Jarrah I am a fan of ur vids.. but ur light source is way to low in this experiment.. headlight are just too weak for this test.. and if asphalt is old dosent it lower its albedo? i believe i heard new asphalt has same albedo then the moon...
Hi Jarrah, I've been enjoying your other MF films, and agree/think plausable most of your points (a few exceptions), this one though is an error:
- the MB cement was modified with charcoal till it had the right albedo, as was clearly stated
- you require the long exposure for your lego model cos your light source is so dim, the sun is not so dim... think about it a bit more, you're a smart fellow you'll figure it out. No such long exposure time would be needed in bright sunlight.
It's like you would take a torch and shine directly on yourself in a pitch black room, of course it's gonna be shadowy on one side because you have nothing that reflects the light from around yourself, as you would if u were on the moon where u have the entire surface of the side ur standing on, reflecting light onto you.
I'm a photographer and have taken huge amount of photos where the subject is not completely black on one side like in your experiment.
This video also completely fails in your experiments on the asphalt road.
As the lunar surface is lit all around the astronaut on the surface facing the sun, it's reflecting from all over back onto the astronaut, something you completely disregard with your headlight experiment.
Nothing in this video really helps you prove your point. In the overhead video, the LM is obviously reflecting light, as there is both a copper tint on the astronaut and the lunar surface. Your explanation seems correct, but it doesn't point to "second light source".
04:03 why is the landscape still correctly exposed? Well if you looked at it you can clearly see that it is not correctly exposed! This guy is a douch!
has any one took in to account that the fact the earth has an atmosphere and i think light would reflect differently in a chamber filled with oxygen and co2 then it would in a vacuum.
Watch from 6:42 - 7:02 The fake sun they are using looks 100% like the sun in the apollo images, and nothing like the sun taken in all of the space shuttle images. I would love to see what thier fake sun would have looked like reflected in the visor.....My guess is it would have matched nicely with the apollo sun reflections and would have not looked anything like the real sun reflected in shuttle astronaut visors.
i tryed pointing this out on the Mythbusters You Tube channel the difference showed up on there Pictures to ,even thow the albedo was wrong anyway, as Jarrah has pointed out! Mythbusters your now Officially BUSTED...
Jarrah, neat video, but your simulation at the beginning of the video is flawed since your light source is nowhere close to being as bright as sunlight. That gets more complicated to simulate at night with a distant light source, so instead use a hand-held light meter to read the EV value for your night scene versus daytime and then do the math to compute lunar surface exposure times. Remember that the film used in the Hasselblad had an ASA rating of 160.
Now do you realize that your "sun" is incredibly dim as compared to the actual sun. That has a huge effect on how much light is reflected back from the asphalt.
This is fing stupid, he's equating the sun with his headlight?! Why not just strike a match and then ponder. Ridiculous. His arguments about the albedo thing are valid but he debunks himself completely by using himself faulty premises, mesurements and angles. FAIL!!!
so you don't think headlight is good but what about mythbusters' light. a stage light seems alright to you? come on, pull your dumb head out of USA's arse.
JW asks why the side of his face wasn't illuminated from the reflected light from the surface. Simple the light wasn't bright enough and wasn't at sufficient elevation to the road surface to reflect back. Lighting any surface obliquely will diminish refelected light> JW fails to give us the lux reading and the angle and distance of the light source..
also the 16mm camera is pointed directly down at the surface making it correspondingly brighter than the oblique surface back scatter in the hassle picture.
04:09 why are there differences between the hassleblad exposure and the 16mm camera. Easy different lenses, different film sensitivity,one 70mm film ,one is 16 mm film. different processing and printing. You just compared apples to pears, and came up with bananas. there is no relationship between the two pictures. proves nothing and is irrelevant
There's an addendum 2 this series with a brighter light(streetlight)
I've posted
On earth,after hammering through the atmosphere on a clear day, the Sun produces around 96,000 lux on a surface normal to the sun's rays,or 62,000 lux on the level ground when the sun's elevation is 50°
On the moon, there is no atmosphere, so the lux will be greater
a street light at 5000 lumens,lighting a"large portion of the street" (say 100mSq)is 50 lux
You can use a brighter lightsource but I won't make a difference. Anyway, I would like to point out that various pro-NASA types like Ian Goddard use desktop office lamps in their tests. What are your comments on those tests?
You do take into consideration the "bulb" used in these desktop lamps dont you?
Considering the vast differences in lux of the many different light bulbs on the market its only fair to add that detail.
Are those specs available? A desktop lamp is as good as the bulb installed, even you would have to agree yes?
All light sources are not created equally, its why I have to use vastly different exposure settings to capture deep sky images regardless of my CCD camera or its abilities.
jarrah, Think logically here, a brighter light source WILL make a difference as you have shown in yr "experiment" making longer exposures is similar to more light. As you showed it makes the astronaut more visible. Change the light elevation and you will also get more reflected light !
WhiteJarrah a brighter lightsource but It won't make a difference. <<
Brighter light would still come from only one sourced direction. In most moonwalk light anomalies, no matter what is the brightness, created corresponing shadows are still multiple light sources even sometimes with opposite shadowing.Nasa employees are strung by the balls to continue with touched up lro photos in order to continue getting government grants and retaining high salaried jobs, even when useless research abounds.
Desktop office lamps use halogen bulbs... very bright. For example, many cars use halogen bulbs in their headlights. If you park a car under a street light and turn the vehicle's headlights on, you can still see the effect of the headlights on the ground, even through the existing illumination of the street light.
"the results of our experiment are definitive" You mean that a single car headlight is throwing out the same amount of light as the sun? Or have you overlooked that part of the experiment's composition?
At the beginning of this episode,you claim Mythbusters could've possibly manipulated their results because they didn't show exact measurements made with their light meter
Did I miss something?You did not show us how you measure albedo at that particular location at all,but you started taking your pictures
So,what kind of conclusion we should come to?"
I couldn't put it better
Did you check the reflectivity? Can we see your readingS?
Barely see someone on the asphalt at 0:24. Is it Jarrah? Compare this with the brightness 4:15. It's the difference between sunlight and a headlight of a car. Some science.....
At 1:18 you say that the only way to bring up the details without reflectors or fill lights would be to increase the exposure setting, but that would require Aldrin to remain perfectly still for 30 seconds.
Mr White, do you know what controls the exposure of the film or CCD/CMOS sensor?
Don't you think external conditions i.e. brithness have something to do with that too?
Oh man, lets not even go there... We start getting over 1/60th of a second without a tripod and subjects holding perfectly still... Well, lets just say "Houston, we have us a technical problem".
Mr White, at 0:38 you say your picture looks "very similar" to original.
Are you sure about that?
I can clearly see big difference between overall exposure, esp. visible in background. I estimate the difference is about 2 stops. In other words, IT'S A LOT!
Could you answer all questions posted on your videos?
Jarrah 3 basic things to take a photo 1 Aperture 2 exposure length 3 Film speed You used ASA 100, according to your camera back We would also need to know ASA of Apollo shot Your car headlight is not the same brightness as the Sun Your Lego model is not coated with gold foil Finally, your point is that the REFLECTIVITY should not be sufficient to make the astro visible So you need to produce a photo that shows the directly lit asphalt to be the same brightness as the lunar
Sure enough, you allow an exposure of 30 seconds (at F4 and 100ASA) and the asphalt is ALMOST (but not quite) as bright as the lunar surface in the Aldrin photo.
And (as one would expect) the Lego astro is easily visible in the shadowed side of the Lego LEM
See Jarrah down on the asphalt? he is barely visible.
On the real moon there was a HUGE reflector in the vicinity used. It's called the Lunar Soil. Miles and miles of brightness around the landing spot. That was sufficient for indirect light.
I don't think the headlight of your car, even in high-beam, is a good representation of the sun. Also, the direction is not very good.
Notice that in both the mythbusters and the zigzag productions experiment, they have used a more powerful light source and have used a more appropriate angle for the light source.
As for the albedo of sand, the value in Wikipedia is very subjective; 0.40 is an average value, but not of all desert sand. The albedo of that bit of sand should have been measured.
Landscape is differently exposed because camera angle was DIFFERENT with relation to direction of sunlight.
DAC was mounted on top, pointing down WITH the Sun and receiving MUCH MORE reflected light from sunlit area than camera held by Neil Armstrong when he took photo of Buzz Aldrin.
Also, pay attention to which side of astronaut was filmed by DAC and which side was visible in Buzz' Aldrin photo.
You're on "ashfelt" with the same albedo as the Moon, one light source, yet we can see only one side of your face...
ARE YOU SERIOUS HERE MR WHITE?
DO YOU KNOW what LUNAR DAY is?
DO YOU REALIZE how much light was around Apollo astronauts? It wasn't cloudy, it wasn't at night. They were walking and working there during LUNAR DAY!
Also, do you understand the role of topography?
Nope, you don't.
Your video is one of the WORST examples of bad science I have ever seen in my life.
I do give the propagandists credit though... They continue to twist science in vain efforts to support NASA's lies.
