The Sky Was Black On The Moon?

First, the term is "Launch-Entry Suit," not spacesuit.

In fact, two changes were made on the LES because of my input through Astronauts Eileen Collins and Terry Wilcutt, who happen to be friends of mine. I am familiar with space shuttle procedures.

reply to post by Deaf Alien


I don't know if this has been addressed in the previous posts because I couldn't handle reading anymore of these replies.

The Sky Was Black On The Moon?

How could this be, you ask?

The sky, as seen on the Moon, is black because it does not have an atmosphere. Earth's sky is blue because of its atmosphere. This is an extremely easy connection to make.

OK, now what about the stars?

The reason no stars are visible is because these images were taken on the Moon during the day (Lunar day). How many stars do you see in the sky here on Earth during the day? I would guess it's the same number that we all see, zero!

For those that don't know how long a Lunar day is, it's the same length as a Lunar month here on Earth.

All of the Astronaut's missions on the Moon were done on the near side and during the Lunar daytime. I find this very hard to believe you missed this. The reason we don't see stars during the day here on Earth isn't because of the atmosphere but because of the Sun. This should also be an easy connection to make.

Fine post, Devino.

Many aspects of the space programare fairly unique, and people don't fully understand them. That was a good article to possibly explain it better than I have tried to do.

Originally posted by thegrayone
Why does earth, from the moon, look almost the same size of the moon from earth?

It has to do with the kind of lens that's used. For the majority of the Lunar surface photography, they used a slightly wide angle lens. This makes objects, like the Earth for example, appear smaller then they actually would if you were there seeing it in person.

I am just gonna throw this out there...

NASA does not want you to see anything but black and White and Grey...

Take LunaCognita's Video.

NASA: PROOF of image tampering

www.youtube.com...

just my 2cents

Originally posted by Drow Ingpool
Take LunaCognita's Video.

NASA: PROOF of image tampering

It's not proof actually. The images that LunaCognita used in the first part of the video were taken from a non NASA site. The site is no longer around, but the person or persons who ran it, edited the photos (simply for aesthetic reasons). If you take the Apollo photos from other sites, you will not get the same results that you see in the first part of that video.

At last some plausible replies!

I can start to get my head around why the stars would appear minute but super-sharp in space, thats a step forward. The continued 'read the bible according to NASA' comes across every bit as luddite as some of the outrageous moon theories.

Since new moon landings are off the menu and for some the pics are possible tainted, can I take it that footage from the shuttle would exhibit the same properties?

I would have to dig out some pics/vids to check as I honestly cant remember if stars are visible or not, the 'tether' incident was like watching a fish tank that had been given a good 'ol swirl!

I cant post new threads yet, but perhaps a thread placing the obvious moon queries to see which ones fly and which can safely be deleted would be good.

Peace.

reply to post by Tie No Bows!


TRY it for yourself with a camera on manual setting 125th second at about f8 or f11 take a picture of the Moon see how many stars you see.

Then on a trypod try a long exposure say 16 secs at f2.8 or wider see how washed out moon will be and see if any stars show!

Look at an astrophotography site look at moon pics look at exposure settings then look at star pics and look at exposure settings its simple

Yup....expose for stars and you'll get a washed out moon, go for moon and no stars, Im ok on that. Its the brightness of the moon thats the bogeyman.

Snow, desert, sunlit water and lighter coloured surfaces can all give the same problem and all require the same remedial fill-in of some sort.
Even if we opt to use the surface as a reflective surface, wouldnt that give a pretty harsh light of its own, rather than what could pass for pro quality lighting?

But.....turn off the moon?
Sun/earth down and I cant see much to light up the surface, minimal atmosphere to diffuse what light is disappearing over the horizon, so Im thinking it should all be pretty dark and suitable for star pics?

reply to post by Deaf Alien


OK Deaf Alien.

I have an hypothesis, and i'm willing to bet MOST people are really not going to like or agree with it, but i have a thick skin, so let's have at it...

There is, and has been a secret space programme since the late 1940's, spearheaded and controlled by the USA and aided and abetted by other allied nations.

The bulk of the early advanced technology was derived from captured German WW2 technology at the end of the war, who in turn derived their technology from discovered ET craft, that had crashed on Earth millennia ago.

