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: 20
28
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 02:59 AM
link   
To the uninformed who continue to flog the absolutely ridiculous 'no-atmosphere-equals-no-visible-stars' NONSENSE, I would ask them to read the following VERY carefully. And tell me which points are wrong, with reasoning and links, please..

1. A star is a very distant, but very bright object (just like the Sun..)

2. Stars emit huge numbers of photons or 'light' (just like a normal incandescent light).

3. Because the stars are DISTANT, when they reach Earth the photons appear as a thin stream coming from a single point.

4. When ANY photons hit the retina of an eye, they set off a photochemical reaction that registers in the brain as.. 'light'.


Pause.. Want some think music???


Now, if there is something *blocking* the light, like a brick wall, it will be stopped. Or if there is something that isn't quite so solid, and just attenuates or deflects some of the photons eg .. atmosphere (or 'gas') - then the stars will be slightly dimmer, or they may flicker or 'twinkle'.

Now do tell us, deep thinkers, why that quite simple process, namely a line of photons coming from the star and then striking the back of your retina, needs some intervening stuff to 'light it up'? In actual fact, such intervening stuff will ONLY lessen the number of photons that hits your eye.

And why it is that on a 'clear day', everything distant is much sharper and brighter? Yet according to your misinformation, the more gas and stuff, the more visible everything will be. You should, of course, wish for a FOG so that everything is REALLY clear, I guess...


But more importantly than that, please explain how folks with such complete ignorance of even the most simple and basic facts about light, see fit to think they can contribute usefully to this topic?

(As a non-expert on neurosurgery, I don't post in forums where they discuss brain surgery...)


STOP WASTING PEOPLE'S TIME WITH SUCH MIS-INFORMATION.




posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 05:26 AM
link   
It was the technology, as recent probes and enlarged, detailed photos show a different picture.

SOHO is a Space Based platform that has corrected this 'camera glitch'.

There's no conspiracy here, please update, and try to keep up with the times



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


Look at the amazing cavalcade of stars in the sky! Amaze yourself at their wondrous beauty and thrill to the fact that the photons have traveled light years through space to hit your retina!
Oh how we are blessed with such a beautiful sight as the sky full of stars!

Behold the majesty of the sky filled with stars!







posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Whilst not on the moon, Apollo 17's Evans did see a star about 30 minutes after liftoff. He even saw it in "Daylight".



What interests me is whether the lights were on inside the spacecraft during liftoff that would have prevented them seeing stars?

And not to get all conspiracy like, but first he says

"Well, that's what you're supposed to, babe", then seconds later ...

"Look at - Did you ever see a blacker sky than that, though?"

As if oh, oh, I stuffed up, but corrected it real quick.

source: www.jsc.nasa.gov... (page 27)

edit: this part of their conversation wasn't in the air to ground communications. It was recorded on the 'black box' inside the cockpit that recorded their conversations.

Also, what's this reference to "babe" ? hehe

[edit on 30-4-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
What interests me is whether the lights were on inside the spacecraft during liftoff that would have prevented them seeing stars?

That depends; if it's a bright planet or perhaps Sirius then yes you could probably see it with lights on. I can see Venus in my window even with my living room lamp on. Other stars, not so much. The most difficult part is usually just in focusing your eyes at infinity rather than on the objects near the window. It'd therefore be easy to miss even if you could hypothetically see it.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by starwarp2000
 


YOUR PICTURE MEANS NOTHING NO EXPOSURE DATA!!



files.abovetopsecret.com...

30 SECOND EXPOSURE


Post link to site / post exposure data or STFU!


[edit on 30-4-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 




Whilst not on the moon, Apollo 17's Evans did see a star about 30 minutes after liftoff. He even saw it in "Daylight".


Not surprising, since it only took about 17 minutes to get to orbit, from the launchpad.

Oh, and do not confuse "Daylight", in that context, with the term "daytime" that we use down here on the ground. On orbit, they are above the atmosphere...so a more correct term, perhaps, would be "Dayside" (opposite of "Nightside", of course).

But, he wasn't being technical, just conversational. Also, of course, depending on which way they looked, and the window was facing --- when away from that big bright object we call the 'Sun', and also away from the other, nearer, not as bright thing called the 'Earth' --- then they would have seen the brighter stars...assuming the interior lights of the capsule didn't reflect on the inner window panes, and IF their eyes were dark-adapted enough.


What interests me is whether the lights were on inside the spacecraft during liftoff that would have prevented them seeing stars?


They did not have time to look out the windows during the launch. ALL eyes were inside, monitoring instruments.



"Well, that's what you're supposed to, babe", then seconds later ...

"Look at - Did you ever see a blacker sky than that, though?"

As if oh, oh, I stuffed up, but corrected it real quick.


I know what "stuffed up" means
, even though I'm a Yank. Been around, a bit mate.

But, huh
It was Schmitt's first spaceflight. The veteran, there, is enjoying his awe at seeing it for the first time. That is about it.



Also, what's this reference to "babe" ? hehe \


I could tell ya, but I'd have to kill ya afterwards. hehe.

Actually, if you have to ask that question, then you don't have a right to know.





posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
starwarp2000, do tell us - what is that thing in the lower part of the picture?

I'll give you a hint. It's the EARTH.

Is it night time?

