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: 19
28
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Hey Deaf Alien,

I think you answered your own question, in there.
The reason you can't see the stars on the moon is that, "There is no atmosphere (or a minimal atmosphere))".

The reason we can see the stars at night on Earth, is because we have an atmosphere. The same process that works in the day, of scattering sunlight to produce a 'blue sky', scatters the incoming 'starlight' to produce visible objects.

In space you cant see any stars either. This all leads up to a most interesting story.
In the Pioneer and Viking Probes the idea was to use 'known fixed stars' for navigation purposes. Oh, I here you say, how could the probes 'see' stars if there is no atmosphere in space?
Well, the probes carried along their own atmosphere!
Within each sensor body was a sealed gas consisting of Nitrogen, Argon and a mixture of other gases, to simulate our atmosphere. When the sensor device looked 'through' this mixture of gases, it was close enough to 'looking through our own atmosphere', and thereby:
The probes could 'see' the stars, and therefore 'navigate' by those stars.

Hope this helps.


[edit on 29/4/10 by starwarp2000]




posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by starwarp2000
 


Best answer yet.. I have to agree with you... "Pilgrum" also referred to this too and the effect of atmosphere on our sight.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by starwarp2000
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


Hey Deaf Alien,

I think you answered your own question, in there.
The reason you can't see the stars on the moon is that, "There is no atmosphere (or a minimal atmosphere))".

The reason we can see the stars at night on Earth, is because we have an atmosphere. The same process that works in the day, of scattering sunlight to produce a 'blue sky', scatters the incoming 'starlight' to produce visible objects.

In space you cant see any stars either. This all leads up to a most interesting story.
In the Pioneer and Viking Probes the idea was to use 'known fixed stars' for navigation purposes. Oh, I here you say, how could the probes 'see' stars if there is no atmosphere in space?
Well, the probes carried along their own atmosphere!
Within each sensor body was a sealed gas consisting of Nitrogen, Argon and a mixture of other gases, to simulate our atmosphere. When the sensor device looked 'through' this mixture of gases, it was close enough to 'looking through our own atmosphere', and thereby:
The probes could 'see' the stars, and therefore 'navigate' by those stars.

Hope this helps.


[edit on 29/4/10 by starwarp2000]





No atmosphere STARS in the picture below


files.abovetopsecret.com...


Check out how bright the sun is compared to the moon then the moon to even the brightest star sirius there is a way to do it. Its due to photographic exposure and HOW your eye reacts to light this thread gets funnier every day

Your almost as funny as Matrix with his Naked eye sun observations.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Sarcasm is the LOWEST form of Wit.

Try reading that Scientific Book I mentioned... or maybe you just desire to remain blind.....



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Sarcasm is the LOWEST form of Wit.

Try reading that Scientific Book I mentioned... or maybe you just desire to remain blind.....



Richard Head ,had a look at a review of your book online the book is about optical effects in the atmosphere rainbows,sun dogs etc and a bit about night time naked eye astronomy No naked eye sun observation I take it that is because the author wasn't an IDIOT like some and didn't want to be sued by members of the public reading his book! and going blind.

The education in some parts of the world needs a good shake oh and by the way your not the only older person on here grew up throught the 60's till now so have heard plenty of BS over the years.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Deaf Alien
 


yupyup agree..i believe it is because there is no atmosphere that is why they can't see anything..

also because of the earth atmosphere, that is why we see the sky is blue during the day, it is reflecting the water from the ocean..

correct me if i am wrong



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Read the Book Not just read some ones view of the book.

Check out some history about those that often watched the rising sun.

Find out why they did. King Edward was one who had this knowledge, hence the Cosmati Pvement, and there is a ceremony in the Coronation where the Queen adorned what was known as the Sun Robe.
This was Not a public ceremony, but involved chosen people such as those in the house of Lords etc. and other officials. It is Not permitted to photograph this robe ???

But right through history you can find Reference to this very old activity in every country on Earth especially involving Royalty.

In China there is a huge amount of information retained in the architecture of ancient palaces and Government buildings, as well as in other countries involve Iran, Greece, England, The USA, etc.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   
I wonder if one of this thread's true deep thinkers, namely Pilgrum, starwarp 2000, or Matrix Traveler, would be so kind as to send a brief email to NASA and explain to them the ridiculous folly of sending the Hubble Space Telescope up above the atmosphere? Because of course, this brilliant explanation that no atmosphere = no stars, means that the Hubble is completely blind. Those NASA FOOLS!!!!


