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: 48
40
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

Aulis is staffed by incompetents and frauds intent on making money out of the gullible.

You know full well that Armstrong has spoken of seeing stars, as have many other astronauts, because I've posted this to you on numerous occasions:

onebigmonkey.com...

You do not get to act as gatekeeper for the evidence - you can't ignore the evidence that proves you to be hopelessly wrong just because it proves you to be hopelessly wrong. You claim cameras and eyes can not see stars in space, the evidence has been provided to you many times that this is not the case.

@wildespace - I've tried a number of standard IMG viewers but none of them seem to get sensible images out of the files




posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
You are very good OBM at keeping the confusion going, but without precise knowledge of where the astronauts were and which direction they were looking, and if they were looking through the power optics (star tracker) at the time, there is still no definitive answer. In your page I see references to airglow and horizons and heaters (for the power optics), and knowing where they were and which way they were looking is not answered. The trajectory itself requires a lot of math to attempt to figure out.
Apollo 11's Translunar Trajectory
www.braeunig.us...

As wildespace is finding out, it is not a simple matter to decode the information made available from some of the missions, but I'm hoping he succeeds eventually, then he can perhaps try with the Lasco C3 data too, but from what I gather, to image the solar corona at the visible wavelengths from space requires between 20 seconds and 6 minutes of exposure. From Earth it takes 1/8000 of a second and an ND filter to get a good image of the Sun at visible wavelengths. Try exposing your camera to the Sun for 20 seconds with a 'clear' filter for 20 seconds, you will end up with an expensive paper weight.

No, only scientific experiments can answer the visibility question, and NASA would much prefer the confusion and disagreements to continue. Team Mitchell vs Team Armstrong, this is no way to do science, and only NASA can do the experiments. Just a simple photograph of the Sun from cislunar space is all I'm asking for, can that be so difficult? Or a decent photograph of all the stars and planets, including Venus , that they claim to have seen but never photographed. Venus is visible in broad daylight at ISO 200 and 1/640, where's venus from cislunar space or the lunar surface?
www.universetoday.com...

"Aulis is staffed by incompetents and frauds intent on making money out of the gullible."

The pot calling the kettle black?

edit on 28-6-2016 by GaryN because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN


As wildespace is finding out, it is not a simple matter to decode the information made available from some of the missions, but I'm hoping he succeeds eventually, then he can perhaps try with the Lasco C3 data too, but from what I gather, to image the solar corona at the visible wavelengths from space requires between 20 seconds and 6 minutes of exposure. From Earth it takes 1/8000 of a second and an ND filter to get a good image of the Sun at visible wavelengths. Try exposing your camera to the Sun for 20 seconds with a 'clear' filter for 20 seconds, you will end up with an expensive paper weight.



Yet ANOTHER disingenuous post



The light coming from the photosphere is so bright that you can't see the corona unless the surface is blocked (by a total solar eclipse or an instrument.


BOLD & UNDERLINED just to help you out.

You don't even know what you are looking at for one.

The path of light in the Lasco c3

Or how the instruments differ from normal camera/imaging set ups


Seems that RBG filters and the bayer filters confuse you as well.
edit on 28-6-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
You are very good OBM at keeping the confusion going, but without precise knowledge of where the astronauts were and which direction they were looking, and if they were looking through the power optics (star tracker) at the time, there is still no definitive answer. In your page I see references to airglow and horizons and heaters (for the power optics), and knowing where they were and which way they were looking is not answered. The trajectory itself requires a lot of math to attempt to figure out.
Apollo 11's Translunar Trajectory
www.braeunig.us...


You can tell exactly where they were by looking at the photographs of stars and planets they took, I've shown you them many times. Need me to post the again? Aside from that, you're moving the goalposts again - not only do we have to know exactly what camera, film, lens, and whether it was the second Wednesday in the month you now want to know specifically which direction they were looking? Go look at my quotes page again, specific stars and planets are mentioned repeatedly> Go read the Apollo transcripts, they navigated by looking into a telescope that looked right out of the hull at specific stars. Go look at the other pages on that particular bit of that site and find out which stars and planets they photographed and when.



As wildespace is finding out, it is not a simple matter to decode the information made available from some of the missions, but I'm hoping he succeeds eventually, then he can perhaps try with the Lasco C3 data too, but from what I gather, to image the solar corona at the visible wavelengths from space requires between 20 seconds and 6 minutes of exposure. From Earth it takes 1/8000 of a second and an ND filter to get a good image of the Sun at visible wavelengths. Try exposing your camera to the Sun for 20 seconds with a 'clear' filter for 20 seconds, you will end up with an expensive paper weight.

