Contradiction seems to take place on this forum quite a bit ...

Not really. What typically happens is that some people who come here try to apply very rigid interpretations and definitions on what people write in an effort to create the appearance of contradiction. They feel that the mere appearance of contradiction in their opponents somehow makes their own ideas seem less, well, wacky and their own expertise somewhat less pretended.

Strangely enough I knew someone who's primary mode of argumentation was just that. Since you know the Cosmic Conspiracies writers intimately I suppose it's only natural that you have adopted "Cosmic" Dave Cosnette's style of debate: hide your own ignorance by trying to manufacture a contradiction in your opponents.

Who am I to believe?

Neither, absolutely and in all conceivable situations. The problem is that you're trying to boil everything down to some simple rule that you can apply to all situations. Why do you think lighting is a matter of simple rules and necessarily simple outcomes? If the transfer of energy via interreflection were so simple and straightforward, I'd be out of a job. I make the supercomputers that real scientists and real engineers need to use in order to determine those interreflections to the accuracy at which their applications require that data. The radiant heat transfer problem (which is identical to the diffuse interreflection problem) for a Boeing 701 satellite requires several days' computation on one of our most powerful computers. Does this sound like something that boils down (pun intended) to a simple rule or two?

Anyway, back to the shadow problem. Pictures on the Moon of rocks with shadows show no detail within the shadow whatsoever, and the same thing should be the case with the shadow cast by the LM.

David Percy's argument, and he should know better. The key is that you're looking at pictures of rocks. All the Apollo pictures were taken with different exposure settings designed to bring out whatever was most interesting, most important, or because the astronaut forgot to adjust the camera. Armstrong intentionally overexposed the Aldrin egress photographs because that's what photographers do when they want the picture to depict what happens in shadow. The brighter portions of the photograph are "blown out" in that case. In other cases the astronauts set the exposure to properly capture the sunlit portions. This renders the shadows black, or nearly so. The answer is not that certain photographs necessarily depict how the shadows should look, and the others must necessarily be fake. The answer is that that's how photography works.

David Percy should know better first because he's a photographer, and exposure should be second nature to him. I understand exactly what causes the difference in the appearance of shadows in different Apollo photographs, and so does anyone who has much experience with anything but a point-and-shoot camera -- and that's a lot of people. David Percy claims to be just such a person, so either he is grossly inflating his qualifications or else he has "forgotten" to tell the reader about that feature of photography which quite adequately explains the difference he says proves fakery.

And second, David Percy bases a large portion of his argument on the narrow exposure latitude of the film used to take these photographs. He doesn't tell the reader that the result of narrow latitude would be black shadows when exposing for sunlit details, and saturated sunlight areas when exposing for shadow. Since you seem to be on the warpath for inconsistencies in arguments, can you reconcile David Percy's optical density arguments? I can't. (Neither can he; we asked.)

The Sun is the source of light and it is being cut off by the LM. If I was standing in a room at night behind a door in a room just illuminated by moonlight, you would have a hard time making out any details of what I was wearing, etc.

Moonlight from 250,000 miles away is quite a bit different than moonlight from 3 meters away. Inverse square law. Radiant power. Luminance. Did you look these things up like we asked you to?

And as for JayUtahs, attempt of posting the picture with the astronauts feet in darkness, perhaps he could look closer and see that the astronauts boots are actually grey and not white, giving the impression that they are in shadow.

Having studied Apollo space suits personally with actual specimens, I am quite familiar with what they look like and what they're made of. If you will direct your attention up from the silver (not gray) Chromel leggings to the white Beta cloth shins you will see that they are darker than the same Beta cloth at Aldrin's flank. This is even more apparent in scans made from the master dupe transparencies.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/research/apo...11/40/5869.jpg

The high-resolution scan is taken from a print that was "pushed" during its creation. In this lower-resolution photo, which has been processed less in the darkroom, the difference is much clearer. The level of illumination visible across the vertical dimension of Aldrin's body is fully consistent with being lit from the portions of the lunar surface that lie to either side of the LM's shadow, and to a lesser extent by Armstrong's space suit.

In fact, I've shown this photo to professional lighting designers and they can show me many clues by which we know that the light is from a large diffuse light source below the subject. There is copious evidence that the lunar surface in the foreground and background (from this angle) is the main fill light source, and no evidence whatsoever that any sort of artificial fill lighting, as David Percy suggests, is true.

In fact, there's plenty of evidence that David Percy's and David Groves' theory cannot be true. David Groves claims, based on some photogrammetry with inflated estimates of precision, that he can locate his postulated "light" with respect to the camera -- a couple of feet to its right. Unfortunately that sets up a "near-phase" lighting situation which is all too familiar to snap-shooters that use the integrated too-bright flash attachments on their cameras. You get very tell-tale shadows in that case. And in a scene as complex as Aldrin's egress, the complete absence of any near-phase shadows is suspicious.

"But a big light will cast soft shadows," say the conspiracists. True, but big lights don't have precise locations. So there's another contradiction for you to explain away in the Aulis work. How can a big soft light have been located with mere inches of precision via photogrammetry?

Why would such a large vehicle such as the LM only be able to cast a small shadow which travels only a few inches above ground level anyway?

I wasn't aware that shadows were able to exist a few inches above the ground. All the shadows I've seen are fairly attached to the surfaces upon which I view them. However, I do confess to seeing a detached shadow once in a production of Peter Pan on which I served as a technical crew chief, but I don't consider that very evidentiary.

IF I was in the shadow of a small house it would completely restrict the sunlight from reaching my body, not just my socks!

You seem completely ignorant on the subject of indirect lighting. I work with it extensively on theatrical stages from an empirical standpoint. And then at work I deal with it from a computational standpoint in the form of radiative heat transfer.

I have explained the principles to you. I have even suggested some experiments you can perform to convince yourself I'm not blowing smoke. Did you perform those experiments? If not, why not?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Just to clarify, what I believe santa meant by the above ground argument is if you consider the ground one leg of a triangle, and the object the other leg then a shadow is sort of cast as a hypotaneuse of the triangle.

e.g. if you stand right next to your house then you should totally be in shadow, but as you move farther away from your house, to the edge of the shadow, the shadow will slide down your body.

