Apollo and Stars

[JayUtah]

you see them relaxed perhaps?

Yes, because I base my judgment on the entire conference, not a cherry-picked still.

The reflected sunlight travels in straight lines. There is no atmosphere to scatter the sunlight, so when an astronaut (or camera) looks up at the stars, how could the reflected light from the lunar surface get into his eyes?

And how long will he need to keep looking up while his eyes adjust from the sunlit terrain?  Do you know how eyes work?

JW Bush can see the stars without any problem.

Stealing illustrations from Hufschmid?  When you pick your conspiracist mentors, you really scrape the bottom of the barrel.

None of the astronauts photographed the Earth from the moon...

Except, of course, for the ones you yourself posted.  How many is enough?  And why?

[tarkus]

Oh, tarkus.
If you came a quarter million miles, would you be spending all your time taking snapshots of the place you just came from, or would you be focusing most of your efforts on documenting this place you came all that way, trained all those years for? Sure, some photos were appropriate, and they took them, but the moon was the focus.

But it's not every day one can observe the Earth from so far away ... in fact, they left not a single camera pointing at Earth, and as of now, no camera filming Earth in any part, whereas the ISS orbits the Earth at close, it's like trying to appreciate the beauty of your wife seeing it at 2 cm away ...
They spent photos and video about playing golf, running stupidly or do anything silly on the moon, too many to get serious and solemnly affirm that they were adjusted on a mission ...

They did take photos of stars, incidentally, most notably in the far ultraviolet with long exposures and a special camera on a tripod, allowing pictures in a wavelength absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, though they also took certain photos in lunar orbit using very sensitive film and longer than usual exposure.
This raises a question though, tarkus. The reason the stars are alleged to have been left out in Apollo photos according to conspiracy theorists is typically because they claim NASA could not do show stars in different locations convincingly. Ignoring the fact that planetariums do this all the time, the fact that certain Apollo photos do show stars raises the question of why, if they could do it in those photos, why not on the rest of Apollo imagery?

I can accept that in most lunar pictures the stars are not visible, but photos like this there is no reason for that not a single star will not see:

[Allan F]

One: Why do you think those clouds are cloned? Do you know enough about weather systems to make that judgement?

Two: The Apollo astronauts wore cumbersome spacesuits and helmets. Looking up for the half an hour needed to dark-adjust their eyes was not an option. They were on a schedule. STARS ARE WEAK. The amount of light coming from a star is so weak compared to daylight, that if ANYTHING  sunlit is in your viewfield, your eyes will adapt to that and not to the dark sky.

Let me show you this picture: https://500px.com/photo/118070979/stargazers-at-night-by-allan-folmersen?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=5551450

It was taken by me. It is unedited, a JPG straight from the camera. If you look into the details you'll see the EXIF data is ISO 6400, 30 seconds, and f:4. This picture is taken with the same camera, with the sun at about the same angle as it was on the Apollo landings: https://500px.com/photo/115251111/lena-j-red-dress-and-concrete-by-allan-folmersen?ctx_page=1&from=user&user_id=5551450.

If you look at the EXIF data for that, you'll notice that it is ISO 100, 1/640s and f2.8, right?


The difference in light level for these two pictures is: (30/(1/640) x 6400/100)/2 = 614400. That means there is 1:614400 difference in exposure level between the sunlit landscape and the stars. Your eyes can't bridge that gap. That means you can't be working hard one moment and the next look up and see stars. You need to let your eyes adapt to the lack of light. To increase their photoreceptive chemicals to a much higher level. Try it yourself. Go from a well-lit room and outside and look for stars. Can you do that?

Three: The astronauts being "tense" is first of all a product of them being astronauts, and not TV-whores like every celebrity today. They were working men and not peacocks. They did not enjoy the press attention. And if you see the ENTIRE press conference you'll see that there were moments of levity too.

[Allan F]

Oh, tarkus.
If you came a quarter million miles, would you be spending all your time taking snapshots of the place you just came from, or would you be focusing most of your efforts on documenting this place you came all that way, trained all those years for? Sure, some photos were appropriate, and they took them, but the moon was the focus.

