Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.

[Apollo 957]

Right people.  The science has proven it. 

Because it is written, it shall be so.  It can't be true because of a low ISO.

Thanks for watching.

I'm off to watch Capricorn one with my foil hat.

It's been great.

So are you going for the big hissy fit and flounce off, then?

[Apollo 957]

Start at the beginning. Look at all the assembly/design/testing photos in the official record. Really LOOK at them, at all the technicians in their white lab coats, at the facilities around them, at the context. If the missions were being faked for propaganda, would all this have been faked too? Think about it.

Icarus, you could start here; there's a wealth of background and photos from someone who actually worked on Apollo ...

http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum38/HTML/001957.html

[Trebor]

I'm not sure how to proceed here.  I visited a NASA archive.  I looked through a series of images.  I found 2 that were numerically consecutive and of the same subject matter, differing only in angle by a degree or two.

These were compressed JPEG images I assume?

I wanted to research the 'Why No Stars in Moon pics' theory.  I am a Professional Photographer.

I am a photographer and have done a lot of astro-photography, and in doing so it is very very obvious to me why there would be no stars in photographs taken with the directly sunlit lunar surface in frame.

Although the images were taken moments apart (evident only by the foreground shadows not changing at all) the stars in the sky were completely different.

Why did you assume these were stars?

[Count Zero]

Thanks for the up-front answers.

At this point, the conversation could branch-out in different directions; either following the "what are the dots?" thread or moving on to other evidence to persuade your friend.

If we want to pursue "what are the dots?" then I think we all understand that
a.)  We can name several possibilities (but may miss some).
b.)  We may not definitively be able to identify which possibility is the true source (keeping in mind that with multiple artifacts, multiple causes are possible), however...
c.)  Some of these possibilities can be ruled-out.

Possible candidates include (but are not limited to)
- Dust on the lens (ruled-out because, due to depth-of-focus limitations, it would be very out-of-focus and not a distinct dot)
- Dust stuck between the reseau plate and the film (plausible - it would show as distinct dot, and might move as the film winds, causing a similar artifact to show in a different location)
- Cosmic rays impinging on the unexposed film (plausible - the missions were exposed to cosmic rays that are normally blocked by our atmosphere.  depending on the energy, the rays could penetrate to different depths of the emulsion, creating the different colors seen)
- Stars or other astronomical objects (ruled-out due to exposure limitations and the lack of correlation between successive frames)

Since the whole point of your investigation was to provide evidence (or at least persuasive counter-arguments) to your friend's uninformed opinions (good job, by the way, on the illumination-by-reflected-light riposte), there's lots of other stuff available.  Some of the members here have sites elsewhere that have some great ammunition, including JayUtah's Clavius and Onebigmonkey's page.

As for "believing" in the Apollo missions?  It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of understanding.  Most hoax-believers trot out a list of things that they don't understand.  Somehow, their argument seems to be:

I don't understand X ---> I don't understand other people's explanation for X ---> They must not understand X either and are trying to fake it ---> X is fake.

They either do not realize, or cannot admit that their understanding and/or assumptions are wrong.  After all, they're not stupid - just ask them!

I don't know if your friend is like this, but suffice to say that lack of understanding is not evidence of a conspiracy.  When you understand the science, engineering, motivations and even the politics of Apollo, you won't need to "believe" one person's/organization's/government's side or the other; you will know beyond any reasonable doubt that it happened.

Thanks for the chat.  I've got to go fold laundry...

[Zakalwe]

I can shoot at iso 125,000 for a fraction of the time and remove the noise to reveal only the brightest of stars, so your statement is FALSE.

So what?  That has no relevance to your argument that star colour was captured, retained and visible in a compressed scan of the original! You're thrashing about now.

My ability to frame points is my lack of intent to spell it all out.  I'm relying a lot of instinct and general interpretation on your (all) behalf.  It's obviously not happening.  I can't be expected to offer info to several individuals I know nothing about.