I am putting words in Santa's mouth, but I believe that was his intention.

Just to clarify, what I believe santa meant by the above ground argument is if you consider the ground one leg of a triangle, and the object the other leg then a shadow is sort of cast as a hypotaneuse of the triangle.

Okay, I see that. I don't understand the point he's trying to make, so I hope he'll elaborate on it. Rather than continue whomping on him, it seemed kinder to introduce a little humor.

In case it's not obvious, Santa does not understand the concept of a form factor (illumination) which is identical to the concept of configuration factor (radiant heat transfer). It has nothing to do with whether one is standing partially in shadow and partially in sunlight.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Santa,

You seem to be having a problem with understanding how reflected light could illuminate something in a shadow. So here's a little example problem for you.

As you have stated, the albedo of the lunar surface is 7%. That's actually on the lower end of the scale. The albedo at the Apollo 11 site was more like 11%, but I'll use your number for this example. On the moon, the amount of light illuminating the surface is on the order 1400 W/m2. Therefore the surface reflects 98 W/m2 of sunlight. It is important to note that about 70% of the reflected light is reflected diffusely. In other words in all directions.

Now lets consider a standard room in a home, say 3m long, 3m in depth and 2.8 m high. The total surface area of the walls, floor and ceiling is 51.6 square meters. A room of this size is easily lighted by a 100 W light bulb, but the amount of visible light is 25% of the total power, so the room is illuminated by 25 W of light. Doing the math, the walls reflect only 0.5 W/m2, (if they are perfect reflectors) yet you can still see them.

Therefore it is perfectly reasonable that with almost a 100W/m2 of light being reflected off the surface even if a small amount is reflected back into a shadowed area, you or a camera can see it.

I'll get some real numbers as to how much light is an object receives from the lunar surface. I can tell you this, its more like 25W/m2.

I can't add anything more that hasn't already be said, other than: look outside for yourself before making blatantly untrue claims about shadows and such.

Also, there's a quote which I think fits nicely here:

__________________
Neither love nor money makes the world go round.
Unfortunately, we're down to about 17 ounces of the highly unstable stuff that does.

Just one further point. Armstrong doesn't say he can't see his feet. He says he can't see where he's putting his feet. With the ground dark and dimly lit, plus the fact that it's a completely unknown surface, he's being supremely cautious as to where he's stepping. Remember, he's the first guy ever to attempt to place his weight on his feet on the Moon. After the 'One Small Step" he even seems reluctant to let go of the ladder till he's tried the surface for firmness a few times. Buzz comes down the ladder and armed with the reassurance that Neil hasn't sunk down to his knees and got stuck, jumps around like a big kid to really test the surface.

__________________
Things are only impossible until they're not!-Captain Jean-Luc Picard

Admin of the new and very much improved Apollohoax forum

Santa, I have been reading some of your posts. You ask a lot of questions, but you don't seem to be listening to the answers. You are making a tremendous number of logical fallacies, as JayUtah has pointed out. You also don't seem to be looking into the questions you ask; you are repeating well-known and well-debunked claims.

We have had many, many hoax-trolls on this board over the years. I would strongly urge you to answer the questions asked of you, since they are not only relevant, but many cut to the core of your claims.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

It's tricky to judge between two people stating different facts; one guideline is to look at their credentials, but a better one is to work out the logic for yourself.

I'll admit to having little knowledge of Apollo itself. My speciality is physics, quantum mechanics and atom physics to be precise (electron orbitals, QM derivation of chemical properties and such). What I tried to do was put things in layman's terms; the attempt may have been slightly off-center from the real thing, and I think jrkeller did a better job of putting it in absolute terms. Illumination and such is a tricky subject; to do it properly requires a lot of calculation, but putting it qualitatively gives us this:

The light illuminating the lunar surface comes from direct sunlight. This amounts to 1400 W/m², most of which is absorbed, but about 11% is reflected, or about 150 W/m². This is the "upper limit" of the light that we'll capture in a camera or see with our eyes, but most of it is reflected straight back, so only about 110 W/m² is diffusely reflected light. (I hope I interpreted you right here, jrkeller)

The light illuminating the shadowed side of the LEM and the astronauts comes from this reflected sunlight, so we have a much weaker light source to start with. I believe this is where your criticism originates, but note that there's still quite a bit of light illuminating them - not a lot in comparison to direct sunlight, but enough. Now, the actual illuminating light will depend a lot on how much surface is bouncing light towards them, so it's tricky to find an absolute number for this light source. Also, this is an area light source, so the shadows will be softer and less well-defined than those from the sun. Photographers are very familiar with the concept of area lights; putting up reflecting screens or "umbrellas" is a standard technique, and the reflection off the lunar surface gives the same effect.

Now, for the shadowed parts of the ground. The shadows aren't in line of sight from most of the lit parts of the surface, so very little light will be reaching them. In fact, I think most of the lighting for them would be the reflected light from the astronauts and the LEM - once more, most of it absorbed. This is what I was talking about - the blackness of the shadows comes from a combination of very little light illuminating the shadowed surface, and most of it being absorbed. Most of the sunlight hitting the other parts of the surface is absorbed as well, but since this is so much more in absolute terms, it's still enough to show up bright in photos, and provide lighting for the astronauts.

My estimate is that after all these round-trips, the reflected light from the surface shadows is on the order of 1 W/m² or less. When seen in contrast with directly lit parts of the surface, it is no wonder that they appear black.

Note that Armstrong is talking about his "footing", not his feet. My interpretation of this is that he's having trouble seeing what the ground looks like, since the contrast between lit and unlit parts of the surface makes it difficult for his eyes to adapt to the darkness.

I think it would be easier to handle this debate if we knew what photos you're trying to reconcile with Armstrong's statement. I understand one of them is the video footage, but as has been said, the camera was set specifically to show details in the shadow, which is why the directly lit parts of the surface are heavily overexposed. If there are other images we should discuss, please provide links or references.

