The Sky Was Black On The Moon?

page: 23
28
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   
to bokonon

Only contradictions to one who has not the required knowledge, and cannot understand context.

You'll notice up above I've posted *reasons*. In my own words. using logic.

I notice that you are unable to do that. When you learn, I'll debate.



[edit on 19-8-2010 by CHRLZ]




posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   
just last week a pic from the moon showed stars!....it was a good angle away from the sun and the sun was low maybe.....that pic was right here on this site,,, that thread about moon pics having anomalies



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   
no point in responding, i read to page 2. responded, response on page 20+, its been covered I bet.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by epitaph.one]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by GBP/JPY
just last week a pic from the moon showed stars!....it was a good angle away from the sun and the sun was low maybe.....that pic was right here on this site,,, that thread about moon pics having anomalies


It could... if it was properly exposed for the stars. Link please? Then we can discuss it and see which side it supports.

To put it into camera terms, the sunlit part of the moon requires an exposure of about 1/125 sec, f5.6 or f8 (ISO 100) in pictures taken from earth. Very similar to the sort of exposure you need here on earth for normal daylight shots! Not surprising really, as we are both lit by the same Sun at about the same distance... The actual exposure settings will depend on the angle of illumination, the amount of crud in the air, and nearness to the horizon. On the Apollo missions, they used an even shorter exposure of 1/250 second, at between f5.6 and f11 for most images. (that's at ISO 160, so it gets a bit more complicated, but let's keep it simple - it's near enough..)

Now to expose for stars, you will need a setting of more like 5 seconds or longer at f5.6. That's a difference of 600x or more.

On earth if you use an exposure suitable for stars, the Moon will be a horribly overexposed ball of light. If you expose for the Moon, the stars will be virtually invisible - normal film and digital sensors cannot cope with that sort of dynamic range.

If an image shows the sunlit Moon and stars, it is either:
- faked (eg a compositeof two images)
- shows an *extremely dimmed* moon, maybe through dust or cloud
- taken using some sort of extremely high dynamic range process, eg multiple image hdr.

AGAIN, I would ask anyone who takes this seriously to look outside at night while inside a brightly lit room, eg a kitchen with strong fluoro lighting. Can you see stars? Be honest.

Then consider that sunlight is hundreds, if not thousands of times brighter than artificial light. And your eye's dynamic range is not dissimilar to film or digital if it is not allowed to 'night adapt'.

I'm sorry, but if you seriously think this is an indication of a hoax, you need to pick a different set of subjects. Anyone with some photography experience and an understanding of how the eye works will immediately realise how silly it is.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by CHRLZ]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
to bokonon

Only contradictions to one who has not the required knowledge, and cannot understand context.

You'll notice up above I've posted *reasons*. In my own words. using logic.

I notice that you are unable to do that. When you learn, I'll debate.

You failed to analyze the factual material and eyewitness evidence presented to you in direct, plain and simple form; so
let us know your credentials and formal degrees that are relevant to the subject and logic,
as you question others in this manner.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010
...
let us know your credentials and formal degrees that are relevant to the subject and logic,
as you question others in this manner.


After you.

I let my words do the talking. See post directly above yours for an example. See all the other stuff I post here and on other forums about photo-/video-graphy and photogrammetry, along with general physics, space sciences, orbital mechanics, thermodynamics and communications theory.

People can judge for themselves... as they will judge you, by what you post, the questions you avoid and the facts that you will not acknowledge. It's pretty noticeable that as soon as the numbers and facts come out, you do NOT want to get involved. You'd much rather quote out of context, and look for things you think are hidden between the lines in interviews and recollections.

Good luck with that.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010
Where are the words "during night" or "during daytime" in the NASA answer for the Grades 5-8? If you have a difficulty of understanding what is written there or believe that the NASA is not correct, please write to NASA and let us know the results. However, it maybe more useful to you to start with the Grades K-4 :www.nasa.gov...


