Nasa Fakes It Again And Again And Again............

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unknown User: Welcome to Sciforums! This thread is about photography, not Einstein. If you want to talk about Einstein without too much criticism, you're better off starting a thread in Physics and Math.
 
JackSmith said:
The reason given by NASA for the absence of stars from all photos taken during the moon landings, is that the lunar surface was so bright that it drowned out the relatively dull starlight, much like the Earths atmosphere drowns out the stars during the day. If you don't give the matter much thought, you might buy into this explanation, but a moments reflection reveals that it has a fatal flaw. What if you directed your gaze, or your camera, away from the lunar surface and directly into the blackness of space (so that you, or your camera, can only see the blackness of space and nothing else). Now you have no light at all from the lunar surface to drown out the stars, in fact, since the moon has no atmosphere there is nothing obscuring your, or your cameras, view of the stars and NASA's explanation clearly fails.
Click to expand...

Why does the explanation fail? There are clearly no pictures here taken from the surface of the moon looking straight out into space, hence we can't see the stars. Take special note of the completely washed out highlights on the astronaut's space suit, you can't make out any detail because the glare is to great. In fact, just go out side tonight and look right at the moon. What's it doing? Chances are pretty good that it's glowing up a storm, if you're exposing a shot for the light reflecting off the moon (Which all of these shots clearly were, which is evident by the fact that you're looking at the friggin' moon, if I have to point that out) then there's simply no way you're going to see any stars in the background. Go to your local community college and see if you can't take a class in photography.
 
Unknown_user said:
Your the real idiot for giving me a page of crap that doesn't even come close to proving my statement wrong. Maybe your great with physics, but your reading sucks.
Click to expand...

Oh?

Some of Einstein's theories are a little beyond your scientific testing at the moment. Good luck with that outlook though. Always think in the box.
Click to expand...

And I explained why that wasn't true. We have a lot of EVIDENCE on einstein's theories. Maybe I got carried away with the last half but that was my mistake and I acknowledged that.
 
blackholesun said:
Oh?



And I explained why that wasn't true. We have a lot of EVIDENCE on einstein's theories. Maybe I got carried away with the last half but that was my mistake and I acknowledged that.
Click to expand...

Moving away from Einstein..., the argument here is logic.

You are trying to prove that A LOT of his theories have been tested.

That is not what I said. I stated some of his theories cannot be tested at the moment. I will leave it at that.

As for the photos....., doubt stars were taken out, but an interesting thought.

However, I definately think there is a selected group studying the pictures NASA recieves. They look for anything that would preclude the release of the pictures to the public. To get pseudo about it, they probably are faking the whole malfunction with the rovers so they have time to study all the anamolies. Like with Spirit, it was just about to take a sample from a rock when all of a sudden it malfunctioned. And.., why would NASA short the amount of memory needed? Shouldn't they give them as much as they need being they cost so much to make?

I think people are getting more skeptical of NASA in a general way, either as hiding information and/or being managed by incompitents.
 
Incompetence before malice is the usual rule. A person's vindictive attitude is not necessarily helpful in getting promotions, but even the most skilled professional eventually rises to a level of responsibility that they can't handle.
 
Votorx said:
This is ridiculous. There have been like 100s of topics with this same idea and each ended with the same thing. Nasa did not fake it. Find a previous thread on this topic and read about it. It will tell you there why the stars did not show up in the photos.
Click to expand...

How come you are so gullible?
Where is your skepticism?
They may well have landed on the moon, but the tv footage we saw and the photos like the ones being discussed are whack. :D

Do you think there is a possiblility that there was no moon landing?
If not, why not?
If you do reply, please don't give me a website with rocks, as there is no way to verify them independantly, and if you give most humans enough money, and enough threats to their life, lifestyle, reputation and family, believe me, they will shut the fuck up. :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/monitoring/media_reports/1399132.stm

Jan Ardena.
 
The photograph's are easily explained as some have been trying to say; exposure time! I took a photograph of the three planets that were lined up like a triangle in the sky: Venus Mars and Jupiter, I think...it was 8 or 9 years ago. This only happens once every 120 years.

I had my shutter open for some time, 4-5 seconds, but guess what? They didn't come out because of the aperature size; I was just getting into photography and did not know the lower the number, the bigger the aperature; the higher the number, the smaller the aperature. This was a Pentax camera with plenty of options and gear. So, it's quite easily explained why there are no stars in the NASA photographs considering what cameras could do 20-30 years ago compared to cameras of today.
 
OOOOOOOOOOR........Jan. You can take a look at the footage to notice the mechanics of the way dust falls and rocks react and American flags act under a vacuum and low gravity, the mirror left behind that constantly has a laser bounced off of it. The fact that every science museum out there has a sample of moon rock (I have personaly visited three of the places with such samples..Air and Space Museum anyone?). The footage of redocking of the lander and orbiter after a visit to the moon (why fake getting that close to the moon without landing?)
 
