At sceptimatic's request...

My point is; if the people of Earth can see the moon lit up like a beacon, then the actornauts should be lit up like beacons and the moon pictures should be as bright as hell, not in spotlight. You know this and so does any other right thinking person.

Take a look at ANY of the crap moon images and you see a dark grey moonset with spotlight areas. This would be impossible, given what we see from Earth of the moon and bearing in mind that the actornauts are supposedly on this part of the moon.
What's the excuse for this?

A failure on your part to understand some crucial points on size, reflectivity, and exposure settings, among other things



All of the Apollo missions landed near the edge of the lit portion of the moon's surface. As you can see in this photo, the angle of the sun is quite low, resulting in long shadows and relatively low lighting. Somewhat like early morning or late afternoon here on earth.

Anyway, I'm getting tired, so I'll catch up with y'all later. Try not to ramble too much while I'm away, I hate having to dredge my way through pages and pages of waffle to make sure I haven't missed anything.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 04:38:59 AM

You people still haven't grasped what I'm on about. Maybe deliberate.

We get it. You do believe the moon is a sphere or nobody will believe whatever you say.

By the time I'm finished with this moon landing garbage, plenty of people will know what I'm saying. The truth!
Denial by you or your friends has no bearing on any of this.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 04:27:30 AM

My point is; if the people of Earth can see the moon lit up like a beacon, then the actornauts should be lit up like beacons and the moon pictures should be as bright as hell, not in spotlight. You know this and so does any other right thinking person.

Take a look at ANY of the crap moon images and you see a dark grey moonset with spotlight areas. This would be impossible, given what we see from Earth of the moon and bearing in mind that the actornauts are supposedly on this part of the moon.
What's the excuse for this?

A failure on your part to understand some crucial points on size, reflectivity, and exposure settings, among other things



All of the Apollo missions landed near the edge of the lit portion of the moon's surface. As you can see in this photo, the angle of the sun is quite low, resulting in long shadows and relatively low lighting. Somewhat like early morning or late afternoon here on earth.

Anyway, I'm getting tired, so I'll catch up with y'all later. Try not to ramble too much while I'm away, I hate having to dredge my way through pages and pages of waffle to make sure I haven't missed anything.

The edge of the lit portion. 

I'm not interested in what N.A.S.A says they landed on, I'm interested in what people would see of the moon from Earth as these cretins were supposedly on it.

Quote from: Scintific Method on February 28, 2014, 04:47:07 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 04:27:30 AM

My point is; if the people of Earth can see the moon lit up like a beacon, then the actornauts should be lit up like beacons and the moon pictures should be as bright as hell, not in spotlight. You know this and so does any other right thinking person.

Take a look at ANY of the crap moon images and you see a dark grey moonset with spotlight areas. This would be impossible, given what we see from Earth of the moon and bearing in mind that the actornauts are supposedly on this part of the moon.
What's the excuse for this?

A failure on your part to understand some crucial points on size, reflectivity, and exposure settings, among other things



All of the Apollo missions landed near the edge of the lit portion of the moon's surface. As you can see in this photo, the angle of the sun is quite low, resulting in long shadows and relatively low lighting. Somewhat like early morning or late afternoon here on earth.

Anyway, I'm getting tired, so I'll catch up with y'all later. Try not to ramble too much while I'm away, I hate having to dredge my way through pages and pages of waffle to make sure I haven't missed anything.

The edge of the lit portion. 

I'm not interested in what N.A.S.A says they landed on, I'm interested in what people would see of the moon from Earth as these cretins were supposedly on it.

Ok Do you have a question?

The moon is a very harsh area with the condition not the same as earth. Pictures will be very deceiving.

The moon is a very harch area with the condition no the same as earth. Pictures will be very deceiving.

Why are you guys bothering with this twit?  he can't hold a coherant argument.. its like arguing with the taliban that women should have equal rights...

pointless.

The moon is a very harch area with the condition no the same as earth. Pictures will be very deceiving.

How do you mean, ' pictures will be very deceiving'?
If it's lit up like a beacon, it's lit up like a beacon and it shows none of this is ANY photos.

Quote from: Starman on February 28, 2014, 05:06:10 AM

The moon is a very harch area with the condition no the same as earth. Pictures will be very deceiving.

Why are you guys bothering with this twit?  he can't hold a coherant argument.. its like arguing with the taliban that women should have equal rights...

pointless.

I am not the one that brought up the picture of the astronaut on the moon.

Quote from: Starman on February 28, 2014, 05:06:10 AM

The moon is a very harch area with the condition no the same as earth. Pictures will be very deceiving.

How do you mean, ' pictures will be very deceiving'?
If it's lit up like a beacon, it's lit up like a beacon and it shows none of this is ANY photos.