__________________
"We do not require reality to conform to the expectations of the ignorant"

It's tricky to judge between two people stating different facts; one guideline is to look at their credentials, but a better one is to work out the logic for yourself.

Yes. Frequently what appears contradictory is often the product of our trying to simpify the problem, or to apply wisdom to a situation in which it is not intended. This is why I proposed a couple of ways in which readers could informally see the concepts to which I alluded. Any of the equations that deal with the transfer of energy between two bodies via electromagnetic radiation must include a configuration factor or form factor which describes the "visibility" of one of the bodies to another (and, obviously, the reciprocal). To compute this is fairly problematic.

Illumination and such is a tricky subject; to do it properly requires a lot of calculation

That depends on how accurate your results need to be. There's no useful closed form. (Which is to say, theoretically the problem is an integral, but in practice it's a sum.) So you discretize the objects in question perform a number of iterative rounds that eventually converge to an equilibrium.

My customers need precise answers and so their discretizations involve hundreds of thousands of nodes and thousands of illumination angles iterated so as to produce highly precise convergences. To answer the question whether there is enough reflected sunlight for photography you could get by with a coarse discretization and a single round.

... but most of it is reflected straight back, so only about 110 W/m² is diffusely reflected light. (I hope I interpreted you right here, jrkeller)

When he says "about 70% of the reflected light is reflected diffusely," that's to say that 30% of the reflected light will behave in ways affected by other laws. Heiligenschein, or back scatter, is more of a "macro" effect, and so if you're doing computations at the "macro" level (i.e., on square meters instead of square microns) you see that. There is also specular reflection, which is the familiar "angle of departure equals angle of incidence" rule.

A perfect Lambertian reflector reflects light only diffusely. Which is to say, when a single photon strikes that surface and is reflected, the angle at which it departs is purely random. This is different than for a purely specular surface, where the angle of the departing photon is its angle of incidence. Lambert's law and the form factor tend to cancel each other out for a perfect Lambertian reflector.

What the 70% figure means is that unless you can qualitatively show that a particular reflection obeys a different law of optics (e.g., specularity), the general law of diffuse reflection will get you only 70% of the reflected energy. That gets fed into the form factor and further attenuated for a particular combination of nodes.

Now, the actual illuminating light will depend a lot on how much surface is bouncing light towards them, so it's tricky to find an absolute number for this light source.

Impossible, actually, through analytical means except in the most trivial cases. Enter the discretization and the form factors.

I think most of the lighting for them [the shadowed lunar surface] would be the reflected light from the astronauts and the LEM - once more, most of it absorbed.

You have to account for multiple bounces, as you've done. Light striking the lunar surface in the shadow of the lunar module indeed came -- in the Aldrin egress photos -- from Armstrong's very reflective space suit. And the aluminum and aluminized Mylar down-sun surfaces of the lunar module will reflect a portion of the light they in turn receive from the lunar surface.

And when that strikes the lunar surface (again), most of it will be absorbed. Since we're talking about light from a highly-reflective space suit (but at a relatively small solid angle), and a large area reflector in the down-sun lunar module surfaces (but a relatively small amount of light), the amount of light striking the lunar surface in the shadow of the LM would be necessarily small, and the amount of light coming back from it to a camera would be necessarily small.

So why can we see the astronaut? Because the suit is very reflective. Why can't the astronaut see the ground very well? Because the ground isn't very reflective.

I think it would be easier to handle this debate if we knew what photos you're trying to reconcile with Armstrong's statement.

We have

(1) Hasselblad photography. The exposure settings for the Aldrin egress photos (typically cited as the most "problematic" in terms of fill lighting) are given in the post-mission reports: 1/60 second at f/5.6. Professional photographers inform me this is four stops overexposed from what Kodak would recommend for this situation.

(2) 16mm DAC photography of Armstrong's egress. Here we have a special treat because the commonly referenced clips include footage of Aldrin actually changing the exposure settings on the camera while it's rolling. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11f1092206.mov . You can easily see detail suddenly appear where it was previously invisible.

(3) Video downlink. Of admittedly poor quality, the TV camera used a special low-light lens which was changed to a regular lens when the camera was removed from the MESA and placed on the tripod.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

This thread prompted me to do a little experiment. I explained the general situation to my 16 yr-old daughter. She's a smart girl, but with no interest in science, and no more exposure to science than you get in a modern American public school education.

So I told her, you've got the lunar module on the moon, in sunlight, half of it is in shadow. Here's a picture of the shadowed half. How come we can see detail on it, how come it's not completely black?

It took her about three seconds to come up with "because light is reflecting up from the illuminated lunar surface surrounding it."

It really makes me wonder whether Santa isn't just pretending not to get it.

--earendur

Good point, earendur. Your daughter may be able to come up with an explanation, but would she be confident enough with it to maintain conviction when professional sounding people say that it should be pitch black? That's the important thing.

Has Santa runned away?

__________________
~AstroMike

Things have probably gotton a little too warm for Santa, so he probably went a trip to the North Pole to cool down.

You know, I kinda expected Santa to be a little more jolly . . .

Actually to the contrary, this scam hasn’t ‘fooled’ everybody for the past thirty odd years as you state. After all, why would there be a need for such a forum as this if we all believed what we saw?

That’s what I said. ‘ look closer and you’ll see that the astronauts boots are actually grey and not white, giving the impression that they are in shadow .‘ But again, lets scroll down the page and see what JayUtah has to say... 'They're not grey, they're silver'. Who should I believe?

If your stood in the shadow of a building does only your feet get covered by the shadow? My point being that if Aldrin or Armstrong are in the shadow of the LM, a vast proportion of their body would be covered by shadow and not just a couple of inches from the ground.

Of course they do. I thought you worked in theatrical work? If so, your familiar with ‘spotlights’ used to ‘light up’ certain areas on stage? What’ wrong with using one of those, hence the lightspot on the heel of Aldrins boot?

TaeKwonDan really put what I’m trying to get across into a nutshell. What I’m debating here is if an object is between Aldrin and the Source of light (Sun), then he will have shadow cast upon him wherever that object is. Its clear to see the height of the shadow on the ground cast by the LM. Aldrin is completely within this shadow and yet his body is lighted up? If he is within the shadow of the LM then I suggest that he too would be in complete shadow, or at least a lot more darkness than we see in the NASA photos.

