Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

a reply to: DJW001

No mate, the scary thing here is that you think you're serious.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: leastofthese
NASA, HA, HA, HA! What a friggin' joke. Space agency? Yeah right! All Freemason dipsh*ts with oaths of secrecy, practicing their witchcraft trying to draw down the moon and impregnate the Earth. Hogwash, a bunch of boys playing devil, dancing around in their gay Masonic regalia.

NASA is a direct assault on any man's senses, for even the lamest of men can see right through Appolyon.

No pics of Earth yet? Ok, how about another 200 billion dollars? Can we just 1 complete, non adjusted, non enhanced, unmolested photo, not image, of our planet, the spinning oblate spheroid.

Unbelievable people, really?

The scary thing is that the person who starred you thinks you are serious.

Hes acting like this in most of the threads hes replying in. Very peculiar behaviour.

- Neil Armstrong talks to Patrick Moore on The Sky At Night, BBC 1970
The sky is deep black when viewed from the Moon as it is when viewed from cisluna space, the space between the Earth and the Moon. The Earth is the only visible object other than the Sun that can be seen although there have been some reports of seeing planets I myself did not see planets from the surface but I suspect they might be visible.

- first lunar landing, Neil Armstrong:
We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

- first lunar landing, Mike Collins:
I don't remember seeing any.

What do you think, are they serious or not?

So, whether or not they can be seen, what conflict of interest is there?

If we can't see them what does that mean?
If we can what does that mean?

- if we can see them means a cat can really do pushups!

originally posted by: sadang
- if we can see them means a cat can really do pushups!

hey hey, leave my mitten out of this!!!

but, yea. if it makes no difference why did it take 43 pages of drivel to conclude... something id expect in the 'prediction/prophecy ' forums, i hope there's still a shred of modicum of intellect left in the space and science forums...

but after seeing someone post a 'spiritual scientist' as a deciding factor in the argument, skepticism is growing to similar tangent as say the 'UFO' forums...

originally posted by: sadang
- Neil Armstrong talks to Patrick Moore on The Sky At Night, BBC 1970
The sky is deep black when viewed from the Moon as it is when viewed from cisluna space, the space between the Earth and the Moon. The Earth is the only visible object other than the Sun that can be seen although there have been some reports of seeing planets I myself did not see planets from the surface but I suspect they might be visible.

- first lunar landing, Neil Armstrong:
We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

- first lunar landing, Mike Collins:
I don't remember seeing any.

What do you think, are they serious or not?

Yes, they are serious about not being able to see stars on the day side of the Moon. Sunlight, and everything it illuminates, is very bright, you see. It would have also been difficult to see stars from the CM or LM with its internal lights and the direct or scattered sunlight. Neil mentions some reports of seeing planets, and suspects that they may indeed be visible. And of course he mentioned seeing the Sun.

Transcripts I posted many times in this thread show that those guys saw the Sun, the Earth, and the stars from cislunar space and lunar orbit.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
So, whether or not they can be seen, what conflict of interest is there?

If we can't see them what does that mean?

It means that the whole of scientific, academic, and engineering side of our history that has to do with space and spaceflight has been a great and carefully hidden lie. It means all those hundreds of thousands of people all around the world that studied space and worked on spaceflight technologies agreed to keep this "fact" secret and feed the public lies for all these decades.

Sounds plausible? To GaryN, it does.

- odzeandennz, of course I leave the cat out of this cause she really can't do pushups!

- wildespace, do you think I need further explanations about this aspect? You believe I did not find until now all possible versions of these explanations? Or do you think I don't have the ability to have my own vision regarded all these? As I already said Newton and Einstein were two simple people nothing more, nothing less! What they said is one thing, what others used from what they said, it is also something else.

a reply to: odzeandennz

If we can't see them what does that mean?