You are going to define "beacon" to me. A flashlight shown a mile away can be a beacon or the same flashlight shown in your eye can be a beacon also.

Quote from: glokta on February 28, 2014, 03:13:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 01:57:56 AM

Quote from: glokta on February 28, 2014, 01:49:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 12:58:14 AM

Here's something for all you right minded thinking people. You know! The ones that can actually think for themselves.

Go outside on a night time and look at the moon. You can see that it's lit up like a beacon, right?
Every time the moon is out it's lit up like this, do you all agree? Obviously you do.
You also know that when you do not see the moon, you do know that someone else around the world is seeing it lit up, right?
Basically it's lit up at ALL times, somewhere around the world; which means that the moon is lit up like a beacon, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and so on....and the actornauts are supposedly stood on this part.
 
Ok, that being said; think about this: Go and look at any moon landing picture that you want to and you will notice that it's DARK and all you see are spot light lit surfaces in them.
When you look at the spotlight lit surfaces, think about the GLOWING moon you see with your own eyes on Earth.

We know that the actornauts were on the part of the  moon that faces the Earth, as N.A.S.A shows us in their amazing photo's. 
We also know that the moon faces the Earth from one side only at ALL times.
If the moon landing happened and the moon is what it is, then your logic and common sense should immediately tell you that the actornauts should, at ALL times be lit up like beacons.

I'll repeat: Take a look at the moon and see how brightly it's lit. There should not be spot light sun spots, it should be so bright that it would be blinding at best and basically turn the actornauts into crispy bacon at worst.
Don't listen to the bull crap that the moon has no atmosphere and so it doesn't scatter light. Once again, "take a look at the brightly lit moon."

So just briefly, you don't agree with this:

Quote

Lunar dust reflects light in a manner similar to street signs or
wet grass – a significant amount
of light is reflected back at the
light source (the Sun in this case)
instead of being scattered in all
directions as Earth sand would do.This can be observed on Earth, as it explains why the full
Moon is much more than twice as bright as a half Moon. This effect explains hot spots in
photos that contain the
photographer's own shadow.

Read what I said and absorb it. Don't look for the answers that are obviously given out to sway peoples minds away. Look at what I've just typed and use your own brain to see what I'm saying.

Do you realise how reductive this is if you yourself refuse to read and absorb the information given in response?

Try giving a normal answer then instead of moaning.

? ? ? I gave you an answer. You moaned at it. Take a second to think before you reply to posts. Just and idea.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 05:28:30 AM

Quote from: Starman on February 28, 2014, 05:06:10 AM

The moon is a very harch area with the condition no the same as earth. Pictures will be very deceiving.

How do you mean, ' pictures will be very deceiving'?
If it's lit up like a beacon, it's lit up like a beacon and it shows none of this is ANY photos.

You are going to define "beacon" to me. A flashlight shown a mile away can be a beacon or the same flashlight shown in your eye can be a beacon also.

Oh, ok. How about illuminated like a lightbulb then. Do we really have to go down this path?
What is your goal? Is it to find out the truth or suppress it?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 03:14:15 AM

Quote from: glokta on February 28, 2014, 03:13:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 01:57:56 AM

Quote from: glokta on February 28, 2014, 01:49:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 12:58:14 AM

Here's something for all you right minded thinking people. You know! The ones that can actually think for themselves.

Go outside on a night time and look at the moon. You can see that it's lit up like a beacon, right?
Every time the moon is out it's lit up like this, do you all agree? Obviously you do.
You also know that when you do not see the moon, you do know that someone else around the world is seeing it lit up, right?
Basically it's lit up at ALL times, somewhere around the world; which means that the moon is lit up like a beacon, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and so on....and the actornauts are supposedly stood on this part.
 
Ok, that being said; think about this: Go and look at any moon landing picture that you want to and you will notice that it's DARK and all you see are spot light lit surfaces in them.
When you look at the spotlight lit surfaces, think about the GLOWING moon you see with your own eyes on Earth.

We know that the actornauts were on the part of the  moon that faces the Earth, as N.A.S.A shows us in their amazing photo's. 
We also know that the moon faces the Earth from one side only at ALL times.
If the moon landing happened and the moon is what it is, then your logic and common sense should immediately tell you that the actornauts should, at ALL times be lit up like beacons.

I'll repeat: Take a look at the moon and see how brightly it's lit. There should not be spot light sun spots, it should be so bright that it would be blinding at best and basically turn the actornauts into crispy bacon at worst.
Don't listen to the bull crap that the moon has no atmosphere and so it doesn't scatter light. Once again, "take a look at the brightly lit moon."

So just briefly, you don't agree with this:

Quote

Lunar dust reflects light in a manner similar to street signs or
wet grass – a significant amount
of light is reflected back at the
light source (the Sun in this case)
instead of being scattered in all
directions as Earth sand would do.This can be observed on Earth, as it explains why the full
Moon is much more than twice as bright as a half Moon. This effect explains hot spots in
photos that contain the
photographer's own shadow.

