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.
Originally posted by Exuberant1
Originally posted by wmd_2008
you would have noticed things like STAR TRAILS which to anyone with actual knowlege on the subject would would mean an exposure time of at least a few seconds!!!
I did not comment on exposure time.
The OP did not specify or request images with a certain exposure time.
Apollo 11: Neil Armstrong on the moon Buzz Aldrin: 'Nothing prepared me for the starkness of the moon. The barren terrain was a dusty grey with many little craters in every direction. The sky was utter blackness, void of any stars. When I stepped down onto the surface and felt each movement carried by the slow-motion sensation of one-sixth lunar gravity, I spontaneously exclaimed, 'Magnificent desolation.' As I walked away from the Eagle lunar module, Neil said: 'Hold it, Buzz.' So I stopped and turned around, and then took what has become known as the 'Visor' photo.'
Originally posted by Exuberant1
That picture clearly demonstrates that which some would say is impossible
Originally posted by SLAYER69
I think the question has been answered in so many different ways.
Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by ngchunter
That one obviously shows artifacts.
I honestly chalk up the discrepancies to blind luck. Some footage had better exposure times while others did not. But if they are going to show artifacts then they would be very obvious like the link you just posted. While others will show some faint stars. I don't get the argument here. No two pictures are ever exactly alike.
Those picture were originally "optimized" To show the Astronaut and the Flag not the stars in the background. I think we were lucky enough to have some faint images of stars captured.
Anybody here can take a photo now a days into photoshop and over expose an image to expose items too faint to normally be observed. So having a differences in scans leaves too many possibilities open in my opinion. Considering the equipment of the period although top of the line back in the day. Still by today's standards left a lot to be desired.
So in the End you see no "stars" and "Artifacts" in some of the images. I see "Artifacts" and "stars" in some.
Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by ngchunter
That one obviously shows artifacts.
I honestly chalk up the discrepancies to blind luck. Some footage had better exposure times while others did not.
But if they are going to show artifacts then they would be very obvious like the link you just posted.
I don't get the argument here. No two pictures are ever exactly alike.
Those picture were originally "optimized" To show the Astronaut and the Flag not the stars in the background.
So having a differences in scans leaves too many possibilities open in my opinion.
Originally posted by ngchunter
reply to post by SLAYER69
Another scan not showing "stars," but there are some artifacts not matching the ones in the other scan off to the right.
http: //www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~5~5~21589~126374:Shepard-Plants-Flag
But hey, I'm wasting my breath because you aren't going to accept any evidence, right?
[edit on 4-6-2009 by ngchunter]
Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by wmd_2008
No!
The truth is that we have a difference of opinion.
I'm a big boy my feelings haven't been hurt get over it already.
Jeez grow up