Moon Rising - The truth about the moon revealed

Originally posted by SkepticPerhaps
Am I to believe that there are no stars visible when there is no sunlight?

You don't have to believe, but if you at least tried to find a valid explanation for it, you might actually get answers to your questions.

Since the lunar dust is white, sunlight reflects off the moon, and is powerful enough to light up Earth at night. So if you were standing on the moon, the white lunar dust would actually cause a type of light pollution, without an atmosphere.

Pretty simple explanation right?

[edit on 18-5-2009 by 0nce 0nce]

reply to post by 0nce 0nce


Dust does not cause enough light pollution to stop distant rays from hitting the moon's surface. It should not be devoid of stars. Even with the sun beating directly on you, there isn't enough atmosphere to contain the light or filter other light. To take it a step further, show me a diagram of the location every picture was taken from, and prove to me they were all taken from the center of the sun's impact on the moon at the time, and that no stars should be visible on the dark side of the moon's horizon.

Of course I'm operating off my knowledge of physics, and I'm not even a science major, so please, bring facts and sources to disprove me, I like to learn.

Originally posted by Longchenpa
I'm just wondering has Escamilla accepted the conclusive findings that "rods" are just insects motion blurred on video? has he apologized for selling videos of this stuff without investigating it thoroughly enough to determine what it really was?

[edit on 17-5-2009 by Longchenpa]

The issue about Rods being insects has not proven conclusively that's all there is to the Rods. Escamilla is making a film and it has Rods filmed at 24p (non-interlaced video) thereby eliminating the false frame theories, he has IMAX footage, even in 3D, more from shuttle missions and recently he sent me aerial paracchute films at 10 or 20,000 feet! Certainly no insects at that altitude, especially when you can see these things at a far distance from the camera. If anyone knows the common altutude parachute jumper are when they jump let me know. Jimmy2theR

Originally posted by 0nce 0nce

Originally posted by SkepticPerhaps
Am I to believe that there are no stars visible when there is no sunlight?

You don't have to believe, but if you at least tried to find a valid explanation for it, you might actually get answers to your questions.

You don't have to be 'snippy'

If what you say is true... then why is it that NASA on Astronomy Picture of the Day... show THIS




What is this? This is what the sky would look like from EARTH if there was no atmosphere.

Here it is in NASA's own words...

Astronomy Picture of the Day
2007 June 21
" Stars and the Solstice Sun "

Explanation: If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this ... with the Sun surrounded by the stars of the constellations Taurus and Gemini. Of course, today is the Solstice. Traveling along the ecliptic plane, the Sun is at its northernmost position in planet Earth's sky, marking the astronomical beginning of summer in the north. Accurate for the exact time of today's Solstice, this composite image also shows the Sun at the proper scale (about the angular size of the Full Moon). Open star cluster M35 is to the Sun's left, and the other two bright stars in view are Mu and Eta Geminorum. Digitally superimposed on a nighttime image of the stars, the Sun itself is a composite of a picture taken through a solar filter and a series of images of the solar corona recorded during the solar eclipse of February 26, 1998 by Andreas Gada.

apod.nasa.gov...

So on the one hand NASA tells us the airless sky on Earth would be FULL of STARS, yet on the other hand they try to tell us that you would not even see one, not even the brightest, not even Venus, which we can see in the daylight on Earth at sunset?

And you buy this without question?

Originally posted by 0nce 0nce So if you were standing on the moon, the white lunar dust would actually cause a type of light pollution, without an atmosphere.
Pretty simple explanation right?

If you look at the moon you will see the dark areas, the Mares, that do not reflect much light. These areas or 'seas' are very large. More than one Apollo mission 'landed' on a Mare.

Also since there is supposedly no atmosphere on the Moon, then any reflected light from the surface would go straight out into space and not cause 'light pollution' as there would be no scattering of light to cause such pollution.

Now if you want to tell me there IS an atmosphere on the moon, or that the raging dust storms are scattering the light, then MAYBE you get my attention. But if that was true, you would see corpuscular rays at sunset and sunrise... and we all know THAT doesn't happen right?




Moon Fountains

Moon Storms

Apollo 11 Press Conference
Sir Patrick Moore, , famous British astronomer asks the alleged Apollo 11 crew "could you actually see the stars?"

Here is their reply...

Google Video Link

...

[edit on 18-5-2009 by zorgon]

I didn't say it was creating light pollution, I was saying it is the "light pollution effect" on the camera. Where a bright object makes dark areas harder to see (darker).

It's called glare...

Just go shine a super bright spotlight on your face, and notice how difficult and dark the background gets.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by 0nce 0nce]

reply to post by 0nce 0nce


But if the camera is pointed away from the lunar surface, or mostly at the 'sky' then there should be no - or very little - 'light pollution effect" in the camera, if there is no atmosphere to reflect the light back in to the camera, no?

And we aren't just talking about 'light pollution effect' on 'cameras', as the astronauts claimed never to see stars either.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by Malcram]

Here is yet another example of NASA's impeccable track record with Honesty:

Gotta get those crosshairs into that Hasselblad shot!
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d6d291170690.jpg[/atsimg]


What's that in the Background?! Leggo My Eggo!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b9b46ff52744.jpg[/atsimg]


Oh dear... Now we know why they create those false horizons.

The Brookings Report


Edit: Link Fixed.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Links on those Brookings images not working... says no permission...

reply to post by zorgon


I'll delete those ones and try to find working ones.

Actually, I'll just link to the page and then the members will just have to scroll down and click when they get there... Doing edit now.

Darn!

Edit; I find that direct linking results in more people reading the material. It is a shame that scrolling has become such a source of discouragement.