As Dollard said, if they are not visible, all the models collapse, and that means ALL models of what astronomers and astrophysicists tell us is beyond our atmosphere is wrong. All those suposed stars out there are not stars at all, and are most likely planets and moons, and what they see is due to the ionisation of their atmospheres and not from light generated by some nuclear furnace. The most important experiment performed by NASA on the Moon was the FUVC device, and NASA did its best to keep that information out of the publics attention. If you understand the instrument, then you will understand the implications of what it saw. This page explains what one persistent individual had to do to obtain some of the data from the instrument. NASA did not make it easy.
www3.telus.net...
What that instrument did was put an end to the idea of a regular telescope in space, and all space based imaging is now from spectral imaging devices, not ordinary telescopes with a conventional camera at the focal plane. Just won't work in space, which is why NASA denies any experiments from those who want to try a regular telescope in space. It will see no stars, unless they point it so it is looking through Earths atmosohere, which is why all photos from the ISS have the rim of the Earth in view, or if not in view, it can be shown that the Earth is just out of view, a cleverly staged shot.
But the lack of visibility of the stars from cislunar space is not as important and destructive to the whole standard model as the lack of view of the Sun from cislunar space utilising conventional optics, and to this day there are no visible light images of the Sun taken from outside of Earths atmosphere, not even from SOHO as it does not have a regular, visible light camera or conventional telescope on board. It is all spectral imaging.
The only people who have been in cislunar space are the Apollo astronauts, and took zero images of the Sun from cislunar space, but lots from the Lunar surface, although those images show a sun many times bigger than it should have appeared with the lens used for the shots. The Lunar atmosphere creates light from Solar radiation, not visible light.
The real nature of what is out there is likely closer to that described by Bahram Katirai, but his book "A Revolution in Astronomy" is no longer available as he died mysteriously and quite young. I did save a copy on Google Drive, but can not post the link due to this sites software, but the link can be found on the first post at this site, which I got banned from because I questioned authority.
cosmoquest.org...
Without NASA doing experiments, or allowing others to do them, this issue can never be resolved, but I believe the dots can be connected by those willing to look into the matter with an open mind, but it seems most on this forum couldn't connect the dots even with a 6 inch wide brush. And I can not participate on youtube videos as I no longer have access, and all my previous posts, such as on "why are the astronauts still lying" have disappeared. Only 1 reference I can find on the whole of youtube:

garyinsooke site:www.youtube.com...

If we can what does that mean?

All is well in the world, and Armstrong must have been delusional, maybe from space radiation from trying to look at the Sun, when he had been ordered not to.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
i hope there's still a shred of modicum of intellect left in the space and science forums...

The space and science forums often contain the most irrational, tunnel vision on ATS.

originally posted by: GaryN
As Dollard said, if they are not visible, all the models collapse, and that means ALL models of what astronomers and astrophysicists tell us is beyond our atmosphere is wrong.

A two minute snapshot into Eric Dollard on the sun:

My god... In 2016 there's still ambiguity.

Im going to leave this topic until im less ill-informed on the subject. Im not sure if picking up a book will reflect accurately what's out there. Since multiple astronauts forgot to mention the timetime of day it was as to 'why' they couldn't see star. Even nasa photos give conflicting ideas.

originally posted by: GaryN
And I can not participate on youtube videos as I no longer have access . . . garyinsooke

You’ve been banned from YouTube?

Was “garyinsooke” your username?

I couldn’t pull up anything at your link.

a reply to: GaryN

NONE repeat NONE of the imaging devices that photograph in space are any different in the way that they record light from digital sensors in cameras.



30 tons of air pumped out and approx 2 grams left in a 800,000 cu ft volume lights camera action strange GaryN they have no problem lighting or filming within the chamber under conditions YOU claim would be impossible to record images.

Any comments on these I posted earlier.

