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.

 

Buzz Aldrin Book Signing in Atlanta 9/11

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


It's you who isn't understanding, with all due respect.

What they claim on that photo, and the Moon photos, don't contradict.

In the photo you posted you don't have a high reflective surface like the Moon, thus, allowing you to see the stars even more clearly...

But on the Moon you have that bright source, avoiding the focus on the stars.




posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by Tifozi


You didn't answer the question

WHY does NASA say the picture I posted would be what the day looks like without atmosphere and why does the same not apply om the moon?

I guess its something you can't wrap your mind around huh?

:shk:


If you took a high enough resolution camera to the moon with enough light sensitivity, and aimed it at the sky and left the shutter open long enough, you would get the same type of picture from the moon as you would from the earth with no atmosphere.

So why don't we see the stars in the moon photo? Because the moon is usually in the moon photos and to avoid overexposing the moon the shutter isn't left open long enough to capture the much lower light of the stars. The astronauts' still cameras probably had enough resolution to capture stars if they were put on a tripod and aimed at the sky with the shutter open long enough, with no part of the moon's surface in the field of view. (They would also need more sensitive film with a higher ASA number to do this). However capturing stars might have been beyond the capability of the video cameras they had at the time even if they were aimed at the sky, they were pretty bad compared to today's video cameras.

[edit on 10-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

So why don't we see the stars in the moon photo?


Nevermind the photos,

The astronauts allege they could not see the stars... But according to NASA, they should have been able to.




[edit on 10-9-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 
That could be the same issue. If the astronaut's iris is closed from the bright surface reflection of the moon, they might have a hard time seeing dim objects too.

However if they just stood still, and stared at the sky until their eyes adjusted, the irises would open up and then they should be able to see the stars just as NASA said. I don't suppose the mission plan used their limited time on the moon's surface to have them standing there doing nothing but stargazing.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
...already posted above.



[edit on 10/9/09 by Tifozi]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


So you truly have convinced yourself that the Apollo astronauts could not have seen stars during their moonwalks?



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
This is one of my favourite airplanes of all time, not because of beauty or anything else, but because of what you see on the video I'm going to show.





When they are up in 70,000ft, and he films the "sky", you can't see the stars either, and guess what, it's not because of the atmosphere, because at that height 98% of it is below them.


Honestly, people need to stop spiting on astronauts and just know how lucky they are for being up there.

[edit on 10/9/09 by Tifozi]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Yes zorgon you can't see stars through the ether and when EM waves
hit the atmospheric gases and its ether you finally get light from
stars.
Must be so if man's observations count for man's knowledge.
I'll call it the T&L effect.
And NASA says the ether is dead.
Gotcha for the last ether crack, which I forgot but remember you
had one.
I won't say the name of the man that the Illuminati fear that worked
exclusively with the ether.

ED: Gad, total darkness outside the Earth's atmosphere.
No wonder people want to go into space.
But what about the orbiting telescope, how can it see so far away.


Oh the darkness.
ED+: Oh, and in summary: the Moon is in pure ether and thus one
can not see stars.

[edit on 9/10/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

[edit on 9/10/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

[edit on 9/10/2009 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


So you truly have convinced yourself that the Apollo astronauts could not have seen stars during their moonwalks?

Not totally, no, in fact I just explained under what conditions I'm sure they COULD see them. I guess I am a little surprised like NASA at their report. However I've been to the beach on a really really bright day and the sunlight reflecting off the sand was so intense it really hurt my eyes. I would expect the sunlight reflecting off the moons surface to be that bright too.

Seems like the astronauts had some really dark visors on their helmets to deal with that didn't they? Have you ever tried to go stargazing with dark sunglasses on? I wonder if that dark visor could be a contributing factor to why it was hard to see stars, what do you think?



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


I'm curious how you qualify the image you posted as an "absolute proof of a faked image for publicity".

I'm purely asking, if for no other reason than to know what your thought process on this is.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Actually, in that video of the U-2 flight if you noticed, when they look to the side/up they raise their dark visors, and when the pilot looks down, he puts the visor down.

Adding to that, the visibility of the astronauts helmets wasn't that good, and they couldn't look up unless they were on the ground facing up, so, to look at the stars, they must have been with a lot of ground in view, adding to "our" theory.



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
I'm curious how you qualify the image you posted as an "absolute proof of a faked image for publicity".


Ah Well now I was hoping someone would ask


That it's faked is obvious, an image expert like yourself should have caught it right away, but people have been so conditioned to think the moon is black and white that they just accept without question...

That it's for publicity... well okay I am mot 100% sure that is the reason though it seems the most likely




I'm purely asking, if for no other reason than to know what your thought process on this is.


My thought process goes something like this...

A) I know the moon is NOT black and white... so something was wrong...

B) Looked at it closely and saw two things right away...



C) A simple check of the image number produces the true original...



USGS Also pulled the same trick...

They took THIS picture from Clementine...



Enhanced it to make it prettier blue... and added the good old Grey scale moon...



Now at least USGS fessed up when I asked them... NASA just zapped the directory the Apollo 50 meg .tiffs were in because they got miffed


So how is that for thought process?

