No Stars seen from Space?

Originally posted by DJW001
Repeat them enough and people will believe them without question. It's called "brainwashing."

If it's good enough for the PTB, it's good enough for me

However in the early days after Apollo, NASA was quite positive about 'No Stars" That is why famous astronomer Sir Patrick Moore asked the astronauts that question, It was common knowledge back then that NASA said no stars.

It is easy to say now they sing a different tune... but don't forget Alan Bean's famous line

RH: The reporter asked specifically - the correspondent asked Alan Bean: "What did space look like from the lunar surface?"

"You know it's always puzzled me". He said: "It resembled black, patent-leather shoes."

So it may me a mantra to you, but I hate seeing history rewritten to suit the needs of the few

reply to post by zorgon

RH: The reporter asked specifically - the correspondent asked Alan Bean: "What did space look like from the lunar surface?"

"You know it's always puzzled me". He said: "It resembled black, patent-leather shoes."

So the sky is black on the Moon, no-one ever said it wasn't. Was he asked whether he could see stars on the night side? Or on the day side if he shielded his eyes? No-one is re-writing history but you. You continue to claim that "NASA said no stars," but just can't find a quotation that actually backs that assertion. Yes, astronauts talk about the sky being black, but then they'll turn around and talk about the sky being filled with stars on the night side. It depends on what they're being asked, or what they think is important at the time. Please provide some evidence for your "mantra."

The real lunar astronomy. They are using an ASA 16,000 film,
treated to increase UV sensitivity, long exposures, and
a filter. So, do you think you will see stars with the naked eye?
www3.telus.net...
Here is the authors explanation of how he got the files, and what
he had to do to extract the info.
In Search of Ancient Astronomy Images
www3.telus.net...

reply to post by zorgon


Didn't you recognize that??? That was the door from the Twilight Zone!

Originally posted by darkraver
the main problem is: are any stars visible from moon surface...
right?
I believe they are,but then again NASA claims they aren't
astronauts officialy claimed they aren't

nobody cared to ask someone like Mitchell yet for an opinion?

it's not about the camera settings but all about what does a human astronaut really see up there

Where did you hear that NASA claims the stars can not be seen
form the moon?? I believe they are correct, as without an atmosphere
the light is not spread, it will remain as a pinpont so small that it
can not be seen. Even our nearest star could not be seen without
an atmosphere, it would be the same as seeing a light the size of
a pinhead at the distance of the moon.
I have only found 1 image which shows what look like stars, and that
was from the ISS, but looking closer, maybe they are ufos?

farm6.static.flickr.com...

Originally posted by Moose318
Didn't you recognize that??? That was the door from the Twilight Zone!

Shhhh Why you think I said

"OH and BTW just ignore the door shaped UFO zipping by.... this post is about the stars " in the OP

reply to post by zorgon


Yeah I read it...But It is like the red button you are not supposed to push in the looney toons cartoons. I just couldn't help myself.

reply to post by zorgon

So... you have been in space to test this theory of yours? If ONLY longitudinal waves travel in space, then how do the other waves GET to the Hubble so it can use its diffraction grating? Better rethink your 'science' eh?

We have to try and understand light, first, which many have tried of course. Light from a point source will propagate as a spherical, expanding shell. It seems that out atmosphere acts as a focusing grating, making stars visible to the unaided eye on earth. In space they use a sighting device which lets them see stars at one very narrow frequency, a hydrogen emission UV. The video cameras showing the stars are highly UV sensitive too.
Hubble is a fancy photomultiplier more than anything, complete with gratings, filters, CCDs. It can't actually 'see' very far at all, not even to our nearest star.
If you want to TRY and understand light, or other EM propagation, have a look at this:
blazelabs.com...

Originally posted by darkraver

Originally posted by JimOberg
Take a survey of sports news photographs of brightly-lit night games -- baseball, football, whatever -- that also show a portion of the night sky. Even on clear nights, with stars out, the photos will not show stars.

Try this at home.

Heck, go rent 'Field of Dreams' and watch the night scenes when the field lights are on. No stars.

WTF has this got to do with the topic?

we ARE talking about non atmosphere conditions here, are we not?

I am so confused. Is this not in the UFO section? What was that object that cruised through the video near the end anyway?

NASA doesn't like showing you the background in its shots due, I believe, to the intrusions.

Originally posted by JimOberg
As I wrote earlier, the LM had a sextant for lunar surface star marks, and Apollo-16 carried a UV telescope that was set up in the LM's shadow and got excellent views of Earth and the surrounding stars. So who says
you can't ever see stars in space? Just not when staring at the sun.

