ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 07:14:24 AM

Title: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 07:14:24 AM


I'm not sure how to proceed here.  I visited a NASA archive.  I looked through a series of images.  I found 2 that were numerically consecutive and of the same subject matter, differing only in angle by a degree or two.

My initial intention was to reveal Stars in the blackness of space.  I wanted to research the 'Why No Stars in Moon pics' theory.  I am a Professional Photographer.  I have Photoshop.  I opened these two images in PS (I will either post or link or whatever, later) and increased the Levels to reveal stars in the blackness.  At first I thought 'Great; there are stars'.  However, I overlay the 2nd image and did the same, lowering the opacity to align with the image below it.  Content with the alignment, and selecting between the two images, something was revealed.

Although the images were taken moments apart (evident only by the foreground shadows not changing at all) the stars in the sky were completely different.

To make this more clear as a question, and bearing in mind my knowledge of celestial movement and observation from the Moon's surface is non-existent, would the foreground shadows on the moon (created by the Sun only?) change in angle as the moon travels thru space in a manner that would be easily observed over a very short/immediate period of time?  Would the stars also move so drastically in the same instance?  Is it possible for the foreground shadows to be exactly the same in both images, but the stars be totally different?

My initial belief is that of a Conspiracy to deceive.  I am left believing that in order for the foreground shadows to be constant and not moving they must be lit by a light source that is in a fixed position relative the object i.e either frozen in a moment of time as in a pic (assuming Sun is light source), or in a fixed position on the ground adjacent to the subject on the same terrestrial plane (Artificial Sun).

Sorry If I've over complicated this.  I do have trouble explaining myself at times.

(struggling to add pics at 192KB!)
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: dougkeenan on January 05, 2017, 07:25:18 AM
"its" as in "first of its kind"

"it's" is used as a contraction of "it is" which doesn't make sense in your usage
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: bknight on January 05, 2017, 07:30:39 AM
When you start tweaking the parameters of an image you get all sorts of compression artifacts, so I've been told.
The "stars" you see may be just that compression artifacts and therefore will change with each image, no conspiracy here.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 07:47:06 AM
"its" as in "first of its kind"

"it's" is used as a contraction of "it is" which doesn't make sense in your usage

Thank you for taking the time to point this obvious fact out, however I know this.  You've mistaken the error for a lack of knowledge.  My issues are more to do with the speed in which I type and the irrelevance at this early stage to be concise on grammar and syntax.

Do you have anything to add to my post?

Thank you again.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 07:49:51 AM
When you start tweaking the parameters of an image you get all sorts of compression artifacts, so I've been told.
The "stars" you see may be just that compression artifacts and therefore will change with each image, no conspiracy here.

Artifacts, as you have been told (probably by a Photographer or Graphic Designer who uses Digital Software i.e Myself) occur with an overuse of certain tools in editing.  Without going in to to much detail on the matter, you have dismissed something that you've not actually seen.

Thank you anyway.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: dougkeenan on January 05, 2017, 07:52:11 AM
Sure I can add more.  I take your obvious lack of knowledge as evidence of a lack of knowledge.  Ignorance is your error not mine.

If you can't get the small things right you aren't going to succeed at the bigger ones.

At what point in your life did you decide an education would not help?  Because there's about nothing about Apollo that you cannot educate yourself in depth.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 08:44:36 AM
Sure I can add more.  I take your obvious lack of knowledge as evidence of a lack of knowledge.  Ignorance is your error not mine.

If you can't get the small things right you aren't going to succeed at the bigger ones.

At what point in your life did you decide an education would not help?  "Because there's about nothing about Apollo that you cannot educate yourself in depth."

I don't think we have anything more to discuss.  Your time would be better served seeking other Grammatical Errors, though I would suggest this site is not the best candidate.

However I bring your attention to this:

"Because there's about nothing about Apollo that you cannot educate yourself in depth."

I can't make any sense of it.

Regards
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: dougkeenan on January 05, 2017, 08:49:01 AM
Pick any subject about the Apollo program that confuses you.  Go learn about it. 

Ignorant conspiracy theories will evaporate in the sunlight of your education.

Does that make sense?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 09:01:42 AM
Pick any subject about the Apollo program that confuses you.  Go learn about it. 

Ignorant conspiracy theories will evaporate in the sunlight of your education.

Does that make sense?

Oh dear me; I've managed to find a Troll in my very 1st instance on this site.  Were you born Angry and Lonely or did you work at it?  Congratulations!

Irony abounds.  You pull me up on use of Grammar while completely disregarding my question, yet write sentences like this:

"Because there's about nothing about Apollo........"

Absurd.  Move on please.  You've turned this into a Spelling B contest....!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 09:09:18 AM
To add, this is not specifically an Apollo question.  This relates to Photography and Stage design.  The use of Apollo photo's brought me here.  They are separate instances while borrowing commonalities from each other to prove or disprove a point.  Namely, the lack of stars in Space/Moon/Orbit photography, and also a reason or attempt, to prove or disprove the Hoax theories of going to the moon.

My main question still stands, but I will amend for anyone remotely interested:

Assuming the moon photo's are legit, would the background stars move noticeably, like they do on earth, and alter the foreground shadows also, assuming the only light source is the Sun?

Thanks

Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Kiwi on January 05, 2017, 09:24:39 AM
My initial intention was to reveal Stars in the blackness of space.  I wanted to research the 'Why No Stars in Moon pics' theory.  I am a Professional Photographer.  I have Photoshop...

Apologies for dougkeenan's comments.  Most of us here do not behave like that and are a little more civil.

Ex-professional photographer here, 1970s and 80s. A quick question: Why do you expect to find stars in sunlit lunar scenes? Surely a quick calculation comparing the usual exposures of the two subjects would tell you that it's impossible.

Film usually copes or coped with a light ratio of about 1024:1 (11 Zones in the Ansel Adams and Fred Picker systems), and as this old post of mine at the CosmoQuest Forum
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/6040-Fox-Special-rescreening-in-NZ-24-June-2003?p=102901#post102901
says (fifth paragraph in the list), "Stars didn't show in photos because they are far too faint to register in a photograph of a sunlit scene. To register on film they need at least 30,000 times more exposure than a sunlit object."

The post below that one shows via the maths that an exposure of about 130,000 times more than a sunlit scene would be better for registering stars.

However, do you know that Venus showed up in photos that Al Shepard took of the lunar module during Apollo 14? The first photo of the series is AS14-64-9189 and details are at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a14/a14Venus.html

(Family commitments might keep me away from here for a few days, but I shall return.)
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Abaddon on January 05, 2017, 09:28:07 AM


I'm not sure how to proceed here.  I visited a NASA archive.  I looked through a series of images.  I found 2 that were numerically consecutive and of the same subject matter, differing only in angle by a degree or two.

My initial intention was to reveal Stars in the blackness of space.  I wanted to research the 'Why No Stars in Moon pics' theory.  I am a Professional Photographer.  I have Photoshop.  I opened these two images in PS (I will either post or link or whatever, later) and increased the Levels to reveal stars in the blackness.  At first I thought 'Great; there are stars'.  However, I overlay the 2nd image and did the same, lowering the opacity to align with the image below it.  Content with the alignment, and selecting between the two images, something was revealed.

Although the images were taken moments apart (evident only by the foreground shadows not changing at all) the stars in the sky were completely different.

To make this more clear as a question, and bearing in mind my knowledge of celestial movement and observation from the Moon's surface is non-existent, would the foreground shadows on the moon (created by the Sun only?) change in angle as the moon travels thru space in a manner that would be easily observed over a very short/immediate period of time?  Would the stars also move so drastically in the same instance?  Is it possible for the foreground shadows to be exactly the same in both images, but the stars be totally different?

My initial belief is that of a Conspiracy to deceive.  I am left believing that in order for the foreground shadows to be constant and not moving they must be lit by a light source that is in a fixed position relative the object i.e either frozen in a moment of time as in a pic (assuming Sun is light source), or in a fixed position on the ground adjacent to the subject on the same terrestrial plane (Artificial Sun).

Sorry If I've over complicated this.  I do have trouble explaining myself at times.

(struggling to add pics at 192KB!)
You understand that there are many sources for contamination, right? Dust on the moon, blemishes in the film stock, dust on the scanner glass etc. etc.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 09:38:31 AM
Of course I do and thank you for pointing it out.  I'm realising I need to me very thorough in what I post to prevent further posts like this.  I figured saying I was a Professional Photographer would cover me in every regard considering artifacts, dust and over processing.

I am not here to disprove.  I am here to prove facts!  Facts within the images.  My friend is a Die Hard Conspiracy Theorist.  He believes in Everything alternative.

I have already tried in vain to point out why Neil A is illuminated etc thru reflected light.  He won't have it.  I'm not here for that.

I have a series of images, that I do not believe, in my Photographic Professional Opinion, to be simply glitches, artifacts, or distortion from over processing. 

I also realise that these are Digital Scans, of old school Medium Format negatives/prints.  Therefore, dust, hair, flakes of skin and all kind will be apparent.  Which leads me to my question:

All this as a given, would the shadow stay the same in the foreground, while the stars moved?

First thing I learned at University.  To answer a question, we first need to understand the question.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 09:46:50 AM
Kiwi, thank you sincerely for that reply.  While I am not aware of the latency of the film used back then, the info you have put forward is useful and I will look into that further.

As a photographer now at 42 I did learn on film.  However I exclusively use Digital now.  What I can tell you for certain that even negatives from 20 uears ago of the night sky can and do reveal stars when digitally processed.  This is proven by comparing an under exposed negative to an over exposed negative from the same place at seconds apart.  Using Photoshop the level can reveal points of light that match in both instances, where the under exposed would only show the most obvious bright stars/planets, and the over exposed a plethora of illumination.

Today using Digital I can achieve excellent levels using RAW format, that I'm sure you're aware of.  The images I mention appear to have Nebulae revealed.  Colours etc. are different in each part.  I have only selected 2 image to look at, but I am currently looking at others now.  Would you care to take a look at them yourself?  I can of course supply you with the link and the specific images; Providing you use Digital Editing of course.

Second to this, I am looking for truth!  Nothing else.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Abaddon on January 05, 2017, 09:51:08 AM
Of course I do and thank you for pointing it out.  I'm realising I need to me very thorough in what I post to prevent further posts like this.  I figured saying I was a Professional Photographer would cover me in every regard considering artifacts, dust and over processing.
Clearly it does not. The images you see are scanned from the original. The infamous "C-rock" is an example.

What settings would you use to capture stars? I know the answer, I am curious if you do.

I am not here to disprove.  I am here to prove facts!  Facts within the images.
Which images are you using?

My friend is a Die Hard Conspiracy Theorist.  He believes in Everything alternative.
You might want to think before deploying that well worn tactic.

I have already tried in vain to point out why Neil A is illuminated etc thru reflected light.  He won't have it.  I'm not here for that.
What are you here for, then?

I have a series of images, that I do not believe, in my Photographic Professional Opinion, to be simply glitches, artifacts, or distortion from over processing. 
Yet you decline to identify which images they are and what artefacts you see and why you think they are stars. Let me ask again. If you wanted to photograph stars, what kind of setup would you use?

I also realise that these are Digital Scans, of old school Medium Format negatives/prints.  Therefore, dust, hair, flakes of skin and all kind will be apparent.  Which leads me to my question:

All this as a given, would the shadow stay the same in the foreground, while the stars moved?
What? How fast do you think the stars move? What do you think the exposure time was on the Apollo images?

First thing I learned at University.  To answer a question, we first need to understand the question.
Request a refund.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 09:55:53 AM
Of course I do and thank you for pointing it out.  I'm realising I need to me very thorough in what I post to prevent further posts like this.  I figured saying I was a Professional Photographer would cover me in every regard considering artifacts, dust and over processing.
Clearly it does not. The images you see are scanned from the original. The infamous "C-rock" is an example.

What settings would you use to capture stars? I know the answer, I am curious if you do.

I am not here to disprove.  I am here to prove facts!  Facts within the images.
Which images are you using?

My friend is a Die Hard Conspiracy Theorist.  He believes in Everything alternative.
You might want to think before deploying that well worn tactic.

I have already tried in vain to point out why Neil A is illuminated etc thru reflected light.  He won't have it.  I'm not here for that.
What are you here for, then?

I have a series of images, that I do not believe, in my Photographic Professional Opinion, to be simply glitches, artifacts, or distortion from over processing. 
Yet you decline to identify which images they are and what artefacts you see and why you think they are stars. Let me ask again. If you wanted to photograph stars, what kind of setup would you use?

I also realise that these are Digital Scans, of old school Medium Format negatives/prints.  Therefore, dust, hair, flakes of skin and all kind will be apparent.  Which leads me to my question:

All this as a given, would the shadow stay the same in the foreground, while the stars moved?
What? How fast do you think the stars move? What do you think the exposure time was on the Apollo images?

First thing I learned at University.  To answer a question, we first need to understand the question.
Request a refund.

erm...Thank you for that.  You seem to be here to disprove me.  I have no other info for you.

Thanks
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Abaddon on January 05, 2017, 10:01:18 AM

erm...Thank you for that.  You seem to be here to disprove me.  I have no other info for you.

Thanks
The is a discussion forum. It's purpose is to facilitate discussion. If you do not wish to have a discussion, then why are you here?

You could start by identifying which particular images you are looking at. Why will you not?

You could start by identifying what setup you need to photograph stars. Why will you not?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 10:09:03 AM
Because, you haven't asked nicely, and you assume too much.  You already have me 'summed up'.  It would take too much effort (already evident) to convince you of anything else, never mind have a civil discussion about Photography.

Thank you for your input, but you can't help me.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: dougkeenan on January 05, 2017, 10:09:49 AM
I'm trying to help and being accused of incivility. 

Anybody have a better answer to ignorance than education go right ahead.

Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 10:11:07 AM
Also, you do realise I could copy and paste any amount of info an Celestial Photography don't you?  I can't prove my knowledge to you!  You also realise that each camera is different in it's sensitivity and set-up?  There are no fixed settings.

Regards
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Abaddon on January 05, 2017, 10:13:01 AM
Because, you haven't asked nicely, and you assume too much.  You already have me 'summed up'.  It would take too much effort (already evident) to convince you of anything else, never mind have a civil discussion about Photography.

Thank you for your input, but you can't help me.
Please, pretty please, identify which images you are using.

Please, pretty please, identify what setup you would use to photograph stars.

With a cherry on top. Maybe some whipped cream.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Abaddon on January 05, 2017, 10:18:07 AM
Also, you do realise I could copy and paste any amount of info an Celestial Photography don't you?  I can't prove my knowledge to you!  You also realise that each camera is different in it's sensitivity and set-up?  There are no fixed settings.

Regards
Sure, but we know the capabilities of the lunar Hasselblads precisely. We know exposure times focus fstop blah blah. We already know this. We also know all about the film stock used, it's sensitivity and so forth.

For some reason, you will not tell us which image(s) you are examining.

For some reason you will not tell us what setup you would deploy to photograph stars.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 10:21:45 AM
Also, you do realise I could copy and paste any amount of info an Celestial Photography don't you?  I can't prove my knowledge to you!  You also realise that each camera is different in it's sensitivity and set-up?  There are no fixed settings.

Regards
Sure, but we know the capabilities of the lunar Hasselblads precisely. We know exposure times focus fstop blah blah. We already know this. We also know all about the film stock used, it's sensitivity and so forth.

For some reason, you will not tell us which image(s) you are examining.

For some reason you will not tell us what setup you would deploy to photograph stars.




Here is a link:
I'm trying to help and being accused of incivility. 

Anybody have a better answer to ignorance than education go right ahead.

Doug, to this end you have still not responded in any kind to my question, yet you persist to buzz me.

If you would like to enter this discussion in an enquiring and helpful manner than by all means do so.  Educate me, but do so by answering my initial question.

So far Kiwi is the most sincere, intelligent and approachable.  My experience on this site in a mere matter of hours is exhausting.  I'm defending myself against your attacks.

Ignorance has many meanings and contexts, but it does indeed apply here!

Thanks again.

Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: dougkeenan on January 05, 2017, 10:24:43 AM
Educate yourself at your own speed my friend.  It's all there, down to the opcode, waiting for your brain.

However I'm out of here and will reply no more.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 10:26:06 AM
Also, you do realise I could copy and paste any amount of info an Celestial Photography don't you?  I can't prove my knowledge to you!  You also realise that each camera is different in it's sensitivity and set-up?  There are no fixed settings.

Regards
Sure, but we know the capabilities of the lunar Hasselblads precisely. We know exposure times focus fstop blah blah. We already know this. We also know all about the film stock used, it's sensitivity and so forth.

For some reason, you will not tell us which image(s) you are examining.

For some reason you will not tell us what setup you would deploy to photograph stars.

There is no reason Abaddon.  I just haven't got around to it yet.  I've been dealing with other issues.  Apologies!  I also had no idea if Hyperlinks would work here.  I can't add photo's as there is a 192kb limit!

Here is the link to the gallery:http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

The specific images I'm looking at are:

AS11-40-5950
AS11-40-5949

All other things considered and discussed, raising levels with reveal possible stars, planets, artifacts, hairs dust etc.etc.

But the reason I haven't posted the images, is because it has nothing to do with the question.  It's Theoretical!  IF, and it's a big IF, I was to find a decent negative with stars and planets from the moons surface, would the foreground shadows stay the same, while the background stars moved?  It's Rhetorical, but I wanted to hear some opinions on it.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 10:37:17 AM
My initial intention was to reveal Stars in the blackness of space.  I wanted to research the 'Why No Stars in Moon pics' theory.  I am a Professional Photographer.  I have Photoshop...

Apologies for dougkeenan's comments.  Most of us here do not behave like that and are a little more civil.

Ex-professional photographer here, 1970s and 80s. A quick question: Why do you expect to find stars in sunlit lunar scenes? Surely a quick calculation comparing the usual exposures of the two subjects would tell you that it's impossible.

Though this may be a Sunlit scene Kiwi, it only has the reflective luminance of the lunar surface; not the full power of the sun.  I can correctly take a moon shot, either full or crescent while still revealing stars and planets.  All the while exposing for the Moon.  Especially now using Digital RAW.

Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Abaddon on January 05, 2017, 10:37:33 AM
Doug, to this end you have still not responded in any kind to my question, yet you persist to buzz me.
That is hypocritical. I have directly asked you questions, and you refuse to answer.

Let's try again...

Please, pretty please, identify which images you are using.

Please, pretty please, identify what setup you would use to photograph stars.

Care to answer?

If you would like to enter this discussion in an enquiring and helpful manner than by all means do so.  Educate me, but do so by answering my initial question.
It's been answered several times in several ways.

So far Kiwi is the most sincere, intelligent and approachable.  My experience on this site in a mere matter of hours is exhausting.  I'm defending myself against your attacks.
Attacks? What? That is in your imagination. I simply want to know which images you are using and what setup you would use to photograph stars. It's a simple question. Somehow, you are unable to answer it. This leads to an inevitable conclusion. If you do not like that conclusion, you could simply answer. Why will you not?

Ignorance has many meanings and contexts, but it does indeed apply here!

Thanks again.

So far, the evidence of your very own posts indicates that you know nothing about photography. You could easily clear that up by simply answering my questions. Why will you not?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: bknight on January 05, 2017, 10:43:18 AM
Here is how to post links of the two images you posted.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5949HR.jpg
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5950HR.jpg

Very simple with no image size limitations.

Now exactly what do you or your friend have issues with either of these two images?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2017, 10:43:43 AM
Though this may be a Sunlit scene Kiwi, it only has the reflective luminance of the lunar surface; not the full power of the sun.

Surely it has the reflective luminance of whatever is in the image, since every part of it is lit primarily by the sun, not the lunar surface.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2017, 10:47:22 AM
IF, and it's a big IF, I was to find a decent negative with stars and planets from the moons surface, would the foreground shadows stay the same, while the background stars moved?  It's Rhetorical, but I wanted to hear some opinions on it.

Why would this be a matter of opinion at all? Positions of objects and shadows are determined by the physics of the setup and are not open to debate. If the Moon has not moved enough to alter the angle at which the sun is shining on its surface (hence not enough to alter the direction of foreground shadows or the apparent position of the sun) it hasn't moved enough for the other stars to be in different positions either.

This leads to an obvious conclusion: the points in the photograph that you identify as having moved are not stars.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Abaddon on January 05, 2017, 10:51:46 AM
Also, you do realise I could copy and paste any amount of info an Celestial Photography don't you?  I can't prove my knowledge to you!  You also realise that each camera is different in it's sensitivity and set-up?  There are no fixed settings.

Regards
Sure, but we know the capabilities of the lunar Hasselblads precisely. We know exposure times focus fstop blah blah. We already know this. We also know all about the film stock used, it's sensitivity and so forth.

For some reason, you will not tell us which image(s) you are examining.

For some reason you will not tell us what setup you would deploy to photograph stars.

There is no reason Abaddon.  I just haven't got around to it yet.  I've been dealing with other issues.  Apologies!  I also had no idea if Hyperlinks would work here.  I can't add photo's as there is a 192kb limit!

Here is the link to the gallery:http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

The specific images I'm looking at are:

AS11-40-5950
AS11-40-5949

All other things considered and discussed, raising levels with reveal possible stars, planets, artifacts, hairs dust etc.etc.

But the reason I haven't posted the images, is because it has nothing to do with the question.  It's Theoretical!  IF, and it's a big IF, I was to find a decent negative with stars and planets from the moons surface, would the foreground shadows stay the same, while the background stars moved?  It's Rhetorical, but I wanted to hear some opinions on it.
See this thing? AS11-40-5950? See that? That is all we need. We have all of the Apollo image libraries at out fingertips. You don't need hyperlinks at all and you know it, so I am not buying that excuse.

Next question. Where did you source these images from?

Next question, neither are 192K even at low res. Why did you avoid the Hires scans? This suggests that you are using copies of copies which have been through jpeg compression at least twice if not more.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 10:54:19 AM
Here is how to post links of the two images you posted.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5949HR.jpg
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5950HR.jpg

Very simple with no image size limitations.

Now exactly what do you or your friend have issues with either of these two images?

Thank you.  I know how to copy and paste a link, but as I explained the images were secondary to my question (edited images).However, I aimed to show the artifacts/planets/stars/hair/dust etc after editing.  Increasing levels to reveal.

My 'friend' is not apart of this discussion.  I merely mention him as he is NOT a photographer and believes in Lizard people etc.  We don't live close.  In fact I've not known him for 25 years.  He contacted me on FB and post ridiculous things regarding conspiracies.  MYself hower, do belive our Gov's are corrupt and the world is owned by private corporations.  However, back to Photography!

Trying to communicate in strange forums with angry people who want answers NOW NOW NOW is difficult and a lot will be lost in translation.  Abaddon, your question or demand was answered 10 minutes before your most recent request for info.  Calm down, take a breath and wait for the Forum to catch up.  The info you asked for is there, and now BK has posted them too. 

They now need to be 'edited' to reveal the artifacts.

I'd be interested to hear what anyone thinks, other than what I have heard already.  Most notably the colours, trails etc. revealed while increasing Curves.

Thank you for playing.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 10:56:03 AM
Also, you do realise I could copy and paste any amount of info an Celestial Photography don't you?  I can't prove my knowledge to you!  You also realise that each camera is different in it's sensitivity and set-up?  There are no fixed settings.

Regards
Sure, but we know the capabilities of the lunar Hasselblads precisely. We know exposure times focus fstop blah blah. We already know this. We also know all about the film stock used, it's sensitivity and so forth.

For some reason, you will not tell us which image(s) you are examining.

For some reason you will not tell us what setup you would deploy to photograph stars.

There is no reason Abaddon.  I just haven't got around to it yet.  I've been dealing with other issues.  Apologies!  I also had no idea if Hyperlinks would work here.  I can't add photo's as there is a 192kb limit!

Here is the link to the gallery:http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

The specific images I'm looking at are:

AS11-40-5950
AS11-40-5949

All other things considered and discussed, raising levels with reveal possible stars, planets, artifacts, hairs dust etc.etc.

But the reason I haven't posted the images, is because it has nothing to do with the question.  It's Theoretical!  IF, and it's a big IF, I was to find a decent negative with stars and planets from the moons surface, would the foreground shadows stay the same, while the background stars moved?  It's Rhetorical, but I wanted to hear some opinions on it.
See this thing? AS11-40-5950? See that? That is all we need. We have all of the Apollo image libraries at out fingertips. You don't need hyperlinks at all and you know it, so I am not buying that excuse.

Next question. Where did you source these images from?

Next question, neither are 192K even at low res. Why did you avoid the Hires scans? This suggests that you are using copies of copies which have been through jpeg compression at least twice if not more.

Jesus, Abaddon, take a break! 

IT'S THE EDITED PICS I WANTED TO UPLOAD!!!!!  I'M STARTING TO THINK YOU'RE THE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.  THERE'S NO LIES HERE. FFS!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Abaddon on January 05, 2017, 11:11:19 AM

Jesus, Abaddon, take a break! 

IT'S THE EDITED PICS I WANTED TO UPLOAD!!!!!  I'M STARTING TO THINK YOU'RE THE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.  THERE'S NO LIES HERE. FFS!
Wait, what? You think anyone who just wanders in the door should automatically be exempt from scrutiny? Is that what you think?

Guess again. Your notions are being scrutinised.

I suspect that your internet screaming reveals the fact that you know how fragile your claims actually are. In your all caps rant, you stated that you wanted to upload edited pics. Red flag straight away. You can only support your argument by uploading edited pics. Does this not seem at least a little odd to you? You have to edit the pics to support your argument? When we all have the originals at hand? Why on earth would we rely on your edited version when we have the originals before us in much higher resolution?

Explain that.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: gillianren on January 05, 2017, 11:30:36 AM
Thank you.  I know how to copy and paste a link, but as I explained the images were secondary to my question (edited images).However, I aimed to show the artifacts/planets/stars/hair/dust etc after editing.  Increasing levels to reveal.

So you know that the images are edited, but you also know that edited images cannot possibly contain compression artifacts, etc., that would produce what you're claiming are stars?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Count Zero on January 05, 2017, 11:34:00 AM
Howdy Icarus!  Welcome to the forum.

I think I see the crux of your problem here as related to your question.  In your opening post, you wrote:

My initial intention was to reveal Stars in the blackness of space.  I wanted to research the 'Why No Stars in Moon pics' theory.  I am a Professional Photographer.  I have Photoshop.  I opened these two images in PS (I will either post or link or whatever, later) and increased the Levels to reveal stars in the blackness.  At first I thought 'Great; there are stars'.  However, I overlay the 2nd image and did the same, lowering the opacity to align with the image below it.  Content with the alignment, and selecting between the two images, something was revealed.
(Emphasis added)

Your error is in assuming that the dots you found were, in fact, stars.

They are not.

What are they?  Well, it they don't match up from image to image, then you can safely rule them out as anything that was actually in the scene photographed.  That is to say, it is "noise".  I use the term loosely; although it is usually used in reference to transmission and reception, it is also valid when describing any spurious data on a detector (which, technically, camera film is) or in an image.  The 'noise hypothesis' is testable in several different ways, from the general (If you photograph a very black object using a film camera and daylight settings, then digitize the result and adjust the levels, do you get noise?) to the specific (After adjusting the levels on images in question (thanks for listing them, btw), did you check the shadows in the foreground to see if they showed dots, and -if so - did those dots match-up on consecutive images).

When you first adjusted your levels and saw dots on the black, your first thought should not have been, 'Great, there are stars,' but rather, 'I've got something, are they stars?'  Matching it with a consecutive pic was a valid test for eliminating the possibility that they are stars.

Having thus eliminated the possibility of them being stars, your whole question as stated...

Quote
To make this more clear as a question, and bearing in mind my knowledge of celestial movement and observation from the Moon's surface is non-existent, would the foreground shadows on the moon (created by the Sun only?) change in angle as the moon travels thru space in a manner that would be easily observed over a very short/immediate period of time?  Would the stars also move so drastically in the same instance?  Is it possible for the foreground shadows to be exactly the same in both images, but the stars be totally different?

...becomes irrelevant (the answer to your question, by the way, is "No, but who cares - That's noise, not stars").

I think what got others here riled is the perceived train of thought:
"I see dots ---> Dots are stars ---> Stars don't match ---> 'Conspiracy to deceive'"
instead of
"I see dots ---> Dots don't match ---> Dots are not stars"

Which do you think is more reasonable?

If one were to ask me to consider the conspiracy angle (only considering the issue raised with these two photographs and ignoring the entire rest of the Apollo record), my first thought would be, 'If someone were faking this scene in some way, why would they rearrange a whole lot of 'stars' in the background sky between two consecutive images?  That would be silly and - more to the point - unnecessary!'

Hope this helps.  Cheers!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: bknight on January 05, 2017, 12:00:42 PM
When you start tweaking the parameters of an image you get all sorts of compression artifacts, so I've been told.
The "stars" you see may be just that compression artifacts and therefore will change with each image, no conspiracy here.

Artifacts, as you have been told (probably by a Photographer or Graphic Designer who uses Digital Software i.e Myself) occur with an overuse of certain tools in editing.  Without going in to to much detail on the matter, you have dismissed something that you've not actually seen.

Thank you anyway.
Fair enough, then upload your tweaked images to a cloud area.  Box is one that I use then share the image and post that link in the thread.  Be sure to identify what you believe to be "stars".  Count Zero has amplified my thoughts, so show your "evidence"

https://app.box.com/signup/n/personal
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 12:03:02 PM
Howdy, Count.  Wow.  Thanks for another great reply.  ;)

Yes as stated at the very bottom of my OP I did say at times I have trouble communicating and well, probably over complicated this.

It should also be noted that I took the images direct from the Apollo Archive as in my previous post.  Hi Res Scans.  All i did was increase the curves will details appeared inthe black.  Not overly, only the brightest.  Some trails appeared and differing colours, suggesting to me they were in fact Stars, as I can achieve the same result using my modern Digital Camera.  (Yes, i know these are RAW Digital Negatives and the Apollo images are scanned photo's (assuming so?)

Indeed.  It could be Noise; but it is not Uniform noise!  (you will see for yourself if you take the time to simple increase the curves in Photoshop) What I was actually hoping to do was offer the images up for other 'Forum Users' to take a look at with me.  I also agree that it would have been better to assume the question of 'ARE they Stars' NOT 'They ARE Stars'  Granted.  However I have knowledge of Photography and editing and for sure can guarantee that other subtle details do exist in images which can be revealed thru editing further.

To assume however that they are most definitely, NOT Stars, well, this one has me at odds with what I know and believe.  There are blues greens and reds and trails and irregular shapes.  You really need to see for yourself. 

At the bottom of what I'm hoping to achieve is the possibility that not all images are REAL,and in the same respect not all are FAKE.  I have zero doubt that some images are indeed Edited.  I'm assuming you would agree as NASA has even suggested this.  So, we have reason for doubt.  I'm trying to prove a truth, regardless which way it goes.

Adjusting Curves to reveal Noise did not occur in the Foreground instances as it resulted in Black and White high contrast only.  Noise was only evident at the horizon and black of space. (apart from some light glow from the craft etc.)

