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.

 

No Stars seen from Space?

page: 2
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticPerhaps it was my understanding that our atmosphere bouncing the light from the sun was the cause of there being no stars. If that's true then without an atmosphere stars would be visible anyway.


Yes that is quite true... and here you have it direct from NASA themselves...





A Stars and the Solstice Sun
Composite Credit & Copyright: Jerry Lodriguss (Catching the Light)

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.


NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day
2007 June 21
apod.nasa.gov...

Now then why would that work on Earth, but NOT work on the Moon?



Sir Patrick Moore asks the alleged Apollo 11 crew "could you actually see the stars?" - 00:51 - Nov 21, 2006


Google Video Link




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

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by SkepticPerhaps it was my understanding that our atmosphere bouncing the light from the sun was the cause of there being no stars. If that's true then without an atmosphere stars would be visible anyway.


Yes that is quite true... and here you have it direct from NASA themselves...


Zorgon, I thought it was your contention that NASA always lies.

If so, this statement proves you CAN'T see stars in the daytime without an atmosphere!



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
I have heard all the arguments why no stars appear in certain NASA photos, yet I was never satisfied with the answer...


You were not satisfied with the answer simply because the facts stated by others are not supporting your claim.

Quite common around here...

I would suggest that you buy decent camera (with full manual control) and test it yourself. I believe that is about the only thing which would help you understand and accept the reality of this particular issue



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Majorion
 


Hang some Christmas lites up in a dark room. Erect one of those Construction lites in the door way and point it directly at your face. Turn it on and see if you can see the Christmas lites.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
As I wrote earlier, the LM had a sextant for lunar surface star marks, and Apollo-16 carried a UV telescope that was set up in the LM's shadow and got excellent views of Earth and the surrounding stars. So who says
you can't ever see stars in space? Just not when staring at the sun.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Is it me or did the astronauts in that movie really looked concerned over the stars question?

I really don't care about this, I know that glare can cause poorly lighted objects in a background to disappear, however I doo believe they should have seen some stars from the moon and even attempted to take pictures of star systems/ constellaltions from the moons view point.

We have studied the stars from Earth but wouldn't it have also been applicable to study them from the moon and try to get some pictures? I know conspiracy theorist use the star theory to prove their point but what I would like to see is a direct telescopic or regular photograph from the view point of the moon looking into space.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   


We have studied the stars from Earth but wouldn't it have also been applicable to study them from the moon and try to get some pictures? I know conspiracy theorist use the star theory to prove their point but what I would like to see is a direct telescopic or regular photograph from the view point of the moon looking into space.


This is a reasonable quest, and you can use the practice in finding out how to find it yourself. Nose around the key words Apollo-16, ultraviolet, and telescope. Good hunting!!



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by gravitybender
"Is it me or did the astronauts in that movie really looked concerned over the stars question?"
 

Yes they do look nervous indeed! I know this is a little off topic but those men weren't allowed to say what they saw, so when the question of seeing stars comes up they look intently at their monitors for the answers their supposed to give and start ringing their hands. Notice how the one says "I don't recall".
Sounds like a guilty CEO testifying before congress.
But as far as seeing stars in space. They can see stars under certain circumstances just like here on earth. The stars in the video was taken with a special camera. And the tumbling UFO was the three villians from the superman movie.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by gravitybender
 


What would be the point to "study" the stars from the moon? The Moon isn't that far away to provide a different point of view.

Those so called "conspiracy theorysts" ignore the exposure explanations of the stars missing from the moon shots because it doesn't support their beliefs. That's also called ignorance.
But oh well.. Incompetent NASA workers! They should've just faked the stars too. It aint that difficult.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
This is not my photo but I have taken some like it.

If you lengthen the exposure on your camera in a perfectly dark sky and aim it at the center of the milky way you get this.



If a camera can do that (because it essentially captures light) then how come there are no stars in space where there is no atmosphere to block you?



