Stars Can't Be Seen from Outer Space

When I first looked at this thread back in February I initially expected to see the normal Moon hoax discussion, as this subject has been covered often with that theme. Equally, I thought the thread itself would be fairly brief, open and closed if you will. I never imagined it would go to 59-60 pages...never in a million years! Not this discussion anyway.

That it wasn't, and it has, is truly shocking...hence my "WOW" post above. I must admit, I'm still not sure what to think actually. Candidly, I never could have believed a discussion such as this would be pursued in such earnest and with such passion, and I'm stunned frankly.

I'm stunned there are people who seem to truly believe some of the things stated in this thread, and I'm intrigued to understand why. Is it a statement of our education system, or some outside influence...or perhaps even a trend in society? I'll be honest, it really troubles me. Is it Common Core, video games or the Internet? What causes this?

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Also helpful: The Description accompanying the YouTube video.

From the above:

Tom Brown (of Borderland Sciences in California) says he talked on the phone to one astronaut who said they could not take pictures of the Sun or stars UNLESS the camera was inside the ship (where there is air). On hearing this, Tom called NASA and asked the Public Information Officer if the Sun could be seen from space. The PIO said of course. At that point Tom explained about the story he was working on and that he had talked to an astronaut who confirmed the premise of no visible light from space. The PIO got very upset on the phone and said that information was not supposed to be given to the public . . .

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: ConnectDots
"The visible spectrum effect of the sun is created by the upper atmosphere."

The above clip contains the thesis of this thread in a nutshell.

a reply to: ConnectDots

So using this logic, the astronauts should have been able to see stars because there was air inside their space suits when they were outside their ship "where there is air".

Do you honestly believe this stuff??

a reply to: ConnectDots

I laughed when he got to this part of argument with the laser pointer.



basically his argument is
"if you are not looking at the sun, you cannot see the sun therefore the stars and sun are all invisible in space"
lolololololol

a reply to: ConnectDots

Except this is complete made up BS with no basis in fact. Funny how these people never get named.

Apollo 15-17 used a stellar imaging camera with their mapping camera to verify the position of their mapping camera images. This camera was mounted outside the spaceship.

When astronauts sighted stars using their optics, it was looking directly to the outside of the ship. When photographs, TV and 16mm film were taken of the EVAs in space to collect mapping and panoramic camera images they were nowhere near any air, and yet could photograph things.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Tom Brown (of Borderland Sciences in California) says he talked on the phone to one astronaut who said they could not take pictures of the Sun or stars UNLESS the camera was inside the ship (where there is air).

I don't know what kind of nonsense this is, but it's easily debunked using just this one photo:



Ta-daaaa! The Sun photographed (and seen) in space.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Mainstream science is in the wrong on this one.

Mainstream science is in the wrong on many things.

Employing sarcasm, ridicule, and ad hominems in the defense of mainstream science is a symptom of an untenable position.

There are courageous whistleblowers on record from whom hidden science can be gleaned.

Refusal to listen to them is willful ignorance.

a reply to: choos
- you want to make me wasting time explaining which is the difference between ignore and another point of view and implicitly understanding? don't be ridiculous! I gave you everything to rise at least one question mark about what you posesively call and think you udnerstand what it is, namely "the light".
- your own interpretation of my thougths and words, are not my thoughts and words. but it seems you don't have the ability to comprehend all these.
- and keep in mind for your next message: a CCD as well as an eye don't detect light! neither here on Earth nor somewhere else in the span of the Universe.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
- I appreciate somehow your humor
- on my planet the sky is also blue, exactly because the ligth is a local phenomenon.
- what you mean through "enlighten us": learn to fish?

a reply to: ConnectDots


a reply to: wildespace
- "Ta-daaaa! The Sun photographed (and seen) in space."
--- Ta-daaaa! it is under exosphere...
--- Ta-daaaa! a CCD don't detect light...

a reply to: ConnectDots

Yet you haven't offered a single shred of proof. All you've done is post nonesense with zero to back it up.