It has 90% of the world, including the foremost experts in the field.

You're ignoring what we say. You assert that the boots are naturally white and the fact that they are grey is because they are in shadow. This is not conclusive. The boots are not naturally white. Even if the astronaut was standing out in broad sunshine, they would still not be white. Hence, the fact that they are not white in the photo in question, does not suggest they are in more shadow than the parts of the suit that are genuinly white.

Grey and silver can look similar. To the less informed, the colour may be construed as grey. Jay is merely informing us that they are in fact silver. It's a matter of semantics. The fact that you brought this up is positively Davish. He preferred to do anything possible to make us look as though we were contradicting ourselves, even in trivial matters such as the difference between silver and grey, rather than actually argue the issues in question.

Indeed all of their body is covered with shadow. But, the highly reflective suits are still illuminated by reflected light from the Lunar surface. The top parts more so because the lower portions are received light from a more oblique angle, where it is less abundant.

Spotlights are fairly distinct sources. Distinct sources cast distinct shadows. If fill light is being provided by a spot light, we should see shadows cast by it.

Lunar surface. Reflects light into shadow. Happens on Earth all the time.

Now you're getting quantitative. If you want to suggest it, we want to see the analysis. Handwaving won't win you any sympathy here. If you can't provide an analysis to back up your suggestion, then you have to face the fact that your argument has no proper basis and hence it fails.

To be fair, Glom, you've misinterpreted what Santa's saying on this point. He never asserted that the boots were white. He's trying to counter the reflected-light argument, in which we point out that objects closer to the lunar surface should be, and are, less well illuminated because of their more oblique angle to the surface. He argues that the boots look darker because they are darker (gray, not white).

Unfortunately for Santa, it's not just the boots that are darker near the ground, but the rest of the suit too.

Actually to the contrary, this scam hasn’t ‘fooled’ everybody for the past thirty odd years as you state.

But look at who it has "fooled": physicists, engineers, professional photographic analysis on both sides of the Iron Curtain.

Look at who has "discovered" the hoax: writers, construction workers, part-time cameramen. The people who aren't "fooled" are generally people with little or no expertise in the topics that this hoax theory addresses. The conspiracists want to sweep expertise under the carpet, and it's obvious why: they don't have any, and it's that lack -- not some mysterious conspiracy -- that explains their observations.

After all, why would there be a need for such a forum as this if we all believed what we saw?

The need for this forum arises from the propensity of people who have no idea what they're talking about to speak with pretended authority and fool reasonable people who thereby get entirely the wrong idea.

'They're not grey, they're silver'. Who should I believe?

Well, I've seen the boots first hand. It's a silvery fabric, made actually from a metal alloy. If someone says he thinks it looks gray in a photograph, no big deal. Why are you grasping at straws to create any semblance of disagreement? Don't you understand that it makes you look very desperate?

a vast proportion of their body would be covered by shadow and not just a couple of inches from the ground.

It is not our contention that the lighted portions of the astronauts are portions that are not in shadow. Shadow does not imply uniform illumination or uniform lack of illumination. The astronaut is illuminated by indirect light bouncing from the lunar surface to either side of the LM's shadow. The lighting as seen in the photograph is entirely consistent with how such light would behave.

I thought you worked in theatrical work? If so, your familiar with ‘spotlights’ used to ‘light up’ certain areas on stage? What’ wrong with using one of those, hence the lightspot on the heel of Aldrins boot?

Yes, I do work in theatrical lighting occasionally, and my statement derives precisely from that experience. The only way I could completely recreate in the studio the lighting I see in this and similar pictures is to bounce a very bright light off the floor.

What's wrong with using a spot -- say, an ellipsoidal -- to create that hot spot is that it's impossible to do that without two things happening:

1. a distinct "pool" of brighter illumination, and

2. near-phase shadows.

Neither of those can be seen in the photograph. You can eliminate the "pool" of light by using a fresnel or a scoop or some other instrument with a wide beam. However, that does not eliminate the near-phase shadows. The only way to eliminate a near-phase shadow is to use a very wide area light source. That can be done in two ways. You can use a diffuser in front of a light source pointed at the subject. This causes the entire diffuser to glow and become a large area light source. Or you can bounce light facing away from the subject off of a large area reflector facing the subject. This would create a diffuse field of "fill" light without shadows and without distinct pools of illumination.

In Dark Moon, David Groves estimates the error in locating this supplementary light source as approximately 26 millimeters (p. 535). But the reflectors required to eliminate shadows in the fill are on the order of 2-3 meters square. An object with an extent of thousands of millimeters cannot be located with a precision of tens of millimeters for the simple fact that the extent exceeds the error by multiple orders of magnitude. Groves' handwaving is evidence by the following ominous statement: "I had no closeup of this part of the imaging, limiting the accuracy of the ratio determination." (p. 533) In fact, Groves worked from a 70mm contact transparency.

If Groves' claims to precision are worked backwards to the initial observations, he is claiming to be able to locate the hot spot on Aldrin's boot to a precision on the order of hundredths of an inch. (The hot spot itself is larger than that!) Further, this would equate to an observation on the transparency down to the 0.0001 or 0.00001 inch range. Groves is claiming, indirectly, to have been able to locate an object on a piece of plastic to a hundredth of a human hair diameter.

But enough beating up of Groves. He overstated his case, and I know why: so that we won't have any basis of concluding according to his computation that the hot spot was caused by Armstrong's bright suit. Let's assume that it was all done in a studio and that a very broad reflector was used to provide the fill. Looking at Aldrin's suit, we can get a good idea of where that fill would have to be. Aldrin's fill comes from below him, not from the side or from above, which are the only places you could put a reflector that size without interfering with the camera. And in fact the only place you could put a reflector to create that fill is [i]on the ground between Aldrin and the camera[i], where it would be visible in the photograph itself.

