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.

 

NASA hates stars?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
When looking threw nasa pictures of planets from the aircrafts point of view i couldnt shake the feeling that something was wrong with almost each one. Then it hit me, you see part of the craft taking the pictures, the surface of the planet its on, but when you look at the sky its always black. Correct me if i'm wrong, but shouldnt you see thousands of stars? I was under the impression that the less light the more stars you can see, so on the moon with no civilizations or lights wouldnt you see thousands and thousands of stars?

[edit on 13-4-2008 by Xilvius]




posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   
No. You need a long exposure time on the camera to be able to see them. None of the pictures has a long enough time for them to show up.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
No. You need a long exposure time on the camera to be able to see them. None of the pictures has a long enough time for them to show up.


Then how is it i can take a picture of the sky with my cell phone in the city on a clear night and still get stars in my pictures?



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Because either you are away from any light sources that would cause the light to bleed out the background light in your pictures, or you focus on the black sky itself. Star light is not very bright, and focsuing on a fairly bright object, like aplanet, tends to blot out the darker stars around it.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
It’s because your not taking a picture of something that is much brighter in the sky at the same time. If the camera were to leave the aperture open long enough for the stars to show up, then the moon would have been overexposed. If it only stays open long enough for the bright object to have the proper exposure then its not open long enough for the stars to show up. Even when people photograph a bright full moon from earth the same thing happens.
Example


jra

posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xilvius
I was under the impression that the less light the more stars you can see, so on the moon with no civilizations or lights wouldnt you see thousands and thousands of stars?


The human eye will see more stars, yes. (if it's night time on the Moon that is). But the majority of photos that are taken in space are in direct sunlight. The shutter speeds would be just as fast as when taking a photo on a sunny afternoon on Earth. Cameras, be it film or digital, aren't as sensitive to light as the human eye and require longer exposure times to pick up faint light.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   
There is a point to be had that stretches in both directions here Xilvius.

Not only have NASA photos failed to pick up the stars (whilst in space) but so to have the astronaughts (I.e Neil Armstrong in his briefing to the press - there is Youtube video footage of this).

However, this may explain what has already been discussed in this thread:



The first thing every conspiracist notices about photography in space is that there are no stars in any of the pictures. The general public brought up on science fiction motion pictures is used to seeing stars in pictures purporting to be taken in outer space. And so the real photos seem strange.





The first question we typically put to the conspiracists is: if NASA wished to perpetuate a convincing fraud, why didn't they produce photos (with stars) that satisfied the public's expectations and didn't raise questions? We get this answer:





On earth we see the stars in the sky because there is little other light. Those who live in mountainous country can go up into the mountains where the air is thin and there are no distracting lights, the stars are quite magnificent. But when you return to the brightly lit city and look at the same night sky, you see only the brightest stars. If you go inside the house and turn on all the lights and look out the window, you can't see any stars.





Why not?
Because the human eye has adjusted to the amount of light, first by adjusting the iris and then by changing the chemical composition of the retina to make it more or less sensitive. In the pitch blackness of the mountains they're open just as wide as they can be, allowing more light to enter. In the night city, they close somewhat to adjust for the street lights. And inside the house, they are as closed as they are during the daytime in sunlight. A camera's aperture works the same way. To set the exposure for bright exposure means that subtle lights like stars simply won't show up





Because the sky on the moon is black, we tend to believe the viewing conditions are the same as night on earth. Not true. The sun shines just as brightly (slightly brighter, in fact) on the lunar surface, and so the astronauts' eyes (and camera apertures) were set for photographing in daylight conditions. Neil Armstrong reported not seeing any stars from the lunar surface, except through the navigation scopes (where the eyepiece screened out the other lights). Ed Mitchell reported seeing stars only when he specifically shut out extraneous light.





Conspiracy author Bill Kaysing even goes so far as to claim that the Challenger was intentionally destroyed because civilian Christa McAuliffe would have revealed that stars were indeed visible from space. Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not. With the shuttle's cabin lights on and cameras set to expose for sunlit conditions, the stars are not visible. When the shuttle crosses over into the shadow and you turn all the cabin lights off and let your eyes adjust to the darkness, you see a glorious display of stars. And the shuttle astronauts -- civilian or otherwise -- are quite happy telling everyone this.

www.clavius.org...

NASA does not hate the stars - just your sensitive eyes.

Brei.



posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Ignore the ''external image'' sign in the above post. Just a mistake.

Brei.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Xilvius
 


You need a time exposure to see stars.

Even telescopes must use time exposure.

Imagine how bright those UFOs are to show up, static electricity anyone.



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Its a matter of astrogation. We use groups of known stars to fix a spacecraft's location, velocity, vector and roll in spacetime. So stars and their relative positions are a known variable at any place and time in space. Their apparent position will vary with vantage point and viewing time, like a great clock in the sky. So if 'fake stars' were animated into fake photos, one look at the 'clock' would immediately show the photos to be bogus if the stars correct positions for the time and place were not calculated with perfect precision. Any space photo faker must hate stars- it is complex to plot correct star positions for a future date on another world, and with the computing power available in the 1960's it was far easier to simply 'fail to image them'.

[edit on 14-4-2008 by Chakotay]



posted on Apr, 14 2008 @ 10:22 PM
link   
The stars are well charted.

Still how good is the view from an ICBM.
I think it was BS when in flight corrections are made by the stars.
The navigation system must have been something else.

The NASA UFO videos were very bright but that was UV.
Light can be seen inside and must use lasers for communication.
If the UFO is surrouned by ES and EM radiation, then radio
communication is not possible.







 
0

log in

join