The Germans/NAZI's scoured the planet during the late 30's and early 40's searching for ancient and alien technology..and found what they were looking for. (read Vrill society, Adm. Byrd Antarctica expedition, NAZI bell experiments, etc.)

As the decades went by, the US together with allies, improved on the captured German stuff, and kept it shrouded in secrecy all the while, making a great show of 'conventional' rocket technology to the congress and the world at large, as a smokescreen to cover the real space programme.

This would have two desired outcomes; The concealment of the real technology, and to prod the rest of the world towards developing conventional rocketry technology for their own space and weapons systems, rather than pursuing the ultra advanced designs used in the covert programme.

In accordance with these aims of maintaining the elaborate cover, and with the advent of the Soviet Sputnik and first manned rocket launches, it became necessary for the USA et al, to ramp up the stakes.

A manned moon mission.

NOW..here's where my hypothesis properly kicks in.

The astronaut selection and training programme selected personnel from military men, who had the advantage of being under security and secrecy oaths, should they discover anything they were not meant to, they would be less likely to open their mouths. They also had a secret selection criteria.

One criteria that was used to select all potential astronauts, was psychology testing...this is reasonable of course, but the main component of this psych testing was never revealed...and all selected flight personnel had this attribute in common.

The ability to be easily and completely hypnotised.

Not all people have this. A lot of people are not susceptible to hypnotism, so this was an essential component of astronaut selection, in order to maintain the real space programme cover.

The rockets were designed and built and were real. They flew and achieved low Earth orbit, carrying a crew and could return them to Earth.

They had to be able to do this of course, or else the world would probably go off in another direction of space fight research, which was a possibility the US couldn't afford if it wanted to maintain it's technological superiority.

During the moon missions, ALL of the astronauts were hypnotised some time in advance of the moon mission launch date (in conjunction with MK-ULTRA programming) to believe they were on the moon, when in fact they were in a huge film studio 'sound stage' building, mock up of the moons surface, attached to wires to simulate low G.

This explains the photographic anomalies and the peculiar astronauts testimony regarding not 'remembering' exactly what they did on the moon, and seeing pitch black skies, and not 'remembering' seeing any stars from the moon's surface.

The astronauts actually believed they were on the moon.

Meanwhile, the real space programme had been visiting the moon, Mars, and elsewhere for years, and it was this programme that returned the bulk of the lunar rock samples to Earth, and placed experiments on the lunar surface in order to back up the planned phoney rocket missions for Earth based researchers to 'marvel at'.

After the fake mission photos and film was shot in the sound stage was 'in the can' and deemed to be a convincing (for the era) version of events, the actual rocket launches took place, were filmed and were 'Oooh'd and Arrr'd at by the world.

The faked. previously shot footage and telemetry was then inserted and fed to the mission control monitors and ground based personnel were none the wiser. To their eyes, the ground control instruments were telling them the mission was proceeding perfectly (of course), so would suspect nothing.

Even a faked crisis in the form of Apollo 13 (conveniently unlucky for some), would further focus the public on the fake programme, as interest had begun to wane in the whole programme.

Nothing is perfect. The originators of the deception had not foreseen the exponential rise in the power of home computers or the ability of their users to link and share information (via the internet), which had begun, early on to spot the flaws in the faked footage and images, and also become suspicious of the astronauts testimony and attitude.

Apollo 1's crew, led by Gus Grissom, had either discovered the secret of all of this, and were not happy (akin to the movie 'Capricorn one') about it at all, and were silenced as they had become unpredictable and an unacceptable security risk, that could have potentially brought down the whole house of cards, and revealed the truth. They had to go.

While a fantastic proposition, this hypothesis does indeed explain many if not all of the anomalies in the official record, from image and film anomalies to audio and transcript anomalies.

If anyone feels this could not be done to intelligent human beings, you're wrong. Mind control is a real and fairly simple thing to achieve.

With the right approach, drugs and manipulation techniques and the right props, they could convince these men they were flying to and walking on the moon, and then just as easily cause them to forget the whole experience and convince them it was a dream or fantasy, or expectation of the mission to come.

The conditioning was not perfect though, and as the years rolled by, Armstrong and others began to have serious doubts about their experiences during the 60's and 70's mission. Have a look at Armstrong's rare interviews and see what you make of it.

