not only are there no stars in the photos which I can understand being a photographer, the astronauts are on record saying that there were no stars visible. This is rather hard to believe.
This is true for a shot directly at a highly luminus object for a still photograph, but this would not hold true for TV VIDEO shot over real time particularly when in darkness, or when the principle object was not inside any glare.
Large bright stars and planets ought to be //clearly// visible in MOST if not all moonwalk video, or Luna orbit video.
Actually a TV camera would be useless at showing stars, they just are not sensitive enough.
You would need a specialised highly sensitive camera to have a chance. And the great deal of amplification needed would generate a lot of noise.
As for still photographs I have spent a lot of time photographing the stars and with typical daylight settings you will never see stars, no matter how clear the night.
@ytmoog Russian Soyuz video it is possible to see large bright stars or planets.
NASA video where you can see surface lights of small towns, you can see ALL quadrillion-zillion stars.
Apollo astronauts themselves lied their asses off.
1 jackass said that he didn't remember seeing any like it didn't occur to him to bother looking for them, and others were very directly liars saying that NO, stars are never visible.
If you film something visible to eyes, everything visible must appear.
"If you film something visible to eyes, everything visible must appear."
False. As the sequence in this video shows. What is visible in the image depends on the exposure time. A longer exposure time will show dimmer objects but over expose brighter ones.
You should try learning something about photography.
@ytmoog TV camera does not need to worry about exposure.
I can see surface lights of small towns and the NASA still also captures that dim surface light.
I can see all stars down to very dim which the NASA still also captures in the same photograph of the surface lights.
You seem to be suggesting that the relative luminosity & narrow frequency range of surface lights and then stars are unrelated phenomena with respect to the film.
@ytmoog Russian Soyuz video it is possible to see many large bright stars or planets.
A TV camera is more sensative and TV recorders have a higher range & definition than hand held, which is what Soyuz uses.
NASA video & stills already capture surface lights of small towns and stars all in the same picture, demonstrating that if I can see it with my eyes and the film picks it up that everything my eyes see also ends up on the film.
And Apollo images of the stars and planets show they photographed Stars, Venus and earth.
So what?
Actually TV cameras are far less sensitive than hand held cameras, try it one night and you will find they have a great deal of difficulty seeing stars.
"NASA video & stills already capture surface lights of small towns and stars all in the same picture"
The lights of small towns are vastly dimmer than the directly sunlit earth.
@centurion180ad no matter what, pictures with the stars can be taken on the moon. my guess is that taking a picture of the stars is one of the things the people landing on the moon would do
They did actually take a small ultra-violet observatory with Apollo 16 and took a lot of images of the stars and the earth.
Taking them with a hand held camera would be pointless, as the exposure would have to be very long it is not possible to hold the camera still enough. And you get lots of little trails.
One question, why would it be one of the things you think they would do exactly?
@cmmrc ytoomg speaks truth. Also, stars were also captured while studying the solar corona with long exposure photos using super high-speed (super sensitive) film.
@cmmrc They're unable to give PROOF OF LIFE, like holding a daily newspaper up in front of youself for a picture of youself with the date clearly visible.
@cmmrc Apollo was unable to give PROOF OF LIFE, like holding a daily newspaper up in front of youself for a picture of youself taken on the same day, with the date clearly visible.
Those 2 things can never appear together in Apollo, because those 2 things were never together.
what does this really prove? that you were standing on earth? please there were no stars no time in any picture, and if you watch the interview of the moonwalkers they said it themselves they never saw any stars at all and even your demonstration shows stars eventualy and here's some food for thought: you now have phones that if shown to someone from 1969 they'd think you were a alien so....if moon travel was possible then, where's the advancement? dude its 2011
@ytmoog Yes they did, Michael Collins said, "I don't remember seeing any." At about 6:17 in the video
watch?v=PinQgAwnk4w&feature=related
You have to understand one thing, the moon has no atmosphere, so you should get an outstandingly brilliant backdrop of the sky and the earth should be massive compared to viewing the moon from earth, what a joke, the earth would look that small on the moon?? Are we stupid, LMAO!! I just don't buy any of these lies, there are way too many inconsistencies.
