I am just listening to the audio from just before Armstrong and Aldrin went onto the Moons surface, there's a few interesting things that I heard.

Armstrong tells Houston prior to leaving the LM that they may have a problem with the TV cameras picking up a good image because the ladder is in complete shadow. When he gets out he actually says that he can hardly see where he's standing because it is so black, but goes on to say that the horizon is well lighted? At this point Houston loses communication for a few seconds. And asks Armstrong to repeat what he said about the lighted horizon, Armstrong doesnt say anything more about it?

Now you know what I'm gonna ask next. You all say that the reflective ability of the lunar surface lit up Armstrong, but what I'm asking is how could it have when Armstrong claims that he can hardly see where he's standing because the ladder is in complete shadow?

Also could I ask if the radio system used in the Apollo missions was two way at the same time or could just either Houston or the Astronauts speak at one time? In other words could both be heard speaking over comms as the same time?

Frst of all i would like to kindly ask you to reply to the questions posed Here.

Secondly, can you post a link to where you saw that video or the transcirpt? It would help.

Relevant section from the ALSJ:

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

Read it carefully. Armstrong says the area around the LM is in shadow, but I believe he is saying that the brightly lit horizon will provide ebough infill to the scene. Then the communications are simply out for about four minutes. Houston did not communicate with Eagle during this time, or else it would have been in the transcript. Anything else you say to that effect is pure specualtion without proof.

So Armstrong did not actually say he couldn't see; he said before he got out of the LM that some of the area around it was in shadow.

No. The Capcom in Houston had a push-to-talk button that send a tone into the communications system, which began the transmissions. When he let go, a slighter lower tone went into the system, which ended it. The astronauts' communications system also had a push-to-talk system while they were in the CSM. In addition, there was a setting called "vox" in which the sound of the astronauts' voices would activate the microphone; I believe that this is the setting which the communications system was in during lunar EVA.

I don't see such a request in the transcript.

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

From the ALSJ
Armstrong, of course, can't see the TV picture and he hasn't yet been outside. The light coming into the cabin is fairly bright. If you look straight out of the LM cabin you'll get a big slap of heiligenschein in your face.

And from later in the ALSJ
You all say that the reflective ability of the lunar surface lit up Armstrong, but what I'm asking is how could it have when Armstrong claims that he can hardly see where he's standing because the ladder is in complete shadow?

I think you're trying to be a bit too rigid in your interpretation. "Complete shadow" doesn't necessarily mean "total blackness, without light". For example, he could have meant that it's completely contained within the shadow volume of the LM, as opposed part of it being in sun and part of it being in shadow. I really don't know what Armstrong intended by that statement, and so I don't typically try to read too much meaning into it. And I certainly would read into it meanings that appeared to create a dilemma, and then parade that manufactured dilemma around as evidence of fakery.

Now as to being able to see where he's standing, keep in mind that there were very conservative mobility limits set for Apollo 11. The space suits were untried in a lunar environment, so they were told to walk carefully.

But that's not the important point. The important point is the behavior of light off the "reflector". Why can Armstrong's suit be lit while he can't see the ground? Because the ground is on the ground. This is actually easy to understand intuitively.

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.

Now get down on your hands and knees and put your head as close to the ground as you can. Look to either side. Can you see any of the lighted portions of the surface? Probably not because you'd be seeing them edge-on. This is equivalent to saying that very little of the light from the surface reaches your eyes, so absent any other light source things there will look very dim indeed.

If this is too abstract for you, take a piece of paper and put it on the floor fifteen feet away or so. From a standing position you can see it just fine. Now put your head close to the floor without moving closer to the paper. If you can see the paper at all, you can see it only as a thin sliver. For a fixed area reflector, the strength of the light reflected from it is proportional to how directly you view it (and other factors). That's a rule that's used very frequently in the computation of radiant heat transfer, which is essentially the illumination problem in different wavelengths.

When Armstrong looks down, he's looking at the shadowed portion of the lunar surface. And it's not being illuminated by the adjacent lit patches. Further, Armstrong's field of view likely includes portions of the lit surface and that's what his eyes are adjusted to.

Also could I ask if the radio system used in the Apollo missions was two way at the same time or could just either Houston or the Astronauts speak at one time? In other words could both be heard speaking over comms as the same time?