Why would you need that spelled out for you if even 5-8 graders understand it? It also doesn't specify that you need to look above horizon to see stars because it's too freaking obvious. I can only come to the conclusion that either you must've been born blind or allergic to sunlight? If that's the case let me tell you that sunlight is very very bright, like having a huge spotlight shining at you and everywhere around you.

[edit on 19/8/2010 by PsykoOps]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Like astrophotography knows what space is like.
Any star photos from Mars or any deep space probe.
No.
Fact: we can not see stars on the moon.
A scientific observation by moon walkers.
Thus in a space craft we can not see stars.

How did the space travelers from Zeta Reticular find the Hills
if they could not see the Sun.
I suppose astrophotography will help in space travel now.

And the human eye does accumulate light due to its sensitivity
to the sound like pressure vibrations in the ether.
Everyone knows that ALL astrophotography needs a time exposure or
a electronic light accumulator.
ED: Cosmic radiation comes mostly from the Sun.
This triggers other radiation and ionization effects on earth.
Outer space is just plain black.
Except for the nearby Sun and all illustrations of space so far
are just from Disney as pure guesses.
Any star or galaxy from astro photography is a time exposure.
The telescope must turn to keep the image in the same photo
plate position.


[edit on 8/19/2010 by TeslaandLyne]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

You simply can not get star light to expose on film with the settings they used. (usually around 1/250 at F5.6) To ignore this you'd have to ignore the laws of physics.

You need to have an exposure time in the order of seconds or tens of seconds to get stars to appear and with that you'd need a tripod.


Agreed, but If an astronaut was taking planned photos of just stars, don't you think they'd compensate for the differences to ensure the best shots? And a seperate tripod would not be neccesary, just a simple thread mount on another piece of equipment.


But the astronauts did see stars. They even brought star charts down to the Lunar surface. Using the star charts along with the Alignment Optical Telescope (AOT) inside the LM, they were able to confirm their location on the Moon.


And yet here we are with the astronauts claiming they saw NO stars from the moon's surface. So did they or didn't they?

I still think they are lying about something.

--------------------------------------------


Originally posted by CHRLZ
nerbot, as has been stated at some length in this thread...

1. In sunlight/daylight, your eye closes down. It takes a minute or so for it to open up and adjust to darkness sufficiently to see stars, and THAT WILL ONLY HAPPEN IF IT IS PROTECTED FROM LIGHT. Have you never been to a theatre in daylight? Have you never tried to see stars while you are inside a brightly lit room? (And a brightly lit room is NOTHING like a sun-illuminated landscape.)


Agreed and understood BUT a camera could surely be set up to take at least 1 photo of stars from the surface and human eyesight then plays no part in this event.


2. Your eye, even when you squint, is taking in light from an arc of about 180 degrees. That's because it is spherical, with a lens at the front, and light receptive sensors over a large area. ..and..


Yes, see above.


3. They were wearing helmets. They were wearing a suit that did not easily allow them to twist their heads upwards, and the risk of falling was substantially increased by such antics. But, in light of that - *do* explain how they would shield their eyes effectively. Try it with a motorcycle helmet, but imagine you are wearing an awkward suit, large white gloves and had a much larger visor area. Even the smallest light spill would spoil any attempt to open the pupils up enough.


I could mount a camera and point it at the sky with one hand and my eyes closed. No viewfinding neccesary.


4. The astronauts had a job to do. Every minute was costing a fortune. And they knew, unlike the armchair experts and dreamers here, that even if they did manage to shield their eyes, they would NOT (unless they could wait approximately 20 minutes with their eyes fully shielded) see the stars any brighter than they could on earth.


But they can find the time to play golf and hop around for fun while not achieving anything useful. Naaaa! don't buy it I'm afraid.


In other words, the astronauts are/were not stupid. Nor are/were they lying.


Yes, that's one opinion


Indeed, nerbot, I CHALLENGE you.

QUOTE THE LIES and then explain your justification for making that claim - ADDRESSING THE POINTS ABOVE.

While you are at it, explain why you posted while blithely ignoring all of this stuff, which was covered comprehensively earlier in the thread.



"blithely"...lol, if you say so.