Read what I said and absorb it. Don't look for the answers that are obviously given out to sway peoples minds away. Look at what I've just typed and use your own brain to see what I'm saying.

Do you realise how reductive this is if you yourself refuse to read and absorb the information given in response?

Try giving a normal answer then instead of moaning.

? ? ? I gave you an answer. You moaned at it. Take a second to think before you reply to posts. Just and idea.

Not good enough!

I believe I understand what you're saying, scepti; that the moon is seemingly too bright (as seen from earth) to result in seemingly "dim" pictures directly from the lunar surface, yes?

However, if you look at the brightness per surface area, what we observe from earth is the entire lunar surface compressed to a tiny spot, obviously looking very bright. Imagine diluting that observed light thousands upon thousands of times onto a much larger (perceived) area as when standing on the surface. Then it begins to make sense, at least to a scientist.

Yes?

I believe I understand what you're saying, scepti; that the moon is seemingly too bright (as seen from earth) to result in seemingly "dim" pictures directly from the lunar surface, yes?

However, if you look at the brightness per surface area, what we observe from earth is the entire lunar surface compressed to a tiny spot, obviously looking very bright. Imagine diluting that observed light thousands upon thousands of times onto a much larger (perceived) area as when standing on the surface. Then it begins to make sense, at least to a scientist.

Yes?

No!

If you want to see it that way, then fair enough. How about having a real good think about the sun in those pictures. You are told how big it is and all the rest. You can see the full on so called sun in the Apollo pictures and yet we have a spot light. It's impossible, unless, it was actually a spotlight, which it was. A stage one.

No? Why not?

I think you have to elaborate on what you believe the observed difference between the sun and a spotlight would be... Essentially, the difference is small. At least in my opinion.

No? Why not?

I think you have to elaborate on what you believe the observed difference between the sun and a spotlight would be... Essentially, the difference is small. At least in my opinion.

If you can honestly accept a supposed 1000,000 + km in diameter sun can shine onto a supposed little moon and light up a surface in a spotlight fashion then go right ahead.
Is your purpose here to question stuff to find the truth or to debunk anything that goes against mainstream science?

What I want to know is: why aren't there any photos of the moon taken on the moon???!!!?    It is right up there in the sky on earth, so it should be on the moon!   Why don’t you have a long hard think about what I’m saying?  Then you will see the truth, no matter how fucking retarded it seems.

You are all brainwashed by NASA lies and indoctrinations …..



*sigh* I was going to write up a long post of this style shite, but I really can’t do it.  The stupid hurts too much.

What I want to know is: why aren't there any photos of the moon taken on the moon???!!!?    It is right up there in the sky on earth, so it should be on the moon!   Why don’t you have a long hard think about what I’m saying?  Then you will see the truth, no matter how fucking retarded it seems.

You are all brainwashed by NASA lies and indoctrinations …..



*sigh* I was going to write up a long post of this style shite, but I really can’t do it.  The stupid hurts too much.

Don't worry kid, you'll get the hang of it in time.

Quote from: SirSpankalot on February 28, 2014, 05:17:15 AM

Quote from: Starman on February 28, 2014, 05:06:10 AM

The moon is a very harch area with the condition no the same as earth. Pictures will be very deceiving.

Why are you guys bothering with this twit?  he can't hold a coherant argument.. its like arguing with the taliban that women should have equal rights...

pointless.

I am not the one that brought up the picture of the astronaut on the moon.

I didn't mean you. I mean why are you bothering with skepti?

If you can honestly accept a supposed 1000,000 + km in diameter sun can shine onto a supposed little moon and light up a surface in a spotlight fashion then go right ahead.
Is your purpose here to question stuff to find the truth or to debunk anything that goes against mainstream science?

I still don't follow what you mean with spotlight vs. sun. Are you talking intensity of the light? The size of the moon is irrelevant, if it was the size of earth or even bigger the light per surface area would still be the same.

As for my purpose here, I guess I feel an urge to debunk fringe science disguised as real science to explain a flat earth. I'm all for being open and critical, I have been that way my entire life, even questioning what my professors have been saying, and investigating facts on my own with an objective point of view. But there is a big difference between applying rational thought and reason to come up with different explanatins to phenomena etc., than to make things up that cannot exist within our laws of nature only to please fantasies.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 06:15:50 AM

If you can honestly accept a supposed 1000,000 + km in diameter sun can shine onto a supposed little moon and light up a surface in a spotlight fashion then go right ahead.
Is your purpose here to question stuff to find the truth or to debunk anything that goes against mainstream science?

I still don't follow what you mean with spotlight vs. sun. Are you talking intensity of the light? The size of the moon is irrelevant, if it was the size of earth or even bigger the light per surface area would still be the same.

