Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.

[Count Zero]

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

Of course it does, because the camera is set to expose sunlit objects in the daytime - astronaut, lander, equipment and surface.  The sky which happens to be in the frame is (obviously) being photographed with those same daylight exposure settings.

(ninja'd)

[Icarus1]

OK people, overwhelmed here with paragraphs of data.  For your end it seems there's nothing to learn.  I have a lot of research ahead of me.

There are a few points toward me that are simply mis-understood, and too numerous too, so I'll leave it.  Thanks to all that have added in a positive manner.  You all seem convinced I'm here to tell the world I've found Proof of a Hoax.  On the contrary I've added a question to prove the validity of the images, but I've been met with hostility.  Quite frankly, I was ready for it.  I can only bow my head in my failed attempt to convey a question correctly.  Typical really.

Would you all believe me if I said now, that It took me half way thru this thread before I realised this WASN'T a Conspiracy site??

My idea was to simply put some thought into what I believed to be stars.  I have digital negatives that reveal stars if I push the levels.  A fair assumption I think.  I still don't believe they aren't Stars.  (I used Stars=etc. as a way of simply generalising artifacts, only to get another correction on what a star is!!)  When we look at the sky we say 'Wow, look at all the stars....'  We don't say 'wow, look at all the gaseous planets, nebulae, galaxies and.....(limited Vocab-fill in the spaces).

There is one point I will address regarding colour.  You say you can't see any.  Well that's simply not true.  I picked out the Orion Neb using my DSLR.  it's not spectacular, but it is obviously pink,  and No, I am by no means a Astronomical Photographer.  However, it doesn't matter.  The principles of capturing an image are the same. 

In reality what I've put forward here was a question of....Are these Stars?  It appears it's an Across the board, No!.  No other proof other than my supposed ignorance to physics, photography, or critical analysis has been put forward. 

So now I ask you, the reader of this.  Prove to me that they are not!

you lot have me worn out.  No wonder there was a Warning about posting Hoax theories lol. 

Peace to you all.

Kirk out!

[Icarus1]

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

Of course it does, because the camera is set to expose sunlit objects in the daytime - astronaut, lander, equipment and surface.  The sky which happens to be in the frame is (obviously) being photographed with those same daylight exposure settings.

(ninja'd)

Dear me are you even reading my posts?  I said pointing Straight Up!  Day or night is irrelevant looking straight up!

[Icarus1]

I'd like to get a transcript of this thread.  Is it possible?

[Count Zero]

Dear me are you even reading my posts?  I said pointing Straight Up!  Day or night is irrelevant looking straight up!

It is not irrelevant to the exposure.

If I am on the Moon and set my camera with ISO160 Ektachrome to f11 at 1/250th to photograph an astronaut setting-up equipment, stars will not be visible in the image.

If I am on the Moon and point my camera with ISO160 Ektachrome to f11 at 1/250th straight-up to photograph the sky with no other foreground features, stars will not be visible in the image.

That is the science of your profession.  You cannot deny it or escape it.

[Icarus1]

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.

Why would this be a matter of opinion at all? Positions of objects and shadows are determined by the physics of the setup and are not open to debate. If the Moon has not moved enough to alter the angle at which the sun is shining on its surface (hence not enough to alter the direction of foreground shadows or the apparent position of the sun) it hasn't moved enough for the other stars to be in different positions either.

This leads to an obvious conclusion: the points in the photograph that you identify as having moved are not stars.

Why is this obvious Jason?   I agree with everything you've just said, hence me raising this question!  If what you have said above can be considered as Fact, and I believe it to be, then how come the stars move? Of course what we're still tying to decide if whether these are stars or dust.

There's another question I could ask then.  From a still image, lets say the edit one I have supplied, how can we prove, that those dots etc are NOT stars! We must assume you have never seen this image in your life and know nothing of it's origin.  Prove to me they're not stars from these images.

[Zakalwe]

The principles of capturing an image are the same. 

No they are not.
There is a world of difference between using a DSLR to capture data on a nebulae and "enhancing" a digital scan of a negative scene exposed for a sunlit daytime scene.
What ISO and exposure did you use for your shot of the Orion neb?

[Zakalwe]

In reality what I've put forward here was a question of....Are these Stars?  It appears it's an Across the board, No!.  No other proof other than my supposed ignorance to physics, photography, or critical analysis has been put forward. 

So now I ask you, the reader of this.  Prove to me that they are not!

Please re-read my earlier post, rather than flouncing.

[Icarus1]

The principles of capturing an image are the same. 

No they are not.
There is a world of difference between using a DSLR to capture data on a nebulae and "enhancing" a digital scan of a negative scene exposed for a sunlit daytime scene.
What ISO and exposure did you use for your shot of the Orion neb?

Yes, they are.  You have assumed by me saying the principles are the same, what exactly?  Here is the 1st Google Definition of a Principle.  This can apply to all and anything.  It wasn't to be taken literally. 

"a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning"



ANY image or data captured using ANY means for ANY purpose requires the tools and the skill to capture it and the knowledge to interpret it.  The Principle of photography is the same principle of Carpentry or Machanics.  I'm tired of having to explain everything I say.  Can we stick to proving those dots in the image are NOT Stars?

[Icarus1]

The principles of capturing an image are the same. 

No they are not.
There is a world of difference between using a DSLR to capture data on a nebulae and "enhancing" a digital scan of a negative scene exposed for a sunlit daytime scene.
What ISO and exposure did you use for your shot of the Orion neb?

I've no idea of my settings.  I took this years ago.  This is not my Statement of Professional Photography.  This is in the back garden in winter in the UK.

[Zakalwe]

  Can we stick to proving those dots in the image are NOT Stars?

You cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you to show that they are stars, rather on me to prove that they aren't. Your conjecture, your proof.

What i have done is run them through my plate-solving application. No match. It's highly unlikely that they are stars.

[Icarus1]

  Can we stick to proving those dots in the image are NOT Stars?

You cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you to show that they are stars, rather on me to prove that they aren't. Your conjecture, your proof.

What i have done is run them through my plate-solving application. No match. It's highly unlikely that they are stars.

OK, well at least that'#s a step closer to Proving they're not stars.  I dont' have Plate-Solving Software, nor the knowledge to use it.  Nor have I worked in a print lab, not do i understand the colour temps that can be measured using.....whatever they use.  Thereis enough knowledge in this thread alone to prove that thse are not stars using some software or other.  Or am I mistaken?  Is there no Spectrum Anaylsis or something?

[Zakalwe]

I've no idea of my settings.  I took this years ago.  This is not my Statement of Professional Photography.  This is in the back garden in winter in the UK.

Can you not read the EXIF data?

[Zakalwe]

Is there no Spectrum Anaylsis or something?

No. Not from a grainy, distorted image of noise.

[Count Zero]

There's another question I could ask then.  From a still image, lets say the edit one I have supplied, how can we prove, that those dots etc are NOT stars! We must assume you have never seen this image in your life and know nothing of it's origin.  Prove to me they're not stars from these images.

No, you don't get to shift the burden of proof like that.  Claiming that stars would be visible in an image taken on ISO160 with f11 at 1/250th is an extraordinary claim.  It is therefore up to you to provide evidence for your claim.  First, demonstrate that you can even get latent stellar images of the night sky using those settings (I'll grant you an f-stop's leeway to compensate for atmospheric absorption).  You already compared images and did not get correlation.  Another method would be to compare the position of the artifacts to known star patterns.  Keep in mind that the FOV is ~57° wide.