It really would be easier to post the pic, but at 192kb the image would not be big enough to scrutinise.

I'm not suggesting they arranged the stars :D  After looking closely, albeit with a limited capacity and knowledge of the film used and it's latency,(thanks to Kiwi for the info though) the level of details of the scans etc. I have concluded that of these particular images (I have found other anomalous instances now in other images, where NOISE doesn't even exist in the black) that they are indeed stars, but the sky has moved.  This means the illumination of the craft and foreground is static, but the sky is still in motion.

If you were to view the two images I have referenced, align to each other, and increase the curves, then this would be a far more efficient way to address my question.  There's little else for me to say if we simply state as FACT that what I am seeing are NOT Stars.

Thanks
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on January 05, 2017, 12:08:46 PM
Anything that shows up in these photographs (other than the Sun) can't be stars.
Stars aren't bright enough by several orders of magnitude.

My initial belief is that of a Conspiracy to deceive.
"Here is something I don't know the explanation for, the most likely explanation must be something something evil."

This perversion of Occam's Razor is one of the basic building blocks of conspiracism.
It's a form of appeal to ignorance: choosing one alternative over another before there is sufficient data to make such a determination.

I am a Professional Photographer.
There are lots and lots of people on the internet who claim expertise and then spectacularly fail to demonstrate it, so people tend to take such claims with a grain of salt.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 12:18:11 PM
Anything that shows up in these photographs (other than the Sun) can't be stars.
Stars aren't bright enough by several orders of magnitude.

My initial belief is that of a Conspiracy to deceive.
"Here is something I don't know the explanation for, the most likely explanation must be something something evil."

This perversion of Occam's Razor is one of the basic building blocks of conspiracism.
It's a form of appeal to ignorance: choosing one alternative over another before there is sufficient data to make such a determination.

I am a Professional Photographer.
There are lots and lots of people on the internet who claim expertise and then spectacularly fail to demonstrate it, so people tend to take such claims with a grain of salt.

It is this Proof you talk of that I'm trying to find Halcyon.  You're suggesting they Can't be Stars.  Why?  I had old negatives of the night sky that were scanned to reveal stars where there were none in the initial print.

A conspiracy to deceive does not need to be EVIL.  This isn't the Bible.  If anyone would like to view my Photography work as proof by all means PM me and I'll give you a link to my FB page!

Funny you mention Occam's Razor.  Dependent on your point of view or doctrine, we will endeavor to take that which seems most likely.  To me, it appears most likely that these are stars!

I am a Professional Photographer.  It is my main income.  The irony being that I need to prove my credentials for me to have any credibility while researching images that are shrouded in doubt!!!

:D
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 12:21:59 PM
This is me by the way. :D

Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 12:31:30 PM
Thank you.  I know how to copy and paste a link, but as I explained the images were secondary to my question (edited images).However, I aimed to show the artifacts/planets/stars/hair/dust etc after editing.  Increasing levels to reveal.

So you know that the images are edited, but you also know that edited images cannot possibly contain compression artifacts, etc., that would produce what you're claiming are stars?

I'm not sure i follow here gillianren.?

What do you mean 'I know the images are edited...?'  Which images? 

I have increased the Curves in 2 official Apollo Hi Res images taken from the archive.  I'm now curious as to the said 'artifacts' that are revealed in the black space.  To me they look like Stars (Stars=Planets, Galaxies, Nebulae etc.)
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 12:52:05 PM
When you start tweaking the parameters of an image you get all sorts of compression artifacts, so I've been told.
The "stars" you see may be just that compression artifacts and therefore will change with each image, no conspiracy here.

Artifacts, as you have been told (probably by a Photographer or Graphic Designer who uses Digital Software i.e Myself) occur with an overuse of certain tools in editing.  Without going in to to much detail on the matter, you have dismissed something that you've not actually seen.

Thank you anyway.
Fair enough, then upload your tweaked images to a cloud area.  Box is one that I use then share the image and post that link in the thread.  Be sure to identify what you believe to be "stars".  Count Zero has amplified my thoughts, so show your "evidence"

https://app.box.com/signup/n/personal

It would be easier and make more sense if you could prove this yourself?  Open in PS, adjust Curves till 'Noise' appears, then scrutinise colours and shapes etc.

I have actually joined Box so I could try upload full rez images for you.  I think the links will get lost in this thread though.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 01:03:44 PM
When you start tweaking the parameters of an image you get all sorts of compression artifacts, so I've been told.
The "stars" you see may be just that compression artifacts and therefore will change with each image, no conspiracy here.

Artifacts, as you have been told (probably by a Photographer or Graphic Designer who uses Digital Software i.e Myself) occur with an overuse of certain tools in editing.  Without going in to to much detail on the matter, you have dismissed something that you've not actually seen.

Here is the link to Box.  https://app.box.com/s/lg3w379um3n2sfikuotxamh6cxs88v7i  Assuming it will work.  Please take the time to look closely.  If you have any doubts that it is real, simply edit the files yourself.  Curves Level 225.

Thanks

Thank you anyway.
Fair enough, then upload your tweaked images to a cloud area.  Box is one that I use then share the image and post that link in the thread.  Be sure to identify what you believe to be "stars".  Count Zero has amplified my thoughts, so show your "evidence"

https://app.box.com/signup/n/personal
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: bknight on January 05, 2017, 01:06:40 PM

It would be easier and make more sense if you could prove this yourself?  Open in PS, adjust Curves till 'Noise' appears, then scrutinise colours and shapes etc.

I have actually joined Box so I could try upload full rez images for you.  I think the links will get lost in this thread though.

This is beginning to sound like you are either craw fishing or begging the question.  I'll tell you what my thoughts are, there is no anomalies with either images, tweaking will only amplify artifacts and poof your "stars" disappear.

Again post your evidence, and no the links won't get lost.  The only aspect that may get lost is when you delete the file share.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 01:12:37 PM
The link is above!

Here it is again.

https://app.box.com/s/lg3w379um3n2sfikuotxamh6cxs88v7i
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Apollo 957 on January 05, 2017, 01:18:30 PM
What I can tell you for certain that even negatives from 20 uears ago of the night sky can and do reveal stars when digitally processed.

... but all the Apollo photos taken on the surface were of a daytime sky. They (the astronauts) were in sunlight.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 01:22:02 PM
Sorry Apollo I should ad more to this*

My reference to my 20year old negatives was to illustrate that you can attain extra detail from the images using modern software.  I had proof years back with 2 images of the night sky I had(Film, not Digital)  One was over exposed one under, however what was revealed in the under exposed image after further editing were the same stars seen in the over exposed one.   My point was to illustrate again that the Apollo images have more detail to reveal than a black starless sky.

There is no Daytime Sky on the Moon.  It has no atmosphere.  What you're exposing for is Moon surface or highlights which is not the same power as the Sun.  Try setting your exposure to shoot the sun then try taking a pic of the ground.  It'll be black!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Apollo 957 on January 05, 2017, 01:29:58 PM
I respectfully submit that there is a 'daytime sky' on the Moon.

It's the sky that you photograph when on the daytime/sunlit side of the Moon.

If you take a photo from the night-time/unlit side of the Moon, you're photographing the night sky.

Regardless of the presence/absence of atmosphere.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: bknight on January 05, 2017, 01:41:31 PM
The link is above!

Here it is again.

https://app.box.com/s/lg3w379um3n2sfikuotxamh6cxs88v7i

A link to the other image?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: bknight on January 05, 2017, 01:43:57 PM
...

There is no Daytime Sky on the Moon.  It has no atmosphere.  What you're exposing for is Moon surface or highlights which is not the same power as the Sun.  Try setting your exposure to shoot the sun then try taking a pic of the ground.  It'll be black!

Uum lets see the Sun is above the horizon on ALL Apollo images.  Yes, that fits the definition of Daytime.  Atmosphere has no bearing on this.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 01:46:31 PM
There is no other link.  There are 2 images in the gallery.  Arrow left or right.


I appreciate the definition of Day and Night on the Moon.  However, irrespective of or regarding the principle of photographing, a Black sky from the Moon, Day or Night means nothing.  Whether in direct Sunlight of on the Dark Side bears no ill for the exposure when looking directly up.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 05, 2017, 01:54:28 PM

I have increased the Curves in 2 official Apollo Hi Res images taken from the archive.  I'm now curious as to the said 'artifacts' that are revealed in the black space.  To me they look like Stars (Stars=Planets, Galaxies, Nebulae etc.)

OK, so a couple of points here.
Stars are most certainly NOT "Planets, Galaxies,Nebulae". I'll give you that it might be possible to mistake a planet as a star, but not a nebula.
To you, they look like astronomical images. however, that's an argument from ignorance. You have repeatedly stated that you are a professional photographer which is an attempt to establish credentials. I have to ask what are your credentials when it comes to astro-photography and processing of astronomical images?

To me what you have shown looks nothing like images of stars, planets or nebulae. I have a number of years experience of imaging these objects and your manipulated image looks nothing like anything that I have ever captured.

To establish my credentials, here's an image of Mars that I took a couple of years ago from my observatory, with the individual data channels illustrating how the final RGB image was constructed:
(https://s24.postimg.org/o2ptukq8l/13894761822_507344450b_o_1.jpg)

I'm more than happy to share images of nebulae and other planets.


Indeed.  It could be Noise; but it is not Uniform noise!
Noise doesn't have to be uniform. By it's nature it is random.
There's also different types of noise- grain, dust on the scans as well as noise generated by the scanning equipment- read-out noise and thermal noise, for example.

There are blues greens and reds and trails and irregular shapes.  You really need to see for yourself. 

You will not capture colour information (of stars or nebulae) in single exposures a fraction of a second long. Not with modern CCD or CMOS camera and most definitely not with 50 year old analogue system.  Noise, however, can, and will, have random colour information in there.


Adjusting Curves to reveal Noise did not occur in the Foreground instances as it resulted in Black and White high contrast only.  Noise was only evident at the horizon and black of space. (apart from some light glow from the craft etc.)
That's because the foreground has real data which can be stretched by altering the histogram (which you have done). The black sky has little or no information, which is why, when stretched, the histogram either breaks down (you can see this in the PS histogram- look for where the histogram breaks into jagged peaks rather than retaining a smooth distribution curve).

I'm not suggesting they arranged the stars :D  After looking closely, albeit with a limited capacity and knowledge of the film used and it's latency,(thanks to Kiwi for the info though) the level of details of the scans etc. I have concluded that of these particular images (I have found other anomalous instances now in other images, where NOISE doesn't even exist in the black) that they are indeed stars, but the sky has moved.  This means the illumination of the craft and foreground is static, but the sky is still in motion.
So, in effect what you are saying is that NASA was able to perpetuate a massive hoax involving hundreds of thousands of people, but were not able to fake two images without jiggling the background around. Really?

There's little else for me to say if we simply state as FACT that what I am seeing are NOT Stars.
Almost certainly correct. What does mystify me is why you would then jump to a conclusion that the images are faked.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: bknight on January 05, 2017, 01:59:42 PM
There may/may not be an arrow in your display.
What clicking on the link I get a display of
moon curves 225 b.jpg and nothing else.

Now here is a link to real stars, during A16, about half way down the page.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_16/photography/
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on January 05, 2017, 02:04:21 PM
It is this Proof you talk of that I'm trying to find Halcyon.
The proof that these cannot be stars is physics.

You're suggesting they Can't be Stars.  Why?
As a "professional photographer" why the ten thousand fucks do you need to ask?

I had old negatives of the night sky that were scanned to reveal stars where there were none in the initial print.
Did you just compare photography of the Earth's NIGHT-SKY with photography of the Moon's DAYLIGHT SKY?

A conspiracy to deceive does not need to be EVIL.
Misappropriation of funds would be criminal.
Handing the biggest propaganda coup in human history to the Soviet Union on a platinum platter would be treason.

Funny you mention Occam's Razor.  Dependent on your point of view or doctrine, we will endeavor to take that which seems most likely.  To me, it appears most likely that these are stars!
And I think that the simplest explanation for all the KNOWN FACTS is that they are not stars, and therefor you must be mistaken.

Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself.  The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. — Richard Feynman

I am a Professional Photographer.
Than you should know everything about exposures.

The irony being that I need to prove my credentials for me to have any credibility
You can prove your expertise by DEMONSTRATING it.

while researching images that are shrouded in doubt!!!
There is nothing in doubt with these images.
They have been scrutinised and analysed for decades, any "doubt" always turned out to be something the doubter didn't know or understand
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: smartcooky on January 05, 2017, 02:05:52 PM
But the reason I haven't posted the images, is because it has nothing to do with the question.  It's Theoretical!  IF, and it's a big IF, I was to find a decent negative with stars and planets from the moons surface, would the foreground shadows stay the same, while the background stars moved?  It's Rhetorical, but I wanted to hear some opinions on it.

The images have everything to do with the question, because if the background "stars" you claim to be seeing are not actually stars but dust and artefacts, then whether to not they move is moot.

I have downloaded the HiRes versions of the two photos you mention (AS11-40-5950 & AS11-40-5949). I have loaded them into Photoshop. Despite playing around with the tone curves, the brightness and the contrast, I see no stars, just "noise", and some dust spots which may have been on the negatives or could have been introduced during the scanning process.

Importantly for your question, the two photos are not taken from exactly the same place nor in the same direction (5950 is taken from a position slightly to the left of where 5049 is taken from and is not only pointed slightly further left, but the camera is elevated w.r.t. 5949, and rotated slightly clockwise as well). Even if you could see background stars, you can glean no information of the type you are asking about from these photos under the circumstances in which they were taken.


NOTE: My expertise is 20 years as an RNZAF Avionics technician during which time I spent two years repairing, maintaining and overhauling Agiflite Aerial Surveillance cameras - http://camerasdownunder.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=20&pos=1 and Perkin-Elmer MiniPan cameras -

...followed by 23 years as a professional photographer and photo processor using both film and digital. I own and operate a retail photolab       
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 05, 2017, 02:06:40 PM
There is no other link.  There are 2 images in the gallery.  Arrow left or right.
I only see one image too.


I appreciate the definition of Day and Night on the Moon.  However, irrespective of or regarding the principle of photographing, a Black sky from the Moon, Day or Night means nothing.  Whether in direct Sunlight of on the Dark Side bears no ill for the exposure when looking directly up.
Why do you think that? If the intention was to capture an image of the sky, then they would have used a much longer exposure. A longer exposure would have been much more susceptible to light from the Sun being inside the optical elements of the lens. I respectfully suggest that there is a difference.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2017, 02:38:41 PM
Some trails appeared and differing colours, suggesting to me they were in fact Stars, as I can achieve the same result using my modern Digital Camera.  (Yes, i know these are RAW Digital Negatives and the Apollo images are scanned photo's (assuming so?)

You really can't compare what you can get with a digital CCD image to what you can get from a film system. The fact you can manipulate both using photoshop once the analogue has been converted to a digital scan does not make comparison valid.

Quote
Indeed.  It could be Noise; but it is not Uniform noise!

By definition, noise is not uniform.

Quote
To assume however that they are most definitely, NOT Stars, well, this one has me at odds with what I know and believe.  There are blues greens and reds and trails and irregular shapes.

And assuming they are puts your conclusion at odds with physics.

Quote
At the bottom of what I'm hoping to achieve is the possibility that not all images are REAL,and in the same respect not all are FAKE.

This suggestion has come up before but makes no sense. If the ability exists to take the real images on the lunar surface, why would there be any need for fake ones at all?

Quote
I have zero doubt that some images are indeed Edited.  I'm assuming you would agree as NASA has even suggested this.

Of course. However, editing the images for upload to the internet is not the same as fake images. A common 'edit' is to scan the image, then black out the sky digitally precisiely to avoid wasting bandwidth coding the noise in the featureless black expanse of sky. Also common is making composite images, another form of editing, but one which is openly stated to have taken place.

Quote
So, we have reason for doubt.  I'm trying to prove a truth, regardless which way it goes.

Except you're not, because you have apparently already decided the truth is pretty much anything except all the images are real and were taken on the Moon.

Quote
I have concluded that of these particular images (I have found other anomalous instances now in other images, where NOISE doesn't even exist in the black) that they are indeed stars, but the sky has moved.  This means the illumination of the craft and foreground is static, but the sky is still in motion.

Which is not possible because the illumination of the foreground is from the Sun, which is in the sky and which would move, in the time between the two images being taken, near enough the same as the stars.

I have a question regarding your 'stars'. Do any patterns you 'revealed' in one image match with the other? Can you pick out constellations? Asterisms? Any pattern thet repeats? If not then in order for your supposition to be true the entire sky wuld have had to move several degrees in a few minutes to present a new starfield to the lens of the camera, which doesn't even happen on Earth never mind the Moon.

Quote
There's little else for me to say if we simply state as FACT that what I am seeing are NOT Stars.

There is no other way to address your question. On the one hand we have the possibility that youhave misidentified random blobs of colour and light as stars, and on the other we have a massive and nonsensical consipracy to fake a bunch of images, because it is not physically possible for the actual stars to change in the way you describe between the two images, and there is no reason why a fake starry backdrop would change either, or why anyone would produce a fake starry backdrop no-one would ever see in the pubished photos in the first place. Which is more likely?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 02:38:50 PM
...

There is no Daytime Sky on the Moon.  It has no atmosphere.  What you're exposing for is Moon surface or highlights which is not the same power as the Sun.  Try setting your exposure to shoot the sun then try taking a pic of the ground.  It'll be black!

Uum lets see the Sun is above the horizon on ALL Apollo images.  Yes, that fits the definition of Daytime.  Atmosphere has no bearing on this.

A literal description of a time of day!  It's has nothing to do with the exposure of the 'SKY' !
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2017, 02:48:49 PM
A literal description of a time of day!  It's has nothing to do with the exposure of the 'SKY' !

Except it does, because the sky would be exposed the same asthe ground and everything else in shot, which is lit by the Sun.

Your photos of the night sky are irrelevant because you would never, as a professional photographer, have attempted to take a night-time image with daylight exposure times if you expected to see anything at all.

Also, even a daytime photo on Earth isn't taken with the full power of the Sun. It's set to capture the brightness of whatever is in shot, which is reflecting a percentage of the Sun's light. An asphalt road has about the same albedo as the lunar surface. There's no reason that taking a photo on the Moon when the Sun was up would require any different exposure times than taking one on Earth. It gets just as much sun as we do here, and hence things on the Moon are as bright as they would be here.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Count Zero on January 05, 2017, 02:53:21 PM

A literal description of a time of day!  It's has nothing to do with the exposure of the 'SKY' !

Of course it does, because the camera is set to expose sunlit objects in the daytime - astronaut, lander, equipment and surface.  The sky which happens to be in the frame is (obviously) being photographed with those same daylight exposure settings.

(ninja'd)
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 02:57:11 PM
OK people, overwhelmed here with paragraphs of data.  For your end it seems there's nothing to learn.  I have a lot of research ahead of me.

There are a few points toward me that are simply mis-understood, and too numerous too, so I'll leave it.  Thanks to all that have added in a positive manner.  You all seem convinced I'm here to tell the world I've found Proof of a Hoax.  On the contrary I've added a question to prove the validity of the images, but I've been met with hostility.  Quite frankly, I was ready for it.  I can only bow my head in my failed attempt to convey a question correctly.  Typical really.

Would you all believe me if I said now, that It took me half way thru this thread before I realised this WASN'T a Conspiracy site??

My idea was to simply put some thought into what I believed to be stars.  I have digital negatives that reveal stars if I push the levels.  A fair assumption I think.  I still don't believe they aren't Stars.  (I used Stars=etc. as a way of simply generalising artifacts, only to get another correction on what a star is!!)  When we look at the sky we say 'Wow, look at all the stars....'  We don't say 'wow, look at all the gaseous planets, nebulae, galaxies and.....(limited Vocab-fill in the spaces).

There is one point I will address regarding colour.  You say you can't see any.  Well that's simply not true.  I picked out the Orion Neb using my DSLR.  it's not spectacular, but it is obviously pink,  and No, I am by no means a Astronomical Photographer.  However, it doesn't matter.  The principles of capturing an image are the same. 

In reality what I've put forward here was a question of....Are these Stars?  It appears it's an Across the board, No!.  No other proof other than my supposed ignorance to physics, photography, or critical analysis has been put forward. 

So now I ask you, the reader of this.  Prove to me that they are not!

you lot have me worn out.  No wonder there was a Warning about posting Hoax theories lol. 

Peace to you all.

Kirk out!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 02:58:12 PM

A literal description of a time of day!  It's has nothing to do with the exposure of the 'SKY' !

Of course it does, because the camera is set to expose sunlit objects in the daytime - astronaut, lander, equipment and surface.  The sky which happens to be in the frame is (obviously) being photographed with those same daylight exposure settings.

(ninja'd)

Dear me are you even reading my posts?  I said pointing Straight Up!  Day or night is irrelevant looking straight up!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 03:00:58 PM
I'd like to get a transcript of this thread.  Is it possible?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Count Zero on January 05, 2017, 03:07:33 PM

Dear me are you even reading my posts?  I said pointing Straight Up!  Day or night is irrelevant looking straight up!

It is not irrelevant to the exposure.

If I am on the Moon and set my camera with ISO160 Ektachrome to f11 at 1/250th to photograph an astronaut setting-up equipment, stars will not be visible in the image.

If I am on the Moon and point my camera with ISO160 Ektachrome to f11 at 1/250th straight-up to photograph the sky with no other foreground features, stars will not be visible in the image.

That is the science of your profession.  You cannot deny it or escape it.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 03:12:47 PM
IF, and it's a big IF, I was to find a decent negative with stars and planets from the moons surface, would the foreground shadows stay the same, while the background stars moved?  It's Rhetorical, but I wanted to hear some opinions on it.

Why would this be a matter of opinion at all? Positions of objects and shadows are determined by the physics of the setup and are not open to debate. If the Moon has not moved enough to alter the angle at which the sun is shining on its surface (hence not enough to alter the direction of foreground shadows or the apparent position of the sun) it hasn't moved enough for the other stars to be in different positions either.

This leads to an obvious conclusion: the points in the photograph that you identify as having moved are not stars.

Why is this obvious Jason?   I agree with everything you've just said, hence me raising this question!  If what you have said above can be considered as Fact, and I believe it to be, then how come the stars move? Of course what we're still tying to decide if whether these are stars or dust.

There's another question I could ask then.  From a still image, lets say the edit one I have supplied, how can we prove, that those dots etc are NOT stars! We must assume you have never seen this image in your life and know nothing of it's origin.  Prove to me they're not stars from these images.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 05, 2017, 03:13:51 PM
The principles of capturing an image are the same. 

No they are not.
There is a world of difference between using a DSLR to capture data on a nebulae and "enhancing" a digital scan of a negative scene exposed for a sunlit daytime scene.
What ISO and exposure did you use for your shot of the Orion neb?


Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 05, 2017, 03:15:16 PM

In reality what I've put forward here was a question of....Are these Stars?  It appears it's an Across the board, No!.  No other proof other than my supposed ignorance to physics, photography, or critical analysis has been put forward. 

So now I ask you, the reader of this.  Prove to me that they are not!


Please re-read my earlier post, rather than flouncing.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 03:21:18 PM
The principles of capturing an image are the same. 

No they are not.
There is a world of difference between using a DSLR to capture data on a nebulae and "enhancing" a digital scan of a negative scene exposed for a sunlit daytime scene.
What ISO and exposure did you use for your shot of the Orion neb?


Yes, they are.  You have assumed by me saying the principles are the same, what exactly?  Here is the 1st Google Definition of a Principle.  This can apply to all and anything.  It wasn't to be taken literally. 

"a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning"



ANY image or data captured using ANY means for ANY purpose requires the tools and the skill to capture it and the knowledge to interpret it.  The Principle of photography is the same principle of Carpentry or Machanics.  I'm tired of having to explain everything I say.  Can we stick to proving those dots in the image are NOT Stars?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 03:23:07 PM
The principles of capturing an image are the same. 

No they are not.
There is a world of difference between using a DSLR to capture data on a nebulae and "enhancing" a digital scan of a negative scene exposed for a sunlit daytime scene.
What ISO and exposure did you use for your shot of the Orion neb?

I've no idea of my settings.  I took this years ago.  This is not my Statement of Professional Photography.  This is in the back garden in winter in the UK.

Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 05, 2017, 03:24:25 PM
  Can we stick to proving those dots in the image are NOT Stars?

You cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you to show that they are stars, rather on me to prove that they aren't. Your conjecture, your proof.

What i have done is run them through my plate-solving application. No match. It's highly unlikely that they are stars.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 03:29:51 PM
  Can we stick to proving those dots in the image are NOT Stars?

You cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you to show that they are stars, rather on me to prove that they aren't. Your conjecture, your proof.

What i have done is run them through my plate-solving application. No match. It's highly unlikely that they are stars.

OK, well at least that'#s a step closer to Proving they're not stars.  I dont' have Plate-Solving Software, nor the knowledge to use it.  Nor have I worked in a print lab, not do i understand the colour temps that can be measured using.....whatever they use.  Thereis enough knowledge in this thread alone to prove that thse are not stars using some software or other.  Or am I mistaken?  Is there no Spectrum Anaylsis or something?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 05, 2017, 03:31:07 PM

I've no idea of my settings.  I took this years ago.  This is not my Statement of Professional Photography.  This is in the back garden in winter in the UK.
Can you not read the EXIF data?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 05, 2017, 03:31:46 PM
Is there no Spectrum Anaylsis or something?

No. Not from a grainy, distorted image of noise.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Count Zero on January 05, 2017, 03:33:45 PM
There's another question I could ask then.  From a still image, lets say the edit one I have supplied, how can we prove, that those dots etc are NOT stars! We must assume you have never seen this image in your life and know nothing of it's origin.  Prove to me they're not stars from these images.

No, you don't get to shift the burden of proof like that.  Claiming that stars would be visible in an image taken on ISO160 with f11 at 1/250th is an extraordinary claim.  It is therefore up to you to provide evidence for your claim.  First, demonstrate that you can even get latent stellar images of the night sky using those settings (I'll grant you an f-stop's leeway to compensate for atmospheric absorption).  You already compared images and did not get correlation.  Another method would be to compare the position of the artifacts to known star patterns.  Keep in mind that the FOV is ~57° wide.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 03:37:05 PM

I've no idea of my settings.  I took this years ago.  This is not my Statement of Professional Photography.  This is in the back garden in winter in the UK.
Can you not read the EXIF data?

I don't have it.  Possibly taken in 2010.  I've lost over 100gb of data due a HDD failure.  This image is taken from my FB page.  It's all I have of it.  It's not a very long exposure but you can see it starting to trail.  It's not cropped either If I remember.  I had a big lens back then.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 03:42:03 PM
There's another question I could ask then.  From a still image, lets say the edit one I have supplied, how can we prove, that those dots etc are NOT stars! We must assume you have never seen this image in your life and know nothing of it's origin.  Prove to me they're not stars from these images.

No, you don't get to shift the burden of proof like that.  Claiming that stars would be visible in an image taken on ISO160 with f11 at 1/250th is an extraordinary claim.  It is therefore up to you to provide evidence for your claim.  First, demonstrate that you can even get latent stellar images of the night sky using those settings (I'll grant you an f-stop's leeway to compensate for atmospheric absorption).  You already compared images and did not get correlation.  Another method would be to compare the position of the artifacts to known star patterns.  Keep in mind that the FOV is ~57° wide.

I am assuming that those figures are from the Hasselblad camera used?  and I haven't 'Claimed' anything.  I said I think these are stars.  Nothing else at all!

The rest of this thread is proving they're not.  For so much knowledge available in here, there must be a way to prove it?  Unless the proof as stated is in the knowledge that a Blad using asa160 at f11 for 25th/sec IS the proof?  I've never used one, or been to the moon.  I can't prove shit!  That's why i'm in here!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Count Zero on January 05, 2017, 03:43:49 PM
I am not a professional photographer, but I do know that if you photograph the sky with ISO160 film at f11 & 1/250th you will not see stars.  Kiwi has already quantified exactly why this is so on page 1 of this thread.  This isn't a matter of professional credentials (or whom to believe, or what we've been told); it's a matter of the rock-solid fundamentals of your profession.

This is not meant to dis you.  It is simply that most professional photographers I've met have made their living by photographing portraits, weddings, landscapes, models, sporting events (or other photojournalism), etc.  However, unless they have tried their hand at astrophotography, they often don't understand just how difficult it is to capture a stellar image.

So you have found stars in processed negatives.  Fine; but as you know, not all negatives are equal.  What was the photo stock?  ISO?  What was the f-stop & shutter speed?  How do you know that what you saw on the negatives were, in fact, stars?  (These are rhetorical questions, by the way; meant to get you thinking about the science involved, instead of "common sense" and "what it looks like to me".) Edited to add:  Since I wrote this, you have clarified that you had an over-exposed image that had stars.  If this is so, that exposure time HAD to have been several seconds or even minutes long (like Kiwi said, thousands or tens-of-thousands of times longer than daylight photography).  If your "underexposed" companion had 1/10 of the exposure time (say, 3 seconds instead of 30 seconds - I'm assuming that if it was a nighttime image the aperture would have been wide-open at f1.4 to f2.8 with a high ISO) it could certainly have latent star images on it, but this is totally irrelevant to photographs at at f11 & 1/250th on ISO160.

It keeps coming back to that question:  How do we establish whether or not what you are seeing are stars?

Quote
To assume however that they are most definitely, NOT Stars, well, this one has me at odds with what I know and believe.  There are blues greens and reds and trails and irregular shapes.  You really need to see for yourself. 

I have looked at your processed image, and also three separate high-resolution scans of the relevant frames.  The 2349x2379 pixel images at The Project Apollo Archive are heavily processed to make them prettier (which is why they're my favorite ;) ).  The Apollo Image Atlas (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/) has 3900x3900 cropped-to-the-frame scans with much less processing.  The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of the Earth (https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/) (which, despite its name also includes the Apollo Lunar images) has 4400x4600 uncropped scans that have had no processing other than the scan itself.  In both of the latter scans, the resolution is high enough to see the film grain.
Interestingly, all of the scans show the same dots in the sky (plus a nice blue one I found in a black surface shadow in the foreground).  This indicates the artifacts are probably on the original transparency.  However...

Quote
I'm now curious as to the said 'artifacts' that are revealed in the black space.[/url]

You say that, but I've seen little attempt on your part to pursue this in detail.  So far, you have only identified two possibilities:
1.)  They are stars.
Quote
To me they look like Stars (Stars=Planets, Galaxies, Nebulae etc.)
I've been doing amateur astronomy and photography for 40+ years and I say they do not look like that.
You already pointed out in your original post that the positions of the artifacts are not consistent from frame to frame.  Thus, your own evidence argues against the possibility.  The science of your profession also definitively disallows what you claim.  I do not understand why you persist in pursuing this.

2.)  They are somehow - in some undefined way - evidence that the image is faked.
Quote
At the bottom of what I'm hoping to achieve is the possibility that not all images are REAL...