Sorry for not believing what these astronauts have said about not seeing any stars, but unless photos were deliberately taken (regardless of what they can see with the naked eye), then there is no evidence that they were where they said they were is there? With the huge amount of photos taken of rocks, footprints, flags, dirt, landscapes, eachother, the equipment etc etc etc, none of that can confirm it WAS the moon. Stars could, any they don't change often so it could be considered as pretty solid evidence wouldn't you say?.

The lies I mention don't pertain just to not seeing stars but the whole scenario....think bigger.

A most important thing that could eliminate doubt of having not been there.....and they didn't bother, so some of us will continue to doubt.

Sorry if that doesn't fit in with your perceptions but I am still not convinced that everything they say is true and may never be. I'm not alone on that so get used to it.

cheers.

[edit on 19/8/2010 by nerbot]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
reply to post by CHRLZ
reply to post by PsykoOps
 

It seems your memory span is somewhat limited to one page; to help you to overcome this obstacle, here it is again:


Originally posted by ppk55
Here's an interesting bit I found from the Apollo 14 mission transcripts.
This is on the Descent orbit insertion.

>>03 15 19 30 LMP And, Houston, looking to the north, we see the
same view. It's a very sharply defined horizon. I can see the stars. I got a - a very soft gray, well-lit surface below without too many features.
You can't see sharply, just - not distinctly; but nothing's probably lost.>>

source www.jsc.nasa.gov... (page 286)

Whilst this is not taken on the moon, it's interesting that he can see the 'well-lit surface' and still see the stars.


Originally posted by bokonon2010
"We were orientated such and rotating in order to keep the thermal balance of the spacecraft so that every two minutes you could see the Earth, the moon, the sun and a 360-degree panorama of the heavens came through the window every two minutes. That's powerful stuff, particularly since it's space. Without the atmosphere to block, the stars don't twinkle, and there's 10 times as many as you could possibly see on Earth because of the lack of interference and it's much closer to what you could see through the Hubble Telescope these days, ..."
-- Edgar Mitchell

Notes in bold are eyewitnesses of the astronots that contradict your "scientific" fantasies and "logic". Deal with it.

[edit on 20.8.2010 by bokonon2010]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


Thanks for that reminder


Love your avatar btw, quite fitting.

Mine is a view looking at the sun from the lunar surface...lol



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jazz10
 


Apollo astronauts spent roughly 2.5 hours on the surface of the moon.

When they returned to Earth, they immediately went into 'quarantine' for 21 DAYS..more than enough time for them and Stan Kubrick to fake the lunar mission records in their custom built sound stage film studio.

The astronauts posed for a quick press conference with tricky Dicky, then got down to the recreation for the next couple of weeks.

The reason this had to be done, was because they could not show the public a lot of the real images taken form the moon due to the huge artifacts, and orbiting relics found there.

If they had tried to fake a starfield on the recreated images, a lot of people would have spotted the fake more easily. Since they couldn't fake the stars accurately enough in the recreated images, they has to airbrush them out of the genuine lunar imagery too.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikeyIf they had tried to fake a starfield on the recreated images, a lot of people would have spotted the fake more easily. Since they couldn't fake the stars accurately enough in the recreated images, they has to airbrush them out of the genuine lunar imagery too.


This argument makes no sense. Since a lot of people could identify stars in the wrong positions, why wouldn't The Evil Government Hoax Conspirators (TM) have just hire those same people to put the stars in the right positions?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for bokonon2010 or one of his ilk to take a guess at how much brighter the stars would be on the Moon.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery

Originally posted by spikeyIf they had tried to fake a starfield on the recreated images, a lot of people would have spotted the fake more easily. Since they couldn't fake the stars accurately enough in the recreated images, they has to airbrush them out of the genuine lunar imagery too.


This argument makes no sense. Since a lot of people could identify stars in the wrong positions, why wouldn't The Evil Government Hoax Conspirators (TM) have just hire those same people to put the stars in the right positions?



Who are the "lot of people"? Do you seriously think the PTB would have knowledge or power of or over any such group? With the right astrological knowledge, artistic skills, and patience you are potentially talking about anyone and everyone. Even you.

