When do we get pictures of the MOON in colors ?

reply to post by Frater210


Many long time users wont touch this subject..

reply to post by DJW001

There are many more like this. To the naked eye, however, the moon is pretty much gray. You can confirm this yourself with a pair of binoculars.

You believe the moon is black and white?

Originally posted by JacquesDeMolay
They have removed the space "sky" on the panorama pictures, and all other moon pictures..

You can see they have blacked it out.

Dude,...What is your point?

You keep posting one and two liner remarks............


What are you getting at?.....Why?......explain yourself....Nobody wants to have a conversation like this.

reply to post by JacquesDeMolay

They have removed the space "sky" on the panorama pictures, and all other moon pictures..

You can see they have blacked it out.

Actually, they've added sky to a lot of the panorama photos; it's part of the process of stitching them together and making them look pleasing. The subject of interest in panoramic photos is the Moon is the Moon, not the sky. As for other pictures, no. Why would they?

reply to post by JacquesDeMolay

You believe the moon is black and white?

Did I say the Moon is black and white? All I know is what I can see with my own eyes. Have you tried it? It's fun!

This is from NASA:

Explanation: No single exposure can easily capture faint stars along with the subtle colors of the Moon. But this dramatic composite view highlights both. The mosaic digitally stitches together fifteen carefully exposed high resolution images of a bright, gibbous Moon and a representative background star field. The fascinating color differences along the lunar surface are real, though highly exaggerated, corresponding to regions with different chemical compositions.

SOURCE: apod.nasa.gov...

Oh and BTW, that website is AWESOME

Originally posted by liejunkie01

Originally posted by JacquesDeMolay
They have removed the space "sky" on the panorama pictures, and all other moon pictures..

You can see they have blacked it out.

Dude,...What is your point?

You keep posting one and two liner remarks............


What are you getting at?.....Why?......explain yourself....Nobody wants to have a conversation like this.

He is either a troll or a complete moron. Either way it is best just to ignore him.

Sadly, I have trouble capturing stars in my night pictures unless I focus on them with a high exposure and slow shutter speed.

I can capture the moon, and north star, whilst focusing on a close object, although the rest of the sky will be pitch black.

Originally posted by AnatomicWeezle
Thats what I posted earlier for the OP. The OP never replied, must have made too much sense. If you know anything about photography, you know a camera cannot focus on everything at once. and like I said earlier get your camera out and try something similar to this tonight, if your'e alowed out after the streetlights come on.

edit on 11-6-2011 by AnatomicWeezle because: what?

I saw this little tidbit and I must clarify. Depending on the focal lenght, distance to subject and aperture a picture can be sharp for a very big area. Like from 2m to infinity. It's not the focus that is the issue here. It is the exposure. Those photographs are daylight exposures. You dont get any stars in space, on earth or in the moon with that.

Originally posted by camouflaged
okay what i dont understand is, if they can take colour pictures of the moon, why is the moon footage in black and white? it was 1969 not 1940! think that same year movies like easy rider were released and the year before that 2001 a space odyssey, they were full color and on t.v their were t.v shows like scooby doo and the brady bunch... its understanable televisions back then broadcasted in black and white still but that dosent explain why they never filmed in color considering their the government and how advanced their meant to be to get to the moon yet one of the astronauts grabbed the black and white camera instead of the color one for their moon adventure, has no one wondered why that is?

Yeah... and in 1969, color cameras looked like this:

reply to post by BishopLord


Here's some color 16mm film from Apollo 16. What color would you say the surface of the Moon is?



Personally, I'd go with gray, but I suspect an interior designer would call it "cerulean."

Wait, I'm I really going to post in this thread? uh...yeah, sigh... I guess so.

I think the op is on an abnormal amount of some drug that prevents the use of higher brain functions...sorry op you seem silly.

You offer nothing in the way of evidence to back up your claims, and you demand other give you such evidence in return. How about a 50/50 debate here?

Also, just so you know, they painted out the space in the NASA photos so that you would not see the massive Alien moon bases and orbital towers. So that the multitude of alien flying craft swarming just overhead like a million locusts would be forever concealed in a shroud of black paint and grey moon dust......Is that the answer your looking for?


Oops, I mean green grass,and purple flowers...Not grey dust. What was I thinking?

Originally posted by SG-17
He is either a troll or a complete moron.