The radios were two-way.

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

From the audio I've heard, when both tried to talk at the same time, one of them was interrupted. A perfect example is right after the feather and hammer dropping experiment on Apollo 15.

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

Keep in mind that what you hear in the recording is not what the astronauts hear in their suits. True, the speakers did stop speaking when they detected they were colliding with a statement from the other party. But that collision didn't occur at the same point in the astronaut's perception as it did on the recorder.

I'm on earth and you're on the moon. I say "Hi". 1.3 seconds later you hear it and immediately say "Hi" back. 1.3 seconds later I hear it. The recorder records me saying "Hi" and then 2.6 seconds later records you saying "Hi". But from your point of view it sounds like a normal conversation. You heard me speak and you heard yourself immediately answer.

The problem comes when both people start speaking simultaneously and neither one knows it until 1.3 seconds later. On the recording it's going to sound like the astronaut rudely interrupted the ground controller 1.3 seconds after he started speaking.

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

I don't see such a request in the transcript.

It's there, sort of. McCandless uses the "lighted horizon" phrase to tell Armstrong where in his sentence they lost the transmission. He's not necessarily asking Armstrong to elaborate on the "lighted horizon" comment.

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

On some of the audio recordings you can hear an echo of the ground control communications behind the astronauts' words. The Earth-based recorders recorded the ground control speaker's words as they were uttered, then the signal travelled 1.3 seconds to the Moon, where it was piped into the astronaut's helmet and picked up again (faintly) by his microphone. The astronaut would then reply to what he heard and both the echoed message and the reply travelled the 1.3 seconds back to Earth to be recorded onto the same tape again.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

If Armstrong is stood in shadow, that means that no light is penetrating that area - fullstop. So what if its bright on the horizon - how far do you think that the horizon is away from the LEM? It certainly isnt close enough to reflect light several thousands of metres to the LEM, how gullible do you really think I am?

If your saying that his top half is lit whilst his bottom half isnt, why cant we see this in the NASA photos?

IMHO Armstrong would have been more preoccupied with a safe landing than setting up good camera and lighting angles. As a good "seat of the pants" pilot he would have used the distance from his shadow as an indicator of height above ground (and to keep the sun out of his eyes) landing with the fromt of the LEM in shadow.
Looking out of the front window his eyes would be adjusted to the bright surface instead of the shadow area. The auto-exposure of the video camera would see otherwise (as the famous video shows).
I don't have a problem with his comments.

__________________
Does earth plug a hole in Heaven or Heaven plug a hole in Earth? -Peter Gabriel

Santa, don't you ever go outside at night?

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

Admin of the new and very much improved Apollohoax forum

Let me put johnwitts' statement a different way - you may need it...

Ever looked up at night and see the Moon???? How bright does it look at that distance? How gullible do you think we are?

:roll: :roll:

__________________
bunk: Empty talk; nonsense.
de·bunk: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/eddo/images/fredheadtsp.gif

Nonsense. If I stand on the ladder in shadow & look beyond the LM shadow to the brightly sunlit ground, I can see it. Why? Because light from there is reflected to me. To say that no light penetrates the shadow is patently wrong.

Incidently, because I can see the brightly illuminated ground beyond the shadow of the LM, my eyes will be light-adapted and I will find it difficult to distinguish detail in the dark of the shadow below. Try walking from a brightly lit room outside into the dark and see what detail you can make out. Wait 5 minutes. Now what can you see?

I have read Jay's response a couple of times and still cannot see a reference to the horizon. The light does not need to reflect from the horizon - it just needs to reflect from the illuminated areas beyond the shadow of the LM. A handful of metres.

__________________
"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

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.



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:

And he's right. You seem to be ignoring his point.



No more than a few tens of meters, actually - the LM's shadow did not extend very far.



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.



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 commentshere. You can't just accuse of us of one thing, and then when it is debunked ignore it and move on to something else.

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

Look, if the guy is in shadow to the extent that he cannot even see where his feet are then there is no way that a camera could see the details of where hes standing, especially when that camera is farther away than Armstrong was. Secondly, the LM was between Armstrong and the Sun, so no direct sunlight was hitting that area, we can see this by the dark shadow of the LM, both in the movie and still pictures.