It's FAR easier to retouch flat solid black over a whole sky image than it is to create/paint/airbrush thousands of stars in exactly their correct positions based on distance, location, camera lenses, time etc etc. And each one would have to be perfect in location and magnitude depending on camera exposure for the rest of the scene. Just one wrongly positioned or missing and it's a smoking gun that would lead to the hoax. Building a pyramid would be easier.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

I'm sorry, but if you seriously think this is an indication of a hoax, you need to pick a different set of subjects. Anyone with some photography experience and an understanding of how the eye works will immediately realise how silly it is.



No it is not silly and I urge you to maybe reconsider this from a different angle.

This thread has helped me see that maybe it's not so important that the astronauts claim not to have seen stars from the lunar surface or that none of the photos taken show any as it is that there were no photos specifically taken of the stars.

Why didn't they take A photograph of JUST stars or even some regular target but at an exposure that shows the sars? Just one! Even by accident.

I personally don't think it was an option if they couldn't because of their real location. Therefore the lack of that evidence is what makes me suspicious.

Who knows...maybe "they" are reading this and will prepare one for release and say it has just been found in archives.

Photoshop is cool....

Here's one I did a while ago:

"Roving Lunatic".



[edit on 19/8/2010 by nerbot]

[edit on 19/8/2010 by nerbot]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 



Originally posted by bokonon2010
"We were orientated such and rotating in order to keep the thermal balance of the spacecraft so that every two minutes you could see the Earth, the moon, the sun and a 360-degree panorama of the heavens came through the window every two minutes. That's powerful stuff, particularly since it's space. Without the atmosphere to block, the stars don't twinkle, and there's 10 times as many as you could possibly see on Earth because of the lack of interference and it's much closer to what you could see through the Hubble Telescope these days, ..."
-- Edgar Mitchell


Where does he say he saw stars on the Moon? He talks about the Earth the Moon and the Sun in one breath, then he jumps to the stars. Prove that he meant that he saw them on the Moon, or that he saw the Sun and the Stars at the same time. As usual, you are taking something completely out of context.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Omg... yeah they had photoshop back in the day. That's how they removed the stars from the real images too. Yeah that's how it went down...



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
reply to post by Saint Exupery
reply to post by nerbot
 




Celestial Simulation

Simulation of the stars was predicted on both navigational and attitude-reference
requirements. In orbital flight, these requirements are intermixed because the pilot
must know his location to use the stars as an attitude reference. In simulation of the
star field, consideration was given to the number and relative brightness of the stars
selected and to the static and dynamic accuracies required. The number of stars chosen
for all projects to date is approximately 1000, consisting of all those brighter than a
+5 magnitude. The logic of selecting this number was that the navigation stars and the
constellations used for identifying them are all brighter than the fifth magnitude. One
other factor in this selection was that fifth magnitude stars are the dimmest generally
visible to the unaided eye from the ground.

Hmm.. What's this about? Let's read further ...

In all simulators, the same basic technique was used to produce the star displays.
Approximately 1000 individual stars were simulated by small, highly reflective steel
balls set into the surface of a (celestial) sphere. When the highly polished balls were
illuminated by a point source of light, they reflected the point of light, the relative
brightness being a function of the size and coating of the balls. Balls as small as
0.1 inch and as large as 0.8 inch in diameter have been used. Mirror surfaces concentric
with the celestial sphere were used to keep the individual balls in focus over the
FOV of the _ This technique produced excellent representations of the star
field. The only anomaly noted on the display was a halo created by some of the coated
balls. Unfortunately, in the LMS the halo stars were all navigation stars, and the halo
made recognition relatively easy. Therefore, the use of coatings to simulate various
magnitudes is not recommended.

but ...

