It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

page: 25
40
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

And you really think that an astronaut on an EVA is going to turn his lights off, and just sit there letting his eyes adjust, so he can look around and see stars? They're out there to do a job, not sightsee, and the entire time outside the station, they're working.




posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   
This whole post has "flat Earth" undertones .

Its ridiculous to state that stars cannot been seen from space if one has never been there.

As somebody earlier said " our sun is a star " , so that should be enough to debunk this stupid premise.



posted on Feb, 8 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Gideon70



Its ridiculous to state that stars cannot been seen from space if one has never been there.


True, so we need to ask the people who have been there, and some say they did see stars and some said it was totally black out there, so that doesn't answer the question.




As somebody earlier said " our sun is a star " , so that should be enough to debunk this stupid premise.


Yes, I'll agree the Sun is a star, but what does it look like to the only people who have been able to view it from clear space, from outside of Earths (or the Moons) atmosphere so we can eliminate the possibility of those atmospheres affecting what the Sun looks like. That reduces the number of people who have been able to see the Sun from cislunar space to 18, and they had lots of time to study the Sun both going to and coming back from the Moon.
So we just look at the images they took on each mission and compare them so we know the Sun looked the same on each mission. We can also compare the observations of the astronauts, how big did the Sun appear, what colour was it, could sunspots be seen, or prominences?
And the best astronauts to ask would be those who went EVA in cislunar space to retrieve the film canisters from the SIM bay cameras, that must have been some experience out there in the "utter blackness of cislunar space". Unless the high intensity EVA light blinded them to stars, but I'm sure they would have mentioned that in their reports. OBM probably has everything filed away neatly and ready at hand, he's the man for sure with this Apollo stuff.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

We can see stars from Earth so to say they can't be seen from space would require a very special explanation. I won't cite any photographs of stars taken in space because doubters don't accept them.



Yes, I'll agree the Sun is a star, but what does it look like to the only people who have been able to view it from clear space, from outside of Earths (or the Moons) atmosphere so we can eliminate the possibility of those atmospheres affecting what the Sun looks like.


The Sun's size (angular diameter) from the Moon, or en route, is almost the same as it is from on Earth. It'll look brighter without the filters of our layered atmosphere, but observers outside our atmosphere will still have a shielded view through protected visors, coated glass etc.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Gideon70

Actually it doesn't have flat earth undertones, it has concave earth undertones.

From the OP's source: "Conclusion
If everyone in the northern hemisphere can see the north star, this star must be above the north pole somewhere whether just above it in the atmosphere, right through to the center of the Earth (or “space”), or anywhere in between. The fact that everyone in the northern hemisphere can see these stars move in an anti-clockwise direction around Polaris must mean that these stars are extremely near the very center of the Earth."

The OP's source, Wild Heretic, is a known concave earth proponent that thinks stars is a product of sonoluminescence, and that the whole universe is contained in the centre of the concave earth. And the sun and the moon is according to this retard just a few km big.
He seems to have some affiliation with a guy that believes himself to be God and Jesus, lord steven christ, seems very culty if you check out his youtube channel.

And yeah, they believe there's a glass ceiling 100km up in the sky




Here's lord Steven's ats account, he used to call himself Plumbo: LSC ats account

edit on 2016-02-09T01:58:59-06:00amTue, 09 Feb 2016 01:58:59 -0600ambam2016 by carabao because: Eta link



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Can't believe this you can't see stars in space BS is still being preached

Earth & Moon

Taken from 114 million miles so NO atmosphere GaryN what can we see stars the Earth & Moon, now no doubt GaryN will start thumbing through his book of excuses to why this image cant be true, I can't wait to see the reply.
edit on 9-2-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky



The Sun's size (angular diameter) from the Moon, or en route, is almost the same as it is from on Earth.


The Suns size from the Moon is way bigger than what it should be, given the lens they were using. En route we have no idea, the astronauts never talked about it. Lens effect, or is that what the Sun really looked like? Again, the astronauts didn't talk about it.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
Here's Earth with the same lens (60mm, so would appear smaller by eye), and the Sun would only be about 1/4 of the Earths diameter.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
I believe that is how the Sun really appeared to the astronauts, due to the lunar dust atmosphere creating the diffuse beam with a more well defined core.