Is it so hard to believe that NASA has lied to the public for years? Is pride that intense an emotion that people blindly support the lies without fathoming the ideas that it was a bunch of BS out of fear of the truth? Astounding indeed!
And for those who continue to stick to the "lunar reflector" idea... I have news for you propagandists... The Russians had bounced lasers off of the lunar surface since the early 60's without the need of reflectors! Look at the Moonfaker Exhibit D videos first before you go off on a tangent!
Love your results, Jarrah! And for those who debate the type of film, try looking at the evidence presented in "What Happened on the Moon", where both the maker of the Hasselblad, and other film experts say clearly that the film used on the moon was plain Kodak Ektochrome film. Not some "special" type of film at all! Therefore not only would the film curl in the extreme hot/cold conditions of the lunar surface, but it would also show the effect of radiation exposure!
No, *you* are. The film formulation was indeed Ektachrome. But the film base WAS NOT. But the cameras were not subject to enormous temp variations anyway - you are familiar with the very slow rate of radiative cooling/heating that occurs IN A VACUUM?
And the oft-repeated radiation lie is also incorrect and shows a lack of research - the radiation levels were not that high at all and the films were in metal cartridges.
I'm responding to *your* example. It seems you don't have any idea how flawed it is, and your only response is that others do it, without any link/ref. Do they infer *exposure times* using a desk lamp? And does someone else's foolishness excuse and justify yours?
This is obviously too complex for adiohead (note he c/wouldn't answer my q's..), but for anyone else:
1. A desk lamp does *not* quite output the same amount of light as the Sun (duh) - so OF COURSE the exposure times using a desklamp will be a great deal longer than those from a sunlit scene.
3. You cannot make comparisons about relative brightnesses unless you take *everything* into account:
- ALL contributory light NOT just albedo
- relative d-range and sensitivity curve of film v. sensor
That's right, you cannot have a lit a-not in darkness while craters are visible in the background in an undoctored photo. Why NASA defends such stupidity is stupid when all they need say is yes we doctored some photos for asthetic reasons and the debate is over.
There's one problem with your reflector thing. They can't have used something like that, look at the shadows of the lunar lander. In the one taken on the moon, there's one well defined shadow, the one cast by the sun. In your one, there's clearly a reflected shadow from the reflector.
For one thing, the main shadow being cast by the lunar module is a lot brighter and you can see the ground where the shadow is, unlike the one taken on the moon where the ground is nearly completely dark, but there is a faint part where you can see a shadow cast by the reflector to the right of the module.
"the main shadow being cast by the lunar module is a lot brighter and you can see the ground where the shadow is, unlike the one taken on the moon where the ground is nearly completely dark"
Why wouldn't NASA just darken the LM's shadow before releasing the photo?
I am looking at a high resolution copy of that photo, if the 'second shadow' you mean is that dark line to the right of the screen, that's a crack in the pavement. You can even see it in the video footage and the 30sec exposure.
Because if they were going to go to that much effort, they would've also darkened the astronauts like you seem to think they need to. Remember, NASA include some of the smartest people in the world. Believe it or not, they know more about this stuff than you.
And look directly under the lander. There's a distinct shadow being cast by the leftmost leg or possibly the ladder, not sure which exactly it is.
"No it's not, it's darker than the rest of the shadow. It's the same darkness in the 30sec exposure."
Mate, I've no idea what you're talking about. I'm looking at the two photos right now, there is no secondardy shadow under the ladder, that's just the engine bell's shadow.
I feel it's pretty justified, you've ignored plenty of my other arguments, and plenty of the MythBuster's arguments too. Your basic strategy seems to be to ignore anything that contradicts your position.
Besides, isn't it slightly hypocritical of you to tell me not to make personal attacks? Don't think I didn't notice that you're trying to put on a "moron"-type voice when you read off that guy's website.
"Don't think I didn't notice that you're trying to put on a "moron"-type voice when you read off that guy's website "
it's the things from that website that make it sound moronic. like: "Lunar rocks are anhydrous -- they contain no water and there is no evidence of the presence of water in their formation"
Nono, burden of proof says you made the claim, you need to back it up.
Still, I went and did a bit of research anyway. Shouldn't have but oh well.
Found an article that they found incredibly small traces of water in moon rocks? I assume you're referring to that? Doesn't change much, just means there's small traces of water in moon rocks. Still far far less than any rock that could be formed on earth. But thanks for showing me more evidence of us landing on the moon :D
You mean meteorites? Yes there are some of those from the moon, but it wasn't until we went to the moon and brought some back that we could confirm this.
So I noticed all of your criticizm of the experiment used in these videos.
I am curious what you thought of Jay Windley's experiment in the desert? Given the albedo of the desert and the light they used, do yout think that was accurate?
The albedo was clearly too high, but it does prove the point that you don't need fill lighting to illuminate the dark side of something. I don't think it was exactly intended as a thorough scientific experiment, certainly not as thorough as the MythBusters' version, it was just to prove a point.
So why not, equally criticize him. Jarrah is just proving a point?
Either way, he went on a national TV show to demonstrate something that he KNEW was misleading, since undoubtley he knew the desert Albedo was too high. So why don't you note this "catch" bu Jarrah, in any of your comments. I am just trying to see why you are out to get one guy, and not the other?
Because Jarrah's trying to claim what he's doing is a valid scientific experiment, when it's not. The conditions are not nearly the same as the original photographs taken on the moon. Jarrah is also using misleading information and using it to try to make overzealous and false claims. Also, because Jarrah's claims go against what the scientific community understands to be true through experimentation and evidence.
So, windley is not claiming that he has done a valid and representitave experiment, when he gets up there on national tv for the purpose of debunken hoax claims? Then how would you describe his purpose of even being on the show????? was it not to show that the flag would reflect correctly, and the back side of astronauts would be lit correctly.... I mean, what was his purpose the?
Watch the video again, and focus on what he says, he thinks he is make a brilliant debunk of hoax claims....
But WE, including you, now know that he isn't... if you criticize Jarrah's, you have to criticize windley's too, if you are intellectually honest. Except that, I think it is safe to say that Windley knew that the desert was throwing off a much higher albedo....so was he dishonest, or ingnorat of that fact?
Honestly, what is your objective response to this?
I'll watch the video again, then post again afterwards, but for now, Windley's results fit the data, although the dark side of the astronaut would've been brighter than on the moon. It was still flawed in principle, but it got correct results (As proven by the MythBusters' experiment), and was still more accurate than Jarrah's.
Watch the vid where Jarrah says, "if jay had done two minutes of research, he would know the albedo was higher,"
So i tried it myself, searched the internet for 2 minutes and found it myself. Now Jay, an "expert" that is on these documentaries, and indeed, consulting Mythbusters--"just check the credits"--- KNOWS! HE ABSOLUTELY KNOWS! Or he is unqualified for all these consultations positions.
Until I saw the Mythbusters special, I had no idea about albedo at all. But in any case, again, his thing is not intended to be an overly scientific experiment. Stop trying to claim it is, if you want to look at a properly conducted scientific experiment, look at the Mythbuster's experiment.
You're not connecting the dots. Google popular mechanic's aritcle and collectspace article on the mythbuster episode. They say that windley and plait are friends of Adams, and that they provided experiments. The deck was stacked before the show even started. That's a fact jack! Just read for yourself.
Jarrah, will admit when he makes mistakes and does the best he can, it's not like he has the resources of the discovery channel, and he IS the underdog here.
"But in any case, again, his thing is not intended to be an overly scientific experiment." Huh? what do yo u call it, he is on a national show to debunk the hoax claims, that went to the desert, set up a replica flag, put on a spacesuit, and showed us how the hoax theory was wrong. It was absolutely and experiment. I'll find the original and mail you the vid. He was there to disprove the hoax theory. He wasn't out there just playing with light and spacesuits.
The only bias introduced before the mythbusters show is there because what the MythBusters are demonstrating is the truth. There's far too much evidence in favour of us landing on the moon to think otherwise.
And where is Jarrah admitting his experiment was flawed? So far all he's done is stick to his terrible and unscientific methods and refuse to listen to anyone when they tell him otherwise. Hate to tell you this, but Jay's experiment was conducted in better circumstances than Jarrah's.
"We weren't going in there saying that any particular thing is absolutely not possible to fake. We were going in and saying that what we were seeing wasn't necessarily faked based on the kinds of details that theorists point out as evidence that the photos were faked. We set up some camera lights and everything else that indicated a single-point source of light, as in the sun, and yes, you could have faked that shot, or yet, it could have actually been the real case, depending on the terrain."
And Jarrah was crucified for an easy mistake regarding speed of film, that they still crack jokes about. He made a video admitting his mistake, apologizing, and fixing it. Yet, these guys on the other side will never admit a mistake, and they make plenty.
Furthermore, even if you think it is the truth, you must start with being unbiased, or you will screw yourself sometime in your career. I am an engineer and a lawyer and achieved every honor society possible in both. YOU HAVE TO START OUT UNBIASED!
How are they unbiased if they only consulted NASA and those devoted to debunking hoax theory?
You don't need to be a physicist to answer that. It simply is not unbiased by any fathom of the imagination.
