I was once able to see Jupiter 20 min past sunrise with my eyes.
It's easy if you find the object early in the morning when it's still dark and keep a tab on it as the day breaks. Finding it in daytime is hard since there is no reference point to focus your eyes to infinity.
2) What are the exposures? If the Panasonic is in automatic mode, why should we believe these are shutter speeds equivalent to Apollo's (1/125th, 1/250th)? Use those settings and try again.
3) Venus is not a star! Not even close!
4) Your magazine article says this star was seen "shortly before sunrise." Uh... daytime? Settings?
5) Apollo astronauts have stated that with difficulty, stars could be seen.
lol, I love you, Jarrah. They ask you to shoot a star in daylight, so you shoot the brightest planet in the sky at dusk? A streetlight is orders of magnitude less bright than full sun.
(And while we're on the subject, Sirius is the brightest star.)
This isn't even close to suggesting that lots of stars hundreds or thousands of times as dim as Venus should have showed up in lighting conditions a thousand times more bright.
In the BBC book 'Tomorrow's World' (1970) page 130, it says of future tasks planned for the J series Apollo 15-17: "There will also be a mapping camera on board taking high-quality shots of the surface simultaneously with pictures of the positions of the stars relative to the camera. Through the correlation of these two pictures cartographers will learn the exact location and dimensions of the area mapped." I ask NASA was this done or not? Such pictures would prove the a/nots moon location.
I think you're talking about the Metric photography. Apparently, one of those metric shots showed a piece of wood duct-taped to a piece of glass. No joke. AS15-M-0113.
It's not that. These simultaneous star and moon-surface shots were announced by NASA but never carried out. Why? Because to fake a star canopy is almost impossible: if ONE star is 1mm out on a photo of a fake canopy any astronomer could easily spot this by comparing with a genuine photo. This is the reason why NO stars/planets ever appear on NASA images. The announced task was abandoned because it was to difficult to fake. Your vid shows the absence of stars/planets is just not believable.
Oh you mean that glowing globe on a blacked-out background with AST satellite photo transparencies of Earth stuck on it, dangling from wires on the fake-Moon film-set!
The important question is WHY did NASA cancel the publicly announced Apollo task of photographing the Moon's star canopy?
NASA reneged and didn't do it because a star canopy is impossible to fake as to position and brightness of thousands of stars!
Any astronomer comparing Earth telescope pics would spot a fake star.5mm out!
Sergemck, a Schmidt camera (a telescope with a very wide field of view) was used on the lunar surface during Apollo 16 (f/1.0 Schmidt camera with 7.5 cm aperture). Its pictures can be consulted to see if they are out of place:
"178 frames were obtained, including data on the airglow and polar auroral zones of Earth and the geocorona, and over 550 stars, nebulae or galaxies."
So, a Surveyor probe (operated from 1966-1968) landed on the Moon in April 1972, at the time and location of the manned Apollo 16, it then took 178 pictures using the Apollo Schmidt Telescope and then returned its film canister of pictures to the Earth?
Can you show me any form of evidence for this modified unmanned Surveyor probe that landed on the Moon in April 1972?
Picture AS-16-114-18439 of the Apollo 16 Schmidt Telescope, also shows an astronaut silhouetted in the background.
A small item like a film cartridge would be no problem to return to Earth: a tiny rocket, guidance thrusters, small parachute and location beacon would do it.
I am talking about the pics the CAMERA TOOK, not the fake Moon-set still picture of the camera itself! There are no pics of a/nots, tracks or equipment in the camera's pics.
The flat featureless plain seen in the Far UV's pics does not look like the purported A16 site, indicating that it may not have landed where NASA wanted it to.
Maybe they 'reneged', because they realized with the weight of the equipment would be better spent elsewhere, as photos of the stars in visible light have practically no scientific value. What DID have scientific value was Ultraviolet pictures of stars, which they took on Apollo 16 with the specially designed Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph designed by Dr. Carruthers. This data, which was new at the time, was confirmed by later probes and satellites.
@WhiteJarrah What about the photographs taken from the Moon by the Apollo 16 crew, of the stars in ultra-violet; the magnitudes of which (in the UV portion of the spectrum) have since been verified by later, orbiting UV scopes?
And what about the UV shot they took of the Earth, showing stars in the background - in an alignment which can be confirmed using software like Celestia, that proves the picture was taken at the precise date, time AND LOCATION stated in the mission log?
"well they can take many pictures of astronaut-like dude planting flag on some desert also you see , and that would be completly ridiculous right ?"
It's slightly different photographing the first few flags ever being planted on the moon, than stars. Plus photographing stars is very difficult, even with a digital camera, you set the shutter speed to what you think might work, wait 30 seconds, and hope the photo came out. And they obviously faked the UV photos perfectly according to you.
I don't understand this comment. They're going to take the photograph just to have it? They can take far better pictures of the stars from earth with observatories, they don't want to photograph it with a medium format camera, it would be pointless.
"no , the details include every surface features details , every single craters , with their shadows , every hills with their shadows , your own shadow eventually , well a bunch of detail that you didn't see from far away , make that overall the surface will be darker from the ground."
Yes I understand your point, but you're forgetting that the bright areas will also be more intense, and you assume there was more dark than bright where they landed.
"nasa do like taking pictures from stars heh ? indeed , and telescope on the moon would have been a blast."
So what you're saying is the Apollo astronauts should have brought the Hubble space telescope with them on the moon missions? Or are you saying a $500 medium format camera is on par with Hubble? I guess you know more than NASA, you should have told them it's cheaper to launch medium format cameras into space.
"i mean , the tracking argument killed (and thus allowing longuer exposure without extreme need for tracking , at least is what some nasa fanboys seems to think for the uv telescope !"
Yeah I looked it up, they had 20 second exposures on the UV camera, so it would have been possible to use a standard tripod. Although none of the moon hoax believers have explained WHY they would want to photograph the stars from the moon with a medium format film camera.
"i mean , the tracking argument killed (and thus allowing longuer exposure without extreme need for tracking , at least is what some nasa fanboys seems to think for the uv telescope !"
Yeah I looked it up, they had 20 second exposures on the UV camera, so it would have been possible to use a standard tripod. Although none of the moon hoax believers have explained WHY they would want to photograph the stars from the moon with a medium format film camera.
"Its a suprise the UV telesope never managed to image some of the venting gases from the mountains that surrounded Apollo 16."
So that's all NASA would have needed to convince you? You wouldn't have claimed they were faked/taken by a robot? If only they knew that in the 1960s this whole moon hoax theory wouldn't be around!
"NASA are interested in and follow a policy of studying and imageing stars eh?
Amazing.
Don't tell zakabog."
Yeah... go to NASA with a Hasselblad camera and some film and tell them to invest in your high tech telescope. Tell them it's as good as Hubble for a fraction of the price.
How about I drag Neil Armstrong and Phil Plait to NASA, get them to repeat what they've said about seeing stars from the Moon WITH THE HUMAN EYE and see if NASA can tell whose correct?
"How about I drag Neil Armstrong and Phil Plait to NASA, get them to repeat what they've said about seeing stars from the Moon WITH THE HUMAN EYE and see if NASA can tell whose correct?"
Or you could wait till the next moon mission and see what they say? One of them is wrong (most likely Phil Plait since he didn't go to the moon) but that doesn't prove anything, comment on photographic evidence, not observations of people. People forget but a photo is straightforward evidence.
And how about the Apollo video cameras when they weren't being broke by Mr Bean and beaming back the shittiest b+w and then crappy colour pictures from Apollo 11 and 14.
When the rover camera was being panned across the sky during the last three trips to the Moon.
Would those millions of unblinking, unaffected by miles and miles of thick diffusing atmosphere, STARS have shown up in the tv footage.
Hours and hours( as smector the deflector would say) of footage we are talking about.
"And how about the Apollo video cameras when they weren't being broke by Mr Bean and beaming back the shittiest b+w and then crappy colour pictures from Apollo 11 and 14."
What about them?
"Would those millions of unblinking, unaffected by miles and miles of thick diffusing atmosphere, STARS have shown up in the tv footage."
Not likely, the shutter speed was too high. The shutter would need to be way down to capture the faint starlight, but then everything would be a big white blur.
"no , because of the overall terrain details , showing more darker area ."
You're crazy. If you look at the brightest area on the moon, from 2' away, it's going to be brighter than if you observed it from earth. You have to know the light is WAY more intense and less scattered 2' away than if you were on earth.
"you mean , they didn't have tracking device on the alleged apollo 16 uv telescope ?"
Because a UV telescope is an entirely different device than a medium format film camera. They probably don't need as long an exposure speed as they would on a film camera.
"im talking about the fact , that darker area (will NOT show much from a distance) while they will show when you are closer , because brighter area always seems bigger than darker area , so from a large distance , these darker area are kinda 'eaten' by the brighter area."
Okay, so if they were in a big bright area it'd be brighter compared to if they viewed it from earth (since they're closer.)
"no , the darker area will show up , so the brighter area will be less bright overall , because you will be able to see details , the overall sirface will appear darker."
I think you're trying to say the bright areas will take up less of your view, although they'd be more intense than if you viewed them on earth. There are very few dark areas when you're standing on the moon while the sun is up. It's going to be bright enough to cause your pupils to constrict.
H.P. ARNOLD *ADMITTED* THAT HE KNOWS OF A GEOLOGIST FRIEND WHO *ADMITTED* THAT THE ROCKS ALLEGEDLY BROUGHT BACK FROM THE MOON COULD HAVE BEEN MANUFACTURED ON EARTH.
ITS NORMALLY BILL KAYSING WITH THAT STORY.
I WONDER WHY H.P.ARNOLD ISN'T LAMBASTED AND ATTACKED FOR *PROOF* OF HIS GEOLOGIST *SOURCE*.
