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.

 

Of course there are stars!

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
According to this page, at the end, they used only Filter 1 (clear).
epoxi.umd.edu...
At the page you link to, they do show other filters used, but the files will not download for me to try and view.



That is not what I said. Quote me where I said they used no filters or retract the claim.


OK, that's not what you said, it's what I said, as the clear filter is really no filter at all. And of course it's false color. If the CCD is picking up IR or UV, how could I see it? They could have used pink for the images, but then people would have thought the heavens were pink. The CCD collected photons of unknown wavelength, and they colored them white in the final product. You still would see zilch, by eye.




posted on May, 5 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Oh how special!!!
Now be a dear and find one like that from the moon.
No excuse. If they could get there and back they also had the potential to get one just like in your OP. And better yet with a moon hopper in it too!



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by GaryN
At the page you link to, they do show other filters used, but the files will not download for me to try and view.

They downloaded for me just fine. I'm calling your BS, you're lying.

And of course it's false color.

No, it is not. You apparently don't even know what the word "color" means. THERE'S NO COLOR THERE! THEY'RE MONOCHROME IMAGES!


If the CCD is picking up IR or UV, how could I see it?

THERE'S A TON OF IMAGES OF EACH OBJECT SHOT ENTIRELY IN VISIBLE LIGHT, NO IR, NO UV, IT'S VISIBLE LIGHT! VISIBLE LIGHT!


You still would see zilch, by eye.

You are a liar. There's a ton of images there entirely in visible light, no different from images shot on earth with similar filters and telescope systems. I have proven these objects can be seen in visible light in deep space, you are wrong, and now you're just lying.
edit on 5-5-2012 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by GaryN
At the page you link to, they do show other filters used, but the files will not download for me to try and view.

They downloaded for me just fine. I'm calling your BS, you're lying.

And of course it's false color.

No, it is not. You apparently don't even know what the word "color" means. THERE'S NO COLOR THERE! THEY'RE MONOCHROME IMAGES!


If the CCD is picking up IR or UV, how could I see it?

THERE'S A TON OF IMAGES OF EACH OBJECT SHOT ENTIRELY IN VISIBLE LIGHT, NO IR, NO UV, IT'S VISIBLE LIGHT! VISIBLE LIGHT!


You still would see zilch, by eye.

You are a liar. There's a ton of images there entirely in visible light, no different from images shot on earth with similar filters and telescope systems. I have proven these objects can be seen in visible light in deep space, you are wrong, and now you're just lying.
edit on 5-5-2012 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



This should answer this delema
Kodachrome Lyrics - Simon And Garfunkel
www.lyricsfreak.com/s/simon+and+garfunkel/kodachrome_20124682.html... - Similarto Kodachrome Lyrics - Simon And Garfunkel

So mama don't take my Kodachrome away [ Lyrics from: www.lyricsfreak.... com/s/simon+and+garfunkel/kodachrome_20124682.html ] If you took all the girls ...

edit on 5/5/2012 by longjohnbritches because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Yeah, I know people that think orbiting astronauts can't see stars in, that we see them on earth because of atmospheric lensing. So, what's the scoop on this? I mean, where did this idea of not seeing stars from space come from in the first place. Was it believed before we went into outerspace?
edit on 5/5/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   


THERE'S NO COLOR THERE! THEY'RE MONOCHROME IMAGES!

Take a Valium ngchunter, and stop shouting, I'm right here!
Monochrome means shades of one colour. White is a mix of all colours. So what colour is gray? Or is that the colour of the electrons from the CCD?




I have proven these objects can be seen in visible light in deep space,


Yes, with long enough exposure and ultra-sensitive instruments. Nobody is claiming the stars don't exist. I am claiming you could not see them if you were out there with the probe/craft.




They downloaded for me just fine. I'm calling your BS, you're lying.


Can someone else try downloading this? I've downloaded lots of stuff today, these poxy images don't come down for me though. And I just tried again, still NG.
epoxi.umd.edu...

