Author Topic: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.  (Read 151071 times)

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #30 on: January 05, 2017, 10:51:46 AM »
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.
See this thing? AS11-40-5950? See that? That is all we need. We have all of the Apollo image libraries at out fingertips. You don't need hyperlinks at all and you know it, so I am not buying that excuse.

Next question. Where did you source these images from?

Next question, neither are 192K even at low res. Why did you avoid the Hires scans? This suggests that you are using copies of copies which have been through jpeg compression at least twice if not more.

Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #31 on: January 05, 2017, 10:54:19 AM »
Here is how to post links of the two images you posted.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5949HR.jpg
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5950HR.jpg

Very simple with no image size limitations.

Now exactly what do you or your friend have issues with either of these two images?

Thank you.  I know how to copy and paste a link, but as I explained the images were secondary to my question (edited images).However, I aimed to show the artifacts/planets/stars/hair/dust etc after editing.  Increasing levels to reveal.

My 'friend' is not apart of this discussion.  I merely mention him as he is NOT a photographer and believes in Lizard people etc.  We don't live close.  In fact I've not known him for 25 years.  He contacted me on FB and post ridiculous things regarding conspiracies.  MYself hower, do belive our Gov's are corrupt and the world is owned by private corporations.  However, back to Photography!

Trying to communicate in strange forums with angry people who want answers NOW NOW NOW is difficult and a lot will be lost in translation.  Abaddon, your question or demand was answered 10 minutes before your most recent request for info.  Calm down, take a breath and wait for the Forum to catch up.  The info you asked for is there, and now BK has posted them too. 

They now need to be 'edited' to reveal the artifacts.

I'd be interested to hear what anyone thinks, other than what I have heard already.  Most notably the colours, trails etc. revealed while increasing Curves.

Thank you for playing.

Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2017, 10:56:03 AM »
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.
See this thing? AS11-40-5950? See that? That is all we need. We have all of the Apollo image libraries at out fingertips. You don't need hyperlinks at all and you know it, so I am not buying that excuse.

Next question. Where did you source these images from?

Next question, neither are 192K even at low res. Why did you avoid the Hires scans? This suggests that you are using copies of copies which have been through jpeg compression at least twice if not more.

Jesus, Abaddon, take a break! 

IT'S THE EDITED PICS I WANTED TO UPLOAD!!!!!  I'M STARTING TO THINK YOU'RE THE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.  THERE'S NO LIES HERE. FFS!

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1132
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #33 on: January 05, 2017, 11:11:19 AM »

Jesus, Abaddon, take a break! 

IT'S THE EDITED PICS I WANTED TO UPLOAD!!!!!  I'M STARTING TO THINK YOU'RE THE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.  THERE'S NO LIES HERE. FFS!
Wait, what? You think anyone who just wanders in the door should automatically be exempt from scrutiny? Is that what you think?

Guess again. Your notions are being scrutinised.

I suspect that your internet screaming reveals the fact that you know how fragile your claims actually are. In your all caps rant, you stated that you wanted to upload edited pics. Red flag straight away. You can only support your argument by uploading edited pics. Does this not seem at least a little odd to you? You have to edit the pics to support your argument? When we all have the originals at hand? Why on earth would we rely on your edited version when we have the originals before us in much higher resolution?

Explain that.

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #34 on: January 05, 2017, 11:30:36 AM »
Thank you.  I know how to copy and paste a link, but as I explained the images were secondary to my question (edited images).However, I aimed to show the artifacts/planets/stars/hair/dust etc after editing.  Increasing levels to reveal.

So you know that the images are edited, but you also know that edited images cannot possibly contain compression artifacts, etc., that would produce what you're claiming are stars?
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Count Zero

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Pad 39A July 14,1969
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #35 on: January 05, 2017, 11:34:00 AM »
Howdy Icarus!  Welcome to the forum.

I think I see the crux of your problem here as related to your question.  In your opening post, you wrote:

My initial intention was to reveal Stars in the blackness of space.  I wanted to research the 'Why No Stars in Moon pics' theory.  I am a Professional Photographer.  I have Photoshop.  I opened these two images in PS (I will either post or link or whatever, later) and increased the Levels to reveal stars in the blackness.  At first I thought 'Great; there are stars'.  However, I overlay the 2nd image and did the same, lowering the opacity to align with the image below it.  Content with the alignment, and selecting between the two images, something was revealed.
(Emphasis added)

Your error is in assuming that the dots you found were, in fact, stars.

They are not.

What are they?  Well, it they don't match up from image to image, then you can safely rule them out as anything that was actually in the scene photographed.  That is to say, it is "noise".  I use the term loosely; although it is usually used in reference to transmission and reception, it is also valid when describing any spurious data on a detector (which, technically, camera film is) or in an image.  The 'noise hypothesis' is testable in several different ways, from the general (If you photograph a very black object using a film camera and daylight settings, then digitize the result and adjust the levels, do you get noise?) to the specific (After adjusting the levels on images in question (thanks for listing them, btw), did you check the shadows in the foreground to see if they showed dots, and -if so - did those dots match-up on consecutive images).

