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.

 

The Sky Was Black On The Moon?

page: 14
28
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by rexpop
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


I think he means glare. There's no glare unless the light has something to bounce off of, ie, no glare in a vacuum but extra glare when you have tears in your eyes. That's why it's odd that the astronauts couldn't see the stars, there's nothing to obscure them. The only explanation so far given that might be plausible is that the astronauts eyes adjusted to the bright moon landscape and this meant the less bright stars were invisible, but that just seems such a weak argument. The stars from the moon would logically be extremely bright, brighter than stars on Earth look even in the darkest, most remote location. I just don't think the astronaut's eyes would have set their filters so high that stars wouldn't register without going practically blind.

Very perplexing!



You are WRONG look at this post look at links re EV VALUES look at link to pictures exposure details give for Moon and Star pictures.

I WILL wait to see what you come up with!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 22-4-2010 by wmd_2008]




posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
I saw this quoted


There's no glare unless the light has something to bounce off..


Just remember there is something for the light to bounce off of, its called the Moon!



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Total rubbish, on the moon the view of the stars must be second to none, there is no atmospheric disturbance or bad weather.

It would be impossible NOT to see a single star.

The only explanation I have is the same reason why you barely ever see a single star in any of NASA's photos.......



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Temperature Drop
Total rubbish, on the moon the view of the stars must be second to none, there is no atmospheric disturbance or bad weather.

It would be impossible NOT to see a single star.

The only explanation I have is the same reason why you barely ever see a single star in any of NASA's photos.......


Well have a look at this post of MINE which PROVES you are wrong.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Let see what theories you come up with I need a good



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by whipnet
 




Space Center Houston here at Houston's NASA actually has an exhibit to explain this and it simply states that you cannot see stars on the moon for the same reason you cannot see stars during the day on Earth, you just don't see the blue atmosphere.


I wonder if there is a link for this?

I don't believe they actually said this cause it's not the same on the moon as it is here on Earth.

"You cannot see stars on the moon for the same reason you cannot see stars during the day on Earth"???? I'll believe when I see it. I don't think those NASA scientists actually said that.


NASA states here that you can see the stars from the Moon, you just can't see them in the Moon landings pics. That was due to the limitation of the camera.

lunarscience.nasa.gov...

www.spacecenter.org...

*

[edit on 22-4-2010 by whipnet]

[edit on 22-4-2010 by whipnet]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I like your advice.

Going to a source where in-depth knowledge is available is far perferable to simply relying on those who do not have training, but still uses "logic" to oppose scientific principles.

Space Center Houston, along with Spaceport USA at KSC are great places to get an initiation to the space program. For kids, going to Space Camp, or many of the other similar sites created across the nation, can be a true life-changing experience, if it captures that kid's imagination and inspires them to STRIVE for a goal.

A study about ten years ago showed that if a 12 year old has a goal that they must strive for, whether it is to be an astronaut, engineer, Olympic gymnast, police officer, banker, whatever, they have only 1/3 the chance of getting into drugs, teen pregnancy, legal problems, school dropout, etc. That is why it is so important to capture young minds BEFORE other factors distract them.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   
ppk, I can't help but notice you keep on posting new claims, always unsupported, and you ignore any contradictory evidence. Why is that?

Are you unable to quote other posts, and deal with them point by point? Is that because you know what happens when you debate with someone who knows the topic? Ah yes, it's much easier to argue when you are unburdened by facts...

So let's go through this post of yours point by point, and see if you dodge and run away AGAIN...


Originally posted by ppk55
Seems like a tripod and 30 seconds was all a bit much for the 1st ever moon landing.

If it was me spending billions of dollars on the effort to get people safely to the moon and back, and given every second was costing many thousands of dollars, I'd be looking for that time to be spent doing things only possible on the Moon, eg samples, photography of the surface, placing experiments, 1/6g and vacuum issues, etc. Oh and maybe toss in a little PR time...

Taking a camera and tripod to photograph stars *in daytime* on the lunar surface would NOT give markedly better images than those taken at high altitude on Earth. And given we have vastly superior telescopes on earth, and NASA at that time already had plans for space telescope, existing images were vastly superior to anything from a half-baked camera & tripod on the Moon.

Frankly, the assertion they should have done this, just because you think it was important, is RIDICULOUS.

But feel free to argue the case. Tell us EXACTLY what it would have achieved, other than deny you a little cherry-pick at something you think is the smoking gun?


I was just reading that the human eye has about the equivalent of 800iso...

That's an indication of your research ability?????


Tragic. Maybe rather than grab a single line, you should read the entire article? Did you leave out the words "dark-adapted"? Care to CITE the source?
Here's one:
www.clarkvision.com...

...ISO changes ..by increasing rhodopsin in the retina. This process takes a half hour or so to complete, and that assumes you haven't been exposed to bright sunlight during the day...
...a reasonable estimate of the dark adapted eye can be done...
...So I would estimate the dark adapted eye to be about ISO 800.

Gee, it seems you left out some very important bits... (not deliberately, of course, oh noooo..)
So, what does that mean exactly? That the eye is always operating at ISO 800? Very obviously not. Here's the facts - please address them one by one, and if you dismiss any, give reasons:

- There is no true equivalence, but the eye could be said to normally operate at around ISO 200 (deep shadow) down to 25 (normal brightly lit scene), although in very bright daylight it may drop as low as 1 (refer article above). To get anywhere near ISO 800 equivalence, it must DARK-ADAPT, which takes at least ten minutes to get started. And of course if the eye was operating at low ISO - like it would have to in moon daylight - it will take even longer to adjust. When the astronaut looked back at the scene, he would be (dangerously) dazzled for several moments.

- for camera use in daylight at ISO 800 you need to stop down the camera dramatically, or you will get a horribly blown out white image. The camera settings and ISO required for daylight imaging compared to that required for imaging stars, is many orders of magnitude different.

If you honestly believe that the eye can cope with those vastly different light levels within a short period of time, then you are completely uninformed on the topic and have no business making ill-informed claims about 'equivalent' ISO.

Unless of course you are doing this DELIBERATELY. Are you? (I think that has now become a rhetorical question..)


so considering the surface of the moon is like worn ashphalt and happens to be one of the least reflective surfaces in the solar system

If it's so dim, how come you can see it so brightly in a clear blue sky? Oh yes.. it's SUNLIT. Worn asphalt is *very* bright in broad daylight, and you keep forgetting that the astronaut himself is dressed in highly reflective light colours, as is his partner, the experimental gear, the spacecraft..

You have a BAD case of tunnel vision. Aren't you supposed to think outside the box? Sheesh.



wow it seems strange you couldn't just look up and wait a bit and see at least some of the brightest stars... To see none is quite strange.

Only if you cherry pick, don't think about the entire situation, deliberately misquote references and take a ridiculously simplistic view.


I'm so glad no-one is doing that...



[edit on 23-4-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


ppk55 wont answer you becuase he knows he is wrong so dont expect a quick reply the guy is so flawed in his thinking like a lot of people on here.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


wow I'm so glad u posted this. don't listen to purple monkey. I have always wondered the same thing



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Why is it, that we can see stars in the sky above, during daylight, when viewed from the bottom of a deep Mine Shaft ???





You dont believe that old wives tale do you, why would that make you able to see stars because obviously the sky above the mineshaft is still BLUE



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Has anyone looked at how big the Sun, that is a burning ball of plasma, at the center of out solar system is?

The Sun is 890,000 miles in diameter! Now that is pretty huge!

Earth 7926.28 miles at equater.

Moon 2160 miles at equator.

Wow if you look up the Moon is the Second brightest object in the Sky, from Earth!!!

If your on the surface, it becomes third, only to the Earth.

Therefore if your looking our into space and your on the surface of the moon, its pretty safe to say, its going to be pretty bright! Especially with a million mile diameter star 93 million miles away, radiating light and energy.




posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I happened to come across this website and I seriously cant believe how dumb some people are like with the galactic federation and crap like that, I mean seriously? I believe that there is other life in the Universe aside from our own and I know that there are things our government is not telling us. I saw this forum post and felt compelled to reply. First off some of you have the right idea, there are no stars because of glare. What most of you dont realize is exactly how bright the sun is with no atmosphere to filter ANY of the light. Its basically like getting shot in the face with a giant spotlight that emits the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Because of this extreme brightness astronaut helmets were coated with a thin, transparent film of pure gold, as were the cameras. Have you ever tried taking a picture with a camera of an extremely bright light source? Cant be done. So there are three factors which block out star light, the sun, the suns glare on the surface of the moon, and the filters on the camera. Its common sense. There is no NASA conspiracy. Men did land on the moon just face it.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


As I said it is a MYTH..... Read again....




posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


As I said it is a MYTH..... Read again....




Sorry if it was the other guy its a myth alright like a lot of other claims made here.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien





Wow, so after all, they can see the stars and even captured them with cameras.


Another interesting remark from Edward Lu:
It is fun to watch stars as they rise or set through the atmosphere as we circle the Earth. They start to twinkle as the light rays bend while passing through the uneven density of the atmosphere. Then, as they get closer to the actual horizon, they start to look orange and then red before blinking out. Sometimes they even turn green briefly.

Why didn't any of the 21 Apollo astronauts talk about the stars?

That anonymous person also sent me links to several sites that have photographs taken by the astronauts. The image below is a portion of one of the photos taken by Don Pettit from a window in the space station. Note that stars are everywhere. You can find this and other photos at this NASA page.


Source - www.erichufschmid.net...

[edit on 20-4-2010 by Deaf Alien]



Nice pictures BUT your assumption is still flawed because you dont give the exposure details for the pics which would be the following

shutter speed, aperture setting and also the speed rating of the film/digital sensor.

It takes a fraction of a second to get a picture of the moon even with a fairly low film speed but many seconds to capture star images.