Shadow means 'lack of light'. Your all trying to tell me that there is actually light which is reaching into the shadowed area and that is why we can see Armstrong and Aldrin lit up brilliantly as they are in the shadow of the LM, I say that your wrong!

Also in an earlier conversation somebody said that the suits were so reflective because they were made from pieces of glass. If this is the case, doesn't glass melt at high heat?

I'm curious, Santa. What exactly do you think a shadow is?

I won't dwelve into shadows or your exceedingly ridiculous glass melts at high heat argument.

Look here's a simple question back at you? If the shot is a fake, then why say something like that or even be concerned about the shadow in the first place? As I've said before you have to pick either

a)NASA has the know how and chutzpah to fake something for 35 years with a vast majority of the viewership believing in that fakery. Including some of the most adept critical thinkers I've ever had the pleasure to post with.

or

b)So incompetent they would let their main actor confess that a shot was faked by pointing out that he can't see anything because of the shadow and then being able to see him just fine.

I stand by the fact that weird little anomolies in sayings and pictures PROVE that it was real, because there was error.

If Armstrong is stood in shadow, that means that no light is penetrating that area - fullstop.

I disagree. In fact, any photographer, lighting designer, stagehand, and truck driver will disagree. There is no such thing as total blackness if sunlight is the light source.

So what if its bright on the horizon - how far do you think that the horizon is away from the LEM?

It doesn't matter how far away the horizon is, it matters how far away the nearest lit patch of lunar surface is. And the answer is: just a few meters. Just because there isn't much light where his feet are doesn't mean there isn't much light where his hands or head might be.

how gullible do you really think I am?

Apparently gullible enough to swallow conspiracy theorist arguments hook, line, and sinker without testing them yourself or consulting someone who really knows.

If your saying that his top half is lit whilst his bottom half isnt, why cant we see this in the NASA photos?

First of all, what the eye sees (ergo what the astronaut reports) and what the camera sees (ergo what shows up on the photographs) is not exactly the same thing. Any photographer will tell you that.

Second, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5869HR.jpg and note Buzz's darker lower legs compared to his flank. This photo alone allows a competent photo analyst to determine the light source.

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

This shadow thing really isn't that difficult, Santa. You give the impression of being one of those posters who misunderstands things on purpose (I say this after reading both this and your previous strings of posts).

What is a shadow? When you stand in a shadow you can still see things outside of the shadow. This is because the light emanating from some source (sun, lamp, etc.) is bouncing off other objects and being reflected towards your eyes. This is, of course, how we see anything that we ever see. If you stand in the shadow of a building to get out of the heat of the direct sunlight, you can still see what is going on outside the shadow. I'm certain this has happened to you before, even if you didn't notice it.

Here's a little shadow anecdotes from real life (from yesterday, in fact). There I was, relaxing against a tree in Devil's Lake State Park. We had been rock climbing, and I felt like taking a break and reading "A Natural History of Zero." So I was sitting against this tree, and I was in fact completely covered by the shadow of the tree. Before I started reading I spent some time looking out over the lake and the surrounding hills, all of which were illuminated very brightly. Then, deciding it was time to read, I looked down at my book. But I couldn't read it! Staring at the brightly lit countryside had caused my eyes to adjust to bright light, and when I looked down at the book it took several seconds for my eyes to adjust to the comparatively dim surface off of which I wanted to read. This applies nicely to the Armstrong situation. He could see things beyond the shadow nicely, but when he tried to look down into the shadow it was all very dim. Perhaps if he had spent some time staring down into the shadow his eyes would have adjusted. Perhaps it would have taken far longer than it took me yesterday, because of a greater disparity in the relative brightness of the shadowed and directly lit surfaces.

Aporetic
www.polisci.wisc.edu/~rdparrish

Look, if the guy is in shadow to the extent that he cannot even see where his feet are then there is no way that a camera could see the details of where hes standing

I disagree, and I'm a photographer. ISO 160, f/5.6, 1/60 second. Do the math and prove your point.

Secondly, the LM was between Armstrong and the Sun, so no direct sunlight was hitting that area

Nobody is claiming direct sunlight penetrates the shadow. The sunlight is interreflected from several sources through several lighting "nodes".

Shadow means 'lack of light'.

In whose dictionary? Shadow is the occlusion of a light source. It does not mean lack of light.