When you first adjusted your levels and saw dots on the black, your first thought should not have been, 'Great, there are stars,' but rather, 'I've got something, are they stars?'  Matching it with a consecutive pic was a valid test for eliminating the possibility that they are stars.

Having thus eliminated the possibility of them being stars, your whole question as stated...

Quote
To make this more clear as a question, and bearing in mind my knowledge of celestial movement and observation from the Moon's surface is non-existent, would the foreground shadows on the moon (created by the Sun only?) change in angle as the moon travels thru space in a manner that would be easily observed over a very short/immediate period of time?  Would the stars also move so drastically in the same instance?  Is it possible for the foreground shadows to be exactly the same in both images, but the stars be totally different?

...becomes irrelevant (the answer to your question, by the way, is "No, but who cares - That's noise, not stars").

I think what got others here riled is the perceived train of thought:
"I see dots ---> Dots are stars ---> Stars don't match ---> 'Conspiracy to deceive'"
instead of
"I see dots ---> Dots don't match ---> Dots are not stars"

Which do you think is more reasonable?

If one were to ask me to consider the conspiracy angle (only considering the issue raised with these two photographs and ignoring the entire rest of the Apollo record), my first thought would be, 'If someone were faking this scene in some way, why would they rearrange a whole lot of 'stars' in the background sky between two consecutive images?  That would be silly and - more to the point - unnecessary!'

Hope this helps.  Cheers!
« Last Edit: January 05, 2017, 11:37:58 AM by Count Zero »
"What makes one step a giant leap is all the steps before."

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3145
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #36 on: January 05, 2017, 12:00:42 PM »
When you start tweaking the parameters of an image you get all sorts of compression artifacts, so I've been told.
The "stars" you see may be just that compression artifacts and therefore will change with each image, no conspiracy here.

Artifacts, as you have been told (probably by a Photographer or Graphic Designer who uses Digital Software i.e Myself) occur with an overuse of certain tools in editing.  Without going in to to much detail on the matter, you have dismissed something that you've not actually seen.

Thank you anyway.
Fair enough, then upload your tweaked images to a cloud area.  Box is one that I use then share the image and post that link in the thread.  Be sure to identify what you believe to be "stars".  Count Zero has amplified my thoughts, so show your "evidence"

https://app.box.com/signup/n/personal
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #37 on: January 05, 2017, 12:03:02 PM »
Howdy, Count.  Wow.  Thanks for another great reply.  ;)

Yes as stated at the very bottom of my OP I did say at times I have trouble communicating and well, probably over complicated this.

It should also be noted that I took the images direct from the Apollo Archive as in my previous post.  Hi Res Scans.  All i did was increase the curves will details appeared inthe black.  Not overly, only the brightest.  Some trails appeared and differing colours, suggesting to me they were in fact Stars, as I can achieve the same result using my modern Digital Camera.  (Yes, i know these are RAW Digital Negatives and the Apollo images are scanned photo's (assuming so?)

Indeed.  It could be Noise; but it is not Uniform noise!  (you will see for yourself if you take the time to simple increase the curves in Photoshop) What I was actually hoping to do was offer the images up for other 'Forum Users' to take a look at with me.  I also agree that it would have been better to assume the question of 'ARE they Stars' NOT 'They ARE Stars'  Granted.  However I have knowledge of Photography and editing and for sure can guarantee that other subtle details do exist in images which can be revealed thru editing further.

To assume however that they are most definitely, NOT Stars, well, this one has me at odds with what I know and believe.  There are blues greens and reds and trails and irregular shapes.  You really need to see for yourself. 

At the bottom of what I'm hoping to achieve is the possibility that not all images are REAL,and in the same respect not all are FAKE.  I have zero doubt that some images are indeed Edited.  I'm assuming you would agree as NASA has even suggested this.  So, we have reason for doubt.  I'm trying to prove a truth, regardless which way it goes.

Adjusting Curves to reveal Noise did not occur in the Foreground instances as it resulted in Black and White high contrast only.  Noise was only evident at the horizon and black of space. (apart from some light glow from the craft etc.)

It really would be easier to post the pic, but at 192kb the image would not be big enough to scrutinise.

I'm not suggesting they arranged the stars :D  After looking closely, albeit with a limited capacity and knowledge of the film used and it's latency,(thanks to Kiwi for the info though) the level of details of the scans etc. I have concluded that of these particular images (I have found other anomalous instances now in other images, where NOISE doesn't even exist in the black) that they are indeed stars, but the sky has moved.  This means the illumination of the craft and foreground is static, but the sky is still in motion.

If you were to view the two images I have referenced, align to each other, and increase the curves, then this would be a far more efficient way to address my question.  There's little else for me to say if we simply state as FACT that what I am seeing are NOT Stars.

Thanks

Offline Halcyon Dayz, FCD

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
  • Contrarian's Contrarian
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #38 on: January 05, 2017, 12:08:46 PM »
Anything that shows up in these photographs (other than the Sun) can't be stars.
Stars aren't bright enough by several orders of magnitude.

My initial belief is that of a Conspiracy to deceive.
"Here is something I don't know the explanation for, the most likely explanation must be something something evil."