Further, i could show you many ways they ABSOLUTELY DID NOT PERFORM THEM UNBIASED. Have you graduated yet? How far have you gone in physics at this point? (serious question, not an insult)
YES, the should have gone to NASA and Phil and Jay, BUT THEY SHOULD HAVE ALSO GONE TO A CONSPIRACY THEORIST!!!
Look, if you had a project to debunk the myths for your class, and you never even consulted with a conspiracy theorist, and therefore, never addressed their main claims... you would have got a D or an F. The mythbusters wasted time debunking things that Hoaxers had long abandoned, and did not even address their main theories.
and what's more... GO READ THOSE ARTICLES.... they say themselves that they decided to take out the "LOW HANGING FRUIT" of the hoax claims, i.e. the easy shit!!! They purposely avoided the harder to debunk theories!!! IT IS RIGHT THEIR IN THEIER OWN WORDS IN THE ARTICLE, NOW, would you call that bias???? )hold on i'll get the quote
Can't find a list of the paper's I've previously done to post here. Not sure what exactly diff-e is, but yes to dynamics. And I've done more than enough labs to know how a proper scientific experiment is conducted.
If the MythBuster's debunked claims that hoaxers have long abandoned, why is Jarrah here trying to stick up for them?
And lastly, they kinda disproved all the hoax theories when they shot the laser at the moon. Mind explaining the reflector?
Russians also placed reflectors on the moon, by unmanned spacecraft. I think only one works. But easily placed by unmanned craft, which we sent.
Hoaxers abandoned the waving flag, EXCEPT in the vid where it moves after astronauts leave it alone, and then it moves again minutes later without being touched.
Hoax theory is that for moon walking they used slow motion AND wires AT THE SAME TIME! Not one or the other... they knew that!
Phil Plait and Windley definantly knew that!! Yet they NEVER make this comparison in the show! AT ALL? why?
The mythbusters "motto", they say is "if it's worth doing it's worth overdoing".... yet they UNDER did this, even though all they had to do was to run the video they already had in slow motion (the one of him jumping) Jarrah has a video where he does this.
Anyway, nice talking to ya, it's 2:30 and I gotta get some sleep. I will be glad to show you more tomorrow if u email me.
And I suppose that's possible, except wouldn't it have just been easier to have just landed on the moon in the case of some of those reflectors? They can track where on the moon the laser is being fired and they are picking up reflectors where we landed.
Mind showing me that video?
And their experiment involving Adam walking in a low G environment was pretty good and it'd be hard to replicate that with slow motion and wires.
And to me it doesn't matter who is ultimately right or wrong. It's about who is deeping integrity. Nice talking to you . Email me tomorrow or soon and i will show you some vids.
Okay, watched the video again now. By the looks of things, Windley isn't trying to match the reflective properties of the moon's surface (Like he probably should've), but instead was focusing on an area where there were no outside sources of light. It doesn't seem to me like he's trying to make a massive scientific experiment, certainly not to the extent MB or Jarrah are, just again, to show that shadow does not mean pitch darkness.
Windley is being dishones or incompetent. Plait and Windley were consultants on the mythbuster show. So they just extended their manipulation to MB's.
But you can't wholly criticize Jarrah, and not equally criticize Windley, or you are just being biased. If you were on the other side of Jay, you would have ripped on him, just as you did Jarrah here.
Dishonest, no, incompetent, perhaps. Seemed like more of an oversight to me.
And yes, I am being biased, but I feel it's justified. I'm sticking up for the side that has far far far more evidence in its favour, and opposing the side that's spreading misinformation and trying to claim it as science.
"I'm sticking up for the side that has far far far more evidence in its favour, and opposing the side that's spreading misinformation and trying to claim it as science."
But that's what i am saying go to one of windley's sites, he talks about albedo and reflectivity all the time. I sincerely mean this.... you might be on the side that is ultimately "right" but you are also on the side that spreads misinformation to further their cause. At least Jarrah is sincere.
He may have a more lax attitude or something, but he is trying to show the "EXACT" same point. He is trying to prove that the reflective surface will light a shadow side with out the need for fill light. BUT HE DID THIS KNOWING THAT THE ALBEDO WAS MUCH HIGHER! He never mentions ANYTHING about the difference in albedo!!! WHY NOT???
"but it wasn't until we went to the moon and brought some back that we could confirm this."
irobots analysed the surface before 1969. visual and thermal radiation helped understand the geology of the moon too.
most hoax believers think is that nasa collected lunar meteorites from antarctica before 1969. there is no proof of this otherwise we'd all know it was fake, this is just based on the fact that a nazi bloke went on a trip to antarctica.
russia brought back samples with irobots in 1970.
Ever looked up at the sky during the day? Can you see stars? No? It's because we have the sun there. That still happens on the moon. It's not the atmosphere, it's the presence of the sun.
"It's not the atmosphere, it's the presence of the sun."
I haven't been in the space, but I would think it's both the Sun and the atmosphere that prevemt us seeing stars. The Sun lightens up the whole sky so bright that we can't see stars from it.
But in space the Sun does not light the sky. It does offer so stong contrast, that if you look at the Sun's direction you probably couldn't see stars. But if look other direction, there's no lit sky nor bright Sun: stars should be easily visible.
Actually, I hear it's partially the presence of the sun, but a large part of it is to do with the lighting conditions needed to take a picture in daylight. You need a relatively fast shutter speed, or else the sunlight will make everything blurry, but a shutter speed that quick won't be able to pick up starlight anyway, even with the sun behind you.
Absolutely correct. To try to emulate those conditions with a desklamp is just silly, let alone all the other errors. The exposures necessary were very similar to those on earth on a sunny day. How many stars do you see in the sky in such an image? They are STILL there.
Apollo astronauts had to use exposure time 1/125 or 1/250 sec and aperture f/5.6 to f/11 because it's so bright there during the day. They were not walking outside in darkness.
To capture stars, you would need to open your lens to f/2.8 and expose at least 30 seconds.
Surface of the Moon is about 50 thousand times brighter than stars and that's why you can't see them in Apollo images, just like you can't see stars in videos from Int. Space Station.
Well, just to be accurate. Venus' apparent magnitude is -3,8 when brightest, and the faintest object visible during mid-day is -3,9. So, Venus ought to be 1.09 times brighter to be visible during mid day. So it disappears from sight mid-day, but well visible in the morning. Hence the name "morning star".
Just to be accurate, part 2. Oops! I used Venus' minimum apparent magnitude. At brightest it's -4,7 which would make it twice bright enough to be visible during the day time with naked eye.
But then, the apparent magnitudes are calculated as if there was NO atmosphere.
You can only see light, if you watch into the light source, or if it is reflected into your eye.
Let's say you are standing on the Moon in the shadow of LEM, so the Sun doesn't shine into your eyes. And you look up so that the Moon surface doesn't reflect light into your eyes, how could you NOT see (or photograph) the stars? What is there to reflect the sun's light into your eyes or into the camera? Certainly not the atmosphere.
Except there are no photographs looking straight up. All of them have the capability for sunlight to be reflected into the camera from the sun. However, I have heard that, even on earth, if you find yourself in something like a well, provided it's deep enough, if you look up, you will see stars due to the lack of sunlight.
In any case, again, it's not so much the presence of the sun, just the short exposure time which cannot capture the relatively dim stars.
If you're talking the photography, then I agree, you need a certain exposure time to collect enough light for the stars to appear on the film.
But my point was, on the Moon or orbit you could SEE the stars better than night time Earth, if you look into a direction where there are no large reflecting surfaces (Eath or Moon) and are covered from straight sunlight. Point camera that direction: no light noise or atmosphere distortion. It would be much better than a night shot from Earth.
On clear night, take a properly exposed picture of the Moon (so you can see the "face" nicely), and then check if you can see any stars in the frame on that image.
You're partially right about Venus. It could be visible in the pictures, but barely, and only in bright phase.
Dynamic range of the film makes it impossible to capture everything in one shot, and remember, 40 years ago film had less capacity than today.
Blisterhiker: You have problems reading what I write? In a few post already, I've said that bright surfaces would cause probelems with contrast, which makes it hard to see the stars. Which part of it you do not understand?
It's not about direction of your camera, it's about EXPOSURE.
Apollo astronauts had their cameras attached to front of their spacesuits, and they did not go to the Moon to take pictures at long exposures. That would require a TRIPOD. They didn't go there to photograph the stars or themselves all the time.
The had a job to do and they did it.
Stop buzzing around. It's boring already.
Read about it or talk to experienced photographer instead.
BlisterHiker: as I already said, I know it takes certain exposures to see the stars. You would probably have to change the exposure settings to caught them in the film from the LEM shadow as well.
But my point was about SEEING the stars. Waniou137 claimed that it was not because the atmosphere, but because Sun's existence why we cannot see the stars. Which is wrong, as everyone can see going out at night and looking up.
OK. You should state more clearly what your point is, because people can confuse it with "no stars" argument abused daily by Lunar conspiracy theorists, who lack basic understanding of photography.