Rubbish.
Instinct and general interpretation is what is getting you into this mess.
No-one is expecting you to "offer info to several individuals". What IS expected is that you at least make an effort to describe what you are trying to achieve. And then to listen to the responses.
In reality what you are doing is approaching this from the mindset that you have discovered something earth-shattering that overturns a veritable ton of documented, verifiable evidence. In other words, you are taking the exact same approach as legions of hoax-believers before you. Here's a clue for you- your approach is very, very familiar to people on here as it has been played out by tens of people before you. Heck, we even have a game of Hoax Bingo somewhere that lists the majority of the techniques used by hoax-believers such as yourself.
http://apollohoax.net/bingo/

Can you prove to me that the 3 dots in the original image are NOT anything but dust

Blimey. Those goalposts of yours sure do move quickly! First you had evidence of stars. Now you want me to educate you. When exactly did it become my job to inform and educate you???
However, I'm feeling generous tonight, so here's some information for you. I *think* that you are talking about AS11-40-5949? If so, that image was taken from the location where the Passive Seismic Experiment was deployed. The image was taken at GET 111:06:35. The image is taken pointing Lunar North - you can see the exact orientation in this photgrammtric map:
)
The picture was taken approx 1.5 hours after the first footstep. So, so far we have the exact location, time and orientation of the image.
Now go and download the free planetarium program Stellarium. Set the location to the A11 landing site (00°41′15″N, 23°26′00″E) and the time to the time of the image. You now will get the exact stars and their positions.
Now here's the kicker. The 19th brightest star in the sky and the brightest in the constellation of Cyngus was just above the horizon- Deneb (Alpha Cygni). This is a Mag 1.25 star. Above and to the left of the Lunar Module position would be the Mag 2.23 star Etamin (Gamma Draconis)- the 69th brightest star in the northern hemisphere. Below that would be the Mag 3.75 Grumium (Xi Draconis)

None of these show in the image.

Now I await you to shift the goalposts again.

[bknight]

Not that Icarus1 will see this, but in:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5950HR.jpg

There are several artifacts that I observe without tinkering with any setting on both sides of the LM.  Knowing that they are not stars, I suspect either compression artifacts or comic rays working into the emulsion.

There are only one in:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5949HR.jpg
right of Buzz's antenna

[smartcooky]

I can shoot at iso 125,000 for a fraction of the time and remove the noise to reveal only the brightest of stars, so your statement is FALSE.

Wait! 125,000 ASA? Really?

Where do you get this film from?

Digital!  Irony.  Smartcooky.

No, you haven't answered the question.

The Apollo photos were taken on FILM. That film was less than 125 ASA. Digitising a 125 ASA film is NOT the same as exposing a digital camera CCD set at 125 ASA.

A 1/250th exposure on FILM at f5.6 WOULD NOT RECORD ANY STARS. The light levels from starlight falls well below the reciprocity curve for any film of that period. I doubt that even an ESTAR base film such as Kodak 2475 Recording Film (around 1000 ASA) would record any stars.  NOTHING will be recorded on the film, and if there is NOTHING there, no amount of image manipulation will reveal anything! 

[Icarus1]

Not that Icarus1 will see this, but in:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5950HR.jpg

Why would you assume i wont see this?  I count over 16 dots of interest in the first image using my eye alone.

There are several artifacts that I observe without tinkering with any setting on both sides of the LM.  Knowing that they are not stars, I suspect either compression artifacts or comic rays working into the emulsion.

There are only one in:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5949HR.jpg
right of Buzz's antenna

There are certainly more than one in this image!

[Icarus1]

I can shoot at iso 125,000 for a fraction of the time and remove the noise to reveal only the brightest of stars, so your statement is FALSE.

Wait! 125,000 ASA? Really?

Where do you get this film from?

Digital!  Irony.  Smartcooky.

No, you haven't answered the question.

What question did you ask?  This reply was to another forum user about my own image i uploaded showing the Orion Nebula.  Ip ointed out that I can increase my ISO to high levels and reduce noise using software to reveal only bright stars.  This has nothing to do with Film.  I accuse you of scanning this thread for info to suit your own history.

The Apollo photos were taken on FILM. That film was less than 125 ASA. Digitising a 125 ASA film is NOT the same as exposing a digital camera CCD set at 125 ASA.

A 1/250th exposure on FILM at f5.6 WOULD NOT RECORD ANY STARS. The light levels from starlight falls well below the reciprocity curve for any film of that period. I doubt that even an ESTAR base film such as Kodak 2475 Recording Film (around 1000 ASA) would record any stars.  NOTHING will be recorded on the film, and if there is NOTHING there, no amount of image manipulation will reveal anything!

[nomuse]

To add, this is not specifically an Apollo question.  This relates to Photography and Stage design.  The use of Apollo photo's brought me here.  They are separate instances while borrowing commonalities from each other to prove or disprove a point.  Namely, the lack of stars in Space/Moon/Orbit photography, and also a reason or attempt, to prove or disprove the Hoax theories of going to the moon.