But it's not every day one can observe the Earth from so far away ... in fact, they left not a single camera pointing at Earth, and as of now, no camera filming Earth in any part, whereas the ISS orbits the Earth at close, it's like trying to appreciate the beauty of your wife seeing it at 2 cm away ...
They spent photos and video about playing golf, running stupidly or do anything silly on the moon, too many to get serious and solemnly affirm that they were adjusted on a mission ...

They did take photos of stars, incidentally, most notably in the far ultraviolet with long exposures and a special camera on a tripod, allowing pictures in a wavelength absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, though they also took certain photos in lunar orbit using very sensitive film and longer than usual exposure.
This raises a question though, tarkus. The reason the stars are alleged to have been left out in Apollo photos according to conspiracy theorists is typically because they claim NASA could not do show stars in different locations convincingly. Ignoring the fact that planetariums do this all the time, the fact that certain Apollo photos do show stars raises the question of why, if they could do it in those photos, why not on the rest of Apollo imagery?

I can accept that in most lunar pictures the stars are not visible, but photos like this there is no reason for that not a single star will not see:

What would be the benefit of having a camera pointing at Earth? What would you expect to see?


Photographing a sunlit object and expecting to see stars with the same exposure? Not going to happen.

[JayUtah]

But it's not every day one can observe the Earth from so far away

Actually it is.  We've been observing the Earth continually since before Apollo, using automated spacecraft stationed at an appropriate distance.  Conversely it's not every day you walk on the Moon.

in fact, they left not a single camera pointing at Earth...

That would have required ongoing infrastructure to receive the pictures.  You're making up things you think NASA should have done, just so you can berate them for not having done it.  Do you have any workable concept of reality?

...and as of now, no camera filming Earth in any part

Except, of course, for the flotilla of weather satellites that have been there since before Apollo.  There is no scientific or operational advantage to continuous observation of the Earth from lunar distance.

but photos like this there is no reason for that not a single star will not see.

Except for the same facts about photograph exposure, of which you remain stubbornly ignorant.

[Grashtel]

I can accept that in most lunar pictures the stars are not visible, but photos like this there is no reason for that not a single star will not see:

Aside from obviously having far too short an exposure to show stars you mean.  The sunlit earth being properly exposed shows that it was using a fast exposure, taking pictures of stars requires a long exposure, far longer than can be done with a hand held camera, particularly with the relatively slow film that the Apollo Hasselbads used.  The lack of atmosphere only makes the starts about twice as bright, which would still need an exposure time of tens of seconds, far beyond the ~1/10th second longest practical exposure with a hand held camera.

[onebigmonkey]

None of the astronauts photographed the Earth from the moon, as if observing the Earth from the moon was something daily, disinterest for photographing the Earth remains to this day, so NASA falsified pictures of the Earth, as this where the clouds have been cloned:

If you'd bothered to read the information about that photograph you posted properly instead of swallowing what some conspiracy website told you (do you think people here don't read other websites?), you would know that it is a composite image.

I'll leave you a minute while you get the dictionary definition of that word.

The reason some of those clouds are repeated is because of the way several images were compiled to make it.

Astronauts did take pictures of Earth from the lunar surface, and in cislunar space, and in lunar orbit. The cloud patterns in those images bear a unique temporal fingerprint that match exactly weather features recorded by meteorological satellites. Those satellite images, like the photographs. 16mm and live TV of Earth, were publicly available long before Photoshop could have done any cloning on them.

Feel free to prove that wrong.

That photo of Earth you posted? Also broadcast to Earth on live TV before the satellite images were actually taken. How did that happen?

As for there not being a single star in that photo of Earth you posted, here's a little thing you could do to actually prove us all wrong.

Get a camera, go outside on a moonlit night when there are stars aplenty, take a picture of the moon and show us the stars in it.

Don't come back until you've done that.

[tarkus]

you see them relaxed perhaps?

Yes, because I base my judgment on the entire conference, not a cherry-picked still.

When asked by the stars lost their cool, I do not expect you to admit it of course.

The reflected sunlight travels in straight lines. There is no atmosphere to scatter the sunlight, so when an astronaut (or camera) looks up at the stars, how could the reflected light from the lunar surface get into his eyes?

And how long will he need to keep looking up while his eyes adjust from the sunlit terrain?  Do you know how eyes work?

With a real Sol you would be right, but the artificial light that planets like Earth false used as shown in the following two images:

JW Bush can see the stars without any problem.