Funny, you tell me to shoot between the time limits of 8am and 6am, and then begin insisting my film was shot at 5pm. Hilarious.
Thinking about what zakabog said, perhaps my camera's timer is screwed. The fact remains, I shot my video when the sky was still blue, as you can see. And as you've finally admitted (after Braeunig shot you down) stars can be photographed in the daytime.
WJ:"Funny, you tell me to shoot between the time limits of 8am and 6am, and then begin insisting my film was shot at 5pm."
--I didn't take into account Southern Hemisphere and Standard/Winter Time for Australia during the month. So sue me.
WJ:"I shot my video when the sky was still blue, as you can see."
--But where's the Sun? If it's below the horizon, your experiment doesn't count. Repeatability requires having the Sun in the same shot, just like the conditions on the Moon.
So, if we both now agree that's the case, how do you attempt to backpeddle that visible stars were in fact photographed on the moon, based on these two pieces of evidence?
watch?v=Z1aixi_Sj24&feature=related
watch?v=OLmqakVnlZs&watch_response
Afterall, if there are stars in the photos taken on the moon as shown here, then grandpa Bill Kaysing's claim of the Apollo landings being a hoax is now shot down as well.
I normally don't waste my birthday on propagandists, but I can emphatically say that I have no need to "backpedal". That's the job of Jay Windley and Liar Vector.
To answer your question, the former video was already discussed in "Dude, Where's My Star?", in fact, Grandpa Kaysing had built his argument partly on those UV photos. As for the latter video, it has already been brought to my attention by its creator, and its subject matter is one I plan on discussing in a future film.
--Happy belated B-Day. Seriously, I mean it. Hopefully with age will come some knowledge and wisdom.
Ironically, you're roughly the same age as those who pioneered the space frontier. Yuri Gagarin was 27. Steve Bales, who helped save Apollo 11 was 26. John Aaron, credited with saving Apollo 12 when it was struck by lightning during launch, and "Sy" Liebergot (ApolloEECOM. com) who made the critical call on Apollo 13 were barely in their 30s...
"And as you've finally admitted (after Braeunig shot you down) stars can be photographed in the daytime."
Not under the conditions of the photographs on any of the Apollo missions. To get a clear photo of the stars from Apollo, they'd need a camera with a tripod capable of tracking stars in the sky for the long exposure required. It would weigh a lot and it would be rather pointless. Plus, your video camera doesn't show what the Hasselblad cameras would have captured.
"A tripod weighs what exactly? How many tri-pod stands weighs the equivalent of a rover moon buggy?"
"they'd need a camera with a tripod CAPABLE OF TRACKING THE STARS in the sky for the long exposure required."
I think that would have been beyond their technology making a small lightweight star tracking device. Plus they knew all their photos would use a fast exposure (it's very bright on the moon when the suns out) so they didn't need a tripod.
"Is Plait just a dumbass geek Astronomer or was Armstrong lying."
There's also the possibility that Plait never went to the moon moon, and Armstrong could be a human with imperfect memory? Possibly he was too busy with exploring the moon to notice whether or not he can see the stars (if I was the first man on the moon, the stars which I can easily see from Earth would be something I wouldn't notice.)
Also, I still want to see these small lightweight star tracking devices from the 60s.
At the press conference 3 weeks after galloping about the Moon Armstrong 'specifically' stated that he couldn't see stars from the lunar surface while Mike Collins claimed he couldn't remember seeing any stars while they photographed the solar corona which is odd because according to the official story this was the first time the stars came clearly into view.
Phil Plaits profession is the study of Astronomy and de-bunking the Moon Hoax.
"Phil Plaits profession is the study of ASTRONOMY and de-bunking the Moon Hoax."
Emphasis mine.
"So HE SHOULD KNOW."
You think he should know, yet it's very likely that he doesn't. He never went to the moon, he's not an optometrist, he's an Astronomer (as you said in your quote). It makes sense being able to see the stars because their is no atmosphere but he didn't take into consideration how bright it would be on the moon in the day time. He isn't all knowing and perfect.
Wow, way to show me up by proving star tracking devices were small and lightweight enough back in the 60s. Oh, I thought you posted something meaningful, instead you just ignore the meaning of my comment and go for a sensationalist response.
"NASA could safely send men to the Moon 40 years ago nine times and yet the technology just wasn't developed for a star tracking telescope."
They didn't have the technology to play Doom either, what's your point?
Because to suggest that the inventors of velcro TM couldn't have developed a tri-pod stand to take 30 sec pics of stars above overexposed lunar mountains is plainly ridiculous.
Volunteer your services to Gerard and Katherine McCann.
They are always on the look out for folk that are happy to defend liars.
"Because to suggest that the inventors of velcro TM couldn't have developed a tri-pod stand to take 30 sec pics of stars above overexposed lunar mountains is plainly ridiculous."
You did it again, tripods exist, they were lightweight enough and small enough to bring on the moon. They didn't need a tripod because of the fast shutter speed. What didn't exist were tracking capabilities in a compact lightweight device for long star exposures.
"They forgot to either mention the viewability or not of stars while they were actually allegedly on the Moon."
If I'm walking through a desert for the first time in my life for 2 or 3 hours, I'm probably not going to mention the visibility or non visibility of sand.
'If I'm walking through a desert for the first time in my life for 2 or 3 hours, I'm probably not going to mention the visibility or non visibility of sand*.'
And how about if you are strapped into the seat of the moon buggy and your Astro-not buddy is driving to your next station on the Moon?
*I presume you meant stars and not the stuff they covered the moonsets with?
'Then I'd be so excited about taking a ride on the moon that I wouldn't be commenting much on the visibility of lack of visibility of the stars'
The jobs yours.
Ladies and Gents. The latest bullshitter bullshitting on behalf of the child neglecting lying McCanns with experience of bullshitting on behalf of the lying moonwalkers..
Ladies and Gents. The latest bullshitter bullshitting on behalf of the child neglecting lying McCanns with experience of bullshitting on behalf of the lying moonwalkers..
Zakabog."
Luckily I've talked with enough moon hoax believers to translate for the general public.
Translation: I've run out of real comments, it happens often since nothing I claim is based on any sort of facts. Now I will just plug my ears and say "LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!" till the bad man goes away.
"No I'm wasting my time with somebody that claims Astro-nots were too excited about moon buggy rides and heavy tripod stands."
Well why do you think the astronauts would mention if they could or could not see the stars, they were just in space for days, it's not like they were outside for the first time ever in their lives.
Again you mention the tripod being too heavy, ignoring the separate device required to track the stars. You also ignore that NASA will gain NOTHING from the photos.
'Again you mention the tripod being too heavy, ignoring the separate device required to track the stars. You also ignore that NASA will gain NOTHING from the photos.'
How much tracking does a 30 sec exposure require again?
What is the gain of ANY star picture?
Will we shut down Hubble and every govt paid observatory then?
BTW what is the scientific gain of photos of Astro-nots saluting flags on the Moon?
"Its more than one photo designed purely for Americans to feel better while they embarassed themselves in Vietnam."
Fine, let's use your explanation. How does a photo of the stars help americans feel better? They'd say "What is this crap? I can take these photos of the same stars from my own backyard." Remember, their Hasselblad cameras WERE NOT TELESCOPES. They had observatories on earth way more powerful than anything they had the tech to send to the moon back then.
right, so the moon is brighter at 300km away than at 300cm? And you don't see how that is totally contrary to the Inverse Square Law? You say my use of it is bullshit, but you give no reason why. Nor does your theory even address this fairly established law of the universe, much less address it's contraditions with your theory. Yer brilliant mate, you really are.
"not to mention after all they said about impossible to see stars (that they would have to explain) , and about all they said about impossible to photography stars with their exposure (that they would have to explain ).
stars should have been part of the show since the start , they weren't , because its just a show precisely"
Would this be a good time to point out that Venus isn't a star?
"meaning that from a distance the object will apear as a bright circle (visually) , and the closer you got , it will appear darker overall , because revealing features on the grounds full of darker area."
Sorry, you have no science to back this up, in fact it is quite contrary to established scientific principals. To suggest that the moon will appear brighter 300km away than a few meters away is simply absurd.
"...and the closer you will be , the darker it would be overall , because you will not see all that reflected light in such a small 'point' but a bigger surface with more details , revealing more darker area ."
You are forgetting one thing: The closer you are, the brighter it is, *exponentially*. For the same reason a bright star many light years away appears far dimmer than our sun. Google "Inverse Square Law of Brightness" and educimate yourself out of ignorance.
"you will be able to see the stars , because the moon surface isn't that bright"
How do you know that exactly? It could be bright enough, and that would explain it. Plus we're commenting on something there is no proof of. We only know what the astronauts were able to see of stars based on what they've said. That's not reliable evidence, like I said before, can we stick to physical evidence that shows you wouldn't be able to take pictures of the stars?
Well, let me rephrase that, you can photograph them, but not easily. Plus the stars won't show up in any of the photos the astronauts took because of the fast shutter speed.
Yes 1plus', the dynamic light range sensitivity of the human eye is X100s better than conventional cameras, for example.
Atmospheric light diffusion/interference is of course a completely absent factor on the moon, plus there is no glare from the sky to dilate the iris to the extent it would be with sunlight on earth.
On all counts many stars should have been perfectly visible to the 12 Apollo moon landing claimants, from the surface.
"On all counts many stars should have been perfectly visible to the 12 Apollo moon landing claimants, from the surface."
But that's your opinion, you could be wrong, you don't know, you're not an optometrist and you don't know how much they were able to see of the stars on the moon. You just know what they said but their memory could be wrong, it's not like physical evidence you can look at long after it happened. Until you go to the moon yourself, you won't know how well you can see stars.