Another hint - NO.

What exposure is required to correctly image the earth's surface in daytime (or the Moon's, for that matter)?

Another hint - about 1/250 @ f8. That's one 250th of a second.


What exposure is required to show stars in an image?

Another hint - about 15 seconds @ f8. That's FIFTEEN seconds.

Can you spot the difference???? So, will an exposure of 1/250 @ f8 show stars?

Another hint - NO.

You can check those FACTS at literally thousands of websites or books, or you could actually get off your butt, and take a manually adjustable camera outside and find out for yourself. But some folks are just too happy to remain uninformed, and too determined to NOT learn or understand anything that may threaten their desired belief.


I REPEAT - STOP WASTING PEOPLE'S TIME.

(Edited to remove the word LAZY - I don't want to be *too* insulting..)


[edit on 30-4-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Take a look at this on ATS.... Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


TMT....That bloke... ('whiny-voiced teenager'? Barely-twenty-something con-artist? 'Dead from the neck up' blathering idiot? Take your pick) ...from Down Under who posts on YouTube is a complete waste of time.

He's an ego-tripping nobody without a clue to reality.

His one skill? If he tried, he could probably sell an ice cube maker to Eskimos. Maybe even could get penguins in the Antarctic to pool their little fishes together, to purchase a hot tub....

His "videos", and his "explanations" amount to about the same load of moose excrement that the "Moon Hoax" believers who post here at ATS spew.

THIS thread (and the dozens of athers) attest to the intellectual desert that exists between the ears of way, way too many people of a "certain" generation.

A generation that has grown up seeing so much technology, and the way it is used today, mostly in the motion picture industry, that they simply can no longer recognize reality from fiction.



[edit on 1 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Can anyone tell me what is this in this screen capture I did from Google Earth of the moon. It was taken in the Taurus-Littrow Valley at station 6. the light source seems to be behind the boulder and not associated with the camera at all. If anyone could shed some info on this I would appreciated so much.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by basilray
 


The only light source on the Moon have a guess correct the SUN you even
see lens flare.
[edit on 11-5-2010 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 11-5-2010 by wmd_2008]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemonkey
same reason you can't see stars (or very few) in the city at night, light polution. you know you could easily have done a simple google search instead of writing a lengthy post.


I guess we could all google all our questions, sort of like asking Mr Stalin though isnt it?
Trust your fellow man, by asking around, not asking Mr Big.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Conspire

Originally posted by purplemonkey
same reason you can't see stars (or very few) in the city at night, light polution. you know you could easily have done a simple google search instead of writing a lengthy post.


I guess we could all google all our questions, sort of like asking Mr Stalin though isnt it?
Trust your fellow man, by asking around, not asking Mr Big.


Mr Big IS just a search engine guess who writes the answers its finds your fellow man



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Dr Conspire

Originally posted by purplemonkey
same reason you can't see stars (or very few) in the city at night, light polution. you know you could easily have done a simple google search instead of writing a lengthy post.


I guess we could all google all our questions, sort of like asking Mr Stalin though isnt it?
Trust your fellow man, by asking around, not asking Mr Big.


Mr Big IS just a search engine guess who writes the answers its finds your fellow man

Mmm yes the little men who say the right things and are not too controversial( at least for the first 10,000 google replies?



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr Conspire
 


Here we go the everything is controlled BS been hearing it for years and years and years,have you heard of the ADVANCED SEARCH OPTION!



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr Conspire
 



....at least for the first 10,000 google replies?


Off topic---well, not really, in a moment.

About the 'Google', and which pages come up first, in any search (and YES, as wmd mentioned, you could use an advanced search option, but most people don't).

I thought that by NOW everyone has realized how Google works --- the sites that get the most 'hits' are biased to the first pages, in order of popularity (UNLESS a site owner pays a fee to be 'stickied' to the top).

Dr Conspire, here, seems to be under the (somewhat paranoid) impression that some nebulous 'powers that be' somehow control Google websearch parameters, and sites that are found in those searches.

(This is where it gets to topic, see I promised..)

The reason that so many of these "Apollo hoax" (not to mention the disinformation regarding, so-called "chemtrails", and the Grandaddy of them all, "9/11") sites get so much attention is a sort of Catch-22 effect.

People hear about a topic, 'Google' it, and more and more and more follow, so the site involved rises to the "top"...because of its "perceived" popularity, based on 'hits'.

Has nothing at all to do with the veracity of any site, or its claims.

SO, in that situation, Dr Conspire has it backwards, if the good "doctor" is trying to make a claim that there is some concerted effort by the 'PTB' to squash information on the web, through Google-search-manipulation, or some such thing.

It is the reverse effect....simple curiosity. Which, all too often, unfortunately, results in BAD---very, very BAD and incorrect information being spread over and over and over again....hence, Apollo "hoax" claims, and "chemtrail" nonsense, etc. Each new individual "discovering", after a causual Google search, these sites beleives he or she has stumbled upon the biggest "conspiracy" since the Trojan Horse!

For those already prone to paranoid delusional thinking, it is even worse...just reinforces their delusions.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Dr Conspire
 


Did a quick search 3rd item on first page of search using "apollo moon hoax" got this little gem

www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

Another site you will like same old bs about photographs not the 10,000 item Dr as you claim!



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join