Quote:
Graphicism:
Okay, so let's debunk the debunker, then what? |
My responses to your four questions. Probably not enough for you, but it's my best shot.
-
Quote:
01. Where are the stars in the lunar surface photographs?
Phil: The stars are there! They're just too faint to be seen. He goes on to talk about exposure and to test this ourselves 'with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used'
Right Phil! I'll just pull out my Lunar Hasselblad and give this a shot! |
You don't need a lunar Hasselblad. Take any camera, and set it to normal daylight exposure, say 1/125s@f/16, using the sunny 16 rule. (ISO 100 for a digital camera) Go outside on a dark night and take a picture of a starry sky. You will have a black frame, I guarantee it. (I've been in photography for 45 years, so I do know what I'm talking about.) Also, read what he said carefully - same camera settings, not the same camera.
In fact, I would bet that you would have a hard time even seeing all but the very brightest stars with the naked eye during lunar daytime, simply because of the brightness. Your pupils constrict, so as to avoid damaging your retina. The stars are dim and you won't be able to see them.
-
Quote:
02. Why was the flag waving despite there being no air on the moon?
Phil: In a vacuum or not, when you whip around the vertical pole, the flag will ``wave'', since it is attached at the top.
This is completely False, no one was touching the flag in the video and yet it was waving. |
Waving a Flag on the Moon
Perhaps this is a better explanation?
-
Quote:
03. Why was there no blast crater beneath the lunar lander?
Phil: Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle.
Sounds nice on paper, but in reality it would be somewhat like a Harrier landing in the desert. YouTube - AV8-B Harrier Landing onboard the USS Bataan |
I've seen Harriers land in person. There's a lot of dust, depending on conditions, but no crater. Also, depending on the depth of the lunar regolith, once the dust has blown away you're down to rock, which is much more resistant to the rocket blast. A rocket lifting off is more likely to make a crater, since it has to build up thrust. - that's why NASA has launch pads with heatproof blast pits.
-
Quote:
04. Why did the camera not melt due to high levels of heat and radiation?
Phil: No explanation |
The moon has no atmosphere. We have hot days on Earth because the
air heats up. No air, no heat. The temperatures often quoted for the moon are
surface temperatures. The side of the camera facing the Sun will get hot, but the rest of the camera is radiating heat away into space. Outer space is a pretty effective heatsink.
If there was sufficient radiation to melt the camera, I don't think the space suit would have fared much better.
Quote:
| May I also add that if you can't think for yourself at least get your information from someone who doesn't confuse ducks with UFOs. 'Bad Astronomy': Very Bad Indeed? |
I can think for myself. I grew up with the space program, and was 11 at the time of the first moon landing. I firmly believe we went there, when we said we did. It boggles my mind that people can think we didn't.
The latest lunar orbiter has sufficient resolution to see the early landing sites. I wonder what the conspiracy theorists will have to say about that?
