The Sky Was Black On The Moon?

Astronauts Accounts:
Apollo Lunar Surface Journal

Apollo Science Data Collection Theories:
Apollo Preliminary Science

Earth Atmospheric Contents:
Earth's Atmosphere

Okay, I have a feeling I'm going to regret this, but why don't we approach this as a contra-factual? Let us assume that the moon landing was the most gigantic and expensive hoax in history. The key to any successful hoax or con game is to show the marks exactly what they want to see. (Seen many UFOs with funnels for the steam engines lately?) Hundreds of thousands of people worked on this hoax. The astronauts volunteered to be hypnotized so that they would tell a consistent story. The best special effects artists were recruited and sworn to secrecy under pain of death. Everyone knows that stars should be visible by day from the surface of the moon. Science fiction films since the days of Georges Melies have always shown stars in the lunar sky. Stanley Kubrick went to extraordinary lengths to get the stars right in "2001: A Space Odyssey." With all of these prop, set and special effects designers planning a project with unlimited technological resources, not one of them ever thought to ask: "Hey, about the stars... are we going to do them as a practical on the set or an optical matte in post-production?" Explain.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by DJW001]

Originally posted by Tie No Bows!
C'mon guys you cant have it all ways!

If it was so super bright, surely it would wash out all the small detail to be seen?
But its the same wierd light conditions that can select which 'shaded areas to selectively' illuminate.

For crying out loud....even the camera maker is baffled as to how they got the pics they did, as is the manufacturer of the suits who when asked to construct suits for use in a radiation environment, said they couldnt do it.

Just once I would like someone to admit that they are baffled by an aspect of the project, rather than blindly trotting out some mantra to head off some 'truther' or other.

If someone clearly explains away a query to my satisfaction, great, thats education, but the moon landing thing has way too many questions to be squeeky clean.

Roswell....now theres a fairy story.

99 % of UFO 'spaceships' are baloney for me, the apparent evolution from biscuit tins, through Ed Walters polaroid lampshades, to the CGI creations of today take some explaining.
But it still leaves 1% of 'something' to look at objectively, thats all, 'V' isnt real....yet! But we can at least discuss these things without just getting into a 'Oh no its not Vs Oh yes it is' contest.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by Tie No Bows!]

Man education seems to have gone downhill in the last 20 or so years!

Re your comment on camera maker wondering about shots can you provide a link to what you are talking about.

Go to a photography site and learn about this subject FILL IN FLASH this a technique to fill in shadow areas in a photograph.
I may be taking a picture in bright sunlight but want to show detail in the shadow 2 ways to do it.

1) A reflector or fill in flash

The surface of the Moon is the relector and reflects enough light to allow shadow detail to show.

Lots of people on here are keen photographs and threads like this give us a good

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by weedwhacker

THIS works because the Astronauts are breathing 100% oxygen.

I've always wondered how this works, since too much oxygen normally causes humans to go light headed..

Does this mean that thier breath is short since they don't have to take other gases onboard such as our air??

If that's the case it must feel really wierd...

All the best,

Korg.

It works because partial pressure of oxygen is the same in space suits and on Earth. Earths atmosphere has a pressure of about 100 kPa, with partial pressure of oxygen of about 20 kPa. The rest (80 kPa) is mostly inert nitrogen, which you dont need to breathe.

Yeah I realise this, but even though we don't need Nitrogen.. we still breath it, which means a normal breath at a normal rate..

So if the Astronaughts are breathing 100% oxygen does that mean they don't need to take so many breaths?

see what I mean?

All the best,

Korg.

Erh...what happened to your off topic rule?

Anyway...I'll look out the clip of the Hasselblad guy for you and yes Im aware of fill in flash etc, being a complete luddite I recently bought a new camera.

The wee Canon 1000D, I opted for that over the Nikon due the Canon being slightly better at astrophotography, apparently the algorithm Nikon use confuses 'noise' with actual stars so the Canon won out at the end.

And should Korg feel that Im taking the pi$$, I'll happily supply name of the astronomy website I subscribe to if required, to verify membership prior to the thread.

The Hasselblad guy was really puzzled how it worked when NASA's only protection for the film was.......silver paint? Yup! And that old chestnut, engraved focusing screen marks. You would think that such a person would be aware of such things as extreme subject contrast.

But what do I know, of course feel free to do your own research, as long as your findings concur with majority opinion of course.

May I make something plain?