I had to chop that up a lot to get it to pass youtube's filters so here's an explanation -
Some people aren't interested in seeing stars when they're on the moon, some people are. Some people aren't interested in feet when they're with a super model, some people are. It's all about personal preference, but regardless of what you or I believe, we won't know 100% if the astronauts saw stars since we're relying on their memory. Just stick to commenting on the photo and video evidence.
"no im not missing that part , because the skydome isn't filled with a giant sun at every angle"
It isn't, but your eyes are adjusted to the bright lunar surface. The surface was very bright, they used a 1/250th shutter speed with an f/7.1 to an f/11 aperture in most of their pictures, there was no atmosphere to reflect all the light, so all of the light was bouncing off the surface from the sun into the camera and it was properly exposed. That's very bright.
"2) their helpet allow more than 45 degrees upward vision , but apparently this is considered to be restricting them to see the stars anyway (plus they don't care)..."
Yes, stand in a room with 3 walls and an 8' high ceiling, look out the opening where the 4th wall would be, stand 10' back from that, look 45o up and you'll see the ceiling. It's the same principle on a smaller scale.
"imagine that they don't need to come to see stars to actually see them ? imagine that their eyes (pilot eyes is usually 10/10 you see) their eyes are able to make enough for the 'bright ground' to allow them to see the stars at every point of the skydome ?"
Their pupils are constricting to block the extra light from the sun. I think you're missing that part. Plus if you have a bright light in your eyes, you won't see something as small and faint as a distant star from the moon
"3) jumping on and falling on their backpack is ok (but close your eyes once you see the sky...)"
No, the astronauts were more concerned with getting back up after falling on their packs than taking a second to notice the stars. They could have possibly seen the stars then but I'm sure they weren't just laying there thinking "Wow this is nice I'm just gonna lay here for a few minutes and take in the view."
"you do realise what you say right ? you mean for the sake of priority , they would have to play golf before thinking to see stars (and eventually photography them) ? this from an alien world remember this , are you completly nuts or what ?"
Yes I realize what I say. Stars are boring, they're not going anywhere, and you can't see them well without a telescope. Hitting golf balls in 1/6th G with no atmosphere would be fun, but you'd rather see stars, when you go to the moon you can do that.
"imagine he's going back on the lem , close to the ladder , the lem blocking the sun , the shadow of the lew providing less reflected light around in this area , then he look slightly on his left (or right whatever) , and see the stars"
Imagine he doesn't care if he sees stars on the moon, because he saw stars in space, and he can see stars from the portholes of the LM when it's not in the sun. Imagine you could grasp that the astronauts didn't come to see stars.
"note the wide angle available to see stars , this guy without any bending could easyly see at least 45 degrees upward"
There's two things you're missing
1. You can't see from his POV, that's why I just want you to experiment with something similar.
2. If he can't see stars cause his eyes are adjusted for the moon, then being able to see the lit up moon in his view is going to restrict his ability to see stars (try observing stars at night with someone below shining a flashlight in your eyes)
"but playing gold on the moon is going to be more interesting "
Uhhhh... yes? Hitting some golf balls in an environment with 1/6th earths gravity and no atmosphere would be a lot more fun than looking at the stars you can see from earth. I'd probably jump around a lot more than the astronauts too (and try getting up from the ground face down just to see if I can.) Plus I find star photos with a 200mm lens boring, and they wouldn't have been properly exposed with any part of the moon showing.
"why would they don't make the 'effort' (im laughting until my last breath to this by the way , your idiotic effort...)"
Yes, and I'm laughing at your lack of understanding of how hard getting in position to see the stars would be.
"why wouldn't they allow few second to look at the stars FROM AN ALIEN PLANET ?"
NASA didn't send astronomers to the moon, they sent pilots. They've seen the stars from space already, seeing stars from the moon isn't going to be much different or very interesting.
"and if you believe that in the case of man landing on the moon , these men wouldn't look above 40-50 degrees any single time , then you are just desperate !"
Why would they make the effort? Why would they care to take out the time and potentially fall over for a glimpse of stars they can see better from a telescope on earth?
I wouldn't think it'd be that much of a contrast, it's white on black but there's way more black than white.
"there is absolutely no reason for them to not be able to 'look around'"
Go find a North Face jacket with a hood, put the hood up and keep it loose, face forward and move your eyes up, note that all you can see is the edge of your hood. Move your head up and note the hood stays in place and now all you see is the top of your hood.
Also, let's say you just landed on the moon, the entire world is watching you on TV and you're about to stand on the surface of the moon. You can now sit and stare into the dark sky till your eyes adjust and have a look at stars you can see from earth, or continue down the ladder onto the surface of the moon and make history. I'd choose the moon but I guess you really like stars and on the way back into the LM I'd be more concerned about getting my big bulky suit off finally.
I guess you haven't been in any kind of restrictive suit, where your head is free inside a helmet (like a radiation or clean room suit.) You don't look up. You look around a lot, but looking up is kind of annoying cause you can't see anything but the top of your helmet. Unless you have some reason to look up you just don't want to, it's just frustrating. I would bet it's even more frustrating in a pressurized spacesuit with a heavy pack on your pack that would throw you off balance.
"the moon surface isn't supposed to have atmosphere disturbing the vision , so they just have to watch 60 degress up , and they would just see balck sky"
Do you realize how hard that would be in one of their space suits? They would just look up and see the top of their helmet, they'd have to lean back and stare at the sky for a few minutes while their eyes adjusted. That would be a complete waste of time, and they don't want to intentionally fall on their backs just to look at the stars.
"...that's why concorde pilots at 60000 feets can see stars in daylight..."
The cockpit of the Concorde is darker than the surface of the Moon. The moon has no atmosphere reflecting sunlight back, plus the moons surface is reflecting light back into their eyes. Planes are very different and don't let in much light, if the sun is behind the pilot then it could be possible that their eyes are adjusted to see starlight (although if they suddenly faced the sun they'd be unable to see anything.)
I wish I had my old EOS Rebel to send you, let you do some experiments with a camera where you can adjust shutter speed and aperture settings. I'd have you photograph the night sky with an aperture of 7.1, or 11 (the two they used most for Apollo photos) adjusting the shutter speed till the stars could be seen. Then you could keep those settings saved and use them to photograph something outside with the sun directly overhead. Maybe the completely washed out photo will teach you something.
Hey Jarrah, keep the photography videos coming. It makes my job so much easier (being that I'm a photographer.) Look at the star in the photo you use to show they can be photographed in the daytime (from Sky & Telescope Magazine.) Notice it isn't a pinpoint of light but a trail, that shows it's a long exposure (a few seconds at least.) The Apollo photos were at around 1/250th of a second. That photo with even a 1/10 shutter speed would show no stars with a dark sky.
I was just browsing aroundmy photos and found a picture online I can use as an example to show exactly what I'm talking about.
jmaug com/moon-original jpg
I took that photo not too long ago with a 2.5 second exposure, note the stars visible leave trails that are shorter than the one visible in that magazine. That means the photo in the magazine is longer than a 2.5 second exposure. If you don't believe me, download my photo and check the EXIF info, or try it with your own camera.
Also, using a TELESCOPE with 50x-160x magnification (at 14,000 feet altitude no less, as stated in the Sky & Telescope magazine) to see a star in daytime is NOT the same as actually seeing them in daytime at regular surface elevation with a camera -- or your own eyes...which was the basis of your own argument in "MoonFaker: Dude, Where's My Star? PART 1."
Once again, it was DAYTIME on the moon. The SUN prevented stars from being photographed in visible (not UV) light.
"Once again, it was DAYTIME on the moon. The SUN prevented stars from being photographed in visible (not UV) light."
Spare me: look away from the sun, take a long exposure. Simple. If taking photos on the daylight side of the moon or earth is impossible then what about the STS-6 photo Windley hyped about?
"using a TELESCOPE with 50x-160x magnification (at 14,000 feet altitude no less, as stated in the Sky & Telescope magazine) to see a star in daytime is NOT the same as actually seeing them in daytime at regular surface elevation with a camera"
Have you even read the magazine article? There are no rules about what altitude you must be to view stars during the day. Perhaps I should have shown the caption for the first picture, which clearly states the telescope was set up in Baltimore, Maryland.
"There are no rules about what altitude you must be to view stars during the day."
Well, I'm not going to argue about that, but it does seem logical that at altitude there is less atmosphere and thus less light scattering to obscure the stars.
However, I will argue with the fact that the photo of Sirius was taken BEFORE sunrise, and Sirius was in the South West at that time, far from the lightening sky in the East.
WJ: "Have you even read the magazine article? There are no rules about what altitude ... to view stars during the day. Perhaps I should have shown the caption for the first picture...set up in Baltimore, Maryland."
--Nevertheless, using a TELESCOPE to see stars is STILL *NOT* *THE* *SAME* as using a FILM CAMERA to photograph stars in the daytime.
CONCLUSION: At the least, you failed to provide conclusive proof with a valid test. At the worst, you deliberately misdirected.
WJ: "Spare me: look away from the sun, take a long exposure. Simple. If taking photos on the daylight side of the moon or earth is impossible then what about the STS-6 photo Windley hyped about?"
--No, taking a long exposure will overexpose the lunar surface (the main objective of the Apollo astronauts), and you'd get star rotational movement (streak). As far as the STS-6 photo is concerned, it appears it was taken on the nightside with Earth and its shadow blocking the Sun.
The nightside of Phobos is faintly lit by "Mars shine" -- sunlight reflecting off of the Red Planet onto the moon's surface. The parts lit by direct sunlight are overexposed in this image to make the nightside more visible.