No, only scientific experiments can answer the visibility question, and NASA would much prefer the confusion and disagreements to continue. Team Mitchell vs Team Armstrong, this is no way to do science, and only NASA can do the experiments. Just a simple photograph of the Sun from cislunar space is all I'm asking for, can that be so difficult? Or a decent photograph of all the stars and planets, including Venus , that they claim to have seen but never photographed. Venus is visible in broad daylight at ISO 200 and 1/640, where's venus from cislunar space or the lunar surface?
www.universetoday.com...



The Sun from cislunar space? You've been given it.

Venus from the lunar surface?

onebigmonkey.com...

It was also sighted on Apollo 16 surface images.



"Aulis is staffed by incompetents and frauds intent on making money out of the gullible."

The pot calling the kettle black?


I'm not asking you to buy my book. Show me where I'm wrong, or lying.

While you're at it, tell me how Viking 1 photographed Phobos:




posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008




Or how the instruments differ from normal camera/imaging set ups


So why can't we use a normal camera and solar filters, like we do from Earth?

@OBM



While you're at it, tell me how Viking 1 photographed Phobos:


A selenium based vidicon, filters, and solar radiation in the UV causing the surface minerals to fluoresce at visible wavelengths. It is not reflected visible light from the Sun, there is none to reflect.

geology.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN


Or how the instruments differ from normal camera/imaging set ups



While you're at it, tell me how Viking 1 photographed Phobos:

A selenium based vidicon, filters, and solar radiation in the UV causing the surface minerals to fluoresce at visible wavelengths. It is not reflected visible light from the Sun, there is none to reflect.

geology.com...
So then the whole thing should be white and not just the part that just so happens to be facing the sun.
edit on 2862016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: GaryN


Or how the instruments differ from normal camera/imaging set ups



While you're at it, tell me how Viking 1 photographed Phobos:

A selenium based vidicon, filters, and solar radiation in the UV causing the surface minerals to fluoresce at visible wavelengths. It is not reflected visible light from the Sun, there is none to reflect.

geology.com...
So then the whole thing should be white and not just the part that just so happens to be facing the sun.

Yeah. I've wondered why (going along with GaryN's claims for the moment) the entire atmosphere around us isn't aglow with light -- direct sunlight or reflected light -- as it would be if we were in a fog bank.

Earth's normal atmosphere is made of virtually invisible gasses, so light passes right through. For this reason, we cannot see the sunlight as it goes past our eyes through the atmosphere; we can only see light that is directly entering our eyes, either from looking directly at the source (such as the sun or a light bulb), or having light from those sources reflecting off of an object (such as a wall or a desk or looking at my hand in front of my face), and that reflected light directly enter our eyes.

According to Gary's claims, it seems that the atmosphere should ALWAYS act like is does when a fog of visible water droplets condensing out of the air -- with the sunlight that would normally be invisible as it goes past our eyes instead being visible as it reflects off of the water droplets and into our eyes.

That is, why don't we see the atmosphere aglow of sunlight (normally invisible as it goes past our eyes) striking those particles in our atmosphere and reflecting into our eyes. For that matter, the Moon (and Phobos in that Viking image) would be an translucent, almost blurry, glow rather than being a sharp image with visible craters.


edit on 6/28/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

The reason it doesn't do what Gary says it should do (based on all the "information" he has given) is because Gary is wrong.

Same as your "foggy atmosphere", the moon should constantly be in a full moon state. But that's only if Gary's "theory" was correct. It obviously isn't. And the "it's luminescent" nonesense just proved as much.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
but from what I gather, to image the solar corona at the visible wavelengths from space requires between 20 seconds and 6 minutes of exposure.

Not true. The inner corona is as bright as the full moon.


From Earth it takes 1/8000 of a second and an ND filter to get a good image of the Sun at visible wavelengths. Try exposing your camera to the Sun for 20 seconds with a 'clear' filter for 20 seconds, you will end up with an expensive paper weight.

What's that got to do with photographing the solar corona? Are you confusing the Sun with its corona?


No, only scientific experiments can answer the visibility question

JunoCam is a scientific experiment. As previously pointed out, it's a regular digital sensor with red, green, and blue filters (in addition to a narrow-band infrared filter for methane). And it can "see" Jupiter and its moons, from millions of miles away.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
[post]originally posted by: GaryN







So why can't we use a normal camera and solar filters, like we do from Earth?



Do YOU actually bother to read replies !!!


The light coming from the photosphere is so bright that you can't see the corona unless the surface is blocked (by a total solar eclipse or an instrument.


From Earth you are NOT photographing the corona it's the photosphere .

Lasco is designed to photograph the CORONA that's why the exposure times are different from pictures of the Sun from Earth.
edit on 28-6-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2016 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2016 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: GaryN
@OBM

A selenium based vidicon, filters, and solar radiation in the UV causing the surface minerals to fluoresce at visible wavelengths. It is not reflected visible light from the Sun, there is none to reflect.

geology.com...


