Comments on: Wagging the Moondoggie: Part IV

By: Rick

Rick — Wed, 31 Dec 2025 17:21:11 +0000

I don’t understand why a ‘debunker’ would claim, “The lunar dust has a peculiar property: it tends to reflect light back in the direction from where it came.” This makes zero sense. If this was the case, we would not be able to see the moon from Earth during most phases, perhaps with the exception of a full moon. Light reflects off of most objects in many directions, regardless of atmosphere.

By: Rick

Rick — Wed, 31 Dec 2025 17:18:58 +0000

In reply to Charles Curtis. Not only did the 12 bouncing astro-nots not think to photograph the stars, but none of the NASA geniuses on the ground either. Perhaps everyone was too preoccupied with the first landing, but surely this would be considered with Apollo 12 on. In fact, equipment could have been left on the moon as a pre-Hubble orbiting observatory.

By: Wagging the Moondoggie: Part IV | Wild's Crew

Wagging the Moondoggie: Part IV | Wild's Crew — Wed, 26 Nov 2025 21:40:23 +0000

[…] Wagging the Moondoggie: Part IV […]

By: Alexander C. Baker, J.D.

Alexander C. Baker, J.D. — Thu, 04 Sep 2025 22:19:16 +0000

The Apollo missions would have been, hands down, the best opportunity to photograph the stars – remember, no Hubble space telescope then. Even more important, it would have been the only opportunity to photograph the Earth. Earth from the moon appears 4x the size of the moon from Earth. Could you imagine what the Earth looks like in the black lunar sky? Spectacular photos could and would have been taken of the Earth with the 500 mm lens.

It is literally impossible that NASA “forgot” to plan for photographing the stars and the Earth. This, combined with the impossibility of bringing enough fuel to lift off from the moon, plus the impossibility of the magic space suits, is all evidence that they never went. I give no credence to the lighting anomalies. They never would have used artificial light, they’re not stupid. They used the sun.

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 15 Aug 2025 20:12:00 +0000

Charles, there are no pictures of the stars for the same reason you don’t see stars during daylight hours here on earth, the sun overwhelms them. The “sky” is black because there is no atmosphere to diffuse the light. On the moon, there is a sunrise (new moon), then two weeks of sunlight leading to a full moon. Then two weeks of night (sunset starting at the first sunrise) leading to a new moon once again. The landings occurred during moon daylight hours so there would be no sunrise and they would have departed before sunset. The sun would be mostly overhead and appear the same size as here on earth, they would have been about the same distance (give or take) to the sun as here on earth. The earth is about 4 times bigger than the moon but would still look small when viewed from the moon. The visual illusion of a large full moon is always shattered when you take an unzoomed photo of the moon. An aspirin held at arms length will cover a full moon. Having said all that, it doesn’t mean that the landings weren’t faked. They just would have gotten this part of the equation correct.

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 25 Jul 2025 17:56:00 +0000

In reply to Charles Curtis.

“There would be no stars visible just as there are no stars visible here on earth during daylight hours, the sun overwhelms them. Since the moon only rotates once on its axis every trip around the earth (hence only one side visible to us), the astronauts were always in daylight conditions. The “sky” is black because there is no atmosphere to diffuse light, causing our blue sky.”

Again, there would be no sunrise or sunset, the moon is “locked” in a one revolution on its axis corresponding to one trip around the earth. Depending on the moon latitude of the landing site, the sun would be pretty much overhead.

The earth is approximately 4 times bigger than the moon but still would appear small in the photos unless it was zoomed. We all think a full moon is big when it rises in the east but if you held an aspirin between thumb and forefinger at arms length it would cover the full moon. Take an unzoomed pic of a full moon and you will be very disappointed with the result.

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 25 Jul 2025 13:05:56 +0000

In reply to Randall. There would be no stars visible just as there are no stars visible here on earth during daylight hours, the sun overwhelms them. Since the moon only rotates once on its axis every trip around the earth (hence only one side visible to us), the astronauts were always in daylight conditions. The "sky" is black because there is no atmosphere to diffuse light, causing our blue sky.

By: Charles Curtis

Charles Curtis — Wed, 23 Apr 2025 06:53:22 +0000

No pictures of the stars.. Most oddly, one in particular: Our Sun. That must be quite a sight from the moon. They took pictures of the Earth, that oddly had no stars visible around it, but never of the Sun.. Or have I simply never seen the images? A sunrise or set on the moon must be quite a sight, why no pictures of them?

By: Alissa

Alissa — Tue, 08 Apr 2025 22:59:02 +0000

In reply to Scott.

Hi, Scott! I’m glad it worked out! The only reason it wasn’t posted is simply because I am very behind approving messages, so I’m just now seeing it today. I would have posted it, but now I won’t. 🙂

Alissa

By: mellyrn

mellyrn — Sun, 23 Mar 2025 13:17:51 +0000

In reply to Bryan Shepherd. That's too cool for most fabrics, which don't burn till closer to 300F (for silk) or more (400+ for polyester). More to the point, though, there is no air for either smoldering or flaming. Photographic film melts at 150F.