Now here are some images taken with a standard camera mounted to the main telescope of the SOFIA project, flying at 45,000 ft or so. I have offered to supply a similar camera if NASA could just duct-tape it somewhere on the ISS pointing out into space and see what it captures. The stars, and comets, should be even clearer from way up there, right?
www.musc.edu...
www.musc.edu...
And the bottom left image here shows what the main, IR SOFIA scope sees. Yes, it's monochrome.
mips.as.arizona.edu...



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GaryN



THERE'S NO COLOR THERE! THEY'RE MONOCHROME IMAGES!

Take a Valium ngchunter, and stop shouting, I'm right here!
Monochrome means shades of one colour. White is a mix of all colours. So what colour is gray? Or is that the colour of the electrons from the CCD?




I have proven these objects can be seen in visible light in deep space,


Yes, with long enough exposure and ultra-sensitive instruments. Nobody is claiming the stars don't exist. I am claiming you could not see them if you were out there with the probe/craft.




They downloaded for me just fine. I'm calling your BS, you're lying.


Can someone else try downloading this? I've downloaded lots of stuff today, these poxy images don't come down for me though. And I just tried again, still NG.
epoxi.umd.edu...

Now here are some images taken with a standard camera mounted to the main telescope of the SOFIA project, flying at 45,000 ft or so. I have offered to supply a similar camera if NASA could just duct-tape it somewhere on the ISS pointing out into space and see what it captures. The stars, and comets, should be even clearer from way up there, right?
www.musc.edu...
www.musc.edu...
And the bottom left image here shows what the main, IR SOFIA scope sees. Yes, it's monochrome.
mips.as.arizona.edu...

Dudes, OF COURSE THERE are STARS.
Bickering about photographic technology is not gonna change that.
But figuring why the American taxpayer has no clear legible photos of a man on the MOON with a discernable EARTH in the background would be ground breaking.
What would you call it on the Moon?? REGOLITH breaking lol
ljb



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
You mean like the picture of Gene holding the flag on the moon with earth on the background? Or what?



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
You mean like the picture of Gene holding the flag on the moon with earth on the background? Or what?

Hi psy,
If you are asking me, no not that one of the earth that looks like a hunk of gouda cheese.
I was hoping for a disenable one of the earth that cooler people could get a true fix on.
doubtfully ljb



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 




Why bother? You'll just come up with some other weak excuse why it's not good enough (as if your standards mattered at all).

Tell you what - Why don't you do some research for a change, and tell us how high above the horizon the Earth was at each of the Apollo landing sites. Then you can tell us whether or not it was realistic to expect a photograph of an in-focus astronaut with an in-focus Earth in the background to have been taken.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 




Why bother? You'll just come up with some other weak excuse why it's not good enough (as if your standards mattered at all).

Tell you what - Why don't you do some research for a change, and tell us how high above the horizon the Earth was at each of the Apollo landing sites. Then you can tell us whether or not it was realistic to expect a photograph of an in-focus astronaut with an in-focus Earth in the background to have been taken.


Hi sai,

Here is a little of what it is all about.
You got 3 stars for a picture that does not apply.LAMO
Should I trust any of you with your photos. I think not.


Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts - Similarto Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor meaning to change the criterion (goal) of a process or competition while still in progress, in such a ...
=================================================================================

Don't dodge the fact that there is no clear picture of earth taken by a man on the MOON.
And you do know that. You also know that it is on purpose.
Why you ask? Because it would be very, very difficult to fake.
reason alone ljb


jra

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Don't dodge the fact that there is no clear picture of earth taken by a man on the MOON.
And you do know that. You also know that it is on purpose.
Why you ask? Because it would be very, very difficult to fake.
reason alone ljb


Why, according to you, would it be "very very difficult"? A lot of HB's seem to think faking the long segments of uncut video, showing astronauts in a 1/6th gravity, vacuum environment is doable. Why would inserting an image of the Earth be any harder than all of that?