It has already been pointed out that faking photographs in this way makes no sense in any context.

Oh, and by the way, WHY do you want to "achieve this possibility?   ???
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 03:45:27 PM
Tell you what.  there are 3 dots on the original image to the right of centre. 

What are they?  I'm gonna take a stab that everyone will say they're dust?  Would I be correct?

Prove to me it's Dust!

I can't prove it's Not, so I need educated people with the knowledge I don't have to show to me how and why it's either obvious, absurd, or beyond Physics for them to be anything other then dust.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 04:01:01 PM
Firstly Count, I've been backwards and forwards here over the same issues.  You're right, and I'm done in.  This thread first started with me being corrected for a typo!  I've been riding a shit storm since.  Chances are I asked for it.  Duly noted.  Now can we move on?

You've posted some great points there as have others. 

I need to reset this to my latter comments.  Most recent even.  I am a Professional Photographer.  This was just a statment so you would know I know how to use Photoshop, was compression is, what jpeg artifacts are, what RAW is etc etc.......It does not, nor was it to suggest I am a scientist or a professional Astro Photographer.  I hope this is clear.

Even though I AM a Professional Tog I 've no idea at all how a Blad operates at 160iso @ f11 for 25th sec on the fecking Moon.  This is the reason for my post!!!

Other than what you have read, can you categorically tell me you know for sure that those images were taken on moon?  If you can say yes, then.....well, I don't know.  you see I have a different philosophy and I do question everythng.  It makes my life and decision making very difficult.  I may even be Autistic, I have no idea.  I get dissed all the time.  i don't take it personally.  If it's not on topic however, the nI have no time for it as I'm not learning anything.  I didn't learn Photography from a book you see.  I learned it by doing it.  Reading a book and applying the principle in practice are not the same thing.  However.....

You're correct, not all cameras, lenses, stock are equal.  a 400 illford will process different than a 400 exctachrome etc. but this is remnant knowledge from my old college days and dark rooms.

Are you suggesting that there is no extra information in those Apollo images?  you're suggesting that I cannot take a photo in the dark, and over expose inthe lab to reveal detail in the shadows?

I've asked this already.  There are 3 points of light in one of those images.  Place to the right off centre.  Can we prove they are not stars?  Providing it's not an opinion but a fact that can be proven, it's probably about time I put this to bed.

I have enjoyed it though.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 05, 2017, 04:05:05 PM
I don't have it.  Possibly taken in 2010.  I've lost over 100gb of data due a HDD failure.  This image is taken from my FB page.  It's all I have of it.  It's not a very long exposure but you can see it starting to trail.  It's not cropped either If I remember.  I had a big lens back then.

In order to get trails at that focal length you will have needed many seconds of exposure. Probably, and this is just a guestimate, 20 seconds. Even with a long exposure and a digital sensor you barely capture any colour. Bear in mind, altering a digital image in Photoshop is *fundamentally* different from trying to enhance a JPEG compressed scan of a negative. The principles aren't even in the same country let alone being the same game.

You try to assert that what you are seeing in your "enhancement" of the Apollo scans is real data colour. It is not.
I have digital negatives that reveal stars if I push the levels. 
So what?
A digital RAW image of a night sky can contain masses of data hidden in the histogram. This data can be brought out by stretching the histogram- this is one of the simplest and most fundamental process that we use when processing night-time image. Your assertion is that stretching the histogram of a compressed JPEG scan of an analogue image is similar. It is not I cannot emphasis this enough. Using lossy compression discards the data that exists in the dark parts of the image. Once it is gone, it cannot be replaced no matter how hard you stretch the image.
Have a read of this short paper that i wrote some time ago to demonstrate this very principle.
https://app.box.com/s/jz91es28dikhzopn2qu6igun18yhxvfg
Secondly, the data has to be there in the first place. It is unlikely that any star data was captured in a short exposure.


No, I am by no means a Astronomical Photographer.  However, it doesn't matter.  The principles of capturing an image are the same. 
That's an argument based on ignorance. I AM an "astronomical photographer" and I can categorically tell you that the principles are not the same. They are not even similar. It is one of my regular assertions that knowledge of daytime photography actually hinders people when they start astro-photography as the principles are so different.

When we look at the sky we say 'Wow, look at all the stars....'  We don't say 'wow, look at all the gaseous planets, nebulae, galaxies and.....(limited Vocab-fill in the spaces).
Again an argument from ignorance. Your inability to frame your point should not be taken as veracity of that point. The exact opposite in fact- your inability to frame your point highlights how little you know. If you wanted to learn something then this place is full of people that are very, very expert in all manner of fields. There are people who have worked in professional photography for years, experts in photogrammetric analysis, people who have spent their careers in building, designing and launching spacecraft.

For your end it seems there's nothing to learn.
On the contrary, one of the reasons why I have been reading this board for *years* is that every time I come on here I learn something new.  The depth of knowledge here can sometimes be staggering. I can only hope that in some small way I can contribute a little.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: smartcooky on January 05, 2017, 04:06:31 PM
My idea was to simply put some thought into what I believed to be stars.  I have digital negatives that reveal stars if I push the levels.  A fair assumption I think.  I still don't believe they aren't Stars.  (I used Stars=etc. as a way of simply generalising artifacts, only to get another correction on what a star is!!)  When we look at the sky we say 'Wow, look at all the stars....'  We don't say 'wow, look at all the gaseous planets, nebulae, galaxies and.....(limited Vocab-fill in the spaces).

Here is the main issue I have with the "stars" you claim to be seeing.

The colour films used were (AFAIK) Kodak Ektachrome SO-68 and Kodak Ektachrome SO-121. IIRC both film have low ASA ratings (less than 125). The exposure times were also very short, typically 1/250th, at ƒ/5.6 for objects in shadow and ƒ/11 for objects in the sun. This is NOWHERE NEAR enough time for even the brightest stars to be recorded on the film emulsion. You can try this yourself (I have). Take a 100ASA film and load it in your camera. Go out to a dark sky location, and snap off a few photos of the sky at 250/f5.6. Even if you include α CMa (Sirius) in your field of view, you will get NOTHING on your film. No amount of messing with tone curves or levels or brightness/contrast will "bring up" anything because there is nothing there to bring up. All you will reveal is grain on the film and noise from the scanning process. There will be NO image data there whatseover.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 04:09:34 PM
Why do I want to achieve this possibility.??

I am on the fence regarding the truth behind the space program.  I need not go into detail.  My statement about my 'friend' is true.  I've already proved, but he won't see it, that the reason Neil A is illuminated is because of reflected light from the moon surface.  He doesn't care.  This 'friend' is real.  IF I could prove that there are stars revealed in the images, then I could show him.  However.  While hoping to prove it, I discovered what I believed to be an anomaly with the images.  This was, but not limited to, what i believed to be Stars.  however, the shadows did not change in the foreground, but the night sky behind was completely different.

This suggested that the foreground was lit artificially on earth, and the night sky continued to move as normal in the black sky.  That's it!  I saw something that got my attention, now I'm trying to prove it true or False.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Apollo 957 on January 05, 2017, 04:15:26 PM
Other than what you have read, can you categorically tell me you know for sure that those images were taken on moon?  If you can say yes, then.....well, I don't know. 

It's an all or nothing thing. There's little point in querying the validity of these two photos without questioning ALL the others, from all Apollo missions. If these two are false, but all the others genuine, it doesn't matter a fig what we're discussing here, for if the others are genuine, men were genuinely on the Moon.

Everything else associated with the missions confirms the astronauts to have been there, including third-party confirmations from multiple countries, and from amateur and professional sources. So what if two photos out of thousands have issues?


you see I have a different philosophy and I do question everythng.

I really don't think you do. I'll bet you get up in the morning, turn on the light, draw some water, and take it for granted that all the processes behind the supply of electricity and water to your home are valid. I'll wager you don't question these at all.

I'll wager you buy produce and foodstuffs from your local store without any consideration of their sources and/or provenance. I'll wager you drink at your local bar with not one thought as to how the beer reached you.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2017, 04:19:54 PM
No other proof other than my supposed ignorance to physics, photography, or critical analysis has been put forward.

So now I ask you, the reader of this.  Prove to me that they are not!

No, it doesn't work that way. Proving a negative is not possible. You claim they are stars, and nothing besides 'they look like stars to me' has been provided to support your assertion. I have already explained why they cannot be stars because it would not be possible for them to have moved in the way you say they have if they were indeed stars, and people have provided the explanation of why the camera used could not have captured them with the exposure settings that would have to have been used to correctly expose the foreground.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 04:21:48 PM
I don't have it.  Possibly taken in 2010.  I've lost over 100gb of data due a HDD failure.  This image is taken from my FB page.  It's all I have of it.  It's not a very long exposure but you can see it starting to trail.  It's not cropped either If I remember.  I had a big lens back then.

In order to get trails at that focal length you will have needed many seconds of exposure. Probably, and this is just a guestimate, 20 seconds. Even with a long exposure and a digital sensor you barely capture any colour. Bear in mind, altering a digital image in Photoshop is *fundamentally* different from trying to enhance a JPEG compressed scan of a negative. The principles aren't even in the same country let alone being the same game.

You try to assert that what you are seeing in your "enhancement" of the Apollo scans is real data colour. It is not.
I have digital negatives that reveal stars if I push the levels. 
So what?
A digital RAW image of a night sky can contain masses of data hidden in the histogram. This data can be brought out by stretching the histogram- this is one of the simplest and most fundamental process that we use when processing night-time image. Your assertion is that stretching the histogram of a compressed JPEG scan of an analogue image is similar. It is not I cannot emphasis this enough. Using lossy compression discards the data that exists in the dark parts of the image. Once it is gone, it cannot be replaced no matter how hard you stretch the image.
Have a read of this short paper that i wrote some time ago to demonstrate this very principle.
https://app.box.com/s/jz91es28dikhzopn2qu6igun18yhxvfg
Secondly, the data has to be there in the first place. It is unlikely that any star data was captured in a short exposure.


No, I am by no means a Astronomical Photographer.  However, it doesn't matter.  The principles of capturing an image are the same. 
That's an argument based on ignorance. I AM an "astronomical photographer" and I can categorically tell you that the principles are not the same. They are not even similar. It is one of my regular assertions that knowledge of daytime photography actually hinders people when they start astro-photography as the principles are so different.

When we look at the sky we say 'Wow, look at all the stars....'  We don't say 'wow, look at all the gaseous planets, nebulae, galaxies and.....(limited Vocab-fill in the spaces).
Again an argument from ignorance. Your inability to frame your point should not be taken as veracity of that point. The exact opposite in fact- your inability to frame your point highlights how little you know. If you wanted to learn something then this place is full of people that are very, very expert in all manner of fields. There are people who have worked in professional photography for years, experts in photogrammetric analysis, people who have spent their careers in building, designing and launching spacecraft.

For your end it seems there's nothing to learn.
On the contrary, one of the reasons why I have been reading this board for *years* is that every time I come on here I learn something new.  The depth of knowledge here can sometimes be staggering. I can only hope that in some small way I can contribute a little.

OK, this is cutting into my life a lot now.

I can shoot at iso 125,000 for a fraction of the time and remove the noise to reveal only the brightest of stars, so your statement is FALSE.

I appreciate it's not real colour from the Jpeg and know fully what it means to have a RAW neg and a heavily compressed Jpeg with all the data removed.  How many times do I need to say I'm a Tog?

I don't think you understand what Principle means regarding a world view of any application.

My ability to frame points is my lack of intent to spell it all out.  I'm relying a lot of instinct and general interpretation on your (all) behalf.  It's obviously not happening.  I can't be expected to offer info to several individuals I know nothing about.  If you want to know me better or understand where I am coming from please be more inquiring and less assumptious.

I'm not well versed in how you all manage to copy and paste text or whatever.  I'm not actually a forum Troll, so this is new to me.

I've ran out of energy.

Can you prove to me that the 3 dots in the original image are NOT anything but dust, or is the answer inthe collective knowledge you have all aquired from being on the moon with your Blad?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2017, 04:23:58 PM
If what you have said above can be considered as Fact, and I believe it to be, then how come the stars move?

Still hung up on them being stars. If everything said can be considered fact, then the fact that they objects do move shows they are not stars.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 04:24:33 PM
Other than what you have read, can you categorically tell me you know for sure that those images were taken on moon?  If you can say yes, then.....well, I don't know. 

It's an all or nothing thing. There's little point in querying the validity of these two photos without questioning ALL the others, from all Apollo missions. If these two are false, but all the others genuine, it doesn't matter a fig what we're discussing here, for if the others are genuine, men were genuinely on the Moon.

Everything else associated with the missions confirms the astronauts to have been there, including third-party confirmations from multiple countries, and from amateur and professional sources. So what if two photos out of thousands have issues?


you see I have a different philosophy and I do question everythng.

I really don't think you do. I'll bet you get up in the morning, turn on the light, draw some water, and take it for granted that all the processes behind the supply of electricity and water to your home are valid. I'll wager you don't question these at all.

I'll wager you buy produce and foodstuffs from your local store without any consideration of their sources and/or provenance. I'll wager you drink at your local bar with not one thought as to how the beer reached you.

Dear me, another one that assumes too much.

I no longer shop at supermarkets as the packaging upsets me.  I oinly buy organic and locally.  Faliing that organic without packaging from sustainable sources....

In fact, wager all you like.  You'de be broke by the end of the day wioth you assumptions about me.  You're way off.

Why would you even go there?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Apollo 957 on January 05, 2017, 04:26:43 PM
I am on the fence regarding the truth behind the space program.

Which one? Apollo was a different program from Gemini, which is in turn a different program from Voyager, Huygens-Cassini, etc. Are you on the fence regarding them all?


...  suggested that the foreground was lit artificially on earth, and the night sky continued to move as normal in the black sky.  That's it!  I saw something that got my attention, now I'm trying to prove it true or False.

For this to be the case, the astronauts would have to be out in the open, with a lit foreground, and the night sky of Earth behind them. Yet, on the thousands of Apollo photographs, not a hint of - rain, wind, snow, or any other atmospheric disturbance. Not one. How likely is it that none of these (supposedly) staged events on Earth were disturbed by the weather?

Consider when the lunar EVAs took place. At these times, was there any one place on Earth that could have been the site of this staged filming, or would there have to have been multiple sites?

etc

etc
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 04:27:42 PM
If what you have said above can be considered as Fact, and I believe it to be, then how come the stars move?

Still hung up on them being stars. If everything said can be considered fact, then the fact that they objects do move shows they are not stars.

Sigh.....No, it's doesn't!

It proves, all other things being true, that if the stars are real, the photo's are fake!  If the shadow doesn't move inthe foreground it means 1 of two things.  The image were taken moments apart, or the light is in a fixed position on earth and nothing hs moved, but the sky.  Until it's proven they are not stars, it's all open.  To me at least.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 04:32:36 PM
I am on the fence regarding the truth behind the space program.

Which one? Apollo was a different program from Gemini, which is in turn a different program from Voyager, Huygens-Cassini, etc. Are you on the fence regarding them all?
 

No idea of the validity of any of them!

...  suggested that the foreground was lit artificially on earth, and the night sky continued to move as normal in the black sky.  That's it!  I saw something that got my attention, now I'm trying to prove it true or False.

For this to be the case, the astronauts would have to be out in the open, (WHY?) with a lit foreground, and the night sky of Earth behind them. Yet, on the thousands of Apollo photographs, not a hint of - rain, wind, snow, or any other atmospheric disturbance. Not one. How likely is it that none of these (supposedly) staged events on Earth were disturbed by the weather?  I've got hundreds of pics of me on holiday or inthe garden.  Not a hint of snow, rain, avalanche or space ships.  What's your point?  If there's no evidence of weather were they indoors? or was the weather simply favourable?

Consider when the lunar EVAs took place. At these times, was there any one place on Earth that could have been the site of this staged filming, or would there have to have been multiple sites? Yeah!!! you've obviously not looked into it have you?  Beliber!! lol

etc
indeed
etc
indeed.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2017, 04:34:18 PM
It proves, all other things being true, that if the stars are real, the photo's are fake!

And there's the big if. IF the stars are real. Again, what is the relative likelihood that you have misidentified random spots as stars vs the likelihood of a massive cover-up of staggering proportions?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 04:38:20 PM
It proves, all other things being true, that if the stars are real, the photo's are fake!

And there's the big if. IF the stars are real. Again, what is the relative likelihood that you have misidentified random spots as stars vs the likelihood of a massive cover-up of staggering proportions?

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's why I brought it to the attention of this Forum!  To prove it!

You people talk about hundred of thousands of people being involved in a possible conspiracy.....How many Germans were behind Hitler?  To be painted as so evil a dicator, yet almost managed to conquer Europe.  Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.  Millions dead!  Need I go on?

I'm just enquiring about s few artifacts on 2 Apollo images.

Can you prove to me without doubt that it's dust?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2017, 04:43:53 PM
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, not exactly. You seem to be equating the likelihood of your mistake and an Apollo cover-up. The two things are orders of magnitude different.

Quote
You people talk about hundred of thousands of people being involved in a possible conspiracy.

Yes, because that's what was actually required. Apollo could not have been faked without very large numbers of people knowing about it and being complicit in it.

Quote
How many Germans were behind Hitler?

Irrelevant

Quote
I'm just enquiring about s few artifacts on 2 Apollo images.

2 out of thousands, which do not exist in isolation. You can't just pull them out and divorce them from the context of Apollo.

Quote
Can you prove to me without doubt that it's dust?

No, but I don't have to. The balance of probability is heavily on the side of them being anything other than stars. Where is your proof they are stars, beyond 'they look like stars'?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: smartcooky on January 05, 2017, 04:47:46 PM
It proves, all other things being true, that if the stars are real, the photo's are fake!

And there's the big if. IF the stars are real. Again, what is the relative likelihood that you have misidentified random spots as stars vs the likelihood of a massive cover-up of staggering proportions?

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's why I brought it to the attention of this Forum!  To prove it!

You people talk about hundred of thousands of people being involved in a possible conspiracy.....How many Germans were behind Hitler?  To be painted as so evil a dicator, yet almost managed to conquer Europe.  Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.  Millions dead!  Need I go on?

I'm just enquiring about s few artifacts on 2 Apollo images.

Can you prove to me without doubt that it's dust?

I officially bestow upon you the Mike Godwin award..

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/JREF/MikeGodwin Award.png)

...less than 100 posts and 24 hours. That must be some kind of record!!!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Apollo 957 on January 05, 2017, 04:52:29 PM
I am on the fence regarding the truth behind the space program.

Which one? Apollo was a different program from Gemini, which is in turn a different program from Voyager, Huygens-Cassini, etc. Are you on the fence regarding them all?
 

No idea of the validity of any of them!

...  suggested that the foreground was lit artificially on earth, and the night sky continued to move as normal in the black sky.  That's it!  I saw something that got my attention, now I'm trying to prove it true or False.

For this to be the case, the astronauts would have to be out in the open, (WHY?) with a lit foreground, and the night sky of Earth behind them. Yet, on the thousands of Apollo photographs, not a hint of - rain, wind, snow, or any other atmospheric disturbance. Not one. How likely is it that none of these (supposedly) staged events on Earth were disturbed by the weather?  I've got hundreds of pics of me on holiday or inthe garden.  Not a hint of snow, rain, avalanche or space ships.  What's your point?  If there's no evidence of weather were they indoors? or was the weather simply favourable?

Consider when the lunar EVAs took place. At these times, was there any one place on Earth that could have been the site of this staged filming, or would there have to have been multiple sites? Yeah!!! you've obviously not looked into it have you?  Beliber!! lol

etc
indeed
etc
indeed.

If you just add stuff within the quote without SOMETHING to differentiate it from what I wrote, it makes it kinda difficult to follow. I've underlined what I see as your text.

YOU suggested "that the foreground was lit artificially on earth, and the night sky continued to move as normal in the black sky.  " yet you ask me why this would have to be done out in the open. If the moon landings WERE filmed in this way, how would the night sky have been visible from an interior set?

My point was that, if this were done outdoors, as you suggest, it would have been nigh on impossible to achieve.

Yes, I have not looked into the timings of the EVAs vs a single location on Earth where they could have been filming at night, because I've seen no reason to. You're the one questioning the validity of it, not me.

 
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 04:52:34 PM
Thank you :D

Does that make me a Star?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 04:56:09 PM
I am on the fence regarding the truth behind the space program.

Which one? Apollo was a different program from Gemini, which is in turn a different program from Voyager, Huygens-Cassini, etc. Are you on the fence regarding them all?
 

No idea of the validity of any of them!

...  suggested that the foreground was lit artificially on earth, and the night sky continued to move as normal in the black sky.  That's it!  I saw something that got my attention, now I'm trying to prove it true or False.

For this to be the case, the astronauts would have to be out in the open, (WHY?) with a lit foreground, and the night sky of Earth behind them. Yet, on the thousands of Apollo photographs, not a hint of - rain, wind, snow, or any other atmospheric disturbance. Not one. How likely is it that none of these (supposedly) staged events on Earth were disturbed by the weather?  I've got hundreds of pics of me on holiday or inthe garden.  Not a hint of snow, rain, avalanche or space ships.  What's your point?  If there's no evidence of weather were they indoors? or was the weather simply favourable?

Consider when the lunar EVAs took place. At these times, was there any one place on Earth that could have been the site of this staged filming, or would there have to have been multiple sites? Yeah!!! you've obviously not looked into it have you?  Beliber!! lol

etc
indeed
etc
indeed.

If you just add stuff within the quote without SOMETHING to differentiate it from what I wrote, it makes it kinda difficult to follow. I've underlined what I see as your text.

YOU suggested "that the foreground was lit artificially on earth, and the night sky continued to move as normal in the black sky.  " yet you ask me why this would have to be done out in the open. If the moon landings WERE filmed in this way, how would the night sky have been visible from an interior set?

My point was that, if this were done outdoors, as you suggest, it would have been nigh on impossible to achieve.

Yes, I have not looked into the timings of the EVAs vs a single location on Earth where they could have been filming at night, because I've seen no reason to. You're the one questioning the validity of it, not me.

Sorry, i don't know how to achieve what the rest of you do!  I don't know how to isolate text and repost it.

I'm not suggesting anything other than the ability to inquire and hypothesise.  I don't know if the image are real or fake.  I don't even know if I'm real, but that's another matter entirely.

Can you prove to me the images are real, or it is simply a belief?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 05:02:49 PM
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, not exactly. You seem to be equating the likelihood of your mistake and an Apollo cover-up. The two things are orders of magnitude different.

What mistake did I make?

Quote
You people talk about hundred of thousands of people being involved in a possible conspiracy.

Yes, because that's what was actually required. Apollo could not have been faked without very large numbers of people knowing about it and being complicit in it.
Says who?  you?  others?  Prove it!

Quote
How many Germans were behind Hitler?

Irrelevant. 

How is an entire Nation of people (millions) with a belief so strong as to want to conquer Europe;  one of the largest armies in the world to date in history, able to convince themselves that what they do if right and just and necessary?  A belief is a powerful thing.  A lot of you have it more than me.
I cam here with a question.  I'm still looking for proof of the given answer.

Quote
I'm just enquiring about s few artifacts on 2 Apollo images.

2 out of thousands, which do not exist in isolation. You can't just pull them out and divorce them from the context of Apollo.

I haven't looked at the rest!  It will take some time.

Quote
Can you prove to me without doubt that it's dust?

No, but I don't have to. The balance of probability is heavily on the side of them being anything other than stars. Where is your proof they are stars, beyond 'they look like stars'?

Balance of probability 200 years ago was the world was Flat.  Some believe it is to this day!  What does probability have to do with proven facts?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: smartcooky on January 05, 2017, 05:03:40 PM
I can shoot at iso 125,000 for a fraction of the time and remove the noise to reveal only the brightest of stars, so your statement is FALSE.

Wait! 125,000 ASA? Really?

Where do you get this film from?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2017, 05:03:56 PM
Can you prove to me the images are real, or it is simply a belief?

False dilemma. The world does not divide into that which can be proven beyond doubt and unfounded belief. It is a soundly derived conclusion based on the available facts surrounding the providence of those images, and it is the default assumption unless unequivocal proof of fakery can be provided. It is your burden of proof, not ours.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 05:06:07 PM
I can shoot at iso 125,000 for a fraction of the time and remove the noise to reveal only the brightest of stars, so your statement is FALSE.

Wait! 125,000 ASA? Really?

Where do you get this film from?

Digital!  Irony.  Smartcooky. :D
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Apollo 957 on January 05, 2017, 05:10:56 PM
I am on the fence regarding the truth behind the space program.

Which one? Apollo was a different program from Gemini, which is in turn a different program from Voyager, Huygens-Cassini, etc. Are you on the fence regarding them all?
 

No idea of the validity of any of them!

...  suggested that the foreground was lit artificially on earth, and the night sky continued to move as normal in the black sky.  That's it!  I saw something that got my attention, now I'm trying to prove it true or False.

For this to be the case, the astronauts would have to be out in the open, (WHY?) with a lit foreground, and the night sky of Earth behind them. Yet, on the thousands of Apollo photographs, not a hint of - rain, wind, snow, or any other atmospheric disturbance. Not one. How likely is it that none of these (supposedly) staged events on Earth were disturbed by the weather?  I've got hundreds of pics of me on holiday or inthe garden.  Not a hint of snow, rain, avalanche or space ships.  What's your point?  If there's no evidence of weather were they indoors? or was the weather simply favourable?

Consider when the lunar EVAs took place. At these times, was there any one place on Earth that could have been the site of this staged filming, or would there have to have been multiple sites? Yeah!!! you've obviously not looked into it have you?  Beliber!! lol

etc
indeed
etc
indeed.

If you just add stuff within the quote without SOMETHING to differentiate it from what I wrote, it makes it kinda difficult to follow. I've underlined what I see as your text.

YOU suggested "that the foreground was lit artificially on earth, and the night sky continued to move as normal in the black sky.  " yet you ask me why this would have to be done out in the open. If the moon landings WERE filmed in this way, how would the night sky have been visible from an interior set?

My point was that, if this were done outdoors, as you suggest, it would have been nigh on impossible to achieve.

Yes, I have not looked into the timings of the EVAs vs a single location on Earth where they could have been filming at night, because I've seen no reason to. You're the one questioning the validity of it, not me.

Sorry, i don't know how to achieve what the rest of you do!  I don't know how to isolate text and repost it.

There's a selection of icons above the reply box. The standard Bold, Italic, Underline and Strikethrough are the first four. If placing text within the quote tags, it helps to use one of these, as I'm doing here


I'm not suggesting anything other than the ability to inquire and hypothesise.  I don't know if the image are real or fake.  I don't even know if I'm real, but that's another matter entirely.

Can you prove to me the images are real, or it is simply a belief?

As I said earlier, it's all or nothing. For the moon missions to have occurred as the records state, if only ONE was taken on the Moon, then men were on the Moon.

I really don't think picking at two photos out of thousands is going to get you anywhere.

There's a wealth of evidence to support the missions as per the 'official' record, along with third-party confirmations. When all of this is considered in totality, there's really no reason to believe/propose that a couple of photos may have been falsified.

Start at the beginning. Look at all the assembly/design/testing photos in the official record. Really LOOK at them, at all the technicians in their white lab coats, at the facilities around them, at the context. If the missions were being faked for propaganda, would all this have been faked too? Think about it.

Move on from there to matters such as the Saturn V. Nobody, but NOBODY can doubt that these things were real. They shook the Earth for miles around on take-off, so there can be no thoughts that they were illusions. Since the Saturn V took off, where did it go? You can't land one of these things, and it's kinda difficult to bring it back down to Earth without someone (such as the Russians) noticing....

C'mon, sit down, get away from these two photos, and really LOOK at the big picture.   
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 05:11:10 PM
Right people.  The science has proven it. 

Because it is written, it shall be so.  It can't be true because of a low ISO.

Thanks for watching.

I'm off to watch Capricorn one with my foil hat.

It's been great. :D

Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 05, 2017, 05:11:37 PM
What mistake did I make?

Assuming the likelihood of you being wrong was in some way comaprable to the likelihood that a massive conspiracy took place to fake either some or all of the images in the Apollo record, if not the missions or the whole programmme. It is way more likely you have simply misidentified things.

Quote
Says who?  you?  others?  Prove it!

Think it through. I'm not going to do your legwork for you.

Quote
I haven't looked at the rest!  It will take some time.

Most of us here have. You're coming in to a discussion with people who have literally been looking at this stuff for years or decades.

Quote
Balance of probability 200 years ago was the world was Flat.

No, it wasn't. The size of the Earth was determined by a Greek called Eratosthenes thousands of years ago.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Apollo 957 on January 05, 2017, 05:14:44 PM
Right people.  The science has proven it. 

Because it is written, it shall be so.  It can't be true because of a low ISO.

Thanks for watching.

I'm off to watch Capricorn one with my foil hat.

It's been great. :D

So are you going for the big hissy fit and flounce off, then?

Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Apollo 957 on January 05, 2017, 05:18:55 PM
Start at the beginning. Look at all the assembly/design/testing photos in the official record. Really LOOK at them, at all the technicians in their white lab coats, at the facilities around them, at the context. If the missions were being faked for propaganda, would all this have been faked too? Think about it.

Icarus, you could start here; there's a wealth of background and photos from someone who actually worked on Apollo ...

http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum38/HTML/001957.html
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Trebor on January 05, 2017, 05:25:16 PM
I'm not sure how to proceed here.  I visited a NASA archive.  I looked through a series of images.  I found 2 that were numerically consecutive and of the same subject matter, differing only in angle by a degree or two.

These were compressed JPEG images I assume?

I wanted to research the 'Why No Stars in Moon pics' theory.  I am a Professional Photographer.

I am a photographer and have done a lot of astro-photography, and in doing so it is very very obvious to me why there would be no stars in photographs taken with the directly sunlit lunar surface in frame.

Although the images were taken moments apart (evident only by the foreground shadows not changing at all) the stars in the sky were completely different.

Why did you assume these were stars?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Count Zero on January 05, 2017, 05:46:43 PM
Thanks for the up-front answers.

At this point, the conversation could branch-out in different directions; either following the "what are the dots?" thread or moving on to other evidence to persuade your friend.

If we want to pursue "what are the dots?" then I think we all understand that
a.)  We can name several possibilities (but may miss some).
b.)  We may not definitively be able to identify which possibility is the true source (keeping in mind that with multiple artifacts, multiple causes are possible), however...
c.)  Some of these possibilities can be ruled-out.

Possible candidates include (but are not limited to)
- Dust on the lens (ruled-out because, due to depth-of-focus limitations, it would be very out-of-focus and not a distinct dot)
- Dust stuck between the reseau plate and the film (plausible - it would show as distinct dot, and might move as the film winds, causing a similar artifact to show in a different location)
- Cosmic rays impinging on the unexposed film (plausible - the missions were exposed to cosmic rays that are normally blocked by our atmosphere.  depending on the energy, the rays could penetrate to different depths of the emulsion, creating the different colors seen)
- Stars or other astronomical objects (ruled-out due to exposure limitations and the lack of correlation between successive frames)

Since the whole point of your investigation was to provide evidence (or at least persuasive counter-arguments) to your friend's uninformed opinions (good job, by the way, on the illumination-by-reflected-light riposte), there's lots of other stuff available.  Some of the members here have sites elsewhere that have some great ammunition, including JayUtah's Clavius (http://www.clavius.org/) and Onebigmonkey's page (http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html).

