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: 15
28
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   
This should resolve everything for you. Here's a picture of the Moon taken from *Earth*:

ccdimager.net...

See? NO STARS!!!! So how come you'd think a photo from ON the Moon would show stars, when one from OFF it doesn't show them? If one from Earth can't show starts despite being at a good distance, why can't one from the Moon?

The Answer: Surface Brightness. The brightness of the surface of the Moon (or any lit object) looks the same regardless of distance. Even from the Earth far away, the Moon's surface looks as bright as it would be when standing right on it, and so a picture taken from the Earth will display the same effects as one taken from the Moon insofar as not being able to see the stars goes.

This is what happens when you open up the exposure long enough to capture stars:

pixdaus.com...

Would be pretty useless for taking surface images of the Moon, don't you think?

Unless you want to claim that everyone who makes these photos is part of some gigantic "conspiracy", but that is incredibly absurd. And even then, the reality of the above can be proven by simply taking a film camera out and trying to photograph the Moon & stars with different exposure settings.

You may object that the atmosphere dims the light of the stars, so without it, they'd be brighter, and thus the photo from on the Earth is not a good comparison. Yeah, but the Moon would be brighter-looking, too. The ratios between the two light levels, which is what determines whether or not you can see the two objects at the same time, would remain unchanged.


[edit on 24-4-2010 by mike3]




posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   

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


Cannot understand why.....



Because it is imposable to accept that the astronauts didn't have 5 minutes to do what surely would be a very human thing to do.

I have stated previously if you have ever walked along the edge of cliff, there is an almost irresistible urge to look over the edge.

Surely, Looking up at the stars would have been a similar irresistible pull to look up, to experience the stars looking like they have never seen them, with their naked eyes.

Looking at the stars through optics is like looking at a picture of Paris and saying your know what it's like to go up the Eiffel tower.

all the best,

Korg.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
A better question is, if they did land on the moon,why after all these years,and advancements haven't they gone back??



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
Because it is imposable to accept that the astronauts didn't have 5 minutes to do what surely would be a very human thing to do.

To you, perhaps that is the case. Be honest, do you *want* to believe that the Apollo missions were hoaxed?

To me, a bright starry sky is pretty much run of the mill. Beautiful, yes, but I've seen it many, many times, from deserts, and also at high altitudes, where it looks pretty much exactly as it would from the Moon (but only at NIGHT with dark-adapted eyes).

If I was an astronaut who had been in orbit, on spacewalks, etc in DARKNESS, instead of the very bright daylight on the moon - I would know I would be completely wasting my time.

As any amateur astronomer knows, even on a *moonlit* night, the star gazing sucks because of the difficulty to get your eyes to adapt if there are any bright objects anywhere around. In broad daylight, it would be close to impossible to shield your eyes given that big round double-glazed visor, and for the ten minutes or so required to begin dark-adaptation? Simply ridiculous.

If you have never got off your butt and actually done some real astronomy, or understand these concepts, then I can understand that it might seem "imposable" [sic] to understand.

Not *excusable* though. I think the lack of knowledge of night skies being displayed here simply shows how little people care about reality and actually EXPERIENCING things, about learning, about becoming more attuned and in touch with the environment. Instead, it's all about poring over internet sites, trying to be a hero and find some hidden secret, that in this case doesn't exist.

For the love of Pete, join an astronomy club.


I have stated previously if you have ever walked along the edge of cliff, there is an almost irresistible urge to look over the edge.

?? The 'analogies' just get worse...


Surely, Looking up at the stars would have been a similar irresistible pull to look up, to experience the stars looking like they have never seen them

As has been EXTENSIVELY explained, the view would have been much WORSE than they 'had ever seen'. These guys were professional, experienced astronauts, not armchair experts.


Lastly, you said you were going to do some research on the topic? Didn't find anything helpful? How much time do you have...??
Try here for a start:
history.nasa.gov...

Do a search on 'stars', and then see if you can work out all the references. You'll find the astronauts often refer to the difficulty of seeing or using stars for navigation purposes while the Sun was anywhere above the horizon, and the difficulties caused by the bright sunlight, eg:

Aldrin:
"The Sun was in the rear detent and generally obscured it... its light level was sufficiently high so that no stars could be seen..."