... I say that your wrong!

Prove I'm wrong. Photographers do exactly this all the time, on purpose, with similar effects. Have you ever been on an exterior film set? I have. Several times. Guess what they use for fill light: reflected sunlight.

Also in an earlier conversation somebody said that the suits were so reflective because they were made from pieces of glass. If this is the case, doesn't glass melt at high heat?

I was the one who made the comment, and this rejoinder is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

How would the glass heat up? Well, you could say it's in the sunlight and the sun is heating it up. But how much does the sun heat it up? Not very much: the glass was chosen because it's reflective. And in that way it reflects away the light which would have been converted to heat. It was chosen because it has the optical properties that keep it from heating up.

You could say it's in contact with hot surfaces. But what hot surfaces? Aluminum? Steel? Other equipment brought with the astronauts? That all reflects away light too so it doesn't get very hot. The lunar surface and lunar rocks? They absorb a lot of heat and get up to 180 C. Well, that's after hot-soaking in the lunar sun for about a week, not just after sunrise which is when the lunar landings took place.

But let's take the worst case scenario -- a very hot rock at 200 C at high noon on the moon. What would that do to a suit whose outer layer is made of glass, when glass melts at the lowest at 500 C, and typically around 1600 C?

This discussion is deteriorating very rapidly. Unless you can provide evidence, aside from handwaving and foot stomping, that there was insufficient light for photography in the LM's shadow, I don't think you're going to make much headway. I'm an engineer. I require proof in the form of luminance, radiant power, and excitation energy for the films in question. If you can't provide that, you can't claim it was impossible.

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

I'll summarize and paraphrase your questions for clarity:
Where does the light come from that illuminates Armstrong when he's climbing down?
The lunar surface. If you can see something, that means that light is reaching you. Some of it enters your eye, and the rest illuminates you. Armstrong could see the (bright!) lunar surface outside the shadow of the LEM, therefore he was lit.
If the LEM had been in a valley where no sunlit parts of the surface could be seen, THEN you'd have a case. If they'd landed in such a place, the only lightsources would be the stars and possibly the Earth, and darkness would be near-absolute. In this case, there is enough secondary sunlight to illuminate the rear of the LEM fairly well.

Why does he show up so bright, when the surface was in deep shadow?
This is where I attract the wrath of the board members by using the word "albedo". To put it another way: The lunar surface is a dark grey-brown for the most part. The astronaut suit is white. Makes sense that he'll show up brighter, no?

Why does he say that he has trouble seeing that he has good footing?
Because he does. There are quite a few brightly lit rocks in his vicinity, so his night vision is probably not all that good. Further, his feet and the surface he's standing on is less well lit than the rest of him, for the simple reason that they're lit from below. (see JayUtahs argument) And finally, the surface is a poor reflector, so most of the available light is absorbed. It's pretty freaking black.

What about the horizon remark?
I can't speak for the word choice - I go by my memory of what the descent video looked like. Not only the horizon is lit on the landing site, as is easily established from the photos.

Did I miss anything?

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

You don't even need to be outside to see this effect. Most interior rooms are lit by a single light bulb. The filament is milimeters long. It's essentially a point light source. Yet a single light bulb will light up an entire room. There are no stark shadows. I can see under my desk even though the area is not directly lit by the bulb. It's all reflected light under there, yet I can see just fine.

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

Admin of the new and very much improved Apollohoax forum

Be fair, John, be fair. You're point is an excellent demonstration of the effectiveness of fill light, but in order for conspiracists to understand it, it would actually require powers of observation. I think you're being too discriminating.

Again, I ask Santa: how would it be possible NOT to have some light in a shadow without being in a sealed box?

But it's a shadow! That means no light is penetating the area - fullstop. :wink:

How about this question, also for Santa:

If, according to you, shadows are the total absence of light, how do we see in an eclipse? Or at night?

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

My living room has a very large window that faces north. It gets no direct sunlight during most of the day. Yet during the day the living room is bright and cheery. Atmospheric scatter? A little: two maple trees block most of the sky. Where does all that light come from? It bounces off the houses across the street, and from the street itself (albedo 12% -- aged asphalt). But why can I see my ceiling? All you can see out the window from the ceiling is grass, which doesn't reflect much sunlight. The ceiling is illuminated by light bouncing off the floor and walls.