As for "believing" in the Apollo missions?  It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of understanding.  Most hoax-believers trot out a list of things that they don't understand.  Somehow, their argument seems to be:

I don't understand X ---> I don't understand other people's explanation for X ---> They must not understand X either and are trying to fake it ---> X is fake.

They either do not realize, or cannot admit that their understanding and/or assumptions are wrong.  After all, they're not stupid - just ask them!

I don't know if your friend is like this, but suffice to say that lack of understanding is not evidence of a conspiracy.  When you understand the science, engineering, motivations and even the politics of Apollo, you won't need to "believe" one person's/organization's/government's side or the other; you will know beyond any reasonable doubt that it happened.

Thanks for the chat.  I've got to go fold laundry...
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 05, 2017, 06:02:55 PM
I can shoot at iso 125,000 for a fraction of the time and remove the noise to reveal only the brightest of stars, so your statement is FALSE.

So what?  That has no relevance to your argument that star colour was captured, retained and visible in a compressed scan of the original! You're thrashing about now.

My ability to frame points is my lack of intent to spell it all out.  I'm relying a lot of instinct and general interpretation on your (all) behalf.  It's obviously not happening.  I can't be expected to offer info to several individuals I know nothing about.
Rubbish.
Instinct and general interpretation is what is getting you into this mess.
No-one is expecting you to "offer info to several individuals". What IS expected is that you at least make an effort to describe what you are trying to achieve. And then to listen to the responses.
In reality what you are doing is approaching this from the mindset that you have discovered something earth-shattering that overturns a veritable ton of documented, verifiable evidence. In other words, you are taking the exact same approach as legions of hoax-believers before you. Here's a clue for you- your approach is very, very familiar to people on here as it has been played out by tens of people before you. Heck, we even have a game of Hoax Bingo somewhere that lists the majority of the techniques used by hoax-believers such as yourself.
http://apollohoax.net/bingo/

Can you prove to me that the 3 dots in the original image are NOT anything but dust
Blimey. Those goalposts of yours sure do move quickly! First you had evidence of stars. Now you want me to educate you. When exactly did it become my job to inform and educate you???
However, I'm feeling generous tonight, so here's some information for you. I *think* that you are talking about AS11-40-5949? If so, that image was taken from the location where the Passive Seismic Experiment was deployed. The image was taken at GET 111:06:35 (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.clsout.html#1110634). The image is taken pointing Lunar North - you can see the exact orientation in this photgrammtric map:
(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11PlanimetricMapVer1.0LROC-M17512493R.jpg))
The picture was taken approx 1.5 hours after the first footstep. So, so far we have the exact location, time and orientation of the image.
Now go and download the free planetarium program Stellarium. Set the location to the A11 landing site (00°41′15″N, 23°26′00″E) and the time to the time of the image. You now will get the exact stars and their positions.
Now here's the kicker. The 19th brightest star in the sky and the brightest in the constellation of Cyngus was just above the horizon- Deneb (Alpha Cygni). This is a Mag 1.25 star. Above and to the left of the Lunar Module position would be the Mag 2.23 star Etamin (Gamma Draconis)- the 69th brightest star in the northern hemisphere. Below that would be the Mag 3.75 Grumium (Xi Draconis)

None of these show in the image.

Now I await you to shift the goalposts again. ::)
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: bknight on January 05, 2017, 06:04:14 PM
Not that Icarus1 will see this, but in:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5950HR.jpg

There are several artifacts that I observe without tinkering with any setting on both sides of the LM.  Knowing that they are not stars, I suspect either compression artifacts or comic rays working into the emulsion.

There are only one in:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5949HR.jpg
right of Buzz's antenna
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: smartcooky on January 05, 2017, 06:24:44 PM
I can shoot at iso 125,000 for a fraction of the time and remove the noise to reveal only the brightest of stars, so your statement is FALSE.

Wait! 125,000 ASA? Really?

Where do you get this film from?

Digital!  Irony.  Smartcooky. :D

No, you haven't answered the question.

The Apollo photos were taken on FILM. That film was less than 125 ASA. Digitising a 125 ASA film is NOT the same as exposing a digital camera CCD set at 125 ASA.

A 1/250th exposure on FILM at f5.6 WOULD NOT RECORD ANY STARS. The light levels from starlight falls well below the reciprocity curve for any film of that period. I doubt that even an ESTAR base film such as Kodak 2475 Recording Film (around 1000 ASA) would record any stars.  NOTHING will be recorded on the film, and if there is NOTHING there, no amount of image manipulation will reveal anything! 

Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 07:54:44 PM
Not that Icarus1 will see this, but in:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5950HR.jpg

Quote
Why would you assume i wont see this?  I count over 16 dots of interest in the first image using my eye alone.

There are several artifacts that I observe without tinkering with any setting on both sides of the LM.  Knowing that they are not stars, I suspect either compression artifacts or comic rays working into the emulsion.

There are only one in:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5949HR.jpg
right of Buzz's antenna

Quote
There are certainly more than one in this image!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 08:01:03 PM
I can shoot at iso 125,000 for a fraction of the time and remove the noise to reveal only the brightest of stars, so your statement is FALSE.

Wait! 125,000 ASA? Really?

Where do you get this film from?

Digital!  Irony.  Smartcooky. :D

No, you haven't answered the question.

Quote
What question did you ask?  This reply was to another forum user about my own image i uploaded showing the Orion Nebula.  Ip ointed out that I can increase my ISO to high levels and reduce noise using software to reveal only bright stars.  This has nothing to do with Film.  I accuse you of scanning this thread for info to suit your own history.

The Apollo photos were taken on FILM. That film was less than 125 ASA. Digitising a 125 ASA film is NOT the same as exposing a digital camera CCD set at 125 ASA.

A 1/250th exposure on FILM at f5.6 WOULD NOT RECORD ANY STARS. The light levels from starlight falls well below the reciprocity curve for any film of that period. I doubt that even an ESTAR base film such as Kodak 2475 Recording Film (around 1000 ASA) would record any stars.  NOTHING will be recorded on the film, and if there is NOTHING there, no amount of image manipulation will reveal anything!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: nomuse on January 05, 2017, 08:03:03 PM
To add, this is not specifically an Apollo question.  This relates to Photography and Stage design.  The use of Apollo photo's brought me here.  They are separate instances while borrowing commonalities from each other to prove or disprove a point.  Namely, the lack of stars in Space/Moon/Orbit photography, and also a reason or attempt, to prove or disprove the Hoax theories of going to the moon.

My main question still stands, but I will amend for anyone remotely interested:

Assuming the moon photo's are legit, would the background stars move noticeably, like they do on earth, and alter the foreground shadows also, assuming the only light source is the Sun?

Thanks

My first question is also a request: do you know how to write a clear question?

I'm really having trouble parsing what it is you may be presenting, claiming, or hoping to have explained. Or indeed which of these three it is.

It appears that you believe background stars do appear on some Apollo surface images (that is, other than the well-documented Apollo 16 UV studies). This is a subject that has been studied at length by several people here and elsewhere. To the best calculation possible, it seems that one or two planets might make it into capture range of the film/settings/developing process, and there is decent evidence on one or two pictures of a planet appearing in the appropriate place.

Otherwise, this is not a worthwhile starting point for any further question. Stars are not expected. Anything that may be seen is noise and/or artifacts of the various developing, scanning, and possibly clean-up processes (depending on the provenience of a specific image being investigated).
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 08:09:40 PM
Thanks for the up-front answers.

At this point, the conversation could branch-out in different directions; either following the "what are the dots?" thread or moving on to other evidence to persuade your friend.

If we want to pursue "what are the dots?" then I think we all understand that
a.)  We can name several possibilities (but may miss some).
b.)  We may not definitively be able to identify which possibility is the true source (keeping in mind that with multiple artifacts, multiple causes are possible), however...
c.)  Some of these possibilities can be ruled-out.

Possible candidates include (but are not limited to)
- Dust on the lens (ruled-out because, due to depth-of-focus limitations, it would be very out-of-focus and not a distinct dot)
- Dust stuck between the reseau plate and the film (plausible - it would show as distinct dot, and might move as the film winds, causing a similar artifact to show in a different location)
- Cosmic rays impinging on the unexposed film (plausible - the missions were exposed to cosmic rays that are normally blocked by our atmosphere.  depending on the energy, the rays could penetrate to different depths of the emulsion, creating the different colors seen)
- Stars or other astronomical objects (ruled-out due to exposure limitations and the lack of correlation between successive frames)

Since the whole point of your investigation was to provide evidence (or at least persuasive counter-arguments) to your friend's uninformed opinions (good job, by the way, on the illumination-by-reflected-light riposte), there's lots of other stuff available.  Some of the members here have sites elsewhere that have some great ammunition, including JayUtah's Clavius (http://www.clavius.org/) and Onebigmonkey's page (http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html).

As for "believing" in the Apollo missions?  It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of understanding.  Most hoax-believers trot out a list of things that they don't understand.  Somehow, their argument seems to be:

I don't understand X ---> I don't understand other people's explanation for X ---> They must not understand X either and are trying to fake it ---> X is fake.

They either do not realize, or cannot admit that their understanding and/or assumptions are wrong.  After all, they're not stupid - just ask them!

I don't know if your friend is like this, but suffice to say that lack of understanding is not evidence of a conspiracy.  When you understand the science, engineering, motivations and even the politics of Apollo, you won't need to "believe" one person's/organization's/government's side or the other; you will know beyond any reasonable doubt that it happened.

Thanks for the chat.  I've got to go fold laundry...

Quote
Where is the 'Like' button on here??  :D
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: nomuse on January 05, 2017, 08:12:31 PM
Also, you do realise I could copy and paste any amount of info an Celestial Photography don't you?  I can't prove my knowledge to you!  You also realise that each camera is different in it's sensitivity and set-up?  There are no fixed settings.

Regards
Sure, but we know the capabilities of the lunar Hasselblads precisely. We know exposure times focus fstop blah blah. We already know this. We also know all about the film stock used, it's sensitivity and so forth.

For some reason, you will not tell us which image(s) you are examining.

For some reason you will not tell us what setup you would deploy to photograph stars.

There is no reason Abaddon.  I just haven't got around to it yet.  I've been dealing with other issues.  Apologies!  I also had no idea if Hyperlinks would work here.  I can't add photo's as there is a 192kb limit!

Here is the link to the gallery:http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

The specific images I'm looking at are:

AS11-40-5950
AS11-40-5949

All other things considered and discussed, raising levels with reveal possible stars, planets, artifacts, hairs dust etc.etc.

But the reason I haven't posted the images, is because it has nothing to do with the question.  It's Theoretical!  IF, and it's a big IF, I was to find a decent negative with stars and planets from the moons surface, would the foreground shadows stay the same, while the background stars moved?  It's Rhetorical, but I wanted to hear some opinions on it.

This thread is probably over and done already (I curse my West Coast work schedule here). The Moon is tidal-locked, and libation and other "nodding" motions are small in relation to that orbital motion. So basically the background stars and the Sun all move together with a period of about a month. The interval between any consecutive pair of pictures of the same scene is on the order of minutes. So, any astronomical motion will be completely swamped by small shifts in body position by the photographer, and essentially undetectable even for a fixed camera.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 08:16:34 PM
To add, this is not specifically an Apollo question.  This relates to Photography and Stage design.  The use of Apollo photo's brought me here.  They are separate instances while borrowing commonalities from each other to prove or disprove a point.  Namely, the lack of stars in Space/Moon/Orbit photography, and also a reason or attempt, to prove or disprove the Hoax theories of going to the moon.

My main question still stands, but I will amend for anyone remotely interested:

Assuming the moon photo's are legit, would the background stars move noticeably, like they do on earth, and alter the foreground shadows also, assuming the only light source is the Sun?

Thanks

My first question is also a request: do you know how to write a clear question?

I'm really having trouble parsing what it is you may be presenting, claiming, or hoping to have explained. Or indeed which of these three it is.

It appears that you believe background stars do appear on some Apollo surface images (that is, other than the well-documented Apollo 16 UV studies). This is a subject that has been studied at length by several people here and elsewhere. To the best calculation possible, it seems that one or two planets might make it into capture range of the film/settings/developing process, and there is decent evidence on one or two pictures of a planet appearing in the appropriate place.

Otherwise, this is not a worthwhile starting point for any further question. Stars are not expected. Anything that may be seen is noise and/or artifacts of the various developing, scanning, and possibly clean-up processes (depending on the provenience of a specific image being investigated).

Quote
You've kind of nailed it here.  Yeah...I've either made a balls up, or my dealing with those too quick to shoot me down has resulted ina mindfield a ignorant mistakes on my part.  So here's how I got here:  I can edit images to reveal more detail than it originally shown; we all can with editing software,  right?  So, I figures I would over expose the images Apollo specifically, to see if any details were revealed; and low and behold they were.  What has me at it's is my own knowledge and experience.  It's too mcuh to go over again, siffice it to say, they looked like genuine Stars.  This led me to question the truth of the images as in 2 consecutive images, seperated by mere moments and a degree or two, these revealed Stars/artifacts were different.  This led me again to question wheterh these images were in fact taken on the Moon, or on Erth with a fixed light while the Earth night sky passed in the background over a period of time.  this would mean a continuous light source was present on earth , lighting the LM; hence why the shadows inthe foreground nver change between the two images.  Annnd Breath!!!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: nomuse on January 05, 2017, 08:18:31 PM
Sorry Apollo I should ad more to this*

My reference to my 20year old negatives was to illustrate that you can attain extra detail from the images using modern software.  I had proof years back with 2 images of the night sky I had(Film, not Digital)  One was over exposed one under, however what was revealed in the under exposed image after further editing were the same stars seen in the over exposed one.   My point was to illustrate again that the Apollo images have more detail to reveal than a black starless sky.

There is no Daytime Sky on the Moon.  It has no atmosphere.  What you're exposing for is Moon surface or highlights which is not the same power as the Sun.  Try setting your exposure to shoot the sun then try taking a pic of the ground.  It'll be black!

If I take my old Minolta all-manual, properly set up for taking pictures in daylight, and point it at the Sun I'll get an over-exposed blob. Trees and grass and people fall below an albedo of 100 as well.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 08:24:04 PM
Sorry Apollo I should ad more to this*

My reference to my 20year old negatives was to illustrate that you can attain extra detail from the images using modern software.  I had proof years back with 2 images of the night sky I had(Film, not Digital)  One was over exposed one under, however what was revealed in the under exposed image after further editing were the same stars seen in the over exposed one.   My point was to illustrate again that the Apollo images have more detail to reveal than a black starless sky.

There is no Daytime Sky on the Moon.  It has no atmosphere.  What you're exposing for is Moon surface or highlights which is not the same power as the Sun.  Try setting your exposure to shoot the sun then try taking a pic of the ground.  It'll be black!

If I take my old Minolta all-manual, properly set up for taking pictures in daylight, and point it at the Sun I'll get an over-exposed blob. Trees and grass and people fall below an albedo of 100 as well.



Quote
It will only over expose if YOU over expose it.  All cameras gauge for 18% gray.  What you do with this info, especially in Manual, determines what you're shooting for: highlight or shadow.Yes, but what is your experience of taking that camera out into the radiation of space and shooting stars without the obstruction of an atmosphere?  I personally don't have that on my CV!

I can't prove anyhting here on earth.  Light pollution and atmospheric particles won't allow it.  However in the cleanness and vacuum of space, it must account for something?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 08:30:05 PM
So here's a very specific question relating to the Blad.

These images seem very soft, for a very high end medium format.  Especially shooting at f11 with a 250thsec exposure.

Can anyone explain to me why the foreground and background are so soft at f11?

I shoot landscapes at a hyperfocal distance using f11 to f16 and it's all in focus.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: nomuse on January 05, 2017, 08:33:55 PM
If what you have said above can be considered as Fact, and I believe it to be, then how come the stars move?

Still hung up on them being stars. If everything said can be considered fact, then the fact that they objects do move shows they are not stars.

Sigh.....No, it's doesn't!

It proves, all other things being true, that if the stars are real, the photo's are fake!  If the shadow doesn't move inthe foreground it means 1 of two things.  The image were taken moments apart, or the light is in a fixed position on earth and nothing hs moved, but the sky.  Until it's proven they are not stars, it's all open.  To me at least.

Wait, what?

You are aware the Earth takes about 24 hours to rotate once, right? If two consecutive pictures were taken a full hour apart the background stars would move about 15 degrees. Given the wide angle of the lens/film combination, if Orion appeared in one shot, it would still appear in another shot taken 3-4 hours later!

No, the stars do not whirl about rapidly. Nor do they do so randomly.

Here's a better test for you, by the way. FIND CONSTELLATIONS. If you can match up the dots your image manipulation is coming up with, you might actually have something to work on. This is how Venus was identified (to at least a high degree of plausibility) in a couple of Apollo pics.

Your scenario is ludicrous. For the background stars to shift so much the same patterns could not be discerned between pairs, either they were taking 6-hour breaks between consecutive shots and getting all the astronauts back in the same positions again to continue, or they were picking up every rock and piece of equipment and locating them in exactly the same arrangement (as can and has been verified photogrammetrically) only with the camera now at a different and opposed cardinal point.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 08:36:36 PM
I'm not sure how to proceed here.  I visited a NASA archive.  I looked through a series of images.  I found 2 that were numerically consecutive and of the same subject matter, differing only in angle by a degree or two.

These were compressed JPEG images I assume?
Quote
what were?  The images on Apollo site?  No idea!  Hi Res scans though.

I wanted to research the 'Why No Stars in Moon pics' theory.  I am a Professional Photographer.

I am a photographer and have done a lot of astro-photography, and in doing so it is very very obvious to me why there would be no stars in photographs taken with the directly sunlit lunar surface in frame.
Quote
I know why there aren't any stars.  I've over exposed the images to see if any details are revealed.  However I am not an avid Asto Tog.  This is not my purpose for posting.  I'm hoping to reveal details in the photos'.  I can shoot the moon here on earth.  Exposing correclty even at a shot shutter I can see the moon and the stars.

Although the images were taken moments apart (evident only by the foreground shadows not changing at all) the stars in the sky were completely different.

Why did you assume these were stars?

It's Space.  Black and empty.  Devoid of an atmosphere.  Why would I assume they weren't stars??
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 08:41:11 PM
If what you have said above can be considered as Fact, and I believe it to be, then how come the stars move?

Still hung up on them being stars. If everything said can be considered fact, then the fact that they objects do move shows they are not stars.

Sigh.....No, it's doesn't!

It proves, all other things being true, that if the stars are real, the photo's are fake!  If the shadow doesn't move inthe foreground it means 1 of two things.  The image were taken moments apart, or the light is in a fixed position on earth and nothing hs moved, but the sky.  Until it's proven they are not stars, it's all open.  To me at least.

Wait, what?

You are aware the Earth takes about 24 hours to rotate once, right? If two consecutive pictures were taken a full hour apart the background stars would move about 15 degrees. Given the wide angle of the lens/film combination, if Orion appeared in one shot, it would still appear in another shot taken 3-4 hours later!

No, the stars do not whirl about rapidly. Nor do they do so randomly.

Here's a better test for you, by the way. FIND CONSTELLATIONS. If you can match up the dots your image manipulation is coming up with, you might actually have something to work on. This is how Venus was identified (to at least a high degree of plausibility) in a couple of Apollo pics.

Your scenario is ludicrous. For the background stars to shift so much the same patterns could not be discerned between pairs, either they were taking 6-hour breaks between consecutive shots and getting all the astronauts back in the same positions again to continue, or they were picking up every rock and piece of equipment and locating them in exactly the same arrangement (as can and has been verified photogrammetrically) only with the camera now at a different and opposed cardinal point.

Quote
O....M....G.....That's my point!!!  they HAD to be taken immediately AFTER each other as the foreground shadows haven't changed in the two images!!! If a long time had passed not only would the foreground shadows have changed but also any 'Stars'......Are you even reading the rest of this thread and examining the pics?  My entire poin is that if what I had seen were stars, it would suggest a huge passing of time as the stars in the sky inthe next pic had changed so unrecognisably, yet the foreground shadows were exactly the same, then it would have to be a fake!!!!! Feck Me give me strength lol
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: nomuse on January 05, 2017, 08:42:36 PM


I can't prove anyhting here on earth.  Light pollution and atmospheric particles won't allow it.  However in the cleanness and vacuum of space, it must account for something?

There's an assumption here that needs to be unpacked.

Is it possible to shoot stars? Yes.

It is possible to shoot stars with slow (ASA 125) film?  Possibly.

These are not in dispute.

The Apollo Surface Photographs, however, were taken with modified Hasselblads with a very specific set of settings optimized towards photographing landscape and equipment. The astronauts had several marked exposures, much as cheap analog consumer cameras back in the day might have a "sunny 16" and a picture of a cloud as click-stops. The vast majority of photographs taken with the lunar Hasselblads used one of these settings.

No part of the operation of surface photography with the lunar Hasselblads leant itself to capturing stars. It was not the intent, and it was not the result.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: nomuse on January 05, 2017, 08:46:27 PM
If what you have said above can be considered as Fact, and I believe it to be, then how come the stars move?

Still hung up on them being stars. If everything said can be considered fact, then the fact that they objects do move shows they are not stars.

Sigh.....No, it's doesn't!

It proves, all other things being true, that if the stars are real, the photo's are fake!  If the shadow doesn't move inthe foreground it means 1 of two things.  The image were taken moments apart, or the light is in a fixed position on earth and nothing hs moved, but the sky.  Until it's proven they are not stars, it's all open.  To me at least.

Wait, what?

You are aware the Earth takes about 24 hours to rotate once, right? If two consecutive pictures were taken a full hour apart the background stars would move about 15 degrees. Given the wide angle of the lens/film combination, if Orion appeared in one shot, it would still appear in another shot taken 3-4 hours later!

No, the stars do not whirl about rapidly. Nor do they do so randomly.

Here's a better test for you, by the way. FIND CONSTELLATIONS. If you can match up the dots your image manipulation is coming up with, you might actually have something to work on. This is how Venus was identified (to at least a high degree of plausibility) in a couple of Apollo pics.

Your scenario is ludicrous. For the background stars to shift so much the same patterns could not be discerned between pairs, either they were taking 6-hour breaks between consecutive shots and getting all the astronauts back in the same positions again to continue, or they were picking up every rock and piece of equipment and locating them in exactly the same arrangement (as can and has been verified photogrammetrically) only with the camera now at a different and opposed cardinal point.

Quote
O....M....G.....That's my point!!!  they HAD to be taken immediately AFTER each other as the foreground shadows haven't changed in the two images!!! If a long time had passed not only would the foreground shadows have changed but also any 'Stars'......Are you even reading the rest of this thread and examining the pics?  My entire poin is that if what I had seen were stars, it would suggest a huge passing of time as the stars in the sky inthe next pic had changed so unrecognisably, yet the foreground shadows were exactly the same, then it would have to be a fake!!!!! Feck Me give me strength lol

I believe (after much effort) I understood your point. I have already moved on to the next step; showing why your point is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 08:49:49 PM


I can't prove anyhting here on earth.  Light pollution and atmospheric particles won't allow it.  However in the cleanness and vacuum of space, it must account for something?

There's an assumption here that needs to be unpacked.

Is it possible to shoot stars? Yes.

Quote
Yey  :P So my point is this then.  It is possible or likely that if we were to over expose these slides, negatives, or even the Jpegs themsels, could we reveal extra info? Such as Stars?  (Already aware of Jpeg compression, but these are not Digital in origin.  They are Film.  the level of detail to be obtained will be dependant on the quality of the scan; if it was a scan of a photo and not the original negative.

It is possible to shoot stars with slow (ASA 125) film?  Possibly.

These are not in dispute.

The Apollo Surface Photographs, however, were taken with modified Hasselblads with a very specific set of settings optimized towards photographing landscape and equipment. The astronauts had several marked exposures, much as cheap analog consumer cameras back in the day might have a "sunny 16" and a picture of a cloud as click-stops. The vast majority of photographs taken with the lunar Hasselblads used one of these settings.

Quote
What possible changes do you think could or would need to be made to make these cameras 'Special'.  Is taking pics on the moon any different to pics on a Beach for instance?

No part of the operation of surface photography with the lunar Hasselblads leant itself to capturing stars. It was not the intent, and it was not the result.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: nomuse on January 05, 2017, 09:06:18 PM
I think I've finally navigated your various unstated assumptions to reconstruct a scenario you wish to test.

In this scenario, a film crew sets up outdoors during a clear night, using artificial lighting to simulate sunlight. They did not intend to capture any of those background stars (why, then, film outdoors at all?) and they filmed each EVA over a number of nights, making it possible for movement of the background stars to slip through their otherwise rigorous continuity. They did not realize that the emulsion and developing would retain enough data to survive through third-party digital scans that likewise did not expect to capture stars.

I do need to re-iterate that this requires a difference on the order of six hours or more between apparently consecutive pictures; having Scott with his left hand on the gamma-ray spectrometer at 5:00 AM on Tuesday's shoot and at 10 PM on Wednesday's shoot, and everything else in exactly the same place as well.

Is this essentially what you are looking for?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 09:14:16 PM
erm....... No; not really.

I just want proof that those spots aren't stars....................

but you know what I've just found?  A link to Flickr where Nasa have a bunch of Hi Res Un-processed images..................SHOWING STARS!!!!!!!!

OR, dust, gamma, xrays, radiation, charged particles, advanced Star trek photon torpedo's  you name it.

What are in these images then?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21672034272/in/album-72157658638144538/
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: nomuse on January 05, 2017, 09:24:05 PM
Here's the problems I have with this scenario:

1) Physics. Actually, the artificial-light scenario makes it slightly more plausible that stars would slip through; the brightest film light is something like a magnitude below full sunlight. The scanning stage would not seem to admit it, however. There is no point in comparing motion as against what would actually be seen in surface pictures, or questions how much motion would be seen in surface pictures; these are false trails, red herrings. No stars would be visible in actual surface images, period.

2) Continuity. I find it hard to believe you could get everything set up the same. I also wouldn't want to try. It makes more sense to simply shoot an EVA in one go. You make the same mistake most hoax believers do, in looking at pictures as if they can be taken in isolation. The majority of the surface record is duplicated in master shot via the video and the 16mm DAC, and it can be tracked quite closely to mission records and recorded audio.

The point being that all of these MATCH. It is ridiculous to presume lunar Hasselblad images being produced out of order or otherwise in any ad hoc one-by-one method, when what the same scenes are documented in contiguous video. The only rational way for a fake to have proceeded is to shoot the actual footage in real time on the stage. Anything else is a continuity nightmare beyond the capabilities of the time to master.

3) Stars. Stars are not random. They are not noise, they are not patterns that are either there or not there. ONE STAR moving or changing from one plate to another gave us new planets, nova, and the entire freaking stellar distance ladder that told us we are in one galaxy among a multitude. If there are stars, there are patterns. If there are patterns, there are the familiar constellations. Full stop.

It is not possible in any scenario for more than a handful of stars to show up on an image and not be able to match those to a specific location in the celestial globe. Focusing on whether the same pattern shows up or not is another red herring. The patterns that show up will tell the story. You see Orion? You know where and when the picture was taken.

4) There's more than sky. The vast majority of the lunar surface record shows something beyond foreground objects and dark sky. There are distant features. Your scenario not only fails to include these, but any expansion of how these distant features were included instantly throws the entire "filming outdoors at night" scenario into the dustbin.


In short, you are chasing false problems and sowing confusion.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: nomuse on January 05, 2017, 09:28:02 PM
erm....... No; not really.

I just want proof that those spots aren't stars....................

but you know what I've just found?  A link to Flickr where Nasa have a bunch of Hi Res Un-processed images..................SHOWING STARS!!!!!!!!

OR, dust, gamma, xrays, radiation, charged particles, advanced Star trek photon torpedo's  you name it.

What are in these images then?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21672034272/in/album-72157658638144538/

The proof is physics.

The most direct proof is that the film and settings can not have captured stars.

The best test of this proof is that Venus is marginally possible, and when looked for, appeared in exactly the predicted position.

"Star" is a specific term. So is cosmic ray damage. Each has specific predictable behaviors. You can't mix them, and mix in dust and fantasy, and think you are making a coherent argument.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: bknight on January 05, 2017, 09:29:46 PM
Not that Icarus1 will see this, but in:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5950HR.jpg

Quote
Why would you assume i wont see this?  I count over 16 dots of interest in the first image using my eye alone.

There are several artifacts that I observe without tinkering with any setting on both sides of the LM.  Knowing that they are not stars, I suspect either compression artifacts or comic rays working into the emulsion.

There are only one in:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5949HR.jpg
right of Buzz's antenna

Quote
There are certainly more than one in this image!
Did you read "without tinkering"?  You may be able to see more, but I can only identify one, and that was what was described.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: nomuse on January 05, 2017, 09:30:37 PM
Incidentally, your flicker series (how I bloody hate argument by "look at this picture and doesn't it look like X?") is post-EVA, ORBITAL pictures. Aka taken from inside a space capsule through the window. Not comparable in any way to pictures taken on the surface during EVA.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: AtomicDog on January 05, 2017, 09:33:04 PM
erm....... No; not really.

I just want proof that those spots aren't stars....................

but you know what I've just found?  A link to Flickr where Nasa have a bunch of Hi Res Un-processed images..................SHOWING STARS!!!!!!!!

OR, dust, gamma, xrays, radiation, charged particles, advanced Star trek photon torpedo's  you name it.

What are in these images then?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21672034272/in/album-72157658638144538/

Yeah. There are even stars in lunar shadows, the shadow of the Lunar Module and the LM's window frame. Stars everywhere.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 09:37:24 PM
Here's the problems I have with this scenario:

1) Physics. Actually, the artificial-light scenario makes it slightly more plausible that stars would slip through; the brightest film light is something like a magnitude below full sunlight. The scanning stage would not seem to admit it, however. There is no point in comparing motion as against what would actually be seen in surface pictures, or questions how much motion would be seen in surface pictures; these are false trails, red herrings. No stars would be visible in actual surface images, period.

2) Continuity. I find it hard to believe you could get everything set up the same. I also wouldn't want to try. It makes more sense to simply shoot an EVA in one go. You make the same mistake most hoax believers do, in looking at pictures as if they can be taken in isolation. The majority of the surface record is duplicated in master shot via the video and the 16mm DAC, and it can be tracked quite closely to mission records and recorded audio.

The point being that all of these MATCH. It is ridiculous to presume lunar Hasselblad images being produced out of order or otherwise in any ad hoc one-by-one method, when what the same scenes are documented in contiguous video. The only rational way for a fake to have proceeded is to shoot the actual footage in real time on the stage. Anything else is a continuity nightmare beyond the capabilities of the time to master.

3) Stars. Stars are not random. They are not noise, they are not patterns that are either there or not there. ONE STAR moving or changing from one plate to another gave us new planets, nova, and the entire freaking stellar distance ladder that told us we are in one galaxy among a multitude. If there are stars, there are patterns. If there are patterns, there are the familiar constellations. Full stop.

It is not possible in any scenario for more than a handful of stars to show up on an image and not be able to match those to a specific location in the celestial globe. Focusing on whether the same pattern shows up or not is another red herring. The patterns that show up will tell the story. You see Orion? You know where and when the picture was taken.

4) There's more than sky. The vast majority of the lunar surface record shows something beyond foreground objects and dark sky. There are distant features. Your scenario not only fails to include these, but any expansion of how these distant features were included instantly throws the entire "filming outdoors at night" scenario into the dustbin.


In short, you are chasing false problems and sowing confusion.

I am merely playing Devils Advocate in a search for truth. 

Well done on your full bodied response, though it's a little off in what I'm hoping to achieve.

It's obviously me because I've suffered this my whole life; I've no problem putting my hand up to ask questions, but my cavalier attitude is often mistaken for hypocrisy or mocking.  I'm not trying to.  The art of asking questions and taking in answers from the many is so complex, it's bewildering how a person is expected to absorb so much information from so many sources, delivered by so many personalities and characters.  I'm what you would call and Emapth.  I read between the lines to get an idea of the character and intention of the speaker.  I'm more of an observer of people than a leader.  I stir the nest and step back usually, finding answers in the chaos.  I actually have no definitive answers of my own.  Everything is open for re-examination.

Thank you for coming this far. :D
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 09:39:48 PM
erm....... No; not really.

I just want proof that those spots aren't stars....................

but you know what I've just found?  A link to Flickr where Nasa have a bunch of Hi Res Un-processed images..................SHOWING STARS!!!!!!!!

OR, dust, gamma, xrays, radiation, charged particles, advanced Star trek photon torpedo's  you name it.

What are in these images then?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21672034272/in/album-72157658638144538/

Yeah. There are even stars in lunar shadows, the shadow of the Lunar Module and the LM's window frame. Stars everywhere.

Indeed there are.  Loads of em :D  Pretty much wraps this up then doesn't it!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: AtomicDog on January 05, 2017, 09:45:08 PM
erm....... No; not really.

I just want proof that those spots aren't stars....................

but you know what I've just found?  A link to Flickr where Nasa have a bunch of Hi Res Un-processed images..................SHOWING STARS!!!!!!!!

OR, dust, gamma, xrays, radiation, charged particles, advanced Star trek photon torpedo's  you name it.

What are in these images then?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21672034272/in/album-72157658638144538/

Yeah. There are even stars in lunar shadows, the shadow of the Lunar Module and the LM's window frame. Stars everywhere.

Indeed there are.  Loads of em :D  Pretty much wraps this up then doesn't it!

If there are "stars" EVERYWHERE in the photos, what makes the ones in the sky special?  Logic would seem to indicate that they aren't stars, either.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: nomuse on January 05, 2017, 09:45:46 PM
erm....... No; not really.

I just want proof that those spots aren't stars....................

but you know what I've just found?  A link to Flickr where Nasa have a bunch of Hi Res Un-processed images..................SHOWING STARS!!!!!!!!

OR, dust, gamma, xrays, radiation, charged particles, advanced Star trek photon torpedo's  you name it.

What are in these images then?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21672034272/in/album-72157658638144538/

Yeah. There are even stars in lunar shadows, the shadow of the Lunar Module and the LM's window frame. Stars everywhere.

My god, it's full of stars!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 09:45:59 PM
Not that Icarus1 will see this, but in:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5950HR.jpg

Quote
Why would you assume i wont see this?  I count over 16 dots of interest in the first image using my eye alone.

There are several artifacts that I observe without tinkering with any setting on both sides of the LM.  Knowing that they are not stars, I suspect either compression artifacts or comic rays working into the emulsion.

There are only one in:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5949HR.jpg
right of Buzz's antenna

Quote
There are certainly more than one in this image!
Did you read "without tinkering"?  You may be able to see more, but I can only identify one, and that was what was described.

I did read that.  did you read me typing 'with my naked eye?' or something to that effect.  The 2nd image, I can see only 3 spots.  the first one I have counted about 16;  with my naked eye.  I have a 40" 4K monitor with the luminosity lowered for proofing.  They're pretty obvious to me.

However as I have just posted there is a range of un-edited photo's on Flickr.  Seems 'they're full of stars' (not a direct quote if you understand the reference??)
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 09:48:13 PM
erm....... No; not really.

I just want proof that those spots aren't stars....................

but you know what I've just found?  A link to Flickr where Nasa have a bunch of Hi Res Un-processed images..................SHOWING STARS!!!!!!!!

OR, dust, gamma, xrays, radiation, charged particles, advanced Star trek photon torpedo's  you name it.

What are in these images then?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21672034272/in/album-72157658638144538/

Yeah. There are even stars in lunar shadows, the shadow of the Lunar Module and the LM's window frame. Stars everywhere.

Indeed there are.  Loads of em :D  Pretty much wraps this up then doesn't it!

If there are "stars" EVERYWHERE in the photos, what makes the ones in the sky special?  Logic would seem to indicate that they aren't stars, either.

erm...Yeah, I thought that's what i said??? nothing Special at all.  Dust everywhere.  Point taken and quite possibly proven to be....DUST????
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 09:49:34 PM
erm....... No; not really.

I just want proof that those spots aren't stars....................

but you know what I've just found?  A link to Flickr where Nasa have a bunch of Hi Res Un-processed images..................SHOWING STARS!!!!!!!!

OR, dust, gamma, xrays, radiation, charged particles, advanced Star trek photon torpedo's  you name it.

What are in these images then?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21672034272/in/album-72157658638144538/

Yeah. There are even stars in lunar shadows, the shadow of the Lunar Module and the LM's window frame. Stars everywhere.

My god, it's full of stars!


Booooooom.  Stole my quote...kind off :P
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: AtomicDog on January 05, 2017, 09:53:27 PM
erm....... No; not really.

I just want proof that those spots aren't stars....................

but you know what I've just found?  A link to Flickr where Nasa have a bunch of Hi Res Un-processed images..................SHOWING STARS!!!!!!!!

OR, dust, gamma, xrays, radiation, charged particles, advanced Star trek photon torpedo's  you name it.

What are in these images then?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21672034272/in/album-72157658638144538/

Yeah. There are even stars in lunar shadows, the shadow of the Lunar Module and the LM's window frame. Stars everywhere.

Indeed there are.  Loads of em :D  Pretty much wraps this up then doesn't it!

If there are "stars" EVERYWHERE in the photos, what makes the ones in the sky special?  Logic would seem to indicate that they aren't stars, either.

erm...Yeah, I thought that's what i said??? nothing Special at all.  Dust everywhere.  Point taken and quite possibly proven to be....DUST????

Just checking. Are you now satisfied that the "stars" in your OP aren't?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: bknight on January 05, 2017, 09:55:34 PM

I did read that.  did you read me typing 'with my naked eye?' or something to that effect.  The 2nd image, I can see only 3 spots.  the first one I have counted about 16;  with my naked eye.  I have a 40" 4K monitor with the luminosity lowered for proofing.  They're pretty obvious to me.

However as I have just posted there is a range of un-edited photo's on Flickr.  Seems 'they're full of stars' (not a direct quote if you understand the reference??)
Quite honestly, no I didn't see with my naked eye, but that does not indicate you are looking at the original image and not your tweaking one either, does it?
The images are not stars, whether you want to believe this or not is up to you.
nomuse said it best the physics are against imaging stars with the Hasselblad.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 09:56:57 PM
It's 3am in the morning here in the UK.  I've been at this thread for over ten hours now, if not more.  I've learned something today.....


Sometimes..................................................................................it's just dust!



...Not something I expected from NASA!!  THE most important images of all time; not to mention the reels of film LOST/ERASED!!!

Come ooooonnn people.

I sincerely thank those of you that have added to this discussion on my behalf.  I am warmed by your generosity of time and patience.  To the rest of you inbreds that only offered scorn and ridicule....I love you too.   We gotta take care of the angry one's....!

Peace and lurrrve and see you in the next Mars pics.  Should be fun! x
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 09:58:48 PM
erm....... No; not really.

I just want proof that those spots aren't stars....................

but you know what I've just found?  A link to Flickr where Nasa have a bunch of Hi Res Un-processed images..................SHOWING STARS!!!!!!!!

OR, dust, gamma, xrays, radiation, charged particles, advanced Star trek photon torpedo's  you name it.

What are in these images then?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21672034272/in/album-72157658638144538/

Yeah. There are even stars in lunar shadows, the shadow of the Lunar Module and the LM's window frame. Stars everywhere.

Indeed there are.  Loads of em :D  Pretty much wraps this up then doesn't it!

If there are "stars" EVERYWHERE in the photos, what makes the ones in the sky special?  Logic would seem to indicate that they aren't stars, either.

erm...Yeah, I thought that's what i said??? nothing Special at all.  Dust everywhere.  Point taken and quite possibly proven to be....DUST????

Just checking. Are you now satisfied that the "stars" in your OP aren't?

I'm definitely more inclined to belive it's DUST!, however, I will endeavor to research the colour anomalies and trails of said Dust!  There must always be room for doubt!

Thanks.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: AtomicDog on January 05, 2017, 10:00:17 PM
It's 3am in the morning here in the UK.  I've been at this thread for over ten hours now, if not more.  I've learned something today.....


Sometimes..................................................................................it's just dust!



...Not something I expected from NASA!!  THE most important images of all time; not to mention the reels of film LOST/ERASED!!!

Come ooooonnn people.

I sincerely thank those of you that have added to this discussion on my behalf.  I am warmed by your generosity of time and patience.  To the rest of you inbreds that only offered scorn and ridicule....I love you too.   We gotta take care of the angry one's....!

Peace and lurrrve and see you in the next Mars pics.  Should be fun! x

There is no lost Apollo film.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 10:04:17 PM

I did read that.  did you read me typing 'with my naked eye?' or something to that effect.  The 2nd image, I can see only 3 spots.  the first one I have counted about 16;  with my naked eye.  I have a 40" 4K monitor with the luminosity lowered for proofing.  They're pretty obvious to me.

However as I have just posted there is a range of un-edited photo's on Flickr.  Seems 'they're full of stars' (not a direct quote if you understand the reference??)
Quite honestly, no I didn't see with my naked eye, but that does not indicate you are looking at the original image and not your tweaking one either, does it?

Erm... No, but my word as a professional does indicate that I can indeed see 16 points of interest without editing.....by all means put it up for a vote then come back to me with an apology for accusing me of having poor character, fearing loss of face and lying to cover my mistakes or something....that is NOT what is happening here.  I see 16 points.  and 3 in the other.  You claim to see several and one.  I think you need you eyes checked buddy.  Thanks for the input thus far though.  Appreciate it.
The images are not stars, whether you want to believe this or not is up to you.
nomuse said it best the physics are against imaging stars with the Hasselblad.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 10:06:42 PM
It's 3am in the morning here in the UK.  I've been at this thread for over ten hours now, if not more.  I've learned something today.....


Sometimes..................................................................................it's just dust!



...Not something I expected from NASA!!  THE most important images of all time; not to mention the reels of film LOST/ERASED!!!

Come ooooonnn people.

I sincerely thank those of you that have added to this discussion on my behalf.  I am warmed by your generosity of time and patience.  To the rest of you inbreds that only offered scorn and ridicule....I love you too.   We gotta take care of the angry one's....!

Peace and lurrrve and see you in the next Mars pics.  Should be fun! x

There is no lost Apollo film.

I see.  Is this post from Wiki not true then?? 

The Apollo 11 missing tapes were those that were recorded from Apollo 11's slow-scan television (SSTV) telecast in its raw format on telemetry data tape during the time of the first Moon landing in 1969 and subsequently lost. A team of retired NASA employees and contractors tried to locate the tapes in the early 2000s but was unable to do so. The data tapes were recorded as a backup in case the live television broadcasts failed for any reason. In order to broadcast the SSTV transmission on standard television, NASA ground receiving stations performed real-time scan conversion to the NTSC television format. The moonwalk's converted video signal was broadcast live around the world on July 21, 1969 (2:56 UTC). At the time, the NTSC broadcast was recorded on many videotapes and kinescope films. Many of these low-quality recordings remain intact.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: bknight on January 05, 2017, 10:12:48 PM

There is no lost Apollo film.

I see.  Is this post from Wiki not true then?? 

The Apollo 11 missing tapes were those that were recorded from Apollo 11's slow-scan television (SSTV) telecast in its raw format on telemetry data tape during the time of the first Moon landing in 1969 and subsequently lost. A team of retired NASA employees and contractors tried to locate the tapes in the early 2000s but was unable to do so. The data tapes were recorded as a backup in case the live television broadcasts failed for any reason. In order to broadcast the SSTV transmission on standard television, NASA ground receiving stations performed real-time scan conversion to the NTSC television format. The moonwalk's converted video signal was broadcast live around the world on July 21, 1969 (2:56 UTC). At the time, the NTSC broadcast was recorded on many videotapes and kinescope films. Many of these low-quality recordings remain intact.
My bolding.
Do you not read what you post?  SSTV BACKUP tapes were overwritten, the original tapes are still intact and safe.
But TV tapes are NOT film images, and that is what AtomicDog is referring.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: AtomicDog on January 05, 2017, 10:13:20 PM
It's 3am in the morning here in the UK.  I've been at this thread for over ten hours now, if not more.  I've learned something today.....


Sometimes..................................................................................it's just dust!



...Not something I expected from NASA!!  THE most important images of all time; not to mention the reels of film LOST/ERASED!!!

Come ooooonnn people.

I sincerely thank those of you that have added to this discussion on my behalf.  I am warmed by your generosity of time and patience.  To the rest of you inbreds that only offered scorn and ridicule....I love you too.   We gotta take care of the angry one's....!

Peace and lurrrve and see you in the next Mars pics.  Should be fun! x

There is no lost Apollo film.

I see.  Is this post from Wiki not true then?? 

The Apollo 11 missing tapes were those that were recorded from Apollo 11's slow-scan television (SSTV) telecast in its raw format on telemetry data tape during the time of the first Moon landing in 1969 and subsequently lost. A team of retired NASA employees and contractors tried to locate the tapes in the early 2000s but was unable to do so. The data tapes were recorded as a backup in case the live television broadcasts failed for any reason. In order to broadcast the SSTV transmission on standard television, NASA ground receiving stations performed real-time scan conversion to the NTSC television format. The moonwalk's converted video signal was broadcast live around the world on July 21, 1969 (2:56 UTC). At the time, the NTSC broadcast was recorded on many videotapes and kinescope films. Many of these low-quality recordings remain intact.

Which does not contradict what I said in the least. Every frame of Apollo film recorded on the moon made it safely to the earth and is archived.

In addition, as the Wikipedia article states, all of the Apollo VIDEO was broadcast around the world and dutifully recorded onto kinescope. Nothing was lost.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 10:18:12 PM

There is no lost Apollo film.

I see.  Is this post from Wiki not true then?? 

The Apollo 11 missing tapes were those that were recorded from Apollo 11's slow-scan television (SSTV) telecast in its raw format on telemetry data tape during the time of the first Moon landing in 1969 and subsequently lost. A team of retired NASA employees and contractors tried to locate the tapes in the early 2000s but was unable to do so. The data tapes were recorded as a backup in case the live television broadcasts failed for any reason. In order to broadcast the SSTV transmission on standard television, NASA ground receiving stations performed real-time scan conversion to the NTSC television format. The moonwalk's converted video signal was broadcast live around the world on July 21, 1969 (2:56 UTC). At the time, the NTSC broadcast was recorded on many videotapes and kinescope films. Many of these low-quality recordings remain intact.
My bolding.
Do you not read what you post?  SSTV BACKUP tapes were overwritten, the original tapes are still intact and safe.
But TV tapes are NOT film images, and that is what AtomicDog is referring.

I thought I DID  read it correctly, yes!  The Tapes were a Backup Recording of the 'LIVE' broadcast.......Forgive me it's late here and I'm tired now.  I fail to see the relevance of the Wiki post if we're only talking about a loss of a backup when the original still exists.!  It even states there are many LOW Quality remain INTACT.  The word Intact itself is ominous.

Soooo, everything is still available?  Nothing is Lost or Erased?  Forgive me if I don't accept a simple YES as proof.  It's not personal.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 10:25:52 PM
Actually Screw that.  If this is remotely true....it's garbage!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: AtomicDog on January 05, 2017, 10:30:10 PM

There is no lost Apollo film.

I see.  Is this post from Wiki not true then?? 

The Apollo 11 missing tapes were those that were recorded from Apollo 11's slow-scan television (SSTV) telecast in its raw format on telemetry data tape during the time of the first Moon landing in 1969 and subsequently lost. A team of retired NASA employees and contractors tried to locate the tapes in the early 2000s but was unable to do so. The data tapes were recorded as a backup in case the live television broadcasts failed for any reason. In order to broadcast the SSTV transmission on standard television, NASA ground receiving stations performed real-time scan conversion to the NTSC television format. The moonwalk's converted video signal was broadcast live around the world on July 21, 1969 (2:56 UTC). At the time, the NTSC broadcast was recorded on many videotapes and kinescope films. Many of these low-quality recordings remain intact.
My bolding.
Do you not read what you post?  SSTV BACKUP tapes were overwritten, the original tapes are still intact and safe.
But TV tapes are NOT film images, and that is what AtomicDog is referring.

I thought I DID  read it correctly, yes!  The Tapes were a Backup Recording of the 'LIVE' broadcast.......Forgive me it's late here and I'm tired now.  I fail to see the relevance of the Wiki post if we're only talking about a loss of a backup when the original still exists.!  It even states there are many LOW Quality remain INTACT.  The word Intact itself is ominous.

Soooo, everything is still available?  Nothing is Lost or Erased?  Forgive me if I don't accept a simple YES as proof.  It's not personal.

Wikipedia, as useful as it is, is not a primary source. NASA says that it has all of the Lunar surface video. If you don't believe them, that's up to you. I'm satisfied that it's all there.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: AtomicDog on January 05, 2017, 10:30:41 PM
Actually Screw that.  If this is remotely true....it's garbage!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

Why?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: AtomicDog on January 05, 2017, 10:34:16 PM
Let's see...

No Stars...check.
Missing Film, correction, Tapes...check.
When do we get to Searing Radiation Hell?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: BertieSlack on January 06, 2017, 01:04:43 AM
Actually Screw that.  If this is remotely true....it's garbage!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

Let's explain it one more time:

The telemetry stream of all the Apollo missions was recorded onto back-up tapes for post-mission analysis. The TV signal was embedded into the telemetry. In the case of the Apollo 11 EVA, the TV signal was extracted from the telemetry stream and broadcast live to the whole world whilst simultaneously being recorded by NASA onto other media. These separate recordings were ADDITIONAL to the back-up telemetry tapes. The back-up telemetry tapes for Apollo 11 have been erased (though they still exist for the other missions) but the other recordings of the TV signal still exist. And even if the back-up tapes hadn't been erased, what machine is currently in existence that could read them? And don't forget that TV and other media companies around the world made their own recordings of the TV broadcast.

Hope that makes things a bit clearer.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: nomuse on January 06, 2017, 01:17:01 AM
The First Doctor serial "Marco Polo" is lost. The Apollo 11 EVA video still exists.

In the case of Apollo, we have first-generation copies; it's the equivalent of missing the master tapes (and the chance to make a new first-generation dupe). In the case of Hartnell, all we have is script, some production stills, and fan made off-the-air audio recordings.



Yes, what is next? Bent shadows? Missing rover tracks, that's my guess. But I'll put a couple bucks on "the Earth is too small in the photographs" as well.

Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: raven on January 06, 2017, 01:56:14 AM
You do realize, Icarus1, at as they were doing the television video of the EVA, there was also a FILM camera in the LM that was taking footage that is even better than the slow scan video? For one, it's in colour. So if the slow scan video original was hiding something, why isn't it revealed in the 16 mmm data acquisition camera footage.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: smartcooky on January 06, 2017, 02:05:18 AM
Actually Screw that.  If this is remotely true....it's garbage!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

Let's explain it one more time:

The telemetry stream of all the Apollo missions was recorded onto back-up tapes for post-mission analysis. The TV signal was embedded into the telemetry. In the case of the Apollo 11 EVA, the TV signal was extracted from the telemetry stream and broadcast live to the whole world whilst simultaneously being recorded by NASA onto other media. These separate recordings were ADDITIONAL to the back-up telemetry tapes. The back-up telemetry tapes for Apollo 11 have been erased (though they still exist for the other missions) but the other recordings of the TV signal still exist. And even if the back-up tapes hadn't been erased, what machine is currently in existence that could read them? And don't forget that TV and other media companies around the world made their own recordings of the TV broadcast.

Hope that makes things a bit clearer.

Furthermore, there is nothing nefarious or shady about those tapes being erased and reused. This was pretty much an S.O.P. in those days when video recording tape was a very expensive commodity, in short supply as well as being bulky and expensive to store.. The BBC used to do this all the time, a process known as "wiping" or"junking"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiping

Many early episodes of Dr Who, The Quatermass Experiment, The Avengers, Hancock's Half Hour, A for Andromeda and Out of the Unknown are lost forever because the tapes were wiped and reused for later projects.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Apollo 957 on January 06, 2017, 05:14:32 AM
but you know what I've just found?  A link to Flickr where Nasa have a bunch of Hi Res Un-processed images..................SHOWING STARS!!!!!!!!

OR, dust, gamma, xrays, radiation, charged particles, advanced Star trek photon torpedo's  you name it.

What are in these images then?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/21672034272/in/album-72157658638144538/

I have no idea, but I suggest you determine if these 'stars' correspond to any known constellations.

Someone did this FOR YOU, earlier on, with their plate-solving software, I suggest you do the same, or consult with a qualified astronomer.

If they don't correspond to the constellations that would be expected in the field of view of the photo, there seems little point in investigating further.

I very much doubt you will be 'the one' who manages to expose 'the big hoax'. 
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Apollo 957 on January 06, 2017, 05:25:26 AM
I am merely playing Devils Advocate in a search for truth.

There are many places to find the 'truth' of Apollo, and you're heading off down a blind alley.

Take a look at The Lunar Sourcebook, the experience reports, transcripts, and a host of other factual texts about Apollo.
 

... it's a little off in what I'm hoping to achieve.

Please restate in a few short sentences exactly WHAT you are hoping to achieve

...  I'm what you would call and Emapth. 

Do you mean 'an Empath' ???

I read between the lines to get an idea of the character and intention of the speaker.

Irrelevant. Look at the facts.

... Everything is open for re-examination.

Re-examine EVERYTHING then, not just a couple of frames.

And PLEASE follow the guidance I gave you earlier on clarifying where you've added text to a quote. It's not difficult, as you can see immediately above.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Apollo 957 on January 06, 2017, 05:31:40 AM
It's 3am in the morning here in the UK. 

Oh, no. One of my own countrymen is behind all of this.


I've been at this thread for over ten hours now, if not more.

You need to learn when to go to sleep.

  I've learned something today.....

Good. Learn when to stop posting, and go to sleep. I had a good eight-hour break from this while you were ploughing on

THE most important images of all time; not to mention the reels of film LOST/ERASED!!!

Come ooooonnn people.

Come ON, about what? Which 'reels of film' do you allege were lost or 'erased'? How do you 'erase' a reel of 6x7 film?

You're surely not gish-galloping to ANOTHER hoax theory, are you?


I sincerely thank those of you that have added to this discussion on my behalf.  I am warmed by your generosity of time and patience.  To the rest of you inbreds that only offered scorn and ridicule....I love you too.   We gotta take care of the angry one's....!

Condescension doesn't help your case.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Apollo 957 on January 06, 2017, 05:37:47 AM
Is this post from Wiki not true then?? 

The Apollo 11 missing tapes were those that were recorded from Apollo 11's slow-scan television (SSTV) telecast in its raw format on telemetry data tape during the time of the first Moon landing in 1969 and subsequently lost.

In its 'raw' format. Read it again - RAW format. There was a conversion process, as stated below, since the raw format was incompatible with earthbound TV transmission. Tapes were kept in converted format, and the telecast was also broadcast LIVE to many TV stations worldwide, who kept their own copies.


A team of retired NASA employees and contractors tried to locate the tapes in the early 2000s but was unable to do so. The data tapes were recorded as a backup in case the live television broadcasts failed for any reason. In order to broadcast the SSTV transmission on standard television, NASA ground receiving stations performed real-time scan conversion to the NTSC television format. The moonwalk's converted video signal was broadcast live around the world on July 21, 1969 (2:56 UTC). At the time, the NTSC broadcast was recorded on many videotapes and kinescope films. Many of these low-quality recordings remain intact.

As has been stated, this is NOT the loss or erasure of 'film' from the missions.

And again - you won't get anywhere by log-jumping between hoax theories.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Apollo 957 on January 06, 2017, 05:40:36 AM
I fail to see the relevance of the Wiki post if we're only talking about a loss of a backup when the original still exists.!  It even states there are many LOW Quality remain INTACT.  The word Intact itself is ominous.

Why did you introduce it into the thread if you fail to see its relevance?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 06, 2017, 07:07:52 AM
I fail to see the relevance of the Wiki post if we're only talking about a loss of a backup when the original still exists.!  It even states there are many LOW Quality remain INTACT.  The word Intact itself is ominous.

Why did you introduce it into the thread if you fail to see its relevance?

He's already on a gish-gallop..lets not encourage it more.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 06, 2017, 07:18:23 AM
Morning or Afternoon everyone.  It's 12pm here in the UK.

I conceded this long ago.  Maybe I was too subtle.  Thanks for your effort on this matter.

It's Dust!

All the best.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Count Zero on January 06, 2017, 09:09:13 AM
Oh YEAH?!  Well I think they're cosmic ray hits, SO THERE!!!

;)
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 06, 2017, 09:30:03 AM
Oh YEAH?!  Well I think they're cosmic ray hits, SO THERE!!!

;)

:D Thanks for taking part. 

I've a lot of work ahead of me to attain this knowledge.   It's obviously too much for me to take in over night.

This is a long thread and could potentially go on for years if I keep asking questions and peeps keep coming back with answers.  What I have never seen is a full catalogue of original pics or video.  That would be interesting, and I've never looked in to this until recently so finding Flickr Archives and the Apollo archives has been great.

Kirk out!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Apollo 957 on January 06, 2017, 09:40:16 AM
I've a lot of work ahead of me to attain this knowledge.   It's obviously too much for me to take in over night.

What I have never seen is a full catalogue of original pics or video.

Apollo Image Library.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/picture.html

Project Apollo Image Gallery

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

The Project Apollo Archive, including the above gallery

http://www.apolloarchive.com/

The experiences of a NASA tech who worked on suits and PLSS systems

http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum38/HTML/001957-12.html

The Lunar Sourcebook

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/



That should keep you going. Meanwhile, a thought from a fellow Brit -

Don't let the side down, old chap.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Allan F on January 06, 2017, 09:55:34 AM
Sorry to jump in so late in the thread. Couldn't be bothered to read it all.

I'd like to show two pictures, taken with the same camera.

https://500px.com/photo/144719533/the-milky-way-by-allan-folmersen?ctx_page=2&from=user&user_id=5551450

Please note this is an unedited photo - and you can see the EXIF data at the right. f:3.5, ISO 12800 and shutterspeed 30s

Then there's this:

https://500px.com/photo/160804883/morning-on-the-shoreline-by-allan-folmersen?ctx_page=2&from=user&user_id=5551450

The EXIF is 1/1000s, f:4.5 and ISO 100.

In the first picture, stars are visible. In the second picture, they are not.

The difference in exposure between those two pictures are:

(30/(1/1000))= 30.000 (shutterspeed)
12800/100    = 128
And half an F-stop. Let's not bother with that.

But the two other factors are 3.84 MILLION to 1. No camerasystem, no photographic film EVER has that dynamic range. THAT is where Icarus1's claim fails.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 06, 2017, 10:05:29 AM

I've a lot of work ahead of me to attain this knowledge.   It's obviously too much for me to take in over night.

This is a long thread and could potentially go on for years if I keep asking questions and peeps keep coming back with answers.  What I have never seen is a full catalogue of original pics or video.  That would be interesting, and I've never looked in to this until recently so finding Flickr Archives and the Apollo archives has been great.

Stick around. There's a lot that can be learned from here.

Have a browse of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html) and the Apollo Flight Journal (http://history.nasa.gov/afj/). There's enough information and reading in there to keep any mere mortal occupied for years.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Allan F on January 06, 2017, 10:15:57 AM
Every frame of Apollo film recorded on the moon made it safely to the earth and is archived.

Actually, I think it was Apollo 12 who accidentially left a bag with exposed hasselblad film magazines on the moon.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 06, 2017, 10:20:22 AM
Sorry to jump in so late in the thread. Couldn't be bothered to read it all.

I'd like to show two pictures, taken with the same camera.

https://500px.com/photo/144719533/the-milky-way-by-allan-folmersen?ctx_page=2&from=user&user_id=5551450

Please note this is an unedited photo - and you can see the EXIF data at the right. f:3.5, ISO 12800 and shutterspeed 30s

Then there's this:

https://500px.com/photo/160804883/morning-on-the-shoreline-by-allan-folmersen?ctx_page=2&from=user&user_id=5551450

The EXIF is 1/1000s, f:4.5 and ISO 100.

In the first picture, stars are visible. In the second picture, they are not.

The difference in exposure between those two pictures are:

(30/(1/1000))= 30.000 (shutterspeed)
12800/100    = 128
And half an F-stop. Let's not bother with that.

But the two other factors are 3.84 MILLION to 1. No camerasystem, no photographic film EVER has that dynamic range. THAT is where Icarus1's claim fails.

Thanks for popping in, even if the game has ended.

I didn't make a claim.  I said 'These look like stars'.  Not 'they ARE stars'.  I came here to prove a theory.  The theory has been proven False.

Thanks
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 06, 2017, 10:23:28 AM
Actually, I think it was Apollo 12 who accidentially left a bag with exposed hasselblad film magazines on the moon.

Yeah....they were the ones where Kubrick's pet cat walked across the soundstage just after a stage-hand dropped a light onto the ground when he tripped over one of the wires that suspended the astronauts....  ::) :P :P :P  :o :o :o

@Icarus1: Here's one amazing piece of work that you should have a read of: http://history.nasa.gov/afj/pdf/clouds-across-the-moon.pdf It's an amazing piece of work by Paul White in which he matches the cloud patterns in Earth photos taken from the various Apollo missions. The very last page is of interest  ;D
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Peter B on January 06, 2017, 10:31:28 AM
G'day Icarus1, and welcome to the forum.

If I could just add my 2 cents worth...

The thing to take away from the issue of two photos is that context matters.

The two photos you drew our attention to are simply two out of 120-odd photos taken by the Apollo 11 moonwalkers in their 2 hours 15 minutes on the surface of the Moon. Given that all those photos were on a single roll of film, any issues about those photos must also address all the other photos on the roll. After all, you only need to accept that a single photo in the Apollo record is genuine to accept that people have actually walked on the Moon.

The second aspect of context is that the photos are a record of what the astronauts did on the Moon - collecting rocks and placing scientific equipment. In other words, the photos are part of the Apollo scientific record. The process of collecting rocks included photographing them in situ prior to collection, and having scientists photograph them again in the lab once they'd been returned to Earth. To non-scientists like me, photos of rocks are generally uninteresting, but they provide geological context for scientists trying to ascertain the Moon's history. In that sense, faked Apollo photographs would be quickly uncovered by scientists because of the inconsistency between the rocks in the photos and the rocks in their labs.

Finally, in the broader sense, the context of Apollo was the Cold War rivalry between the USA and the USSR. For all the nobility of exploration and the broadening of our scientific knowledge (and sure, that happened), the reality was that Project Apollo was just another weapon in the propaganda war between the two nuclear superpowers. In that sense, Apollo had to be real, because being caught faking it would have been a far worse propaganda disaster than either not getting to the Moon or getting there second. Thanks to their openness about their space program (and also to Soviet agents working in NASA) the Americans made it as easy as possible for the Soviets to verify the reality of the program. The Soviets never questioned the reality of Apollo; they merely pointed out (accurately) how expensive and dangerous it was compared to their unmanned sample retriever missions.

The thing about Project Apollo as an event in history is that all the evidence converges on the same conclusion. No single piece of evidence proves Apollo beyond doubt; instead, everything fits together as a consistent whole. You can see that the spacesuits used by astronauts on Space Shuttle mission spacewalks are based on the Apollo spacesuits; you can examine a genuine Saturn V rocket at Houston and compare it to footage of the Saturn Vs lifting off during Apollo; you can talk to the scientists from around the world (including from countries hostile to the USA) who've examined Apollo rocks and written scientific papers about them. And so on.

Compare that with people who think Apollo was hoaxed. None of them is able to produce a coherent narrative about how Apollo was faked. Ask enough (and usually not many) questions and you find them contradicting themselves. For example, according to one hoax proponent, TV footage recorded when the astronauts were close to the camera was recorded in a vacuum chamber to accurately re-create the effect of dusty particles falling to the ground; but TV footage recorded when the astronauts were distant from the camera was recorded in the desert at night; but there's TV footage showing the astronauts close to the camera then moving away until they're distant, all in a single uninterrupted piece of footage. How was this recorded?

So please take advantage of the opportunities to learn about Apollo. There's a lot of good information in the Internet, even more in books.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 06, 2017, 10:35:42 AM
I've a lot of work ahead of me to attain this knowledge.   It's obviously too much for me to take in over night.

What I have never seen is a full catalogue of original pics or video.

Apollo Image Library.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/picture.html

Project Apollo Image Gallery

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

The Project Apollo Archive, including the above gallery

http://www.apolloarchive.com/

The experiences of a NASA tech who worked on suits and PLSS systems

http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum38/HTML/001957-12.html

The Lunar Sourcebook

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/



That should keep you going. Meanwhile, a thought from a fellow Brit -

Don't let the side down, old chap.

 ;)
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 06, 2017, 10:46:06 AM
G'day Icarus1, and welcome to the forum.

If I could just add my 2 cents worth...

The thing to take away from the issue of two photos is that context matters.

The two photos you drew our attention to are simply two out of 120-odd photos taken by the Apollo 11 moonwalkers in their 2 hours 15 minutes on the surface of the Moon. Given that all those photos were on a single roll of film, any issues about those photos must also address all the other photos on the roll. After all, you only need to accept that a single photo in the Apollo record is genuine to accept that people have actually walked on the Moon.

The second aspect of context is that the photos are a record of what the astronauts did on the Moon - collecting rocks and placing scientific equipment. In other words, the photos are part of the Apollo scientific record. The process of collecting rocks included photographing them in situ prior to collection, and having scientists photograph them again in the lab once they'd been returned to Earth. To non-scientists like me, photos of rocks are generally uninteresting, but they provide geological context for scientists trying to ascertain the Moon's history. In that sense, faked Apollo photographs would be quickly uncovered by scientists because of the inconsistency between the rocks in the photos and the rocks in their labs.

Finally, in the broader sense, the context of Apollo was the Cold War rivalry between the USA and the USSR. For all the nobility of exploration and the broadening of our scientific knowledge (and sure, that happened), the reality was that Project Apollo was just another weapon in the propaganda war between the two nuclear superpowers. In that sense, Apollo had to be real, because being caught faking it would have been a far worse propaganda disaster than either not getting to the Moon or getting there second. Thanks to their openness about their space program (and also to Soviet agents working in NASA) the Americans made it as easy as possible for the Soviets to verify the reality of the program. The Soviets never questioned the reality of Apollo; they merely pointed out (accurately) how expensive and dangerous it was compared to their unmanned sample retriever missions.

The thing about Project Apollo as an event in history is that all the evidence converges on the same conclusion. No single piece of evidence proves Apollo beyond doubt; instead, everything fits together as a consistent whole. You can see that the spacesuits used by astronauts on Space Shuttle mission spacewalks are based on the Apollo spacesuits; you can examine a genuine Saturn V rocket at Houston and compare it to footage of the Saturn Vs lifting off during Apollo; you can talk to the scientists from around the world (including from countries hostile to the USA) who've examined Apollo rocks and written scientific papers about them. And so on.

Compare that with people who think Apollo was hoaxed. None of them is able to produce a coherent narrative about how Apollo was faked. Ask enough (and usually not many) questions and you find them contradicting themselves. For example, according to one hoax proponent, TV footage recorded when the astronauts were close to the camera was recorded in a vacuum chamber to accurately re-create the effect of dusty particles falling to the ground; but TV footage recorded when the astronauts were distant from the camera was recorded in the desert at night; but there's TV footage showing the astronauts close to the camera then moving away until they're distant, all in a single uninterrupted piece of footage. How was this recorded?

So please take advantage of the opportunities to learn about Apollo. There's a lot of good information in the Internet, even more in books.

Thanks Peter.

I'd like to point out I didn't search thru all the images and decide on these two specifically to prove a point.  I found the first 2 with a black sky and over exposed them to reveal artifact not present in the original scan;with the naked eye (though one of them I count 16 dots.)

What I haven't expressed here is that I have given NASA more credit that they are due it seems.  I did not expect a catalogue of what can be regarded as THE most important photographs since the invention of the camera, to be released to the public covered in dandruff and Pubic hair.

So far and using this as a starting point, this has been my only error.  To re-iterate;Not considering the images I was viewing were not perfect specimens.

The rest that has come to pass is an over zealous attempt to treat me as a Tin Foil hat wearing, Basement living with parents no friends paranoid lizard licking banjo playing sister sexing Nob Jockey.......

I'm only half of those things for a start.  The rest is just a Conspiracy to undermine my intelligence and intergrity as a Tree Hugging Philanthropist.   :P ::) ??? :o ;D

But it's all good.  I have my answers.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Allan F on January 06, 2017, 10:53:22 AM
Pete Conrad actually forgot a hasselblad magazine on the moon. No cats, no Kubrick - just a misunderstanding between the two astronauts.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: bknight on January 06, 2017, 10:56:44 AM
Pete Conrad actually forgot a hasselblad magazine on the moon. No cats, no Kubrick - just a misunderstanding between the two astronauts.

I thought it was Bean, after all the commander can't be blamed but must accept responsibility. :)
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: gillianren on January 06, 2017, 12:14:55 PM
For the record?  If you want to close a quote, use this--{/quote}--but with regular brackets.  When you want to open a new quote block again, start it with this--{quote}--with regular brackets.  It will go a long way toward making what you write intelligible.

Now, if you want to make it intelligent, I have other suggestions.  Like don't say that your ignorance outranks their expertise.  If you don't know how film works, because all your professional photography work is digital?  Learn.  If you don't understand the physics of why it's not possible for the film to capture stars?  Learn.  I freely admit that my science knowledge is extremely limited; the story of Why Gillian Never Learned Physics is amusing enough, but it's also why I don't argue with physicists.  I admit my ignorance.  I'm strictly an amateur photographer, too, but I do know enough about science and photography to understand exposure and don't expect to see stars that aren't the Sun in daylight scenes.

And a question.  Do you understand the point about constellations?  I know, I know--you've conceded.  But that's not why I'm asking.  I'm trying to determine if you've given in or if you've actually learned something; the latter is considerably more important--to both of us.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: smartcooky on January 06, 2017, 01:17:15 PM
Yeah....they were the ones where Kubrick's pet cat walked across the soundstage just after a stage-hand dropped a light onto the ground when he tripped over one of the wires that suspended the astronauts....  ::) :P :P :P  :o :o :o

Oh. I thought he tripped over the "C" rock  8) :P

Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: raven on January 06, 2017, 01:53:59 PM
Yeah....they were the ones where Kubrick's pet cat walked across the soundstage just after a stage-hand dropped a light onto the ground when he tripped over one of the wires that suspended the astronauts....  ::) :P :P :P  :o :o :o

Oh. I thought he tripped over the "C" rock  8) :P
You'd think he'd . . . C it coming. 8)
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: nomuse on January 06, 2017, 06:14:13 PM


Thanks Peter.

I'd like to point out I didn't search thru all the images and decide on these two specifically to prove a point.  I found the first 2 with a black sky and over exposed them to reveal artifact not present in the original scan;with the naked eye (though one of them I count 16 dots.)

What I haven't expressed here is that I have given NASA more credit that they are due it seems.  I did not expect a catalogue of what can be regarded as THE most important photographs since the invention of the camera, to be released to the public covered in dandruff and Pubic hair.

So far and using this as a starting point, this has been my only error.  To re-iterate;Not considering the images I was viewing were not perfect specimens.

The rest that has come to pass is an over zealous attempt to treat me as a Tin Foil hat wearing, Basement living with parents no friends paranoid lizard licking banjo playing sister sexing Nob Jockey.......

I'm only half of those things for a start.  The rest is just a Conspiracy to undermine my intelligence and intergrity as a Tree Hugging Philanthropist.   :P ::) ??? :o ;D

But it's all good.  I have my answers.

Thanks.

Read some old threads. Is always a good thing to do before posting on a new board.

At least once a month a new poster comes on, acts nice, is "just asking a few questions" about some specific and somewhat intriguing idea. And before a dozen posts have gone by that person has started a Gish Gallop of tired old hoax claims, is starting to throw around terms like "Disinfo agent" and "astro-not" and is refusing to answer questions. And within the week they've gotten angry, started swearing and otherwise breaking the TOS, and end up either getting banned or flouncing off.

The regulars here are simply too used to the pattern. You come on looking like a duck and quacking like a duck and it is going to be an uphill battle not to become duck soup.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: nomuse on January 06, 2017, 06:16:48 PM
Heh.  I didn't realize the forum software had gotten tired of Duane's old insult and auto-corrects it now. Let us just say that "astronaut" was not the word that I was describing.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Peter B on January 07, 2017, 12:18:06 AM
I'd like to point out I didn't search thru all the images and decide on these two specifically to prove a point.  I found the first 2 with a black sky and over exposed them to reveal artifact not present in the original scan;with the naked eye (though one of them I count 16 dots.)

What I haven't expressed here is that I have given NASA more credit that they are due it seems.  I did not expect a catalogue of what can be regarded as THE most important photographs since the invention of the camera, to be released to the public covered in dandruff and Pubic hair.

So far and using this as a starting point, this has been my only error.  To re-iterate;Not considering the images I was viewing were not perfect specimens.

The rest that has come to pass is an over zealous attempt to treat me as a Tin Foil hat wearing, Basement living with parents no friends paranoid lizard licking banjo playing sister sexing Nob Jockey.......

I'm only half of those things for a start.  The rest is just a Conspiracy to undermine my intelligence and intergrity as a Tree Hugging Philanthropist.   :P ::) ??? :o ;D

But it's all good.  I have my answers.

Thanks.

Regarding scans covered with dandruff, et cetera, well, welcome to the world of government science. Sure, it'd be great for NASA to be able to afford the best quality equipment for scanning the photos and the most experienced technicians to take their loving time over the process. But as NASA is a government agency they have to do what they can with the money Congress gives them. As long as the original films are securely preserved for posterity then budget limitations are usually going to mean that "near enough is good enough" is going to have to be sufficient for scanning the images for public consumption.

It may seem odd to you that NASA can throw away tens of millions of dollars developing some piece of hardware or software for a boondoggle rocket (the Space Launch System, a.k.a. the Senate Launch System) while people scanning photos of genuine historical importance are scrambling to find tens of thousands of dollars to afford decent scanning equipment. Well, that's because NASA's budget is itemised by Congress, so NASA is required to spend the money in their budget exactly as Congress says so.

If those priorities don't accord with what you think they should be, join the queue. You're welcome to try to convince Congress to change their budget priorities. But, as a non-American, Congress people aren't going to line up to seek your vote.

Perhaps I could put things another way. My gig is payroll. My email in-box currently has over 100 emails sitting in it. Many of these items are very simple requests from employees which would only take a few minutes to resolve. But they currently sit there unresolved because they're not my highest priority. Quite a few employees don't agree with my priorities because quite a few of those emails are follow-ups asking why I haven't responded to them.

So why haven't I answered requests like telling people when their next lot of personal leave is due, or if I can cancel the period of leave they entered incorrectly, or what's the procedure for applying for maternity leave? The reason is that I've been concentrating on what I consider to be the high priority items: changing an employee's hours to part-time so she doesn't get overpaid; entering an employee's new contract so he actually gets paid; inquiring with a supervisor whether an employee has returned from an extended period of unpaid leave as their leave record suggests, to ensure she doesn't get overpaid. After all, inquiries about stuff can be answered at any time, but if I mess things up and someone gets overpaid or underpaid, it angers the employee and makes a lot of work for me.

Same sort of thing with NASA: its job is to do aeronautical and space science for the US government. Scanning photos of historical events to provide nice digital images for the public would be great, but if it comes at the expense of delaying the Space Launch System by another couple of months, then NASA and the Great American Voting Public wouldn't be pleased.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: smartcooky on January 07, 2017, 12:56:44 AM

Regarding scans covered with dandruff, et cetera, well, welcome to the world of government science. Sure, it'd be great for NASA to be able to afford the best quality equipment for scanning the photos and the most experienced technicians to take their loving time over the process. But as NASA is a government agency they have to do what they can with the money Congress gives them. As long as the original films are securely preserved for posterity then budget limitations are usually going to mean that "near enough is good enough" is going to have to be sufficient for scanning the images for public consumption.

It may seem odd to you that NASA can throw away tens of millions of dollars developing some piece of hardware or software for a boondoggle rocket (the Space Launch System, a.k.a. the Senate Launch System) while people scanning photos of genuine historical importance are scrambling to find tens of thousands of dollars to afford decent scanning equipment. Well, that's because NASA's budget is itemised by Congress, so NASA is required to spend the money in their budget exactly as Congress says so.

Additionally, those negatives and transparencies of Apollo surface operations were all taken over a period of three years between 1969 and 1972, but high-resolution digital scanning of negatives hasn't been around for very long. I would be guessing, but I think those negatives would have been 20-30 years old or more before they were first scanned at anything like a high- resolution.

For anyone interested in the scanning process, here is a good read

http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/ABOUT_SCANS/

Of particular interest to Icarus might be these comments

These films have been in deep storage for almost three decades*; prior to that, they were exposed to the space environment, developed, and occasionally used for research activities. Consequently, the preserved film stocks have, in some cases, acquired foreign material which must be removed. Prior to scanning, each film roll is therefore gently, non-abrasively cleaned using exacting procedures set forth by the NASA-JSC curatorial staff. Absolutely no abrasive techniques are used in the cleaning of these films to preclude the possibility of damage to these priceless historical treasures. As a consequence of this precaution, the cleaning process only removes debris that is loosely adhered to the film stock (e.g. dust and lint) but any strongly adhered debris are simply left on the film.

Prior to exposure, the film in the Apollo mapping camera system was held by pressure against a glass plate containing the reseau marks. Subsequent analysis during image reprocessing revealed that foreign debris was present in the optical path of the camera system, and can be seen in the photographic exposures. While the image processing steps undertaken as part of this effort may have removed some of these blemish features, users should be aware that blemish features exist in many of the images.


(* - almost three decades with this article being written in 2013 means that the negatives were not put into the cold storage facility deep until after 1983. I wonder how they were being stored  for the previous 11 - 14 years?)
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: ka9q on January 07, 2017, 04:14:41 AM
If Icarus1 is still interested and reading, I can tell him that we've addressed the topic of random dots on the Apollo imagery several times in the past. The discussion included a complete description of the structure of color photographic film and how physical abrasions of different depths would produce artifacts with different colors: blue for a superficial penetration of the emulsion and white for a much deeper one.

We've also discussed the details of the so-called "missing master tapes" from Apollo 11.

So rather than explain it all yet again, I suggest that he first go search the archives. Then we can answer any remaining questions.

Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Grashtel on January 07, 2017, 06:14:53 AM
Heh.  I didn't realize the forum software had gotten tired of Duane's old insult and auto-corrects it now. Let us just say that "astronaut" was not the word that I was describing.
IIRC it is something that Lunar Orbit manually added to the forums autocorrect due to finally getting fed up of hoax promoters using it here
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 07, 2017, 06:53:40 AM

What I haven't expressed here is that I have given NASA more credit that they are due it seems.  I did not expect a catalogue of what can be regarded as THE most important photographs since the invention of the camera, to be released to the public covered in dandruff and Pubic hair.

There's a fair bit of the old "If I ran the zoo.." routine in that point.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 07, 2017, 08:08:44 AM
Apart from being a little puzzled as to why a 'professional photographer' is so baffled as to why digital scans of old photos that were exposed for a bright lunar surface don't reveal stars at his command, I would suggest that Icarus1 looks at the Apollo photographs that were deliberately taken to show stars.

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/starryskies.html


e2a: The length and movement of shadows is also entirely consistent with mission timelines:

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/shadows/shadindex.html
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: bknight on January 07, 2017, 08:23:03 AM
Heh.  I didn't realize the forum software had gotten tired of Duane's old insult and auto-corrects it now. Let us just say that "astronaut" was not the word that I was describing.

He is still at it, although probably only in YT, where un-moderated threads allow him to be with similarly uneducated individuals.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: HeadLikeARock on January 07, 2017, 08:52:08 AM
Two great posts by Smartcooky and Peter B.

Just wanted to add, regarding the argument from some CTs that NASA would never allow any of their precious photos of Apollo to become contaminated, the same people would be up in arms if all the photographic imagery was pristine. We know that for a fact, because the likes of Jack White and Aulis were using the (false) claim that all the Apollo photos were perfectly exposed as proof that they never went to the moon.

For some reason they forgot to mention https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5904.jpg and the countless dozens of other images that were of dubious quality.

Good quality photos = proof Apollo was faked
Poor quality photos  = proof Apollo was faked

Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Glom on January 07, 2017, 09:47:10 AM
These stars though? Were they actually identified? As one was identified as Vega and was seen to be in a different position in the subsequent image? Or was it just dots of some kind were seen and different dots were seen in the next frame?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on January 07, 2017, 10:20:30 AM
Pyramid on the Moon https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-135-20680HR.jpg (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-135-20680HR.jpg) is classic.

Sometimes the same people who claim Apollo was hoaxed claim this image as proof for aliens on the Moon.

 :o
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 07, 2017, 12:24:51 PM
These stars though? Were they actually identified? As one was identified as Vega and was seen to be in a different position in the subsequent image? Or was it just dots of some kind were seen and different dots were seen in the next frame?

I think that Vega would have been out of the field of view. Deneb appears to have been in the FoV. Capturing it, on the other hand....
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: bknight on January 07, 2017, 12:26:20 PM
Two great posts by Smartcooky and Peter B.

Just wanted to add, regarding the argument from some CTs that NASA would never allow any of their precious photos of Apollo to become contaminated, the same people would be up in arms if all the photographic imagery was pristine. We know that for a fact, because the likes of Jack White and Aulis were using the (false) claim that all the Apollo photos were perfectly exposed as proof that they never went to the moon.

For some reason they forgot to mention https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5904.jpg and the countless dozens of other images that were of dubious quality.

Good quality photos = proof Apollo was faked
Poor quality photos  = proof Apollo was faked

I would add Marcus Allen to your list of two using false claims.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: dwight on January 07, 2017, 08:51:30 PM
As someone extremely close to the Telemetry Tape search Team, I can categorically state that absolutely no footage of the Apollo 11 EVA is missing. It was available before the search started and has been telecast many many times in various countries around the globe in full since July 20, 1969.

Since 2009 a remastered/restored version of the EVA has been available which sourced 1st generation 2" videotape and processed to clean up the image. If you so desire you can also still purchase the kinescope recordings and run the two side by side to confirm that the EVA is all there.

As has been stated, the Telemetry tapes recorded the raw data signal. It would have yielded a slightly clearer picture, but nothing new in the way of footage as in what is visible in the events unfolding.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: AtomicDog on January 07, 2017, 11:40:43 PM
As someone extremely close to the Telemetry Tape search Team, I can categorically state that absolutely no footage of the Apollo 11 EVA is missing. It was available before the search started and has been telecast many many times in various countries around the globe in full since July 20, 1969.

Since 2009 a remastered/restored version of the EVA has been available which sourced 1st generation 2" videotape and processed to clean up the image. If you so desire you can also still purchase the kinescope recordings and run the two side by side to confirm that the EVA is all there.

As has been stated, the Telemetry tapes recorded the raw data signal. It would have yielded a slightly clearer picture, but nothing new in the way of footage as in what is visible in the events unfolding.

I'm intrigued. Do you have any interesting stories from the Telemetry Tape search?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: dwight on January 08, 2017, 05:53:15 AM
I will PM you as these blunder disciples like to promote their misinterpreted news to promote their own agenda. If they want the info I will happily share it after they pay my standard consultant day rate.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 09, 2017, 08:37:57 PM
For the record?  If you want to close a quote, use this--{/quote}--but with regular brackets.  When you want to open a new quote block again, start it with this--{quote}--with regular brackets.  It will go a long way toward making what you write intelligible.

Now, if you want to make it intelligent, I have other suggestions.  Like don't say that your ignorance outranks their expertise.  If you don't know how film works, because all your professional photography work is digital?  Learn.  If you don't understand the physics of why it's not possible for the film to capture stars?  Learn.  I freely admit that my science knowledge is extremely limited; the story of Why Gillian Never Learned Physics is amusing enough, but it's also why I don't argue with physicists.  I admit my ignorance.  I'm strictly an amateur photographer, too, but I do know enough about science and photography to understand exposure and don't expect to see stars that aren't the Sun in daylight scenes.

And a question.  Do you understand the point about constellations?  I know, I know--you've conceded.  But that's not why I'm asking.  I'm trying to determine if you've given in or if you've actually learned something; the latter is considerably more important--to both of us.

Hi, didn't think was still going.

thanks for the reply.  Sorry to burst you bubble on your response though.  The only thing I've learned is that the scans I've used are full of dust etc.  My initial inquiry still stands.

If we remove the Conspiracy factor surrounding the Moon landings i.e the millions in book sales around the world etc. then to the inquiring mind it was fair to assume I may have stumbled upon Stars.  no Conspiracy, just a look at images that I've never seen before.  I've never once insisted they were Stars!  FACT!  and I brought the Question, NOT Statement of FACT, to a truth forum to have my answers....answered!

You are all guilty of either assuming too much or scanning my post, without actually understanding what it was I set out to achieve.-I think you've all had too much battle with Full Time theorists and I've been painted one too.  Nearly 200 posts on this to Prove it's Dust!

I really can't be bothered to personally reply to each one of you in kind with suggestions like; If you want to be Intelligent, then don't.......Wow.  Who do you think you are?!  Some of you have your heads so far up your asses I'm surprised you even know we have a moon!

Conspiracy Theorists are not all un-educated idiots.  You say you're an amateur Photographer?  Well I'm a Professional, and I think you may know less about Photography than you actually think you do.  I make around £1000 per week as a Freelancer and I've been Self Employed since 2005.  This alone gave me reason enough to take a closer look at 2 images.  Digital/Film makes **** all difference!!  I learned on Film from an early age.  I even had my own Dark Room.  My Photography got me to University where I studied Film and Media.  I am an Amateur Film Maker and and Entrepreneur.  Being an amateur Film Maker also allowed me to research the the moon landing.  I've defended certain areas of the moon landing against the Conspiracists.

The world is full of knowledge and information.  Filtering it out is a painstaking process.

Let me give you and all others some advice:

Don't talk to strangers like they're children.!  The amount of accusation and assumption in here is astounding! You have absolutely No Idea who I am!  This shows the ONLY lack of intelligence in here; the lack of intelligence and rapport to treat and regard strangers with courtesy.

Thanks again.

Try being more humble in your approach.



Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 09, 2017, 08:48:25 PM
If Icarus1 is still interested and reading, I can tell him that we've addressed the topic of random dots on the Apollo imagery several times in the past. The discussion included a complete description of the structure of color photographic film and how physical abrasions of different depths would produce artifacts with different colors: blue for a superficial penetration of the emulsion and white for a much deeper one.

We've also discussed the details of the so-called "missing master tapes" from Apollo 11.

So rather than explain it all yet again, I suggest that he first go search the archives. Then we can answer any remaining questions.

All I can say to this is:

Where were you at the beginning? :D

To state once again, I asked if they were Stars, not Claimed it.

Thanks
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 09, 2017, 09:29:15 PM
I have a related question, but maybe I should start a new one?

I'll put it here for now and see what comes back.

I need to clarify, that I'm not asking these question to Prove we didn't go the moon, but to prove we did.

As I understand it we circled the earth gaining speed and used a figure 8 thru space to gravity shoot around the moon into a stable orbit.

Here's part of the question, and I hope I can find the words to ask it correctly.

We leave Earth's orbit at what speed?  Traveling directly toward the moon? or at a trajectory that will allow the craft to meet with it 240 thou miles later  as it will have traveled in space?  (assuming it is the latter, why is the moon always visible as if straight ahead?  constant adjustments are not economical, so assuming minimal adjustments for course.  (3 days? - How far has the moon traveled thru space?)

Does all of this make sense?

OR point me in the direction for this info?

Thanks

How much energy or joule or whatever does it require to alter course? considering the lateral RCS Thruster are tiny? Do they blow Air or is it a fuel like a rocket?  How fast is the craft traveling as it reaches the moon and is it simply gravity itself that puts it into orbit?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: nomuse on January 09, 2017, 09:38:06 PM

Hi, didn't think was still going.

thanks for the reply.  Sorry to burst you bubble on your response though.  The only thing I've learned is that the scans I've used are full of dust etc.  My initial inquiry still stands.

If we remove the Conspiracy factor surrounding the Moon landings i.e the millions in book sales around the world etc. then to the inquiring mind it was fair to assume I may have stumbled upon Stars.  no Conspiracy, just a look at images that I've never seen before.  I've never once insisted they were Stars!  FACT!  and I brought the Question, NOT Statement of FACT, to a truth forum to have my answers....answered!

You are all guilty of either assuming too much or scanning my post, without actually understanding what it was I set out to achieve.-I think you've all had too much battle with Full Time theorists and I've been painted one too.  Nearly 200 posts on this to Prove it's Dust!

I really can't be bothered to personally reply to each one of you in kind with suggestions like; If you want to be Intelligent, then don't.......Wow.  Who do you think you are?!  Some of you have your heads so far up your asses I'm surprised you even know we have a moon!

Conspiracy Theorists are not all un-educated idiots.  You say you're an amateur Photographer?  Well I'm a Professional, and I think you may know less about Photography than you actually think you do.  I make around £1000 per week as a Freelancer and I've been Self Employed since 2005.  This alone gave me reason enough to take a closer look at 2 images.  Digital/Film makes **** all difference!!  I learned on Film from an early age.  I even had my own Dark Room.  My Photography got me to University where I studied Film and Media.  I am an Amateur Film Maker and and Entrepreneur.  Being an amateur Film Maker also allowed me to research the the moon landing.  I've defended certain areas of the moon landing against the Conspiracists.

The world is full of knowledge and information.  Filtering it out is a painstaking process.

Let me give you and all others some advice:

Don't talk to strangers like they're children.!  The amount of accusation and assumption in here is astounding! You have absolutely No Idea who I am!  This shows the ONLY lack of intelligence in here; the lack of intelligence and rapport to treat and regard strangers with courtesy.

Thanks again.

Try being more humble in your approach.

I still can't parse this. Slow down, think back to all those essay exercises in the classroom. You aren't being willfully misunderstood; you are, simply put, hard to understand.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: nomuse on January 09, 2017, 09:43:31 PM


All I can say to this is:

Where were you at the beginning? :D

To state once again, I asked if they were Stars, not Claimed it.

Thanks

That is not a useful stance for any kind of investigation.

If I am diagnosing a problem in a signal chain and hypothesize the fault might actually be in the brand-new replacement cable, I don't say, "Maybe it isn't the cable so I shouldn't bother testing because I'm not sure."

No. You take a stance, you say, "What if it IS the cable?" and you test appropriately.

You are trying to think about the marks on the pictures without formulating a hypothesis sufficiently defined to allow it to be tested. It doesn't matter if it is probably false, if you think it is false, if it turns out to be in the end false. One progresses anyhow. STATE, "Assume these are stars..." and then see if that hypothesis can be disproved. If it is, then move on to the next one.

Enrico Fermi is credited with a quote that applies to what you've been doing. That quote is, "Not even wrong."
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: nomuse on January 09, 2017, 09:46:10 PM
I have a related question, but maybe I should start a new one?

I'll put it here for now and see what comes back.

I need to clarify, that I'm not asking these question to Prove we didn't go the moon, but to prove we did.

As I understand it we circled the earth gaining speed and used a figure 8 thru space to gravity shoot around the moon into a stable orbit.

Here's part of the question, and I hope I can find the words to ask it correctly.

We leave Earth's orbit at what speed?  Traveling directly toward the moon? or at a trajectory that will allow the craft to meet with it 240 thou miles later  as it will have traveled in space?  (assuming it is the latter, why is the moon always visible as if straight ahead?  constant adjustments are not economical, so assuming minimal adjustments for course.  (3 days? - How far has the moon traveled thru space?)

Does all of this make sense?

OR point me in the direction for this info?

Thanks

How much energy or joule or whatever does it require to alter course? considering the lateral RCS Thruster are tiny? Do they blow Air or is it a fuel like a rocket?  How fast is the craft traveling as it reaches the moon and is it simply gravity itself that puts it into orbit?

This should be split into a new thread. I presume LO will do the duty, now that you've started already and people are bound to respond in thread.

The website Atomic Rocket is very good at covering the basics of space travel, including the energy calculations. If you want more detail, Bob here has an incredible resource -- I never remember the name so I just google for "Braunig space."  For a less numeric exploration that nevertheless returns a very good "feel" of how the vectors and numbers work out, get a copy of Kerbal Space Program and play with it.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 09, 2017, 10:12:17 PM

Hi, didn't think was still going.

thanks for the reply.  Sorry to burst you bubble on your response though.  The only thing I've learned is that the scans I've used are full of dust etc.  My initial inquiry still stands.

