The Sky Was Black On The Moon?

reply to post by bokonon2010


So you admit you cannot prove that Ed Mitchell said what you think he said! Them why did you say he said it?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by bokonon2010

 

So you admit you cannot prove that Ed Mitchell said what you think he said! Them why did you say he said it?

I admit that I cannot prove what someone may say about you
when you said that you know my thoughts;
or did they say about it already?

[edit on 20.8.2010 by bokonon2010]

reply to post by bokonon2010


If you say something without thinking it is true, it's a lie. Are you admitting that you're a liar?

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Just explain to me, WHAT is so special about the stars viewed from the Moon? I'll tell you - NOTHING. For most folks who live in the city, the view afforded by getting out into a desert will be 100 times better than their normal view. Getting to a high altitude, maybe 1.2 to 1.5x better. getting to a vacuum, with total protection from the Sun? Maybe 1.1 x better again.

I've checked this with three different kinds of experiments and my result closely match yours. From my elevation in the central US (~200m) Atmospheric absorption+scattering was ~25-40%.

Originally posted by nerbot
It's FAR easier to retouch flat solid black over a whole sky image than it is to create/paint/airbrush thousands of stars in exactly their correct positions...

Now you're contradicting yourself.

IF, as you say, the stars should be bright enough to show up in photographs, and the astronauts came back with pictures of a black sky, then everyone who understands light intensities and photographic exposures would be demanding to know why the sky is black instead of star-speckled in the pictures.

Instead, the people who understand such things (and there are many) have no problem with the black sky in photographs. Shouldn't that tell you something? Maybe, perhaps that you are wrong on this issue?

Originally posted by nerbot
This thread has helped me see that maybe it's not so important that the astronauts claim not to have seen stars from the lunar surface or that none of the photos taken show any as it is that there were no photos specifically taken of the stars.

Wrong again. As it's already been pointed out in this thread, They did specifically take photos of the stars, and many of the images are right here

Note that they had to use a tripod mounted camera, and the exposures were typically several minutes long.

Originally posted by nerbot
Why didn't they take A photograph of JUST stars or even some regular target but at an exposure that shows the sars? Just one! Even by accident.

I see CHRLZ has already beat me to it, but I'll amplify the point: Alan Shepard, standing in the shadow of the LM with his back to the landscape, was able to take several photographs of Venus. When the photos were developed, it looked like it hadn't shown up. However, three years ago a guy over on the Apollohoax board, in answer to a hoax-believers question, was able to use modern software to enhace the photos and find the planet.

Originally posted by Saint Exupery

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Just explain to me, WHAT is so special about the stars viewed from the Moon? I'll tell you - NOTHING. For most folks who live in the city, the view afforded by getting out into a desert will be 100 times better than their normal view. Getting to a high altitude, maybe 1.2 to 1.5x better. getting to a vacuum, with total protection from the Sun? Maybe 1.1 x better again.

I've checked this with three different kinds of experiments and my result closely match yours. From my elevation in the cenral US (~200m) Atmospheric absorption+scattering was ~25-40%.

It's wonderful to meet others on this site who are DOERs, rather than armchair experts who just Google and Youtube their way to ignorance, with the added impetus of having a bias towards a result (or helping get hits and Youtube revenue..).

As you've just verified, those figures are real - not just plucked off some website (I'm sure they can be verified easily). They are from actual OBSERVATION and EXPERIENCE. Like you, I KNOW what the effects are, simply because I do a lot of photography and astronomy, and I LOVE to get out there and observe the wonder of the skies from any location I happen to be at. I currently live in a city, but often trek into the outback. And I've been to many places at very high altitude, inc. night flights far above most of our atmosphere.


Thanks for your input, SE.

reply to post by CHRLZ


It's something anyone with working eyeballs can check for themselves.

Think about it:

- When you look straight up, you are looking through one thickness of the Earth's atmosphere.

- When you look up at a slant, you are looking through more of the Earth's atmosphere than when you look straight up.

- Using high school trigonometry, you will find that if you look up 30 degrees (one-third of the way from the horizon to straight overhead) you are looking through twice as much atmosphere as you would by looking straight up.

- Therefore, however much light the atmosphere absorbs & scatters, the effect will be 2x as strong when we look up 30 degrees when compared to looking straight up.

- If (for example) you think that the stars should be 10x brighter on the Moon, then that would mean you think that one thickness of the atmosphere only allows one-tenth of the light through, so two thicknesses would only allow one-one hundredth through (0.1 x 0.1 = 0.01).
Thus (if this figure were correct) the sun, moon & stars should be ten times brighter when they're straight overhead than they are when they are 1/3rd of the way up. OBVIOUSLY, this is not the case - they aren't even twice as bright, so we know that the atmosphere doesn't even absorb 50%.

- So really, the stars on the moon won't even be twice as bright as they are on Earth - something that you can check for yourself with no special equipment or looking anything up. The experiments I did simply used equipment to refine the average number further.

Try it for yourself!

