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

NASA FAKES IT AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN............
The first photo below is of the aurora and was taken by Don Pettit from the International Space Station (somewhere over Canada early 2002).

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The 2nd, 4th, 6th and 8th pictures are from the NASA archives. They were cropped, shrunk, expanded and/or rotated to be similar to the photo taken by Don Pettit from the International Space Station.

They can be found at the following addresses:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/as17-148-22685.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a12/as12-51-7507.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5943.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/as17-148-22726.jpg

The second photo is a similar view (to that of Don Pettit) of the Earth taken from Apollo 17 before "heading to the moon".
The forth photo is supposedly of the lunar lander descending to the moon (taken from the "orbiting" Apollo 12 command module).
The sixth photo is supposedly a photo of an Apollo 11 astronaut "on the lunar surface".
The eighth photo is another view of the Earth taken from Apollo 17 "on the way to the moon".

NASA gave the Don Pettit photo wide distribution, apparently unaware of its implications. However, the public soon pointed out that this photo provided evidence that quite clearly contradicted a well known piece of NASA propaganda.

In the first photo we have a photo of the Earth bathed in sunlight, we have the green glow of the aurora and hundreds of stars in the blackness of space. Since the photo was taken from the International Space Station there is no atmosphere to impede our vision of these stars.

In the second photo we have a photo of the Earth bathed in sunlight, and we have the blackness of space without a single star to be seen. Since the photo was taken from the Earth orbit there is no atmosphere to impede our vision of the stars.

In the forth photo we have a photo of the moon bathed in sunlight and we have the blackness of space without a single star to be seen. Since the photo was taken from "lunar orbit" there is no atmosphere to impede our vision of the stars.

In the sixth photo we have a photo of the moon bathed in sunlight and we have the blackness of space without a single star to be seen. Since the photo was taken from the "lunar surface" there is no atmosphere to impede our vision of the stars.

In the eighth photo we have a photo of the Earth bathed in sunlight, and we have the blackness of space without a single star to be seen. Since the photo was taken "on the way to the moon" there is no atmosphere to impede our vision of the stars.

So why do we see stars in the first photo (the Don Pettit photo) but not in any of the Apollo photos?

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.

On reflection it is clear that NASA's argument is silly, however, many people have accepted it. Now, if these same people were to be given a photo showing stars in a situation similar to that of the moon landings (just like the first photo above) they would be forced to question, and possibly reject, NASA's explanation.

This possibility sent shivers down many peoples spines and it was decided that the original photo of the aurora above, would have to be doctored to try and make its connection to the faked moon landings less obvious. What happened was that original photo was horizontally and vertically inverted (for some reason or other) and then blurred in order to fade out the hundreds of stars.

The new inverted and blurred version of the original can be found at http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ESC/small/ISS006/ISS006-E-18372.JPG.

In order to compare the two I have horizontally and vertically inverted the original and placed it immediately below NASA's doctored version.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As you can see the blurring of the original has been quite successful in fading out the stars. NASA fakes it one more time.

Below is a photo of Don Pettit taking photos from the International Space Station

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

By the way, the reason that we cannot see the stars on Earth in the daytime is because the atmosphere reflects (mainly blue) light back into your eyes and this light drowns out the light from the stars. If the Earth had no atmosphere you would see stars both during the day and the night.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

JackSmith... welcome to Sciforums.

Were the older pictures (the non-auroral ones) taken with a CCD camera? Was the newer one?

If I'm not mistaken, there's a 20-30 year gap between these photographs, and it's possible that the more recent cameras have a wider range of response to contrast.

All cameras are susceptible to a certain amount of saturation, and it may be that when the older pictures were taken, they were taken at too short an exposure to show up the stars, which are relatively weak sources (or with a filter that had the same effect).

Now! Two Sciforums unofficial warnings:

1) Most of the threads about NASA coverups are in the Pseudoscience forum, and you may soon be directed there to hang around with characters like Star_One and fluid1959, who will undoubtedly welcome you as a brother.

2) Posts about NASA "faking it" in the Free Thoughts forum will most likely be comedically misinterpreted in such a way as to make it seem you were saying that NASA faked an orgasm, probably while you were having sex with them. People will then likely commiserate with you about it, telling you that NASA are bitches and that they just want your money, so you should dump them.

So Beware!

Nice photos, by the way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Notice the blur of earth in the ISS photo. This is because of a long exposure setting. This got a good picture of the aura which otherwise wouldn't show up as much and in the process got a few stars in there that wouldn't show up if you just snapped a picture as what they did in the moon photos. It's all about exposure.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's called extended exposure, Jack. By leaving the aperture of the camera open for longer light can be recorded that is too dim to otherwise be recorded on film. You'll note that even in your 'original' photo, some of the stars appear to be elongated. This is a rather obvious sign of an extended exposure. Contrary to your accusation that NASA is attempting to obscure the stars in a cover up, the link and picture below specifically point them out.

"On April 30, 2003, International Space Station (ISS) science officer Don Pettit took this picture of star trails from the ISS. The exposure was brief, only about 30 seconds, so the star trails are stubby and subtle, but they are there. The telltale vortex hangs in the black sky above the limb of the earth, which is lit by red and green auroras." (emphasis mine)
http://science.nasa.gov/ppod/y2003/13may_startrails.htm

Meanwhile, a typical 'snapshot' exposure time is 1/60th of a second.

~Raithere

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

 

Well no one ever said conspiracy theorists were of an educated sort. Because if THEY can't understand it, it CAN'T be true. It's called ignorance due to not looking at the facts.

I'm glad there are a lot of people with common sense and a passion for learning out there. If not, we'd all be blaming things on deamons still.

 

1) Most of the threads about NASA coverups are in the Pseudoscience forum, and you may soon be directed there to hang around with characters like Star_One and fluid1959, who will undoubtedly welcome you as a brother.

What??....just because poeple think there is more to the moon and mars than what were told, they are labeled as some kind of "cult"??

bloody hell

And another thing, this is the "psedoscience" forum, when i first came here i thought "cool! a place where people can talk seriously about ufo's ect, BUT NO!!!! its just a place where chronic skeptics dwell , ready to pounce on every topic and make sure the contents are ridiculed whether it has truth or not

Bah

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sorry Star_One... I would love to tell you that I was doing this to burn your backside intentionally, but I made that post while this thread was still in "Free Thoughts". I predicted that it would be moved to the Pseudoscience thread so that JackSmith could hang around with you guys... and lo it was. Am I psychic? Let my fans decide!

(I'm actually batting .500, since no one made any jokes about NASA faking an orgasm.)

As for pouncing on topics and making sure the contents are ridiculed... so far people have offered advice on photography and how this phenomenon could have been arrived at without ill intent on NASA's part. I made no pretense of expert photographic knowledge, but I think it is still worthy of note that Pettit's photographic apparatus was twenty to thirty years newer than that which took the other photos... you can judge other people's posts on the basis of their own merit.

Lastly, the pseudoscience forum is not supposed to be some kind of Church of the Sycophant where yes-zombies gather together to nod their heads in unison whenever anyone says anything. The fact that I happen to disagree with just about everything I read here doesn't mean that my viewpoint isn't useful to you... you should try to answer people's arguments, rather than demanding that they leave or remain quiet when they disagree with you. You are much more likely to learn something than you are just by constantly nodding your head to people you think are your fellow believers.

 

Yes. But not quite that simple. The problem is, they have unfounded ideas. And when asked for substantiation, they haven't divulged the information that allows people to understand what the fuck it is they are talking about. This is mainly because that information does not exist, because conspiracy theories are annoying and get old because of their lack of truth.

 

Atmosphere is not a factor, in this case, as to whether or not you can see the stars. We're not talking about what your eye can see, it's what film can see.
More than likely, the original NASA images were taken on transparency film. You may know this as slide film. Slide film has an extremely low contrast range. 5 stops. Total.

Meaning this:
you have:
Proper exposure (0)- full detail in shadows and in highlights;
1 stop over exposed (+1)- shadow detail, but no highlight detail;
2 stops overexposed (+2)- no detail. A big white mess;
1 stop underexposed (-1)- highlight detail maintained, shadow detail lost;
2 stops underexposed (-2) - a big black mess.

This means that if the foreground is properly exposed and the background is 2 or more stops darker (which is most definitely the case when comparing sunlight to starlight) then there is no way the film can pick up detail in the background.

Try this: Get a camera of the SLR variety that can do both automatic and manual exposure and insert a roll of 200ASA slide film. Place it on a tripod. Take a photo of the full moon on Auto setting. Then take another photo of the full moon with a manually set exposure of 1/250 shutter speed and an aperture of f/16. Get the photos developed.

The image made on Auto will be a milky, washed out grainy image with a big bright washed out, detail free blur (moon) in the middle. However, the stars will be visible in that milky brown washed out background, just like the starfield in the image with the aurora. This is because the camera's meter read the majority of the scene being very very dark and exposed for the background to try to make it 18% gray - a middle tone, as camera meters are calibrated. To the camera and the film, this is proper exposure. The moon would be at least 2 stops brighter than 18% gray, so it will be a detailless blob of white nothingness. In the case of the aurora pictures, it is entirely possible (more like 100% probable) that the background with the stars was adjusted in the print making process, to compensate for that section's relative underexposure, in order to bring out the detail, while the foreground was kept at its proper exposure. This is why that part of the image is so milky, grainy and washed-out looking. This is a very simple darkroom technique and and even simpler Photoshop technique. It is even more likely that 2 exposures were made: one for the foreground, one for the background, and the images were put together. this would actually account for the appearnce of blur. Two images taken one after the other, with slight movement in between, giving that offset look.

In the manually set exposure, the moon will be sharp, clear and in full detail and perfectly exposed. This is because a full moon is frontlit by the sun, so you could expose it according to the Sunny f/16 rule...shutter speed set to approximate the film speed, f/stop at 16. (If you were to take a photo on Earth with full daylight, with the sun behind you, you will get a perfect exposure using this setting.) However, the background will be completely dark with NO STARS VISIBLE WHATSOEVER! Why? Too much contrast.

What this all means is that NASA's explanation of why you see no stars in the background is completely accurate, which, in turn, means what you just posted cannot be taken as evidence to refute the moon landing.

 

Who cares if NASA is faking it. Just as long as you get off.

Just for you BBH.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

~Raithere

 

If the content has merit and truth it will survive critical analysis, if not it's not the truth and it's not worthy of belief. Jack made a particular assertion but it does not hold up under analysis. His assertions are either easily answered or are patently false.

It is obvious under examination that the photos were taken using extended exposures; this explains the appearance of stars when more commonly exposed 'snapshots' do not. This fact is also confirmed by the public statements of the photographer. It is also obvious that NASA is not attempting to hide or obscure the stars in the pictures since I gave reference to a NASA site that specifically points them out and discusses them.

People who believe regardless and invoke conspiracy theories in defense are stuck in what I call the conspiracy vortex. It goes like this, "If it seems to be true, it is. If it seems to be false, it's evidence of a vast conspiracy to hide the truth." At such a point one's reason is so malformed that belief is based upon nothing but whim and whimsy. If you're going to believe what you wish to believe regardless of the facts and logical and/or technical analysis then you may as well call it faith.

~Raithere

 

Atmosphere is not a factor, in this case, as to whether or not you can see the stars. We're not talking about what your eye can see, it's what film can see.
More than likely, the original NASA images were taken on transparency film. You may know this as slide film. Slide film has an extremely low contrast range. 5 stops. Total.

Meaning this:
you have:
Proper exposure (0)- full detail in shadows and in highlights;
1 stop over exposed (+1)- shadow detail, but no highlight detail;
2 stops overexposed (+2)- no detail. A big white mess;
1 stop underexposed (-1)- highlight detail maintained, shadow detail lost;
2 stops underexposed (-2) - a big black mess.

This means that if the foreground is properly exposed and the background is 2 or more stops darker (which is most definitely the case when comparing sunlight to starlight) then there is no way the film can pick up detail in the background.

Try this: Get a camera of the SLR variety that can do both automatic and manual exposure and insert a roll of 200ASA slide film. Place it on a tripod. Take a photo of the full moon on Auto setting. Then take another photo of the full moon with a manually set exposure of 1/250 shutter speed and an aperture of f/16. Get the photos developed.

The image made on Auto will be a milky, washed out grainy image with a big bright washed out, detail free blur (moon) in the middle. However, the stars will be visible in that milky brown washed out background, just like the starfield in the image with the aurora. This is because the camera's meter read the majority of the scene being very very dark and exposed for the background to try to make it 18% gray - a middle tone, as camera meters are calibrated. To the camera and the film, this is proper exposure. The moon would be at least 2 stops brighter than 18% gray, so it will be a detailless blob of white nothingness. In the case of the aurora pictures, it is entirely possible (more like 100% probable) that the background with the stars was adjusted in the print making process, to compensate for that section's relative underexposure, in order to bring out the detail, while the foreground was kept at its proper exposure. This is why that part of the image is so milky, grainy and washed-out looking. This is a very simple darkroom technique and and even simpler Photoshop technique. It is even more likely that 2 exposures were made: one for the foreground, one for the background, and the images were put together. this would actually account for the appearnce of blur. Two images taken one after the other, with slight movement in between, giving that offset look.

In the manually set exposure, the moon will be sharp, clear and in full detail and perfectly exposed. This is because a full moon is frontlit by the sun, so you could expose it according to the Sunny f/16 rule...shutter speed set to approximate the film speed, f/stop at 16. (If you were to take a photo on Earth with full daylight, with the sun behind you, you will get a perfect exposure using this setting.) However, the background will be completely dark with NO STARS VISIBLE WHATSOEVER! Why? Too much contrast.

What this all means is that NASA's explanation of why you see no stars in the background is completely accurate, which, in turn, means what you just posted cannot be taken as evidence to refute the moon landing.

 

It would pay to learn a little about photography before declaring photographs fakes.

 

LOL!

pseudo, meaning "fake."

This is the pseudoscience forum of a science message board. You kind of had to see it coming, right? I mean, scientific method; logical positivism; etc.?

 

Pseudoscience is a fine name for this forum. I wouldn't go to the extent to use the word in its strict sense. I would use it as unproven theories in a scientific realm.

Einstein would have loved it here, except for all the skeptics

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The classic Appeal to Authority.

If Einstein loved it here, it would most likely have been because he would have enjoyed sticking it to those that disregard scientific method as a matter of course.

 

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.

 

Maybe because of SkinWalker's budget but a lot a Einstein's theories have been tested or are going to be tested (Gravity B probe everyone?). Einstein didn't just come up with shit to say for a theory. He had the mathematics of others to help him along. He predicted the eclipse outcome and got that right and people started to accept his theory because of the scientific method he used. You on the other hand have no idea of what you talk about. You think a valid theory is a page a philosophical gibberish or conspiracy. If you knew any physics at all, you'd know that an atom don't release a Gravity A wave. The strong force holds the nuclei together indeed, but you can't access that as it works on VERY short distances. You can only exploit it(nuclear processes).

I know this is a pseudoscience forum but does it have to contain so many uneducated idiots?

Damn it. All this stuff is blending together. Half of this should be here and the other half in the new element thread.

 

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.