Stealing illustrations from Hufschmid?  When you pick your conspiracist mentors, you really scrape the bottom of the barrel.

Much worse it is to steal from NASA.

[JayUtah]

When asked by the stars lost their cool, I do not expect you to admit it of course.

You're right. I don't agree with your interpretation.

With a real Sol you would be right, but the artificial light that planets like Earth false used as shown in the following two images

First you didn't answer my question.  Second, do you honestly think those are properly rectified photos?

Much worse it is to steal from NASA.

You missed the point.  You're getting your arguments and the illustrations to support them from one of the most incompetent conspiracy theorists out there.  I debated Hufschmidt myself.  He ran away after about three posts.  And this is the guy you're trusting to "educate" you.

[tarkus]

If you'd bothered to read the information about that photograph you posted properly instead of swallowing what some conspiracy website told you (do you think people here don't read other websites?), you would know that it is a composite image.

I'll leave you a minute while you get the dictionary definition of that word.

The reason some of those clouds are repeated is because of the way several images were compiled to make it.

Astronauts did take pictures of Earth from the lunar surface, and in cislunar space, and in lunar orbit. The cloud patterns in those images bear a unique temporal fingerprint that match exactly weather features recorded by meteorological satellites. Those satellite images, like the photographs. 16mm and live TV of Earth, were publicly available long before Photoshop could have done any cloning on them.

Feel free to prove that wrong.

That photo of Earth you posted? Also broadcast to Earth on live TV before the satellite images were actually taken. How did that happen?
As for there not being a single star in that photo of Earth you posted, here's a little thing you could do to actually prove us all wrong.

NASA can not place a satellite in orbit at a distance sufficient to photograph the Earth, but we want to convince that traveled to the moon ... photocompositions, why? no technical reasons that prevent us from film and broadcast video signal in real time to our planet from space, 50,000 km away enough to appreciate the full scope but do not, because they can not. Even today we have images of the poles, but NASA assures us that the ice are retreating, do you believe them?

Get a camera, go outside on a moonlit night when there are stars aplenty, take a picture of the moon and show us the stars in it.

Don't come back until you've done that.

You forget the dispersion caused by the atmospheric air, this phenomenon does not exist on the moon.

[JayUtah]

NASA can not place a satellite in orbit at a distance sufficient to photograph the Earth...

How do you think weather satellites have worked for the past 50 years?

no technical reasons that prevent us from film and broadcast video signal in real time to our planet from space...

Except for the technical and practical reasons you have been told, but which you have assiduously ignored.

...but NASA assures us that the ice are retreating, do you believe them?

One conspiracy theory at a time, please.

You forget the dispersion caused by the atmospheric air, this phenomenon does not exist on the moon.

You were told the attenuation factor.  Now you're being asked to test photographic exposure.  Do it, and report back please.

[onebigmonkey]

NASA can not place a satellite in orbit at a distance sufficient to photograph the Earth,

Who says? You? NASA can't, some maybe others can?

Geostationary meteorological satellites have been around since the 1960s.

but we want to convince that traveled to the moon ...

I don't have to. You need to convince me they didn't. So far you are failing dismally.

photocompositions, why?

Go read up about the photo.

no technical reasons that prevent us from film and broadcast video signal in real time to our planet from space,

But you said NASA can't do that. Which is it?

50,000 km away enough to appreciate the full scope but do not, because they can not. Even today we have images of the poles, but NASA assures us that the ice are retreating, do you believe them?

You seem to be of the opinion that NASA are the only people doing climate research. I suggest you broaden your horizons.

You forget the dispersion caused by the atmospheric air, this phenomenon does not exist on the moon.

Why won't you try it? Are you scared?

[Jason Thompson]

Tarkus, why will you not answer my two very simple questions about the service module and the size of the Earth when viewed from 800,000 km?

[onebigmonkey]

And shall we be a bit more honest with our superimposition of two Apollo images.

Here's how they actually line up, based on markings on the South Massif in the background.



Note how despite the second photograph being taken from closer to the astronaut and from a different angle, the massif features are unchanged, indicating that it is some distance away.

[onebigmonkey]

And at 11:29 in this video, you can see the contortions Gene has to do to make sure Earth is in shot.

There's a nice higher res version around that doesn't show all of the photography sequence, but does show very nicely one of the boulder trails on the north massif.