Keep saying "mainstream science is wrong" while you use a device made by mainstream science on a forum designed by mainstream science on the Internet made by mainstream science.

a reply to: sadang

Prove it!

Oh, wait. You won't. You'll just keep saying useless things, that have been proven wrong, that you then completely ignore.

a reply to: irgust

If the stars can't be seen in space how does the hubble telescope take pictures of stars?

becuse the hubble is on earth?

originally posted by: sadang
- you want to make me wasting time explaining which is the difference between ignore and another point of view and implicitly understanding? don't be ridiculous! I gave you everything to rise at least one question mark about what you posesively call and think you udnerstand what it is, namely "the light".
- your own interpretation of my thougths and words, are not my thoughts and words. but it seems you don't have the ability to comprehend all these.
- and keep in mind for your next message: a CCD as well as an eye don't detect light! neither here on Earth nor somewhere else in the span of the Universe.

you have just explained it already its clear to me that when you refer to "light" it is not the same light that has been defined by scientists.
in your last post you said that humans eyes and CCD were sensitive to light but not light from the EM radiation spectrum.
except the human eye and CCD's are sensitive to visible light from the EM radiation spectrum.

i get why you are saying why CCD's are dont detect light now.
its simply because when you say "light" you actually mean something completely different.
the problem here is that you are not using the definitions that have been defined and used for a long time, your "free-thinking" mind is making up a new definition for the word "light" of which has nothing to do with the commonly established definition of light.

stop wasting everyones time, you have already admitted you are not arguing about visible light from the visible EM radiation spectrum.

This thread reminds me of the ancient astronomers in history who constructed these elaborate models in desperate attempts to demonstrate a geocentric as opposed to a heliocentric solar system...even after Copernicus had built his model of the solar system.

What exactly is the point here? Is it that the stars themselves don't exist, or just that we can't see them? Or, is it that we can only see the stars when atmospheric air is involved?

Or, is it that everything is just a grand illusion to trick us silly humans on a cosmic scale of trickery?

Or, is it (GASP)...that Al Gore really DID create the interwebz?????? NOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo!!!!

a reply to: sadang

(THUD!!)

(Total Harmonic Universal Droppage!) - THUD!

originally posted by: sadang
- and keep in mind for your next message: a CCD as well as an eye don't detect light! neither here on Earth nor somewhere else in the span of the Universe.

Just to verify, a "CCD" stands for Charged Coupled Device?

a reply to: ConnectDots

Well, on this thread, I'm beginning to think CCD stands for 'Circular Cosmic Diaporesis'

The following quote states the reason we're in the predicament we're in trying to do the scientific method instead of having to piece together bits and pieces the best we can:

originally posted by: GaryN
As with the Armstrong vs Mitchell statements, NASA will do nothing to clear up the question, it would be the death of them and and all of present mainstream astronomical models.

The importance of the above cannot be over-emphasized.

It will take you 2 minutes and 13 seconds to listen to whistleblower Eric Dollard tell you succinctly what's wrong with official science regarding the sun:

originally posted by: ConnectDots

His official website: Eric P. Dollard

originally posted by: ConnectDots
The following quote states the reason we're in the predicament we're in trying to do the scientific method instead of having to piece together bits and pieces the best we can:

The scientific method is about piecing things together - it's pretty clear to me from your statements in this thread that you have never met a scientist have no idea what they do or how they work.

originally posted by: GaryN
As with the Armstrong vs Mitchell statements, NASA will do nothing to clear up the question, it would be the death of them and and all of present mainstream astronomical models.

The importance of the above cannot be over-emphasized.

The above has no importance. GaryN is claiming a massive amount of significance to his "If I ran the zoo" fallacy when there is none. if NASA did GaryN's bidding he would give himself a hernia shifting the goalposts to avoid accepting the results.

There is very little value in having any kind of visible spectrum telescope in space - we can get perfectly adequate visible spectrum images from the ground. What we can't do on the ground is get images from other ends of the EM spectrum, an that's where the money gets spent.

Meanwhile there have been stars photographed in space, and people have described seeing them. Your point is pointless.