I give you The Pleiades

Earth from Kaguya hdtv camera

YOU always avoid replying to posts that show images like that, if you want I can post another 20+ that will make you look an A55 just say and I will

There are numerous photographs taken by the probes sent to the outer planets (Voyager etc) that look back at the sun to give an idea of how small it appears at that distance and other stars are also evident in those pics which are all shot in the vacuum of space.
How can that be possible if the OP's theory is accurate?

- creating a vacuum condition in any chamber here on Earth and telling this condition is similar to that on cisluna or interplanetary space is a really great mistake. is similar to telling that a specific lab test which consider only temperature and pressure will give the same results as in deep space.

a reply to: ConnectDots

You’ve been banned from YouTube?

No, I ended up deleting my account after some issues with missing posts, and no help at all from them. I first noticed the problem when trying to show a friend, at his house, my comments on a youtube video, but they were not there. After some head scratching , it turned out that I had to be logged in to youtube for them to show up, so any time I was not logged in to youtube, nobody could see them. Searching turned up that other people were having this problem, and youtube seems to have no intention of looking into it. So when I deleted my account because I didn't like their attitude, it also deleted all my previous posts I guess. The youtube comments seem to be dynamically loaded, it is not a 'flat' database, which means they can manipulate things in order to show different results to different people, opinion shaping perhaps. When I looked up the shareholders of youtube, it reads like a PTB glee club.

Was “garyinsooke” your username?

Yes.

I couldn’t pull up anything at your link.

I used the Google site search " garyinsooke site:https:" then youtube.com, but this board wouldn't accept that. Just a garyinsooke search brings up my other posts (I'm not the same one asking decoration questions BTW), but nothing from youtube.
@
wmd_2008

NONE repeat NONE of the imaging devices that photograph in space are any different in the way that they record light from digital sensors in cameras.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Look up the 'camera' specs, it's a spectral imager, and it's ISO must be in the millions. Do the stars in your image look anything like the ones from the ISS? Look at the CCD specs, it uses a lumogen coating to put UV into the working range of the CCD, so it goes from IR to UV. Which filters were in use when the image was taken, how long was the exposure? I'll let you look into that, I've had enough of your repeated questions. I've explained the vacuum stuff too, not doing it again. The Earth from Kagua is interesting, very blue though, will see if I can find details of the camera. When in Lunar orbit, the view always has the lunar rim in sight, same as pictures from the ISS, making me suspect it is the atmosphere making earth visible. It's possible the camera could have coated optics too, and that it is seeing UV, will let you know if I can find the specs.

@sadang
Just saw your last post, so for you I will explain. Light created in the atmospheres of planets or moons WILL travel in the vacuum, we have all seen images taken with a camera on the Apollo missions of the Moon and Earth, from a distance, that can not be denied. But it is how far the light will travel, that is the question. The light created in the lunar atmosphere reflecting off the dark lunar surface is very weak, and will not reach Earth, the light from Mars will not reach Earth. The Moon is visible to us because the UV or EUV radiation produced in the lunar atmosphere, or Martian atmosphere, from solar radiation. It is not just visible light that is created, the UV WILL travel to Earth, and that UV/EUV will create visible light in Earths atmosphere, which we can then see. Vacuum UV will travel much greater distances because it carries more energy and has a self focusing tendency due to the nature of the vacuum itself, which is really a non-linear optical medium.

originally posted by: GaryN
due to the nature of the vacuum itself, which is really a non-linear optical medium.

- for sure the vacuum is a medium and for sure it is not a linear one, not only in optical terms speaking.
- for sure the light is created only in interaction with an atmosphere, until then being entirely something else
- for sure we have to understand why

originally posted by: GaryN

Light created in the atmospheres of planets or moons WILL travel in the vacuum, we have all seen images taken with a camera on the Apollo missions of the Moon and Earth, from a distance, that can not be denied.

so now that you have clearly admitted that visible light can travel through space and is thus visible when looking at the light source.

the only thing you need to work out is whether or not the Sun (or any star) emits visible light right??