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.

 

where's the stars?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
One of my arguments about the moon landing being real is there's no stars in the photograghs . Recently I came across some thread [I don't remember which], Showing pictures of Jupiter. It showed the planet in all it's glory, but I noticed there weren't any stars in the back ground. Just the picture if the planet.

If I take a picture of the earth at night the stars show up. Why not when a NASA probe does it with another heavenly body? Whoops, I meant Saturn.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by korath]




posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Maybe they take the stars away soo u can see its full majestic glory. Why leave stars in the pic? You can see those everywhere. OR it has something to do with the lacking of atmosphere. Light needs a median to travel through to make it visible. And dark matter must not be good enough.

Just my own opinion.

-Shadow



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Did the moon landings happen in the day or night? You don't see stars in the daytime but they're there. If it's daylight on the moon, wouldn't you need a time lapse exposure to pick up any star light in in the sky. Seems to me the reflected sunlight would be enough to prevent them being visible.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by korath
 


It depends on the exposure time of the images. For example, if you take a image with a camera with a shutter time of a second during night time, you will get a black image. But, if you release the shutter and expose it for say three minutes, you will get some stars, because more light reaches the camera.

It all depends on the exposure time.


An important principle of exposure is reciprocity. If one exposes the film or sensor for a longer period, a reciprocally smaller aperture is required to reduce the amount of light hitting the film to obtain the same exposure. For example, the photographer may prefer to make his sunny-16 shot at an aperture of f/5.6 (to obtain a shallow depth of field). As f/5.6 is 3 stops "faster" than f/16, with each stop meaning double the amount of light, a new shutter speed of (1/125)/(2·2·2) = 1/1000 is needed. Once the photographer has determined the exposure, aperture stops can be traded for halvings or doublings of speed, within limits. A demonstration of the effect of exposure in night photography. Longer shutter speeds mean increased exposure.


The true characteristic of most photographic emulsions is not actually linear, (see sensitometry) but it is close enough over the exposure range of about one second to 1/1000th of a second. Outside of this range, it becomes necessary to increase the exposure from the calculated value to account for this characteristic of the emulsion. This characteristic is known as reciprocity failure. The film manufacturer's data sheets should be consulted to arrive at the correction required as different emulsions have different characteristics. Digital camera image sensors can also be subject to a form of reciprocity failure.[10]


Take a look at this image. It speaks for itself.



Source-

Wikipedia



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Go outside with a flashlight, and look up in the sky. You'll see some stars.

Next, look directly in the beam of a flashlight for a second or two.

Look up. No stars!

Now stand directly under a bright light, like a street light and look up. You'll see only the brightest stars.

Do the same thing with your camera. Stand under a street light or something and take a picture of the sky. Next go to a dark area and take a picture of the sky.

It's all about exposure. There are no stars in the moon pictures because they were exposed for the moon scene so all of the star light is underexposed and hence not visible. When you look in the beam of that flashlight, your eye adjust itself to the exposure of the high intensity light coming from the flash light and when you look up, you aren't going to see any stars right away because your eyes are exposing a brighter scene.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by korath
 


What was the f-stop and exposure?

Why would you take a picture of Earth in the dark? Usually, when photographs of bright planets are taken the stars won't show 'cuz of the short exposure time.

Oh, and ignore someone who says light needs air for it to travel through to be seen --- that's nonsense.




posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   
when i found this thread i thought it connected w/what i was "not" seeing in the sky's...........no stars. i do not see stars in the sky's of alabama. sorry but i still wonder why i am unable to see anthing but the moon and 2 planets (if they are planets).



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by musselwhite
 


You live in the city? If so, it is because of the light pollution which blocks all the star light and making only the brightest ever objects in the sky visible.

To see the stars, go to a very remote place, like a village or the top of a mountain where there are no lights to interefere with the stars and see the sky in all its glory.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by peacejet
 

One of the things i loved about living in the country was the star gazing.

Light pollution is one of the reason why you''ll also hear birds that are normally asleep at night being active.



posted on Jun, 28 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by korath
 


Go talk to someone expert in photography. He/she will tell you it's no conspiracy and will give a perfect explanation.

I do some astro-photography myself. I tell, it's very difficult to combine a good *usable* image of say, the moon, together with the stars. Say if you try to grab the stars with the moon. You have to use longer exposure times. The resulting image will make the moon appear like the sun, and of course, some stars in the background.

Do yourself a favor, get informed, and for best results, try to do it yourself
You don't have to buy expensive DSLR cameras btw, just the simple digital point-and-shoot nowadays can have long exposure times, long enough to bring out the faint stars...



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by korath
One of my arguments about the moon landing being real is there's no stars in the photograghs . Recently I came across some thread [I don't remember which], Showing pictures of Jupiter. It showed the planet in all it's glory, but I noticed there weren't any stars in the back ground. Just the picture if the planet.

If I take a picture of the earth at night the stars show up. Why not when a NASA probe does it with another heavenly body? Whoops, I meant Saturn.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by korath]


I haven't read through the posts in the thread, so I am sure someone has already gave you this reason, but I will state it anyways..