@ytmoog No, he said, "I don't remember seeing any," he didn't specify specifics, NICE TRY. Why would Collin jump in and say he didn't see it in the solar corona? Neil wasn't supposed to say he saw any stars whatsoever, that is why Michael dived in and said what he said that make the interview look very awkward on that part. You can see clearly that Neil went off script and Michael concluded with the final analyzes of what they were supposed to say to the press. Those guys were nervous as hell.
For example the first time they passed into the shadow of the Moon Armstrong says :
"02 23 59 20 CDR Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns."
@ytmoog The new NASA astronauts say one of the first thing you see when you go into space is the stars, they are so breathtaking. It doesn't matter which time of day or night, you can always see the stars shining brilliantly. Neil was reading from a script and they most stick with it to this day. They feel that no one will ever make it to the moon to check anyway so they feel safe to say and stick to it. But the truth will eventually tell on you, because you can't contain it forever...
@ytmoog That beauty of stars is impaired by our cock-blocking ass atmosphere, LMAO! Everyone doesn't experience the wedgie of accommodation and photophobia, that's ((obsolete)). Sun visors is a wonder drug for astronaut just like shades are for us. My thing is, why didn't they go to the dark side just to get a good shot of the sky? Would you would've suggested that? Not one mission?! Not even one?!! That doesn't seem suspicious to you dude? Damn..., you got to have more sense than that...
Actually our atmosphere absorbs very little light in the visible region and from a good location, such as Hawaii where many telescopes are placed you would get a view of stars just as good.
"My thing is, why didn't they go to the dark side just to get a good shot of the sky?"
Have you ever tried to photograph the stars with a hand held camera?
Better is to use a good tripod for the job, like in the Apollo 16 observatory.
@ytmoog We aren't talking about light absorption dude, we are talking about light refection. The atmosphere it self reflects and the clouds reflect, A LOT... Therefore you shouldn't see a starry background so clearly. And I don't know why you people just can't get this, THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERE IN (((SPACE))) -(echo) LOL! And in low gravity, it is easier to stabilize yourself and the camera, two different environments that doesn't correspond with the other at all...
The atmosphere does not reflect light, it scatters some; especially in the blue regions of the visible spectrum (which is why the sky seems to be blue during the day).
Clouds do reflect light but fortunately it is possible to wait for those to go away, or if you are in a good location they are not an issue.
The biggest problem of the two for astronomers is light pollution, but again there if you have a good location that is not an issue
@ytmoog What he said was scripted and he went off script. Who says, "the sky is full of stars, just like the nightside of earth." WTF?? We all know the stars are there and can see them clearly at night. That just seem like he was told to say that to clarify that they didn't see any stars and couldn't photograph them on the moon. Remember, this is a HOAX. The pictures on the video on my page clarifies the the stars are so brilliant against our super bright earthshine. Why can we see that?
@ytmoog Wrong answer... It is someone who wants you to think he has been to the moon. He said that like an actor, normal people don't talk like that, it's too passive... So you are telling me that the shining thing is a light? You got to be stupid not to see that's the sun. And Auroras are observed in the night sky on earth, how is is observed from space looking into the atmosphere? And look at the trajectory from the size of the sun to the position of the Aurora. It's all about angles...
Same thing happens here, sometimes i get loads of stars with a long exposure, and sometimes i get nothing but one dominant one viewable from the naked eye.
@ytmoog If the bright light in the face theory is your only evidence then you failed. If what you say is the case, you shouldn't see anything at all in the videos or pictures, because the light refections would be completely overpower in every respect in a video/photo documentation . So the theory is shot to hell. Look at the video on my page and change your brainwashed theory in seconds. Watch the whole video and stay down, because you can't contest it and then rename your assessment, A HOAX...
@ytmoog It don't make a difference whether it is night or day, you and your likes said stars can't be photograph whatsoever, because of light, contrast and such. The earthshine on our planet is way the hell brighter than the moon, but I guess that is no issue to you, right? The stars are lit up like a Christmas tree into the light and the Apollo missions should've been in full color for an event so important, what happen? Plus earth is 4 times the size of the moon, WTF HAPPEN to that picture?
@ytmoog If you didn't notice, those videos sucked and the pictures were fixed, very obvious. Look on the video on my page, plenty of stars, super bright into the SUN, IT WAS THE LIGHT SIDE! My thing is, why did NASA blot out the stars from photos on the dark side?
Look at that earthshine on the light side in this video, the earth is so bright.
watch?v=nojl3aiYBOw&feature=related
Just to give you an example of the earthshine. Those stars in those photographs should not be due to earthshine
Good video Yt. And I guess just a few hoaxers watched it (very sneaky). But rapidly turned back to their 'wires' topic or the 'waving flag' of Apollo 15.
I have discussed with a few about this and linked your video, but hell no.... they are not going to watch they say. I guess some times the truth is tough and very inconvenient.
@ytmoog As time progresses the truth can't hide behind government bullshit ass lies any longer. To say you couldn't see any stars and then write it in a book that you could is more than crazy to suggest. Not to mention in all NASA's pre-depiction photos, ((STARS)) and lots of them. Also, Russian pictures untouched photos, STARS!! I have a video on my channel NASA recorded them into the direct sun light. Then they showed how they can kill them out without a problem at the end, what joke...
Well 2min, there are some guys on YT that think the Apollo was a huge conspiracy and they are sure that the astronauts were tethered with wires, to assume 1/6 gravity in the videos.
Pretty steady shooting for a hand held camera. From the settings in your first couple of moon shots, I'm guessing you have a DIGITAL camera set at ISO 400. The stars in your 2.0 sec exposure 0:46 look about right for that.
The lunar surface photos were taken with settings between 1/250 sec f11 and 1/125 sec f5.6 using ISO68 transparency film. If I'm right about your ISO, that would be equivalent to 0.000125 sec f/4, up to 0.001 sec f/4 0:12. Of course, stars are brighter on the moon.
Darn? Guessed wrong. I knew you were not running at 1600 because the stars didn't pop out before 0.85 sec. So, I started at f11 and 1/125 sec on ISO100. Took that to f4 at 1/1000 on ISO100. Took that to f4 at 1/4000 on ISO400 which is between your .0002 sec and .0003 sec shots. If you were running at 800, I'm not quite as impressed with your camera holding skills. ;^)
Now this was very cool. Has Jarrah seen it yet? I'll be interested in how he uses his albedo arguments with this.
I am so glad to have a video now which shows this progression and what it takes to see stars when the moon (or any other bright object) is in the picture. I hope the people who haven't learned much about this hoax thing will understand what they are seeing. Do you think they will?
I'm afraid some viewers won't understand the exposure settings.
Have you seen the photos taken from the moon of the Earth that manages to also capture Venus? It was done at the end of a roll of film at the end of an EVA just to use up the roll of film. It would interesting to see what the minimum conditions for Venus to show up are. It is very very faint in the photos and everything else is exposed normally.
@SirMildredPierce This is true for a shot directly at a highly luminus object for a still photograph, but this would not hold true for TV VIDEO shot over real time particularly when in darkness, or when the principle object was not inside any glare.
Large bright stars and planets ought to be //clearly// visible in MOST if not all moonwalk video, or Luna orbit video.
Astronauts themselves LIED their asses off, by saying they never saw any stars.
not only are there no stars in the photos which I can understand being a photographer, the astronauts are on record saying that there were no stars visible. This is rather hard to believe.
rongwrong1 3 weeks ago
@rongwrong1
That is a bit simplistic.
They have stated seeing stars while on the shadowed side of the moon, and through the small optical telescope on board.
But in both of those cases the light from the sun was blocked.
And eyes do need to dark adapt in order to see the far fainter stars and that is very hard to do with glare from the sun.
ytmoog 3 weeks ago
@ytmoog understood
cmmrc 5 days ago
@rongwrong1 you said it! they said it! some people choose not to hear it.
cmmrc 5 days ago
This is true for a shot directly at a highly luminus object for a still photograph, but this would not hold true for TV VIDEO shot over real time particularly when in darkness, or when the principle object was not inside any glare.
Large bright stars and planets ought to be //clearly// visible in MOST if not all moonwalk video, or Luna orbit video.
centurion180ad 1 month ago
@centurion180ad
Actually a TV camera would be useless at showing stars, they just are not sensitive enough.
You would need a specialised highly sensitive camera to have a chance. And the great deal of amplification needed would generate a lot of noise.
As for still photographs I have spent a lot of time photographing the stars and with typical daylight settings you will never see stars, no matter how clear the night.
ytmoog 1 month ago
@ytmoog Russian Soyuz video it is possible to see large bright stars or planets.
NASA video where you can see surface lights of small towns, you can see ALL quadrillion-zillion stars.
Apollo astronauts themselves lied their asses off.
1 jackass said that he didn't remember seeing any like it didn't occur to him to bother looking for them, and others were very directly liars saying that NO, stars are never visible.
If you film something visible to eyes, everything visible must appear.
centurion180ad 1 month ago
@centurion180ad
"If you film something visible to eyes, everything visible must appear."
False. As the sequence in this video shows. What is visible in the image depends on the exposure time. A longer exposure time will show dimmer objects but over expose brighter ones.
You should try learning something about photography.
ytmoog 1 month ago
@ytmoog TV camera does not need to worry about exposure.
I can see surface lights of small towns and the NASA still also captures that dim surface light.
I can see all stars down to very dim which the NASA still also captures in the same photograph of the surface lights.
You seem to be suggesting that the relative luminosity & narrow frequency range of surface lights and then stars are unrelated phenomena with respect to the film.
centurion180ad 1 month ago
@centurion180ad
"TV camera does not need to worry about exposure."
:D
Never used one I take it?
And no, I am stating that a long exposure time show dimmer objects such as stars and town lights from space.
Where as very bright objects (such as the sunlit earth) need a very short exposure time to not over expose them vastly.
And I also show that very well in this video, with the sunlit moon and stars.
ytmoog 1 month ago
@ytmoog Russian Soyuz video it is possible to see many large bright stars or planets.
A TV camera is more sensative and TV recorders have a higher range & definition than hand held, which is what Soyuz uses.
NASA video & stills already capture surface lights of small towns and stars all in the same picture, demonstrating that if I can see it with my eyes and the film picks it up that everything my eyes see also ends up on the film.
centurion180ad 1 month ago
@centurion180ad
And Apollo images of the stars and planets show they photographed Stars, Venus and earth.
So what?
Actually TV cameras are far less sensitive than hand held cameras, try it one night and you will find they have a great deal of difficulty seeing stars.
"NASA video & stills already capture surface lights of small towns and stars all in the same picture"
The lights of small towns are vastly dimmer than the directly sunlit earth.
ytmoog 1 month ago
@centurion180ad no matter what, pictures with the stars can be taken on the moon. my guess is that taking a picture of the stars is one of the things the people landing on the moon would do
cmmrc 5 days ago
@cmmrc
They did actually take a small ultra-violet observatory with Apollo 16 and took a lot of images of the stars and the earth.
Taking them with a hand held camera would be pointless, as the exposure would have to be very long it is not possible to hold the camera still enough. And you get lots of little trails.
One question, why would it be one of the things you think they would do exactly?
See the video above for a few examples of that.
ytmoog 5 days ago
the better question is why didn't they take a picture of stars
cmmrc 3 months ago
@cmmrc
They did, Apollo 16 took a small observatory which took many images of the stars and the earth in the UV spectrum.
ytmoog 3 months ago
@cmmrc ytoomg speaks truth. Also, stars were also captured while studying the solar corona with long exposure photos using super high-speed (super sensitive) film.
spaceflight*nasa*gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo15/html/as15-98-13311*html
Conspiracy theorists claim these photos are fake as well as that other photos should have stars, and, but this creates a contradiction
If NASA could fake stars, and stars should be visible in the other images, why didn't they?
loperspest 3 months ago
@cmmrc They're unable to give PROOF OF LIFE, like holding a daily newspaper up in front of youself for a picture of youself with the date clearly visible.
centurion180ad 1 month ago
@cmmrc Apollo was unable to give PROOF OF LIFE, like holding a daily newspaper up in front of youself for a picture of youself taken on the same day, with the date clearly visible.
Those 2 things can never appear together in Apollo, because those 2 things were never together.
centurion180ad 1 month ago
@centurion180ad
You should really learn something about photography.
Either that or watch this video and try some thinking.
ytmoog 1 month ago
For more about the pictures of the stars taken by Apollo 16 in the UV spectrum, see watch?v=-wdiQ8IvO68
Further proof that the Apollo missions were real.
GlowWorm1962 10 months ago
@GlowWorm1962 If you have to work so hard to prove something real, chances are, it is a HOAX...
GUARDIANtrooper 7 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper No real work was involved, ergo it was real ;-)
GlowWorm1962 7 months ago
what does this really prove? that you were standing on earth? please there were no stars no time in any picture, and if you watch the interview of the moonwalkers they said it themselves they never saw any stars at all and even your demonstration shows stars eventualy and here's some food for thought: you now have phones that if shown to someone from 1969 they'd think you were a alien so....if moon travel was possible then, where's the advancement? dude its 2011
sweepatayda 11 months ago
@sweepatayda
It shows that the sunlit moon is massively brighter than the stars and that the short exposure times needed to photograph it would not show stars.
"..there were no stars no time in any picture.."
Untrue, the long duration exposures of the solar corona and the Apollo 16 UV observatory pictures all show stars.
"and if you watch the interview of the moonwalkers"
I take it you did not watch it, because they did not state they never saw any stars at all.
ytmoog 11 months ago
@ytmoog Yes they did, Michael Collins said, "I don't remember seeing any." At about 6:17 in the video
watch?v=PinQgAwnk4w&feature=related
You have to understand one thing, the moon has no atmosphere, so you should get an outstandingly brilliant backdrop of the sky and the earth should be massive compared to viewing the moon from earth, what a joke, the earth would look that small on the moon?? Are we stupid, LMAO!! I just don't buy any of these lies, there are way too many inconsistencies.
GUARDIANtrooper 7 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper
Did you listen to the question they were asked?
Here is part of it : “When you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the Solar corona in spite of the glare?”
The solar corona is the upper atmosphere of the sun.
Collins doesn't remember seeing any stars in the solar corona. That is what he specifically answers.
You would have a great view of the stars IF you did not have the considerable glare from the sunlit lunar surface from one horizon to the other.
ytmoog 7 months ago
@ytmoog No, he said, "I don't remember seeing any," he didn't specify specifics, NICE TRY. Why would Collin jump in and say he didn't see it in the solar corona? Neil wasn't supposed to say he saw any stars whatsoever, that is why Michael dived in and said what he said that make the interview look very awkward on that part. You can see clearly that Neil went off script and Michael concluded with the final analyzes of what they were supposed to say to the press. Those guys were nervous as hell.
GUARDIANtrooper 7 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper
"he didn't specify specifics, "
Did you listen to the actual question they were asked?
Why should he go into specifics that were implied in the actual question?
"Why would Collin jump in and say he didn't see it in the solar corona? "
Because that was an answer to the question they were asked.
ytmoog 7 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper
For example the first time they passed into the shadow of the Moon Armstrong says :
"02 23 59 20 CDR Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns."
Because it was dark.
ytmoog 7 months ago
@ytmoog The new NASA astronauts say one of the first thing you see when you go into space is the stars, they are so breathtaking. It doesn't matter which time of day or night, you can always see the stars shining brilliantly. Neil was reading from a script and they most stick with it to this day. They feel that no one will ever make it to the moon to check anyway so they feel safe to say and stick to it. But the truth will eventually tell on you, because you can't contain it forever...
GUARDIANtrooper 7 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper
"they are so breathtaking..." when it is dark enough to see them well.
"It doesn't matter which time of day or night..." as long as enough light is blocked that their eyes can adapt... far easier to do at night.
Are you aware it takes quite some time for the retina to dark adapt enough to see the stars which are vastly dimmer than a bright sunlit scene?
Judging from your example the truth will for ever miss you because you do not want the truth.
ytmoog 7 months ago
@ytmoog That beauty of stars is impaired by our cock-blocking ass atmosphere, LMAO! Everyone doesn't experience the wedgie of accommodation and photophobia, that's ((obsolete)). Sun visors is a wonder drug for astronaut just like shades are for us. My thing is, why didn't they go to the dark side just to get a good shot of the sky? Would you would've suggested that? Not one mission?! Not even one?!! That doesn't seem suspicious to you dude? Damn..., you got to have more sense than that...
GUARDIANtrooper 7 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper
Actually our atmosphere absorbs very little light in the visible region and from a good location, such as Hawaii where many telescopes are placed you would get a view of stars just as good.
"My thing is, why didn't they go to the dark side just to get a good shot of the sky?"
Have you ever tried to photograph the stars with a hand held camera?
Better is to use a good tripod for the job, like in the Apollo 16 observatory.
ytmoog 7 months ago
@ytmoog We aren't talking about light absorption dude, we are talking about light refection. The atmosphere it self reflects and the clouds reflect, A LOT... Therefore you shouldn't see a starry background so clearly. And I don't know why you people just can't get this, THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERE IN (((SPACE))) -(echo) LOL! And in low gravity, it is easier to stabilize yourself and the camera, two different environments that doesn't correspond with the other at all...
GUARDIANtrooper 7 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper
"we are talking about light refection."
The atmosphere does not reflect light, it scatters some; especially in the blue regions of the visible spectrum (which is why the sky seems to be blue during the day).
Clouds do reflect light but fortunately it is possible to wait for those to go away, or if you are in a good location they are not an issue.
The biggest problem of the two for astronomers is light pollution, but again there if you have a good location that is not an issue
ytmoog 7 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper
Were you building to a point anywhere here?
An even better way to stabilize your camera would be to use a tripod. Like the Apollo 16 observatory which took hundreds of images in the UV spectrum.
To do so it also used very long exposure times up to 10 to 30 minutes or so.
There are also the Apollo images of the Solar corona, where they took long duration of upper atmosphere of the sun which also show stars nicely.
ytmoog 7 months ago
@ytmoog What he said was scripted and he went off script. Who says, "the sky is full of stars, just like the nightside of earth." WTF?? We all know the stars are there and can see them clearly at night. That just seem like he was told to say that to clarify that they didn't see any stars and couldn't photograph them on the moon. Remember, this is a HOAX. The pictures on the video on my page clarifies the the stars are so brilliant against our super bright earthshine. Why can we see that?
GUARDIANtrooper 7 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper
"Who says, "the sky is full of stars, just like the nightside of earth." "
Someone who has an impressive view of the stars...
"The pictures on the video on my page..." were taken at night.
Did you really not notice they were of the Aurora? That is kind of a big give away and really should have made you think.
ytmoog 7 months ago
@ytmoog Wrong answer... It is someone who wants you to think he has been to the moon. He said that like an actor, normal people don't talk like that, it's too passive... So you are telling me that the shining thing is a light? You got to be stupid not to see that's the sun. And Auroras are observed in the night sky on earth, how is is observed from space looking into the atmosphere? And look at the trajectory from the size of the sun to the position of the Aurora. It's all about angles...
GUARDIANtrooper 7 months ago
Same thing happens here, sometimes i get loads of stars with a long exposure, and sometimes i get nothing but one dominant one viewable from the naked eye.