I opted to join these forums to educate myself a little more in things that are not so obvious at first glance. I certainly did not expect to be slapped down with comments implying I had been easy meat for rumourmongers etc.

Personal circumstances preclude me from getting involved in petty argument to no end other than to trump anothers opinion. So sadly it appears that I shall have to choose my subjects with more care and leave any comments to those who feel more qualified to do so.

Peace!



[edit on 20-4-2010 by Tie No Bows!]

Tie,

The problem is that when people CHOOSE not to see, no evidence will be sufficient.

Watch a rocket launch, and if it doesn't go to space, where does it go?

If there is no spaceflight, how did we launch all of the satellites for GPS, weather, television, international phone calls, etc.

If there is no manned spaceflight, how could the Columbia disaster be made to look like such a catastrophy to so many people across the Western United States. How could the debris be scattered over thousands of square miles in less than an hour?

I could go on and on, but the point would be made no clearer with a thousand examples for those who want to NOT believe.

This is not a forum for official personal experiences, so I won't even bother going there. It would likely be useless anyway, because I would simply be another "hypnotized" person, foolishly trusting personal experience in the face of pre-formed opinion.

Originally posted by Tie No Bows!
Erh...what happened to your off topic rule?

Errr... Do you know what happens when an astronaught or anyone else for that matter gets too much oxygen?? (JOKING)

They see stars...??? ;p

At least my post had astronaught in there.... your previous one was well not even in the same ball park

Anyway... Doesn't matter. As I said earlier, let's stop bickering

Peace Out,

Korg.

reply to post by Tie No Bows!


Nice camera to get will u2u some nice photgraphy sites to look at IT really is simple to explain all the Moon Hoax BS re shadows,no stars etc etc any good
amatuer photographer would know.
Although its the digital age my first SLR was bought in DEC 1979 all manual no auto exposure no auto focus I now have various digital cameras but the photographers on here get fed up with all this Moon Hoax BS when it starts with the classic no stars.

I agree that things can be explained and I certainly dont believe that we have never launched anything into orbit, so the shuttle, GPS and other satellites Im happy with. Also handy when I can check whats about to overfly my location, step outside and line up....and there we go! As a satellite whizzes across my sector of the globe.

Problems arise when less easily explained turn up.
Example: My wife and I clearly saw something in the sky, first thoughts were not 'spacecraft' but 'very fast, probably secret at that speed' US plane or something.

Or....some of the common moon landing subjects.

Back to the moon pics then?

Superharsh contrast: I agree it should light things up brightly, but Im sure I read that NASA said the moons surface had the same light reflectivity as tarmac, hardly the brightest thing. Im informed that the dust was like cement dust, combine the two and its looking pretty dull to start with.

However the pics do show a bright environment, but the extreme contrast appears to be rather selective in nature, at one point lighting up the LM to the extent that 'hotspots' are evident when they should not be. Only to leave large surfaces inky black in other pics, large rock faces mostly.

Photographers will be familiar with the 'golden hour' near dusk & dawn where features can be accentuated by the atmosphere at that time. The suns golden time would have to be ascertained and taken advantage of.

Would it be simplistic to say, take the photo in the dark?
Stick the camera out the door and snap away????

They didnt even take a common terrestrial telescope, remember no Hubble for decades so such pics would have been priceless, but our experiments ran to 'can water run uphill in space' or whatever?

reply to post by Tie No Bows!


Could you explain what you mean by this

Would it be simplistic to say, take the photo in the dark? Stick the camera out the door and snap away????

Think about the size of telescope they could have taken do you think that would have got better shots than any very large reflector based on earth

Put links to the pictures that puzzle you they have probably been debumked on here before you will get quick answers to your question.

[edit on 20-4-2010 by wmd_2008]

Sure....Why cant they take a pic in the dark?
Before sun or earthrise, camera mounted and could be used to take the most basic of long exposure shots surely?

Pics out the door?
Camera outside the door, close door and operate camera with suitable remote release? Kinda like the ultimate astronmers star party?

The pics are common enough and available on NASA website, the most famous being an upward shot towards the hatch with astronaut on ladder.
The hotspot is clearly visible.

Shots taken while away from the LM near some substantial rocks, clearly show the shadow as dense, with minimal reflected light.

Given that military technology is assumed to be superior to civilian at any given time, one would surmise that something approaching the meade st-70 or similar would be available or contrsucted specifically for the mission.

As you say, we would be looking from earth through our atsmophere though, What would the reverse view have been like?

