SCEPCOP Forum

Again, Jarrah White really does his HOMEWORK in this one, which the skeptics and Apollo defenders failed to do.

Description:

There have been many photographs taken from the various Apollo missions showing brightly lit objects that should be in shade. Conspiracy theorists believe fill-lights or reflectors were used to fill in the shadows. Propagandists claim that it's just light bouncing off the lunar surface that's causing the illumination.

In this video Jarrah White responds to the Mythbusters, ZigZag Productions and Jay Windley by doing what no propagandists has bothered to do - get the albedo right.

Watch what happens when we shoot photographs of shadowed objects on an asphelt surface. We know that the moon has an average albedo of 0.07. According to the American Concrete Pavement Association, this is within the vicinity of the albedo of asphelt - which makes it the perfect surface material for testing the lunar reflectivity.

http://www.pavement.com/Downloads/RT/RT3.05.pdf

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

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)

Why has no propagandist ever done their tests on an asphelt road? And why do some even pretend that their choice of surface material has the same albedo as the moon when they know it doesn't?

So skeptics, why would Mythbusters admit that the moon has an albedo of 7 to 10 percent, according to NASA, yet use a gravel to represent the moon that has an albedo of 40 percent? Was that a big error or a deliberate lie?

Could you please freakin' save me 35 minutes out of my life and tell us, in plain English, what in the hell these videos want to show? The evidence I've seen is that Mythbusters used an albedo of 8 and went to great effort to ensure it's acuracy. Is this trying to say they lied and didn't measure correctly? Who cares what material they used if the albedo was accurate. What evidence do you have that they did not measure appropriately.

I still don't understand why you insist that your readers watch videos. However, I watched one of the videos where Jarrah scientificaly uses one headlight from his car to take a picture of a Leggo Lunar Module (yes, I said Leggo Lunar Module).
Essentially, what I gathered, was that Jarrah was stating that Mythbusters didn't show their albedo test so he's calling them liars. According to this video, they claimed their mixture resulted in an 8% albedo, but they didn't show the results, only the figures on the calculator so they must have used a higher percentage mixture. He's stating, correctly, that the Portland Cement that they used has a much higher albedo than asphelt. Mythbusters did, however, mix charcoal into their mixture and this creates a much, much lower reflective percentage (i.e. albedo).
My question to anyone, if they would care to answer, is this: Since he was stating that Mythbusters was lying about the result of their albedo test on concrete and charcoal, why didn't he just create his own sample of the mixture that Mythbusters used and test it himself? Why did he have to drive 20 miles outside of Sydney, duct tape a headlight, and take an overexposed picture of a miniature Leggo Lunar Module to prove his point? I think Jarrah is just trying to save his grandfather's name.

Hello Scecop. Thanks for posting many videos about the moon hoax thingy.

I have spent the last day and half watching many more on youtube. If the government can lie bigtime or protect those who lie bigtime ''like'' NASA, then at what lengths would they go to?

Say for example drop a Nuclear Bomb on themselves and blame the Russians,Chinese,Iranians?

I think it's plauseble to confirm that Governments are like a colony of Ants,they view everyone as expendible for the BIG ANT HILL.

I hate USA government and All governments.......... Bloody Liars!

The videos are so full of nonsense it makes me chuckle. This is one of the best silly videos I've seen in a long time. It makes the nonsense from Creationists look less funny. I have to hand it to these folks for their comedy of errors.

Let me give you a few hints:
1. The first mistake is to claim that the only light source is from the sun.
2. The albedo is an average for an object
3. The claims that light sources must be from the point of the view of the camera is a logical fallacy
4. The sensitivity of the camera to light is not the same as the human eye

Thanks for the humor guys

So the Fact that Mythbusters was 30% off in their calculations means Nothing then?

Or did they reduce the reflectivity another way? Didn't they say they added something to the concrete?

I really can't believe what I'm reading in this thread... the fact that there are people who can, with a straight face, suggest such massive "cover-up" scenarios without giving an ounce of consideration as to how many people would have to be involved and the fact that human beings can't keep their mouths shut. Eventually a proof-positive leak would surface and there hasn't been one single valid bit of information to surface, suggesting Lunar Landing Fraud... NONE!

...speaking of the Dumbing Down of America

The only Conspiracy Theory I've ever found that has some semblance of possibility, are those tied to the possible "Holy Bloodline" of Christ. There are some loose bits of evidence that support this idea and given the Church's history of destroying anything or anyone that don't play by their rules, it's safe to say that some of the key tid-bits that would tighten up this theory, are non-extant at this point. But when it comes to the silliness of supposed fraud tied to the Moon Landings, certain ET theories, 9/11, the Holocaust, etc I have to say that folks really need some good therapy and maybe neuro-surgery.

Sorry, but I simply can't comprehend how or why any human being with average intelligence let alone high intelligence, can fall into this ridiculous course of drama. For Christ's sake, engage your common sense man! Look at how absurd this kind of theory actually is and why.

I'm not saying that to be cruel of insulting, I'm honestly concerned about your mental & emotional well being given how vested you seem to be when it comes to this delusion.

Yes... what I propose doesn't entail a massive, very complicated cover-up and too, how I explain most of what I put forth stems from some very down to earth realities/facts that science itself is exploiting every day (with the exception of Edward... that's a different issue).

I believe I've also clarified some things about those people I consider probably for real vs. that other 95+% out there who function mainly off of ego and personal delusion... most of whom are "ladder climbers" following whatever new trend crops up in hopes of cashing in on that fad. Not so with the 6% (ish) mentioned... they are more reclusive, private and far more prone to do "the work" for free or barter than focusing on the cash or popularity game.

I understand what you're saying and agree, from a certain angle it sounds rather hypocritical But at the same time, a massive cover-up such as some have tabled... the logistics alone are mind-boggling. But hey, we live in an era in which folks claim the Holocaust didn't happen