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: 4
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
Is there such a picture?


Well I have this one... I think its beautiful...





posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   
I'm pretty sure if you can't see stars from space you've probably got a seeing eye dog sitting next to you. There are several videos, one in particular is narrated by a woman astronaut that shows plenty of stars out there.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   
zorgon, I suggest you to take a few photography classes.
People tell you that there was no way to photograph stars with the way the astronauts cameras were set up to photograph the Moon but you still don't understand it. Photography isn't rocket science but you make it look like that..



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticPerhaps
On the so-discussed topic of the moon, 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. So it comes down to if that theory went bogus when we got to space or if they're just lying to us.

I haven't been convinced either way when it comes to seeing stars in space, the only way to know for sure is to go up there and see it yourself.


Stars are visible in space at all times, unless you are looking towards the sun - and they are still visible, just that your eyes would try to cut out the light - your pupils contract to protect your retina from being burned - so the stars fade away.

If you held a dark object like a piece of black cardboard up and blocked out the sun, then all the stars would immediately be visible again - even ones right next to the sun. If the sunlight was being reflected into your eyes by your visor, or other nearby objects - then the stars would be somewhat difficult to resolve.

Stars must be visible from the moon if it has little or no atmosphere. The only thing that would prevent you from seeing the stars would be your own pupils contracting, for example if there was a lot of glare from the ground and so on. Yet - if you just shadowed your eyes from incoming glare and looked up - you would see the stars perfectly. I would doubt that any amount of glare from the ground would prevent you from seeing stars at all times.

The idea that camera's can't see stars from the moon surface or in space is ridiculous and against all science. Only camera's with very low sensitivity to light would fail to resolve stars in space, the moon might be slightly different - because surface glare might be quite high, so you would need to filter incoming light a lot more - possibly making stars fade out. Yet - I think its very unlikely that even a poor camera would not be able to resolve stars from the moons surface.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
What I understand is that the people on ISS are not bad at catching stars




Congratulations. You've discovered that a long-exposure picture taken on the night side of the Earth will show stars.


Either you're finally getting it or just attempting to pump-up the reply count by posting more stupefyingly bogus "evidence" to get the inevitable correction replies.


despite a bright object in the image... like let's say an Aurora?


Yeah, those auroras can be blinding! Don't stare at them with the naked eye, kids!



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Sorry Zorgon,

I live in Alaska. The Aurora is not as bright as the stars. Any image with an Aurora would easily show the stars. Good try though.

Camera's are not going to suddenly change their characteristics or realities of their use to accommodate a theory. However there are many people due to lack of knowledge about photography who will buy into these theories based on false facts.

The image below is a pic of the Moon taken in Dec. 2004 from inside the Everglades. Perfect night. No haze, no clouds and the stars were out as bright as I've ever seen. Do you see any stars in the photo?

My Wife is a Pro Photographer, I'm a very advanced Amateur. She got quite a chuckle out of your theory I'm afraid.



I cropped it showing a large area height-wise to demonstrate that their are no stars showing in the photo. Original is a Raw image from a Nikon point and shoot I keep in my glove box. I could dig out many others of the Moon taken with my Professional gear if need be
Whenever I see a nice Moon on a clear night I get a few shots to use in images.

From this I just realized that when you upload to ATS Media it compresses the image to the point of ridiculous. This was only 88 KB to begin with and when I uploaded it was compressed to 16 KB. No wonder pics look so crappy when uploaded here. That moon looked perfect until I uploaded. I should have linked to another site. Uploading here is too destructive.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by IAttackPeople
 


I think he is having a little fun with us
Just saying


Just kidding Zorgon. Keep posting, I love your threads.
___________________

I should have mentioned, when you shoot the Northern Lights a 30 to 45 second exposure is the norm. That's why in the photo's you see it often looks like twilight and you can see details in the landscape. It's actually pitch black dark when they are bright enough to even photograph.

[edit on 5/30/2009 by Blaine91555]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
I took some comparative shots (from Earth - but the effects would be the same from the Moon) last night. Posted here to make them more easy to find for future reference



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by DGFenrir
zorgon, I suggest you to take a few photography classes.


Ummm sure I'll book some right away


Though I don't think I did so bad with the Sea Shadow...














People tell you that there was no way to photograph stars with the way the astronauts cameras were set up to photograph the Moon but you still don't understand it.