Of course, one can see the stars in space, even in sunlight, as long as they don't look in the Sun's direction or at bright objects.
People aboard International Space Station can see stars from the windows, but photographing them is difficult. Even ISS in microgravity is not 100% stationary.
I was thinking what I said was clear. I was wondering if it was read with a thought. Anyway...
There's been a lot of talk if one can see stars dayside Moon or in dayside Earth orbit, and that's what I stated my own opinion.
I'm not a photography expert and never claimed to be. I don't know if the Apollo astronauts could have catched the stars on film standing in a shadow, but I'm saying photographing stars from there should be possible, and it should be ideal conditions.
Yeah it probably is possible to see stars in the right conditions on the moon and probably possible to photograph them too. I have a hunch one of the astronauts actually did make a comment about the stars while they were there, actually. I'm not too sure. But in any case, none of the photographs taken were in the ideal conditions to photograph stars. It's really not very easy, I tried it on Earth once in a fairly dark place and you couldn't see a thing.
And with just reflected sunlight, we can easily see it at night. & even sometimes during the day. Basic facts, would you agree?
Friends of Jarrah would rather believe him, than understand even the most basic observations of looking into the night sky and understand, We can see the moon BECAUSE of the reflective properties.
Or maybe the young Jarrah thinks the Moon in the night sky is a NASA special effect too!
So are you claiming that Jarrah invented the Moon's reflectivity (albedo)? Why don't you go check it yourself. Plenty of sources that you can find from the Net.
If you go to space and look both the Moon and Earth, Earth is terribly much brighter than the Moon. If you went to the Moon, the ground would be quite dark to look at.
Common sense may fool you here. This is a question of absolute and apparent brightness.
Imagine you dropped an A4 size piece of white paper on the Moon surface. Would the white paper be more reflecting than a rock surface? Sure! Would you see it from Earth? No. Why not? It's too small. Replace the white paper with a truck load of snow. Still you couldn't see it, because the AMOUNT of light it reflects into your eye would be so small!
But were not talking about reflecting all the way to the earth are we?
The reflected sunlight, in a vacuum (That means no diffusion,as in air, therefore much sharper) would be entirely suitable to illuminate the picures in question.
Plus the white suite of the astronaut taking the photograph IS a reflective factor in all the pictures.
Way to go Jarrah. Another blast crater blown on the surface of the propagandists minds.
Great arguments. However, I think it would have been more convincing if you used a brighter light than the car headlight. Still, none the less you've proved them hoaxers once again.
Your westinghouse/16mm dac comparison is very good, your outdoor night exposure in the other hand is ridiculous. So don't get me wrong the westinghouse/dac comparison do worth the watch overall , but your completly hallucinating nightshot experiment is to be removed. You can't seriously compare 7-10% reflectivity of the sun raw light , with the 7-10% reflected light on a 5-10% reflective surface. Even if the dac comparison do prove your point , your nightshot is simply wrong.
Use 1/100th F.2 in total daylight with a completely black sky.
yesiamawizardjonny 2 months ago
Great work done White Jarrah.
anupjani 6 months ago
Jarrah I am a fan of ur vids.. but ur light source is way to low in this experiment.. headlight are just too weak for this test.. and if asphalt is old dosent it lower its albedo? i believe i heard new asphalt has same albedo then the moon...
catboulet 6 months ago
Jarrah, Your research is immaculate, you are rational, you are a dedicated warrior of truth! We all support this great work.
garhwalijoshi 1 year ago
Yay! You have successfully proved that the sun is brighter than a car headlight. Do it again with a normal shutter speed and a decent light.
spindar600 1 year ago
You point about the cylinder seems to ring true to me and it even seems to have a light reflection on the wrong side.
WillShakespeare2007 1 year ago
Hi Jarrah, I've been enjoying your other MF films, and agree/think plausable most of your points (a few exceptions), this one though is an error:
- the MB cement was modified with charcoal till it had the right albedo, as was clearly stated
- you require the long exposure for your lego model cos your light source is so dim, the sun is not so dim... think about it a bit more, you're a smart fellow you'll figure it out. No such long exposure time would be needed in bright sunlight.
mojojacket 1 year ago
You have to remember that the lunar surface is in fact working as a reflector.
thesoulhack 1 year ago
It's like you would take a torch and shine directly on yourself in a pitch black room, of course it's gonna be shadowy on one side because you have nothing that reflects the light from around yourself, as you would if u were on the moon where u have the entire surface of the side ur standing on, reflecting light onto you.
I'm a photographer and have taken huge amount of photos where the subject is not completely black on one side like in your experiment.
thesoulhack 1 year ago
This video also completely fails in your experiments on the asphalt road.
As the lunar surface is lit all around the astronaut on the surface facing the sun, it's reflecting from all over back onto the astronaut, something you completely disregard with your headlight experiment.
thesoulhack 1 year ago
people complaining about this guy's car light are excusing mythbuster's play set with it's obvious phony lunar dust??? lmao
Colt2571 1 year ago
Nothing in this video really helps you prove your point. In the overhead video, the LM is obviously reflecting light, as there is both a copper tint on the astronaut and the lunar surface. Your explanation seems correct, but it doesn't point to "second light source".
Europasingstome 1 year ago
04:03 why is the landscape still correctly exposed? Well if you looked at it you can clearly see that it is not correctly exposed! This guy is a douch!
slashermcslash 2 years ago
Comment removed
EstrellaPolux 2 years ago
has any one took in to account that the fact the earth has an atmosphere and i think light would reflect differently in a chamber filled with oxygen and co2 then it would in a vacuum.
defiythelie 2 years ago
Explain how oxygen and CO2 would have an influence over the lighting.
hunchbacked 2 years ago
Watch from 6:42 - 7:02 The fake sun they are using looks 100% like the sun in the apollo images, and nothing like the sun taken in all of the space shuttle images. I would love to see what thier fake sun would have looked like reflected in the visor.....My guess is it would have matched nicely with the apollo sun reflections and would have not looked anything like the real sun reflected in shuttle astronaut visors.
robweese 2 years ago 3
i tryed pointing this out on the Mythbusters You Tube channel the difference showed up on there Pictures to ,even thow the albedo was wrong anyway, as Jarrah has pointed out! Mythbusters your now Officially BUSTED...
ccc771 2 years ago 3
Jarrah, neat video, but your simulation at the beginning of the video is flawed since your light source is nowhere close to being as bright as sunlight. That gets more complicated to simulate at night with a distant light source, so instead use a hand-held light meter to read the EV value for your night scene versus daytime and then do the math to compute lunar surface exposure times. Remember that the film used in the Hasselblad had an ASA rating of 160.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago 3
i don't think that the car's light can be enough to simulate the sun's light.
liquidus2172 2 years ago
You are the real Myth Buster/s
virgogreg 2 years ago
we wait for china to check that out
whotookmynickkokokai 2 years ago
I still think the moon photos were stage, I just don't think this experiment uses the proper materials.
kryptonbornson 2 years ago 2
Look at 1.09 onwards.
See how the lunar surface and JWs surface are almost the same brightness(in fact, JWs surface is noticeably dimmer)
Now also see how the astro figure is clearly visible in JWs picture.
The point is, that the directly lit areas need to be the same to see how bright the reflected areas are.
Game over for this hoax theory.
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
Now do you realize that your "sun" is incredibly dim as compared to the actual sun. That has a huge effect on how much light is reflected back from the asphalt.
igpx92 2 years ago
This is fing stupid, he's equating the sun with his headlight?! Why not just strike a match and then ponder. Ridiculous. His arguments about the albedo thing are valid but he debunks himself completely by using himself faulty premises, mesurements and angles. FAIL!!!
dubdub2000 2 years ago
so you don't think headlight is good but what about mythbusters' light. a stage light seems alright to you? come on, pull your dumb head out of USA's arse.
tubelogin1 2 years ago
Mr White,
Don't you think light source angle has also got something to do with the results?
It's obious your light source was at much lower angle than the Sun in Apollo 11 picture, esp. when we consider topography visible at 0:00.
Topography also plays important role, which you are not even aware of.
BlisterHiker 2 years ago 9
Still no answer from Jarrah. Must be collecting stars or thumbs in his next footage I guess.
Rob260259 2 years ago
"Must be collecting stars or thumbs in his next footage I guess."
- ha ha ha!!! :-)
Some lunatic hoax followers have plenty of fake IDs on YT to compensate for their ignorance. They will help him!
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
JW asks why the side of his face wasn't illuminated from the reflected light from the surface. Simple the light wasn't bright enough and wasn't at sufficient elevation to the road surface to reflect back. Lighting any surface obliquely will diminish refelected light> JW fails to give us the lux reading and the angle and distance of the light source..
delahaye100 2 years ago 7
"JW fails to give us the lux reading and the angle and distance of the light source.."
delahaye, not only he fails to show us the reading, he fails completely to show how he measured reflectivity on his test site.