Really, they need to know. It's embarrassing. Word will now spread quickly that all the Hubble images are in fact clever CGI...

Anyway, thanks Pilgrum, Matrix and starwarp. You have proved something really important.

(Maybe it's not quite what you *wanted* to prove, but never mind...)



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by starwarp2000
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Your 'ignorance' is overwhelming!

Not only do you virulently attack others views you also can't even post decent counter facts!
What the hell is some blurry picture of stars go to do with this debate?
I could of taken that while i was having a dump, and posted it on a website, so some 'poor' lost soul could find it and re-post it!

Please limit your assault to 'Scientific Facts', not personal virulent crap, which only goes towards showing your intelligence (or lack thereof).





I WILL give you one guess who posted this photograph to PROVE you could see stars in space so why not ON the Moon can you guess who

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes the OP What do you have to say NOW!

THE EXPOSURE OF THAT PHOTOGRAPH WAS 30 SECONDS thats why the stars showed up the pictures on the moon were a fraction of a second so why do you go and educated yourself a bit more


[edit on 29-4-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Sarcasm is the Lowest form of wit…

Looks like You can't read either, or what you see, you can't register.

None so Blind as them who won't see I guess.

If you are going to Quote me or others, then first understand what we are saying.

Stop twisting our words around or miss-quoting others.

You are only deceive yourself.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
Sarcasm is the Lowest form of wit…

Right next to repetition...?


You are only deceive yourself.


Ahah! I knew your words were familiar! You're the guy who wrote:
"All your base are belong to us". I must bow to your expertise in b-grade science fiction, and look forward to more content-free postings, and hopefully Much More of dat Creative Capitalisation!




Getting back to the topic, has anyone noticed how Matrix and his ilk have not lowered themselves to address the topic of night adaptation, nor have they even attempted to explain how it would be possible in bright sunlight for the astronauts to shield all sunlight from entering their visors for long enough that their eyes could adapt. And, perhaps more importantly, why they would want to...

A couple of them acknowledged that yes, you cannot see stars out the window when in a brightly lit room. And yet a sunlit landscape on the lunar surface is many thousands of times brighter than a bright room.

It seems common sense, observation skills and the ability to reason are the first things that you must relinquish to join the ranks of the Apollo deniers.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 



Ahah! I knew your words were familiar! You're the guy who wrote:
"All your base are belong to us".


Now You have totally lost it.... what the hell are you smoking ???



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Hey guys,

Remember the Apollo flag that appears to move by itself?

Here is a new video which shows that it (the flag) had begun to move before the astronaut's elbow got in range. It also shows that the initial motion of the flag was away from the astronaut.



*It also features examples of a self-proclaimed debunker acting like a child and pretending to debunk things. Those parts are funny, but sad too.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Sorry, but exactly why are you championing the (insert insult here) YouTube user "WhiteJarrah", and his (what appears to be) feud with another YouTube poster?

I am (painfully) aware of the garbage videos that nutcase puts out (as well as his British mate, or perhaps better described as counterpart, 'greenmagoos').

The Apollo 15 "flag footage" HAS been beaten to death, and out of EVERY Apollo EVA footage shown is the ONLY example of this anomaly, even though there are ample examples of Astronauts passing near by a mounted flag, and it remains immobile -- as expected in a vacuum. (Take a look at the Apollo 11 16mm camera footage, shot from onboard the LM, for starters).


But, in THIS thread...it is relevant perhaps because "WhiteJarrah" also claims NASA 'trickery' regarding the stars, when observed/photographed from the Moon's surface?
I don't see that mentioned in the video you posted.

Still, even of off-topic, bringing it up helps to show the rest of the doubters the utter lack of credibility that YouTube person possesses, with his dual obsession of Japanese Anime, and his unhealthy focus on NASA "Moon Landing Hoaxes".

Truly, he gets it right in his very first comments in that video: People have to be told over, and over again, but some of them NEVER get it. Those are the troubled souls who have tossed out logic and reason, in favor of inane fantasies, and paranoiac mutterings. (**)

(**)--And, oh how I want to (but it would be so ad hom) to mention his ridiculous opening titles on his "videos".....