Collins:
"stars would be visible in the sextant ..[but].. the telescope, on the other hand .. not able to detect star patterns without a considerable period of dark adaptation"

Armstrong (complaining that the earth simulations didn't prepare them for some of the issues):
"one of the biggest drawbacks of the visuals... the effects of the Sun shafting coming in. We [were] always operating in much darker conditions inside the simulator than those that actually existed.."

"..characteristic limitations and constraints, such as lighting and sun shafting.. are not covered at all in any of our simulations.. I really think that we need [to] look at the real sky, the real constraints, the real illuminations, side lighting ... so that we can appreciate what you can and can't see."

Collins:
"That's right.. what you'd do is turn out all the lights inside the command module and, if necessary, put a bag over your head and take the 20 or 30 minutes to dark adapt.. every time you look out through the telescope, you have to wait 20 minutes before you can see anything."

Getting the drift?



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Taking photos of the Stars, is totally different than seeing them, with your naked eyes.

We don’t require a shutter speed or exposure time, as in the case of using photographic film.

As there is reported to be No atmosphere on the moon, then there is No light scatter in an atmosphere as there is on Earth, thus No absorption of Light above the surface of the Moon, hence no illumination, from light scatter.

The reason for why you can't see stars from Earth during daytime, is because the Atmosphere is illuminated to the point, there is more light from our atmosphere, than any individual star, planet or moon, except in the case of our moon, Venus and perhaps Jupiter on odd occasions.

It is a case of the ratio of Light, i.e. if more Light (density of Light per square mm) comes from an object in space, that that which illuminates our atmosphere, that object will be seen.

If Not, then the object won’t be seen.

The astronauts should have been able to see the Stars, when looking away from the Sun, or the moons surface, as there is no atmosphere to be illuminated, provided the filtering in their visors, did not interfere with this.

Two things are involved in filming...

a. The amount of Light gathered.
b. The makeup of the photographic film... (requiring exposure time etc.)

But is this thread about the filming of Stars from the moon, or the ability to see Stars from the moon ?

The comment made in the OP was "The Sky was Black on the Moon."

If it were Glare, from the Moons surface that is involved, this would have no effect whatsoever, provided you were looking away from the Glare, as there is No atmosphere being illuminated by that glare, hence none of the light (from that Glare) would be reflected back into their visors.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Sorry double post "State of the art technology?"

[edit on 24-4-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
Taking photos of the Stars, is totally different than seeing them, with your naked eyes.
We don’t require a shutter speed or exposure time, as in the case of using photographic film.

How conveniently simplified. You only mention exposure time and shutter speed (which are the same thing). Not APERTURE, or ISO.

So, having dismissed those two factors as irrelevant, can you now:

1. Explain the reason why your eye has an adjusting pupil?

2. Explain the term "dark adaptation", and what rhodopsin does to the sensitivity of your eye?

3. Tell us why daylight is so bright when you come out of a dark room?

4. Why stars are so much less visible on a moonlit night, or immediately after you come out of a bright room?


As there is reported to be No atmosphere on the moon, then there is No light scatter in an atmosphere as there is on Earth, thus No absorption of Light above the surface of the Moon, hence no illumination, from light scatter.

Essentially Right, but only a small part of the Story. I Especially Love the Capitalisation - that means you are More Correct...



The reason for why you can't see stars from Earth during daytime, is because the Atmosphere is illuminated to the point, there is more light from our atmosphere, than any individual star, planet or moon, except in the case of our moon, Venus and perhaps Jupiter on odd occasions.

And Sirius, but let's not split hairs. All of those ARE visible in daytime, but when did you see them last? Could that be because your eye's pupil is CLOSED right down, and that it is not dark-adapted? Have you ever shielded your eyes to look into a dark area in daylight? Why on earth did you do that??


It is a case of the ratio of Light, i.e. if more Light (density of Light per square mm) comes from an object in space, that that which illuminates our atmosphere, that object will be seen.

AND it depends on the eye's pupil opening and dark adaptation.

You cannot simply dismiss facts you don't like. If you do, you simply show that you are not qualified to make a determination, or have an a agenda.

Which is it? One or both?


Two things are involved in filming...
a. The amount of Light gathered.
b. The makeup of the photographic film... (requiring exposure time etc.)