As for my purpose here, I guess I feel an urge to debunk fringe science disguised as real science to explain a flat earth. I'm all for being open and critical, I have been that way my entire life, even questioning what my professors have been saying, and investigating facts on my own with an objective point of view. But there is a big difference between applying rational thought and reason to come up with different explanatins to phenomena etc., than to make things up that cannot exist within our laws of nature only to please fantasies.

Well, like I said. If you think a supposed sun can produce a small lit up area like a spotlight, then fair enough.

Ooooh, size of the illuminated area then! I see. Well, I don't believe that, that would be silly. It must light up roughly half of the moons surface at any given time. Except in cases of lunar eclipse, of course. Did anyone claim otherwise? I have read through most of the pages, but I might have missed that.

Ooooh, size of the illuminated area then! I see. Well, I don't believe that, that would be silly. It must light up roughly half of the moons surface at any given time. Except in cases of lunar eclipse, of course. Did anyone claim otherwise? I have read through most of the pages, but I might have missed that.

Nah, I don't think you will have missed anything. Like I said, you're entitled to what you believe.

Quote from: Kebab on February 28, 2014, 07:01:52 AM

Ooooh, size of the illuminated area then! I see. Well, I don't believe that, that would be silly. It must light up roughly half of the moons surface at any given time. Except in cases of lunar eclipse, of course. Did anyone claim otherwise? I have read through most of the pages, but I might have missed that.

Nah, I don't think you will have missed anything. Like I said, you're entitled to what you believe.

Are you replying about the tv stations?

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 07:04:54 AM

Quote from: Kebab on February 28, 2014, 07:01:52 AM

Ooooh, size of the illuminated area then! I see. Well, I don't believe that, that would be silly. It must light up roughly half of the moons surface at any given time. Except in cases of lunar eclipse, of course. Did anyone claim otherwise? I have read through most of the pages, but I might have missed that.

Nah, I don't think you will have missed anything. Like I said, you're entitled to what you believe.

Are you replying about the tv stations?

I'm a little bit worried about you. You're like someone that pops up behind you, even when you think you got away from them in anotehr country or something. 
I'll go and have a look. 

This is a very interesting video. Have a good look at it and tell me what you think.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#

Funny how every scepti thread turns into an absolute train wreck.

Rather than "funny"  I'm thinking it's more like a total waste of the site's bandwidth (and other forum members').  In fact the pseudo-scientific drivel that constitutes 99% of his postings actually do more harm to the flat earth theorists than all the opposing viewpoints form all the round earth proponents combined.

I'm actually surprised that sceptimatic's comments haven't been relegated to the Complete Nonsense forum months ago.

The majority of other flat earthers at least acknowledge the basic tenets of mass, energy, force, time, radiation, optics, pressure, length etc (although with much broader defining parameters than the round earthers) whereas sceptimatic seems to just be making up his own bizarre definitions of all these things as he goes along.  I'm sure most folks remember his weird claim to have discovered something he called "denpressure".

Denpressure was something never explicitly defined by sceptimatic—it just existed, and always had.  It seemed (although I'm not absolutely sure of this) to consist of some inexplicable combination of two totally dissimilar entities, one being density, and the other being pressure.  Sceptimatic claimed that denpressure was in actuality what—for centuries—millions of scientists the world over have termed "gravity".

This is the sort of dross that people here who are looking for an intelligent debate have to put up with from people such as sceptimatic.

Thankfully—like most of his bizarre theories—denpressure simply sunk out of sight below the horizon, never to be seen or heard of again.

—Or did it?
 
 

This is a very interesting video. Have a good look at it and tell me what you think.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#

They mentioned their hands were soar and not bruised. Because the suit was pressured the gloves wanted to stay straight like blowing in a surgical glove. In other words the suit was stiff and it was tiring to be in it.

I still don't follow what you mean with spotlight vs. sun. Are you talking intensity of the light? The size of the moon is irrelevant, if it was the size of earth or even bigger the light per surface area would still be the same.

Sceptimatic has absolutely no idea at all about the propagation, reflection or refraction of light.  His knowledge of photonics could be engraved on the head of a pin.  If you attempt to "follow" what he means by any of his bizarre, self-perpetuated pseudo-theories you'll risk losing your sanity.

If you held up a ping-pong ball and a basketball in full sunlight here on earth, sceptimatic would try and convince you (because he believes so) that each would receive a differing amount of photons per cm² of their respective surfaces.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2014, 07:46:25 AM

This is a very interesting video. Have a good look at it and tell me what you think.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#

They mentioned their hands were soar and not bruised. Because the suit was pressured the gloves wanted to stay straight like blowing in a surgical glove. In other words the suit was stiff and it was tiring to be in it.

Try looking at the video, you might learn something.