When seeing is disbelieving

[scandtours]

I know this has been discussed before somehow, but yesterday I got from Discovery News Daily the following.
http://news.discovery.com/space/zoom...sa-111024.html
Click image to enlarge.
I have noted at least 10 points that I believe this is just fake.
Why the sky from the moon is always seen completely dark even at daytime?
Do you see any foot prints of the astronauts from the skylab to where he is standing playing with his "lego?" He needs at least few times come and go to skylab to bring all that stuff.

I could continue but maybe its only me that does not believe n that.
Let NASA solve the problem first ..... if bacteria in astronaut poop left on the moon been genetically altered first, and we see later.........

[Lee Scatt]

C,Mon Giorgos, you don't believe we've been there?
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR...ollosites.html
p.s. the sky is black for the lack of an atmosphere to reflect the light.

[hillberg]

Sky lab? That was a lawn dart years ago.

[scandtours]

Originally Posted by lee scatt

c,
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/lr...ollosites.html
p.s. The sky is black for the lack of an atmosphere to reflect the light.

correct, very correct

[willisbr]

South Park said it best, explaining that for a government to have power, the must appear to have complete control. What better way to make people fear them than convince them they are capable of the most elaborate plan on earth? So, the conspiracy that the government faked the moon landing...is a conspiracy. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[Thomas]

I only know that I will never be going there in what life I have remaining. Someday someone will go there, what difference does it make just WHEN that happens. I never had a vote for or against NASA funding. I was never employed by any of the NASA teams (although I did apply). And I find the whole subject absolutely entertaining........free entertainment; it's worth it.

[PW_Plack]

To preserve the artifacts and prevent accidental damages, NASA wants visiting vehicles to keep their distance...buffers vary between 1 to 3 kilometers (0.62 to 1.2 miles) for each artifact...Visiting spacecraft also are advised to descend and land at least 2 kilometers (1.24 miles) away from historic sites to avoid pelting hardware with lunar dust...

With no way to enforce the rules, compliance is voluntary...

No kidding! Is it just me, or is this the height of arrogance?

NASA violated the common courtesies expected at any campground, and left human waste and rotting trash on the surface of the Moon for decades with no plan or funding to return. Now, it's telling those who would go there to avoid raising dust?

Please.

Maybe NASA should offer a bonus for those who'd finish the job by taking pictures, bringing back samples...and digging a latrine.

[gyromike]

Originally Posted by Lee Scatt

C,Mon Giorgos, you don't believe we've been there?
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR...ollosites.html
p.s. the sky is black for the lack of an atmosphere to reflect the light.

The sky is black because they had to set the exposure for the surface conditions. An astronaut in a white suit on a light gray surface in blinding sunlight = fast shutter speeds and small apertures.

Starlight is so dim that you need long exposure times. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field photograph was exposed for 1,000,000 seconds!.

Try taking a night time picture of someone standing in the middle of a well lit football field and you won't find any stars in your picture.

[scandtours]

Originally Posted by gyromike

The sky is black because they had to set the exposure for the surface conditions. An astronaut in a white suit on a light gray surface in blinding sunlight = fast shutter speeds and small apertures.

Starlight is so dim that you need long exposure times. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field photograph was exposed for 1,000,000 seconds!.

Try taking a night time picture of someone standing in the middle of a well lit football field and you won't find any stars in your picture.

According to Hasseblad himself, Hasselblad film cameras that astronauts had with them were not capable for this purpose. He could not explain it but ...we have pictures. Fake?

[Gyro_Kai]

This fake story is stone old and has been debuked so often. Google moon hoax and Mythbusters (youtube).
or here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_la...he_hoax_claims

The reason that it took so long to take photos is the limitation by the wave properties of light. You can only differentiate two points up to a certain optical angle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution


The further away, the further apart the two points have to be, to be recognized as 2 and not as one point.
Therefore you need to get the camera closer to the object. This last mission was the first with a powerful camera in close moon orbit.

Microscopes are a few mm away from the object and still only max out to 800 times without and 1200 times with immersion oil.
That is why espionage satellites are traveling at very low orbits. And you therefore need many of them to cover a spot. It would be much easier to have 1 satellite at geostationary orbit at 36000 km. But then you don't see anything in the pictures.
Satellites are now replaced by drones, because they see more. (and are cheaper of course)

For 40 years now we are sending laser impulses to an angled mirror array, put on the moon by Apollo 11, to measure the distance changes.

Kai.

[WaspAir]

Originally Posted by Lee Scatt

p.s. the sky is black for the lack of an atmosphere to reflect the light.

Originally Posted by gyromike

The sky is black because they had to set the exposure for the surface conditions.

These are correct answers to two slightly different questions.

Why is the sky black and not blue (or some other overall glow)?
The blue color on earth comes from atmospheric scattering which is directionally preferential, and you don't get that without an atmosphere.

Why is the sky black and not full of stars?
Because the surface conditions are bright (the scene is on the daylight side of the moon), and the exposure is set for those conditions.

The conspiracy crackpots would answer both questions like this:
because they have black curtains all around the Hollywood set.
They will never be convinced otherwise.

[scandtours]

Originally Posted by WaspAir

T and you don't get that without an atmosphere.

A very good example with atmosphere and light (sun waves) is the phenomenon of AURORA. Some other planets in our solar system have it too.
Few weeks ago the astronauts had the unique opportunity to watch this from the space.I saw it few times in Northern Sweden.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:So...s_from_ISS.jpg
There are also many videos on Youtube and also here. Scroll down to videos. http://chicagoist.com/2011/10/25/vid...shows_chic.php

[gyromike]

Originally Posted by WaspAir

Why is the sky black and not full of stars?
Because the surface conditions are bright (the scene is on the daylight side of the moon), and the exposure is set for those conditions.

Wasp,

Good catch.
When I wrote 'the sky is black', what I should have written is 'the sky has no stars because...'

[gyromike]

Originally Posted by scandtours

According to Hasseblad himself, Hasselblad film cameras that astronauts had with them were not capable for this purpose. He could not explain it but ...we have pictures. Fake?

Apparently the rest of the company didn't get the word.

[Scary Gary]

Are you all trying to tell me my moon rock's are fake ?