If we remove the Conspiracy factor surrounding the Moon landings i.e the millions in book sales around the world etc. then to the inquiring mind it was fair to assume I may have stumbled upon Stars.  no Conspiracy, just a look at images that I've never seen before.  I've never once insisted they were Stars!  FACT!  and I brought the Question, NOT Statement of FACT, to a truth forum to have my answers....answered!

You are all guilty of either assuming too much or scanning my post, without actually understanding what it was I set out to achieve.-I think you've all had too much battle with Full Time theorists and I've been painted one too.  Nearly 200 posts on this to Prove it's Dust!

I really can't be bothered to personally reply to each one of you in kind with suggestions like; If you want to be Intelligent, then don't.......Wow.  Who do you think you are?!  Some of you have your heads so far up your asses I'm surprised you even know we have a moon!

Conspiracy Theorists are not all un-educated idiots.  You say you're an amateur Photographer?  Well I'm a Professional, and I think you may know less about Photography than you actually think you do.  I make around £1000 per week as a Freelancer and I've been Self Employed since 2005.  This alone gave me reason enough to take a closer look at 2 images.  Digital/Film makes **** all difference!!  I learned on Film from an early age.  I even had my own Dark Room.  My Photography got me to University where I studied Film and Media.  I am an Amateur Film Maker and and Entrepreneur.  Being an amateur Film Maker also allowed me to research the the moon landing.  I've defended certain areas of the moon landing against the Conspiracists.

The world is full of knowledge and information.  Filtering it out is a painstaking process.

Let me give you and all others some advice:

Don't talk to strangers like they're children.!  The amount of accusation and assumption in here is astounding! You have absolutely No Idea who I am!  This shows the ONLY lack of intelligence in here; the lack of intelligence and rapport to treat and regard strangers with courtesy.

Thanks again.

Try being more humble in your approach.

I still can't parse this. Slow down, think back to all those essay exercises in the classroom. You aren't being willfully misunderstood; you are, simply put, hard to understand.

Well, I certainly can't argue with that.  I hear it a lot. :D
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 10, 2017, 01:08:59 AM
As I understand it we circled the earth gaining speed...

No, that's not how orbits work.

Quote
...and used a figure 8 thru space to gravity shoot around the moon into a stable orbit.

No, it's not a gravity "slingshot" maneuver.  It's a transfer orbit.  It requires a burn at the other end to enter an orbit around the Moon, and another burn to make that orbit circular and stable.

Quote
We leave Earth's orbit at what speed?

The translunar injection (TLI) maneuver added around 10,000 fps to the spacecraft velocity.  This raised the apogee of the orbit to bring it into the Moon's sphere of influence.  Until then it was still in orbit around Earth.  All paths through space are orbits.

Quote
Traveling directly toward the moon? or at a trajectory that will allow the craft to meet with it 240 thou miles later  as it will have traveled in space?

The latter, in the sense that all paths through solar-system space are orbits.  And yes, they're aiming for where the Moon will be when they get there.

Quote
why is the moon always visible as if straight ahead?

It doesn't have to be straight ahead to be visible out the window.

Quote
constant adjustments are not economical, so assuming minimal adjustments for course.

Two opportunities for mid-course corrections were provided on each of the outbound and inbound orbits.  They were generally not needed, except that in some missions MCC-1 was mandatory because that's what established the hybrid trajectory that made it possible to enter lunar orbit at an inclination that opened up other landing sites.

Quote
Does all of this make sense?

Vaguely, in that it's a pile of common misconceptions about how spacecraft work.

Quote
OR point me in the direction for this info?

Roger Bate, Fundamentals of Astrodynamics.  It's probably the most entry-level text you'll get on practical orbital mechanics.  One of our members, Bob Braeunig, maintains a number of helpful web pages:  braeunig.us

Quote
How much energy or joule or whatever does it require to alter course?

Lots, whatever.  The basic equation is that a change in velocity is proportional to the specific impulse of the engine times the natural logarithm of the ratio of spacecraft dry mass to its presently fueled mass.

Quote
considering the lateral RCS Thruster are tiny?

The translunar injection was performed with the J-2 engine on the S-iVB.  The return transearth injection (TEI) maneuver was performed with the SPS.  These are both considerably more powerful than the SM RCS.

Quote
Do they blow Air or is it a fuel like a rocket?

The J-2 burned hydrogen and oxygen.  The RCS and SPS burned hypergolic propellants:  a member of the hydrazine family oxidized with nitrogen tetroxide.  None of the Apollo rockets "blow air."

Quote
How fast is the craft traveling as it reaches the moon...

I probably would have to go look that up.

Quote
...and is it simply gravity itself that puts it into orbit?

Without the LOI-1 maneuver, the spacecraft would either swing around the Moon and return to earth (free-return trajectory) or fly off into solar orbit (hybrid trajectory).  The arrival at the Moon (and in fact into orbit around anything) is a combination of engine thrust and gravity.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 10, 2017, 01:15:56 AM
To state once again, I asked if they were Stars, not Claimed it.

Well, in your original post you called them stars.  "The stars were totally different," etc.  It's far more likely they were contaminants.  The film emulsion/process in question is ASA/ISO 160, Kodak Ektachrome (the E-3 process, not the E-6 process you may be familiar with) on an ESTAR base.  The Zeiss Biogon lens had a widest f-stop of f/5.6.  At that setting, it takes 30-60 seconds for stars to show up.  Generally the longest shutter speed used was 1/60 second.  Stars simply aren't going to produce any meaningful exposure.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Count Zero on January 10, 2017, 01:24:49 AM

As I understand it we circled the earth gaining speed and used a figure 8 thru space to gravity shoot around the moon into a stable orbit.

(Note that, in all that follows, the formulae for orbital calculations were written by Johannes Kepler ~400 years ago, and the equations for rocket thrust were created by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky ~100 years ago.  They work and they are not terribly difficult to use.  The astronauts trained to work them with pencil & paper, which is all that Kepler and Tsiolkovsky had.)

The launch puts the spacecraft it a circular orbit of Earth at ~35,560 feet-per-second.  With the nose pointed forward in its direction of orbit, the S-IVB (third stage of the Saturn V) then fires its rocket to increase the orbital speed by ~10,000 ft/sec.  This changes the circular orbit at an altitude of ~100 miles to an elliptical orbit with a perigee of ~100 miles and an apogee somewhere out near the Moon.  If the Moon wasn't there, the spacecraft would follow its ellipse out to ~240,000 miles and return (the Soviet Zond 4 spacecraft did this).  When aimed towards the Moon, spacecraft gets to a point where it is attracted more by the Moon's gravity than the Earth's.  Thus its course transitions from an elliptical orbit of the Earth that is anti-clockwise (when seen from above the north) to a clockwise elliptical orbit around the Moon.  However, this new orbit has an aposelene towards the Earth and as it climbs up from its periselene, it crosses the boundary where the Earth's gravity dominates and and then starts falling towards the Earth.  This is what gives it its distinctive "figure-8" shape:

(http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/freereturn.gif)

Quote
Here's part of the question, and I hope I can find the words to ask it correctly.

We leave Earth's orbit at what speed?

~35,500 feet-per-second

Quote
Traveling directly toward the moon? or at a trajectory that will allow the craft to meet with it 240 thou miles later  as it will have traveled in space?

The latter, since the apogee is on the opposite side of the Earth from the perigee, which is where the ~5 minute translunar injection burn (TLI) took place.

Quote
(assuming it is the latter, why is the moon always visible as if straight ahead?

It isn't.  They show it that way in the movies because it looks cool and the audience expects it (like showing stars in the background even though they would not be visible with sunlit objects in the foreground). 

Quote
constant adjustments are not economical, so assuming minimal adjustments for course.

Very little course adjustments were necessary.  The TLI burn would get them in the speed ballpark.  While the spacecraft was coasting its trajectory was measured and adjustments were made using the RCS.  Typically, these adjustments were on the order of only a few feet-per-second.

Quote
(3 days? - How far has the moon traveled thru space?)

Geometry problem:  The Moon orbits Earth at an average radius of ~240,000 miles and takes ~27 days to complete a 360° orbit.  How far will it travel in 3 days.  Show your work.

Incidentally, the 3-day flight time was peculiar to the "figure-8" orbit described and shown above.  It was not used for unmanned science probes.  The first Soviet moon probe (Luna-3) took only 23 hours to reach the Moon in 1959, and the ESA's Smart-1 probe took months to get there using an ion engine in the 1990s.  However, the 3-day trajectory is the only orbit that will swing your spacecraft around the Moon and send it back towards Earth with no extra rocket burns needed.  This "Free-Return Trajectory" was considered the safest for manned missions and was used by the Soviet Zond missions (which were unmanned tests of craft intended for manned missions) and the first four Apollo lunar missions.  Apollo 13 was the first mission to deviate from the FRT.  After they stabilized the spacecraft following the Service Module explosion, their first order of business was to use the Lunar Module's engine to put them back on a Free-Return Trajectory.

Quote
Does all of this make sense?

Yes

Quote
OR point me in the direction for this info?

Bob Braeunig's Apollo Pages (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/)
Apollo by Numbers (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_00g_Table_of_Contents.htm)
Encyclopedia Astronautica (http://www.astronautix.com/)

Quote
Thanks

Sure!

Quote
How much energy or joule or whatever does it require to alter course?

That depends on how much mass you're moving.  Is the LM still attached?  How much fuel (i.e. mass) is still in your tanks?  Again, this is just stuff that you can plug into the Tsiolkovsky equation.

Quote
considering the lateral RCS Thruster are tiny?

It doesn't matter if they're small.  In space all thrust counts, and it add up.  Apollo 11 landed ~ 3 miles past its aim-point because the tunnel between it and the Command Module wasn't completely depressurized when they undocked.  This extra little puff of air affected the LMs orbit and it wasn't caught until they were well into their powered descent.  Fortunately they were more concerned with landing safely than landing accurately.

Quote
Do they blow Air or is it a fuel like a rocket?

They are hypergolic rockets that provide ~100lbs of thrust each.

Quote
How fast is the craft traveling as it reaches the moon...

I don't have the exact numbers handy, but a quick calculation shows that they were going at ~7,500 ft/sec as they rounded the Moon.

Quote
...and is it simply gravity itself that puts it into orbit?

No, to convert the elliptical orbit to circular, they had to burn their engine with the rocket facing the direction of travel to slow down by ~3,000 ft/sec.  This put them in a roughly circular 2-hour orbit at an altitude of ~60 miles.

Hope this helps.

(Edit:  Dang, ninja'd!)
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: gillianren on January 10, 2017, 01:38:36 AM
Conspiracy Theorists are not all un-educated idiots.  You say you're an amateur Photographer?  Well I'm a Professional, and I think you may know less about Photography than you actually think you do.  I make around £1000 per week as a Freelancer and I've been Self Employed since 2005.  This alone gave me reason enough to take a closer look at 2 images.  Digital/Film makes **** all difference!!  I learned on Film from an early age.  I even had my own Dark Room.  My Photography got me to University where I studied Film and Media.  I am an Amateur Film Maker and and Entrepreneur.  Being an amateur Film Maker also allowed me to research the the moon landing.  I've defended certain areas of the moon landing against the Conspiracists.

Being an amateur filmmaker doesn't qualify you to understand better than 90% of the issues.  Heck, it doesn't even require you to understand the physics of film!  I'm sure we could both name plenty of professional filmmakers who are quite clearly clueless.  And, yes, you pretty much do have to be uneducated to be a conspiracy theorist, because the small amount of effort it would take to actually educate yourself would lead you to say, "Oh.  I was wrong about that."

Quote
Don't talk to strangers like they're children.!  The amount of accusation and assumption in here is astounding! You have absolutely No Idea who I am!  This shows the ONLY lack of intelligence in here; the lack of intelligence and rapport to treat and regard strangers with courtesy.

You're right; I have no idea who you are.  So I start by attempting to educate at a very basic level.  You're claiming to be a professional photographer.  Would it stun you to know that we get a lot of people in here making obviously false claims about their expertise in things?  You have shown, by your own posting, that you are not inclined to being told you're wrong even when you are, because you don't believe you are.  I have little patience for that.  If you are the professional photographer you claim to be, you are certainly not the only one here.  You are also talking to people with expertise in lots of other relevant fields, and you're ignoring what you're being told.  You want to be treated with respect?  Reciprocate.

Quote
Try being more humble in your approach.

Right back at you, pal.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: ka9q on January 10, 2017, 01:44:46 AM
We leave Earth's orbit at what speed?  Traveling directly toward the moon? or at a trajectory that will allow the craft to meet with it 240 thou miles later  as it will have traveled in space?  (assuming it is the latter, why is the moon always visible as if straight ahead?  constant adjustments are not economical, so assuming minimal adjustments for course.  (3 days? - How far has the moon traveled thru space?)
Start here:

http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm

Bate, Mueller and White's Fundamentals of Astrodynamics has the advantage of being available at a bargain price from Dover, but it's probably a little too mathematical as an introductory text for the layman.

The Apollo missions used highly elliptical near-Hohmann transfer orbits (eccentricity approx 0.97) to travel from an initial low altitude circular parking orbit to the moon's high altitude orbit. At no time were they actually on an earth escape trajectory. As they approached the moon, they passed ahead of it in its orbital path. With no further maneuvers, they would have passed over the lunar far side in a east-to-west (retrograde) trajectory and been flung back towards the earth. That's essentially what happened on Apollo 13 (the one where the landing was canceled due to an explosion in the service module). On all other missions they performed a braking maneuver with the service module engine that slowed them down sufficiently to be captured into a retrograde lunar orbit.

After doing its job sending Apollo toward the moon, the third stage of the Saturn V (the S-IVB) performed additional maneuvers to move it away from Apollo and to tailor its trajectory. On Apollos 8, 10, 11 and 12, the empty stage slowed itself down enough to pass behind the moon in its orbit, allowing lunar gravity to drag it along (a "gravity slingshot"), gaining enough energy to escape earth entirely and fly off into a separate orbit around the sun. On Apollos 13 through 17, less of a slowdown was performed so that the S-IVB actually hit the moon when it arrived.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: ka9q on January 10, 2017, 02:07:07 AM
Conspiracy Theorists are not all un-educated idiots.  You say you're an amateur Photographer?  Well I'm a Professional, and I think you may know less about Photography than you actually think you do.
I would have expected a professional photographer to understand the concepts of f-stop and shutter speed, and how they combine to establish an exposure value.

I would also have expected a professional to understand that both film and digital sensors have a limited dynamic range compared with the very wide range of intensities found in real world scenes, particularly between daytime and nighttime, and that's why a proper exposure setting is so important. Our eyes can work in both daylight and at night only because chemical changes in the retina effectively change its "ISO rating" by a very large factor. These changes are relatively slow, though much faster than the day-night cycle so normally we don't notice it. But you will notice that it takes time for your eyes to "dark adapt" when going quickly from a bright area into a dark one.

The irises in our eyes react more quickly (a second or so), but are limited to a much narrower brightness range that gets even smaller with age.

And I would have expected a professional photographer to understand that the daytime sun on the moon is roughly as bright as the daytime clear-sky sun on the earth (slightly brighter because of the lack of an lunar atmosphere) so that pictures taken of sunlit objects on the lunar surface require approximately the same exposure values as sunlit objects on the earth under a clear daytime sky. Because of the limited dynamic range of both film and digital sensors, such exposures are far, far too short to register stars even in a black sky.

But I wouldn't necessarily expect even a professional photographer to understand just how much brighter the sun is than even the brightest nighttime star. So here are the numbers:

Sol (our sun) has an apparent astronomical magnitude of -26.74. Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, has an apparent magnitude of -1.46. Five magnitudes represent a brightness ratio of 100:1, so the 25.28 magnitude difference between Sol and Sirius is a brightness ratio of about 13 billion to 1, or almost 34 f-stops (1 f-stop being the difference between, say, f/5.6 and f/8). And that's for the brightest star in the entire night sky.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 10, 2017, 02:08:02 AM
We leave Earth's orbit at what speed?  Traveling directly toward the moon? or at a trajectory that will allow the craft to meet with it 240 thou miles later  as it will have traveled in space?  (assuming it is the latter, why is the moon always visible as if straight ahead?  constant adjustments are not economical, so assuming minimal adjustments for course.  (3 days? - How far has the moon traveled thru space?)

You'v been given the highly technical answers as to the trajectories and speeds involved but I'm wondering if there is a different meaning to your question?

My interpretation is that you think the moon always appears as it does from Earth - in fact if you compare the images taken from cislunar space en route there and back you can see that the views are not the same as can be seen from Earth. It's another telltale sign that the images weren't taken from the ground or in LEO.

To answer earlier points you made, a certain annoying Australian also cut his teeth in the subject at film school. Expertise in how to run a camera and its contents doesn't necessarily convey expertise in interpreting the results - other areas of expertise are necessary to do that. That expertise can be acquired with effort by amateurs and professionals alike. Capitalising your job title doesn't make it special and doesn't mean you are the only one with an opinion or knowledge about your profession. Getting paid to do something doesn't necessarily mean you are good at it. The world is full of people who manage to drive around in a nice car and a string of customers who have only ever used them once.

Conspiracy theorists may not be unintelligent - some of them are quite capable of stringing a sentence together, but they are quite often uneducated in the subject they examine. If they truly understood the subject they would reject the conspiracy angle as poorly founded and false. Others have selectively educated themselves. Others are just downright dishonest.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 10, 2017, 03:35:58 AM

How much energy or joule or whatever does it require to alter course? considering the lateral RCS Thruster are tiny? Do they blow Air or is it a fuel like a rocket?  How fast is the craft traveling as it reaches the moon and is it simply gravity itself that puts it into orbit?

You appear to know very, very little about the simplest of subjects relating to space travel. That's not an issue, we are all ignorant about the majority of human knowledge.
It would be helpful to bring yourself up to at least a base level of understanding about not only the Apollo program, but also the basics on how rockets work, basic physics and science. This will make it easier for you to frame your questions and not to get as frustrated as you clearly are when you don't understand the answers.

This is an excellent book on the subject:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Apollo-Flew-Springer-Praxis-Books/dp/1441971785
It will answer many of the questions that you are asking and put you in a much better position to frame your questions.

Another excellent source is Jeff Quitney's YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/webdev17/videos?view=0&sort=dd&shelf_id=1
He has uploaded many educational videos from the 1960s that explain a lot of the concepts in detail*

MSFC work and planning the flight:


1963 Overview of the flight. Note that this was produced before many of the details had been agreed- for example the LM final designs.


Ascent to orbit and Rendezvous:


Re-entry and Atmospheric Phase:



*On a side note, compare the quality of these educational videos to modern day ones. No over-dramatic music, constant repeats of what was said 5 minutes earlier. Just well thought out and well explained detail. There's more content in 10 minutes of these early videos than in a hour of modern programs that seem to infest the idiot lantern today!  :(
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: smartcooky on January 10, 2017, 04:04:58 AM
Icarus, a few things for you to consider

"We just put Sir Isaac Newton in the driver's seat"
-Astronaut Jim Lovell, Commander Apollo 13

Its all about gravity...

As I understand it we circled the earth gaining speed and used a figure 8 thru space to gravity shoot around the moon into a stable orbit.

A "figure of 8" is a very simplistic way of looking at it., You see this often in diagrams of Apollo. Those  diagrams assume the observer already takes into account the shifting frame of reference as the moon moves around in its orbit.

This is a more accurate representation...

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/ApolloLunarLandingMissionProfile.jpg)

...but even it has its limitations. The orbits were much, much closer to both the moon and the earth than this diagram indicates, and while the scale of the Earth/Moon sizes look about right, the moon is about 10 times further away (about 30 earth diameters instead of about 3 as shown here). This means the curved orbit is much more "stretched" and much straighter. This is why the moon appears straight ahead even though it isn't precisely..

Also, The Apollo 11 mission lasted 8 days... that is more than a quarter of full revolution of the Moon in its orbit around the earth. The moon moved a lot further in its orbit than the diagram shows. Apollo 17 lasted 12 days; between 1/3 and 1/2 of a lunar revolution.

If you want a more accurate mental picture of what the orbits and the TL trajectory look like, try to imagine this

The Earth is a basketball.
The Moon is a tennis ball, placed 24 feet away
Wrap a piece of string a few times clockwise around the basketball, and then run it over to the tennis ball and wrap it counter-clockwise around that. The string represents the height of the orbits above the earth and the moon and the TL trajectory.

We leave Earth's orbit at what speed?  Traveling directly toward the moon?

"No, not directly.

A spacecraft on any trajectory away from the earth after leaving orbit follows a path that is curved by the earth's gravity.  As the spacecraft moves further away from the earth, the earth's gravitational  influence lessens. If it is on a trans-lunar trajectory, as it approaches the moon, the influence of lunar gravity increases.

All the while, the Moon is moving so as it gets closer, the spacecraft is continuously being pulled in an ever-changing direction towards the moon

   
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 10, 2017, 05:26:33 AM
We leave Earth's orbit at what speed? 

Here you go:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-24_Translunar_Injection.htm

Traveling directly toward the moon?

Of course not.

or at a trajectory that will allow the craft to meet with it 240 thou miles later  as it will have traveled in space?

What do you think?
1) Head for a point in space where the Moon actually is when you start, or:
2) Head for a point in space where the Moon actually will be when you get there?

why is the moon always visible as if straight ahead
It wasn't.
Where are you getting that piece of information from?




constant adjustments are not economical, so assuming minimal adjustments for course.

No need to assume. The mid-course correction burns were planned.


How far has the moon traveled thru space?)
All the information that you need to work this out can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
Let us know how you get on.

OR point me in the direction for this info?
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm


How much energy or joule or whatever does it require to alter course?

Here's the numbers for the Trans Lunar (outbound) phase
Apollo 8:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_08f_Translunar_Phase.htm

Apollo 10:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_10f_Translunar_Phase.htm

Apollo 11:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_11f_Translunar_Phase.htm

Apollo12:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_12f_Translunar_Phase.htm

Apollo 13:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_13f_Translunar_Phase.htm

Apollo 14:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_14f_Translunar_Phase.htm

Apollo 15:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_15f_Translunar_Phase.htm

Apollo 16:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_16f_Translunar_Phase.htm

Apollo 17:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_17f_Translunar_Phase.htm

considering the lateral RCS Thruster are tiny?
What does that mean? Are you saying that you think that they are too small for the job? If so, on what basis are you making that judgement?

How fast is the craft traveling as it reaches the moon

I'm not listing them all- you can look them up in Apollo By The Numbers. Here's a couple for you (feet per second velocity at LOI ignition):

Apollo 10:
8,232.3

Apollo 11:
8,250

Apollo 17:
8,110.2


is it simply gravity itself that puts it into orbit?
No- the early missions were on a free-return trajectory.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 10, 2017, 05:41:13 AM

To answer earlier points you made, a certain annoying Australian also cut his teeth in the subject at film school. Expertise in how to run a camera and its contents doesn't necessarily convey expertise in interpreting the results - other areas of expertise are necessary to do that. That expertise can be acquired with effort by amateurs and professionals alike.

Indeed.
And it's always a good time to watch SG Collin's wonderful video:


And his masterful take-down of the Blunder's attempt to trash the initial video:

Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 08:09:04 AM
As I understand it we circled the earth gaining speed...

No, that's not how orbits work.

Quote
...and used a figure 8 thru space to gravity shoot around the moon into a stable orbit.

No, it's not a gravity "slingshot" maneuver.  It's a transfer orbit.  It requires a burn at the other end to enter an orbit around the Moon, and another burn to make that orbit circular and stable.

Quote
We leave Earth's orbit at what speed?

The translunar injection (TLI) maneuver added around 10,000 fps to the spacecraft velocity.  This raised the apogee of the orbit to bring it into the Moon's sphere of influence.  Until then it was still in orbit around Earth.  All paths through space are orbits.

Quote
Traveling directly toward the moon? or at a trajectory that will allow the craft to meet with it 240 thou miles later  as it will have traveled in space?

The latter, in the sense that all paths through solar-system space are orbits.  And yes, they're aiming for where the Moon will be when they get there.

Quote
why is the moon always visible as if straight ahead?

It doesn't have to be straight ahead to be visible out the window.

Quote
constant adjustments are not economical, so assuming minimal adjustments for course.

Two opportunities for mid-course corrections were provided on each of the outbound and inbound orbits.  They were generally not needed, except that in some missions MCC-1 was mandatory because that's what established the hybrid trajectory that made it possible to enter lunar orbit at an inclination that opened up other landing sites.

Quote
Does all of this make sense?

Vaguely, in that it's a pile of common misconceptions about how spacecraft work.

Quote
OR point me in the direction for this info?

Roger Bate, Fundamentals of Astrodynamics.  It's probably the most entry-level text you'll get on practical orbital mechanics.  One of our members, Bob Braeunig, maintains a number of helpful web pages:  braeunig.us

Quote
How much energy or joule or whatever does it require to alter course?

Lots, whatever.  The basic equation is that a change in velocity is proportional to the specific impulse of the engine times the natural logarithm of the ratio of spacecraft dry mass to its presently fueled mass.

Quote
considering the lateral RCS Thruster are tiny?

The translunar injection was performed with the J-2 engine on the S-iVB.  The return transearth injection (TEI) maneuver was performed with the SPS.  These are both considerably more powerful than the SM RCS.

Quote
Do they blow Air or is it a fuel like a rocket?

The J-2 burned hydrogen and oxygen.  The RCS and SPS burned hypergolic propellants:  a member of the hydrazine family oxidized with nitrogen tetroxide.  None of the Apollo rockets "blow air."

Quote
How fast is the craft traveling as it reaches the moon...

I probably would have to go look that up.

Quote
...and is it simply gravity itself that puts it into orbit?

Without the LOI-1 maneuver, the spacecraft would either swing around the Moon and return to earth (free-return trajectory) or fly off into solar orbit (hybrid trajectory).  The arrival at the Moon (and in fact into orbit around anything) is a combination of engine thrust and gravity.

Thank you so much for this JayUtah.  I understand everything you've said re: all being in an orbit.  Bob's name has popped up several times now across the internet.  He must be famous. :D

I'm hoping to find a visual illustration of trajectory and scale in relation to Earth, moon and craft; if it's even possible.  I'll keep looking.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 08:17:52 AM
Apart from being a little puzzled as to why a 'professional photographer' is so baffled as to why digital scans of old photos that were exposed for a bright lunar surface don't reveal stars at his command, I would suggest that Icarus1 looks at the Apollo photographs that were deliberately taken to show stars.

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/starryskies.html


e2a: The length and movement of shadows is also entirely consistent with mission timelines:

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/shadows/shadindex.html

Neither puzzled nor baffled.

Thanks
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 08:35:01 AM


All I can say to this is:

Where were you at the beginning? :D

To state once again, I asked if they were Stars, not Claimed it.

Thanks

That is not a useful stance for any kind of investigation.

If I am diagnosing a problem in a signal chain and hypothesize the fault might actually be in the brand-new replacement cable, I don't say, "Maybe it isn't the cable so I shouldn't bother testing because I'm not sure."

No. You take a stance, you say, "What if it IS the cable?" and you test appropriately.

You are trying to think about the marks on the pictures without formulating a hypothesis sufficiently defined to allow it to be tested. It doesn't matter if it is probably false, if you think it is false, if it turns out to be in the end false. One progresses anyhow. STATE, "Assume these are stars..." and then see if that hypothesis can be disproved. If it is, then move on to the next one.

Enrico Fermi is credited with a quote that applies to what you've been doing. That quote is, "Not even wrong."

To Hypothesize with limited knowledge is useless.  I came here for a Readers Digest or readily available info specific to my question.

However for this particular endeavor, my hypothesis was that of the doubt surrounding the Moon Landings, the millions made off it by way of books articles, and what now appears to be around 20% (dependent on the accuracy of the study) of Americans' who don't believe the Moon landings happened.

Therefore and Only! I took 2 images, and over exposed them.  Knowing all I know about photo's RAW digital, Film Latency and the futile and arbitrary attempt to recover info from a 50 year old scanned Jpeg!!!!!!!!!!! brought me here with what could be interpreted as a 'Rhetorical' Question!

To surmise, once again after another infurence that I am NOT a Professional Photographer, the question and doubt has been removed;  A long time ago!  MY error was at the beginning.  The photo's are tainted.  Others would say my error is my lack of knowledge to even question them in the first place, if I was indeed as I claim, a 'Professional Photographer'! then I would surely know the latency and sensitivity of the film used in the Blad's (WHY WOULD I KNOW THIS?) Yet I have stated how I have been able to retrieve info of Stars in under exposed Film Negatives from 20 years ago, thru further manipulation in the dark room. Evidence no longer available!

To further add to those that are either Professional Photographers, Amateur Photographers, Self Employed or simply defenders of the faith, for me to claim to be a 'Professional Photographer' is no Great feat!  You own a camera.  You know how to use it!  You make money with it!  It's NOT Rocket Science for god's sake!

Relax people.  Your truth is intact!  No Conspiracy here. :D
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 10, 2017, 08:44:31 AM

I'm hoping to find a visual illustration of trajectory and scale in relation to Earth, moon and craft; if it's even possible.  I'll keep looking.


There's been a few links to Bob's excellent site already, so you don't have to look too far.
Here's  the pages you are after:
The Free Return Trajectory
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/free-return.htm

and the Hybrid trajectory.
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/hybrid-profile.htm
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 08:54:15 AM
We leave Earth's orbit at what speed?  Traveling directly toward the moon? or at a trajectory that will allow the craft to meet with it 240 thou miles later  as it will have traveled in space?  (assuming it is the latter, why is the moon always visible as if straight ahead?  constant adjustments are not economical, so assuming minimal adjustments for course.  (3 days? - How far has the moon traveled thru space?)

You'v been given the highly technical answers as to the trajectories and speeds involved but I'm wondering if there is a different meaning to your question?

My interpretation is that you think the moon always appears as it does from Earth - in fact if you compare the images taken from cislunar space en route there and back you can see that the views are not the same as can be seen from Earth. It's another telltale sign that the images weren't taken from the ground or in LEO.

To answer earlier points you made, a certain annoying Australian also cut his teeth in the subject at film school. Expertise in how to run a camera and its contents doesn't necessarily convey expertise in interpreting the results - other areas of expertise are necessary to do that. That expertise can be acquired with effort by amateurs and professionals alike. Capitalising your job title doesn't make it special and doesn't mean you are the only one with an opinion or knowledge about your profession. Getting paid to do something doesn't necessarily mean you are good at it. The world is full of people who manage to drive around in a nice car and a string of customers who have only ever used them once.

Conspiracy theorists may not be unintelligent - some of them are quite capable of stringing a sentence together, but they are quite often uneducated in the subject they examine. If they truly understood the subject they would reject the conspiracy angle as poorly founded and false. Others have selectively educated themselves. Others are just downright dishonest.