Some info on the FUVC camera. It needed a long exposure to pick up objects other than the Earth, and could only see in the far UV. Yo can not see stars from space with a regular camera, you need a UV sensitive film (ASA 16,000) and up to 30 minutes exposure to see even large, relatively close Galaxies.
www.myspacemuseum.com...
UV images of Earth and Moon from the orbiter:
www.lpi.usra.edu...
Images from the FUVC taken from the Moon. Notice the exposure times.
www3.telus.net...

reply to post by GaryN

Some info on the FUVC camera. It needed a long exposure to pick up objects other than the Earth, and could only see in the far UV. Yo can not see stars from space with a regular camera, you need a UV sensitive film (ASA 16,000) and up to 30 minutes exposure to see even large, relatively close Galaxies.
www.myspacemuseum.com...
UV images of Earth and Moon from the orbiter:
www.lpi.usra.edu...
Images from the FUVC taken from the Moon. Notice the exposure times.
www3.telus.net...

What are these, then?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d8aa305a2898.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/761762bcfe8a.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/32cd0eaf719c.jpg[/atsimg]
Apollo 17 zodiacal light photography.

reply to post by DJW001

What are these, then?

Geez, no idea! That was the high speed UV sensitive film in the Nikon, not from the FUVC. There were a lot of unexplained things on some Apollo UV shots, someone told me they were sensitive to cosmic rays that would leave dots or streaks, but I saw one that looked like a spinning top shape. Also, many of the UV images don't seem to be available, I can't find the ones of the Suns corona for instance.
I think they saw a lot of stuff up there they couldn't explain, kind of like those things in the original post image, which were from a very UV sensitive video camera. There are also a lot of things seen on cameras that have the Nightshot mode, which is also UV. If you want to see in the far UV, you need a 'thinned back' CCD, which are expensive, and they want to know why you need it. Hmm.

reply to post by GaryN

Geez, no idea! That was the high speed UV sensitive film in the Nikon, not from the FUVC.

Image Collection: 35mm Nikon
Mission: 17
Magazine: 159
Magazine Letter: XX
Revolution: io
Lens Focal Length: 55 mm
Description: Zodiacal Light
Film Type: 2485
Film Width: 35 mm
Film Color: black & white

Now you know. Any ideas?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by GaryN

 

Geez, no idea! That was the high speed UV sensitive film in the Nikon, not from the FUVC.

Image Collection: 35mm Nikon
Mission: 17
Magazine: 159
Magazine Letter: XX
Revolution: io
Lens Focal Length: 55 mm
Description: Zodiacal Light
Film Type: 2485
Film Width: 35 mm
Film Color: black & white

Now you know. Any ideas?

It was the same film, the 2485, but the smaller film format. The Hasselblad is 70mm, had a larger lense so it
would have been able to pick up more light, but otherwise sensitive to the same wavelengths.

Originally posted by GaryN



It was the same film, the 2485, but the smaller film format. The Hasselblad is 70mm, had a larger lense so it would have been able to pick up more light, but otherwise sensitive to the same wavelengths.

Underlined what do you mean

At least one other person agrees:
Did You Know That Stars are Not Visible From Space?
scienceray.com...
Baloon astronomy. Even in daylight, with a lens hood you should be able to see
the stars once you are bove most of the Earths atmosphere.
www.opticsinfobase.org...
“When the sunlight comes through the blackness of space, it’s black. I didn’t say it’s dark, I said black. So black you can’t even conceive how black it is in your mind. The sunlight doesn’t strike on anything, so all you see is black.” ~ Gene Cernan Apollo 17
“The sky is black, you know,” “It’s a very dark sky.” ~ Neil Armstrong
"We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the moon by eye without looking through the optics” ~ Neil Armstrong. Apollo 11

reply to post by GaryN

"We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the moon by eye without looking through the optics” ~ Neil Armstrong. Apollo 11

Because their eyes were not dark adapted.

reply to post by DJW001


At my home one night it was like looking up at the galaxys..i dont think that i have ever seen that many stars in my life..The next time i looked up the sky looked normal and now there are just a few stars in the sky..On a clear night..Something very odd is going on here..Cant exlain it and please dont say the earth is rotateing cause the sky here for 8 years has been the same until now

reply to post by eeks4


Hey i got spell checker again..yea...man my computer is so so messed up .

Originally posted by DJW001
What are these, then?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d8aa305a2898.jpg[/atsimg]

An Invasion of Rods... most likely. Nice catch