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Here is an image wherein a star (Orion ?) can be seen just below the fiducial immediately right of center:




*Just ignore the fact that the sun is also in the shot with a star...


[edit on 29-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
there are a lot of thnigs we don't know about light, unless we are specialists in that domain. ask a physicist, see what he tells you.

However, this is probably a "city lights" phenomenon. If you live downtown, you'll not be able to see the stars and the sky as clearly as you could in the countryside. Why? because the city lights altogether create a "filter" that only allow for bigger lights to be seen, such as the moon and planes/low satellites...



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Now then why would that work on Earth, but NOT work on the Moon?


This is painful.

Take a good, hard look at the pictures with stars, such as the one you posted and those that don't. Do you notice any difference?



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkraver

Originally posted by JimOberg
Take a survey of sports news photographs of brightly-lit night games -- baseball, football, whatever -- that also show a portion of the night sky. Even on clear nights, with stars out, the photos will not show stars.



WTF has this got to do with the topic?

we ARE talking about non atmosphere conditions here, are we not?


Think about what is similar in what Oberg is talking about and photos in space that show no stars. In each of those cases, what do they have in common?

This is painful.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


That vid really hit home with me.

Not verbatim

"These three astronauts just acheived the most incredible feat ever accomplished by the human race, but look how sad and nervous they look...."

Yup they sure do.

I know if I went to the moon and lived to tell about it, I would be the most excited guy that ever lived....



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by sc4venger
I remember reading threads that when on the moon astronauts could not see any stars, I also think this is a blatant lie. In my point of view, stars should be seen much better when observed on a satellite like the moon... there is no atmosphere, no clouds... what would be the reasons for not being able to see star when either in space or on the moon..?


Simple your eyes have adjusted for the bright reflected light from the moons surface . Look up a a dark patch of sky for a few seconds the astronauts would have seen them.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by SkepticPerhaps it was my understanding that our atmosphere bouncing the light from the sun was the cause of there being no stars. If that's true then without an atmosphere stars would be visible anyway.


Yes that is quite true... and here you have it direct from NASA themselves...





A Stars and the Solstice Sun
Composite Credit & Copyright: Jerry Lodriguss (Catching the Light)

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.


NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day
2007 June 21
apod.nasa.gov...

Now then why would that work on Earth, but NOT work on the Moon?



Sir Patrick Moore asks the alleged Apollo 11 crew "could you actually see the stars?" - 00:51 - Nov 21, 2006


Google Video Link



zorgon thats how the SKY would look to your EYES repeat your EYES not a camera if you have trouble reading there must be classes were you live!



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Atmosphere or no atmosphere if you haven't noticed then the Moon reflects a lot of light. The reflected light is scattered all over the place. This is also the reason why everything in the photos, which is in the shadows, looks bright. It's impossible to take shots of stars with the Moon surface visible with the way those cameras were set up.


Originally posted by DaMod
I know if I went to the moon and lived to tell about it, I would be the most excited guy that ever lived....

And I wouldn't feel much different than usual..
What does this prove?


[edit on 29/5/2009 by DGFenrir]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
I know if I went to the moon and lived to tell about it, I would be the most excited guy that ever lived...


That is until the realization hit you that no matter what happens for the rest of your life nothing will compare with what you just accomplished. For the rest of your life. Nothing.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Surely, one of the most beautiful pictures they could of ever taken would be the Earth (from the moon) with the right aperture setting and ISO showing the Earth floating in a sea of stars.

Is there such a picture?

NASA photoshoppers would not be able to replicate the intricate detail of the cosmos as it would only take one blemish in the wrong place for it to raise eyebrows. Hence, they just mask out the background from their water-tank, or wherever they staged it.

Regarding the Patrick Moore/astronauts video, saying "i don't recall", well that is pretty damning evidence. Something so wonderful would burn on your retinas for a lifetime, would it not?



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join