@wmd_2008



now no doubt GaryN will start thumbing through his book of excuses to why this image cant be true, I can't wait to see the reply.


The WAC is also used as the NavCam using the 750nm filter so it's 'seeing' IR. The camera, or rather spectral imager, goes to 1100nm, so I don't know what wavelength the image was taken at. If you really think the Earth and Moon would be so bright from that distance, or even visible at all by eye or a regular camera, you have been completely duped by NASA.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN



GaryN time to put your rubbish theories to bed !

NASA Juno mission to Jupiter


JunoCam (or JCM) is the visible-light camera/telescope of the Juno Jupiter orbiter

You do know what VISIBLE light means ?

The camera uses a Kodak image sensor, the KODAK KAI-2020, capable of color imaging at 1600 x 1200 pixels. It has a field of view of 18 x 3.4 degrees with three filters to provide color imaging.


Moon

This image was acquired on October 9, 2013 at 11:07 UT



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Well here's an alleged photo of stars from the space shuttle that disagrees with that theory. I think NASA is just trying to keep it's Apollo hoax alive but I don't think it can last for much longer.

www.google.com... =705&dpr=0.9#imgrc=Mc1ke22iwWf4cM%3A
edit on 9-2-2016 by CB328 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Many of those pictures are digitally created . . . one of them is of an X-Wing for crying out loud.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Nice post.

Notice how washed out the Earth is. Which is why when exposure is changed to capture the Earth properly, the stars are not captured.

This has been stated a million times here to some deaf ears.



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Stars are to humans as Pixels are to television. The Earth is just one big lens that allows the trillion of stars to do there job...just like pixels, and just like the the MegaPixels in your eye.

Stars, pixels, mega pixels are all the same, just used in various ways to present the image. Iml527


I wonder if stars was categorized as pixels ,I wonder what the number would be ?



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 09:12 AM
link   
I cant believe i just read the entire 25 pages of this idiocy. It took me 3 days, but i did it....im wasting my life.

GaryN....do you really believe that Xrays and Infrared can travel and act normally but the visible light in between is somehow different? Somehow its special. I have to say, as someone who has studied physics...your posts make me want to jump off a building due to their bad science.

I have nothing else to add other than at some point, one has to accept defeat mate. Your continual refusal to even acknowledge that NASA are not the only space agency in the world (yes, i know you occasionaly bring up the Chang) is very frustrating. You have been shown deep space visible light images from New Horizons and Cassini showing stars and you still argue.

And by the way, i have seen Alexei Leonov and Chris Hadfield both give talks about their experiences in London (2 seperate occasions) and they both spoke about seeing so many stars that they were in awe. And no, Leonov did not say they were all red. And yes, its entirely possible for the ight sky to be blacker than black and still be full of stars. A child can understand this. Give up. And i suggest you go listen to a real astronaut talk. Not only is it extremely inspiring to listen to these guys and girls talk, it will hopefully stop any of this nonsense.

Also wanted to publicly thank the very patient onebigmonkey, WMD, Wildspace et al for all the incredible images and links they have posted.



edit on 10-2-2016 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-2-2016 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008



You do know what VISIBLE light means ?


Er, I think so, yes. So, a camera taking pictures of the Moon, wow, that's trippy! And it will be taking pictures of Jupiter, oh man, that's just freaky! Just a minute though, even an old film camera can take pictures of the Moon.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
Be interesting to see Jupiter in RGB though, although that is such a sensitive sensor they are using that I don't think your eyes would be able to see the very low light levels they have planned for. That's why they use a sensor with large pixels and capable of up to 4 hour exposure times. Do you think it will be able to see stars too?

3danimator2014



You have been shown deep space visible light images from New Horizons and Cassini showing stars and you still argue.


I have been shown images from instruments that can see things your eyes never could. The thread title is "Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space", perhaps the words "by eye" should have been included to clarify the matter, and the only people who have been into deep space to test the claim have not even reported being able to see the Sun let alone anything else.