CombatMTv3 1 year ago
@ed4ed
Go outside on a clear night, shine a bright light on your face, and what do you see. No stars.
Take a short exposure on a camera and you don't get any stars either.
Try watching the sequence and attempt some thinking....
ytmoog 1 year ago
@ytmoog If the bright light in the face theory is your only evidence then you failed. If what you say is the case, you shouldn't see anything at all in the videos or pictures, because the light refections would be completely overpower in every respect in a video/photo documentation . So the theory is shot to hell. Look at the video on my page and change your brainwashed theory in seconds. Watch the whole video and stay down, because you can't contest it and then rename your assessment, A HOAX...
GUARDIANtrooper 7 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper
"If the bright light in the face theory is your only evidence then you failed."
It is a basic fact of biology that human eyes need to adapt to darkness in order to see stars.
It is a basic photographic fact that cameras need a very long exposure in order to show stars.
(see sequence above)
"you shouldn't see anything at all in the videos or pictures"
Apart from the bright sunlit lunar surface the camera was adjusted for of course....
ytmoog 7 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper
cont...
As for your video, you do realise the photographs of the Aurora were taken at night don't you?
ytmoog 7 months ago
@ytmoog It don't make a difference whether it is night or day, you and your likes said stars can't be photograph whatsoever, because of light, contrast and such. The earthshine on our planet is way the hell brighter than the moon, but I guess that is no issue to you, right? The stars are lit up like a Christmas tree into the light and the Apollo missions should've been in full color for an event so important, what happen? Plus earth is 4 times the size of the moon, WTF HAPPEN to that picture?
GUARDIANtrooper 7 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper
"you and your likes said stars can't be photograph whatsoever"
That is false.
I stated that a short exposure cannot show stars, while a long exposure can. And indeed that is what the video above shows.
If you are also asking for photos from Apollo sowing the earth you do realise there are hundreds of them all available online?
ytmoog 7 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper
"...and the Apollo missions should've been in full color for an event so important.."
Which is why they carried a lot of colour film, as well as B&W film. It is notable that B&W film has a higher resolution.
"The earthshine on our planet is way the hell brighter than the moon..."
Which is why images taken from LRO with a sunlit earth in the foreground do not show stars.
Unlike in your images of the Aurora which were taken at night using a long exposure so they can.
ytmoog 7 months ago
@ytmoog If you didn't notice, those videos sucked and the pictures were fixed, very obvious. Look on the video on my page, plenty of stars, super bright into the SUN, IT WAS THE LIGHT SIDE! My thing is, why did NASA blot out the stars from photos on the dark side?
Look at that earthshine on the light side in this video, the earth is so bright.
watch?v=nojl3aiYBOw&feature=related
Just to give you an example of the earthshine. Those stars in those photographs should not be due to earthshine
GUARDIANtrooper 7 months ago
@GUARDIANtrooper
I have seen that video and in case you didn't notice those photos it showed were long duration exposures of the Aurora.
Did you really not notice the Aurora?
Even better I have the actual photos.
They would show stars because they were long exposure photos... where is that light coming from... the moon.
"Those stars in those photographs should not be due to earthshine"
They are there due to the fact they were long exposure photos....
ytmoog 7 months ago
at 1.03 you can see stars,
rasorclips 1 year ago
@rasorclips
Loads of em.
I was surprised how many were visible with a 15 second exposure.
Quite a clear night they were taken on.
ytmoog 1 year ago
Good video Yt. And I guess just a few hoaxers watched it (very sneaky). But rapidly turned back to their 'wires' topic or the 'waving flag' of Apollo 15.
I have discussed with a few about this and linked your video, but hell no.... they are not going to watch they say. I guess some times the truth is tough and very inconvenient.
Rob260259 2 years ago 2
Cheers Rob,
The 'no stars' argument is a really old and silly one, and it certainly needs putting to rest.