[edit on 21-8-2010 by Saint Exupery]

reply to post by bokonon2010
reply to post by DJW001

and why there were no stars?

Click here for more information.

reply to post by DJW001


Let me rephrase this: What does the hilarious "blooper reel" you just posted prove? That NASA ran simulations? Yes, hundreds of them. That television networks ran simulations to "fill in" audio only segments? Yes, we knew that. That astronauts sometimes fall down? Yes, we've seen that for ourselves. Do you really believe this video? Aren't you the one that keeps demanding proof? Well, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this video is "true," and that all the Apollo evidence is "false."

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by DJW001

 

Let me rephrase this:

It is up to Mods to decide about your phraseology.

What does the hilarious "blooper reel" you just posted prove?

The video contains links to the interesting NASA documents which have not been reviewed in the discussion.

Well, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that this video is "true," and that all the Apollo evidence is "false."

I don't have to prove you anything. However, since you subscribed to the position that the Apollo moon landings were real, then you should provide the factual evidence and logical proofs for that.

[edit on 22.8.2010 by bokonon2010]

reply to post by bokonon2010


A great deal of evidence has been provided. If you choose to reject it all, there is no point submitting further evidence for you to reject. In the meantime, you have provided no evidence that it did not happen. What would you consider to be absolute proof that Apollo happened the way history records? Can you provide exactly the same sort of evidence that it did not?

reply to post by DJW001


and why weren't any stars ?: www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by bokonon2010


Where are the stars?
farm3.static.flickr.com...
farm4.static.flickr.com...
These were taken with an 8" LX200 telescope, which more than compensates for any atmospheric attenuation and can easily show stars in any given field in the night sky, so where are they?

reply to post by bokonon2010


Why would anyone who understands photo exposure and atmospheric effects (and lack thereof) expect to see stars?

You're big on asking other people questions, why can't you answer any yourself?

No, posting irrelevant videos is not an answer.

reply to post by ngchunter
reply to post by Saint Exupery

To establish the evidence,
we discuss confessions, oral and written records of the Apollo astronots
seeing or not seeing stars in space and on the moon,
and not observations with optical instruments or photo equipment.
Stay focused:



Your persistent attempts to change the subject and derail the thread are futile.

reply to post by bokonon2010


Wrong again, wrong as usual, wrong as ever.

With direct observation and instrumentation, we can measure that the visual brightness of stars in space & on the Moon is not more than twice as great as here on Earth.

That means that astronauts on the sunlit lunar surface will not see stars, any more than I can see stars in a lighted parking lot. However, If sources of light are isolated - say, if the lights are off in the spacecraft cabin and he has allowed his eyes to adapt, and especially if he's looking though the optics which were specifically designed to allow him to see stars, then he may see stars. It's all about context - something that you relentlessly ignore with your cherry-picked quotes.

If you ask a Moonwalker what the sky was like on the Moon, he'll say black. If you ask him what the stars looked like from the Moon, he'll talk about what they looked like on those occasions when circumstances allowed him to see stars.

This is not contradictory, no matter how much you want to make it out to be in your inexplicable zeal to denigrate the achievments of others.

Now then, why do you persist in thinking that stars should be visible for astronauts on the surface of the Moon?

Originally posted by bokonon2010
reply to post by ngchunter
reply to post by Saint Exupery

 

To establish the evidence,
we discuss confessions, oral and written records of the Apollo astronots
seeing or not seeing stars in space and on the moon,
and not observations with optical instruments or photo equipment.

If you disregard observations with optical and photographic equipment, then you've really got nothing meaningful to talk about. Seeing stars in space at points in time where you can block out stray light sources is one thing, photographing them with a camera sans tripod or seeing them by eye at points in time when you can't block out stray light from a daylit surface is quite another.

[edit on 24-8-2010 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by bokonon2010
reply to post by DJW001

 

and why weren't any stars ?: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why aren't there any stars in the pictures taken from the Space Shuttle, Mir, the ISS or any other spacecraft? Nobody on any of those ships say they could see stars on the daylight side of the Earth. But they remark on the incredible number of stars they see on dark side.

Were all those hoaxes too?

How about Bert Rutan's Spaceship one?

Here is the video of the flight. When you look out the windows once it is in space, there are no stars, and the pilots describe space as completely black. Is that a fake too?

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by bokonon2010
reply to post by ngchunter
reply to post by Saint Exupery

 

To establish the evidence,
we discuss confessions, oral and written records of the Apollo astronots
seeing or not seeing stars in space and on the moon,
and not observations with optical instruments or photo equipment.

Originally posted by ngchunter
If you disregard observations with optical and photographic equipment, then you've really got nothing meaningful to talk about.

I do not disregard such observations but separate them from the eyewitness details from the Apollo astronots.

If you interested in the analysis of optical and photo records of stars in the Apollo, present them in another thread.

Originally posted by ngchunter
Seeing stars in space at points in time where you can block out stray light sources is one thing, photographing them with a camera sans tripod or seeing them by eye at points in time when you can't block out stray light from a daylit surface is quite another.

Agreed and that is why they should be discussed separately.