I saw someone mention that we can't afford to take measurements because it would make them poor by a few thousand dollars. A simple glass prism for around $5 and a piece of black paper will tell you in a few minutes that the light spectrum (frequencies, wavelengths) of sunlight and moon light are very similar, except for some of the energy is absorbed by the lunar surface. That's how they guessed what the moon was made of before they got there. Same way that we try to figure out which Kepler planets have water... just a bit fancier equipment than the above.
A $2 flashlight and a pair of balls (tennis, golf, softball, hardball, etc) and a few hand-sketched diagrams would disprove many of the FE assertions, if those have the determination to want to prove it to themselves.
A rocket can be made for 100-200$ that will go up to the top of the atmosphere, with a video camera. Many amateurs have already done this, and posted their videos. See one random example (more expensive example but cool video)
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">I DO use a 50% grey filter when observing the moon in a telescope, because the dark-adapted eye at night mildly freaks out when the light level goes from 0.001 lux of a dark overcast moonless night, to 1 lux full moonlight (compared to up to 100 k lux for sunlight). This happens just as easily on a sunny day going from inside to outside. Another reason for the filter is that my telescope makes my 1/8 inch eyeball opening into a 12" one, turning moonlight into sunlight. See more at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LuxThere are many newly found effects that occur in the upper atmosphere / ionosphere / earths magnetic field, as well as known very subtle shifts in gravity caused by lunar orbit. Whats strange is that animals seem to be aware of it. (Look up Society of Amateur Radio Astronomers or SARA website for do-it-yourself ideas). I don't know that we have any proper understanding of these fields on the brain, mostly since there aren't matching known frequency sensitivities (ie light vs electrical vs magnetic vs gravitational) with the brain. BTW the brain is already optically opaque, so I am not sure how moonlight can affect the brain above and beyond the optical sensitivity of the skin (mostly to infrared and ultraviolet as heat and dangerous biological energy) and the eyes (super-narrow band of visible light frequencies ony). The moon emits so little infrared (its cold light), and almost no UV. If anything, the human nervous system is known to be sensitive to the near-field electrical effects (ie inch(s)) - I can speak on this because I am a patent co-holder on the TENS chronic pain easing device. I don't know about any electromagnetic field (light, etc) that has any other impact.
Apparently Hitler did experiments of intense E and M fields impact on humans, found that his electrical bill was crazy, and didn't find much. Fields strong enough to crumple the tin hat. I didn't research this, but remember this from a documentary a long time ago.
Last week I got to look at the massive beam focussing and acceleration facilities at Stanford (SLAC). Those guys can tell you stories about all the fun energies they play with, and the hundreds of experiments they did. I wish I had the time to absorb it all.
BTW infrared is also detectable by common cell phone and pocket cameras. Take a cellphone photo of a security camera with a halo of IR lights around it. These photos are not as good as the ones the military uses, cause we need to keep peoples warm boobs from showing through their clothing, so the cameras have built-in IR block filters. These can be removed in many cameras, like my 40D, which allows use to take pictures like
www.deepskycolors.com - all the pink colors in the photos are mixed from IR-only images taken by expensive IR cameras, by a neighbor friend of mine. His first photos were taken with a 40D as well. I also have nice sets of lunar eclipse photos taken with telescope, as well as a few of Venus whipping across the sun, surrounded by a few sunspots. If you ask, I will take the time to post them.
Another thought, why would plants not take advantage of moonlight and harness the energy just as they have done with sunlight? We now understand that plants' light energy absorption to be a chemical reaction that is so sophisticated that we can't easily recreate it ourselves. I would postulate, because the only energy coming from the moon isn't worth bothering with because its too weak. You are with me on the theory that plants have spent many millions of years evolving and without them all animals and most bacteria would die of starvation?
Anyways, its late, will continue another day. I am happy to share hand-measurable details and methods with anyone who wishes to ask/discuss. I am a detailed oriented person, and if you feel uncomfortable with what I say, I can leave. But you know what that would mean...