/sci/ - Science & Math

>post random picture
>assume it isn't shooped
>base entire argument on one picture
>babby's first internet visit

Bump for interest.

I'm curious to see what /sci/ says.

>I mean, if you look out into the night sky on Earth,

That picture was not taken at night.

The camera is adjusted for the WICKED BRIGHT light of the sun and white lunar soil.

>>3922451
The pic is "earthrise"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthrise

It's because of our atmosphere combined with how our eyes filter light.

Just google "Why can't you see stars in space" and read for 5 minutes. God damn.

that picture is taken at DAY not at NIGHT.

EXPOSURE
EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE

>>3922462
>>3922473


This. The picture was taken during daytime, as evidenced by the ground not being dark. Can you see stars in the daytime against the glare of the sun?

>2011
>still believing man landed on the moon
ISHetc

OP just look up WhiteJarrah on youtube, young aussie kid whose been debunking most of the 'evidence' NASA provides, he's even been called out before by Myth Busters when they did their special on the moon landing, and he responded to them with a video debunking their faked experiments on the show.

About the stars:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdWi5ueVgSs&feature=channel_video_title

About the flags:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ

About the crater:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEQNZQdJFtI

he's got like 600 videos.. check him out.

>>3922495

>debunking their faked experiments on the show.

You can't fake lasers reflectors.

>>3922495

>young aussie kid

Sounds legit

>>3922509
I'm referring to the photos where they appear lit up because of the reflective property of the moon, they were using powder which was way more reflective than what the moon actually is

>>3922443
You're not a filmographer either, so stfu and sit down to learn.

>>3922509
>>3922522
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPni1ESWlNU

Here..

>that just.. doesn't sound right

It doesn't sound right to you because you have only a passing familiarity with photography.

>shouldn't stars be visible as all fuck?

Not while sunlight and the reflective surface of the moon are overpowering them.

>>3922522
>using powder which was way more reflective than what the moon actually is
>same albedo
>way more reflective

I am disappointed in you my son.

>this thread
http://youtube.com/X5lWNQ4J_v0

>>3922551
The regolith is between 0.07 and 0.1, Myth Busters used Portland Cement and Charcoal powder, but if you watch the video, it'll source the actual reflective properties

Gray Portland cement concrete
0.35 - 0.40 (new)
0.20 - 0.30 (weathered)

White Portland cement concrete
0.70 - 0.80 (new)
0.40 - 0.60 (weathered)

WhiteJarrah does the test himself, on an asphalt road in the middle of a deserted area..

Asphalt
0.05 - 0.10 (new)
0.10 - 0.15 (weathered)

Laser reflectors, visible remnants on the moon through some high-definition telescopes, momentum made the flag whip about, Van Allen belt easily felt with by passing through quickly with some shielding, a conspiracy that large would be impossible for a government as stupid as ours to keep covered up,

>>3922584
To add, in the video, they point out that they never even show what the reflective properties are, but show the footage of Adam holding up a calculator which he just punched in the numbers 0.08..

You Amerifags still believe you guys landed on the moon? You guys will believe anything..

>it's almost like the cold war never happened

OH MY GOD THE FLAGM OVED AFTER A GUY RAN PAST IT

NO WAY IT DID THAT DUE TO HIS STEPS VIBRATING THE GROUND OF BY HIS HAND BRUSHING AGAINST THE FLAG-CLEARLY A GIANT CONSPIRACY HAPPENED.

Seriously? And the I CANT MAKE WHAT HAPPENED HAPPEN WITH THAT FLAG HAPPEN WITH A FLAG MADE OF A DIFFERENT MATERIAL ON A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF GRAVITY IN A NEAR VACUUM, CONSPIRACY

Jesus fuck, fuzzy logic and paranoia everywhere.

>>3922495
thanks for those videos. he's actually very thorough, i'll admit. watching reflect on this right now

>>3922627
yeah....
do the russians think the moonlanding was a conspiracy?

>>3922662
28% do now.

At the time, they carefully tracked the launch and were disheartened about being beaten.

I will laugh my ass off when another country goes to the moon and shows off the remains of the missions and all you faggots are shown up for the deranged conspiracy theory fuckheads you really are. I bet that Aussie fuck would deny the landings if he was standing right in front of them.

Holy shit do faggots still think we never landed on the moon?

I've personally operated a 36 inch telescope observatory, and looked at the moon landing sight and seen the footprints, what the fuck are you going to say now?

>>3922680
>mfw the chinese moon landing is a hoax too and they just put the american flag in their set for shits and giggles.

>That feel when you meet a moon hoaxer/flat earther/hollow earther

I'm embarrassed for both of us.

>>3922689
No existing telescope can resolve details that small on the Moon.

>>3922693
Oh come on. WE'D BE TRACKING THEIR SHIP ALL THE WAY TO THE MOON. HOW DO YOU FAKE DIRECT OBSERVATION, YOU SILLY MAN?

>>3922699
Why not just build a non existant one?

>>3922721
Money?

>>3922699
>>3922689

It's "too blurry obviously faked" for conspiracy theorists, naturally.

easy experiment
take your phone camera
point it at the night sky
do you see anything at all? even jupiter?
now downgrade that phone camera by 70 years

i'm not saying the moon cameras were crap, but i mean, come on.

>>3922732
That picture was taken by the LRO, not a telescope on Earth.

>>3922725
How well does money focus?

>>3922747
that is the most retarded thing i've ever heard

earth has an atmosphere

we have fog, smog, pollution

holy fuck why did i even respond

8/10 would rage again

>>3922803
it's more a proof of concept than anything, since that's all truthers seem to be able to grasp

start going into stuff like "exposure time" and they'll probably have an aneurysm

EXPOSURE
EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE

>>3922443
You need long and/or high exposures in order to capture light as faint as starlight.

>I mean, if you look out into the night sky on Earth, you can barely make out the stars in the sky, usually because of how dense and polluted our atmosphere is, right?
No, because the surround lights of the city or town you live in override them, and make them harder to see. You need to go out someplace where it's completely dark to see all the starlight you can.

> Why are there no stars?

Day.

Sun's kind of bright.

Allow me to explain this in a simple analogy. You're being exposed to Light...and the light actually drowns out any other remaining light. It's like when a singer gets up on a stage and sings but they can't really see the audience that well because of the giant freaking lights and all those cameras flashing in their faces.