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.

 

Moon Rising - The truth about the moon revealed

page: 11
71
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jephers0n
maybe a stupid question, but when does the movie come out, actually?

Can't wait for this one


The film is being uploaded on You Tube and others today, but he is still working out details with his investors on the film. I just got reprimanded for jumping the gun and putting the information here on ATS. I think he is not too happy with me at the moment. Jimmy2theR




posted on May, 25 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by darkraver
 




The most likely reason for not seeing the stars if you think about it is the fact the surface of the Moon is lit by bright sunlight your pupils close down due to the bright light so fainter stars would not be visible unless they looked at a dark area of sky without the glare of sunlight.
Think about when you go through a long dark tunnel in a train then when you come out into the light it takes a second or to for your eyes to adjust.



not quite true...

pupil dilatation/constricting is an adjustment to illumination level,true,but that does not affect the visus in order to only certain objects...
when pupils constrict everything in the visus is simply less luminated...including the stars,including the bright moon surface...

but that is not what I had in mind,

looking up into the blackness of space from the Moons surface would most certainly provide a sight of stars,of course providing you are not looking into the Sun directly,or the Earth itself

Moon has no atmosphere (at least not officially),so directing your visus somewhat upwards,away from the surface(not even completely,just enough to decrease illumination in your visus),and away from the Sun and Earth you should simply see stars...

those astronauts claim they've NEVER seen any stars up there...

that is ill logic to me,simply ill...



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jimmy2theR
In the USGS web site there are false color images and "Natural Color" images. Go see for yourself. He is not using the false color images.


The problem Jimmy is that the Natural color images are 'slightly enhanced with a little UV and a little IR... and that makes the skeptics pounce on the "false color' defense... even though the Clementine camera data clear says...

VISIBLE LIGHT

Here is the official PDF document from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

www.llnl.gov...

Now then where the heck is my signed copy
and why did Alaan Sturm drop out of the project?




posted on May, 26 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Jimmy2theR
In the USGS web site there are false color images and "Natural Color" images. Go see for yourself. He is not using the false color images.


The problem Jimmy is that the Natural color images are 'slightly enhanced with a little UV and a little IR... and that makes the skeptics pounce on the "false color' defense... even though the Clementine camera data clear says...

VISIBLE LIGHT

Here is the official PDF document from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

www.llnl.gov...

Now then where the heck is my signed copy
and why did Alaan Sturm drop out of the project?








Extract from your document above

" Moreover, Clementine
completely mapped the lunar surface
in 14 discrete spectral bands ranging
from the near ultraviolet (0.415 µm),
through the visible spectrum, to the
far infrared (9.5 µm)"

Another

Altogether, Clementines sensor
package imaged the Moon in 14
selectable, narrow-wavelength bands
ranging from 0.415 µm to 9.5 µm.


Re the Human eye

Human eye is sensitive to an approximate range of wave length of radiations from 380nm to 760nm. This portion of electromagnetic spectrum is identified as the VISIBLE SPECTRUM.

Also if you look at the graph on your PDF document only 4 of the FIltered
wavelengths they photographed are in the VISIBLE SPECTRUM.

Again zorgon a slight bending of the TRUTH by yourself your eyes dont see all of what Clementine cameras saw because the wavelenghts are not seen by your eyes we may have to start calling you Bender



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   
So it would really depend on which set of filter data they used to regenerate the images they now show us wouldn't it?

So when the USGS offers several image data sets and calls ONE of those set NATURAL COLOR, I suppose they are lying then? Hmmm

This image is offered by the USGS as one of the images taken by Clementine using the high res natural light camera... see anything wrong?



I mean we all know that they never tamper with images right? Love that NASA Gray Moon, don't you?




posted on May, 26 2009 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
This image is offered by the USGS as one of the images taken by Clementine using the high res natural light camera... see anything wrong?


My astrolabe!
Plaskett Crater!

It Looks like different filters were used on the bottom portion of the image....

Nice Find Zorgon


I found another similiar Clementine shot of Plaskett with the Earth - and a bit more colour for the moon (Your image is higher resolution, and the the moon certainly looks bland/filtered):




Edit: Along with your discovery of altering/filtering colours, I may have detected further proof of image manipulation on behalf the USGS!
*Note the 'object' between the moon and the earth in the image I posted, and which is absent from the USGS image you posted.... Any ideas on what it might be?

Here is the source of my image:
www.nasaimages.org...:Earthrise-Over-Plaskett-Crater


The LPI also has a version of the image that differs from the NASA one, and which also has the 'object' edited out (I think it might be the one you have, albeit without the stamp):
www.lpi.usra.edu...


What a bunch of crooks....


[edit on 26-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Except that for some reason the Moon is in grayscale while the command module is in full color... and we all know the moon isn't gray


Depends on camera settings - in my experience a faster exposure usually produces a very grey Moon, whilst longer exposure times can make it look more brown, orange or yellow.






and also note there are no stars in either picture ........



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Well, it's obvious to me, that picture is an entire fake!!

~sarcasm~
I mean, look at South America there! It's the wrong shape!

No, but it must be fake, since there aren't enough clouds over Africa....everyone knows there are always clouds over Africa!!! Oh, and I cannot see the lines that depict the different countries.
~sarc off~

It is just too easy to nitpick. Why not just enjoy pretty pictures, and realize that until you go there, and see it with your own eyes, NO photo will do justice to the sights.