Difficulties encountered in the sextant simulation were similar to those with the
celestial sphere. That is, producing smooth motion at the extremely low rate used in
taking navigation marks was not always obtainable in the simulator operation. Another
difficulty was encountered with the initial simulator design requirement for updating the
background field. Various changes in the Apollo navigation stars occurred since the
beginning of the program. The method of generation of background stars made it too
expensive to update to new background star fields, and the background-star generator
was not used. As a result, it was not possible for the crewmember to identify the particular
navigation star in the sextant. Fortunately, this turned out to be only a minor
limitation. The accuracy and stability of the actual spacecraft guidance, navigation,
and stabilization systems were quite good, and the inflight procedures were developed
to make most effective use of this spacecraft capability. That is, the spacecraft crewmember
was not required to identify a navigation star with the sextant, because his onboard
guidance computer programs ensured that the navigation star was always within
0.5° of predicted value.




Scheduling Problems

As ideally envisioned early in the Apollo Program, the mission-verification simulations
were to have been completed approximately 4 months before launch so that the
final 4 months of crew training could be performed using a set of detailed procedures
and software that had been verified by engineering personnel for the particular mission.
In practice, this ideal was never really possible, with the result that the more typical
operational sequence was as follows.

The mission simulations started approximately 4 months before launch because
detailed mission definition, trajectory data, and flight software normally were not
available sooner. Detailed simulations of each mission phase and related contingency
situations were performed for approximately 2 months. Usually, some changes were
made to the mission profile, the crew procedures, and, sometimes, to the flight software
during this time. A series of final software-verification tests was conducted
2 months before launch. These tests comprised a series of formally controlled and
documented simulations using the latest available mission trajectory plan, crew procedures,
and flight software. The simulations, which had to be completed within 2 weeks
so that the detailed results could be published and distributed before launch, served as
useful references during the actual mission. Then, the simulation activity for the next
mission was begun; that is, approximately 6 weeks before one launch, simulator operations
for the subsequent mission had to be started to support the typical 2.5-month
launch interval. Thus, any problems requiring simulation support during the 6 weeks
before launch usually entailed the interruption of the preparations for the subsequent
mission. The simulators at the MSC normally were scheduled to provide this type of
close-in support.

The show must go on ...


[edit on 20.8.2010 by bokonon2010]

 

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others

DMCA: Digital Millennium Copyright Act

[edit on Fri Aug 20 2010 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot

Originally posted by CHRLZ

I'm sorry, but if you seriously think this is an indication of a hoax, you need to pick a different set of subjects. Anyone with some photography experience and an understanding of how the eye works will immediately realise how silly it is.



No it is not silly and I urge you to maybe reconsider this from a different angle.

How is that you argue that, yet won't address the FACTS about exposure times?


This thread has helped me see that maybe it's not so important that the astronauts claim not to have seen stars from the lunar surface or that none of the photos taken show any as it is that there were no photos specifically taken of the stars.


Sigh. THAT'S BECAUSE there is no POINT. Here on earth, we have an atmosphere, which does attenuate starlight a little. But if you put your telescopes away from city lights, and at high altitudes, you can largely overcome that. A clear sky at high altitude gives a view almost identical to that without atmosphere. Do you dispute any of that? I'm happy to elaborate, but it's pretty common knowledge.

Now, what do you know about those telescopes in observatories? What's the VERY first thing that strikes you when you see one?

Yes, that's right - IT IS BIG. Big, and heavy and calibrated carefully by lots of technicians to get superb results.

In other words, to get any BETTER pictures, the Apollo mission would have had to taken a HUGE telescope, set it up carefully, shroud it so that sunlight wouldn't leak anywhere near it, and then.. they would get images of the stars just like the bigger scopes on earth do.

Just explain to me, WHAT is so special about the stars viewed from the Moon? I'll tell you - NOTHING. For most folks who live in the city, the view afforded by getting out into a desert will be 100 times better than their normal view. Getting to a high altitude, maybe 1.2 to 1.5x better. getting to a vacuum, with total protection from the Sun? Maybe 1.1 x better again. So the difference in a vacuum? negligible. And you want them looking up, trying to shield their eyes in a huge helmet using large white gloves, in broad daylight???? Right..

And that isn't taking into account the whole 'big telescope' thing...