Look up in the sky when there is a full moon, there are far less stars, because the magnitude of light being reflected off the moon and coming to us, washes out many of the small points of light in the sky. Now think about that, and realize that they are on a planet that is being litten up, and think about the light reflecting off of the earth in the distance, thus when a picture is taken it is no big surprise that stars are being washed out due to the reflection of light off of the atmosphere-less moon.

Hope that sort of answers you question.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sentry-
I haven't read through the posts in the thread, so I am sure someone has already gave you this reason, but I will state it anyways..


It would've been better if you actually read the other posts before replying. Because IMO, you are basing your opinion on visual observations and you might just confuse the OP. Although I'm not saying you're completely wrong.

Others gave a much better answer based on photographic observations. It's a different thing. You don't actually see this 'washed out' effect on pictures except on 'over exposed' images which are normally discarded, and never makes it to publication.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by ahnggk]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by korath
...If I take a picture of the earth at night the stars show up. Why not when a NASA probe does it with another heavenly body? Whoops, I meant Saturn.

Do you really get a lot of stars in your pictures taken at night? Really??

I've taken normal shutter-speed pictures at night and never get any stars. The only time I ever get stars in pictures taken at night is if it's VERY dark, or if I have my shutter speed set to take long exposure shots.

The pictures taken on the moon were NOT long exposure shots because the moon was a very bright and reflective place. The same goes forJupiter and Saturn...the Sun still reflects quite a bit off of those planets, so the shutter speeds are relatively fast -- probably too fast for most stars to show up.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ahnggk

Originally posted by Sentry-
I haven't read through the posts in the thread, so I am sure someone has already gave you this reason, but I will state it anyways..


It would've been better if you actually read the other posts before replying. Because IMO, you are basing your opinion on visual observations and you might just confuse the OP. Although I'm not saying you're completely wrong.

Others gave a much better answer based on photographic observations. It's a different thing. You don't actually see this 'washed out' effect on pictures except on 'over exposed' images which are normally discarded, and never makes it to publication.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by ahnggk]


I am sorry to upset you, but im not trying to confuse the OP, the OP is wise enough to take in the general reasoning by reading all the posts, and have an understanding. There are facts to this however, it has to do with the way the light reflects as well as the specifics in terms of the cameras they are using as well as the exposure settings and so on, but I am just giving the general point on why if you were on the moon you might not necessarily see every single star out there. When I say washed out I simply mean the stars are not as visible due to another source over powering that light. Again, sorry to upset you, but there are various factors in why the photos appear the way they are, and what I said is one of the reasons.

The point is there is not really any concpiracy to be played out here, it is a matter of science that has to do with various elements of light reflection, exposure, etc...



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sentry-
I am just giving the general point on why if you were on the moon you might not necessarily see every single star out there. When I say washed out I simply mean the stars are not as visible due to another source over powering that light. Again, sorry to upset you, but there are various factors in why the photos appear the way they are, and what I said is one of the reasons.


Your first sentence is true, but it would appear most stars are unseen except for the brightest ones.

The rest depends. If you are in space, you could actually bring out the stars together with a bright object. But the much brighter object will only appear as pure white, and gradually fading to black, sometimes with rays. It will actually wash out fainter objects near it. But farther away from the image, they can be resolved.

It's also a different thing in terrestrial astro-photography. Obviously, many stars will be washed out when there's a bright full moon, not completely by the moon, but by light scattered by the atmosphere from the moon.



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by korath
 


Where is the stars? Where are the stars? I do not know. Up, maybe? You are going to help me.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
reply to post by korath
 


Where is the stars? Where are the stars? I do not know. Up, maybe?


Check this picture - No stars in this version...:

www.hq.nasa.gov...


This one looks 'unreal' - it also has a star which can only be seen in the higher resolution images...


www.hq.nasa.gov...

Here is the Higher Res version - Note the 'star' in the top left corner, which was absent from the lower resolution version:

www.hq.nasa.gov...


*Does anyone notice anything strange about the earth in this image?





posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 

That may be a star (or planet). Perhaps it's so small on the original photograph that it only shows up as one pixel in the higher-resolution scan, and therefore disappears at lower resolutions (i.e., it's much smaller than one pixel in the lower-resolution.)

Or perhaps it's a "spot" on the original negative itself (and was not really there when the picture was taken) that is only big enough to be resolved as one pixel in the higher-resolution scan. It could also be one-pixel error in the "jpg" file.


....and I give up -- what's strange about the Earth in that photo?



[edit on 6/30/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Yeah...what Soylent asked...what do you see that others can't??

(I really can't believe this 'no stars' baloney is still going...and going...and going....)

[edit on 6/30/0909 by weedwhacker]


jra

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Here is the Higher Res version - Note the 'star' in the top left corner, which was absent from the lower resolution version


Have you ruled out it being a scanning artifact? Due to the fact that the Earth and Moon are properly exposed, it can't be a star. It's physically impossible to have a star come out that bright on a photo that was taken in daylight exposure settings.


Does anyone notice anything strange about the earth in this image?


No, but I'm guessing you do?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join