See any stars? See any features on Phobos' dayside?
Nope. Sorry Jarrah, you blew it. Venus is a Planet, not a "star" -- which is what I asked you to photograph in daytime with a camera.
Your "claim" of 4:07 pm is also suspect: you have a streetlight on in what clearly appears as DUSK with the sun setting below the horizon (Hint: It's not the atmosphere that blocks stars from being seen in daytime, but that big bright object known as the SUN).
DAYTIME on Moon = no visible stars seen in Apollo photos (except Sun).
And when did I claim it was anything other than a planet? Try listening to what Kaysing said "stars AND planets" and Melvil confirmed they could be seen from the daylight side of earth.
"I don't need to 'claim' anything, the camera's timer etched in the film is all the proof I need."
...
Your arguments are amazing. You realize it's not impossible to change the time in your camera right? That doesn't work as very good proof. Plus his statement that the sun isn't in the picture is true. The video shows nothing except when it's dark you can see stars with a camera. By the way, street lights come on when it gets dark, not in the middle of the day.
WJ: "And when did I claim it was anything other than a planet?"
-- You didn't -- nor did I imply otherwise.
However, that's not the point of the discussion.
My original challenge was (quote): "...Now take your Panasonic NGVS35 camera outside in the middle of the day and try to photograph those same stars. Take as long an exposure time as you'd like and then report back to me your results."
My follow-up post (24hrs later) was: "...When do you plan to take your Panasonic NGVS35camera outside in the middle of a clear and cloudless day and photograph some stars in the sky as part of your proof/claim?"
Your reply: "I didn't bother to answer your message because it was sarcastic: I need to be outside the atmosphere to photograph stars in the day, you know it...I know it...Michael Melvil knows it.
Tell you what: you provide the spaceship, I'll provide the results."
My response back to you was: "...it wasn't sarcastic, it was a legitimate challenge. If Mike Melvill knows it (and I was less than five feet from him and Brian Binney after their historic flights in Mojave nearly four years ago), then where are the photos of the stars and the planets he took on his digital camera? I didn't see any in the flight videos either.
You want the spaceship? No prob. Got US$250,000?...you're going to have to wait a couple of years, so start saving."
WJ:"Try listening to what Kaysing said "stars AND planets" and Melvil confirmed they could be seen from the daylight side of earth.
-- "Seeing" stars and "Photographing" stars from the daylight side of Earth are two different things. The Photography schools at Latrope University, University of Queensland, RMIT University or Northern Melbourne Institute of TFAE would tell you that.
WJ:"I don't need to 'claim' anything, the camera's timer etched in the film is all the proof I need."
--So is checking "sunrisesunset. com" and "timeanddate. com" for Australia.
According to their records for the week of March 30--April 5, Sunset occurred at 5:48 p.m. (Brisbane-Queensland) or 5:52 p.m (Sydney-NSW) on March 30 to 5:41 p.m./5:47 p.m. respectively on Apr. 5. I can understand being a little off, but 1hr 20min?
According to Night Sky's Sky Calendar, "Venus has sunk too low toward the rising Sun to be seen easily this month. Determined observers may catch is very low as the sky brightens, but observing continues to deteriorate until it is lost altogether."
So for an "afternoon" shot at "4:07 p.m." your "evening star" was seen 10 hrs early at Sunrise -- 5:57 a.m. (Brisbane-Queensland) or 6:07 a.m (Sydney-NSW) on March 30 to 6:00 a.m./6:10 a.m respectively on Apr 5.
My Bad -- I entered "Venus viewing times in Australia" on a search engine, and I was still taken to a northern hemisphere-based site in error.
Nevertheless, the point remains unchanged; Venus as a planet is reflecting sunlight and can be seen during the day. You can see a star in civil daylight on earth with a telescope, but you can't see or photograph a star in civil daylight with the unaided eye or a standalone film camera like a Hassy -- which was the purpose of the test that was asked.
And of course... on 14th Nov 1994 Sirius was in the south western sky, as seen from the region of Mexico City. Certainly not in the brightest part of the sky....
I was once able to see Jupiter 20 min past sunrise with my eyes.
It's easy if you find the object early in the morning when it's still dark and keep a tab on it as the day breaks. Finding it in daytime is hard since there is no reference point to focus your eyes to infinity.
Venus is even easier as it is much brighter.
Flare400 2 years ago
Thats Venus. I can see it in the sky all the time. Especially at night
tonypauzz 2 years ago
With my 13.1" telescope I saw Algeiba in Leo (sickle) double star. Mag. 2.6 and 3.8 13 min. before sunset. Both like a bright torch.
Johngtr13 2 years ago
1) The moon look horribly over exposed.
2) What are the exposures? If the Panasonic is in automatic mode, why should we believe these are shutter speeds equivalent to Apollo's (1/125th, 1/250th)? Use those settings and try again.
3) Venus is not a star! Not even close!
4) Your magazine article says this star was seen "shortly before sunrise." Uh... daytime? Settings?
5) Apollo astronauts have stated that with difficulty, stars could be seen.
LunarTuner 2 years ago
Here's a better example of someone spreading malicious propaganda, peopleasylum.
In his video, Jarrah says:"This guy seems ignorant of the fact that the atmosphere blocks out most star light during the day."
Perhaps Jarrah can explain to us how we can see the stars at night. Did the same atmosphere suddenly go away?
You don't suppose the Sun not being there has anything to do with it, do you?
Guess what? The Apollo lunar landings took place during the day, with the Sun.
wspaceport 3 years ago
lol, I love you, Jarrah. They ask you to shoot a star in daylight, so you shoot the brightest planet in the sky at dusk? A streetlight is orders of magnitude less bright than full sun.
(And while we're on the subject, Sirius is the brightest star.)
This isn't even close to suggesting that lots of stars hundreds or thousands of times as dim as Venus should have showed up in lighting conditions a thousand times more bright.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
your opening blurb says "alpha centuri"...you idiot...can't even get the spelling right...how pathetic. you are making yourself look silly.
r3drexate 3 years ago
That's not a star! It's a UFO. Know your bible! You are looking at the AirForce of the Nation of Islam.
godswater7 3 years ago
In the BBC book 'Tomorrow's World' (1970) page 130, it says of future tasks planned for the J series Apollo 15-17: "There will also be a mapping camera on board taking high-quality shots of the surface simultaneously with pictures of the positions of the stars relative to the camera. Through the correlation of these two pictures cartographers will learn the exact location and dimensions of the area mapped." I ask NASA was this done or not? Such pictures would prove the a/nots moon location.
sergemck 3 years ago
I think you're talking about the Metric photography. Apparently, one of those metric shots showed a piece of wood duct-taped to a piece of glass. No joke. AS15-M-0113.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
It's not that. These simultaneous star and moon-surface shots were announced by NASA but never carried out. Why? Because to fake a star canopy is almost impossible: if ONE star is 1mm out on a photo of a fake canopy any astronomer could easily spot this by comparing with a genuine photo. This is the reason why NO stars/planets ever appear on NASA images. The announced task was abandoned because it was to difficult to fake. Your vid shows the absence of stars/planets is just not believable.
sergemck 3 years ago
AS17-134-20384 shows a picture of flag and the Earth taken from the surface of the moon.
Diamonddavej 3 years ago
Oh you mean that glowing globe on a blacked-out background with AST satellite photo transparencies of Earth stuck on it, dangling from wires on the fake-Moon film-set!
The important question is WHY did NASA cancel the publicly announced Apollo task of photographing the Moon's star canopy?
NASA reneged and didn't do it because a star canopy is impossible to fake as to position and brightness of thousands of stars!
Any astronomer comparing Earth telescope pics would spot a fake star.5mm out!
sergemck 3 years ago
Sergemck, a Schmidt camera (a telescope with a very wide field of view) was used on the lunar surface during Apollo 16 (f/1.0 Schmidt camera with 7.5 cm aperture). Its pictures can be consulted to see if they are out of place:
"178 frames were obtained, including data on the airglow and polar auroral zones of Earth and the geocorona, and over 550 stars, nebulae or galaxies."
AS-16-114-18439 shows the telescope.
Diamonddavej 3 years ago
A16's Schmidt Far UV camera was placed by a modified unmanned Surveyer.
A11,A14,A15 Surveyers deployed retroreflectors, A16's Surveyer deployed the camera and transmitter, but no reflector.
The pics the camera took show a flat featureless plain and no A16 a/nots or equipment.
The camera maybe is there and it's pics maybe genuine, but it wasn't placed there by an a/not on the Moon's surface.
sergemck 3 years ago
So, a Surveyor probe (operated from 1966-1968) landed on the Moon in April 1972, at the time and location of the manned Apollo 16, it then took 178 pictures using the Apollo Schmidt Telescope and then returned its film canister of pictures to the Earth?
Can you show me any form of evidence for this modified unmanned Surveyor probe that landed on the Moon in April 1972?
Picture AS-16-114-18439 of the Apollo 16 Schmidt Telescope, also shows an astronaut silhouetted in the background.
Diamonddavej 3 years ago
A small item like a film cartridge would be no problem to return to Earth: a tiny rocket, guidance thrusters, small parachute and location beacon would do it.
I am talking about the pics the CAMERA TOOK, not the fake Moon-set still picture of the camera itself! There are no pics of a/nots, tracks or equipment in the camera's pics.
The flat featureless plain seen in the Far UV's pics does not look like the purported A16 site, indicating that it may not have landed where NASA wanted it to.
sergemck 3 years ago
As I suspected, the Apollo 16 UV Schmidt camera took pictures of the Earth with many background stars, and all stars are in the correct position.
Here is one of those pictures - AS16-123-19657
Keel, William C. "The Earth and Stars in the Lunar Sky", Skeptical inquirer, Vol. 31, No. 4, July 2007, pp 47-50.
