Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.

[Icarus1]

The link is above!

Here it is again.

https://app.box.com/s/lg3w379um3n2sfikuotxamh6cxs88v7i

[Apollo 957]

What I can tell you for certain that even negatives from 20 uears ago of the night sky can and do reveal stars when digitally processed.

... but all the Apollo photos taken on the surface were of a daytime sky. They (the astronauts) were in sunlight.

[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!

[Apollo 957]

I respectfully submit that there is a 'daytime sky' on the Moon.

It's the sky that you photograph when on the daytime/sunlit side of the Moon.

If you take a photo from the night-time/unlit side of the Moon, you're photographing the night sky.

Regardless of the presence/absence of atmosphere.

[bknight]

The link is above!

Here it is again.

https://app.box.com/s/lg3w379um3n2sfikuotxamh6cxs88v7i

A link to the other image?

[bknight]

...

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!

Uum lets see the Sun is above the horizon on ALL Apollo images.  Yes, that fits the definition of Daytime.  Atmosphere has no bearing on this.

[Icarus1]

There is no other link.  There are 2 images in the gallery.  Arrow left or right.


I appreciate the definition of Day and Night on the Moon.  However, irrespective of or regarding the principle of photographing, a Black sky from the Moon, Day or Night means nothing.  Whether in direct Sunlight of on the Dark Side bears no ill for the exposure when looking directly up.

[Zakalwe]

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.)

OK, so a couple of points here.
Stars are most certainly NOT "Planets, Galaxies,Nebulae". I'll give you that it might be possible to mistake a planet as a star, but not a nebula.
To you, they look like astronomical images. however, that's an argument from ignorance. You have repeatedly stated that you are a professional photographer which is an attempt to establish credentials. I have to ask what are your credentials when it comes to astro-photography and processing of astronomical images?

To me what you have shown looks nothing like images of stars, planets or nebulae. I have a number of years experience of imaging these objects and your manipulated image looks nothing like anything that I have ever captured.

To establish my credentials, here's an image of Mars that I took a couple of years ago from my observatory, with the individual data channels illustrating how the final RGB image was constructed:


I'm more than happy to share images of nebulae and other planets.

Indeed.  It could be Noise; but it is not Uniform noise!

Noise doesn't have to be uniform. By it's nature it is random.
There's also different types of noise- grain, dust on the scans as well as noise generated by the scanning equipment- read-out noise and thermal noise, for example.

There are blues greens and reds and trails and irregular shapes.  You really need to see for yourself. 

You will not capture colour information (of stars or nebulae) in single exposures a fraction of a second long. Not with modern CCD or CMOS camera and most definitely not with 50 year old analogue system.  Noise, however, can, and will, have random colour information in there.

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.)

That's because the foreground has real data which can be stretched by altering the histogram (which you have done). The black sky has little or no information, which is why, when stretched, the histogram either breaks down (you can see this in the PS histogram- look for where the histogram breaks into jagged peaks rather than retaining a smooth distribution curve).

I'm not suggesting they arranged the stars   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.

So, in effect what you are saying is that NASA was able to perpetuate a massive hoax involving hundreds of thousands of people, but were not able to fake two images without jiggling the background around. Really?

There's little else for me to say if we simply state as FACT that what I am seeing are NOT Stars.

Almost certainly correct. What does mystify me is why you would then jump to a conclusion that the images are faked.

[bknight]

There may/may not be an arrow in your display.
What clicking on the link I get a display of
moon curves 225 b.jpg and nothing else.

Now here is a link to real stars, during A16, about half way down the page.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_16/photography/

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

It is this Proof you talk of that I'm trying to find Halcyon.

The proof that these cannot be stars is physics.

You're suggesting they Can't be Stars.  Why?

As a "professional photographer" why the ten thousand fucks do you need to ask?

I had old negatives of the night sky that were scanned to reveal stars where there were none in the initial print.

Did you just compare photography of the Earth's NIGHT-SKY with photography of the Moon's DAYLIGHT SKY?

A conspiracy to deceive does not need to be EVIL.

Misappropriation of funds would be criminal.
Handing the biggest propaganda coup in human history to the Soviet Union on a platinum platter would be treason.

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!

And I think that the simplest explanation for all the KNOWN FACTS is that they are not stars, and therefor you must be mistaken.

Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself.  The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. — Richard Feynman

I am a Professional Photographer.

Than you should know everything about exposures.

The irony being that I need to prove my credentials for me to have any credibility

You can prove your expertise by DEMONSTRATING it.

while researching images that are shrouded in doubt!!!

There is nothing in doubt with these images.
They have been scrutinised and analysed for decades, any "doubt" always turned out to be something the doubter didn't know or understand

[smartcooky]

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.