I am surprised you missed that though



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
Honestly, people need to stop spiting on astronauts and just know how lucky they are for being up there.


meh been there done that and have the thread

Lockheed U-2 Flight - 70,000ft (2 Seat TU-2 Trainer)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Still doesn't answer my question


[edit on 10-9-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 10 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 


sorry all, that's the guy from Top Gear®! what a lucky chap!
now back to people smarter than myself.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tifozi
This is one of my favourite airplanes of all time, not because of beauty or anything else, but because of what you see on the video I'm going to show.

When they are up in 70,000ft, and he films the "sky", you can't see the stars either, and guess what, it's not because of the atmosphere, because at that height 98% of it is below them.


One of the flight simulators I used had the SR-71 blackbird programmed into it, and at least in the simulator it could go above 70,000 feet and the sky looked just like that. I would take that puppy up until it almost stalled, and figured I should be able to recover from the stall at that altitude before I got in any real trouble. That was fun


But didn't you just prove that video was faked just like the moon landing? Since there are no stars?


And to prove it, listen to those guys talking, there's no engine noise! So it's not even a real plane! (Unless Teslaandlyne admits it was propelled by a quiet plasma engine instead of a jet engine).

Hahaha just kidding I know about noise cancellation technology, and obviously it's real, it's a good example where the stars aren't visible due to contrast reasons!

Good point about the limited flexibility in the astronaut's suit, I guess it was kind of hard to crane their neck and "look straight up" in that thing if not impossible.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
THIS ONE is absolute proof of a faked image for publicity

You have a good eye to notice that Zorgon!

I see the differences you're talking about, but isn't materially the same photo except for some color enhancement on the earth and color dehancement on the moon? (OK I just made that word "dehancement" up but you know what I mean).

Does that type of enhancement really rise to the level of being called a fake?

And if that's the worst faking they ever did, I can certainly live with that.

Seems like they do more touching up than that on the photos of celebrities on the magazine covers and I hear those called enhanced but not really "fake".

The moon actually looks better to me in it's original color so I'm not sure why they dehanced that (I'm guessing for more contrast between the "dead" moon and the "living" earth), but the Earth does look a little more vibrantly colored in the touched up version.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Does that type of enhancement really rise to the level of being called a fake?


Well maybe 'fake' on that one is harsh... though I do question the need to make the Moon B$W in peoples eyes

THIS one though... I would say fake... they DO have a sense of humor... I like them better than some folkes here


Right click to view its a big one





And if that's the worst faking they ever did, I can certainly live with that.


But see how it goes? People demand proof of image tampering and when we find an obvious example, the 'skeptics' say things like you just did... If they are doing ANY editing their is no limit to what their might have done.

I have other examples to be sure but that one is so obvious anyone can see it once pointed out



Seems like they do more touching up than that on the photos of celebrities on the magazine covers and I hear those called enhanced but not really "fake".


Touched up, enhanced, air brushed to remove 'flaws'... Sure they needed perfect shots for those life Magazine pages...

I still think NASA started the Moon Hoax conspiracy... It's in their best interest. All you have to do is look at Buzz Aldrin's latest playing the public and you can see that


Head scientist Jim Garvin shows a fossil on a rock that has no fossil but there was no image number... in the same presentation he shows and artifact on Mars again with no image number... Why? We found the two images... no fossil no artifact ... and no explanation

Yup NASA started the hoax






[edit on 11-9-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I don't suppose the mission plan used their limited time on the moon's surface to have them standing there doing nothing but stargazing.



..."doing nothing but stargazing"


Now you are just being facetious. Nice one.



You would have us believe the astronauts had no time to look briefly at the stars; and yet they had time to race around in the buggies and go off mission to play some golf....






*Don't forget all the time they spent setting up and straightening out the Flag, then you have all the time they spent getting the right shot of the thing. Sure it is a nice Flag, but there time could have been better served carrying out scientific tasks and observations - such as looking at the stars and galaxies and then describing them to the billions of humans back on earth so we know what they look like from the moon.

It really is a nice flag.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I don't suppose the mission plan used their limited time on the moon's surface to have them standing there doing nothing but stargazing.


So your one of the first few humans to stand on another world... and you are so jaded or so wrapped up in your check lists that you don't just once look up and say "Wow... look at those stars...."

You can work on convincing me that the CAMERA doesn't see them... you will never convince me that the human eye wouldn't see so many stars it would be awe inspiring...

This one fact, added to the fact that NASA says what we would see from Earth if the conditions were the same... is what keeps me believing something is not right...

Why will no one address that picture from Earth? Because to admit that NASA is right about that... would negate any 'no stars from the moon' theory'

And as you can see in this low level shuttle camera you CAN see the stars in space... and these are NOT ice, dust and debris... nor critters, ufo's or Bokehs... because you can clearly see Orion. Even when the bright reflecting moon glares into the camera, you can still see Orion and the other stars clearly.



PS I have no idea what the flying rectangle is






[edit on 11-9-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So why don't we see the stars in the moon photo? Because the moon is usually in the moon photos and to avoid overexposing the moon the shutter isn't left open long enough to capture the much lower light of the stars. The astronauts' still cameras probably had enough resolution to capture stars if they were put on a tripod and aimed at the sky with the shutter open long enough, with no part of the moon's surface in the field of view. (They would also need more sensitive film with a higher ASA number to do this). However capturing stars might have been beyond the capability of the video cameras they had at the time even if they were aimed at the sky, they were pretty bad compared to today's video cameras


Is the correct answer! Anyone who knows anything about cameras will know how hard it would be to get pictures of the stars, regardless of what celestial body you're on.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join