When do we get pictures of the MOON in colors ?

Originally posted by nataylor

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.

Are you really not the least bit suspicious of anything?
Like the 9/11 Official government story adherents.
Red flag, surely?

Didn't shuttle astronauts complain of adverse radiation effects recently, only 200 miles up?
And radiation only gets hairy 800 miles up at the van allen belt.



Any comments?

reply to post by pshea38

If you're going to claim that the "crater fields are identical," the least you can do is superimpose the images over one another so we can compare them properly. It's perfectly obvious from the side-by-side comparison that they are not identical.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by pshea38

 

If you're going to claim that the "crater fields are identical," the least you can do is superimpose the images over one another so we can compare them properly. It's perfectly obvious from the side-by-side comparison that they are not identical.

It is perfectly obvious that the above and below screenshot comparisons are way too close
for any comfort whatsoever.
Why must you take the side of most resistence?

They aren't the same and why must you spout these lies that have all been debunked about a million times here and other places? Could you just come up with something original?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
They aren't the same and why must you spout these lies that have all been debunked about a million times here and other places? Could you just come up with something original?

There is nothing original under the sun.
Actually Your Name is a good description for the Moon Fakery Fiasco (MFF) ---- Psyk-Oops!
Is that original?
I'm not sure.
It's night here now.

reply to post by pshea38

It is perfectly obvious that the above and below screenshot comparisons are way too close
for any comfort whatsoever.

In other words, you refuse to superimpose them because you know for a fact that they are not identical as you claimed, and are now back pedalling. Just superimpose them and we can all be more comfortable. (Incidentally, do you know the real story behind that crater field?)

Earth-rise from the Japanese "Kaguya" probe:


And Earth-set:


For both of the above vids, be sure to select 1080p resolution and full screen.

Here's a video of the Moon passing in front of the Earth as seen by the EPOXI probe.


My own color photograph of the Moon, taken through a 8" telescope on June 10, 2011:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/052798db5016.jpg[/atsimg]

The Moon is GRAY.

Deal with it.

I will try to make this as simple and straight-forward as possible.

If you have a camera that is correctly set to photograph sun-lit objects, then you will never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never,
EVER
see stars in the photograph.

Here is a really wonderful tutorial on how to photograph stars without the use of a telescope. Note that he always uses high sensitivity (ISO 1200 or higher), open aperture (f/2 to f/4) and very long exposures (10 - 30 seconds) on a tripod-mounted camera with a timer.

"But wait!" you say, "On the Moon there is no atmosphere to block the starlight. Would that not make them brighter and therefore easier to photograph?" Well, how much brighter would the stars be? Pick a number: Let's say 10 times brighter. In that case, get the same exposures as we see in the tutorial, we would still need the high sensitivity (ISO 1200 or higher), open aperture (f/2 to f/4) and long exposures (though 10-times shorter, say 1 - 3 seconds) on a tripod-mounted camera with a timer.

The Apollo astronauts were well versed in daylight photography. Their Hasselblad cameras had no tripod and no timer. They used ISO 160 film (for its fine grain and high resolution) and standard daylight settings: f/8 to f/16 and 1/250th of a second shutter speed. Such settings have no chance at all of imaging stars, no matter where you are.

Oh, btw, with a simple experiment that requires no special equipment, you can verify with your own eyes that the our atmosphere blocks less than half the light from the stars. When you look straight up, you are [naturally] looking through "one thickness" of the Earth's atmosphere. If you look up at a slant, you are looking through a greater thickness of the Earth atmosphere. Using a little trig, we can calculate that when we look up at a 30-degree angle (1/3 of the way from the horizon to the zenith straight overhead), we are looking through "two thicknesses" of the Earth's atmosphere.

Therefore, the difference between looking 30-degrees up and looking at the zenith is the same difference as looking through "one thickness" and looking through no atmosphere at all.

So...

Go look at the Sun, Moon & stars when they are 1/3rd of the way up the sky (either rising or setting). Then look at them when they are straight overhead. You will find that they are less than twice as bright; therefore the atmosphere blocks less than half their light.

All that said, the Apollo 16 astronauts did take over a hundred dedicated photographs of the stars from the lunar surface using a special ultraviolet camera. It was tripod mounted and aimed by the astronauts. The shutter was remotely operated from Earth. Here are some of the pictures. Note that all of the exposures are very long - several seconds to several minutes for very faint objects - just what you would expect for stellar photography!

Still waiting for the day we get High Definition color pictures of the moon that i know should exist, not those we have been looking at for so many years..

And a telescope picture and you are quick to live in a bliss, i understand...

"Still waiting for the day we get High Definition color pictures of the moon that i wish existed, not those that don't conform to my wishes and/or reinforce my beliefs.."

Fixed that for you.

Originally posted by Anunakki
And a telescope picture and you are quick to live in a bliss, i understand...

I don't. Two sentence fragments joined together do not make one complete sentence.

Just so you know. A big grey dusty rock, is going to look grey in color or black and white.

In other words, you aren't missing much.... They have color pictures of mars though. Those are pretty cool.