The images have everything to do with the question, because if the background "stars" you claim to be seeing are not actually stars but dust and artefacts, then whether to not they move is moot.

I have downloaded the HiRes versions of the two photos you mention (AS11-40-5950 & AS11-40-5949). I have loaded them into Photoshop. Despite playing around with the tone curves, the brightness and the contrast, I see no stars, just "noise", and some dust spots which may have been on the negatives or could have been introduced during the scanning process.

Importantly for your question, the two photos are not taken from exactly the same place nor in the same direction (5950 is taken from a position slightly to the left of where 5049 is taken from and is not only pointed slightly further left, but the camera is elevated w.r.t. 5949, and rotated slightly clockwise as well). Even if you could see background stars, you can glean no information of the type you are asking about from these photos under the circumstances in which they were taken.


NOTE: My expertise is 20 years as an RNZAF Avionics technician during which time I spent two years repairing, maintaining and overhauling Agiflite Aerial Surveillance cameras - http://camerasdownunder.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=20&pos=1 and Perkin-Elmer MiniPan cameras -

...followed by 23 years as a professional photographer and photo processor using both film and digital. I own and operate a retail photolab       

[Zakalwe]

There is no other link.  There are 2 images in the gallery.  Arrow left or right.

I only see one image too.

I appreciate the definition of Day and Night on the Moon.  However, irrespective of or regarding the principle of photographing, a Black sky from the Moon, Day or Night means nothing.  Whether in direct Sunlight of on the Dark Side bears no ill for the exposure when looking directly up.

Why do you think that? If the intention was to capture an image of the sky, then they would have used a much longer exposure. A longer exposure would have been much more susceptible to light from the Sun being inside the optical elements of the lens. I respectfully suggest that there is a difference.

[Jason Thompson]

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?)

You really can't compare what you can get with a digital CCD image to what you can get from a film system. The fact you can manipulate both using photoshop once the analogue has been converted to a digital scan does not make comparison valid.

Indeed.  It could be Noise; but it is not Uniform noise!

By definition, noise is not uniform.

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.

And assuming they are puts your conclusion at odds with physics.

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.

This suggestion has come up before but makes no sense. If the ability exists to take the real images on the lunar surface, why would there be any need for fake ones at all?

I have zero doubt that some images are indeed Edited.  I'm assuming you would agree as NASA has even suggested this.

Of course. However, editing the images for upload to the internet is not the same as fake images. A common 'edit' is to scan the image, then black out the sky digitally precisiely to avoid wasting bandwidth coding the noise in the featureless black expanse of sky. Also common is making composite images, another form of editing, but one which is openly stated to have taken place.

So, we have reason for doubt.  I'm trying to prove a truth, regardless which way it goes.

Except you're not, because you have apparently already decided the truth is pretty much anything except all the images are real and were taken on the Moon.

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.

Which is not possible because the illumination of the foreground is from the Sun, which is in the sky and which would move, in the time between the two images being taken, near enough the same as the stars.

I have a question regarding your 'stars'. Do any patterns you 'revealed' in one image match with the other? Can you pick out constellations? Asterisms? Any pattern thet repeats? If not then in order for your supposition to be true the entire sky wuld have had to move several degrees in a few minutes to present a new starfield to the lens of the camera, which doesn't even happen on Earth never mind the Moon.

There's little else for me to say if we simply state as FACT that what I am seeing are NOT Stars.

There is no other way to address your question. On the one hand we have the possibility that youhave misidentified random blobs of colour and light as stars, and on the other we have a massive and nonsensical consipracy to fake a bunch of images, because it is not physically possible for the actual stars to change in the way you describe between the two images, and there is no reason why a fake starry backdrop would change either, or why anyone would produce a fake starry backdrop no-one would ever see in the pubished photos in the first place. Which is more likely?

[Icarus1]

...

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!

Uum lets see the Sun is above the horizon on ALL Apollo images.  Yes, that fits the definition of Daytime.  Atmosphere has no bearing on this.

A literal description of a time of day!  It's has nothing to do with the exposure of the 'SKY' !

[Jason Thompson]

A literal description of a time of day!  It's has nothing to do with the exposure of the 'SKY' !

Except it does, because the sky would be exposed the same asthe ground and everything else in shot, which is lit by the Sun.

Your photos of the night sky are irrelevant because you would never, as a professional photographer, have attempted to take a night-time image with daylight exposure times if you expected to see anything at all.

Also, even a daytime photo on Earth isn't taken with the full power of the Sun. It's set to capture the brightness of whatever is in shot, which is reflecting a percentage of the Sun's light. An asphalt road has about the same albedo as the lunar surface. There's no reason that taking a photo on the Moon when the Sun was up would require any different exposure times than taking one on Earth. It gets just as much sun as we do here, and hence things on the Moon are as bright as they would be here.