BlisterHiker 2 years ago 6
also the 16mm camera is pointed directly down at the surface making it correspondingly brighter than the oblique surface back scatter in the hassle picture.
delahaye100 2 years ago 5
04:09 why are there differences between the hassleblad exposure and the 16mm camera. Easy different lenses, different film sensitivity,one 70mm film ,one is 16 mm film. different processing and printing. You just compared apples to pears, and came up with bananas. there is no relationship between the two pictures. proves nothing and is irrelevant
delahaye100 2 years ago 2
There's an addendum 2 this series with a brighter light(streetlight)
I've posted
On earth,after hammering through the atmosphere on a clear day, the Sun produces around 96,000 lux on a surface normal to the sun's rays,or 62,000 lux on the level ground when the sun's elevation is 50°
On the moon, there is no atmosphere, so the lux will be greater
a street light at 5000 lumens,lighting a"large portion of the street" (say 100mSq)is 50 lux
I think you still need a brighter light source
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
Oh, for comparison the sun's lumens can be estiamted at approx 2.12x10^28 lumens
That's bright
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
You can use a brighter lightsource but I won't make a difference. Anyway, I would like to point out that various pro-NASA types like Ian Goddard use desktop office lamps in their tests. What are your comments on those tests?
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
You do take into consideration the "bulb" used in these desktop lamps dont you?
Considering the vast differences in lux of the many different light bulbs on the market its only fair to add that detail.
Are those specs available? A desktop lamp is as good as the bulb installed, even you would have to agree yes?
All light sources are not created equally, its why I have to use vastly different exposure settings to capture deep sky images regardless of my CCD camera or its abilities.
guitarplayer4real 2 years ago 10
jarrah, Think logically here, a brighter light source WILL make a difference as you have shown in yr "experiment" making longer exposures is similar to more light. As you showed it makes the astronaut more visible. Change the light elevation and you will also get more reflected light !
delahaye100 2 years ago 5
WhiteJarrah a brighter lightsource but It won't make a difference. <<
Brighter light would still come from only one sourced direction. In most moonwalk light anomalies, no matter what is the brightness, created corresponing shadows are still multiple light sources even sometimes with opposite shadowing.Nasa employees are strung by the balls to continue with touched up lro photos in order to continue getting government grants and retaining high salaried jobs, even when useless research abounds.
EGMAG 1 year ago
@WhiteJarrah
Desktop office lamps use halogen bulbs... very bright. For example, many cars use halogen bulbs in their headlights. If you park a car under a street light and turn the vehicle's headlights on, you can still see the effect of the headlights on the ground, even through the existing illumination of the street light.
VFS112 1 year ago
That's not the only thing mister White overlooked the past years.
Rob260259 2 years ago
"the results of our experiment are definitive" You mean that a single car headlight is throwing out the same amount of light as the sun? Or have you overlooked that part of the experiment's composition?
delahaye100 2 years ago 3
BH posted this on ep 2
"One more thing Mr White
At the beginning of this episode,you claim Mythbusters could've possibly manipulated their results because they didn't show exact measurements made with their light meter
Did I miss something?You did not show us how you measure albedo at that particular location at all,but you started taking your pictures
So,what kind of conclusion we should come to?"
I couldn't put it better
Did you check the reflectivity? Can we see your readingS?
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
Barely see someone on the asphalt at 0:24. Is it Jarrah? Compare this with the brightness 4:15. It's the difference between sunlight and a headlight of a car. Some science.....
Rob260259 2 years ago
"Barely see someone on the asphalt at 0:24."
Barely visible? You can see me and the road and the Legos quite clearly in that point.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
Compare 0:16 or 0:24 with the 'whiteness' in 4:15. If you were lying on that surface mister White (white...) you would have been clearly visible.
Rob260259 2 years ago 2
At 1:18 you say that the only way to bring up the details without reflectors or fill lights would be to increase the exposure setting, but that would require Aldrin to remain perfectly still for 30 seconds.
Mr White, do you know what controls the exposure of the film or CCD/CMOS sensor?
Don't you think external conditions i.e. brithness have something to do with that too?
Please answer all questions posted here.
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
Oh man, lets not even go there... We start getting over 1/60th of a second without a tripod and subjects holding perfectly still... Well, lets just say "Houston, we have us a technical problem".
:-p
guitarplayer4real 2 years ago
Blister, I guess mister White is busy making videos, so please be patient for his answers.
Rob260259 2 years ago
He's probably working on new opening sequence. Maybe next time he will borrow Charlie's Angels theme with Sibrel and Percy as his partners :-)
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
Mr White, at 0:38 you say your picture looks "very similar" to original.
Are you sure about that?
I can clearly see big difference between overall exposure, esp. visible in background. I estimate the difference is about 2 stops. In other words, IT'S A LOT!
Could you answer all questions posted on your videos?
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
Snake, that's it. The End.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Comment removed
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
surface.
Sure enough, you allow an exposure of 30 seconds (at F4 and 100ASA) and the asphalt is ALMOST (but not quite) as bright as the lunar surface in the Aldrin photo.
And (as one would expect) the Lego astro is easily visible in the shadowed side of the Lego LEM
I'd appreciate your comments
snakehipsohoolihan 2 years ago
See Jarrah down on the asphalt? he is barely visible.
On the real moon there was a HUGE reflector in the vicinity used. It's called the Lunar Soil. Miles and miles of brightness around the landing spot. That was sufficient for indirect light.
Rob260259 2 years ago
I don't think the headlight of your car, even in high-beam, is a good representation of the sun. Also, the direction is not very good.
Notice that in both the mythbusters and the zigzag productions experiment, they have used a more powerful light source and have used a more appropriate angle for the light source.
As for the albedo of sand, the value in Wikipedia is very subjective; 0.40 is an average value, but not of all desert sand. The albedo of that bit of sand should have been measured.
rm06c 2 years ago 2
About that 3:54 scene.
Mr White, do you know what CAMERA ANGLE is?
Landscape is differently exposed because camera angle was DIFFERENT with relation to direction of sunlight.
DAC was mounted on top, pointing down WITH the Sun and receiving MUCH MORE reflected light from sunlit area than camera held by Neil Armstrong when he took photo of Buzz Aldrin.
Also, pay attention to which side of astronaut was filmed by DAC and which side was visible in Buzz' Aldrin photo.
See the difference?
BlisterHiker 2 years ago 3
You're on "ashfelt" with the same albedo as the Moon, one light source, yet we can see only one side of your face...
ARE YOU SERIOUS HERE MR WHITE?
DO YOU KNOW what LUNAR DAY is?
DO YOU REALIZE how much light was around Apollo astronauts? It wasn't cloudy, it wasn't at night. They were walking and working there during LUNAR DAY!
Also, do you understand the role of topography?
Nope, you don't.
Your video is one of the WORST examples of bad science I have ever seen in my life.
BlisterHiker 2 years ago 3
This video is an example of pseudo-scientific manipulation.
Compare his image at 0:45 to original image. Look at the background. Does it look "very similar"? No, it does NOT.
He's got no clue about conditions on the Moon and film used to take that photograph by the lander. He's got no clue about role of topography either.
Recreating conditions from sun-lit Lunar surface on his "ashfelt" at night is a JOKE.
His videos are all about pseudo-science and manipulation. NOTHING MORE.
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
I do give the propagandists credit though... They continue to twist science in vain efforts to support NASA's lies.
Is it so hard to believe that NASA has lied to the public for years? Is pride that intense an emotion that people blindly support the lies without fathoming the ideas that it was a bunch of BS out of fear of the truth? Astounding indeed!
northerntruthseeker 2 years ago 2
And for those who continue to stick to the "lunar reflector" idea... I have news for you propagandists... The Russians had bounced lasers off of the lunar surface since the early 60's without the need of reflectors! Look at the Moonfaker Exhibit D videos first before you go off on a tangent!
northerntruthseeker 2 years ago 3
Love your results, Jarrah! And for those who debate the type of film, try looking at the evidence presented in "What Happened on the Moon", where both the maker of the Hasselblad, and other film experts say clearly that the film used on the moon was plain Kodak Ektochrome film. Not some "special" type of film at all! Therefore not only would the film curl in the extreme hot/cold conditions of the lunar surface, but it would also show the effect of radiation exposure!
NASA is so busted!!!!
northerntruthseeker 2 years ago 3
No, *you* are. The film formulation was indeed Ektachrome. But the film base WAS NOT. But the cameras were not subject to enormous temp variations anyway - you are familiar with the very slow rate of radiative cooling/heating that occurs IN A VACUUM?
And the oft-repeated radiation lie is also incorrect and shows a lack of research - the radiation levels were not that high at all and the films were in metal cartridges.
chrlz904 2 years ago
Oh, and what is the difference in the dynamic range and sensitivity of the film use, compared to that of the video sensor?
And how would that effect your 'conclusions'?
You don't know? Well, there's a surprise...
chrlz904 2 years ago
I'm sorry, I started laughing too hard when you used a teeny weeny little light, and tried to infer shutter speeds compared to the Sun.
Where did you learn photography?
chrlz904 2 years ago
"I started laughing too hard when you used a teeny weeny little light"
dude, apologist liars have used office lamps for their light source and plain white paper for their moon surface in their tests.
adiohead 2 years ago
I'm responding to *your* example. It seems you don't have any idea how flawed it is, and your only response is that others do it, without any link/ref. Do they infer *exposure times* using a desk lamp? And does someone else's foolishness excuse and justify yours?
