Duane Daman Posted February 2, 2007 Author Share Posted February 2, 2007 I do believe you missed the entire point Steve ... It's obviously NOT laying on the lunar surface but rather laying on a moon set on earth ... And that's precisely why it didn't self destruct or burst into flames . .... Love , straydog . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Here's a picture from this site which I thought was very interesting ... and it should be interesting also to see what kind of disinformation you all come up with to pretend to debunk this . "The impossible family foto of astronaut Charlie Duke Astronaut Charles Duke is said having left a family foto "on the moon" shrink-wrapped in plastic. This shall document a "family story" on the foto AS 16-117-18841 (Wisnewski, S.167). Contradictions: -- without atmosphere the shrink-wrapping would swell and burst -- during the strong sun on the moon the foto would bleach soon -- with a minimum of 100°C on the moon the foto would convolve immediately (experiment oven)." http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmo...tions-ENGL.html 1. Why would something shrink-wrapped swell and burst? Surely that would necessitate air bubbles? Why can't shrink-wrapping eliminate this? There could well be some outgassing but I don't see why this would be an issue. 2. I quite agree the photo would fade in time, but this photo was taken pretty much as soon as the family snap was put on the surface. How quickly would you expect it to noticeably fade? Seconds? Minutes? I'm guessing days or weeks. If you think you have a better guess, let's hear it. 3. A conventional oven contains air, and heats mainly by convection. No air on moon, no convection. Only heat would be conduction from the lunar surface, and infrared radiation from the sun. Would that be enough to frazzle the photo in a short space of time? I doubt it, but can't offer any evidence to support it. Can you offer any evidence to support your claim? No disinformation for you Duane, just my own opinion. Ever heard of CONDUCTION? Try putting a piece of metal on the ground in the sun. It will get VERY HOT FROM CONDUCTION...not convection...not radiation. Various materials have better conductivity than others. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Here's a picture from this site which I thought was very interesting ... and it should be interesting also to see what kind of disinformation you all come up with to pretend to debunk this . "The impossible family foto of astronaut Charlie Duke Astronaut Charles Duke is said having left a family foto "on the moon" shrink-wrapped in plastic. This shall document a "family story" on the foto AS 16-117-18841 (Wisnewski, S.167). Contradictions: -- without atmosphere the shrink-wrapping would swell and burst -- during the strong sun on the moon the foto would bleach soon -- with a minimum of 100°C on the moon the foto would convolve immediately (experiment oven)." http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmo...tions-ENGL.html 1. Why would something shrink-wrapped swell and burst? Surely that would necessitate air bubbles? Why can't shrink-wrapping eliminate this? There could well be some outgassing but I don't see why this would be an issue. 2. I quite agree the photo would fade in time, but this photo was taken pretty much as soon as the family snap was put on the surface. How quickly would you expect it to noticeably fade? Seconds? Minutes? I'm guessing days or weeks. If you think you have a better guess, let's hear it. 3. A conventional oven contains air, and heats mainly by convection. No air on moon, no convection. Only heat would be conduction from the lunar surface, and infrared radiation from the sun. Would that be enough to frazzle the photo in a short space of time? I doubt it, but can't offer any evidence to support it. Can you offer any evidence to support your claim? No disinformation for you Duane, just my own opinion. Ever heard of CONDUCTION? Try putting a piece of metal on the ground in the sun. It will get VERY HOT FROM CONDUCTION...not convection...not radiation. Various materials have better conductivity than others. Jack Jack Read my post properly. I list conduction as one of the two mechanisms that would cause the photo to heat up. How much it would heat by, is a moot point. I've no intention of baking some sand in an oven to find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Here's a picture from this site which I thought was very interesting ... and it should be interesting also to see what kind of disinformation you all come up with to pretend to debunk this . "The impossible family foto of astronaut Charlie Duke Astronaut Charles Duke is said having left a family foto "on the moon" shrink-wrapped in plastic. This shall document a "family story" on the foto AS 16-117-18841 (Wisnewski, S.167). Contradictions: -- without atmosphere the shrink-wrapping would swell and burst -- during the strong sun on the moon the foto would bleach soon -- with a minimum of 100°C on the moon the foto would convolve immediately (experiment oven)." http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmo...tions-ENGL.html 1. Why would something shrink-wrapped swell and burst? Surely that would necessitate air bubbles? Why can't shrink-wrapping eliminate this? There could well be some outgassing but I don't see why this would be an issue. 