Again, it is noticeable that you deliberately do not mention aperture. Film does indeed record images in some comparative ways to the eye:

- The film speed/sensitivity is analogous to dark adaptation - as the eye dark adapts, it's effective sensitivity increases, eg 'higher ISO'. (Also, the outer parts of the retina are more sensitive and therefore more useful when resolving very faint objects - look up 'averted vision'.)

- The lens aperture is directly analogous to the eye's pupil.

The eye does not have a shutter speed (although the brain does use a sort of 'frame gathering' rate), but that's the only thing missing.

Please do some research on the eye's PUPIL, and on DARK ADAPTATION, and then come back when you understand the MOST IMPORTANT parts of the topic. If you still don't think they are important, be specific.

Real researchers don't just leave stuff out to suit themselves.

Or if that's beyond you, on a clear night turn on all the lights in your brightest room and then look out of the window - tell us what you see (or don't), and why that might be. And bear in mind that is NOWHERE near as bright as lunar daylight.


[edit on 24-4-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Sorry I am Not an expert such as yourself....

So let you give us all, an explanation driven by your Great Wisdom and Knowledge....

I was only trying to keep it very simple for us Less Intelligent people such as myself...


If you have all the Answers, can you please Inform all of us, Less Intelligent beings on ATS...


[edit on 24-4-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Sorry I am Not an expert such as yourself....

So let you give us all an explanation of your Great Wisdom and Knowledge....


I must admit CHRLZ sounds very holier than thou...

Anyone who says that they would not attempt to look at the stars if they went to the moon are either dead or a robot.

And it is not what was said at the conference...



And since we have discussed the visor so much in this thread and stars, after all the sun is a star right?? what about the following video.



A pentagon sun huh?? I'll have to dig out some Mylar and have a look at that, I always thought the sun was a globe.....


korg.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Korg Trinity]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Sorry I am Not an expert such as yourself....

So let you give us all an explanation of your Great Wisdom and Knowledge....


I must admit CHRLZ sounds very holier than thou...

Anyone who says that they would not attempt to look at the stars if they went to the moon are either dead or a robot.

And it is not what was said at the conference...



korg.


Thank You for displaying far, far more Intelligence than CHRLZ...

And I would have to agree with you...

Thanks for the Statement given on film...

A Star 4 U....



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Sorry I am Not an expert such as yourself....

So let you give us all an explanation of your Great Wisdom and Knowledge....


I must admit CHRLZ sounds very holier than thou...

Anyone who says that they would not attempt to look at the stars if they went to the moon are either dead or a robot.

And it is not what was said at the conference...



And since we have discussed the visor so much in this thread and stars, after all the sun is a star right?? what about the following video.



A pentagon sun huh?? I'll have to dig out some Mylar and have a look at that, I always thought the sun was a globe.....


korg.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Korg Trinity]



Thank You Korg Trinity for the Second Clip also....

It makes you wonder doesn't it ????

I love the Frame that shows the Stars and the Sun together.....


I Want Proof the human species went to the Moon....

Not just some expected belief in some Politicians or others....

Did we go to the Moon ??????


I want Proof..... Not Cold War Propaganda....



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I told myself I would not get involved any more with this ridiculous thread once I was authoritatively told there were no telescopes in the spacecraft going to the Moon, even though I was told how they worked by someone who had used it, namely Buzz Aldrin.

Matrix Traveler,

You do NOT want proof.

We had a space launch of a massive launch vehicle going up into the sky and not coming back. We had astronomers all over the world who monitored the spacraft on their way to the moon. We had live TV from the surface of the moon. We had huge volumes of still pictures from the moon. We had astronomers all over the world montior their progress on the way back. A Command Module fell from the sky and landed near an aircraft carrier, and the same men who got into the launch vehicle climbed out of that spacecraft that was now in the ocean (where did it come from if not in space?). We have hundreds of pounds of rocks that are unlike those found on this planet.

Exactly what proof do you want?



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
Sorry I am Not an expert such as yourself....
So let you give us all an explanation of your Great Wisdom and Knowledge....

I must admit CHRLZ sounds very holier than thou...

Unlike The Matrix Traveller, who didn't AT ALL.



Anyone who says that they would not attempt to look at the stars if they went to the moon are either dead or a robot.

See previous comment and check mirror, and don't put words in my mouth - I did not say they might not have a look. But THEY - unlike you two non-astronomers - would understand why their view was not comparable to that from earth on a clear night, let alone 'better'.