Please don't limit yourself from the possibility that he's both!

Either way it is best just to ignore him.

Agreed.

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by pshea38
Because the moon has no atmosphere, the stars should show up brilliantly
in all moon pictures.

Actually, stars from the moon would be about as bright as they are here on Earth on a clear, calm night. The Earth's atmosphere doesn't absorb or block a significant portion of the visible spectrum, so it wouldn't really effect the brightness.

As for stars being visible in the pictures, that's simply not true. Film has a limited range of brightness it can record. Areas that are too bright for the range of the film will show up as white. Areas that are too dark will show up as black. When the settings on the camera are set so that the astronauts and landscape are in the proper brightness range, the stars are too dim to capture. If you set the camera to properly capture the stars, the landscape would be far too bright and come out overexposed.

This is really simple to verify on your own, right here on Earth. On a dark night when the stars are out, find a friend and take a picture of them with the sky in the background with the flash on your camera turned on (simulating the brightness of daylight). The stars in the background won't be visible, just like in the photographs taken on the moon.

Come off it!

One example of their asserted terrestrial brilliance.
(Google awaits for more!)



You can fool some of the people, some of the time....(I could go on)

Originally posted by pshea38
Come off it!

One example of their asserted terrestrial brilliance.
(Google awaits for more!)



You can fool some of the people, some of the time....(I could go on)

A photo like that is either a composite of two photos, or a long exposure done with the camera on a tripod. The astronauts on the moon didn't have the luxury of a tripod, as the camera was strapped to their chests. Their exposure were all very short, in the 1/250th of a second range.

reply to post by nataylor


I'm surprised at you, nat; that is clearly a composite. In order to get that much detail, the camera would need to be tracking the movement of the celestial sphere, in which case the foreground subject would be blurred and rotated. (There also seems to be a telescope involved.) This is what the sky looks like when you expose the Moon properly:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8ed796767291.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by pshea38

You can fool some of the people, some of the time.

Apparently you are "some of the people." The background image was clearly taken through a telescope as a time exposure. Check out the size of the Milky Way.

These are the type of threads that make a color blind person howl at the moon.
And therin may be the answer ?

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by pshea38
Come off it!

One example of their asserted terrestrial brilliance.
(Google awaits for more!)



You can fool some of the people, some of the time....(I could go on)

A photo like that is either a composite of two photos, or a long exposure done with the camera on a tripod. The astronauts on the moon didn't have the luxury of a tripod, as the camera was strapped to their chests. Their exposure were all very short, in the 1/250th of a second range.

Nataylor and Djwoo1,

Fair enough. I was fooled by camera fakery and humbly eat my words.

In all the moon voyages, no-one thought it would be worthwhile to capture,
for posterity, images from the moon, of the moon with the firmament in all its
glorious nakedness in the backround? I won't believe that they didn't have the
necessary technology and they certainly would have had the desire. It's just that they didn't
have the opportunity. So they faked everything. It's the simplest solution to the
multitude of physical obstacles and beyond suspicious photographic evidence presented.
Radiation and the Van Allen belt is the nail in this fictions coffin.
That is not to say that NASA (which is a nazi organisation) is incapable of space travel
(black budgets and swindled moon money), just not in the manner presented.

'Mankind cannot venture beyond earths orbit until they overcome the dangers of cosmic
radiation.' Dan Golden NASA administrator in 1994, said to journalist Sheana McDonald,
25 years after the first apollo mission.

Go figure!

p.s. That looks like a photo of the moon taken at twilight Djwoo1, where it is still too
bright to see the stars.

Originally posted by pshea38
Fair enough. I was fooled by camera fakery and humbly eat my words.

In all the moon voyages, no-one thought it would be worthwhile to capture,
for posterity, images from the moon, of the moon with the firmament in all its
glorious nakedness in the backround? I won't believe that they didn't have the
necessary technology and they certainly would have had the desire. It's just that they didn't
have the opportunity. So they faked everything. It's the simplest solution to the
multitude of physical obstacles and beyond suspicious photographic evidence presented.

I would think "faking" everything in such a consistent manner would actually be the far more complicated solution, compared to actually doing it.

As for the radiation, it's a much larger problem to permanently-manned bases and multi-month trips to Mars, but it's simply not insurmountable for a couple-week trip to the moon and back.