Who hasn't come home from Holiday to find that their eighteen rolls of film were disappointing?? (Yes, talking about BD ancient history here, before digital...)

z, is that Earth/Moon shot a composite of two?? The Sun's angle seems off, and/or the plane of the Moon's orbit seems off, not sure what, can't put my finger on it.....



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


while you may have a valid point (based on some of the astronaut transcripts), the images you are posting are not really illustrating it.

The second image is of the moon while lower in the horizon. This is what gives it that reddish glow.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by zorgon

Except that for some reason the Moon is in grayscale while the command module is in full color... and we all know the moon isn't gray


Depends on camera settings - in my experience a faster exposure usually produces a very grey Moon, whilst longer exposure times can make it look more brown, orange or yellow.






and also note there are no stars in either picture ........




Naughty Naughty Essan you edited the stars out didn't you



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
So it would really depend on which set of filter data they used to regenerate the images they now show us wouldn't it?

So when the USGS offers several image data sets and calls ONE of those set NATURAL COLOR, I suppose they are lying then? Hmmm

This image is offered by the USGS as one of the images taken by Clementine using the high res natural light camera... see anything wrong?






I mean we all know that they never tamper with images right? Love that NASA Gray Moon, don't you?




Also if you look at the graph on your PDF document only 4 of the FIltered wavelengths they photographed are in the VISIBLE SPECTRUM.

My eyes see in natural light when I look I see a grey looking Moon dont you!
Natural Grey Moon filters on other colours!!!
Ps AND of course using UV & IR for shots!!!!!!!

[edit on 26-5-2009 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 26-5-2009 by wmd_2008]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Not sure what to make of it, but hey no one really knows ?


www.lunarobservers.com...


[edit on 26-5-2009 by tristar]



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Saganite
 

Don't bother.

The false horizon clip is just silly. The crosses appear against the sky when; a) there is sunlight behind them or b) when there is lens flare behind them. In other words, when they are backlit. They do not appear against black sky because they are black.

The "double cross" is produced by an internal reflection within the camera. The Reseau Plate on which the crosses are marked is at the back of the camera, right in front of the film. The very bright sunlight casts one (cross) shadow on the film, is reflected off of the plate, then back off of the lens creating the second shadow. Another example:
www.hq.nasa.gov...


Now dont confuse them with the facts let them pay to watch there movie. As for the spheres most of them looked like craters would need to verify that by locations but i doubt the film will make that easy by zooming in to hide the fact its a stereoscopic image of a crater. And dont forget video gets proved fake no more sales.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
So it would really depend on which set of filter data they used to regenerate the images they now show us wouldn't it?

So when the USGS offers several image data sets and calls ONE of those set NATURAL COLOR, I suppose they are lying then? Hmmm

This image is offered by the USGS as one of the images taken by Clementine using the high res natural light camera... see anything wrong?



I mean we all know that they never tamper with images right? Love that NASA Gray Moon, don't you?



All and all id say it proves nothing other than the fact a pretty picture of earth which goes along nicely with USGS mission. BY THE WAY NASA WILL TELL YOU IF THEY MANIPULATED THE IMAGE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE NAME FROM NASA IT HAS ALL KIND OF INFORMATION.

[edit on 5/26/09 by dragonridr]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008Naughty Naughty Essan you edited the stars out didn't you


Well since you guys keep bringing up the stars perhaps you can explain why the stars in the following video from STS 61 show up so clearly in the low resolution black and white camera... even when the camera is pointed at the bright reflecting moon, you can still see the stars clearly and the video frames are certainly not 15 second exposurers


Looks like Orion to me... and you can see FOUR stars in the sword (just ignore the door shaped UFO... focus on the stars
)




posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by tristar


Ummm Moon about to occult Venus?


Says so right here...

Occultation of Venus — 2008 December 1
www.lunarobservers.com...





Am I missing something?



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by wmd_2008Naughty Naughty Essan you edited the stars out didn't you


Well since you guys keep bringing up the stars perhaps you can explain why the stars in the following video from STS 61 show up so clearly in the low resolution black and white camera... even when the camera is pointed at the bright reflecting moon, you can still see the stars clearly and the video frames are certainly not 15 second exposurers



And you can clearly make out all the detail on the Moon too ....... oh, wait, it's seriously over-exposed - point proved?

btw with the Moon now waxing in the evening sky and hopefully clear conditions here I'll try and take a few pictures of the Moon in the same position at the same time at different exposure settings and post the results here. See if I can change the colour of the Moon


(I actually have a suspicion that 2nd picture I posted earlier may have been during an eclipse of the Moon
)



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by wmd_2008Naughty Naughty Essan you edited the stars out didn't you


Well since you guys keep bringing up the stars perhaps you can explain why the stars in the following video from STS 61 show up so clearly in the low resolution black and white camera... even when the camera is pointed at the bright reflecting moon, you can still see the stars clearly and the video frames are certainly not 15 second exposurers


Looks like Orion to me... and you can see FOUR stars in the sword (just ignore the door shaped UFO... focus on the stars
)






zorgon do you know camera details! For this video.

Required for correct exposure of any subject
Aperture,shutter speed and film/sensor speed rating.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 




and





posted on May, 29 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


OK....Moon about to occult.....based on astronomical observations...


So....we now are seeing what are observed. Sorry, zorgon....you just repudiated what you are trying to claim......

I mean, you have just shown a serious and significant truth, one that refutes your other claims.

Sorry....can't wait to see how you get out of this one.......

Peace!!



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join