I find it really odd that many still seem to stick by it for some reason.
ytmoog 2 years ago
@ytmoog As time progresses the truth can't hide behind government bullshit ass lies any longer. To say you couldn't see any stars and then write it in a book that you could is more than crazy to suggest. Not to mention in all NASA's pre-depiction photos, ((STARS)) and lots of them. Also, Russian pictures untouched photos, STARS!! I have a video on my channel NASA recorded them into the direct sun light. Then they showed how they can kill them out without a problem at the end, what joke...
GUARDIANtrooper 7 months ago
hey, what do you mean by the "wires"? I've never heard of it.
2minutestomammoth 2 years ago
Well 2min, there are some guys on YT that think the Apollo was a huge conspiracy and they are sure that the astronauts were tethered with wires, to assume 1/6 gravity in the videos.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Excellent job!! And might I say its about time someone answered these hoaxtards with the REAL facts, not the made up ones!
guitarplayer4real 2 years ago 4
Cheers,
That was the idea. So that next time the question came up I could offer a demonstration of exactly why.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Pretty steady shooting for a hand held camera. From the settings in your first couple of moon shots, I'm guessing you have a DIGITAL camera set at ISO 400. The stars in your 2.0 sec exposure 0:46 look about right for that.
The lunar surface photos were taken with settings between 1/250 sec f11 and 1/125 sec f5.6 using ISO68 transparency film. If I'm right about your ISO, that would be equivalent to 0.000125 sec f/4, up to 0.001 sec f/4 0:12. Of course, stars are brighter on the moon.
philwebb59 2 years ago
Cheers Phil,
I took these at ISO 800. Should have put that in the details really...
ytmoog 2 years ago
Darn? Guessed wrong. I knew you were not running at 1600 because the stars didn't pop out before 0.85 sec. So, I started at f11 and 1/125 sec on ISO100. Took that to f4 at 1/1000 on ISO100. Took that to f4 at 1/4000 on ISO400 which is between your .0002 sec and .0003 sec shots. If you were running at 800, I'm not quite as impressed with your camera holding skills. ;^)
philwebb59 2 years ago
I will have you know my camera holding skills are second to none :)
ytmoog 2 years ago
Now this was very cool. Has Jarrah seen it yet? I'll be interested in how he uses his albedo arguments with this.
I am so glad to have a video now which shows this progression and what it takes to see stars when the moon (or any other bright object) is in the picture. I hope the people who haven't learned much about this hoax thing will understand what they are seeing. Do you think they will?
I'm afraid some viewers won't understand the exposure settings.
Astrobrant2 2 years ago 2
I am hopeful some will. At least those who can look into it further anyway.
Not heard any objections from the hoax crowd yet so we shall see.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Interesting. I wonder how an HDR composite would handle the glare.
HiAdrian 2 years ago
That would be interesting.
Couldn't do it with this as I don't have the raw images any more.
But it would be an interesting experiment... and would probably generate a great deal of confusion.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Have you seen the photos taken from the moon of the Earth that manages to also capture Venus? It was done at the end of a roll of film at the end of an EVA just to use up the roll of film. It would interesting to see what the minimum conditions for Venus to show up are. It is very very faint in the photos and everything else is exposed normally.
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago
I have seen those pictures.
When I tried this with the full moon earlier Jupiter was in the frame and that was at a magitude of about -2 and it was very visible.
And as Venus can be much brighter than Jupiter I can well imagine it being visible even at the faster exposure times.
I will try it some time.
ytmoog 2 years ago
I think this is an excellent demonstration. It is quite simple, really. But it will be over the heads of many people.
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago 5
I guess it could have done with some explanatory dialogue or nifty graphics.
ytmoog 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SirMildredPierce This is true for a shot directly at a highly luminus object for a still photograph, but this would not hold true for TV VIDEO shot over real time particularly when in darkness, or when the principle object was not inside any glare.
Large bright stars and planets ought to be //clearly// visible in MOST if not all moonwalk video, or Luna orbit video.
Astronauts themselves LIED their asses off, by saying they never saw any stars.
centurion180ad 1 month ago