolling and to this point I only did that once when I was combative in my reply. And again, not talking about the mythbusters photo. Example: I show you picture of all white squares and image appears to be bright on an a screen. I take every other square and make it black and the picture overall appears darker, even through the other squares are unchanged.
manaman70 1 year ago
@manaman70 Yes a checker board appears to be darker than a straight white board. And guess what... its albedo is a lot lower too! Duh ... if you black half the squares out!
But I get it you think the shadow cast of the stones and terrain creates the checker board! And now listen up!!! Because NASA's average moon albedo INCLUDES this. Albedo is the reflectivity of a surface as is! And it variates according to its topography (Moon Albedo 7-12%).
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@manaman70 If we consider the particle size of mythbusters set to the size of the small astronaut figure the set is anything but flat!! You can clearly see they created an uneven surface to match the original photo. Just watch the video. And even if they would have a flat surface the overall brightness would increase only slightly! Nothing anywhere close to what we see in the photo.
Let me spell it out for you again : I had to lower the brightness to match the original by about 50%!!!!!!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@manaman70 And another thing - because you brought up that the mythbusters photo has more contrast! And you are correct - because this is exactly what they had to do in order to have not a faded picture! If you increase the brightness on a picture you have to increase the contrast too to keep the colors and shadows black!
So there you go I have answered all your questions! The Picture is fake and only a miracle can make the Astronaut appear illuminated bright as is!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@Gigaloader you do have way too much time on your hands don't you. sure the astraunant model is not as bright as the original but that could be explained by any number of reasons starting with the muthbusters were never on the moon. Yes genius they said they replicated the conditions of the moon, but you do have to take into account that there are several differences between the moon and the eart, including a lack of atmosphere. to be continued....
amolchan001 1 year ago
@Gigaloader remember back to whenever it was in school that you learned about the affects of an atmosphere play on the rays of the sun. remember that ight travels in waves and said waves are affected by the presence of an atmosphere. this interaction, or in this case, lack of interaction could explain it. remeber that if the myth weree true the model would not be able to be cearly seen which he is.
amolchan001 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gigaloader remember back to whenever it was in school that you learned about the affects of an atmosphere play on the rays of the sun. remember that ight travels in waves and said waves are affected by the presence of an atmosphere. this interaction, or in this case, lack of interaction could explain it. remeber that if the myth weree true the model would not be able to be cearly seen which he is. continued...
amolchan001 1 year ago
@manaman70 Let me tell you, all the Apollo Moon Missions are just an "Optical Illusion"
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@manaman70 Let me ad here that even if the model surface shows a slightly darker surface it only has to illuminate the much smaller model. So we can probably call it a wash. So all this should have been worked out by the mythbusters!
The picture is clearly fake! I am not twisting anything backwards! I'm telling you if there is an optical illusion it would make the model DARKER NOT BRIGHTER!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@manaman70 contrast is determined by the difference in the color and brightness of the object. Lets just say we decrease just the contrast on mythbusters photo, do actually realize what a washed out picture you become! What ever you do, brightness or contrast, you cant replicate NASA's picture. FAKE
Gigaloader 1 year ago
Mythbusters is bullshit, they always go straight to NASA to "settle" the argument of whether we landed on the moon - which should not be done if NASA is under suspicion of faking it - it's like asking a murder suspect if they are guilty or not - of course they are going to say no - you need to verify it another way - but the twats presenting Mythbusters find NASA to be their first, last and only source of information when investigating the whole hoax scenario. VERY unprofessional !!
CokeSupply 1 year ago
There is another factor to take into account:
They use a projector which is very close; thence the light is reflected in all directions and that's why they manage to have their model illuminated.
With the real sun, the light would be reflected only in one direction, and their model would get much less light.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked I agree! The whole moon landing is falling apart because of the composed pictures. If you really zoom in on some pictures you can still see the cut lines. And they could not get the perspectives right. the worst photos are the apollo 11 photos. Look at the metal buttons and elbow connectors on their suits - they show a highlight with we can clearly see there was a "fill in" light.
there are none panorama moon pictures with identical stones in the same picture.
LOL keep it up.
Gigaloader 1 year ago
My theory is that because the camera used is newer than the horrible, light-shifting ones from years ago, but you wouldn't need to take my opinion.
SuperTurtlez 1 year ago
@SuperTurtlez this not the case! it doesn't matter what camera you use. its all about exposure time or light source! in order to compare the brightness of the astronaut the brightness of the moon surface has to match on both photos!
Gigaloader 1 year ago
@SuperTurtlez Further light-shifting is not a problem of brightness. all it does is - it distorts the perspective. Plus the Mythbusters used the original hasselblad objective.
but it does not even matter much. the differences are too big!
Gigaloader 1 year ago