Some researcher.
chrlz904 2 years ago
if a desk lamp is a good enough "evidence" for the average apologist then a higher lumen light source and a similar albedo surface smashes them.
if you think you can prove him wrong then do a test and video it.
as for links, check out phil plaits website.
adiohead 2 years ago
This is obviously too complex for adiohead (note he c/wouldn't answer my q's..), but for anyone else:
1. A desk lamp does *not* quite output the same amount of light as the Sun (duh) - so OF COURSE the exposure times using a desklamp will be a great deal longer than those from a sunlit scene.
3. You cannot make comparisons about relative brightnesses unless you take *everything* into account:
- ALL contributory light NOT just albedo
- relative d-range and sensitivity curve of film v. sensor
chrlz904 2 years ago
"This is obviously too complex for adiohead (note he c/wouldn't answer my q's..), "
enlighten my complex mind with the answers :)
adiohead 2 years ago
I agree chrlz.
That experiment is a joke. Any serious photographer would laugh or feel pity for that "expert" on "ashfelt" at night.
I feel scientifically offended watching something like that.
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
That's right, you cannot have a lit a-not in darkness while craters are visible in the background in an undoctored photo. Why NASA defends such stupidity is stupid when all they need say is yes we doctored some photos for asthetic reasons and the debate is over.
SounzNice 2 years ago
"Only so much visual and thermal radiation can do"
that's why they used irobots
adiohead 2 years ago
There's one problem with your reflector thing. They can't have used something like that, look at the shadows of the lunar lander. In the one taken on the moon, there's one well defined shadow, the one cast by the sun. In your one, there's clearly a reflected shadow from the reflector.
Waniou137 2 years ago
"In your one, there's clearly a reflected shadow from the reflector."
Where? All I can see is a deep crack in the pavement.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
For one thing, the main shadow being cast by the lunar module is a lot brighter and you can see the ground where the shadow is, unlike the one taken on the moon where the ground is nearly completely dark, but there is a faint part where you can see a shadow cast by the reflector to the right of the module.
Waniou137 2 years ago
"the main shadow being cast by the lunar module is a lot brighter and you can see the ground where the shadow is, unlike the one taken on the moon where the ground is nearly completely dark"
Why wouldn't NASA just darken the LM's shadow before releasing the photo?
I am looking at a high resolution copy of that photo, if the 'second shadow' you mean is that dark line to the right of the screen, that's a crack in the pavement. You can even see it in the video footage and the 30sec exposure.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
Because if they were going to go to that much effort, they would've also darkened the astronauts like you seem to think they need to. Remember, NASA include some of the smartest people in the world. Believe it or not, they know more about this stuff than you.
And look directly under the lander. There's a distinct shadow being cast by the leftmost leg or possibly the ladder, not sure which exactly it is.
Waniou137 2 years ago
"Because if they were going to go to that much effort, they would've also darkened the astronauts like you seem to think they need to."
Not if they wanted to preserve the PR significance of the photograph.
"And look directly under the lander. There's a distinct shadow being cast by the leftmost leg or possibly the ladder"
That's the engine bell's shadow cast by the headlight, it's even present in the 30sec exposure.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
No it's not, it's darker than the rest of the shadow. It's the same darkness in the 30sec exposure.
Waniou137 2 years ago
"No it's not, it's darker than the rest of the shadow. It's the same darkness in the 30sec exposure."
Mate, I've no idea what you're talking about. I'm looking at the two photos right now, there is no secondardy shadow under the ladder, that's just the engine bell's shadow.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
If I could be bothered, I'd upload a picture showing what I'm talking about, but chances are, you'd ignore it anyway.
Waniou137 2 years ago
"but chances are, you'd ignore it anyway. "
Yup, here come the personal attacks, right on cue.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
I feel it's pretty justified, you've ignored plenty of my other arguments, and plenty of the MythBuster's arguments too. Your basic strategy seems to be to ignore anything that contradicts your position.
Besides, isn't it slightly hypocritical of you to tell me not to make personal attacks? Don't think I didn't notice that you're trying to put on a "moron"-type voice when you read off that guy's website.
Waniou137 2 years ago
"I feel it's pretty justified, you've ignored plenty of my other arguments"
I pointed out that 7% is not bright enough to illuminate an object.
I've pointed out that all Apollo 12 photographs were taken under the same lighting conditions.
I've pointed out that the rocks SMART-1 found should have been the same as Apollos when they weren't.
I've pointed out that the moon rocks do contain water.
I've pointed you in the direct of vmy source for the VA belts does rate of 312.5rem/hr.
Need more?
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
1: No, you pointed out that your light source wasn't bright enough to illuminate an object.
2: No, you've pointed out your broadcaster used ambiguous wording.
3: Haven't yet watched that video, I might go look at it later.
4: I've pointed you to sources that state that the VA belts are not nearly as dangerous as you think they are.
Waniou137 2 years ago
"Don't think I didn't notice that you're trying to put on a "moron"-type voice when you read off that guy's website "
it's the things from that website that make it sound moronic. like: "Lunar rocks are anhydrous -- they contain no water and there is no evidence of the presence of water in their formation"
adiohead 2 years ago
What's moronic about that?
Waniou137 2 years ago
"What's moronic about that?"
it's wrong
adiohead 2 years ago
This is the bit where you provide evidence to back up your claim.
Waniou137 2 years ago
"This is the bit where you provide evidence to back up your claim."
this is the bit where you do a bit of research yourself. do a search for: moon rock water
use those fingers and give them some exercise. this is a well known moon fact.
adiohead 2 years ago
Nono, burden of proof says you made the claim, you need to back it up.
Still, I went and did a bit of research anyway. Shouldn't have but oh well.
Found an article that they found incredibly small traces of water in moon rocks? I assume you're referring to that? Doesn't change much, just means there's small traces of water in moon rocks. Still far far less than any rock that could be formed on earth. But thanks for showing me more evidence of us landing on the moon :D
Your move?
Waniou137 2 years ago
"Nono, burden of proof says you made the claim, you need to back it up."
i don't need to back up anything. i was just explaining to you that the website was wrong, and it is.
this planet has been in possession of moon rock long before 1969.
adiohead 2 years ago
You mean meteorites? Yes there are some of those from the moon, but it wasn't until we went to the moon and brought some back that we could confirm this.
Waniou137 2 years ago
So I noticed all of your criticizm of the experiment used in these videos.
I am curious what you thought of Jay Windley's experiment in the desert? Given the albedo of the desert and the light they used, do yout think that was accurate?
cchlaw 2 years ago
The albedo was clearly too high, but it does prove the point that you don't need fill lighting to illuminate the dark side of something. I don't think it was exactly intended as a thorough scientific experiment, certainly not as thorough as the MythBusters' version, it was just to prove a point.
Waniou137 2 years ago
Comment removed
cchlaw 2 years ago
So why not, equally criticize him. Jarrah is just proving a point?
Either way, he went on a national TV show to demonstrate something that he KNEW was misleading, since undoubtley he knew the desert Albedo was too high. So why don't you note this "catch" bu Jarrah, in any of your comments. I am just trying to see why you are out to get one guy, and not the other?
cchlaw 2 years ago
Because Jarrah's trying to claim what he's doing is a valid scientific experiment, when it's not. The conditions are not nearly the same as the original photographs taken on the moon. Jarrah is also using misleading information and using it to try to make overzealous and false claims. Also, because Jarrah's claims go against what the scientific community understands to be true through experimentation and evidence.
Waniou137 2 years ago
So, windley is not claiming that he has done a valid and representitave experiment, when he gets up there on national tv for the purpose of debunken hoax claims? Then how would you describe his purpose of even being on the show????? was it not to show that the flag would reflect correctly, and the back side of astronauts would be lit correctly.... I mean, what was his purpose the?
cchlaw 2 years ago
To show that shadows do not necessarily mean pitch darkness.
Waniou137 2 years ago
Watch the video again, and focus on what he says, he thinks he is make a brilliant debunk of hoax claims....
But WE, including you, now know that he isn't... if you criticize Jarrah's, you have to criticize windley's too, if you are intellectually honest. Except that, I think it is safe to say that Windley knew that the desert was throwing off a much higher albedo....so was he dishonest, or ingnorat of that fact?
Honestly, what is your objective response to this?
cchlaw 2 years ago
I'll watch the video again, then post again afterwards, but for now, Windley's results fit the data, although the dark side of the astronaut would've been brighter than on the moon. It was still flawed in principle, but it got correct results (As proven by the MythBusters' experiment), and was still more accurate than Jarrah's.
Waniou137 2 years ago
"Windley's results fit the data"
Because he knew that the desert sand had a much HIGHER albedo than the moon. So there was no doubt it would confirm it, using such false materials.
cchlaw 2 years ago
Where does he show he knows the albedo is higher? Where does he even mention the albedo?