My main question still stands, but I will amend for anyone remotely interested:

Assuming the moon photo's are legit, would the background stars move noticeably, like they do on earth, and alter the foreground shadows also, assuming the only light source is the Sun?

Thanks

My first question is also a request: do you know how to write a clear question?

I'm really having trouble parsing what it is you may be presenting, claiming, or hoping to have explained. Or indeed which of these three it is.

It appears that you believe background stars do appear on some Apollo surface images (that is, other than the well-documented Apollo 16 UV studies). This is a subject that has been studied at length by several people here and elsewhere. To the best calculation possible, it seems that one or two planets might make it into capture range of the film/settings/developing process, and there is decent evidence on one or two pictures of a planet appearing in the appropriate place.

Otherwise, this is not a worthwhile starting point for any further question. Stars are not expected. Anything that may be seen is noise and/or artifacts of the various developing, scanning, and possibly clean-up processes (depending on the provenience of a specific image being investigated).

[Icarus1]

Thanks for the up-front answers.

At this point, the conversation could branch-out in different directions; either following the "what are the dots?" thread or moving on to other evidence to persuade your friend.

If we want to pursue "what are the dots?" then I think we all understand that
a.)  We can name several possibilities (but may miss some).
b.)  We may not definitively be able to identify which possibility is the true source (keeping in mind that with multiple artifacts, multiple causes are possible), however...
c.)  Some of these possibilities can be ruled-out.

Possible candidates include (but are not limited to)
- Dust on the lens (ruled-out because, due to depth-of-focus limitations, it would be very out-of-focus and not a distinct dot)
- Dust stuck between the reseau plate and the film (plausible - it would show as distinct dot, and might move as the film winds, causing a similar artifact to show in a different location)
- Cosmic rays impinging on the unexposed film (plausible - the missions were exposed to cosmic rays that are normally blocked by our atmosphere.  depending on the energy, the rays could penetrate to different depths of the emulsion, creating the different colors seen)
- Stars or other astronomical objects (ruled-out due to exposure limitations and the lack of correlation between successive frames)

Since the whole point of your investigation was to provide evidence (or at least persuasive counter-arguments) to your friend's uninformed opinions (good job, by the way, on the illumination-by-reflected-light riposte), there's lots of other stuff available.  Some of the members here have sites elsewhere that have some great ammunition, including JayUtah's Clavius and Onebigmonkey's page.

As for "believing" in the Apollo missions?  It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of understanding.  Most hoax-believers trot out a list of things that they don't understand.  Somehow, their argument seems to be:

I don't understand X ---> I don't understand other people's explanation for X ---> They must not understand X either and are trying to fake it ---> X is fake.

They either do not realize, or cannot admit that their understanding and/or assumptions are wrong.  After all, they're not stupid - just ask them!

I don't know if your friend is like this, but suffice to say that lack of understanding is not evidence of a conspiracy.  When you understand the science, engineering, motivations and even the politics of Apollo, you won't need to "believe" one person's/organization's/government's side or the other; you will know beyond any reasonable doubt that it happened.

Thanks for the chat.  I've got to go fold laundry...

Where is the 'Like' button on here?? 

[nomuse]

Also, you do realise I could copy and paste any amount of info an Celestial Photography don't you?  I can't prove my knowledge to you!  You also realise that each camera is different in it's sensitivity and set-up?  There are no fixed settings.

Regards

Sure, but we know the capabilities of the lunar Hasselblads precisely. We know exposure times focus fstop blah blah. We already know this. We also know all about the film stock used, it's sensitivity and so forth.

For some reason, you will not tell us which image(s) you are examining.

For some reason you will not tell us what setup you would deploy to photograph stars.

There is no reason Abaddon.  I just haven't got around to it yet.  I've been dealing with other issues.  Apologies!  I also had no idea if Hyperlinks would work here.  I can't add photo's as there is a 192kb limit!

Here is the link to the gallery:http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

The specific images I'm looking at are:

AS11-40-5950
AS11-40-5949

All other things considered and discussed, raising levels with reveal possible stars, planets, artifacts, hairs dust etc.etc.

But the reason I haven't posted the images, is because it has nothing to do with the question.  It's Theoretical!  IF, and it's a big IF, I was to find a decent negative with stars and planets from the moons surface, would the foreground shadows stay the same, while the background stars moved?  It's Rhetorical, but I wanted to hear some opinions on it.