And since we have discussed the visor so much in this thread and stars, after all the sun is a star right??


So you haven't noticed that the Sun is just a tiny bit closer, and a teensy bit brighter? Understandable if you never go outdoors, I guess.. You see, the Sun is close, and ... Here. maybe this will help?



A pentagon sun huh?? I'll have to dig out some Mylar and have a look at that, I always thought the sun was a globe.....

OFF TOPIC. Do you know what the term BOKEH means? And thanks for walking right into that ridiculous video - it demonstrates a COMPLETE lack of knowledge of photographic principles. I'm clearly wasting my time with you two, but if anyone else thinks that garbage is relevant, let me know and I'll to go through that video point by point in EXCRUCIATING DETAIL.

Yes, another bit of 'intensive research there', and the fact that BOTH of you avoided any proper discussion of any of the major points I raised..? well, it gives away your preconceptions and the way you 'play the game'.

But do keep playing.

Others are learning.

[edit on 24-4-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


How often have you looked at the Sun during the Day ???



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth1000
Exactly what proof do you want?


I think what we want is the the TRUTH....

All of what you described above does not constitute proof, it does capture the event as it was played out.

The reason I know we didn't goto the moon is for two main reasons.

Radiation and Vast Electrostatic discharge on the surface of the moon. These are critical obstacles that would have had to have been addressed for a real mission to the moon were not given much thought and very little if at all any protection against these two deadly forms of danger.

Once I discovered the truth, I then went on to look for other anomalies and what I found is there are sooooo many anomalies its ridiculous.

The 60's was a time when government controlled TV and so they could get you to watch what ever they wanted you to see.

A module dropping from the sky?? is that proof of moon landings... I say not.

Photo's you give as evidence, photo's that are obviously faked or touched up. And this is supposed to be official proof??

And as for the astronomers tracking.... it's dead easy to send a craft on a sling shot, doesn't need to be manned.

Some one quoted Ocams Razor...

The reason it was faked was because it would have been the end for nasa if they sent up people in front of the whole planet who then subsequently died right on TV.... and in the 60's that would have been devastatingly negative.

Those that lived through it have to believe its true because of the feeling of the era that the moment created of how much humans have achieved etc etc.. their generation etc etc...

the computer aboard Apollo had less processing power than your mobile phone... FACT.... So if they really did go to the moon and it was done without the loss of life back then...

Tell me why have we not been back since??? Not even tried????

Come on, get real. We didn't walk on the moon. It's one of the biggest lies ever told.

Peace out,

Korg.


[edit on 24-4-2010 by Korg Trinity]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I'm off this thread forever.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
but if anyone else thinks that garbage is relevant, let me know and I'll to go through that video point by point in EXCRUCIATING DETAIL.

Yes, another bit of 'intensive research there', and the fact that BOTH of you avoided any proper discussion of any of the major points I raised..?


Like you you did there by saying that the evidence presented is garbage but giving no reason as to why you feel that was the case.

Are you really trying to say that there is no difference in the images of the sun from Apollo to other pictures we have from earth orbit??

And this is going of subject as the argument is not about having to overexpose the foreground to get enough light from the stars in contrast... This is about the astronauts eyes...

and if you are saying that the stars would not be brighter on the moon than a clear night on earth then you are obviously not an astronomer at all.

korg.



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
I trust everyone noticed that Korg deliberately avoided my question earlier about what he WANTED to believe? Now he has outed himself.

NOTE - the rest of this post is largely offtopic, due to the fact the Korg is now desperately trying to change the subject away from the stars-not-seen-night-adaptation issue. Mods, feel free to kill off his post and this one.


Originally posted by Korg Trinity
Radiation and Vast Electrostatic discharge..

The levels of radiation on the moon and for the very short traverse through the VABs were quite well understood by then - there was only a minor risk.
Clavius - radiation, VAB's, etc
Clavius - Solar radiation
or if you want to get heavy...
PDF - Post mission research on all Apollo radiation hazards
The average 'heavy' airline pilot gets exposed to far more radiation in his lifetime! There was a risk to the Apollo astronauts if there was a major solar event, but there were none during any mission, and they had a procedure to go through that would have reduced such exposure to non-life-threatening levels. And remember this was the 60's - things were different back then, and these were, essentially, 'expendable' test pilots!