Waniou137 2 years ago
Watch the vid where Jarrah says, "if jay had done two minutes of research, he would know the albedo was higher,"
So i tried it myself, searched the internet for 2 minutes and found it myself. Now Jay, an "expert" that is on these documentaries, and indeed, consulting Mythbusters--"just check the credits"--- KNOWS! HE ABSOLUTELY KNOWS! Or he is unqualified for all these consultations positions.
cchlaw 2 years ago
Until I saw the Mythbusters special, I had no idea about albedo at all. But in any case, again, his thing is not intended to be an overly scientific experiment. Stop trying to claim it is, if you want to look at a properly conducted scientific experiment, look at the Mythbuster's experiment.
And how is Jarrah sincere?
Waniou137 2 years ago
You're not connecting the dots. Google popular mechanic's aritcle and collectspace article on the mythbuster episode. They say that windley and plait are friends of Adams, and that they provided experiments. The deck was stacked before the show even started. That's a fact jack! Just read for yourself.
Jarrah, will admit when he makes mistakes and does the best he can, it's not like he has the resources of the discovery channel, and he IS the underdog here.
cchlaw 2 years ago
"But in any case, again, his thing is not intended to be an overly scientific experiment." Huh? what do yo u call it, he is on a national show to debunk the hoax claims, that went to the desert, set up a replica flag, put on a spacesuit, and showed us how the hoax theory was wrong. It was absolutely and experiment. I'll find the original and mail you the vid. He was there to disprove the hoax theory. He wasn't out there just playing with light and spacesuits.
cchlaw 2 years ago
The only bias introduced before the mythbusters show is there because what the MythBusters are demonstrating is the truth. There's far too much evidence in favour of us landing on the moon to think otherwise.
And where is Jarrah admitting his experiment was flawed? So far all he's done is stick to his terrible and unscientific methods and refuse to listen to anyone when they tell him otherwise. Hate to tell you this, but Jay's experiment was conducted in better circumstances than Jarrah's.
Waniou137 2 years ago
Okay, maybe this will turn on a light bulb in your head about how tv works-- here is a quote from Jamie and Adam to Popular Mechanics:
cchlaw 2 years ago
"We weren't going in there saying that any particular thing is absolutely not possible to fake. We were going in and saying that what we were seeing wasn't necessarily faked based on the kinds of details that theorists point out as evidence that the photos were faked. We set up some camera lights and everything else that indicated a single-point source of light, as in the sun, and yes, you could have faked that shot, or yet, it could have actually been the real case, depending on the terrain."
cchlaw 2 years ago
And Jarrah was crucified for an easy mistake regarding speed of film, that they still crack jokes about. He made a video admitting his mistake, apologizing, and fixing it. Yet, these guys on the other side will never admit a mistake, and they make plenty.
cchlaw 2 years ago
Furthermore, even if you think it is the truth, you must start with being unbiased, or you will screw yourself sometime in your career. I am an engineer and a lawyer and achieved every honor society possible in both. YOU HAVE TO START OUT UNBIASED!
cchlaw 2 years ago
And I'm a physicist, and the MythBussters' experiments were performed in an unbiased way. As far as experiments are concerned, that's enough.
Waniou137 2 years ago
How are they unbiased if they only consulted NASA and those devoted to debunking hoax theory?
You don't need to be a physicist to answer that. It simply is not unbiased by any fathom of the imagination.
Further, i could show you many ways they ABSOLUTELY DID NOT PERFORM THEM UNBIASED. Have you graduated yet? How far have you gone in physics at this point? (serious question, not an insult)
cchlaw 2 years ago
So... for information on the moon landing... they shouldn't have gone to people who are experts in space travel and conditions on the moon?
But in any case, I'm referring to their experiments. What was biased about them? Because they matched conditions as closely to that on the moon.
And I'm in my 4th year of my degree. So I've done enough to know what I'm talking about.
Waniou137 2 years ago
Have you taken dynamics and diff-e yet?
YES, the should have gone to NASA and Phil and Jay, BUT THEY SHOULD HAVE ALSO GONE TO A CONSPIRACY THEORIST!!!
Look, if you had a project to debunk the myths for your class, and you never even consulted with a conspiracy theorist, and therefore, never addressed their main claims... you would have got a D or an F. The mythbusters wasted time debunking things that Hoaxers had long abandoned, and did not even address their main theories.
con'td
cchlaw 2 years ago
and what's more... GO READ THOSE ARTICLES.... they say themselves that they decided to take out the "LOW HANGING FRUIT" of the hoax claims, i.e. the easy shit!!! They purposely avoided the harder to debunk theories!!! IT IS RIGHT THEIR IN THEIER OWN WORDS IN THE ARTICLE, NOW, would you call that bias???? )hold on i'll get the quote
cchlaw 2 years ago
"We took the low hanging fruit," [JAIME]Hyneman concurred.
cchlaw 2 years ago
Can't find a list of the paper's I've previously done to post here. Not sure what exactly diff-e is, but yes to dynamics. And I've done more than enough labs to know how a proper scientific experiment is conducted.
If the MythBuster's debunked claims that hoaxers have long abandoned, why is Jarrah here trying to stick up for them?
And lastly, they kinda disproved all the hoax theories when they shot the laser at the moon. Mind explaining the reflector?
Waniou137 2 years ago
diff-e, differential equations.
Russians also placed reflectors on the moon, by unmanned spacecraft. I think only one works. But easily placed by unmanned craft, which we sent.
Hoaxers abandoned the waving flag, EXCEPT in the vid where it moves after astronauts leave it alone, and then it moves again minutes later without being touched.
Hoax theory is that for moon walking they used slow motion AND wires AT THE SAME TIME! Not one or the other... they knew that!
cchlaw 2 years ago
Phil Plait and Windley definantly knew that!! Yet they NEVER make this comparison in the show! AT ALL? why?
The mythbusters "motto", they say is "if it's worth doing it's worth overdoing".... yet they UNDER did this, even though all they had to do was to run the video they already had in slow motion (the one of him jumping) Jarrah has a video where he does this.
Anyway, nice talking to ya, it's 2:30 and I gotta get some sleep. I will be glad to show you more tomorrow if u email me.
cchlaw 2 years ago
Ohh. Duh. Yes, I hate them with a passion. :(
And I suppose that's possible, except wouldn't it have just been easier to have just landed on the moon in the case of some of those reflectors? They can track where on the moon the laser is being fired and they are picking up reflectors where we landed.
Mind showing me that video?
And their experiment involving Adam walking in a low G environment was pretty good and it'd be hard to replicate that with slow motion and wires.
Waniou137 2 years ago
Be glad to talk more tomorrow, gotta sleep.
And to me it doesn't matter who is ultimately right or wrong. It's about who is deeping integrity. Nice talking to you . Email me tomorrow or soon and i will show you some vids.
cchlaw 2 years ago
Haha, okay, good talking to you too. Send me a message on my YouTube page, I get an e-mail straight away anyway.
Waniou137 2 years ago
Okay, watched the video again now. By the looks of things, Windley isn't trying to match the reflective properties of the moon's surface (Like he probably should've), but instead was focusing on an area where there were no outside sources of light. It doesn't seem to me like he's trying to make a massive scientific experiment, certainly not to the extent MB or Jarrah are, just again, to show that shadow does not mean pitch darkness.
Waniou137 2 years ago
Windley is being dishones or incompetent. Plait and Windley were consultants on the mythbuster show. So they just extended their manipulation to MB's.
But you can't wholly criticize Jarrah, and not equally criticize Windley, or you are just being biased. If you were on the other side of Jay, you would have ripped on him, just as you did Jarrah here.
cchlaw 2 years ago
Dishonest, no, incompetent, perhaps. Seemed like more of an oversight to me.
And yes, I am being biased, but I feel it's justified. I'm sticking up for the side that has far far far more evidence in its favour, and opposing the side that's spreading misinformation and trying to claim it as science.
Waniou137 2 years ago
"I'm sticking up for the side that has far far far more evidence in its favour, and opposing the side that's spreading misinformation and trying to claim it as science."
But that's what i am saying go to one of windley's sites, he talks about albedo and reflectivity all the time. I sincerely mean this.... you might be on the side that is ultimately "right" but you are also on the side that spreads misinformation to further their cause. At least Jarrah is sincere.
cchlaw 2 years ago
He may have a more lax attitude or something, but he is trying to show the "EXACT" same point. He is trying to prove that the reflective surface will light a shadow side with out the need for fill light. BUT HE DID THIS KNOWING THAT THE ALBEDO WAS MUCH HIGHER! He never mentions ANYTHING about the difference in albedo!!! WHY NOT???
cchlaw 2 years ago
"but it wasn't until we went to the moon and brought some back that we could confirm this."
irobots analysed the surface before 1969. visual and thermal radiation helped understand the geology of the moon too.
most hoax believers think is that nasa collected lunar meteorites from antarctica before 1969. there is no proof of this otherwise we'd all know it was fake, this is just based on the fact that a nazi bloke went on a trip to antarctica.
russia brought back samples with irobots in 1970.
adiohead 2 years ago
Only so much visual and thermal radiation can do.