Let's summarize. The broad fill comes from the lunar surface. This is established by heat transfer computations, by theoretical lighting principles, and by observation. A lesser amount of fill comes from Armstrong's suit. The hot spot comes from Armstrong's suit. What evidence do you have (not handwaving) that it cannot be otherwise?

Aldrin is completely within this shadow and yet his body is lighted up?

Yes. Simply being in the shadow of the LM does not mean he is beyond the influence of indirect light sources such as the surrounding lunar surface and Armstrong's suit.

or at least a lot more darkness than we see in the NASA photos.

How much more darkness? Where are your computations? What have you done to consider the effects of photographic exposure that can reveal detail not normally visible to the eye in shadows?

Here's a photograph I took for you:

http://www.clavius.org/img/dim-garage.jpg

The sun in this photo is coming from my left and very slightly in front. In other words, no light shines directly into the garage. Do you see things in the garage?

You can make out the bicycle because it's low to the ground. From the bicycle's point of view, part of the sky is visible and that scattered light from the sky lets you see it. On the moon that wouldn't be the case because there is no air to scatter the light.

But up on the shelf you can see paint cans. You can't see the dark wall behind them, or the shelf on which they're sitting. Those are both made of very dark wood and don't reflect much light back to the camera. But the paint cans are silver in some cases and coated with white paper in other cases. This means it takes less incident light to make them show up on film. (That's why space suits show up so well in dim light.) I point out the paint cans because the sky is not very visible to objects in that part of the garage. To ascertain this I took this picture:

http://www.clavius.org/img/retro-garage.jpg

(Incidentally this photo was taken at an equivalent exposure of ASA 160 f/5.6 1/60 second, the exact exposure used to photograph Aldrin. This photo, however, was taken on color negative film, not color reversal film.)

This photo shows roughly the paintcan-eye-view out the garage door. It's actually a little higher up than the paintcans, but we'll get to that. What I want you to see is that broad expanse of pavement (albedo 12%) that is so bright in the photo. In fact, in the first photo you see that the pavement appears completely white in the photo. Why? Because I cranked open the exposure to be able to expose the objects inside the garage. This caused the asphalt reflection to saturate the film.

So in short, the only way you can see the paintcans in that first photo is because enough sunlight can reflect off of a 12% albedo surface sideways (I deliberate set up the least favorable phase angle for asphalt, which happens to correspond well to the phase angles for lunar regolith).

Time to pay the piper, Santa. We have given you theory. We have given you examples. I have even now taken photographs for you. Upon what basis can you claim that the Aldrin egress photos are impossible?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Unfortunately for Santa, it's not just the boots that are darker near the ground, but the rest of the suit too.

I'm partially responsible for this mixup. I asked Santa to look at the lower portion of Aldrin's legs, and I assumed he would know we knew the boot leggings were a darker color and that it wasn't that color we claimed as evidence. I didn't give him the best picture in which to observe that effect either. I tend to favor the high-resolution photos for online examples, but in this case the hi-res JPEGs are taken from "pushed" prints.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

NO NO NO… I am NOT saying that the boots are white at all, I’m saying they are grey and that is why they look dark in the example photograph that JayUtah posted. If you can’t even grasp the simplest of reasoning I’m trying to put forward how do you expect to understand the more complex stuff?

Then you will have no problem reproducing an Apollo picture here showing detail in the dark shadows cast by the rocks on the lunar surface?

OK, you want an example of shadows and how they fall on the Moon, during the Apollo missions. Here it is:



Now tell me why this astronaut from Apollo 16 who is stood at the bottom of the ladder is in complete shadow and Aldrin who is stood in a similar position is not!!! Wheres all this reflected light you’ve all been talking about for the past week or so to light him up like a Christmas tree?

And again another example below.

This is Aldrin by the flag not long after leaving the LM. look at his back, in deep shadow - why didnt the LM blot out Aldrin in its shadow like we see on his back here? Wheres all the reflective capabilities that you've all been talking about that would light up his body which is shaded from the Sun? You can see the shadow from the LM behind him. Do you think if Aldrin stood back into that shadow that he would show up as bright as in the picture below?

Heres the original picture that started off this whole debate. He shouldn't be this well lit up in the shadow of the LM under natural lighting, as I have shown in the examples above:




Heres another one from Apollo 11.


Notice that the sun is to the left of the picture. The shadow to the right of the astronaut is so dark that it travels up his entire body and also envelopes the equipment he is carrying in his right hand. Notice that this equipment is held above the surface at a distance of roughly 3 feet. Now how do you explain that this equipment is actually in full shadow because it is being shaded from the sun by the astronauts body, and yet in the other example I’m debating here about the shadow or lack of it on the body of Aldrin at the bottom of the ladder, there is no such shadow projecting onto the body of Aldrin, even though the LM is obviously completely obscuring direct sunlight from reaching him? Consider if the camera were placed to the right of the astronaut above and I think you’ll agree that it would have captured the right side of the astronaut being in near complete dark shadow. Another way of looking at it is to imagine that Aldrin is the LM and the box he's carrying is Aldrin - see my point - Aldrin blots out the direct sunlight to the box and therefore the box is in deep shadow.

JayUtahs photographic examples are obsolete because the conditions on Earth are nothing like that on the Moon. The lack of atmosphere there means that the shadowed parts are as black as you can get.

There’s your examples that everybody here has been asking for, now explain it! No handwaving here.

I think you missed a word out here. That word would be ‘some’.

No, the reason why this forum was set up is to character assassinate anybody who has a different opinion to the people on here who thinks that they are smarter than the rest of us. Constantly you all write how you are ‘educating’ people who come on here. But, you DON’T know everything and some of what you write completely contradicts the next person who is a so-called expert. Did you mean that the forum was set up as a meeting place for people who have no idea what they’re talking about?

And to finish off – what about this quote from Borman on Apollo 8

‘009:20:00 Lovell: Not at this attitude, and that's strange. I thought I could see that. At this attitude, the refraction of the light in the optics themselves, due to the reflection of the sunlight I suspect, or Earth's light, completely blanked out the dark side of the Moon to this attitude.
009:20:17 Mattingly: How about that.
009:20:23 Borman: Maybe we have an atmosphere around the Moon. [Long pause.]