Exposure time is not really the issue. The issue in the photos as originally posted is contrast rendering capability of the film. Bright foreground exposed for, darker background goes away entirely. I have made photographs outdoors on a sunny day using a flash and the background came out completely black. The proper exposure for the ambient light would have been 1/60 sec at f/8 with 50ASA film. I set the flash on f/16 and set the lens to f/16. This is 2 stops darker than the aperture required to render a properly exposed background in ambient light. At this setting, with such a slow film speed, the flash range is only about 4 to 5 feet. As long as the flash output is matched by the aperture, anything within that flash range would be properly exposed, anything behind the subject receiving all the flash would be completely black. So, if the bright sunlit foreground is f/16, and the starry night background is f/8 or less (in all reality, it would require and aperture waaay wider than that) then there is no doubt that it would come out black and featureless.
 
chunkylover58 said:
Exposure time is not really the issue. The issue in the photos as originally posted is contrast rendering capability of the film. Bright foreground exposed for, darker background goes away entirely. I have made photographs outdoors on a sunny day using a flash and the background came out completely black. The proper exposure for the ambient light would have been 1/60 sec at f/8 with 50ASA film. I set the flash on f/16 and set the lens to f/16. This is 2 stops darker than the aperture required to render a properly exposed background in ambient light. At this setting, with such a slow film speed, the flash range is only about 4 to 5 feet. As long as the flash output is matched by the aperture, anything within that flash range would be properly exposed, anything behind the subject receiving all the flash would be completely black. So, if the bright sunlit foreground is f/16, and the starry night background is f/8 or less (in all reality, it would require and aperture waaay wider than that) then there is no doubt that it would come out black and featureless.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is exposure time. Whether the aperature is set right or not, one cannot just point and shoot. It must be planned and careful consideration must be taken when taking the photograph as to how long the shudder is to be left open-this is exposure time, nothing more, nothing less. The example I gave in my previous post for instance. If I had left the shudder open for say, 20 seconds, the photograph may have came out because light was "exposed" to the film for a longer time even though the aperature was set too small. On the other hand, if I had the aperature set to a much wider opening, the 4-5 seconds would have sufficed since more light could be 'exposed' to the film. Film is light sensitive, therefore, exposure time has everything to do with it.
 
Last edited:
In terms of a correct exposure, you are right. In terms of how the background is exposed relative to the foreground, no. Shutter speed and aperture work together like the opening of a spigot. Open wide, more water comes through, making for less time needed to fill a given-sized container. Small opening, more time required. Given a proper exposure for the foreground, in this case, the issue is still contrast range.

Example: You expose for the foreground and the proper exposure is 1/60 at f/8. However, you want more depth of field, so you decide to set your aperture at f/22. This is 3 stops down from f/8, so you must compensate by lengthening the shutter speed by 3 stops to 1/8. This setting will give you the exact same exposure for the foreground, but the effect will be A. more depth of field due to smaller aperture (providing smaller circles of confusion) and B. likelihood of motion blur due to slow shutter speed. However, if the background is still significantly darker than the foreground, it will still appear to be a black, detailless mass, independent of the exposure time. The two exposures are too extreme. The only way to get detail throughout a scene with high contrast differences between foreground and background is to make the initial exposure reading from the background and use a flash with a matching aperture.

If you adjust only the exposure time to 1/8 and leave the aperture at f/8, you will get an overexposed photo.
 
Last edited:
Yes, you're correct. There is a correlation between exposure times and shutter speeds, backgrounds and foregrounds. Well, I think this explains away the case of the black foreground in NASA's photos, I hope. Excellent explanation by the way. You must be a photographer or have some intimate knowledge of photography; i.e. 1/8, f/8, only a photographer knows that lingo! :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Very nice! I'll leave it at that before someone accuses me of a threadjack! ;) Keep up the great work!
 
iss006e28068.jpg


Stars, stars, stars, stars, stars, stars, stars,...

A shot of "black" space from the International Space Station taken by Don Pettit with a stock optical camera.
 
Man Jack doesn't know much about photography does he. Jack, take a picture of a full moon on a clear ight with a stock camera sometime. Notice what you lack when the picture is developed. Even on longer exposures, the moon will drown out most everything else.
 
Note how the brightly-lit foreground does not greatly affect the view of the stars at the top of the photo (even though the atmosphere is reflecting light back to the camera).

Note the if it were not for the atmosphere the lower glow would not exist and this portion would just be black (with stars).

Note how the brightly-lit areas do not necessarily fade out stars.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top