Waniou137 2 years ago
08.31 i can still see a half of you
YamYubaba 2 years ago
Nasa really has special cameras. They cant expose stars yet they can expose second hand reflected light like nothing else.
play69ball 2 years ago 2
Ever looked up at the sky during the day? Can you see stars? No? It's because we have the sun there. That still happens on the moon. It's not the atmosphere, it's the presence of the sun.
Waniou137 2 years ago
"It's not the atmosphere, it's the presence of the sun."
I haven't been in the space, but I would think it's both the Sun and the atmosphere that prevemt us seeing stars. The Sun lightens up the whole sky so bright that we can't see stars from it.
But in space the Sun does not light the sky. It does offer so stong contrast, that if you look at the Sun's direction you probably couldn't see stars. But if look other direction, there's no lit sky nor bright Sun: stars should be easily visible.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
Actually, I hear it's partially the presence of the sun, but a large part of it is to do with the lighting conditions needed to take a picture in daylight. You need a relatively fast shutter speed, or else the sunlight will make everything blurry, but a shutter speed that quick won't be able to pick up starlight anyway, even with the sun behind you.
Waniou137 2 years ago
Absolutely correct. To try to emulate those conditions with a desklamp is just silly, let alone all the other errors. The exposures necessary were very similar to those on earth on a sunny day. How many stars do you see in the sky in such an image? They are STILL there.
chrlz904 2 years ago
Aurinkohirvi, Waniou137 is right.
Apollo astronauts had to use exposure time 1/125 or 1/250 sec and aperture f/5.6 to f/11 because it's so bright there during the day. They were not walking outside in darkness.
To capture stars, you would need to open your lens to f/2.8 and expose at least 30 seconds.
Surface of the Moon is about 50 thousand times brighter than stars and that's why you can't see them in Apollo images, just like you can't see stars in videos from Int. Space Station.
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
I can't figure out how you defend the point, it is the "presence of the Sun" that prevents us to see the stars.
The Sun is still there, when it is night time here in Earth! But it just does not lit the sky, and we can see the stars quite well.
We can also see for example Venus during the day time here from the Earth.
I know apparent magnitudes. The Full Moon is 28 328 times brighter than Sirius, the brightest star seen from Earth.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
Well, just to be accurate. Venus' apparent magnitude is -3,8 when brightest, and the faintest object visible during mid-day is -3,9. So, Venus ought to be 1.09 times brighter to be visible during mid day. So it disappears from sight mid-day, but well visible in the morning. Hence the name "morning star".
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
Just to be accurate, part 2. Oops! I used Venus' minimum apparent magnitude. At brightest it's -4,7 which would make it twice bright enough to be visible during the day time with naked eye.
But then, the apparent magnitudes are calculated as if there was NO atmosphere.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
So let me make my point again.
You can only see light, if you watch into the light source, or if it is reflected into your eye.
Let's say you are standing on the Moon in the shadow of LEM, so the Sun doesn't shine into your eyes. And you look up so that the Moon surface doesn't reflect light into your eyes, how could you NOT see (or photograph) the stars? What is there to reflect the sun's light into your eyes or into the camera? Certainly not the atmosphere.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
Except there are no photographs looking straight up. All of them have the capability for sunlight to be reflected into the camera from the sun. However, I have heard that, even on earth, if you find yourself in something like a well, provided it's deep enough, if you look up, you will see stars due to the lack of sunlight.
In any case, again, it's not so much the presence of the sun, just the short exposure time which cannot capture the relatively dim stars.
Waniou137 2 years ago
If you're talking the photography, then I agree, you need a certain exposure time to collect enough light for the stars to appear on the film.
But my point was, on the Moon or orbit you could SEE the stars better than night time Earth, if you look into a direction where there are no large reflecting surfaces (Eath or Moon) and are covered from straight sunlight. Point camera that direction: no light noise or atmosphere distortion. It would be much better than a night shot from Earth.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
Aurinkohirvi, do a simple experiment.
On clear night, take a properly exposed picture of the Moon (so you can see the "face" nicely), and then check if you can see any stars in the frame on that image.
You're partially right about Venus. It could be visible in the pictures, but barely, and only in bright phase.
Dynamic range of the film makes it impossible to capture everything in one shot, and remember, 40 years ago film had less capacity than today.
Talk to pro photographer for details.
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
Blisterhiker: You have problems reading what I write? In a few post already, I've said that bright surfaces would cause probelems with contrast, which makes it hard to see the stars. Which part of it you do not understand?
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
Again Aurinko, Waniou is right.
It's not about direction of your camera, it's about EXPOSURE.
Apollo astronauts had their cameras attached to front of their spacesuits, and they did not go to the Moon to take pictures at long exposures. That would require a TRIPOD. They didn't go there to photograph the stars or themselves all the time.
The had a job to do and they did it.
Stop buzzing around. It's boring already.
Read about it or talk to experienced photographer instead.
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
BlisterHiker: as I already said, I know it takes certain exposures to see the stars. You would probably have to change the exposure settings to caught them in the film from the LEM shadow as well.
But my point was about SEEING the stars. Waniou137 claimed that it was not because the atmosphere, but because Sun's existence why we cannot see the stars. Which is wrong, as everyone can see going out at night and looking up.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
OK. You should state more clearly what your point is, because people can confuse it with "no stars" argument abused daily by Lunar conspiracy theorists, who lack basic understanding of photography.
Of course, one can see the stars in space, even in sunlight, as long as they don't look in the Sun's direction or at bright objects.
People aboard International Space Station can see stars from the windows, but photographing them is difficult. Even ISS in microgravity is not 100% stationary.
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
I was thinking what I said was clear. I was wondering if it was read with a thought. Anyway...
There's been a lot of talk if one can see stars dayside Moon or in dayside Earth orbit, and that's what I stated my own opinion.
I'm not a photography expert and never claimed to be. I don't know if the Apollo astronauts could have catched the stars on film standing in a shadow, but I'm saying photographing stars from there should be possible, and it should be ideal conditions.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
Yeah it probably is possible to see stars in the right conditions on the moon and probably possible to photograph them too. I have a hunch one of the astronauts actually did make a comment about the stars while they were there, actually. I'm not too sure. But in any case, none of the photographs taken were in the ideal conditions to photograph stars. It's really not very easy, I tried it on Earth once in a fairly dark place and you couldn't see a thing.
Waniou137 2 years ago
The Moons surface is reflective.
The moon is 244,000 miles away.
And with just reflected sunlight, we can easily see it at night. & even sometimes during the day. Basic facts, would you agree?
Friends of Jarrah would rather believe him, than understand even the most basic observations of looking into the night sky and understand, We can see the moon BECAUSE of the reflective properties.
Or maybe the young Jarrah thinks the Moon in the night sky is a NASA special effect too!
jmjmartin 2 years ago
So are you claiming that Jarrah invented the Moon's reflectivity (albedo)? Why don't you go check it yourself. Plenty of sources that you can find from the Net.
If you go to space and look both the Moon and Earth, Earth is terribly much brighter than the Moon. If you went to the Moon, the ground would be quite dark to look at.
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
No Man, you missed the point!
Use your own eyes. Then apply what you see. Can you see the Moon or not?
Why do you see the Moon?
Jarrah makes excellent videos, I'm not questioning his data...Just his conclusions!
I'm just saying if an astral body (The Moon) can reflect light light 244,000 miles, then it must be reflective...Yes!
Jarrah is trying to prove it isn't.
You don't need ANY experiments to witness this, just basic common sense!
jmjmartin 2 years ago
jmjmartin wrote: "just basic common sense!"
Common sense may fool you here. This is a question of absolute and apparent brightness.
Imagine you dropped an A4 size piece of white paper on the Moon surface. Would the white paper be more reflecting than a rock surface? Sure! Would you see it from Earth? No. Why not? It's too small. Replace the white paper with a truck load of snow. Still you couldn't see it, because the AMOUNT of light it reflects into your eye would be so small!
Aurinkohirvi 2 years ago
All True!
But were not talking about reflecting all the way to the earth are we?
The reflected sunlight, in a vacuum (That means no diffusion,as in air, therefore much sharper) would be entirely suitable to illuminate the picures in question.
Plus the white suite of the astronaut taking the photograph IS a reflective factor in all the pictures.
jmjmartin 2 years ago
Totally agree JM.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Way to go Jarrah. Another blast crater blown on the surface of the propagandists minds.
Great arguments. However, I think it would have been more convincing if you used a brighter light than the car headlight. Still, none the less you've proved them hoaxers once again.
Prohoridzo 2 years ago 3
Your westinghouse/16mm dac comparison is very good, your outdoor night exposure in the other hand is ridiculous. So don't get me wrong the westinghouse/dac comparison do worth the watch overall , but your completly hallucinating nightshot experiment is to be removed. You can't seriously compare 7-10% reflectivity of the sun raw light , with the 7-10% reflected light on a 5-10% reflective surface. Even if the dac comparison do prove your point , your nightshot is simply wrong.
ScottrobertsAlIy014 2 years ago
Great job as always Jarrah! Excellent presentation of some very compelling evidence! Nicely done!
LunaCognita <