That’s very interesting to a conspiracist you know – and its in the official Apollo 8 journal!

Light reflects upward off the surface doesn't it? An object a few cm high is not going to catch that much reflected light. Notice in the pictures you point to that the shadow at the boots is much darker than up the legs. Also, it seems to me that the shadow on the back fo the astronaut (flag picture) is pretty bright - probably about as bright as the next picture you provide - but we are seeing the astronaut edge on in the flag picture.

Then what's your point? If you except that the boots are darker because their natural colour is darker then what's the problem?

I'd like to see some of this more complex stuff.

One word: exposure. The exposure settings for 5869 were for shadow conditions. Their objective was to bring out the detail in the shadow by opening the aperture. The others were taken using different exposure settings. They were supposed to capture daylight object. Hence, the aperture was closed. In 5869, the surface is overexposed, almost to saturation in places, because of the high exposure, whereas in the others, the surface is perfectly exposed because of the lower settings, meaning the shadows are darker.

Fill light for atmospheric diffusion takes the form of the blue sky. In Jay's examples, the subjects in question are shielded from the blue sky by the roof of the garage. Hence the only light they receive is reflected light of the asphalt outside.

Like who?

We don't try to assassinate character, nor do we feel the need. If a conspiracist demonstrates illogic, ignorance or blatant dishonesty, we will hold him accountable. Jack White is the one who keeps on accusing Jay of being a government disinformationist. The Dark Lord is the one who accuses anyone who says he's wrong a NASA spy.

So far, you've only pointed out two contradictions. One was AstroMike saying that the Lunar surface is not very reflective contrary to what we all said. This may indeed seem like a contradiction, but these are the problems associated with handwaving. In some respects, the reflective of the Lunar surface seems abundant, but in other respects, it can seem limited. It depends on the effect you're observing. Only when you get quantitative do these issues reconcile themselves. The other one was you trying to poke holes in semantics about whether or not the boots were grey or silver. That was just immature.

The ability of conspiracists to take quotes out of context is amazing.

What he was describing was the effect of scatter in the sextant optics that created a bluish haze around the Lunar crescent. It was a similar effect that would be gained if Luna had an atmosphere. Borman wasn't saying that Luna may have indeed had an atmosphere, it was a throwaway comment about atmosphere-like effects around Luna, in this case due to scattering in the optics of the sextant.

I'd just like to point out that the landscape is MUCH brighter in the "Aldrin in the shadows" photo than in your other examples. Clearly, Armstrong overexposed the shot so that Aldrin wouldn't be solid black.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I’m saying they are grey and that is why they look dark in the example photograph that JayUtah posted.

We've dealt with this. You know the Chromel leggings aren't white. I know the Chromel leggings aren't white. I'm not asking you to look at the leggings. I never did, although I can see how you may have misundesrtood my directions. I'm asking you to look at the white space suit above the leggings and contemplate why they're darker than Aldrin's flanks and shoulders covered with the same material. That's what I was asking you to do before. You brought up the legging issue and you refuse to let it go. Why don't you drop your irrelevant distractions and concentrate on what we're saying?

If you can’t even grasp the simplest of reasoning I’m trying to put forward how do you expect to understand the more complex stuff?

Be careful. You're very guilty of oversimplification on most of these illumination and photography issues. Consider that many of us have both theoretical and practical experience in the nitty-gritty of these problems.

Then you will have no problem reproducing an Apollo picture here showing detail in the dark shadows cast by the rocks on the lunar surface?

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20121895.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20121958.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20121959.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20121960.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20121973.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20121974.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20121975.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20121976.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20121977.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20121985.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20121987.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20121993.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20121997.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20133973.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20122176.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20122177.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20122178.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20122179.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20122183.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20122184.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20122188.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20122195.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20122196.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20122197.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20122198.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20122199.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20122200.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20122218.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20122237.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20122373.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/20124074.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/20124075.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/20124076.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/20124077.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/20124078.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/20124079.jpg

Many of these photographs are excellent examples of the effects of diffuse reflection.

Take http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20121993.jpg for example. Note how the shaded side of the rock is visible, but the surface in the shadow of the rock is essentially black. Why is that?

Where is the shaded side of the rock getting its light? From the portions of the surface beyond and to either side of the rock's shadow. The place where the scoop is stuck is contributing light to the shaded side of the rock. Take any given square foot of lighted surface. The farther away it is from the rock, the less light gets to the rock from that patch. That's because of the inverse square law of light. But also the form factor plays a part. The farther away the patch, the more edge-on it is viewed from the point of view of the rock, therefore the less light arrives.

This becomes important when we consider what might provide light on the surface where the rock's shadow is cast. The lunar surface can't generally illuminate itself via diffuse reflection. The form factors are zero if the two patches (the lit and shadow) are side by side and coplanar. The only light that's going to strike that patch would come from the astronaut's suit, or from a double-bounce off the shaded side of the rock. But every time you bounce you cut out 80-90% of the incident light in any direction. Do that twice and you have only the merest fraction of the original energy. That's not enough to make the lunar surface itself show up under these exposure conditions. But go have a look at Roll 116. It's almost all overexposed due to the astronaut's error, and many of those pictures show detail in the surface itself.

Now you see what Armstrong is talking about. He can see himself. He can see the shaded side of the lunar module. But he can't see the ground under his feet very well. This picture is exactly the same situation. And those of us who have been patiently trying to explain illumination and diffuse reflection to you understand what's happening both in the photos and in Armstrong's observations.

But what happened in this photo: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/20121997.jpg ? The astronaut moved closer to the rock. Both the distance and the form factor increase dramatically, and so the suit is providing sufficient fill light for photography. This happens on my stages too. Sometimes I'll have to recommend a costuming change because a character is in light colors and throws too much light around, ruining what is intended to be a subtle effect.

Keep in mind that exposures may be changing from photo to photo.

Now tell me why this astronaut from Apollo 16 who is stood at the bottom of the ladder is in complete shadow and Aldrin who is stood in a similar position is not!