Diamonddavej 3 years ago
Maybe they 'reneged', because they realized with the weight of the equipment would be better spent elsewhere, as photos of the stars in visible light have practically no scientific value. What DID have scientific value was Ultraviolet pictures of stars, which they took on Apollo 16 with the specially designed Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph designed by Dr. Carruthers. This data, which was new at the time, was confirmed by later probes and satellites.
loperspest 2 years ago
@WhiteJarrah What about the photographs taken from the Moon by the Apollo 16 crew, of the stars in ultra-violet; the magnitudes of which (in the UV portion of the spectrum) have since been verified by later, orbiting UV scopes?
And what about the UV shot they took of the Earth, showing stars in the background - in an alignment which can be confirmed using software like Celestia, that proves the picture was taken at the precise date, time AND LOCATION stated in the mission log?
GlowWorm1962 11 months ago
"well they can take many pictures of astronaut-like dude planting flag on some desert also you see , and that would be completly ridiculous right ?"
It's slightly different photographing the first few flags ever being planted on the moon, than stars. Plus photographing stars is very difficult, even with a digital camera, you set the shutter speed to what you think might work, wait 30 seconds, and hope the photo came out. And they obviously faked the UV photos perfectly according to you.
zakabog 3 years ago
"for the 'stars from the moon' photos maybe ?"
I don't understand this comment. They're going to take the photograph just to have it? They can take far better pictures of the stars from earth with observatories, they don't want to photograph it with a medium format camera, it would be pointless.
zakabog 3 years ago
"no , the details include every surface features details , every single craters , with their shadows , every hills with their shadows , your own shadow eventually , well a bunch of detail that you didn't see from far away , make that overall the surface will be darker from the ground."
Yes I understand your point, but you're forgetting that the bright areas will also be more intense, and you assume there was more dark than bright where they landed.
zakabog 3 years ago
"nasa do like taking pictures from stars heh ? indeed , and telescope on the moon would have been a blast."
So what you're saying is the Apollo astronauts should have brought the Hubble space telescope with them on the moon missions? Or are you saying a $500 medium format camera is on par with Hubble? I guess you know more than NASA, you should have told them it's cheaper to launch medium format cameras into space.
zakabog 3 years ago
"i mean , the tracking argument killed (and thus allowing longuer exposure without extreme need for tracking , at least is what some nasa fanboys seems to think for the uv telescope !"
Yeah I looked it up, they had 20 second exposures on the UV camera, so it would have been possible to use a standard tripod. Although none of the moon hoax believers have explained WHY they would want to photograph the stars from the moon with a medium format film camera.
zakabog 3 years ago
"i mean , the tracking argument killed (and thus allowing longuer exposure without extreme need for tracking , at least is what some nasa fanboys seems to think for the uv telescope !"
Yeah I looked it up, they had 20 second exposures on the UV camera, so it would have been possible to use a standard tripod. Although none of the moon hoax believers have explained WHY they would want to photograph the stars from the moon with a medium format film camera.
zakabog 3 years ago
Its a suprise the UV telesope never managed to image some of the venting gases from the mountains that surrounded Apollo 16.
One of the things it was also designed for.
Actually.
Its not a suprise at all.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"Its a suprise the UV telesope never managed to image some of the venting gases from the mountains that surrounded Apollo 16."
So that's all NASA would have needed to convince you? You wouldn't have claimed they were faked/taken by a robot? If only they knew that in the 1960s this whole moon hoax theory wouldn't be around!
zakabog 3 years ago
"Its a suprise the UV telesope never managed to image some of the venting gases from the mountains that surrounded Apollo 16."
I actually looked that up, they said if there were any gases, I don't think there were any to photograph.
zakabog 3 years ago
NASA are interested in and follow a policy of studying and imageing stars eh?
Amazing.
Don't tell zakabog.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"NASA are interested in and follow a policy of studying and imageing stars eh?
Amazing.
Don't tell zakabog."
Yeah... go to NASA with a Hasselblad camera and some film and tell them to invest in your high tech telescope. Tell them it's as good as Hubble for a fraction of the price.
zakabog 3 years ago
How about I drag Neil Armstrong and Phil Plait to NASA, get them to repeat what they've said about seeing stars from the Moon WITH THE HUMAN EYE and see if NASA can tell whose correct?
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"How about I drag Neil Armstrong and Phil Plait to NASA, get them to repeat what they've said about seeing stars from the Moon WITH THE HUMAN EYE and see if NASA can tell whose correct?"
Or you could wait till the next moon mission and see what they say? One of them is wrong (most likely Phil Plait since he didn't go to the moon) but that doesn't prove anything, comment on photographic evidence, not observations of people. People forget but a photo is straightforward evidence.
zakabog 3 years ago
And how about the Apollo video cameras when they weren't being broke by Mr Bean and beaming back the shittiest b+w and then crappy colour pictures from Apollo 11 and 14.
When the rover camera was being panned across the sky during the last three trips to the Moon.
Would those millions of unblinking, unaffected by miles and miles of thick diffusing atmosphere, STARS have shown up in the tv footage.
Hours and hours( as smector the deflector would say) of footage we are talking about.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"And how about the Apollo video cameras when they weren't being broke by Mr Bean and beaming back the shittiest b+w and then crappy colour pictures from Apollo 11 and 14."
What about them?
"Would those millions of unblinking, unaffected by miles and miles of thick diffusing atmosphere, STARS have shown up in the tv footage."
Not likely, the shutter speed was too high. The shutter would need to be way down to capture the faint starlight, but then everything would be a big white blur.
zakabog 3 years ago
"no , because of the overall terrain details , showing more darker area ."
You're crazy. If you look at the brightest area on the moon, from 2' away, it's going to be brighter than if you observed it from earth. You have to know the light is WAY more intense and less scattered 2' away than if you were on earth.
zakabog 3 years ago
"you mean , they didn't have tracking device on the alleged apollo 16 uv telescope ?"
Because a UV telescope is an entirely different device than a medium format film camera. They probably don't need as long an exposure speed as they would on a film camera.
zakabog 3 years ago
"im talking about the fact , that darker area (will NOT show much from a distance) while they will show when you are closer , because brighter area always seems bigger than darker area , so from a large distance , these darker area are kinda 'eaten' by the brighter area."
Okay, so if they were in a big bright area it'd be brighter compared to if they viewed it from earth (since they're closer.)
zakabog 3 years ago
"no , the darker area will show up , so the brighter area will be less bright overall , because you will be able to see details , the overall sirface will appear darker."
I think you're trying to say the bright areas will take up less of your view, although they'd be more intense than if you viewed them on earth. There are very few dark areas when you're standing on the moon while the sun is up. It's going to be bright enough to cause your pupils to constrict.
zakabog 3 years ago
"you just have to take photos of the faked photos , and voila , you have negatives of faked photos , how difficult is that ?"
Oh, it's not hard doing that, but it'd be found to be fake almost immediately by even amateur photographers.
zakabog 3 years ago
Attention Moon Landing Cultists
SKY AT NIGHT- PROGRAM APRIL 2002
H.P. ARNOLD *ADMITTED* THAT HE KNOWS OF A GEOLOGIST FRIEND WHO *ADMITTED* THAT THE ROCKS ALLEGEDLY BROUGHT BACK FROM THE MOON COULD HAVE BEEN MANUFACTURED ON EARTH.
ITS NORMALLY BILL KAYSING WITH THAT STORY.
I WONDER WHY H.P.ARNOLD ISN'T LAMBASTED AND ATTACKED FOR *PROOF* OF HIS GEOLOGIST *SOURCE*.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"I WONDER WHY H.P.ARNOLD ISN'T LAMBASTED AND ATTACKED FOR *PROOF* OF HIS GEOLOGIST *SOURCE*."
What proof was that exactly? Could you show the source of the article? And what does this have to do with photographs?
zakabog 3 years ago
Looks like it takes one fact to bust JW at :54seconds into this clip.
JW: "filmed...at '4:07 pm' on 22nd of May, 2007"
WS: "Your "claim" of 4:07pm is...suspect...a streetlight (is) on in what clearly appears as DUSK."
JW: "I don't need to 'claim' anything, the camera's timer etched in the film is all the proof I need."
sunrisesunset. com for May 22, 2007
Sunset- 5:01pm
Civil Twilight- 5:28pm
Nautical Twilight- 5:58pm
Nice trick JW, just like Cher, you can "Turn back Time."
wspaceport 3 years ago
"sunrisesunset. com for May 22, 2007
Sunset- 5:01pm
Civil Twilight- 5:28pm
Nautical Twilight- 5:58pm"
Funny, you tell me to shoot between the time limits of 8am and 6am, and then begin insisting my film was shot at 5pm. Hilarious.
Thinking about what zakabog said, perhaps my camera's timer is screwed. The fact remains, I shot my video when the sky was still blue, as you can see. And as you've finally admitted (after Braeunig shot you down) stars can be photographed in the daytime.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
WJ:"Funny, you tell me to shoot between the time limits of 8am and 6am, and then begin insisting my film was shot at 5pm."
--I didn't take into account Southern Hemisphere and Standard/Winter Time for Australia during the month. So sue me.
WJ:"I shot my video when the sky was still blue, as you can see."
--But where's the Sun? If it's below the horizon, your experiment doesn't count. Repeatability requires having the Sun in the same shot, just like the conditions on the Moon.
wspaceport 3 years ago
JW:"stars can be photographed in the daytime."
So, if we both now agree that's the case, how do you attempt to backpeddle that visible stars were in fact photographed on the moon, based on these two pieces of evidence?
watch?v=Z1aixi_Sj24&feature=related
watch?v=OLmqakVnlZs&watch_response
Afterall, if there are stars in the photos taken on the moon as shown here, then grandpa Bill Kaysing's claim of the Apollo landings being a hoax is now shot down as well.
wspaceport 3 years ago
I normally don't waste my birthday on propagandists, but I can emphatically say that I have no need to "backpedal". That's the job of Jay Windley and Liar Vector.
To answer your question, the former video was already discussed in "Dude, Where's My Star?", in fact, Grandpa Kaysing had built his argument partly on those UV photos. As for the latter video, it has already been brought to my attention by its creator, and its subject matter is one I plan on discussing in a future film.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
--Happy belated B-Day. Seriously, I mean it. Hopefully with age will come some knowledge and wisdom.
Ironically, you're roughly the same age as those who pioneered the space frontier. Yuri Gagarin was 27. Steve Bales, who helped save Apollo 11 was 26. John Aaron, credited with saving Apollo 12 when it was struck by lightning during launch, and "Sy" Liebergot (ApolloEECOM. com) who made the critical call on Apollo 13 were barely in their 30s...
...And you're wasting time on this nonsense.
wspaceport 3 years ago
"And as you've finally admitted (after Braeunig shot you down) stars can be photographed in the daytime."
Not under the conditions of the photographs on any of the Apollo missions. To get a clear photo of the stars from Apollo, they'd need a camera with a tripod capable of tracking stars in the sky for the long exposure required. It would weigh a lot and it would be rather pointless. Plus, your video camera doesn't show what the Hasselblad cameras would have captured.
zakabog 3 years ago
'It would weigh a lot and it would be rather pointless.'
A tripod weighs what exactly? How many tri-pod stands weighs the equivalent of a rover moon buggy?
Why would photos of stars from another planetary body be pointless to NASA who after all study 'stars'?
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"A tripod weighs what exactly? How many tri-pod stands weighs the equivalent of a rover moon buggy?"
"they'd need a camera with a tripod CAPABLE OF TRACKING THE STARS in the sky for the long exposure required."
I think that would have been beyond their technology making a small lightweight star tracking device. Plus they knew all their photos would use a fast exposure (it's very bright on the moon when the suns out) so they didn't need a tripod.
zakabog 3 years ago
'I think that would have been beyond their technology making a small lightweight star tracking device'
Are you for real?
greenmagoos 3 years ago
'I think that would have been beyond their technology making a small lightweight star tracking device'
Are you for real?
greenmagoos 3 years ago
'I think that would have been beyond their technology making a small lightweight star tracking device'
Are you for real?
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"Are you for real?"
Yes -
freepatentsonline com/6060702 html
Patent was filed in 1997 for a small lightweight telescope capable of tracking stars.
zakabog 3 years ago
Is Neil Armstrong or Phil Plait for real.
One claims you would see stars 'even during the day' from the Moon while Armstrong claimed he couldn't.
Is Plait just a dumbass geek Astronomer or was Armstrong lying.
Here's a tip for you.
Plait made that comment at Bad Astronomy de-bunking the Moon hoax BEFORE the Apollo 11 mess conference was FOUND and RELEASED by Moon Movies
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"Is Plait just a dumbass geek Astronomer or was Armstrong lying."
There's also the possibility that Plait never went to the moon moon, and Armstrong could be a human with imperfect memory? Possibly he was too busy with exploring the moon to notice whether or not he can see the stars (if I was the first man on the moon, the stars which I can easily see from Earth would be something I wouldn't notice.)
Also, I still want to see these small lightweight star tracking devices from the 60s.
zakabog 3 years ago
At the press conference 3 weeks after galloping about the Moon Armstrong 'specifically' stated that he couldn't see stars from the lunar surface while Mike Collins claimed he couldn't remember seeing any stars while they photographed the solar corona which is odd because according to the official story this was the first time the stars came clearly into view.
Phil Plaits profession is the study of Astronomy and de-bunking the Moon Hoax.
So HE SHOULD KNOW.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"Phil Plaits profession is the study of ASTRONOMY and de-bunking the Moon Hoax."
Emphasis mine.
"So HE SHOULD KNOW."
You think he should know, yet it's very likely that he doesn't. He never went to the moon, he's not an optometrist, he's an Astronomer (as you said in your quote). It makes sense being able to see the stars because their is no atmosphere but he didn't take into consideration how bright it would be on the moon in the day time. He isn't all knowing and perfect.
zakabog 3 years ago
They forgot to either mention the viewability or not of stars while they were actually allegedly on the Moon.
A tripod is too heavy according to you.
NASA could safely send men to the Moon 40 years ago nine times and yet the technology just wasn't developed for a star tracking telescope.
Have you ever considered becoming the spokesperson for Madeline McCanns parents?
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"A tripod is too heavy according to you."
Wow, way to show me up by proving star tracking devices were small and lightweight enough back in the 60s. Oh, I thought you posted something meaningful, instead you just ignore the meaning of my comment and go for a sensationalist response.
"NASA could safely send men to the Moon 40 years ago nine times and yet the technology just wasn't developed for a star tracking telescope."
They didn't have the technology to play Doom either, what's your point?
zakabog 3 years ago
Because to suggest that the inventors of velcro TM couldn't have developed a tri-pod stand to take 30 sec pics of stars above overexposed lunar mountains is plainly ridiculous.
Volunteer your services to Gerard and Katherine McCann.
They are always on the look out for folk that are happy to defend liars.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"Because to suggest that the inventors of velcro TM couldn't have developed a tri-pod stand to take 30 sec pics of stars above overexposed lunar mountains is plainly ridiculous."
You did it again, tripods exist, they were lightweight enough and small enough to bring on the moon. They didn't need a tripod because of the fast shutter speed. What didn't exist were tracking capabilities in a compact lightweight device for long star exposures.
By the way, Velcro was invented by a swiss man.
zakabog 3 years ago
"They forgot to either mention the viewability or not of stars while they were actually allegedly on the Moon."
If I'm walking through a desert for the first time in my life for 2 or 3 hours, I'm probably not going to mention the visibility or non visibility of sand.
zakabog 3 years ago
'If I'm walking through a desert for the first time in my life for 2 or 3 hours, I'm probably not going to mention the visibility or non visibility of sand*.'
And how about if you are strapped into the seat of the moon buggy and your Astro-not buddy is driving to your next station on the Moon?
*I presume you meant stars and not the stuff they covered the moonsets with?
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"And how about if you are strapped into the seat of the moon buggy and your Astro-not buddy is driving to your next station on the Moon?"
Then I'd be so excited about taking a ride on the moon that I wouldn't be commenting much on the visibility of lack of visibility of the stars.
zakabog 3 years ago
'Then I'd be so excited about taking a ride on the moon that I wouldn't be commenting much on the visibility of lack of visibility of the stars'
The jobs yours.
Ladies and Gents. The latest bullshitter bullshitting on behalf of the child neglecting lying McCanns with experience of bullshitting on behalf of the lying moonwalkers..
Zakabog.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"The jobs yours.
Ladies and Gents. The latest bullshitter bullshitting on behalf of the child neglecting lying McCanns with experience of bullshitting on behalf of the lying moonwalkers..
Zakabog."
Luckily I've talked with enough moon hoax believers to translate for the general public.
Translation: I've run out of real comments, it happens often since nothing I claim is based on any sort of facts. Now I will just plug my ears and say "LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!" till the bad man goes away.
zakabog 3 years ago
No I'm wasting my time with somebody that claims Astro-nots were too excited about moon buggy rides and heavy tripod stands.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"No I'm wasting my time with somebody that claims Astro-nots were too excited about moon buggy rides and heavy tripod stands."
Well why do you think the astronauts would mention if they could or could not see the stars, they were just in space for days, it's not like they were outside for the first time ever in their lives.
Again you mention the tripod being too heavy, ignoring the separate device required to track the stars. You also ignore that NASA will gain NOTHING from the photos.
zakabog 3 years ago
'Again you mention the tripod being too heavy, ignoring the separate device required to track the stars. You also ignore that NASA will gain NOTHING from the photos.'
How much tracking does a 30 sec exposure require again?
What is the gain of ANY star picture?
Will we shut down Hubble and every govt paid observatory then?
BTW what is the scientific gain of photos of Astro-nots saluting flags on the Moon?
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"How much tracking does a 30 sec exposure require again?"
astronomylog co uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/pelaides-on-the-move jpg
Well that's a 30 second shot on earth, not sure about the moon though.
"Will we shut down Hubble and every govt paid observatory then?"
Hubble is more than a 200mm lens on a medium format camera.
"BTW what is the scientific gain of photos of Astro-nots saluting flags on the Moon?"
It's just a historic photo, for documenting the event, not for science.
zakabog 3 years ago
'It's just a historic photo, for documenting the event, not for science.'
Its more than one photo designed purely for Americans to feel better while they embarassed themselves in Vietnam.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"Its more than one photo designed purely for Americans to feel better while they embarassed themselves in Vietnam."
Fine, let's use your explanation. How does a photo of the stars help americans feel better? They'd say "What is this crap? I can take these photos of the same stars from my own backyard." Remember, their Hasselblad cameras WERE NOT TELESCOPES. They had observatories on earth way more powerful than anything they had the tech to send to the moon back then.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Why would photos of stars from another planetary body be pointless to NASA who after all study 'stars'?"