2. I quite agree the photo would fade in time, but this photo was taken pretty much as soon as the family snap was put on the surface. How quickly would you expect it to noticeably fade? Seconds? Minutes? I'm guessing days or weeks. If you think you have a better guess, let's hear it. 3. A conventional oven contains air, and heats mainly by convection. No air on moon, no convection. Only heat would be conduction from the lunar surface, and infrared radiation from the sun. Would that be enough to frazzle the photo in a short space of time? I doubt it, but can't offer any evidence to support it. Can you offer any evidence to support your claim? No disinformation for you Duane, just my own opinion. Ever heard of CONDUCTION? Try putting a piece of metal on the ground in the sun. It will get VERY HOT FROM CONDUCTION...not convection...not radiation. Various materials have better conductivity than others. Jack Jack Read my post properly. I list conduction as one of the two mechanisms that would cause the photo to heat up. How much it would heat by, is a moot point. I've no intention of baking some sand in an oven to find out. You said CONDUCTION FROM THE LUNAR SURFACE. The direct sun rays ON THE PHOTO would create great heat. Paper is a poor conductor compared to metal, but the paper molecules would heat the paper by conduction. Checking internet sources... Definition of conduction: "It is the flow of heat through solids by vibration and collision of molecules and free electrons. The molecules of a portion of a system with higher temperature vibrate faster than the molecules of other regions of the same -or of another- system with lower temperature. The molecules with a higher movement collide with the molecules less energized and transfer part of their energy to the less energized molecules of the colder regions of the structure. For example, the heat transfer by conduction through the bodywork of a car." And what is the temperature of objects heated by conduction on the moon? "The temperature on the surface of the moon generally ranges from 265F (130C) in sunlight to -170F (-110C) in darkness"... Notice that objects on the moon heated by the sun can reach 265 degrees. Remember, water boils at 212 degrees. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 You said CONDUCTION FROM THE LUNAR SURFACE. The direct sun rays ON THE PHOTO would create great heat. Paper is a poor conductor compared to metal, but the paper molecules would heat the paper by conduction.Checking internet sources... Definition of conduction: "It is the flow of heat through solids by vibration and collision of molecules and free electrons. The molecules of a portion of a system with higher temperature vibrate faster than the molecules of other regions of the same -or of another- system with lower temperature. The molecules with a higher movement collide with the molecules less energized and transfer part of their energy to the less energized molecules of the colder regions of the structure. For example, the heat transfer by conduction through the bodywork of a car." And what is the temperature of objects heated by conduction on the moon? "The temperature on the surface of the moon generally ranges from 265F (130C) in sunlight to -170F (-110C) in darkness"... Notice that objects on the moon heated by the sun can reach 265 degrees. Remember, water boils at 212 degrees. Jack Jack, You mentioned a temperature range with the conditions but neglected to fully explain it. Firstly, ask yourself - why do we have that range of temperatures? Because the surface will go from total darkness to full sunlight. If an area receives no sunlight, then its temperature will drop to near the values indicated by Jack. If an area receives sunlight, then over the period of exposure it will heat up to a maximum value (probably near what Jack has said) then cool again. Think about a hot summer day, and a concrete surface (this example will neglect conduction). Early in the morning, just after sunrise, the concrete will be cool. As the day passes, it will heat up, reaching quite a high temperature shortly after the sun's zenith. As the day turns into night, the concrete will cool down. This is essentially what happens on the Moon. Would that photograph be intact today? Most certainly not. It would have been exposed to sunlight / temperature and have degraded. The point is, however, when the image of that photograph was taken, it had only been on the surface for a few minutes at best. That time would have been insufficient to significantly degrade the photograph such that it would have been visibly affected in the image taken of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Jack Read my post properly. I list conduction as one of the two mechanisms that would cause the photo to heat up. How much it would heat by, is a moot point. I've no intention of baking some sand in an oven to find out. You said CONDUCTION FROM THE LUNAR SURFACE. The direct sun rays ON THE PHOTO would create great heat. Paper is a poor conductor compared to metal, but the paper molecules would heat the paper by conduction. Checking internet sources... The ONLY two ways that the photo is going to be heated, is conduction of heat from the lunar surface, and radiated heat directly (and to a very minor extent indirectly) from the sun. And what is the temperature of objects heated by conduction on the moon?"The temperature on the surface of the moon generally ranges from 265F (130C) in sunlight to -170F (-110C) in darkness"... Notice that objects on the moon heated by the sun can reach 265 degrees. Remember, water boils at 212 degrees. Jack I think Evan's post should answer your question more than adequately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Duane has proposed that many or most Apollo photos were shot on a stage-set, with a painted backdrop some 50 or so feet away. If this were true, we should be able to find evidence, rather than subjective opinion, to support this position. Similarly, there should be evidence to support the hypothesis that the photos really were taken on the moon. For example, on Apollo 15, there are (among others) 2 photos of Mount Hadley taken approximately 40 minutes apart according to the ALSJ, but within a few metres of each other, looking in the direction of Mount Hadley. In each of the photos linked below, Mount Hadley is partially lit, top centre. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-85-11427HR.jpg http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-85-11453HR.jpg Part of the mountain is in shadow - but as the sun is rising, we would expect to see minor changes in shadow lengths on Mount Hadley. Specifically, shadow lengths should shorten as the sun rises - so shadow lengths should shorten fron 11427 to 11453. Here's a crop from 11427. And a crop of the same area from 11523. (There has been some rotation and minor scaling performed in Photoshop to ensure the surface features match, otherwise no changes to the crops). Quite clearly, you can see the terminator change position from one photo to the next, exactly as you would expect if this was a lunar photo. The animated GIF below shows this effect quite clearly. I think this level of detail would be exceedingly difficult to fake using the kind of painted mountain backdrops that have been proposed. Hence, I see this as good evidence that the photo is genuine, rather than faked. Comments/criticisms invited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 2, 2007 Author Share Posted February 2, 2007 Yeah .. a comment ... They moved the spotlight on the moon set . I know it's been a rough week with my swaping insults with some of the members here , and then joking around with some of the Apollo photos .... but I have made my apologies to the administrator and will now ignore the members who have been so insulting to me . This thread is about faked Apollo photos and before I am finished I plan to post many of the faked photos here , and hopefully be able to explain and prove why they are fake and not taken on the moon . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Excellent point, Dave. Well done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Yeah .. a comment ... They moved the spotlight on the moon set . Do you consider this evidence of fakery? In other words, do you think this effect would be impossible on the moon? And if the mountain is a painted backdrop as you claim, please explain how altering a spotlight would produce such a change in the shadow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Here's another one, again from Apollo 15. The two photos are AS15-85-11429 and AS15-85-11455. Look at the background, alleged to be a painted backdrop. A quick glance shows the mountain backgrounds to certainly be similar, but if they're painted backdrops, surely they should be identical. Zooming in on a face of one mountain in shadow shows the shadow length differing - the effect is enhanced due to the steepness of the slope. Crop of 11429 Crop of 11455 GIF Here I've highlighted in purple the area I'm referring to - the lightened area in green appears to be due to lens flare. So, is it more likely to be photos of a distant mountain with the sun rising, taken some 40 minutes apart - or a painted backrop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 (edited) Here's another one, again from Apollo 15. The two photos are AS15-85-11429 and AS15-85-11455.Look at the background, alleged to be a painted backdrop. A quick glance shows the mountain backgrounds to certainly be similar, but if they're painted backdrops, surely they should be identical. Zooming in on a face of one mountain in shadow shows the shadow length differing - the effect is enhanced due to the steepness of the slope. Crop of 11429 Crop of 11455 GIF Here I've highlighted in purple the area I'm referring to - the lightened area in green appears to be due to lens flare. So, is it more likely to be photos of a distant mountain with the sun rising, taken some 40 minutes apart - or a painted backrop? Why are you assuming that the stage set backdrops were FLAT? I have not seen that suggested. In fact, I have assumed that they were modeled with shape to them. Plaster of Paris would be too heavy, but plastic molds could be made. Too, you are forgetting that the MOON DOES NOT REVOLVE like earth but is in a locked orbit, so its solar days are not 24 hours, so sunlight would not move nearly as fast as you theorize. A solar day on the moon is approximately THIRTY EARTH DAYS LONG so shadow movement would be almost imperceptable between two photo exposures. Jack Edited February 5, 2007 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 "A solar day on the moon is approximately THIRTY EARTH DAYS LONG so shadow movement would be almost imperceptable between two photo exposures." .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ulman Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 "A solar day on the moon is approximately THIRTY EARTH DAYS LONG so shadow movement would be almost imperceptable between two photo exposures." .... Jack / Duane- Some polite questions: Do you have any clue how far the terminator between daylight and night will travel on the moon (at its equator) in 40 minutes? If you do, can you share with the rest of us? (+/- 1000 feet would be acceptable) If you do not know the answer, how do you know that the shadow movement over 40 min. would be imperceptable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 5, 2007 Author Share Posted February 5, 2007 Good question .... Do you know the answer ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now