This thread is probably over and done already (I curse my West Coast work schedule here). The Moon is tidal-locked, and libation and other "nodding" motions are small in relation to that orbital motion. So basically the background stars and the Sun all move together with a period of about a month. The interval between any consecutive pair of pictures of the same scene is on the order of minutes. So, any astronomical motion will be completely swamped by small shifts in body position by the photographer, and essentially undetectable even for a fixed camera.

[Icarus1]

To add, this is not specifically an Apollo question.  This relates to Photography and Stage design.  The use of Apollo photo's brought me here.  They are separate instances while borrowing commonalities from each other to prove or disprove a point.  Namely, the lack of stars in Space/Moon/Orbit photography, and also a reason or attempt, to prove or disprove the Hoax theories of going to the moon.

My main question still stands, but I will amend for anyone remotely interested:

Assuming the moon photo's are legit, would the background stars move noticeably, like they do on earth, and alter the foreground shadows also, assuming the only light source is the Sun?

Thanks

My first question is also a request: do you know how to write a clear question?

I'm really having trouble parsing what it is you may be presenting, claiming, or hoping to have explained. Or indeed which of these three it is.

It appears that you believe background stars do appear on some Apollo surface images (that is, other than the well-documented Apollo 16 UV studies). This is a subject that has been studied at length by several people here and elsewhere. To the best calculation possible, it seems that one or two planets might make it into capture range of the film/settings/developing process, and there is decent evidence on one or two pictures of a planet appearing in the appropriate place.

Otherwise, this is not a worthwhile starting point for any further question. Stars are not expected. Anything that may be seen is noise and/or artifacts of the various developing, scanning, and possibly clean-up processes (depending on the provenience of a specific image being investigated).

You've kind of nailed it here.  Yeah...I've either made a balls up, or my dealing with those too quick to shoot me down has resulted ina mindfield a ignorant mistakes on my part.  So here's how I got here:  I can edit images to reveal more detail than it originally shown; we all can with editing software,  right?  So, I figures I would over expose the images Apollo specifically, to see if any details were revealed; and low and behold they were.  What has me at it's is my own knowledge and experience.  It's too mcuh to go over again, siffice it to say, they looked like genuine Stars.  This led me to question the truth of the images as in 2 consecutive images, seperated by mere moments and a degree or two, these revealed Stars/artifacts were different.  This led me again to question wheterh these images were in fact taken on the Moon, or on Erth with a fixed light while the Earth night sky passed in the background over a period of time.  this would mean a continuous light source was present on earth , lighting the LM; hence why the shadows inthe foreground nver change between the two images.  Annnd Breath!!!

[nomuse]

Sorry Apollo I should ad more to this*

My reference to my 20year old negatives was to illustrate that you can attain extra detail from the images using modern software.  I had proof years back with 2 images of the night sky I had(Film, not Digital)  One was over exposed one under, however what was revealed in the under exposed image after further editing were the same stars seen in the over exposed one.   My point was to illustrate again that the Apollo images have more detail to reveal than a black starless sky.

There is no Daytime Sky on the Moon.  It has no atmosphere.  What you're exposing for is Moon surface or highlights which is not the same power as the Sun.  Try setting your exposure to shoot the sun then try taking a pic of the ground.  It'll be black!

If I take my old Minolta all-manual, properly set up for taking pictures in daylight, and point it at the Sun I'll get an over-exposed blob. Trees and grass and people fall below an albedo of 100 as well.

[Icarus1]

Sorry Apollo I should ad more to this*

My reference to my 20year old negatives was to illustrate that you can attain extra detail from the images using modern software.  I had proof years back with 2 images of the night sky I had(Film, not Digital)  One was over exposed one under, however what was revealed in the under exposed image after further editing were the same stars seen in the over exposed one.   My point was to illustrate again that the Apollo images have more detail to reveal than a black starless sky.

There is no Daytime Sky on the Moon.  It has no atmosphere.  What you're exposing for is Moon surface or highlights which is not the same power as the Sun.  Try setting your exposure to shoot the sun then try taking a pic of the ground.  It'll be black!

If I take my old Minolta all-manual, properly set up for taking pictures in daylight, and point it at the Sun I'll get an over-exposed blob. Trees and grass and people fall below an albedo of 100 as well.

It will only over expose if YOU over expose it.  All cameras gauge for 18% gray.  What you do with this info, especially in Manual, determines what you're shooting for: highlight or shadow.Yes, but what is your experience of taking that camera out into the radiation of space and shooting stars without the obstruction of an atmosphere?  I personally don't have that on my CV!

I can't prove anyhting here on earth.  Light pollution and atmospheric particles won't allow it.  However in the cleanness and vacuum of space, it must account for something?