Quote:
|
It certainly isnt close enough to reflect light several thousands of metres to the LEM, how gullible do you really think I am?
|
This isn't a question of gullibility, but logic. If something is true, it's true. Empty space is filled with countless particles constantly being created and destroyed and the fabric of spacetime being torn in a quantum foam. Strange, but it seems to be true.
Quote:
|
If Armstrong is stood in shadow, that means that no light is penetrating that area - fullstop.
|
Let's try an experiment. Go outside and stand in the shade of a tree. You are in shadow, but there is still light reaching you. You are not totally devoid of light. The same thing applies to the lunar surface. You can have an object between you and the sun, but light is still bouncing off of the lunar surface and reaching you. This effect is similar to being outside on a moonlit, snowy night. You can see pretty well. Even standing in a room with walls and a floor painted dark gray or black, and having something between you and the sun, you will still be able to see something. The only place where there is complete shadow is inside a sealed box.
JayUtah said:
Quote:
|
Pretend, for the sake of argument, that the lunar surface is completely flat and level. Pretend also that it's a perfect Lambertian reflector -- i.e., that light is diffusely reflected in all directions from it. Now imagine yourself in the shadow of something big like the lunar module. From the height of your eyes you can see beyond the shadow to the lit portions of the surface. That's the same as saying that light from the lit portions of the surface reaches your eyes -- and therefore your face. Someone looking at your face would see it illuminated by that light.
|
And he's right. You seem to be ignoring his point.
Quote:
|
So what if its bright on the horizon - how far do you think that the horizon is away from the LEM?
|
No more than a few tens of meters, actually - the LM's shadow did not extend very far.
Quote:
|
If your saying that his top half is lit whilst his bottom half isnt, why cant we see this in the NASA photos?
|
We're not saying that. Just because he is in the shadow of the LM does not mean he is in total darkness. I challenge you to explain how that would be possible. How could the astronauts be totally free of light on the relatively bright lunar surface simply becasue direct sunlight is not impinging on them? This is another of the hoaxist arguments that I fail to see why it proves that it was hoax. There simply is no way to be in total shadow if you are on a surface with ANY reflective properties that has sunlight falling on it.
Quote:
|
It certainly isnt close enough to reflect light several thousands of metres to the LEM, how gullible do you really think I am?
|
a) The LM shadow was not several kilometers long. Even if it totally blocked light out all the way to the horizon, there would still be light from the sides. Also, surfaces certainly can reflect light from many kilometers away. If they couldn't, then how could you see views from the tops of mountains? Your statement is akin to saying that you can't see mountains over the horizon because the light can't travel far enough. It's horrible physics with no basis in fact or logic. It's not even pseudophysics; it just makes no sense. The Moon reflects light onto our surface, even though it is a quarter of a million miles away and has to travel through our atmosphere. Your argument simply holds no water.
You also have not replied to our comments
here. You can't just accuse of us of one thing, and then when it is debunked ignore it and move on to something else.