People tell me an awful lot of stuff, doesn't mean I believe it. All those people who say "Not Possible" not one of them has been there to try




Photography isn't rocket science but you make it look like that..


Satellite photography of other worlds is indeed rocket science



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
My Wife is a Pro Photographer, I'm a very advanced Amateur. She got quite a chuckle out of your theory I'm afraid.


Well I am glad to have given her a source of amusement. Wait till I get to the hills


But I find amusement in the fact that all you skeptics are totally ignoring the stars in the OP video, taken by a low level camera still looking at a glaring moon...



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 02:41 AM
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...


Well wait until you see the answer they give for why the stars are visible in this one.

It gets the skeptics all excited:





posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Sorry Zorgon,
I live in Alaska.


I'm sorry too
I hear the mosquitoes up there are man eaters


So has your pro wife seen our full moon yet? What does she think?

www.thelivingmoon.com...



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   
More stars in space - From the ISS:


(Image uploaded by Zorgon; ISS006-E-51915)



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

But I find amusement in the fact that all you skeptics are totally ignoring the stars in the OP video, taken by a low level camera still looking at a glaring moon...


You mean like this





posted on May, 31 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   
My god that ufo looks like something....





Oh no Zod is coming!



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by free_spirit

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...



Here is your answer by an astronaut himself during a Columbia shuttle mission. Yes the
astronauts see stars as well as satellites, space junk etc. all the time EVEN at daytime
but NASA doesn't want the world to see these images anymore like in the old missions,
they don't want the world to see what is really happening up there and this is A FACT.

Check the Columbia astronaut making the historical statement from space clarifying the
old myth created by NASA.

Original link.

media.abovetopsecret.com...

Eventually NASA broadcast black and white images specially at night time during the
recent missions and you can see stars and satellites very clear and also a variety of
lights and objects moving in different directions but these transmissions are becoming
more rare. It's clear NASA doesn't want to get in trouble trying to explain so much
things shown in space like in the old times so they simply darken the space view all the
time by fixing their cameras and closing the lens to a short range.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by free_spirit]



The astronaut is clearly heard saying "AS LONG AS YOU ARE IN THE SHADOW you see stars!"



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgonBut I find amusement in the fact that all you skeptics are totally ignoring the stars in the OP video, taken by a low level camera still looking at a glaring moon...

It's not the quality that matters

Every camera is different, they have different settings. Some cameras capture UV others infra-red and or all visible light.
They didn't go to the moon to photograph stars.
It is NOT impossible to see or photograph the stars from the Moon or space. You just need the right camera with the right settings.


reply to post by Exuberant1
 


What is your point? What are yo utrying to prove?
The photo in your previous post has blurred stars. That should tell you something.

Stop being so damn ignorant.


Edit:
Blaine91555's and Essan's posted photos are a good example of what different camera settings can do to your photo. If you ignore that then you're a blind fool..

[edit on 31/5/2009 by DGFenrir]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


That is exactly right. The moon is glaring because you can see the stars. If you could see the detail of the moon, you could not see the stars. Not hard to understand. Basic photography.

Aurora's are dimmer than stars. That is why you can see both at once with a long exposure.

I don't know how to explain in any simpler way so I'll just leave it at your assumption is wrong on its face. You are misunderstanding how camera's work or perhaps you choose not to.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Cameras don't exist on an arbitrary scale of "high level" and "low level." There are different resolutions, shutter speeds, ISO's, brightness settings, color balances, and more. It's possible to have a camera with extremely poor resolution and still have a high ISO. It all depends on what the camera was designed to do.

If you insist on ignoring that fact, then you have no business debating a subject involving photography. Bottom line.

You can see stars in the OP video because whether the camera is what you call "low level" or not, it still has a high ISO setting. That means it can take pictures in dim lighting. That explanation is proven correct by the fact that the moon appears to be as bright as the sun - a normally dim light source (the moon) appears to be incredibly bright because of the high ISO.

The "skeptics" have not ignored your original video. In fact, it is you who have ignored the explanation.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Sorry Zorgon,
I live in Alaska.


I'm sorry too
I hear the mosquitoes up there are man eaters


Don't see them much. They hang out at Elmendorf Air Force Base. It's the only place with large enough runways for them to land.

Actually my Wife is glaring at me because I have some fresh Halibut to cook and it's getting late. What was swimming in the Ocean yesterday will be delighting my pallet in a few more minutes. Night all.




top topics



 
30
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join