Anyone who's ever photographed with glass in the picture knows that you don't ever see "purely" through the glass. There is always some scatter or reflection. Whether the glow in the CM windows is scatter or reflection or both, it just doesn't make sense to expect to see only pure black through the window.
The NASAScam author's clear inability to employ even basic reasoning and to mistake insults for facts is certainly one of the most annoying aspects of his contribution to this question. I can't see why anyone takes him seriously. Verbal violence is such a turn-off, even if you agree with what's being said.
Luminance of the lunar surface is only partly the issue. From earth, even from a distance, we see thousands of square miles of reflector. If you're actually on the lunar surface you only get a few square meters of reflector. That's what makes the difference.
The moonrock argument is a perfect example of -- can I say it? -- a deranged mind. The ability of evidence to support one's conclusion is directly proportional to its potential to falsify that same conclusion. To simply postulate a Magic Moonrock Making Machine (whatever a "radiation oven" is) is really grasping at straws. Let's say you take an earth rock and irradiate it. Do you get a moon rock? (Which is to say, do you get a rock that looks like an Apollo sample?) No, you get an irradiated earth rock. Geologists can easily tell the difference.
The prevalence of computers in daily life has given everyone the notion that he understands them intimately, and that the only computers possible are the ones with which he has direct experience. Embedded systems (e.g., flight control systems) are vastly different than the desktops and laptops, and even PDAs, that we use today.
BTW, the AGC could indeed add two numbers, but "multiply" was implemented as a subroutine.
|