So with a bit of research I found a link to the data file of the top pic

ISS006-E-32103 DATA

Image Description:
Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Model: NIKON D1
X Resolution: 300/1
Y Resolution: 300/1
Resolution Unit: inch
Software: Ver.1.05
Date Time: 2003:03:01 17:19:36
YCbCr Positioning: datum point
Exposure Time: 300/10 sec.

downloaded from here

eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

The shutter was open for 300/10 seconds or 30 seconds

Second picture data ISS006-E-21591

NASA PHOTO ID:
MODEL: KODAK S/N: K760C-01390
GMT: 2003:02:02 04:20:56
Firmware: 2.1.6
Shutter: 6s
(Long exposure)
Aperture: f--
ISO Speed: 400

Sensor speed iso 400 shutter open 6 second no aperture value

I will say this again MAYBE it will sink in the bright surface of the Moon will make the iris/pupil of the eye smaller if they look at the sky for a short period of time they will see no stars its that simple.
Have you ever walked into a dark room from a well lit area and it takes a few seconds for your eye to adjust that the reason simple physics.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 23-4-2010 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 23-4-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


No, but the exposure latitude of film is limited. Did you ever take a picture of a snowy scene and retain the showdow detail? Nope, you didn't. There is no atmosphere on the moon. There is no water vapor in the atmosphere that isn't there. The sky is, in fact, dark. There is no sky. You see space, assuming your eyes (or film) can deal with the exposure latitude.

Grow up. We did land men on the moon.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
I would like to stick my orr in here.

You are actually 100% correct. Even with the brightness of the sun on the surface of the moon, the stars should be visible to an observer.

My personal view is that the Apollo astronaughts were among the first to be successfully brainwashed and hypnotised into believing the story they were told about being on the moon.

Whether we did or we didn't go to the moon is a debate that is endless; however it is very clear to me at least that the Apollo missions were faked.

All the best,

Korg.


This is wrong at too many levels. First, don't cover one "conspiracy" with another. Second, the answer is quite simple. The moon is quite bright on the highlands, and the reflection of the suns light is imense, causing no stars to be seen on the sky. I live in a area that is not filled with light pollution, and still sometimes it's hard to see the stars (with good weather, of course).

Occam's Razor my friend.

And some picture from the moon with Earth showing up


Cheers guys



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
how did this get on the front?

i think the best info on the moon was done by mythbusters, lol


edit: i accidentally said mars =p

[edit on 24-4-2010 by tylermbell]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by JameSimon

This is wrong at too many levels. First, don't cover one "conspiracy" with another.


I find you really naive to say something like that. Plans within Plans within Plans... this is how the vale of secrecy works.


Second, the answer is quite simple. The moon is quite bright on the highlands, and the reflection of the suns light is immense, causing no stars to be seen on the sky.


You are totally misunderstanding the issue. Even with light reflected from the surface of the moon if an astronaut were to position themselves where no light could strike their visor, and waited for their eyes to adjust to the darker conditions they SHOULD have been able to see stars.

As there is little to no atmosphere, the light could not refract around the moon and the light from the stars has a clear path to reach the eyes of any would be star gazer.


I live in a area that is not filled with light pollution, and still sometimes it's hard to see the stars (with good weather, of course).


You are either mistaken about the light pollution or are making this up to apparently add some weight to your argument.

If you live in the wilderness with no light pollution then this what you would expect to see...




Occam's Razor my friend.


The simplest answer is the usually the truth???

Well the simplest answer is that the Apollo astronauts should have seen stars so therefor the fact they claim they didn't recall seeing stars means there is something of a conspiracy to take into account.

Peace Out,

Korg.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 



Well the simplest answer is that the Apollo astronauts should have seen stars so therefor the fact they claim they didn't recall seeing stars means there is something of a conspiracy to take into account.


You said it up above (and I didn't quote).

IF they (Astronauts) had had time to stop, stand and look up and away from the SUn, and away from the brightness of the Lunar surface, and allowed thier irises to adjust to the dimmer lihgt levels, then YES they would have seen the stars.

There are plenty of reports, from them, of seeing the stars while in space.

It's just, most of the time (ALL of the time on EVAs) they were too frakking busy!

And, what would be the point, anyway? Standing out there, lookingup, wasting about five minutes, for what? To see the EXACT SAME STARS that we see from Earth??

A journey of only ~250,000 miles will result in NO appreciable parallax, no apparent 'movement' of the stars, in relation to one another. Not that is perceptible to the naked eye. (Heck....you would have to travel a LONG way, well outside the Solar System, to see any differences).

Read up on the Space Program. They used STAR sightings, while on orbit, or enroute to/from the Moon, to align their navigational platforms.

Sometimes they lost alignment, for whatever reason. Technology was new, and "cutting edge" then. Proper re-alignment requires a known spacial position of some sort, it's still the same today.

Of all the "Moon Landing Hoax" nonsense 'theories' that abound, this one is still getting traction?


Cannot understand why.....



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join