This perversion of Occam's Razor is one of the basic building blocks of conspiracism.
It's a form of appeal to ignorance: choosing one alternative over another before there is sufficient data to make such a determination.

I am a Professional Photographer.
There are lots and lots of people on the internet who claim expertise and then spectacularly fail to demonstrate it, so people tend to take such claims with a grain of salt.
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.

Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #39 on: January 05, 2017, 12:18:11 PM »
Anything that shows up in these photographs (other than the Sun) can't be stars.
Stars aren't bright enough by several orders of magnitude.

My initial belief is that of a Conspiracy to deceive.
"Here is something I don't know the explanation for, the most likely explanation must be something something evil."

This perversion of Occam's Razor is one of the basic building blocks of conspiracism.
It's a form of appeal to ignorance: choosing one alternative over another before there is sufficient data to make such a determination.

I am a Professional Photographer.
There are lots and lots of people on the internet who claim expertise and then spectacularly fail to demonstrate it, so people tend to take such claims with a grain of salt.

It is this Proof you talk of that I'm trying to find Halcyon.  You're suggesting they Can't be Stars.  Why?  I had old negatives of the night sky that were scanned to reveal stars where there were none in the initial print.

A conspiracy to deceive does not need to be EVIL.  This isn't the Bible.  If anyone would like to view my Photography work as proof by all means PM me and I'll give you a link to my FB page!

Funny you mention Occam's Razor.  Dependent on your point of view or doctrine, we will endeavor to take that which seems most likely.  To me, it appears most likely that these are stars!

I am a Professional Photographer.  It is my main income.  The irony being that I need to prove my credentials for me to have any credibility while researching images that are shrouded in doubt!!!

:D

Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #40 on: January 05, 2017, 12:21:59 PM »
This is me by the way. :D


Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #41 on: January 05, 2017, 12:31:30 PM »
Thank you.  I know how to copy and paste a link, but as I explained the images were secondary to my question (edited images).However, I aimed to show the artifacts/planets/stars/hair/dust etc after editing.  Increasing levels to reveal.

So you know that the images are edited, but you also know that edited images cannot possibly contain compression artifacts, etc., that would produce what you're claiming are stars?

I'm not sure i follow here gillianren.?

What do you mean 'I know the images are edited...?'  Which images? 

I have increased the Curves in 2 official Apollo Hi Res images taken from the archive.  I'm now curious as to the said 'artifacts' that are revealed in the black space.  To me they look like Stars (Stars=Planets, Galaxies, Nebulae etc.)

Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #42 on: January 05, 2017, 12:52:05 PM »
When you start tweaking the parameters of an image you get all sorts of compression artifacts, so I've been told.
The "stars" you see may be just that compression artifacts and therefore will change with each image, no conspiracy here.

Artifacts, as you have been told (probably by a Photographer or Graphic Designer who uses Digital Software i.e Myself) occur with an overuse of certain tools in editing.  Without going in to to much detail on the matter, you have dismissed something that you've not actually seen.

Thank you anyway.
Fair enough, then upload your tweaked images to a cloud area.  Box is one that I use then share the image and post that link in the thread.  Be sure to identify what you believe to be "stars".  Count Zero has amplified my thoughts, so show your "evidence"

https://app.box.com/signup/n/personal

It would be easier and make more sense if you could prove this yourself?  Open in PS, adjust Curves till 'Noise' appears, then scrutinise colours and shapes etc.

I have actually joined Box so I could try upload full rez images for you.  I think the links will get lost in this thread though.

Offline Icarus1

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 186
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #43 on: January 05, 2017, 01:03:44 PM »
When you start tweaking the parameters of an image you get all sorts of compression artifacts, so I've been told.
The "stars" you see may be just that compression artifacts and therefore will change with each image, no conspiracy here.

Artifacts, as you have been told (probably by a Photographer or Graphic Designer who uses Digital Software i.e Myself) occur with an overuse of certain tools in editing.  Without going in to to much detail on the matter, you have dismissed something that you've not actually seen.

Here is the link to Box.  https://app.box.com/s/lg3w379um3n2sfikuotxamh6cxs88v7i  Assuming it will work.  Please take the time to look closely.  If you have any doubts that it is real, simply edit the files yourself.  Curves Level 225.

Thanks

Thank you anyway.
Fair enough, then upload your tweaked images to a cloud area.  Box is one that I use then share the image and post that link in the thread.  Be sure to identify what you believe to be "stars".  Count Zero has amplified my thoughts, so show your "evidence"

https://app.box.com/signup/n/personal

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3145
Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
« Reply #44 on: January 05, 2017, 01:06:40 PM »

It would be easier and make more sense if you could prove this yourself?  Open in PS, adjust Curves till 'Noise' appears, then scrutinise colours and shapes etc.

I have actually joined Box so I could try upload full rez images for you.  I think the links will get lost in this thread though.

This is beginning to sound like you are either craw fishing or begging the question.  I'll tell you what my thoughts are, there is no anomalies with either images, tweaking will only amplify artifacts and poof your "stars" disappear.

Again post your evidence, and no the links won't get lost.  The only aspect that may get lost is when you delete the file share.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan