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).

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/space-aurora-iss.jpg
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/view-apollo-17.jpg
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/space-aurora-iss.jpg
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/view-moon.jpg
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/space-aurora-iss.jpg
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/as11-40-5943-crop.jpg
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/space-aurora-iss.jpg
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/view-earth.jpg
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/space-aurora-iss.jpg

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.

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/iss006-e-18372.jpg
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/aurora-iss-invert.jpg

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

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/don-pettit.jpg

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.

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.

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.

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

http://science.nasa.gov/ppod/y2003/images/redauroras_med_labeled.jpg

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 :rolleyes:

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.

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"??
Bah :rolleyes:

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.

NASA FAKES IT AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN...Who cares if NASA is faking it. Just as long as you get off.

Just for you BBH. ;)

~Raithere

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 notIf 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.

this is the [b]"psedoscience"[b] forum, when i first came here i thought "cool! [b]a place where people can talk seriously about ufo's ect,[b] BUT NO!!!! its just a place where chronic skeptics dwell

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.?

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 :cool:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/mer_computer_040128.html

They are using a computing platform that has be radiation hardend and is also being used on the Stardust mission. They KNOW it works and it's worked on missions in the past. But I think they misjudged it's multitasking ability to write to FlashMem with multiple tasks. No conspriacy needed. It was just a problem.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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! :)

Very nice! I'll leave it at that before someone accuses me of a threadjack! ;) Keep up the great work!

Thanks.
(Sorry for the jacking, guys)

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/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.

Yep. Note the absence of brightly-lit foreground subject

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.

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/may9-0896.jpg

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

Yeap. Note the relatively brightly-lit foreground.

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.

I think you guys are going to need to define "brightly lit" next.

:m: Peace.

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.

In this picture, the houses are NOT brightly lit. There is absolutely NO detail in the framework or body of the house. You are seeing light from inside from lamps. This is WAY different from the subject being frontlit by sun or flash. You would still consider this foreground to be in low light. No detail in the shadow/dark areas.

Go take that exact same shot with someone standing in the foreground and use a flash. You will get a completely different looking picture. The brightly lit foreground produced by the flash will be tremendously brighter than the background. The stars you see now in that purpley sky will be completely gone and the sky will be totally black. Ever see people at NFL stadiums high in the stands taking flash photos of the field? Those photos will not come out. At most, they will get a perfectly exposed picture of the back of the head of the guy in front of them and the field will be anywhere from very very dark to completely black. Again, from the lesson earlier....when the foreground is more than 2 stops brighter than the background, the background will come out black.

Like I said: I think you guys are going to need to define "brightly lit".

:) Peace.

I'll define "brightly lit" by changing the terminology completely. I'll say "front lit with shadow detail"....which this photo does not have.

20 years as a photographer, 10 of those professionally.Many of those spent teaching. I have an idea of that which I speak.

What Chunky and his cohorts are saying is that the astroNOTS were totally stupid and because of this could not adjust exposure times and f-stops in order to take photos of the stars (in the blackness of space) from the lunar surface.

Chunky is saying that If nasa had sent intelligent astroNOTS, who knew how to use a camera, then they would have taken outstandingly beautiful pictures of billions of newly visible stars.

Pity the astroNOTS were so thick.

No. I'm saying that the austronauts got perfectly exposed images of the foreground subject matter. This foreground subject matter being frontlit by the sun, therefore in extreme contrast to the much darker background, rendered the much darker background as black, with no detail.

If they had made an exposure for the background, then yes, they would have had a really beautiful image of the stars. However, if they happened to get the foreground in the picture as well, then the opposite thing would have happened. The foreground that was so brightly front lit by the sun, being so much brighter than the background, would have been completely white and washed out. The entire issue comes down to contrast differences, not atmosphere.

Go to the Library and check out a book called "The Joy of Photography."

Except that they were not photographing the stars, they were photographing activities on the
lunar surface. Their exposure times and other settings were perfectly set for what they wanted.

:m: Peace.

Lets see if anyone here is bright enough to tell me what is wrong with this picture.

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/iss006e32103.jpg

I sincerely doubt it, but I am willing to be pleasantly surprised.

Um....can you say earth's shadow? That was probably a shot taken when out of the sun's view. I don't see a moon or earth directly reflecting the sun's light into the camera. goofyfish is right. You don't know what brightly lit is.

So tell me, what is the source of the light, lighting the portion of the International Space Station in the photo?

Why is it not totally black?

By the way nasa have doctored the photo, but that doesn't really matter.

JackSmith, you need to learn something about photography before you start trying to
find fakes. Anyone who knows just a little about contrasts and exposure times can
easily see your are completely ignorant of the subject. I was never a professional,
but I did start with all-manual cameras and know chunkylover58 is completely correct.
A simple book on photographic lighting will educate you.

Compare these.

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/iss006e32103.jpg
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/uploads/iss006e39746.jpg

Compare these.

goofyfish is right. You don't know what brightly lit is.
No no no. That was the intent of my statemment. What I meant was that for any discussion,
both parties have to agree on the terminology involved. "Brightly lit" is subjective.

:m: Peace.

OK: You have a seen with a wall which is painted to be 1/3 black, 1/3 gray. 1/3 white.
If you take a meter reading from the gray section, the wall will look as it is. Black (with some amount of detail ... i.e. patterns in the brick or wood) , gray and white (with some amount of detail).
If you expose for the black section the meter the black section will come out gray (lighter than it's real-life blackness) because the meter is callibrated as such that it thinks whatever you want "properly exposed" is middle gray. What will happen then is, since the black part is lighter than it should be, the gray part will lighten up in the same amount and become white (with some amount of detail). The white part will lighten up to the point that it is beyond white....a big detailless mass of light.

The opposite will be true if a meter reading is made from the white section. White becomes gray, gray becomes black (with some detail), black becomes completely detailless mass of black.

This is all an amazingly basic concept in photography. Take these photographs down to your local camera shop or to a professional photographer or a photography teacher at the local high school or community college. They will tell you the same thing.

You will do this if you really are seeking truth.

A further point in this discussion is why photographs of the stars should even be an issue.

One argument is that supposedly one could calculate the precise position of the camera by the position of the stars in the photograph and that leaving the stars in a picture taken from Earth or putting 'fake' stars in after filming indoors would give tell to the 'lie'.

The problem is that this is largely over-exaggerated. The moon is about 385,000 km from the Earth while the Earth's orbit is about 300,000,000 km, over 700 times the difference. The Moon's orbital plane is only about 5% off of Earth's. Taking these facts into account any difference of perspective is negligible. If we add to this the fact that a typical camera's field of view is rather limited and wide-angle lenses will distort an image (perhaps chunkylover or someone else more knowledgeable regarding cameras can expound upon this) such calculations become practically useless. If the pictures were indeed faked it would have been a simple matter to put an Earth view of the stars into the background of the pictures.

The question also arises as to why the astronauts did not specifically take pictures of the stars. Surely the night sky on the Moon with no atmosphere provided a spectacular view.

The fact of the matter is that the pictures just really wouldn’t have been all that impressive or extraordinary. The choice of subject was simply a matter of what would draw the most attention... the most striking subjects during the journey would be the Earth and the Moon taken from a perspective never seen before and that which was on and happening at the Moon's surface. There just isn’t that much difference in viewing the stars from orbit compared with viewing them from a mountain-top on a clear night... it would have looked pretty much the same. And down here we have 200+ inch telescopes at high altitudes that can take infinitely better pictures than a 35mm camera even if it is on the Moon.

Seeing as faking the landing would have been such a great undertaking that these things would be overlooked seems rather inane and silly. This, the lack of any inexplicable 'evidence', and the existence of evidence that is otherwise inexplicable (micro-meteor impact craters, the mirror left on the moon, etc.), is really what it comes down to regarding the Moon landing conspiracy theories. We are asked to believe that NASA pulled off the greatest and most complicated hoax in history yet overlooked trivialities that the average person might spot.

~Raithere

First, why don't you answer the qestion asked above?

So tell me, what is the source of the light, lighting the portion of the International Space Station in the first of the two above photos?

You will do this if you really are seeking truth.

Looks like that great big ol' ball of gas 93,000,000 miles away from here

If the pictures were indeed faked it would have been a simple matter to put an Earth view of the stars into the background of the pictures.

Thats crap. They stuffed up the position of the Sun, in many of the photos they put it in (it is often too high in the sky).

Nasa just wasn't up to faking the stars, whose position changes all the time, as the moon rotates. The planets also move independently of the stars and the positions of the billions of stars that cannot be seen from earth, causes problems.

But one question at a time. Lets deal with the ISS stars /no-stars issue first.

Looks like that great big ol' ball of gas 93,000,000 miles away from here

So then, you have changed your mind about the photo being taken from the earth's shadow?

Did I say it was taken from Earths shadow?
The station is floating in space. The only source of light big enough to make that exposure is the sun. This is why it is wso well lit, and the background is completely dark. Too much contrast range. If the exposure had been made of the background, there would be stars there, but the statin would be completely washed out. A big blob of white.

This is not rocket science.

If you want to debate whether we landed on the moon or not, this is not the angle to take. You don't have a leg to stand on if your argument is that because the backgrounds in these photos don't show any stars, therefore they must be fake. These are very very very very very basic photographic concepts.

These are very very very very very basic photographic concepts.

No kidding. Pity, you seem to know next to nothing about them, eh?

The pictures show a discrepancy that must be adequately explained,

Give me your entire argument as to the reason there are no stars in the 2nd again. Make it concise, yet making your argument.

By the way where are all the "others" who are reading this thread?

Again .... take these photos to a photo store or a photographer or a photo teacher. There is no reason for me to give you anymore information because it is clear it's not sinking in.
If you come back and they have told you anything different from what I have already told you, we'll talk. Until then, you're fighting a windmill that will not topple.

Jack, changing a moderators edit is grounds for immediate banning. I would urge you to stop now.

Jack, changing a moderators edit is grounds for immediate banning. I would urge you to stop now.

HAVE NOT DONE THAT ASSHOLE

Yes, you have. I removed your images, and explained why. You continue to post them. That is changing an edit.

You really think I want to talk to a bunch of total assholes like you pricks anyway?

I can live without it.

But if you do ban me, I wish that your site is financially destroyed at some point some time soon.