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.
You will notice, I am on a conspiracy website. That's because I never accept what people tell me without looking deeper for myself...
Knowing what I do, Katirai does have a point, but he's ultimately wrong, because his point has already been disproven by more reliable observations (like those I've been referring to... spectral-line classification and whatnot).
Originally posted by wildespace
reply to post by GaryN
You can see the Andromeda galaxy, which is 2.5 million light years away, with the naked eye (or at least small binoculars if you're in a light-polluted area). It's not the distance that's the factor, but the angular resolution. Big things far away can be seen just as easily as small things nearby. In fact, galaxies that are millions of light years away are so enormous that they appear bigger than, say, the Apollo descent stages on the Moon.
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by GaryN
I'm still amazed that people don't understand why there were no stars in the Apollo mission photos. Here's a site that explains it well: Why The Apollo Moon Pictures Have No Stars.
And anyway, I fail to understand the significance of the absence of stars on the Moon to the reliability of stellar measurements. Why does the absence of stars seen from the Moon indicate that we're wrong about their nature and distance?
Also, I've given you "a couple statements to disprove him." You just seem to be overlooking them - including my answer to your objection to spectral-line classification due to redshifting. If you want me to restate my objections and exactly why they disprove Katirai, I will (afterall, I am, obviously, a rather patient person), but my previous posts should really be able to speak for themselves.
Originally posted by GaryN
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by GaryN
I'm still amazed that people don't understand why there were no stars in the Apollo mission photos. Here's a site that explains it well: Why The Apollo Moon Pictures Have No Stars.
And anyway, I fail to understand the significance of the absence of stars on the Moon to the reliability of stellar measurements. Why does the absence of stars seen from the Moon indicate that we're wrong about their nature and distance?
Also, I've given you "a couple statements to disprove him." You just seem to be overlooking them - including my answer to your objection to spectral-line classification due to redshifting. If you want me to restate my objections and exactly why they disprove Katirai, I will (afterall, I am, obviously, a rather patient person), but my previous posts should really be able to speak for themselves.
Well, thanks for your patience CLPrime, and you will need it if I am to answer on your spectral-line points, that is new to me and would take me a while to get up to speed. And yes, this is getting away from addressing Katirai's
contentions. The no stars issue should probably be moved to an existing thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I am also collecting all the info I can about the space mission photography, the history, equipment, film, and exposure settings. I'm not convinced, yet, about the inability to image the stars because of the bright foreground, there are images from Gemini EVAs with very little illumination of the forground, and still no stars in the deep black of space. Plus, all they would have to do is move into the shadow of the capsule and look into space. That has never been done, on and mission, even though they have had some pretty fast film with them.
I'll persue that on the other thread if you like, and get back to distances, just give me some time to catch up on what you are already obviously familiar with.
Oh, and I am NOT a moon landing hoax proponent, BTW. That IS nonsense.
Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by wildespace
There are no images of the stars from any of the Apollo missions,or from the ISS. Doesn't it at least make you wonder?
Originally posted by wildespace
Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by wildespace
There are no images of the stars from any of the Apollo missions,or from the ISS. Doesn't it at least make you wonder?
No, because I know that stars are very dim and require a long exposure (or specialized light-sensitive camera) to capture. On the Moon, ISS or the Shuttle, surfaces are brightly lit by the Sun, and the camera has to use a short exposure. I imagine that the Apollo guys were never in complete darkness, there must have been some lights illuminating the capsule!
Next time you're out at night and the sky is clear, stand next to a street light and try to spot any stars.
en.wikipedia.org...edit on 1-3-2011 by wildespace because: (no reason given)
You post some of the strangest statements I ever seen on the Internet.
No, because I know that stars are very dim and require a long exposure (or specialized light-sensitive camera) to capture.
Originally posted by GaryN
So you are saying you can not see stars by eye? That's what I've been saying!
Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by CLPrime
Just wondering if you had read through all of Bahram Katirais online book? Maybe we could discuss each of his proposals in order, see how our views compare? I'm nowhere near finishing it yet, but so far it seems to make sense, though proof is another matter.
For anyone who hasn't read it, it is available again at
astronomyinformation.org...
Originally posted by CLPrime
Okay, here's one objection. Planets and other "rocky" objects do not emit light in specific parts of the spectrum. We can tell what stars are made of by their spectral lines...each gas gives off light in specific parts of the EM spectrum, and this is how we know what stars and other gaseous regions are made up of. Planets, asteroids, and comets emit light in noticeably different regions. Most notably, they have no hydrogen signatures, which are dominant among stars. This means, we always know what we're looking at. There is no possible way to confuse a star with a planet or other rocky object, or vice versa.edit on 25-2-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)
I've been busy working on, of all things, a sermon, so I actually only skimmed the first couple pages. I will attempt to read it, though, for the sake of going over it point-by-point, if you want.
If galaxies are actually planetary systems, then some of the visible galaxies must be very close to the Earth and have relatively small dimensions. In this case, we should be able to detect the orbital motion of the planets in these galaxies. In other words, the galaxies as a whole must be rotating, and the rotation must be detectable. Was such rotation ever discovered? The answer is yes. In 1899, a Welsh astronomer, Isaac Roberts, discovered that the Andromeda galaxy was rotating.1 The detection of the rotation of the galaxy within a relatively short period of time proves that the galaxy is relatively small. If the galaxy were as huge as some have claimed, it would take hundreds of millions of years to make one rotation and it would be impossible for the photographs to show its rotation in such a relatively short period of time. Later, the reputable astronomer, Adrian van Maanen also announced that he detected the rotation of several galaxies2 and confirmed Roberts’ findings3. Enter Joel Stebbins, who had studied the spectroscopic data on several spirals (including Andromeda), and came to the same conclusion that they were indeed rotating.4 In 1909, an English astronomer, William Huggins, announced that his studies showed that the Andromeda nebula was a planetary system5, similar to our solar system.6 Unfortunately, some prominent astronomers brushed aside these findings, because it did not fit their notion of the sizes and distances of the galaxies. They claimed that the detection of the rotation was impossible, because the detection of the rotation of such large bodies would require rotational velocities far in excess of the speed of light. Since the prominent astronomers could not tolerate a conflict with their ideas about the distances and sizes of the galaxies, one by one they rejected various findings by Roberts, Maanen and others.
Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by mnemeth1
Would it scare you too much if, after careful consideration, I told you that, for the most part, I agree with you?