[edit on 29 April 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Re the video Exubertant1 linked to they claim the flag moved before the astronaut touched it WRONG if you watch the video as usual with these types zoomed in like they do with pictures did they not see the obvious MISTAKE.

The grey area around the flag is obviously the out of focus background but you see the pixels change colour thats why the flag appears to move before they are past the resolution of the video.

You even see this type of pixelation problem on satellite and cable tv transmissions when they have a low bit rate.

So everyone look at the area of grey pixels around the flag and watch
them change colours it gives the impression of movement



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Although there is a very scarce or non-existent atmosphere on the moon, I believe there is a spattering of inter-stellar gas and dust between the moon and the stars. Stars would be visible due to the light scattering caused by that dust and gas.

Photos taken on the moon may not show them simply because the camera wasn't sensitive to the small amount of light they produce, small size, and distance (out of focus).

Astronauts telling us the sky was black with no stars, that sounds suspicious. In turn, it would hard to imagine them not having a telescope or camera that could view and take pictures of them. Even a pair of binoculars for looking at the surrounding terrain would seem to be something to throw in when packing for the trip.

No visible stars? Bogus if you ask me.

On another note, sunlight radiation above our atmosphere is 8 times brighter, brighter overall but most of the increase is in the UV range.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Oh no! Not another one


Another person completely ignorant of the facts!

I will save you the time in using your brain, and Googling the answer, i will go to great lengths to 'do your work for you', it is so simple!

The Hubble Space Telescope has an 'Artificial Atmosphere' within the telescope body!

Gee that wasn't so hard, was it?
Spend more time on research and less on attacking the poster!
Your rudeness has been noted.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by peopleunit
 


Yes, interstellar gas 'would' scatter some starlight, but maybe not enough to render stars visible.
Has anybody really looked at some space shuttle pictures?
Take a look beyond the shuttle and you will see totally 'black' space!

All these people that are comparing 'Time-Exposed Film Photography' with the human eye don't seem to understand either the mechanics of the human eye or the chemistry of the exposure of film!

I can't see any correlation between the human 'naked eye' observation of a 'stellar object' and the same object taken from a 'time exposure using film'.
Indeed they are totally different and unrelated images!



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by starwarp2000
 


Guess what film/digital sensors and THE HUMAN eye are light SENSITIVE
stars are visible because guess what they produce LIGHT
NOT becuase the light gets scattered


Re the Hubble READ AND LEARN

The key to Hubble’s advantage is that by being in orbit around the Earth,
the telescope is above the Earth’s atmosphere.

People often mistakenly believe that a telescope's power lies in its ability to magnify objects. Telescopes actually work by collecting more light than the human eye can capture on its own.

Two pictures taken in space long exposures 30 seconds and 6 seconds
so stars show.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

files.abovetopsecret.com...

The eye has an advantage over film/digital cameras with general viewing as it has a better exposure latitude.

For example on a summers day if you look at a scene you can see detail in the sunlit and shadow areas were film or digital cameras would work better with one area or other due to exposure.

When you look at the Moon you can see it and brighter stars near it but if a camera is set to expose the Moon properly then stars dont show and if the camera is set to show stars Moon is overexposed.

The film/digital camera come into its own with very short of very long exposure when they capture detail our eyes and brain cant process.

You can keep a camera shutter open for a long time and the photons can be collected and recored and added together to see objects so faint that they can never be seen using your eye it doesn't matter how long you looked.

The Astronauts eyes had adjusted to the light level around them on the Moon so if they glanced up stars would not show its that simple had they been able to get into an area were no light was around them and they look up once their eyes dark adapted the stars would show.

For the people on here that seem to think the Moon is not that bright here is an EV (exposure value) chart.

en.wikipedia.org...

From chart on this page this is film/sensor at 100 asa/iso setting

Light sand or snow in full or slightly hazy sunlight (distinct shadows)
EV 16

The Moon,c altitude > 40° EV

Full 15
Gibbous 14
Quarter 13
Crescent 12

You can actualy try these thing for yourself IF you have a camera and the ABILITY to understand how exposure works.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by wmd_2008]



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join