They began to remember the truth years later, but of course, if they had or do reveal this information, even now it would mean revealing the existence of the secret space programme and hardware, and for that it would mean certain death, not only for themselves, but their families too.

Thus the secrecy continues.

reply to post by Deaf Alien


I have been trying to look up article on the SR-71 Blackbird, i want to find out if pilot's could make out stars in daytime flights. Although i am unsure if the max altitude high enough for that.
I thought the ref might help your investigation

I'm still looking though.

This might be the sort of thing you're after. More of this info is towards the bottom of the article. Seems to be at night though. I'll keep looking for daytime info.

anacortestoday.blogspot.com...

>>I dimmed the lighting again. To my amazement, I saw a bright light outside my window. As my eyes adjusted to the view, I realized that the brilliance was the broad expanse of the Milky Way, now a gleaming stripe across the sky.

Where dark spaces in the sky had usually existed, there were now dense clusters of sparkling stars. Shooting stars flashed across the canvas every few seconds. It was like a fireworks display with no sound.>>

Originally posted by Havick007
reply to post by Deaf Alien

 

I have been trying to look up article on the SR-71 Blackbird, i want to find out if pilot's could make out stars in daytime flights. Although i am unsure if the max altitude high enough for that.
I thought the ref might help your investigation

I'm still looking though.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by ppk55]

reply to post by ppk55


Found an interesting article, i will post a small part of it and provide the link to PDF.

Can't copy and paste - im gonna have to type it. When you view the PDF in the search box type stars and it will take you to the paragraph. Very interesting!!!

www.habu.org...


Interviewer: Please give the reader a brief decription of life at Mach 3.2 and 85,000 ft

Rick Graham: Cruising at Mack 3.2 and 85,000ft gave you a tremendous view of the world. Some of the sights were unbeleivable.
To be able to see the the stars in the daytime and a dark sky above you was a strange sight to adjust to seeing. At night, the stars and planets seemed to appear as three dimensional... as if you could reach out and touch them.

For more reas the full article. as i said type stars in the PDF search box to take you to this paragraph.

Interesting comments dont you think?

reply to post by spikey


Why didn't they just film "on location" on the moon? And why are there no stars, the topic of this thread?

Any way you look at it this story seems too fishy. When astronauts do not give clear answers and say things like, "don't remember" that sends a message of confusion. Personally I think anything is possible. Astronauts could have their memories erased. Maybe they are loyal soldiers to there secret societies and have sworn their lives to secrecy. The list goes on.... Really though... NO stars????

reply to post by dplum517


If it was faked, why didn't they fake the stars? After all, every sci-fi move fakes the stars. Why not this alleged one?

reply to post by spikey


You got two stars for this nonsense?

ATS fails us, yet again....:shk:

I can't beleive the junk that soe people post....

The astronaut selection and training programme selected personnel from military men...

Neil Armstrong is a CIVILIAN!!! So is Jack Schmidt.

One criteria that was used to select all potential astronauts, was psychology testing...this is reasonable of course, but the main component of this psych testing was never revealed...and all selected flight personnel had this attribute in common.

Oh, you had to just make that up, in order to 'support" the next monstrosity:

The ability to be easily and completely hypnotised.

OH. MY. GOD!

There is no other reaction to be made, for such claptrap.

The rockets... flew and achieved low Earth orbit, carrying a crew and could return them to Earth.

BS!!! The spacecraft were TRACKED all the way to the Moon, and by the Soviets, too.

Honestly, where does this garbage come from? Bart Sibrel??

reply to post by DJW001


More control in an enclosed environment, film crews on the moon would have been too much and unnecessary aggravation.

No stars, because the roof of the studio was (in theory) jet black. An oversight of the programming. As i said, nothing is perfect, even with billions of $.

What about the article i posted above, the fact that blackbird pilots could see a black sky and stars during daytime flights?? How is that possible and yet not on the moon?

reply to post by spikey


Re your theories

How could Jodrell Bank radio telescope track apollo 11 to the moon.

www.jodrellbank.manchester.ac.uk...

Then explain the picture below this was posted by jra on another thread

One half of the picture is from the DAC video taken as Apollo crews lifted off from the Moon.

The other half is from the LRO mission. Its a match

files.abovetopsecret.com...

What do they do to your theories.