The main reason why you rarely see images of the Earth from the Lunar surface is because the Earth is always high in the Lunar sky. It's not easy for the astronaut to behind himself in the bulky spacesuit to get a photo of it. And it's even more difficult to get another astronaut into that frame, depending on your location on the Moon and how high up the Earth is.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Don't dodge the fact that there is no clear picture of earth taken by a man on the MOON.
And you do know that. You also know that it is on purpose.
Why you ask? Because it would be very, very difficult to fake.
reason alone ljb


Why, according to you, would it be "very very difficult"? A lot of HB's seem to think faking the long segments of uncut video, showing astronauts in a 1/6th gravity, vacuum environment is doable. Why would inserting an image of the Earth be any harder than all of that?

The main reason why you rarely see images of the Earth from the Lunar surface is because the Earth is always high in the Lunar sky. It's not easy for the astronaut to behind himself in the bulky spacesuit to get a photo of it. And it's even more difficult to get another astronaut into that frame, depending on your location on the Moon and how high up the Earth is.


Well. according to me the fact that it could be done and wasn't makes it all gouda cheese to me. You see if the earth was clear it could be checked for accuracy. Like distance , topography, declination and orientation.
It would be to hard to fake. Besides the sheeple don't care.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Oh how special!!!
Now be a dear and find one like that from the moon.
No excuse. If they could get there and back they also had the potential to get one just like in your OP. And better yet with a moon hopper in it too!


NO your SPECIAL

Obviously photgraphic exposure is to technical for you so why dont you toddle off and find something you UNDERSTAND!

OH and before anymore smartass comments check camera specs

edit on 6-5-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Oh how special!!!
Now be a dear and find one like that from the moon.
No excuse. If they could get there and back they also had the potential to get one just like in your OP. And better yet with a moon hopper in it too!


NO your SPECIAL

Obviously photgraphic exposure is to technical for you so why dont you toddle off and find something you UNDERSTAND!

OH and before anymore smartass comments check camera specs

edit on 6-5-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



Any one that thinks man went all, all, all, all the way, would certainly bring back some photos of home sweet home. Especially since they were so readily available with what, SIX missions. Fail, fraud.
Smart asses are a dime a dozen. If there are two concerned here you can only photograph the real one LOL
PS post it up! LOL


jra

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
Well. according to me the fact that it could be done and wasn't makes it all gouda cheese to me.


But it was done. There are photos of the Earth (out of focus, but still the Earth) from Apollo 17. There are also photos of a crescent Earth taken on Apollo 14, which also contain Venus, albeit very faint. And a few on Apollo 11 that are fairly clear.

But you still don't seem to get the fact that it's harder for an astronaut in a bulky suit to tilt backwards so he can aim the camera up into the Lunar sky. It's not worth falling on your back to get a shot of the Earth.


You see if the earth was clear it could be checked for accuracy. Like distance , topography, declination and orientation.


What about all the photos from Lunar orbit that show the Earth? Some people have used those photos and matched up the cloud patterns to weather satellites images taken around the same time and they all match up.
edit on 6-5-2012 by jra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


LOOK I am tired of playing wack a mole with you gophers.
Close your eyes softly inhale aaah.
See I am harmless.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


This is a flat-out lie:


Don't dodge the fact that there is no clear picture of earth taken by a man on the MOON.


A lie, or just an incredibly ignorant statement, made by a person who hasn't properly done his/her research.

upload.wikimedia.org...

Now, either run along and learn some facts, or stay and continue to look foolish.



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


This is a flat-out lie:


Don't dodge the fact that there is no clear picture of earth taken by a man on the MOON.


A lie, or just an incredibly ignorant statement, made by a person who hasn't properly done his/her research.

upload.wikimedia.org...

Now, either run along and learn some facts, or stay and continue to look foolish.


Where the heck is my fly swatter? Bird feeder empty. good.
Now back to woik. I wouldn't trust you to pop that link if you promised me free quail burgers for life. LOL ljb


jra

posted on May, 6 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
LOOK I am tired of playing wack a mole with you gophers.


So basically what you're saying is that you don't wish to address the evidence that's out there.

You go on and on for the entire page about how you can't find a photo of the Earth from the Moon, but when they've been shown to you. You're too tired to continue the discussion... I believe this is generally what one would refer to as a "cop out". Good job!




new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join