Just watch Zorgon, someone will complain about not being able to find the Brookings report in the link I just fixed. Just wait...

[edit on 19-5-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by zorgon


Hey, z. Long time no type.

I remember that chestnut of an image from a few years ago!! Looked fake then, still does. YES, I know it comes from NASA. Not one of their better efforts, what?

Sure, it represents what might be seen if there were no atmosphere on Earth...except, I'd reckon if you looked into a field of view with the Sun so prominent with unprotected eyes you'd be blind so fast you'd see nothing!! Also, just as on the Moon, depending on the reflectivity of the surrounding terrain, the irises in your eyes would 'stop-down' to protect your retinas, even if you had your back to the Sun. So, doubt you'd see many of the billions of stars with the naked eye.

Ever been snowblind?





[edit on 5/20/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Also, just as on the Moon, depending on the reflectivity of the surrounding terrain, the irises in your eyes would 'stop-down' to protect your retinas, even if you had your back to the Sun. So, doubt you'd see many of the billions of stars with the naked eye.

Here is an image that conflicts with the logic you are currently using.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4040f5d9015e.jpg[/atsimg]
(Upload by Zorgon)

reply to post by Exuberant1


Oh well...z and I have chatted at length, going back quite a ways....

As to that pretty 'green' picture...ermmm, according to 'z' the Moon has a saffron-colored sky. Of course, lacking a specific reference for his link.....that looks to me a blurred orbital photo with the greenish bits added in.....[EDIT here] because I found the uplink you refer to, on another thread. Seems it's, according to z, a picture of the aurora borealis from Earth orbit...so, it's a blurry picture of Earth, not Moon. So, weren't we discussing the Moon back up a few posts??


[So, based on edit, rest of my post is non-sequitor. However, it still works if you wish to speculate on a saffron-colored Lunar sky....]
One would think that just about every amateur astronomer with a pretty good back-yard telescope set-up would at least be able to see a little of that greenish atmosphere. Maybe it's a 'false-color' image??? If so, it can be verified by multiple sources.

Guess we'll need to wait for the LRO...'course, people won't believe it, either.



[edit on 5/20/0909 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Excuse me if I am mistaken the image you are referring to shows the view of auroa's over the pole in Earth orbit. Its not false color and has not been added in after taking the picture.

If you notice the surface of the Earth is extreamly bright, however, given this fact we can still see stars clearly in the photo; which i believe Exuberant1 was trying to demonstrate to you.

When it comes to stars not being visible from the surface of the moon, to what extent does the visor restrict what they could see? Its not as if they could just look straight up in their space suites. If I was on the moon I'd be much more intrested in playing with my cool moonbuggy!

When it comes to camera's, different settings and types of cameras will produce different results. So I don't think its a fair comparison to show the picture as evidence of NASA airbrusing the sky. If that was your intention of course.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

.... according to 'z' the Moon has a saffron-colored sky.

I thought that was Jon Lear who said that?

In any case; several of the Apollo photographs have been manipulated to remove the sky, as can be seen by the absence of crosshairs or parts of crosshairs from certain parts of the Hasselblaad shots.

Sometimes the crosshairs are edited in after the fact, as evidenced by the topic image in the post where it can bee seen that NASA also tried to pass of a picture of the original as a copy of the original, along with the manipulation:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by SkepticPerhaps
reply to post by 0nce 0nce

 

Dust does not cause enough light pollution to stop distant rays from hitting the moon's surface. It should not be devoid of stars. Even with the sun beating directly on you, there isn't enough atmosphere to contain the light or filter other light. To take it a step further, show me a diagram of the location every picture was taken from, and prove to me they were all taken from the center of the sun's impact on the moon at the time, and that no stars should be visible on the dark side of the moon's horizon.

Of course I'm operating off my knowledge of physics, and I'm not even a science major, so please, bring facts and sources to disprove me, I like to learn.

Your physics teacher was an ass then or you do not have a clue!
MOON is in BRIGHT SUNLIGHT the exposure times are very short

two links for you Moon picture look at exposure time 1/320th of a second

www.pbase.com...&exif=Y

Star pictures look at exposure time 15 secs

www.pbase.com...

Thats why the stars dont show up in moon pics now go have a word with that physics teacher get a REFUND!!!

[edit on 20-5-2009 by wmd_2008]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Well, professional photogs have chimed in here at ATS about the fiducials.

Essentially, if you photograph a black image, your black 'crosshairs' simply won't show.

Jumping to the conclusion that 'obviously' the sky backgrounds have been manipulated is, well...quite a big jump.

Perhaps ArMaP or ngc can explain the LM shot....the glare and the fiducial shadows. I don't remember any Apollo photos before that showed so much distortion...almost a 'fish eye' effect...

Anyway, if you'll recall, the fiducials were drawn on a sheet of glass in the camera a fraction of an inch from the actual surface of the film. My guess, purely that, only a guess....that might explain the shadows.

Your other pic...not even going to hazard a guess as to what you're showing us.......

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

Essentially, if you photograph a black image, your black 'crosshairs' simply won't show.

That is incorrect.

The crosshairs on those Hasselblaad's can be made to show by increasing the brightness of the image - unless they have been edited out.


*Strange how you didn't post any images that would corroborate your claims....

Later, I will post examples that corroborate mine. For now, I must go nap.

What was your excuse?

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

.... according to 'z' the Moon has a saffron-colored sky.

I thought that was John Lear who said that?

Actually the color came from Howard Menger (now deceased). He sent us a color swatch with the color he remembered...

This shade right here...

Oh did we land on the moon, well, perhaps some should read the following and get back here

www.shriworld.com...