So you have the temerity to suggest that they should have wasted taxpayer's money by trying to image stars. Or that they should have - even knowing they were wasting their time - gone to great lengths to somehow shield their eyes from sunlight for long enough to see a view that wasn't anywhere near as good as they would get on a clear night in Florida...

SILLY.

Interestingly, they did do a couple experiments involving stars, but do you know WHY? No, I'm betting you don't. Google it.



Why didn't they take A photograph of JUST stars or even some regular target but at an exposure that shows the sars? Just one! Even by accident.

Read the stuff above AGAIN. Because it was a silly thing to do. And you have to change the exposure by an enormous amount to capture the stars, and use a stable mount or tripod. (There's one (planetary) exception - Venus.. read on..)


I personally don't think it was an option if they couldn't because of their real location. Therefore the lack of that evidence is what makes me suspicious.

Are you aware that it is quite easy to work out the positions of the Sun and Earth in the Apollo mission skies? Are you aware that this has been verified in every image where they (or their reflections) appear - they are exactly where they should be. Even Venus has been located as a tiny speck on some images. Exactly where it should have been.

Indeed the technology to locate Venus in this way has only recently become easily available to the mainstream, and it was some amateurs using careful photogrammetry that actually located Venus. They carefully searched the relevant images knowing the exact position that Venus should have been. And there it was... Unnoticed until the discovery.

So unless you have done your homework (and you very clearly haven't), your 'personal' opinion is worth what we just paid for it.


Who knows...maybe "they" are reading this and will prepare one for release and say it has just been found in archives.

How ironic - as the Venus discovery was EXACTLY the reverse of that.


Photoshop is cool....

(more silliness...? how droll.)



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Just for the record, here's why I don't bother debating with bokonon.

Let's go back for a moment to his quotes from a page back:


Originally posted by bokonon2010

103:12:44 [Neil] Armstrong (Apollo 11): "I'd say the colour of the local surface is very comparable to that we observed from orbit at this Sun angle—about 10° Sun angle, or that nature."

So the Sun was at about 10°. Why the need for the quote? Is the Sun any less bright at 10°? What was the point of this quote?


103:22:30 Armstrong: "From the surface, we could not see any stars out the window; but out my overhead hatch (means the overhead rendezvous window), I'm looking at the Earth. It's big and bright and beautiful."[1]

So at a particular time, while making no real effort to do so, and while the BIG BRIGHT earth was showing, he couldn't see any stars. Yup. That sounds about right. What was the POINT of this quote?


[Alan] Bean, from the [Apollo 12] 1969 Technical Debrief—"Star (and) Earth visibility was interesting. We could always see stars at the upper rendezvous _"[1]

Yes, in fact all of the astronauts could see stars thru this window, PROVIDED nothing bright was in the field of view, and provided they were able to shield and therefore dark adapt their eyes. You will note that bokonon does not provide the context...


The Sun is currently 5.5° above the eastern horizon.[1] With the Sun 10° above the horizon, stars should have been visible out the Apollo 11 overhead window too.[1]

Ah. so here's why the 10° was mentioned. But wait. WHO said that????

BUSTED, bokonon. Your quote implies that those comments were part of the technical debrief. In fact, they come from a wiki author, who is putting the Apollo denier case! How is it that you didn't mention that???

Of course different astronauts will get different results, depending entirely on the way they view the scene, and what the scene contains. Was the earth or sun in shot, was the astronaut up close, did they shield their eyes.. and so on. The claim is simply RIDICULOUS, and cherry picking interviews loking for 'anomalies is even more ridiculous.

I can't see stars out my window at the moment, and it's nighttime. Therefore they don't exist. Oh wait, maybe it's because the blinds are drawn. Or it could be to do with the heavy rain that is falling... Or maybe it's because the room is brightly lit..


Anyway, THAT is why I don't debate such people. People who deliberately mislead in this way are the bane of this forum.

The explanation of the 'black sky' was covered within the first few pages, and frankly, the fact that this garbage drags the thread on and on is one reason why I think ATS is going downhill fast.



[edit on 20-8-2010 by CHRLZ]



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
28
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join