And yes, its entirely possible for the ight sky to be blacker than black and still be full of stars. A child can understand this.


Only a child could believe it without asking for any proof. I am quite willing to accept the results of some very simple experiments that would answer the question beyond any doubt, NASA will not do the experiments. Not allowing the two amateur groups to put conventional telescopes in space tells me all I need to know, the scopes would see nothing, which is why they can not ever allow them to even try. And you really believe that if amateur enthusiasts could figure out how to build a simple and cheap telescope/camera system to view the stars that one of the other countries with space launch capabilities and their very smart scientists couldn't figure out how to do it, then we live in very different realities.




And by the way, i have seen Alexei Leonov and Chris Hadfield both give talks about their experiences



Talks are one thing, being able to sit privately with him and ask some very specific questions is a different thing altogether. I know he could see countless stars if he was looking through Earths atmosphere, I can do that from Earth. The question would be what he could see with his back to the Earth, looking out into deep space? I've asked the question on his reddit page, no reply yet.




And no, Leonov did not say they were all red.


And what colour did he say they were? Here is an image from a consumer camera strapped to the main 'scope of the SOFIA missions 747 at 40,000 ft, even showing Haleys comet, and obviously looking away from Earth. Where are the images from Apollo missions in cislunar space? Oh I know, they weren't out there to take pictures of the stars, yeah, right. Or the Sun. Or planets.
www.musc.edu...
It is what NASA does not show us that you should be concerned about, and not what they do show us.



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

I'm sorry buddy, im not getting roped into this. You are free to believe any nonsense you want, i ain't gonna argue with you. I just read 26 pages of this and can clearly see it would be useless yo try to engage you.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

Every reply you've made is pure assumptions and conjectures, have you been to the moon before?
edit on 11-2-2016 by XendorFazem because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 03:28 PM
link   
originally posted by: XendorFazem
a reply to: GaryN


Your explanation is pure assumption, the Lunar surface is only ever decently lit when the centre of the beam of light created by Solar UV/EUV radiation interacting with the fine lunar dust atmosphere is directly over the area where the images are taken. LADEE has confirmed this. Exposure meters were never used during Apollo missions on the Lunar surface, and there is no exposure information (I'd be glad if someone can prove me wrong) from the Chang'e 3 camera available, so we don't know the actual lumen values for different times during the Lunar day.


That still doesn't change my argument on the fact that being on the light side of the moon doesn't show stars because it's too bright from sun rays just like Earth during the day. Until you go to the moon you can't prove me wrong.

edit on 11-2-2016 by XendorFazem because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I hereby resign from the human race, forthwith... and suchly.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Baddogma
I hereby resign from the human race, forthwith... and suchly.

Let me join you on that. I think going to the far side of the Moon will be far enough, plus being there during the night will allow us to enjoy the sight of star-studded sky unlike anything you could see on Earth.

Apollo 8 experience:

Anders said they were in darkness as they were, "just starting to go around, behind the moon, still in contact with the Earth, but in the shadow of not only the sun but also Earth shine, Earth shine being six times brighter than moon shine."

It was at that time Anders looked out of his window and, "saw all these stars, more stars than you could pick out constellations from"

www.nasa.gov...

(Which, of course, has already been posted in this very thread. Remember the three monekys? "Hear nothing, see nothing, speak nothing"... GaryN is that)
edit on 11-2-2016 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   
From OBMs web site:



There aren’t enough stars present, or even (to be fair) enough objects that we can be sure are stars, but it is only reasonable to present everything available. Make your own mind up.

onebigmonkey.com...
onebigmonkey.com...
Compare that with the image of the stars from the KAO mission.
www.musc.edu...
Notice a difference?
@wildespace
"Let me join you on that. I think going to the far side of the Moon will be far enough, plus being there during the night will allow us to enjoy the sight of star-studded sky unlike anything you could see on Earth."

I've made my mind up, Armstrong was correct when he said the sky from the Lunar surface and cislunar space is black. When I see a verifiable image of stars from the Lunar surface using a regular camera then I'll believe they are visible. Won't ever happen, even from the far side.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join