Because they're taking with a 200mm lens at the longest. For an example of what kind of detail you'll see with this setup check out this photo -
jmaug com/moon-original jpg
By the way that's with a two second exposure and theres barely anything visible (besides the moon), what exactly would NASA learn from this photo?
zakabog 3 years ago
"the closer you'll get of the moon surface , the more visible the darker area will be"
And the more intense the brighter areas will be.
zakabog 3 years ago
"so if let's say , a new set of never shown before ultra high quality version showed up on the net"
What if you saw the negatives? You realize they do exist, and painting a 70mm negative would be very difficult and easily detectable.
zakabog 3 years ago
right, so the moon is brighter at 300km away than at 300cm? And you don't see how that is totally contrary to the Inverse Square Law? You say my use of it is bullshit, but you give no reason why. Nor does your theory even address this fairly established law of the universe, much less address it's contraditions with your theory. Yer brilliant mate, you really are.
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
So the Inverse Square Law of Brightness is bullshit?
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
"not to mention after all they said about impossible to see stars (that they would have to explain) , and about all they said about impossible to photography stars with their exposure (that they would have to explain ).
stars should have been part of the show since the start , they weren't , because its just a show precisely"
Would this be a good time to point out that Venus isn't a star?
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
"meaning that from a distance the object will apear as a bright circle (visually) , and the closer you got , it will appear darker overall , because revealing features on the grounds full of darker area."
Sorry, you have no science to back this up, in fact it is quite contrary to established scientific principals. To suggest that the moon will appear brighter 300km away than a few meters away is simply absurd.
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
"...and the closer you will be , the darker it would be overall , because you will not see all that reflected light in such a small 'point' but a bigger surface with more details , revealing more darker area ."
You are forgetting one thing: The closer you are, the brighter it is, *exponentially*. For the same reason a bright star many light years away appears far dimmer than our sun. Google "Inverse Square Law of Brightness" and educimate yourself out of ignorance.
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
So would a photo of venus from the moon convince anyone?
SirMildredPierce 3 years ago
"you will be able to see the stars , because the moon surface isn't that bright"
How do you know that exactly? It could be bright enough, and that would explain it. Plus we're commenting on something there is no proof of. We only know what the astronauts were able to see of stars based on what they've said. That's not reliable evidence, like I said before, can we stick to physical evidence that shows you wouldn't be able to take pictures of the stars?
zakabog 3 years ago
Well, let me rephrase that, you can photograph them, but not easily. Plus the stars won't show up in any of the photos the astronauts took because of the fast shutter speed.
zakabog 3 years ago
Yes 1plus', the dynamic light range sensitivity of the human eye is X100s better than conventional cameras, for example.
Atmospheric light diffusion/interference is of course a completely absent factor on the moon, plus there is no glare from the sky to dilate the iris to the extent it would be with sunlight on earth.
On all counts many stars should have been perfectly visible to the 12 Apollo moon landing claimants, from the surface.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"On all counts many stars should have been perfectly visible to the 12 Apollo moon landing claimants, from the surface."
But that's your opinion, you could be wrong, you don't know, you're not an optometrist and you don't know how much they were able to see of the stars on the moon. You just know what they said but their memory could be wrong, it's not like physical evidence you can look at long after it happened. Until you go to the moon yourself, you won't know how well you can see stars.
zakabog 3 years ago
"you CAN'T miss it."
Yeah, it does surround you, but the stars are so dim they'd be very hard to see when your eyes are adjusted for sunlight.
zakabog 3 years ago
Imagine you were intimate with a supermodel, then you and a friend had this conversation-
What color toenail polish did she have?
I don't know
What do you mean you don't know? Didn't you look?
I don't remember looking at her feet
Why not! You had time to play with her chest but you couldn't glimpse at her feet!
I don't really like feet.
Are you nuts!
zakabog 3 years ago
I had to chop that up a lot to get it to pass youtube's filters so here's an explanation -
Some people aren't interested in seeing stars when they're on the moon, some people are. Some people aren't interested in feet when they're with a super model, some people are. It's all about personal preference, but regardless of what you or I believe, we won't know 100% if the astronauts saw stars since we're relying on their memory. Just stick to commenting on the photo and video evidence.
zakabog 3 years ago
"no im not missing that part , because the skydome isn't filled with a giant sun at every angle"
It isn't, but your eyes are adjusted to the bright lunar surface. The surface was very bright, they used a 1/250th shutter speed with an f/7.1 to an f/11 aperture in most of their pictures, there was no atmosphere to reflect all the light, so all of the light was bouncing off the surface from the sun into the camera and it was properly exposed. That's very bright.
zakabog 3 years ago
"2) their helpet allow more than 45 degrees upward vision , but apparently this is considered to be restricting them to see the stars anyway (plus they don't care)..."
Yes, stand in a room with 3 walls and an 8' high ceiling, look out the opening where the 4th wall would be, stand 10' back from that, look 45o up and you'll see the ceiling. It's the same principle on a smaller scale.
zakabog 3 years ago
"imagine that they don't need to come to see stars to actually see them ? imagine that their eyes (pilot eyes is usually 10/10 you see) their eyes are able to make enough for the 'bright ground' to allow them to see the stars at every point of the skydome ?"
Their pupils are constricting to block the extra light from the sun. I think you're missing that part. Plus if you have a bright light in your eyes, you won't see something as small and faint as a distant star from the moon
zakabog 3 years ago
"1) they will not look at the stars anytime in their trip"
No, they don't care if they see stars, you apparently get off on it, they don't.
"2)their helmet prevent them for seeing stars"
No, it restricts their view and makes it harder to see a blank spot of sky (like what you would do on earth to see stars.)
"2) playing golf once on the moon is ok (but don't look the sky !)"
No, hitting a golf ball in space is more fun than looking at stars you can see from earth (P.S. it's 1, 2, THEN 3.)
zakabog 3 years ago
"3) jumping on and falling on their backpack is ok (but close your eyes once you see the sky...)"
No, the astronauts were more concerned with getting back up after falling on their packs than taking a second to notice the stars. They could have possibly seen the stars then but I'm sure they weren't just laying there thinking "Wow this is nice I'm just gonna lay here for a few minutes and take in the view."
zakabog 3 years ago
"you do realise what you say right ? you mean for the sake of priority , they would have to play golf before thinking to see stars (and eventually photography them) ? this from an alien world remember this , are you completly nuts or what ?"
Yes I realize what I say. Stars are boring, they're not going anywhere, and you can't see them well without a telescope. Hitting golf balls in 1/6th G with no atmosphere would be fun, but you'd rather see stars, when you go to the moon you can do that.
zakabog 3 years ago
"imagine he's going back on the lem , close to the ladder , the lem blocking the sun , the shadow of the lew providing less reflected light around in this area , then he look slightly on his left (or right whatever) , and see the stars"
Imagine he doesn't care if he sees stars on the moon, because he saw stars in space, and he can see stars from the portholes of the LM when it's not in the sun. Imagine you could grasp that the astronauts didn't come to see stars.
zakabog 3 years ago
"note the wide angle available to see stars , this guy without any bending could easyly see at least 45 degrees upward"
There's two things you're missing
1. You can't see from his POV, that's why I just want you to experiment with something similar.
2. If he can't see stars cause his eyes are adjusted for the moon, then being able to see the lit up moon in his view is going to restrict his ability to see stars (try observing stars at night with someone below shining a flashlight in your eyes)
zakabog 3 years ago
"but playing gold on the moon is going to be more interesting "
Uhhhh... yes? Hitting some golf balls in an environment with 1/6th earths gravity and no atmosphere would be a lot more fun than looking at the stars you can see from earth. I'd probably jump around a lot more than the astronauts too (and try getting up from the ground face down just to see if I can.) Plus I find star photos with a 200mm lens boring, and they wouldn't have been properly exposed with any part of the moon showing.
zakabog 3 years ago
"why would they don't make the 'effort' (im laughting until my last breath to this by the way , your idiotic effort...)"
Yes, and I'm laughing at your lack of understanding of how hard getting in position to see the stars would be.
"why wouldn't they allow few second to look at the stars FROM AN ALIEN PLANET ?"
NASA didn't send astronomers to the moon, they sent pilots. They've seen the stars from space already, seeing stars from the moon isn't going to be much different or very interesting.
zakabog 3 years ago
"and if you believe that in the case of man landing on the moon , these men wouldn't look above 40-50 degrees any single time , then you are just desperate !"
Why would they make the effort? Why would they care to take out the time and potentially fall over for a glimpse of stars they can see better from a telescope on earth?
zakabog 3 years ago
"the eyes adjust extremly fast to contrast"
I wouldn't think it'd be that much of a contrast, it's white on black but there's way more black than white.
"there is absolutely no reason for them to not be able to 'look around'"
Go find a North Face jacket with a hood, put the hood up and keep it loose, face forward and move your eyes up, note that all you can see is the edge of your hood. Move your head up and note the hood stays in place and now all you see is the top of your hood.
zakabog 3 years ago
Also, let's say you just landed on the moon, the entire world is watching you on TV and you're about to stand on the surface of the moon. You can now sit and stare into the dark sky till your eyes adjust and have a look at stars you can see from earth, or continue down the ladder onto the surface of the moon and make history. I'd choose the moon but I guess you really like stars and on the way back into the LM I'd be more concerned about getting my big bulky suit off finally.
zakabog 3 years ago
I guess you haven't been in any kind of restrictive suit, where your head is free inside a helmet (like a radiation or clean room suit.) You don't look up. You look around a lot, but looking up is kind of annoying cause you can't see anything but the top of your helmet. Unless you have some reason to look up you just don't want to, it's just frustrating. I would bet it's even more frustrating in a pressurized spacesuit with a heavy pack on your pack that would throw you off balance.
zakabog 3 years ago
"the moon surface isn't supposed to have atmosphere disturbing the vision , so they just have to watch 60 degress up , and they would just see balck sky"
Do you realize how hard that would be in one of their space suits? They would just look up and see the top of their helmet, they'd have to lean back and stare at the sky for a few minutes while their eyes adjusted. That would be a complete waste of time, and they don't want to intentionally fall on their backs just to look at the stars.
zakabog 3 years ago
"...that's why concorde pilots at 60000 feets can see stars in daylight..."