I have another shot of the LM, having sustained substantial external damage, but no such incident was logged, Ill try to upload that too.

reply to post by Deaf Alien


I dont have technical knowledge regarding space. I do know that at times it's not possible to see stars in space by astronauts. I did read it somewhere where it was explained in layman's language why it's not possible to see stars at time. Don't remember the link now but I just did a search again now and it came up with a answer. I am not sure if it's correct or not perhaps someone can share their view on this

No, you can't see stars with your own eyes in space because they are too far away. The angular diameter of the biggest star in the sky, Betelgeuse, is 50 milli- arc seconds and the angular resolution of an human eye in 60 arc seconds. Therefore, the angular diameter of the largest star in the sky is about 1000 smaller than the resolution of a human eye! Then You can't see star when you are in space. It is comparable to trying to look at a 1 dollar coin (2 centimer diameter) located 200 km away from you - you can't simply resolve it!

You can see stars on earth thanks to the earth's atmosphere and the integration time of a human eye (few milliseconds). The atmosphere turbulence and multiple layers of different temperature will disperse the light beams coming from each star due to a series of refraction effect. After few milliseconds, the human eye would have observed many photons coming from the star that have been dispersed on slightly different angles each other- it looks like that the light beam of stars has been spread. And the diameter of this 'stain' on your retina is comparable to human eye resolution.. You can see it !!

Source: answers.yahoo.com...

I just have one question.

Why does earth, from the moon, look almost the same size of the moon from earth?

I mean, form the pictures that I have seen of earth from the moon, it looks relatively small.
The earth should look huge from the moon since earth is way bigger than the moon, but that is not the case when I see the pictures and videos.
Before anybody says that look how small the sun looks from earth, the distance between the 2 is enormous. If you go to the sun and try to see the earth from there, you would probably see a spec of light.

Does anyone remember that James Bond old movie where there is a scene showing a moon landing just to have Bond run through the landing chasing some one?. It was like they were filming the landing for a movie or rehearsal.

If the optics were cameras ... how the hell did they look through them ?
They didn't have viewfinders and were chest mounted fixed hassleblad cameras.

How do you look through a telescope in a spacesuit ? I've never, ever seen one picture of an astronaut using a telescope.

So if it's not these 2 things, what are these optics he clearly mentions looking through in the clip.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Truth1000
The optics were primarily cameras, using specialized filters. They were also two optical telescopes in the Lunar Module for navigational aids.

Originally posted by ppk55
They did ask them ... and this is what they had to say ... also can anyone answer what these 'optics' are he talks about.
www.youtube.com...

Inside the LM, they didn't need to be in a spacesuit.

reply to post by Truth1000


Ermmmm....someone needs to check their Apollo facts...

During descent, and ascent in the LM, the Astronauts were wearing their pressure suits.

NOT, of course, the full EVA suit and helmet seen, but enough to protect them from any cabin depressurization.

Same with launch, onboard Saturn V. AND re-entry.

Prudent measures.

You feel free to listen to your sources, and I'll feel free to listen to mine.

Have a nice day.

BTW, the proper term is "entry," not "re-entry." You do not simply come back into the atmosphere, you have to hit a specfic entry window, at the proper speed and spacecraft angle-of-attack.

reply to post by Truth1000


Talkin' to me?

I would suggest you read up on the Apollo missions, and you can begin with a few of the personal recollections of the Astronauts themselves.

Consider....pre-launch, the Astronauts spent a few hours, afer suiting up, breathing the pure O2.

THIS, to rid the bloodstream of Nitrogen, so as to mitigate any occurence of the "bends".

Read, please, about the Astronauts' (Apollo, in this case) experience as they walked to the gantry, to board the Apollo Saturn V. They carried the little "suitcase"-like apparatus, to keep them supplied with O2.

Their suits were completely sealed, and THEY COULD NOT HEAR anything, from outside!!!

Not unitl past the 'White Room" (top of gantry) and they were settled into their seats, in the CM (Command Module) and plugged in, did they have radio/intercom connections.

Gunther tapped each on the helmet, and said "God Speed", (Or whatever equivalent in German -- probably in English, he said it...) but that was his final 'greeting', and acknowlegment, just prior to entry hatch sealing.

Look into the Space Shuttle procedures, even today!

Same thing. Launch, re-entry...they are suited.

Has been a safety requirement since "Day One", at NASA.

Not a big secret. Just a good idea.







[edit on 20 April 2010 by weedwhacker]