You can keep misrepresenting that claim of yours as often as you like with articles that don't support it, it doesn't make it true. I note with interest how you ignore the rest of my post. Onc again, you don't get to dismiss evidence that you don't like by arbitrarily limiting the choice of camera.

Phobos has no atmosphere. Viking was well above the Martian atmosphere. It is reflected light, and as Mars was below Phobos at the time of the image it may even by reflected light from Mars.

So, as you fail to explaining the Phobos image how do you explain this photograph of the Moon?




posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Iranian satellite successfully placed in orbit
spaceflightnow.com...
spaceflightnow.com...
Connecting some dots, I think the cat is most likely out of the bag with respect to what is actually visible from orbit. The threat to the USA from ISIS is not from what is going on on the ground, but from the Islamic States In Space. They must have already seen what the Voskhod astronauts observed, the orbits are similar, that the Sun and stars appear very different from the view from Earth. The next planned orbital launch will have an even greater apogee. The greatest weapon of mass destruction that the ISIS posses is not a physical threat to humanity, only to those who have hidden the truth from us for so long. Conspiracy theory, or fact?



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

So you completely ignore everything that was posted in reply to you and, instead, post about something completely not relevant to the thread?

Just for clarification. Iran does not = ISIS.



posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79
"the Islamic States In Space"











posted on Jun, 30 2016 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

I like the sound of that lol.

Still, I don't see the relevance of what GaryN posted in relation to our responses about the "glowing effect" instead of reflection. Me thinks he got caught out and is avoiding the gaping flaw in his "theory".



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 02:21 AM
link   
It's also notable that, massive fan of the US that Iran is, it hasn't 'outed' the US in the good few years that it has been operating in space.

Gary hasn't just moved the goal post this time, he's switched towns.



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
It's also notable that, massive fan of the US that Iran is, it hasn't 'outed' the US in the good few years that it has been operating in space.

Gary hasn't just moved the goal post this time, he's switched towns.


You beat me to it. I was going to ask last night why Iran would not have lifted the veil (pun not intended) on the whole thing. But then i thought.."why bother"



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   
How about a challenge? Lets see if anyone can get this tread or the topic of this thread mentioned in local news. After all, flat earth conspiracy always gets a brief mention..does anyone reading or participating in this thread have the know how to get it mentioned?

"And finally in tonights news...can stars be seen in space? The answer, according to one conspiracy fan might just suprise you."



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

If I see it mentioned in the news, I know who to blame!



posted on Jul, 1 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014




But then i thought.."why bother"


Just what I have been thinking. There seem to be only about 5 people who ever read this thread, and they are so set in their ways, or are dis-info agents, that it's just not worth the effort.

As to why the Iranians wouldn't 'spill the beans' if they knew the whole standard model was a fraud, then why haven't the Russians, or the Japanese or Chinese or Indians? But, those same countries have not taken a photo of the Sun from space either, why not? And why is it only the Voskhod 2 crew have ever commented on the view from orbit?




"We had been accustomed to see stars as blue; but we there saw them as of pure gold—they seemed to have been scattered on black velvet by a careless hand.
Leonov: They looked really bright, in fact almost red like pure gold. ...and the Sun looked different—it had no halo and seemed to be welded into black velvet. It was a strange sight."


Why have US astronauts never even talked in detail about the view from orbit, and never once described the appearance of the Sun from cislunar space? The power structures of the world are likely much more complex that we will ever know. Iran, or rather a very select group of the upper levels of the Iranian power structure are involved in some games that the masses, the pawns, do not even know the rules of. The USA would have liked to nuke Iran and Syria I think, but the Russians are involved too, and have helped the Islamic states with some of the science and engineering, and possibly orbital calculations to allow Iran to get into orbit. I think the US is worried, big time, maybe Russia and the Islamic States In Space know they have an Ace up their sleeves, and that they are using that fact in this complex game of world powers foe some reason we will never understand. I do think it could all turn very nasty in a very short time if the PTB reach a point of desperation, "be prepared" might be a good motto.
ISIS on the ground are a CIA/arms dealer financed bunch of Islamic Hells Angels, its about big money, power, bribery corruption and outright evil, a distraction the media is willing to snap up, while the real story, the race to space, hardly gets a mention.
I'll only mention one thing regarding the technology here, and that is the viewing of the solar corona. From space it should be possible to photograph the corona by using a regular camera and occulting the supposedly bright Sun, as if there is no atmosphere then the background would be totally black and no light scattered or diffused around the occulting disk. Images of the corona should be even clearer than those taken from a total eclipse viewed from Earth.
Why has this never been done? It can't be, that's why. No corona would be visible, just as the Sun is not from cislunar space.
The idea that atmospheres create heat and light is not a new one BTW, so I can't claim prior art.

ALL LIGHT, HEAT AND LIFE IS EVOLVED ONLY IN THE ATMOSPHERE OF SUNS AND PLANETS
www.gutenberg.org...




top topics



 
40
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join