The cockpit of the Concorde is darker than the surface of the Moon. The moon has no atmosphere reflecting sunlight back, plus the moons surface is reflecting light back into their eyes. Planes are very different and don't let in much light, if the sun is behind the pilot then it could be possible that their eyes are adjusted to see starlight (although if they suddenly faced the sun they'd be unable to see anything.)
zakabog 3 years ago
I wish I had my old EOS Rebel to send you, let you do some experiments with a camera where you can adjust shutter speed and aperture settings. I'd have you photograph the night sky with an aperture of 7.1, or 11 (the two they used most for Apollo photos) adjusting the shutter speed till the stars could be seen. Then you could keep those settings saved and use them to photograph something outside with the sun directly overhead. Maybe the completely washed out photo will teach you something.
zakabog 3 years ago
Hey Jarrah, keep the photography videos coming. It makes my job so much easier (being that I'm a photographer.) Look at the star in the photo you use to show they can be photographed in the daytime (from Sky & Telescope Magazine.) Notice it isn't a pinpoint of light but a trail, that shows it's a long exposure (a few seconds at least.) The Apollo photos were at around 1/250th of a second. That photo with even a 1/10 shutter speed would show no stars with a dark sky.
zakabog 3 years ago
I was just browsing aroundmy photos and found a picture online I can use as an example to show exactly what I'm talking about.
jmaug com/moon-original jpg
I took that photo not too long ago with a 2.5 second exposure, note the stars visible leave trails that are shorter than the one visible in that magazine. That means the photo in the magazine is longer than a 2.5 second exposure. If you don't believe me, download my photo and check the EXIF info, or try it with your own camera.
zakabog 3 years ago 2
Also, using a TELESCOPE with 50x-160x magnification (at 14,000 feet altitude no less, as stated in the Sky & Telescope magazine) to see a star in daytime is NOT the same as actually seeing them in daytime at regular surface elevation with a camera -- or your own eyes...which was the basis of your own argument in "MoonFaker: Dude, Where's My Star? PART 1."
Once again, it was DAYTIME on the moon. The SUN prevented stars from being photographed in visible (not UV) light.
Case closed.
wspaceport 3 years ago
"Once again, it was DAYTIME on the moon. The SUN prevented stars from being photographed in visible (not UV) light."
Spare me: look away from the sun, take a long exposure. Simple. If taking photos on the daylight side of the moon or earth is impossible then what about the STS-6 photo Windley hyped about?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"using a TELESCOPE with 50x-160x magnification (at 14,000 feet altitude no less, as stated in the Sky & Telescope magazine) to see a star in daytime is NOT the same as actually seeing them in daytime at regular surface elevation with a camera"
Have you even read the magazine article? There are no rules about what altitude you must be to view stars during the day. Perhaps I should have shown the caption for the first picture, which clearly states the telescope was set up in Baltimore, Maryland.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"There are no rules about what altitude you must be to view stars during the day."
Well, I'm not going to argue about that, but it does seem logical that at altitude there is less atmosphere and thus less light scattering to obscure the stars.
However, I will argue with the fact that the photo of Sirius was taken BEFORE sunrise, and Sirius was in the South West at that time, far from the lightening sky in the East.
apollotls 3 years ago
Part 7 of 7
WJ: "Have you even read the magazine article? There are no rules about what altitude ... to view stars during the day. Perhaps I should have shown the caption for the first picture...set up in Baltimore, Maryland."
--Nevertheless, using a TELESCOPE to see stars is STILL *NOT* *THE* *SAME* as using a FILM CAMERA to photograph stars in the daytime.
CONCLUSION: At the least, you failed to provide conclusive proof with a valid test. At the worst, you deliberately misdirected.
wspaceport 3 years ago
Part 6 of 7
WJ: "Spare me: look away from the sun, take a long exposure. Simple. If taking photos on the daylight side of the moon or earth is impossible then what about the STS-6 photo Windley hyped about?"
--No, taking a long exposure will overexpose the lunar surface (the main objective of the Apollo astronauts), and you'd get star rotational movement (streak). As far as the STS-6 photo is concerned, it appears it was taken on the nightside with Earth and its shadow blocking the Sun.
wspaceport 3 years ago
WJ:"Spare me: look away from the sun, take a long exposure. Simple."
Take a look at this recent photo that's looking away from the Sun:
space. newscientist. com/data/images/ns/cms/dn13636/dn13636-2_850. jpg
The nightside of Phobos is faintly lit by "Mars shine" -- sunlight reflecting off of the Red Planet onto the moon's surface. The parts lit by direct sunlight are overexposed in this image to make the nightside more visible.
See any stars? See any features on Phobos' dayside?
wspaceport 3 years ago
Nope. Sorry Jarrah, you blew it. Venus is a Planet, not a "star" -- which is what I asked you to photograph in daytime with a camera.
Your "claim" of 4:07 pm is also suspect: you have a streetlight on in what clearly appears as DUSK with the sun setting below the horizon (Hint: It's not the atmosphere that blocks stars from being seen in daytime, but that big bright object known as the SUN).
DAYTIME on Moon = no visible stars seen in Apollo photos (except Sun).
Back to school Laddie...
wspaceport 3 years ago
"Venus is a Planet, not a "star""
And when did I claim it was anything other than a planet? Try listening to what Kaysing said "stars AND planets" and Melvil confirmed they could be seen from the daylight side of earth.
"Your "claim" of 4:07 pm is also suspect:"
I don't need to 'claim' anything, the camera's timer etched in the film is all the proof I need.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"I don't need to 'claim' anything, the camera's timer etched in the film is all the proof I need."
...
Your arguments are amazing. You realize it's not impossible to change the time in your camera right? That doesn't work as very good proof. Plus his statement that the sun isn't in the picture is true. The video shows nothing except when it's dark you can see stars with a camera. By the way, street lights come on when it gets dark, not in the middle of the day.
zakabog 3 years ago
Part 1 of 7
WS: "Venus is a Planet, not a "star"
WJ: "And when did I claim it was anything other than a planet?"
-- You didn't -- nor did I imply otherwise.
However, that's not the point of the discussion.
My original challenge was (quote): "...Now take your Panasonic NGVS35 camera outside in the middle of the day and try to photograph those same stars. Take as long an exposure time as you'd like and then report back to me your results."
wspaceport 3 years ago
Part 2 of 7
My follow-up post (24hrs later) was: "...When do you plan to take your Panasonic NGVS35camera outside in the middle of a clear and cloudless day and photograph some stars in the sky as part of your proof/claim?"
Your reply: "I didn't bother to answer your message because it was sarcastic: I need to be outside the atmosphere to photograph stars in the day, you know it...I know it...Michael Melvil knows it.
Tell you what: you provide the spaceship, I'll provide the results."
wspaceport 3 years ago
Part 3 of 7
My response back to you was: "...it wasn't sarcastic, it was a legitimate challenge. If Mike Melvill knows it (and I was less than five feet from him and Brian Binney after their historic flights in Mojave nearly four years ago), then where are the photos of the stars and the planets he took on his digital camera? I didn't see any in the flight videos either.
You want the spaceship? No prob. Got US$250,000?...you're going to have to wait a couple of years, so start saving."
wspaceport 3 years ago
Part 4 of 7
WJ:"Try listening to what Kaysing said "stars AND planets" and Melvil confirmed they could be seen from the daylight side of earth.
-- "Seeing" stars and "Photographing" stars from the daylight side of Earth are two different things. The Photography schools at Latrope University, University of Queensland, RMIT University or Northern Melbourne Institute of TFAE would tell you that.
wspaceport 3 years ago
Part 5 of 7
WS:"Your "claim" of 4:07 pm is also suspect:"
WJ:"I don't need to 'claim' anything, the camera's timer etched in the film is all the proof I need."
--So is checking "sunrisesunset. com" and "timeanddate. com" for Australia.
According to their records for the week of March 30--April 5, Sunset occurred at 5:48 p.m. (Brisbane-Queensland) or 5:52 p.m (Sydney-NSW) on March 30 to 5:41 p.m./5:47 p.m. respectively on Apr. 5. I can understand being a little off, but 1hr 20min?
wspaceport 3 years ago
ADDENDUM to Part 5 of 7:
According to Night Sky's Sky Calendar, "Venus has sunk too low toward the rising Sun to be seen easily this month. Determined observers may catch is very low as the sky brightens, but observing continues to deteriorate until it is lost altogether."
So for an "afternoon" shot at "4:07 p.m." your "evening star" was seen 10 hrs early at Sunrise -- 5:57 a.m. (Brisbane-Queensland) or 6:07 a.m (Sydney-NSW) on March 30 to 6:00 a.m./6:10 a.m respectively on Apr 5.
wspaceport 3 years ago
My Bad -- I entered "Venus viewing times in Australia" on a search engine, and I was still taken to a northern hemisphere-based site in error.
Nevertheless, the point remains unchanged; Venus as a planet is reflecting sunlight and can be seen during the day. You can see a star in civil daylight on earth with a telescope, but you can't see or photograph a star in civil daylight with the unaided eye or a standalone film camera like a Hassy -- which was the purpose of the test that was asked.
wspaceport 3 years ago
And of course... on 14th Nov 1994 Sirius was in the south western sky, as seen from the region of Mexico City. Certainly not in the brightest part of the sky....
apollotls 3 years ago
Nice video...but of course Venus is not a star
And do you think it would be possible to photograph Sirius (the brightest star in the sky, I believe) after sunrise?
apollotls 3 years ago
Good job!
whoandwhoand 3 years ago
cool
therailwayinspector 3 years ago