See, what conspiracists never realize is that light bounces many times in many ways in any scene of average complexity. This is why we can see things. It's not all due, as they claim, to atmospheric scatter. Sunlight is incredibly bright. It doesn't take much of it to let you see, and to take pictures.

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

Shadow doesn't mean lack of light. A shadow is cast when something partially blocks one source of light That doesn't mean there is no light coming from other sources in the range of the shadow.

Right now, my PC's speaker is in the shadow of the monitor. But for some fantastic reason I can still see my speaker!

Must be a conspiracy.

__________________
"Most editorials are written by people that love to argue but got kicked off debate team for not making any sense." -Seanbaby

But the above case is what Im talking about. Armstrong did say that he couldn't see where he was standing and yet the camera could see his whole body just fine?

Contradiction seems to take place on this forum quite a bit, with one 'expert' and I use the term lightly, saying one thing and the next another, without the merest of reaction from any of the other BAers.

For instance, time and again I've heard one of the reasons for the brightness of the suits is due to the reflectivity of the lunar surface and yet AstroSmurf comes out with a statement like: Who am I to believe?

Then one person says that you must have light to see, what about on a moonless night here on Earth then? where does the lightsource come from for us to see if were in a rural area with no streetlights?

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. 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.

If Armstrong cannot see his legs when hes standing on top of them, why does the camera miraculously pick them out in bright light? 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. 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? 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 haven't addressed the issue, just restated your original argument. We're saying that if it was all fake, then Armstrong saying what he did was an act of stupidity. Please reconcile how such stupid actions can occur in a scam that has successfully fooled the world for thirty years despite involving almost a million people.

You use the term lightly, we use the term officially. Many posters at LC have proper qualifications and experience in fields relating to this discussion. What qualifications and experience do you have?

The Lunar surface is not the greatest reflector out there, but I would contest Astrosmurf's statement that the surface is that black.

You wouldn't be able to see much at all. But you've subverted your own support. First, you say that an area must be in direct sunlight to be illuminated but then you say that you can see in a rural area with no such light source.

The relevance? The shadows are stark black on the Lunar surface because of absence of sky fill light as there is on Earth. The illuminated areas of the Lunar surface cannot illuminate the shaded areas because they are reflecting the light away from it and in the direction of any EMU in the area.

But moonlight on Earth is no where near the brightness of sunlight. The comparison is not applicable.

You have yet to address the issue about the eye being different from the camera.

The boots were naturally grey. So your argument fails on that ground.

A shadow is a projection on a surface. How can it be above the surface?

The key error in this argument in the incorrect assumption that the boots were white in proper lighting and the grey colour shows that they are in shadow.

First you missed my point, why even release film of the contradiction if the whole process is faked? If everything is supposedly pre-recorded they would catch a SNAFU of this nature and not release it.

Secondly, you've been answered more than once on this and since you seem so fond of analogy here you go. Have you ever gotten up in the middle of the night and while your room is mostly black you can see just a little bit via night vision to make your way to the kitchen and get something to drink. Well after opening the fridge and killing your night vision you can no longer see what you could see just a second ago. The same might apply to Armstrong, maybe everything looked darker to him than it was in reality. This is pure speculation, but the logic is sound.

And I totally call baloney on this very broad statement. The more prolific pro apollo posters Glom, BigJim, JayUtah, jrkeller, the list goes on frequently call each other when something is in disagreement with what they believe is the truth. This board keeps going for that very reason even when we don't have an HB to focus on.

I believe AstroSmurt even said that other BABB members would disagree with him on that statement, but in all instances you must make a choice based upon logic and fact. Just because we don't always agree with one another is not sufficient reason to throw our arguments out the window. Conjecture backed with facts and reasoning are the basis of scientific discovery.

The LM must be much bigger than I remember to cut off all light from the sun. And your analogy is faulty as comparing your bedroom, behind a door to moonlight to the amount of shadow present on the surface of the Moon during broad daylight are irreconcilable. Apple meet orange.

As this relates to Jay, who is far more eloquent than I, then I will let him respond. Once again though you are using a poor analogy, the LM is more like a large car than a small house. Secondly, our perspective in the picture is not perfect for determining the length of the shadow and remember that the angle of the light source will determine how high the shadow reaches.