Photographic exposure. As I explained, Neil Armstrong intentionally overexposed the Aldrin egress photos by four stops. Further, Armstrong stood rather close to Aldrin and fill from his suit contributed to the overall lighting in the shaded area.

Wheres all this reflected light you’ve all been talking about for the past week or so to light him up like a Christmas tree?

Oh, it's there. But it doesn't show up at these exposure settings, the same way people indoors don't show up in photographs if your flash doesn't go off and you've left you camera set for outdoors. You are really displaying an incredible amount of naivete about photographic exposure and its effect on the resulting image. You also seem to be suffering from the common misconception that the camera sees what the eye sees. In most cases photographers aim to make the two coincide, but it's not inevitable that they will.

Here's a question for you. Why is the Schmitt camera lit, but the astronaut not lit? Because the astronaut is standing in the center of the shadow, away from the lit surfaces, while the Schmitt camera is placed right on the shadow's edge. If you had studied form factors as I asked you to, you would have been able to answer that. The Schmitt camera is receive more light from the lunar surface than the astronaut, hence it shows up even with different exposure settings.

And again another example below.

And again your answer is exposure. I would add too that in this photo the reflection from Armstrong's suit won't have much of an effect on the distant shadow.

Heres the original picture that started off this whole debate.

And again, the answer is exposure, coupled with Armstrong's suit fill.

He shouldn't be this well lit up in the shadow of the LM under natural lighting, as I have shown in the examples above

No, you've merely shown repeatedly that you don't understand the principles underlying illumination, photographic exposure, optical density, or any of the other sciences that apply to your argument. You're waving your hands wildly at examples without knowing what contributes to the visual effect in each example.

Now how do you explain that this equipment is actually in full shadow ...

Exposure.

Another way of looking at it is to imagine that Aldrin is the LM and the box he's carrying is Aldrin - see my point

My objection to your argument does not derive from misunderstanding it. My objection derives from its oversimplification of issues of illumination, exposure, and related topics.

JayUtahs photographic examples are obsolete because the conditions on Earth are nothing like that on the Moon. The lack of atmosphere there means that the shadowed parts are as black as you can get.

No. This verifies that you do not understand the proof photographs or the principles that govern the illumination in the Apollo photographs. The reason I'm using the garage is to cut out the scattered light from the sky. The amount of air between the surface of the driveway and the objects in the garage is totally negligible in terms of light transmission or scatter. It is not a factor in the proof photographs just as it is not a factor in the Apollo photographs.

The paint cans are lit entirely by sunlight reflected from the ground at an albedo comparable to the lunar surface. If I set my camera to the same settings Armstrong used to photograph Aldrin, I get usable results. And that's with a much smaller form factor and negating any specular effects. I deliberately engineered a "worst case" to preclude those arguments.

Conspiracists repeat the "lack of atmosphere" argument like a mantra without knowing what it means.

I think you missed a word out here. That word would be ‘some’.

Give the names and qualifications of experts that agree it was hoaxed. Note that I do not consider David Percy to be an expert.

No, the reason why this forum was set up is to character assassinate anybody who has a different opinion to the people on here ...

No. This is not a character assassination. Character assassinations do not discuss form factors or inverse square laws or albedo or diffuse interreflection. We are discussing the facts of your argument, and it is upon the facts that we reject it.

... who thinks that they are smarter than the rest of us.

When it comes to illumination and photography, I and many others here are smarter than you. That's just a fact and there's no use crying about it. It's not like we hate you for it. It's simply that we see what's wrong with your arguments and so we reject them. If you can't accept that your arguments don't stand up to scrutiny, then don't make them. It's really very simple.

Constantly you all write how you are ‘educating’ people who come on here. But, you DON’T know everything ...

One does not need to "know everything" in order to educate. One simply has to be assured that whatever one knows is right, and that one knows more of it than the student. I know a bit about radiant heat transfer. It's a fair bet that John Witts, my good friend, knows less. It's also a fair bet that John Keller, another good friend, knows more. Each of us brings strengths and weaknesses to the table. We learn humility in deferring to each other on matters of our individual expertise.

... and some of what you write completely contradicts the next person who is a so-called expert.

No. You and Cosmic Dave (who are increasingly looking like the same person) try to manufacture these pretended contradictions out of what is essentially your own failure to understand complex topics. You oversimplify to the point where it looks like someone is contradicting someone else, regardless of whether the resulting oversimplification has any basis in reality.

We easily see through those silly rhetorical tactics, and it just makes you seem more desperate.

That’s very interesting to a conspiracist you know – and its in the official Apollo 8 journal!

It's more accurate to say it was ripped bleeding from its context in the Apollo 8 transcript. Misinterpreted and contextually bereft quotations are one of Bennett and Percy's weak points. It's now very easy for the conscientious reader to go see what the astronauts were talking about and not rely on the authors' framing, which more often than not proves to be wrong. But of course Dark Moon was never meant for the conscientious reader. There are rail splits like that in nearly every paragraph.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I know a bit about radiant heat transfer. It's a fair bet that John Witts, my good friend, knows less. It's also a fair bet that John Keller, another good friend, knows more. Each of us brings strengths and weaknesses to the table. We learn humility in deferring to each other on matters of our individual expertise.

Too true! Even though I couldn't work out specifics of radiant heat transfer, I can still understand the principles upon which those determinations are made. John Keller could probably be very specific with a quantitative analysis about the light reaching into shadows. I do know enough to know that from just looking at the photos that the exposure settings are very different between the shadow photos and the sunlit ones. In Aldrin's egress photos the lit lunar surface looks almost white and is almost totally washed out. This tells me that the normally dark lunar surface must be massively over exposed. David Percy himself notes that Armstrong was a good amateur photographer and realised that the scene was very dark. He opened up the camera as far as it would go to get those shots. Result? Usable pictures. Try putting your Sunlit and shadow pics into Photosuite and then lowering the brightness on the shadow photo so that the Lunar surface appears roughly the same shade as the Sunlit surface. Aldrin all but disappears into the shadow.