The 60's was a time when government controlled TV and so they could get you to watch what ever they wanted you to see.

TV was in its infancy, and control was crude. Unless Korg can cite examples, this is handwaving at its worst.


Photo's you give as evidence, photo's that are obviously faked or touched up. And this is supposed to be official proof??

Again, not one faked or touched up image is being given here as an example. Give us your best shot, Korg (preferably on another thread) or LINK to a thread where such an image has been proven fake.


The reason it was faked was because it would have been the end for nasa if they sent up people in front of the whole planet who then subsequently died right on TV.... and in the 60's that would have been devastatingly negative.

On the contrary. Did the Apollo 1 disaster shut down Apollo? Did the Shuttle disasters stop the Shuttle program? And the 60's were much more 'gung-ho' than we are now. Ridiculous assertion.


Those that lived through it have to believe its true because of the feeling of the era that the moment created of how much humans have achieved etc etc.. their generation etc etc...

Or they might believe it because it WAS true, of course...


the computer aboard Apollo had less processing power than your mobile phone... FACT....

And all it had to do was basic nav calculations. This was the era of the slide rule, and genuine human competence - these were test pilots and trained astronauts - do you think they couldn't see their target, for a start? You can do those same calculations yourself, you can even build an identical computer and use it in exactly the same way as the astronauts did. It's ALL verifiable.


Tell me why have we not been back since??? Not even tried????

Oh for heaven's sake. For the EXACT same reason that we WENT - political will.


[edit on 24-4-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by CHRLZ
but if anyone else thinks that garbage is relevant, let me know

Like you you did there by saying that the evidence presented is garbage but giving no reason as to why you feel that was the case.

Did you miss the bit about ANYONE ELSE?? The issue is offtopic, and I've already gone way outside the bounds of this thread.

(- More OFFTOPIC follows...)
===

Are you really trying to say that there is no difference in the images
of the sun from Apollo to other pictures we have from earth orbit??

I'm saying that those effects are about optical issues (bokeh, diffraction spikes, bloom), exposure issues and differing lens characteristics.
===
(- Back on topic..)


And this is going of subject as the argument is not about having to overexpose the foreground to get enough light from the stars in contrast... This is about the astronauts eyes...
.. not being dark-adapted so they couldn't see stars.

It's NOT about shapes of sun reflections. STOP HIJACKING THE THREAD.


and if you are saying that the stars would not be brighter on the moon than a clear night on earth then you are obviously not an astronomer at all.

You JUST BUSTED YOURSELF - you said "a clear NIGHT"!!

It wasn't NIGHT on the Moon!!!! Their eyes were adapted to bright daylight - THAT is the main problem, and one which you haven't even acknowledged! Do you not understand how your eye works?

As I've pointed out earlier, the difference a lack of atmosphere makes is minimal. LESS than a magnitude, more like 0.5. By climbing a mountain, you will get a very similar brightness/clarity improvement, ie NOT MUCH..



[edit on 24-4-2010 by CHRLZ]


jra

posted on Apr, 24 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
Radiation and Vast Electrostatic discharge on the surface of the moon. These are critical obstacles that would have had to have been addressed for a real mission to the moon were not given much thought and very little if at all any protection against these two deadly forms of danger.


They did everything they possibly could to minimize the amount of radiation the astronauts would receive. They flew through the weaker parts of the Van Allen belt, there were no major solar flares happening during any of the missions and cosmic radiation only becomes a problem for long duration missions, which the Apollo missions were not.

To claim that it wasn't given much thought or that there was little to no protections seems rather dishonest. You really aught to read up more about the radiation environment and the different kinds of radiation that they encountered and what was done to minimize there exposure.

As for the "Vast Electrostatic discharge on the surface of the moon". I believe the word you're looking for is triboelectric charging. And just how vast is it on the Moon?


the computer aboard Apollo had less processing power than your mobile phone... FACT


And? What does the computing power have to do with anything? Plus a lot of the number crunching was done on Earth and those results were transmitted to them. Also take a look at the computers for the space shuttle and even the soyuz capsule. You don't need tons of processing power or RAM in these things.


Tell me why have we not been back since??? Not even tried????


It's not exactly up to NASA. It costs a lot of money to go to the Moon and that's something NASA doesn't have. If there is no political will or public interest in spending all that money, then it's simply not going to happen.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join