I also realise that even though the Lunar surface is supposed to be a poor reflector, there's miles and miles of it. Each bit only has to reflect a little bit back into the LM shadow for there to be enough light.

__________________
Things are only impossible until they're not!-Captain Jean-Luc Picard

Admin of the new and very much improved Apollohoax forum

JayUtah wrote:

Hey! I am a constrution worker and I am one of the "fooled." I demand you retract your statement and apologize!! :wink:

Actually, JayUtah, I admire your arguement skills, rather impressive. If I could make my points as eloquently as you, I would be proud. Keep up the good work (that goes for all you guys: johnwitts, Glom, ToSeek, dgruss23, etc.)!

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

To continue Jay's point about people having varying levels of knowledge about different topics, I'd like to point out that some of us (like me) are laymen in practically all the fields discussed on here. But we have 2 characteristics that Santa/CosmicDave (who are indeed appearing increasingly similar) do not have:

1) When someone who claims to have expert knowledge presents a claim in the careful way that an expert can be expected to (this is one of the best ways to tell the expert from the hand-waver), we research that claim. By this point I don't need to do much research at all, because I have spent a great deal of time over many months actually verifying things that were said by people on this board. For example, comments by Jay have sent me to the library or reputable science web sites dozens of times. In this recent argument, I didn't have to look up the inverse square law because, thanks to a different discussion, I already learned it. I already knew that it applied here, and I knew that it would be brought up. BABB members like me check these things not because we think we are being lied to, but because we like knowing the answers. Now I know lots of answers, but actually I usually keep the answers to myself because I have no definite credentials, so I let the people who do have such credentials take the lead (for a host of reasons).

2) For some reason, we seem more able than others (such as S/CD) to observe how the world works and use our knowledge to make reasonably accurate inferences so that simple things do not appear strange to us. For example, before I came to the BABB I had never ever thought about non-parallel shadows, but it only took a few seconds of thinking before I realized why they do exist even when there is only one light source. even when members like me can't figure it out on our own, we do the proper research to find out. This does not generally consist of typing the term into google, clicking "I'm Feeling Lucky," and reading whatever pops up before me. We go to actual libraries and reference multiple sources. We are motivated to do this because one of the things we know about how the world works is that often times we do not have the general knowledge required to figure it out. Realizing this is a great strength, as it opens one's mind to research and discovery, instead of dooming us to ignorance and hand-waving.

S/CD, I encourage you to do the reseach that Jay and others have suggested, then come back here and try again. I might also suggest that you read Plato's dialogue "Parmenides," (any translation) for an interesting discussion of disagreement among intellectuals.

Aporetic
www.polisci.wisc.edu/~rdparrish

Santa, I can only assume that if you own a camera, it must be a 'point & shoot'. Your photogrpahic 'evidence' all comes down to a matter of exposure. Unlike the eye, a camera captures more photons by leaving the shutter open longer - more light is permitted to fall on the photographic emulsion/CCD chip. However, in 'mixed' light scenes (bright light & shadow in the same frame), exposing for the low light will overexpose more brightly lit regions. Conversely, correctly exposing for the brighter regions will leave the dark regions grossly underexposed. Look at the Aldrin egress photo - the highly reflective EMU is reasonably exposed, but the lunar surface is very overexposed to the point of significant loss of detail. ALL of the photos that you use to demonstrate shadow have been exposed for objects in sunlight. That is why the shadows are so dark in those photos.

A rock that is low to the ground will have less light reflecting back onto it's shadowed side from the lunar surface, simply because it subtends a very small angle for all but light relected from very nearby. This point was the thrust of JayUtah's "observing a piece of paper" thought experiment that he posted earlier.

Certainly. Because the photo is exposed to correctly image the lunar surface in the background. As a result, the foreground in the shadow is very underexposed (see my point above). I actually doubt this was the intention - I suspect that the intention was that it should have been a photo of the astronaut - but it illustrates my point perfectly. Thank you for using it.


Look at the photo. The flag and the EMU, both bright, are well exposed. The ground is actually somewhat underexposed. The shadow is black.
I doubt that Armstrong wanted to take a photograph of the shadowed back of Aldrin, but if he did, he would increase his exposure time at the expense of grossly overexposing the flag & EMU.

Yes, he should be if the camera was set at such an exposure to capture his image in shadow. Unless you can qualitatively demonstrate that there would have been insufficient backfill to take an image at all, you cannot state that "he shouldn't be this well lit up". I take a lot of low-light photographs - it can actually take surprisingly little light to take a photo providing your exposure settings & film are correct.

Sorry Santa, but this statement is simply wrong. What you are saying is tantamount to arguing that Aldrin, standing at the top of the LM ladder, would have been completely unable to see the brightly illuminated lunar surface beyond the LM shadow. Can you not see how preposterous that argument is?

Maybe so. But curiously it fooled all the respected ones.


If that was my objective in life, I would go into local politics.

Guess what Santa. Scientists contradict each oher all the time. It is fundamental to how science progresses - a fact that sets it apart from most other disciplines in life. But there is a tremendous amount of knowledge in the regular contributors to this board, from a number of different walks of life. It is not just a privilege, but a precious opportunity to have access to & discuss issues with the likes of the BA, JayUtah, JRKeller and many others. Take advantage of it, don't mock it.

[/quote]

Sorry Santa, but this is just weird. What are you trying to imply?


(edited to remove an ambiguous sentence)

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith

John and Jay

I did think about posting some simple results about the amount of reflected energy that could be received at various heights above the lunar surface, but I feel that Santa doesn't believe in reflected light.

I thought the garage pictures were a perfect example of reflected light illuminating objects in a shadow.

Santa,

Right now it is night time and I'm doing a lighting experiment. Specifically, all the lights in the house are off. When I turn on one light, I notice that rooms that are not in the direct sight of the room get brighter. In some cases the light would have to bend over a 180 degrees to illuminate any part of the room. Could you explain to me how that happens?

If you plan on using the air scatters the light arguement, tell me your assumptions and results, for such parameters as optical depth, Mie and Rayleigh scattering.

P.S. Just to help you a little, I'm using the standard incandesant light bulb and not the fluorescent type.