From this point then I would have to agree.  I've came to a forum of well read people asking the most basic of questions and I'm starting to 'Get it'.  I appear to be like a child in school with a plethora of questions without the simplest fundamentals in place.

I think I'll leave this now.

I need to find a Moon Landings 101 forum.

I'm actually surprised and greatful too, at the sheer level of patience and time some of you have put to answering my one simple minded question; are these Stars?

Maybe If i wasn't painted as an uneducated (though I am on this topic) Conspiracy Theorist, this conversation would have gone very differently.

I no longer have the energy to tackle the individual onslaughts. 

Thank you all for your individual attention.  Over the top at times maybe, probably in an attempt to Shoot me down?  I don't know.

Nomuse has clearly pointed out I know very little about this subject.  Well done you for figuring that out!  Did I pretend otherwise?  I know NOTHING  at all about this.  I'm a lowly Photographer.  But you're right onebigmonkey, you don't need to be the best Photographer to claim to be one.  Yet can this not be said about every single profession in the world?  You can still have the title, but be better than others, or not as good as others!  I fail to see your point when my point was that I claimed to be a Photographer and it is constantly inferred that I am not.  What relevance does it have?  I could say I am a pilot, but have no grasp at all of what it means to be in orbit, of traverse thru the vacuum of space.

What is clear is this.  I don't have enough basic knowledge to be in here asking my rudimentary questions.

So with this, I bid you all Farewell. 

Live long and Prosper people.  It's been an education. :D

Cheers.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 09:19:23 AM

As I understand it we circled the earth gaining speed and used a figure 8 thru space to gravity shoot around the moon into a stable orbit.

(Note that, in all that follows, the formulae for orbital calculations were written by Johannes Kepler ~400 years ago, and the equations for rocket thrust were created by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky ~100 years ago.  They work and they are not terribly difficult to use.  The astronauts trained to work them with pencil & paper, which is all that Kepler and Tsiolkovsky had.)

The launch puts the spacecraft it a circular orbit of Earth at ~35,560 feet-per-second.  With the nose pointed forward in its direction of orbit, the S-IVB (third stage of the Saturn V) then fires its rocket to increase the orbital speed by ~10,000 ft/sec.  This changes the circular orbit at an altitude of ~100 miles to an elliptical orbit with a perigee of ~100 miles and an apogee somewhere out near the Moon.  If the Moon wasn't there, the spacecraft would follow its ellipse out to ~240,000 miles and return (the Soviet Zond 4 spacecraft did this).  When aimed towards the Moon, spacecraft gets to a point where it is attracted more by the Moon's gravity than the Earth's.  Thus its course transitions from an elliptical orbit of the Earth that is anti-clockwise (when seen from above the north) to a clockwise elliptical orbit around the Moon.  However, this new orbit has an aposelene towards the Earth and as it climbs up from its periselene, it crosses the boundary where the Earth's gravity dominates and and then starts falling towards the Earth.  This is what gives it its distinctive "figure-8" shape:

(http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/freereturn.gif)

Quote
Here's part of the question, and I hope I can find the words to ask it correctly.

We leave Earth's orbit at what speed?

~35,500 feet-per-second

Quote
Traveling directly toward the moon? or at a trajectory that will allow the craft to meet with it 240 thou miles later  as it will have traveled in space?

The latter, since the apogee is on the opposite side of the Earth from the perigee, which is where the ~5 minute translunar injection burn (TLI) took place.

Quote
(assuming it is the latter, why is the moon always visible as if straight ahead?

It isn't.  They show it that way in the movies because it looks cool and the audience expects it (like showing stars in the background even though they would not be visible with sunlit objects in the foreground). 

Quote
constant adjustments are not economical, so assuming minimal adjustments for course.

Very little course adjustments were necessary.  The TLI burn would get them in the speed ballpark.  While the spacecraft was coasting its trajectory was measured and adjustments were made using the RCS.  Typically, these adjustments were on the order of only a few feet-per-second.

Quote
(3 days? - How far has the moon traveled thru space?)

Geometry problem:  The Moon orbits Earth at an average radius of ~240,000 miles and takes ~27 days to complete a 360° orbit.  How far will it travel in 3 days.  Show your work.

Incidentally, the 3-day flight time was peculiar to the "figure-8" orbit described and shown above.  It was not used for unmanned science probes.  The first Soviet moon probe (Luna-3) took only 23 hours to reach the Moon in 1959, and the ESA's Smart-1 probe took months to get there using an ion engine in the 1990s.  However, the 3-day trajectory is the only orbit that will swing your spacecraft around the Moon and send it back towards Earth with no extra rocket burns needed.  This "Free-Return Trajectory" was considered the safest for manned missions and was used by the Soviet Zond missions (which were unmanned tests of craft intended for manned missions) and the first four Apollo lunar missions.  Apollo 13 was the first mission to deviate from the FRT.  After they stabilized the spacecraft following the Service Module explosion, their first order of business was to use the Lunar Module's engine to put them back on a Free-Return Trajectory.

Quote
Does all of this make sense?

Yes

Quote
OR point me in the direction for this info?

Bob Braeunig's Apollo Pages (http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/)
Apollo by Numbers (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_00g_Table_of_Contents.htm)
Encyclopedia Astronautica (http://www.astronautix.com/)

Quote
Thanks

Sure!

Quote
How much energy or joule or whatever does it require to alter course?

That depends on how much mass you're moving.  Is the LM still attached?  How much fuel (i.e. mass) is still in your tanks?  Again, this is just stuff that you can plug into the Tsiolkovsky equation.

Quote
considering the lateral RCS Thruster are tiny?

It doesn't matter if they're small.  In space all thrust counts, and it add up.  Apollo 11 landed ~ 3 miles past its aim-point because the tunnel between it and the Command Module wasn't completely depressurized when they undocked.  This extra little puff of air affected the LMs orbit and it wasn't caught until they were well into their powered descent.  Fortunately they were more concerned with landing safely than landing accurately.

Quote
Do they blow Air or is it a fuel like a rocket?

They are hypergolic rockets that provide ~100lbs of thrust each.

Quote
How fast is the craft traveling as it reaches the moon...

I don't have the exact numbers handy, but a quick calculation shows that they were going at ~7,500 ft/sec as they rounded the Moon.

Quote
...and is it simply gravity itself that puts it into orbit?

No, to convert the elliptical orbit to circular, they had to burn their engine with the rocket facing the direction of travel to slow down by ~3,000 ft/sec.  This put them in a roughly circular 2-hour orbit at an altitude of ~60 miles.

Hope this helps.

(Edit:  Dang, ninja'd!)

Thanks for this.  While never truly understanding everything literally, I do see it.

I recently came across a video/article of the Spinning Corkscrew theory of our solar system, and in fact all stars within a Galaxy.  Namely that all planets 'follow' the Sun as it's hurtles thru space at ludicrous speed.  I'm trying to visualise what is happening as we move.  It may seem like I'm going off on a tangent but it's all relative, in my head at least.  I'm questioning the orbiting planets ability to over take the Sun as our Galaxy spins.  In an attempt to be more clear, IF our solar system was arranged on the same horizontal plane as the galaxy, how do the planets travel faster to move past apogee??? please fill in where I'm lacking here re; apogee etc.  How does earth move faster than the Sun if the Sun is moving faster round the galaxy?  Not sure how to ask the question.

Apologies also as this is not directly an Apollo question.

Are you familiar with the corkscrew theory?  Is it even a theory?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 10, 2017, 09:27:19 AM


I recently came across a video/article of the Spinning Corkscrew theory of our solar system, and in fact all stars within a Galaxy.  Namely that all planets 'follow' the Sun as it's hurtles thru space at ludicrous speed.

Are you familiar with it?

If you mean the ridiculous animation produced by DJ Sadhu, then yes.

As a model of how the planets move, it's garbage (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html)
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 09:32:05 AM


I recently came across a video/article of the Spinning Corkscrew theory of our solar system, and in fact all stars within a Galaxy.  Namely that all planets 'follow' the Sun as it's hurtles thru space at ludicrous speed.

Are you familiar with it?

If you mean the ridiculous animation produced by DJ Sadhu, then yes.

As a model of how the planets move, it's garbage (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html)

Oh really? 

Now, before we go half cocked on me being a crazy un-educated basement rat, this 'theory' actually makes sense to me!  Why is it garbage?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 10, 2017, 09:35:16 AM
Now, before we go half cocked on me being a crazy un-educated basement rat, this 'theory' actually makes sense to me!  Why is it garbage?

I've linked to Phil Plaits debunking of that nonsense video in my post.

Phil Plait (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Plait) is a professional astronomer and author. He knows what he is talking about rather than a DJ spouting New Age claptrap (http://www.djsadhu.com/the-helical-model-vortex-solar-system-animation/)
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 10, 2017, 10:00:23 AM
To surmise, once again after another infurence that I am NOT a Professional Photographer...

You're not the first, nor even the tenth, person to come here claiming to be a "professional photographer" and be rather ignorant of the general knowledge professional photographers have.  The strategy of claiming to be a professional in order to forestall questioning of your claims is a decades-old practice in conspiracy theory mongering.  My advice is to listen carefully to what you're being told here by people, some of whom really are professional photographers, and avoid professing expertise you don't actually have.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 10, 2017, 10:08:56 AM
Thank you so much for this JayUtah.  I understand everything you've said re: all being in an orbit.

That's the key to understanding how the Apollo trajectories work, and -- with few exceptions -- how all spacecraft work.  When we say all paths through space are orbits, what that means is that all the quantities that apply to space travel have at least one foot in orbital mechanics at all times.  The problem in many cases is that people are given only "Reader's Digest" versions of space travel, and their natural follow-up questions require more advanced understanding.

Quote
Bob's name has popped up several times now across the internet.  He must be famous. :D

I guess he is.  He has expended quite a lot of effort explaining orbits and space travel in simple terms, hence his pages tend to be referenced a lot.

Quote
I'm hoping to find a visual illustration of trajectory and scale in relation to Earth, moon and craft; if it's even possible.  I'll keep looking.

Someone else linked to Bob's animation.  It's to scale.  It illustrates the free-return trajectory (what would have happened if the CSM had not performed the orbital insertion maneuver) and it was created not by drawing the path manually but by plugging the actual Apollo numbers into the appropriate formulas and letting a spreadsheet solve them for the entire trajectory.  It's pretty solid proof that Apollo's numbers as published are spot-on.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 10:20:08 AM
To surmise, once again after another infurence that I am NOT a Professional Photographer...

You're not the first, nor even the tenth, person to come here claiming to be a "professional photographer" and be rather ignorant of the general knowledge professional photographers have.  The strategy of claiming to be a professional in order to forestall questioning of your claims is a decades-old practice in conspiracy theory mongering.  My advice is to listen carefully to what you're being told here by people, some of whom really are professional photographers, and avoid professing expertise you don't actually have.

.........................but I AM a Professional Photographer!  My income is from Photography.  My reason for mentioning that I am a Photographer was not to Forestall anything!  Why would you Assume this of a Stranger??  What is wrong with you people.

My Name is Paul Knowles.  I am a Freelance Photographer living in the UK.  I operate as Paul Knowles Photography and Video.  I have been self employed since 2005 where I originally operated as LongRoad Productions.  My career has been varied and not exclusive to any arena.  I graduated University of Northumbria with a 2:1 honours Degree in Media Production.  For several years I worked on Film Productions only as a Still Photographer.  I also cover wedding and Product.!

Why am I still debating this to people like you?  Are you a failed Photographer?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: twik on January 10, 2017, 10:28:49 AM
You may be a wonderful wedding photographer, but that doesn't mean you know how to evaluate scientific data in photographs.

I'm not a professional photographer, but I could see a flaw in your plan when you start by using Photoshop to "reveal stars" in the Apollo photographs, and then were surprised that two subsequent photos showed different "stars." Photoshop cannot reveal any information that wasn't already in the photo by changing levels, any more than zooming in will result in information at a less than pixel depth. So, what you've done is mess with the levels until you got artefacts. The fact that the artefacts are completely different in the next photo should clue you in that these represent random noise not stars. Instead, you seem to believe that NASA faked the invisible stars, but used a completely different set of stars for each photo, which is not a logical assumption.

Your photos may be beautiful, but you're not trained in examining scientific photographs.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 10:35:58 AM
You may be a wonderful wedding photographer, but that doesn't mean you know how to evaluate scientific data in photographs.

I'm not a professional photographer, but I could see a flaw in your plan when you start by using Photoshop to "reveal stars" in the Apollo photographs, and then were surprised that two subsequent photos showed different "stars." Photoshop cannot reveal any information that wasn't already in the photo by changing levels, any more than zooming in will result in information at a less than pixel depth. So, what you've done is mess with the levels until you got artefacts. The fact that the artefacts are completely different in the next photo should clue you in that these represent random noise not stars. Instead, you seem to believe that NASA faked the invisible stars, but used a completely different set of stars for each photo, which is not a logical assumption.

Your photos may be beautiful, but you're not trained in examining scientific photographs.

OOO.MMMM.GGGGG  ARE YOU KIDDING ME????? Did you just land on the last page here and talk a load of rubbish???

you lot ever wonder why people start swearing in here and lose the plot?????????  i have never once insisted they are stars.  I said they look like stars and came hear to inquire. FFS!

I'm not a fucking scientific Photographer, NOR have I suggested as much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


This is a fucking joke now!

And for your information using Photoshop is the SAME as using a Dark room, only for different material!  You can reveal info recorded faintly in an image.  Digital negatives OF COURSE are NOT FILM!!!!  I know what A Jpeg is!!!! Jeeeeeeez.


I seriously have no more time for this!!! 

STOP SCANNING POSTS IN ORDER TO VALIDATE YOUR DAY WITH A HALF ARSED REPLY BASED ON **** ALL.  YOU NEED A HOBBY? TAKE UP PHOTOGRAPHY!

**** Me Sideways Scotty!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 11:19:47 AM
PLEASE READ THE FIRST PAGE OF THIS POST.  AFTER YOU WADE THRU THE REMARKS FROM ABADDON AND DOUG ETC. YOU WILL FIND MY INTENTION WHICH CLEARLY STATES THAT I AM NOT HERE TO PROVE OR DISPROVE ANY PARTICULAR THEORY, BUT I WOULD LIKE INFO REGARDING 'ARTIFACTS' FOUND IN 2 RANDOM BUT CONSECUTIVE IMAGES.  I ACKNOWLEDGE I CONSISTENTLY REFERRED TO THEM AS STARS.  MY ERROR.  IN MY EXPERIENCE IT WAS POSSIBLE AND STILL IS, THAT THEY COULD HAVE BEEN.  YOU WILL SEE THAT AS WELL AS AGREEING THEY COULD BE DUST ETC. I ATTEMPTED TO FURTHER EXPAND MY KNOWLEDGE ON THIS MATTER.

THIS WAS AN OPEN QUESTION ASKED IN THE WRONG MANNER.  FOR OVER 200 POSTS NOW I'VE DONE MORE AND DISCUSSED MORE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT I AM A PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER, OF WHICH THERE MAY BE DOUBT ON YOUR END BUT IN ACTUAL FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I AM!

JEBUS GIVE ME STRENGTH.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: gillianren on January 10, 2017, 11:29:23 AM
you lot ever wonder why people start swearing in here and lose the plot?????????  i have never once insisted they are stars.  I said they look like stars and came hear to inquire. FFS!

And you were told they weren't and couldn't be.  And you continued to refer to them as such even when any number of evidences were presented to prove that it was impossible, including the simple logic of "they don't behave the way stars do."  That you still think they could have been despite the fact that stars don't move at random indicates that you are not the only one who gets frustrated at someone else's behaviour.

You know your background.  What we are telling you is that people lie to us about their backgrounds all the time.  You want your word to be good enough for us, but why should it be?  We've had people come in claiming to be professional photographers who don't seem to know how to remove a lens cap.  We've had people come in claiming to be engineers who don't understand the most basic of equations.  We've had at least one guy, as I recall, who claimed to be a historian and believed the entirety of the Cold War was faked and didn't understand the concept of the primary source.  Your flat assertion is meaningless.  The educational level you demonstrate in your posts means more.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Allan F on January 10, 2017, 11:33:11 AM
If you want to know - on a basic level - how the Apollo moon landings were performed, I suggest you go to youtube, and search for "From the Earth to the Moon" - a series of drama-documentaries hosted by Tom Hanks. Then find the series "Moon Machines" which will tell you a lot about the hardware used.

And cut off the all-caps rant, please. YOU assumed you could take a limited-depth JPG, throw 9/10th of the data away and actually FIND something there, which should not be there. A simple contemplation of the dynamic range needed and the dynamic range of a JPG would have shown you that finding stars would be impossible.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Abaddon on January 10, 2017, 11:38:13 AM
To surmise, once again after another infurence that I am NOT a Professional Photographer...

You're not the first, nor even the tenth, person to come here claiming to be a "professional photographer" and be rather ignorant of the general knowledge professional photographers have.  The strategy of claiming to be a professional in order to forestall questioning of your claims is a decades-old practice in conspiracy theory mongering.  My advice is to listen carefully to what you're being told here by people, some of whom really are professional photographers, and avoid professing expertise you don't actually have.

.........................but I AM a Professional Photographer!  My income is from Photography.  My reason for mentioning that I am a Photographer was not to Forestall anything!  Why would you Assume this of a Stranger??  What is wrong with you people.

Nothing wrong with "us" people, you simply have to remember that many rabid hoax proponents start with claims to expertise they do not have. Most of us here have seen this so often as an opening gambit by conspiracy nuts that it becomes an immediate suspicion every time. Doesn't mean it applies to you, though. You should be able to at least understand the reaction, however.

My Name is **** ******.  I am a Freelance Photographer living in the UK.  I operate as **** ******* Photography and Video.  I have been self employed since 2005 where I originally operated as ********* Productions.  My career has been varied and not exclusive to any arena.  I graduated University of ********** with a 2:1 honours Degree in Media Production.  For several years I worked on Film Productions only as a Still Photographer.  I also cover wedding and Product.!

Why am I still debating this to people like you?  Are you a failed Photographer?
I suggest that you PM LunarOrbit to have this portion redacted. It is never a great idea to post personal details on a site that is regularly read by some outright conspiracy lunatics who are not above direct harassment. Or edit it yourself if the edit window is still open. I have no idea how long that window is on this site.

I say this for your sake. If some CT lunatic happens to read this thread and takes it into their crazy head to harass you it can be unpleasant. It has happened before. Look up Dennis Markuze. He ended up being committed for such activity.

If you feel pressurised to validate your credentials as real, I suggest that you use the private message system that keeps the matter private while fulfilling your intended result. Believe it or not, most of the regulars here are honest and would report back to the thread with confirmation but not the data provided.

As a matter of fact, I have personally established my professional credentials both here and elsewhere on the internet, but that is fine for me. My company operates in a very specialist niche, my name is common, I do not operate in a retail environment and I have moved no less than 4 times since I have been a member here. It is highly unlikely that a nutter will track me down, so I am little blase about it.

Note: I have redacted any personal data from my reply so as not to further propagate such data.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: twik on January 10, 2017, 11:43:19 AM
And for your information using Photoshop is the SAME as using a Dark room, only for different material!  You can reveal info recorded faintly in an image.  Digital negatives OF COURSE are NOT FILM!!!!  I know what A Jpeg is!!!! Jeeeeeeez.


Yes, you can sometimes use Photoshop to reveal faint images. What you can't do is use it to reveal images too faint to have been captured in the photograph in the first place
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 10, 2017, 11:49:47 AM
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/353/279/e31.jpg)


Calm down before you give yourself an aneurysm. For the record, I personally couldn't care what you do in real life. Your posting history demonstrates your abilities.

Many conspiracy theorists make rather large claims of their alleged expertise- it's an attempt to build an argument from authority. It's been seen many, many times before and it gets old quickly. We've also seen similar "snarky" answers when people are genuinely giving answers to questions. Some of the people on here have been at this for many, many years, so the approaches are well know.

Ideas are vigorously debated and tested here. It's not a sewing circle and as long as people abid by the rules (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=18.msg120#msg120) then it's not a heavily moderated place. However, there's no obligation on anyone to treat a claim or proposition with kid gloves, especially if the person making the claim has "attitude".

Anyhoo, take a breather and calm down. This is the Internet.





 


Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 11:49:52 AM
Conspiracy Theorists are not all un-educated idiots.  You say you're an amateur Photographer?  Well I'm a Professional, and I think you may know less about Photography than you actually think you do.
I would have expected a professional photographer to understand the concepts of f-stop and shutter speed, and how they combine to establish an exposure value.

I would also have expected a professional to understand that both film and digital sensors have a limited dynamic range compared with the very wide range of intensities found in real world scenes, particularly between daytime and nighttime, and that's why a proper exposure setting is so important. Our eyes can work in both daylight and at night only because chemical changes in the retina effectively change its "ISO rating" by a very large factor. These changes are relatively slow, though much faster than the day-night cycle so normally we don't notice it. But you will notice that it takes time for your eyes to "dark adapt" when going quickly from a bright area into a dark one.

The irises in our eyes react more quickly (a second or so), but are limited to a much narrower brightness range that gets even smaller with age.

And I would have expected a professional photographer to understand that the daytime sun on the moon is roughly as bright as the daytime clear-sky sun on the earth (slightly brighter because of the lack of an lunar atmosphere) so that pictures taken of sunlit objects on the lunar surface require approximately the same exposure values as sunlit objects on the earth under a clear daytime sky. Because of the limited dynamic range of both film and digital sensors, such exposures are far, far too short to register stars even in a black sky.

But I wouldn't necessarily expect even a professional photographer to understand just how much brighter the sun is than even the brightest nighttime star. So here are the numbers:

Sol (our sun) has an apparent astronomical magnitude of -26.74. Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky, has an apparent magnitude of -1.46. Five magnitudes represent a brightness ratio of 100:1, so the 25.28 magnitude difference between Sol and Sirius is a brightness ratio of about 13 billion to 1, or almost 34 f-stops (1 f-stop being the difference between, say, f/5.6 and f/8). And that's for the brightest star in the entire night sky.

I will simply say, I am not a Conspiracy Theorist on this matter, and I'm really tired of explaining this over and over again. I will also say, since the advent of Digital my practices in Film no longer apply to me; nor is my memory of them.  The knowledge i didn't have was what film iso etc. was used and how it reacted in space.  As we've arrived here in an inquiring manner, you might have figured that I've already covered this in earlier posts.  You have, like others, assumed too much of me and my supposed ignorance.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 11:54:16 AM
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/353/279/e31.jpg)


Calm down before you give yourself an aneurysm. For the record, I personally couldn't care what you do in real life. Your posting history demonstrates your abilities.

Many conspiracy theorists make rather large claims of their alleged expertise- it's an attempt to build an argument from authority. It's been seen many, many times before and it gets old quickly. We've also seen similar "snarky" answers when people are genuinely giving answers to questions. Some of the people on here have been at this for many, many years, so the approaches are well know.

Ideas are vigorously debated and tested here. It's not a sewing circle and as long as people abid by the [img=http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=18.msg120#msg120]http://rules[/img] then it's not a heavily moderated place. However, there's no obligation on anyone to treat a claim or proposition with kid gloves, especially if the person making the claim has "attitude".

Anyhoo, take a breather and calm down. This is the Internet.

I'm calm.  As you've stated earlier, this is Frustration.  This post has been fooked since it started.  If you'd care to re-read what I have posted in the very first page, the rest of this is nonsense.  you people accuse the likes of me at jumping the gun; yet that's a lot of what has happened in here.  There have been a very small amount of dare I say, 'Compassionate' responses, but most are simply a character assassination.  I'm not delicate, or sensitive and have a very thick skin.  I know what forums are like, and Mob mentality, but there comes a time when enough is enough and that was a long long way back in a Galaxy Far Far away.

Oh and it hardly escalated 'quickly'!  this thread has been going on a long time now back and forth!

Thanks to those that are genuinely interested in listening and answering question.  As a woman in modern times it's reassuring. x
So, are we living in a Matrix?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 11:59:26 AM
And for your information using Photoshop is the SAME as using a Dark room, only for different material!  You can reveal info recorded faintly in an image.  Digital negatives OF COURSE are NOT FILM!!!!  I know what A Jpeg is!!!! Jeeeeeeez.


Yes, you can sometimes use Photoshop to reveal faint images. What you can't do is use it to reveal images too faint to have been captured in the photograph in the first place

Agreed, hence me posting here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!to see if there was anything on what I thought i had found!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 10, 2017, 12:00:07 PM

I will simply say, I am not a Conspiracy Theorist on this matter, and I'm really tired of explaining this over and over again. I will also say, since the advent of Digital my practices in Film no longer apply to me; nor is my memory of them.  The knowledge i didn't have was what film iso etc. was used and how it reacted in space.  As we've arrived here in an inquiring manner, you might have figured that I've already covered this in earlier posts.  You have, like others, assumed too much of me and my supposed ignorance.

Well, you sure act like a conspiracy theorist. Perhaps you should look at that before ranting at strangers?

Second to this, I am looking for truth!  Nothing else.
Namely, the lack of stars in Space/Moon/Orbit photography, and also a reason or attempt, to prove or disprove the Hoax theories of going to the moon.

Assuming the moon photo's are legit
Oh dear me; I've managed to find a Troll in my very 1st instance on this site.  Were you born Angry and Lonely or did you work at it?  Congratulations!
My initial belief is that of a Conspiracy to deceive.  I am left believing that in order for the foreground shadows to be constant and not moving they must be lit by a light source that is in a fixed position relative the object i.e either frozen in a moment of time as in a pic (assuming Sun is light source), or in a fixed position on the ground adjacent to the subject on the same terrestrial plane (Artificial Sun).


^^Your words, within the first handful of posts.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 10, 2017, 12:01:12 PM
Why am I still debating this to people like you?

Because you're making mistakes and saying things that a real professional photographer would not make or say, and now trying to back away from them as if you hadn't made them.  No, Adobe Photoshop is not "just like using a darkroom."  I agree, when someone says he's downloaded digital photos from convenience sources on the Internet and thinks that fiddling with the sliders in Photoshop is equivalent to operations like pushing photochemical photography to reveal details in the latent image, that's just nonsensical.  And when he's talking about "stars," when the very first thing he should be thinking of is encoding or compression artifacts/noise or contamination of the dupe master, that's a very tell-tale thing around here.  As I said, you're not the first person to play this game.

Quote
Are you a failed Photographer?

Actually I'm a frequently consulted expert on the subject of Apollo photography.  I did a television show on the subject for Channel 4 back while you were still in school.  While I don't currently make my living by photography, I have in the past.  I also taught computer graphics at the University of Utah.  You may have heard of them -- most of the people who wrote Adobe Photoshop went to that school and are my friends.  My work on Apollo photography has been published in Science.  You may have heard of that too.  If paulknowlesphotography.com is your web site then it says you're a self-taught amateur who is turning his hobby into a business.  That doesn't impress me.  I did a stint as a wedding photographer.  I studied full-time for a year and apprenticed full-time for two more years with a credentialled professional before even attempting to practice it for pay (on film, using cameras that cost more than your car), which I did while I was studying engineering and computer science.  I later went on to design a few optical assemblies for scientific and medical photography.

You do not have the qualifications to analyze photography as you have attempted to do.  You are a self-taught amateur who has not been able to display the appropriate knowledge and background to understand why your original post is so very laughable.  Don't just stomp and whine because you got caught.  My advice to you was to not put on airs and listen carefully to what the well-trained and highly-experienced people here were telling you.  Instead you chose to double-down on your "expertise."  Your frustration is entirely of your own making.  Had you taken my advice, we wouldn't be in this predicament.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 10, 2017, 12:03:51 PM
Agreed, hence me posting here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!to see if there was anything on what I thought i had found!

But your questions were based on assumptions that a professional photographer would not make.  You volunteered that you were a professional photographer, which has turned out not to be true.  You may earn you living by using a camera, but you lack the knowledge that has at least previously characterized the professional practice of the art.   And more importantly, what you're trying to do is more properly termed image analysis, and that is a scientific and mathematical field.  Nothing in your hobbyist experience prepared your for that.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Abaddon on January 10, 2017, 12:05:42 PM
And for your information using Photoshop is the SAME as using a Dark room, only for different material!  You can reveal info recorded faintly in an image.  Digital negatives OF COURSE are NOT FILM!!!!  I know what A Jpeg is!!!! Jeeeeeeez.


Yes, you can sometimes use Photoshop to reveal faint images. What you can't do is use it to reveal images too faint to have been captured in the photograph in the first place

Agreed, hence me posting here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!to see if there was anything on what I thought i had found!
There quite clearly is not anything in it. You have agreed that there is not anything in it. Far as I am concerned, that ends the matter with the exception of any other technical enquiries you might have. 

If you have any such enquiries, the membership here can likely provide references aplenty and are happy to do so.

Can we consider the stars in Apollo photographs answered to your satisfaction and move right along to the orbit questions? Or do you have remaining photography questions?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 12:07:47 PM
Conspiracy Theorists are not all un-educated idiots.  You say you're an amateur Photographer?  Well I'm a Professional, and I think you may know less about Photography than you actually think you do.  I make around £1000 per week as a Freelancer and I've been Self Employed since 2005.  This alone gave me reason enough to take a closer look at 2 images.  Digital/Film makes **** all difference!!  I learned on Film from an early age.  I even had my own Dark Room.  My Photography got me to University where I studied Film and Media.  I am an Amateur Film Maker and and Entrepreneur.  Being an amateur Film Maker also allowed me to research the the moon landing.  I've defended certain areas of the moon landing against the Conspiracists.

Being an amateur filmmaker doesn't qualify you to understand better than 90% of the issues.  Heck, it doesn't even require you to understand the physics of film!  I'm sure we could both name plenty of professional filmmakers who are quite clearly clueless.  And, yes, you pretty much do have to be uneducated to be a conspiracy theorist, because the small amount of effort it would take to actually educate yourself would lead you to say, "Oh.  I was wrong about that."

Quote
Don't talk to strangers like they're children.!  The amount of accusation and assumption in here is astounding! You have absolutely No Idea who I am!  This shows the ONLY lack of intelligence in here; the lack of intelligence and rapport to treat and regard strangers with courtesy.

You're right; I have no idea who you are.  So I start by attempting to educate at a very basic level.  You're claiming to be a professional photographer.  Would it stun you to know that we get a lot of people in here making obviously false claims about their expertise in things?  You have shown, by your own posting, that you are not inclined to being told you're wrong even when you are, because you don't believe you are.  I have little patience for that.  If you are the professional photographer you claim to be, you are certainly not the only one here.  You are also talking to people with expertise in lots of other relevant fields, and you're ignoring what you're being told.  You want to be treated with respect?  Reciprocate.

Quote
Try being more humble in your approach.

Right back at you, pal.

I haven't disagreed or argued with anyone offering advice or the Facts!  Where did you get that from?  I have been at most, courteous and thankful for some thorough replies.  Yours (not exclusively) was one that I found particularly rude and assuming.  Take is as something to learn from and move on.

I have already accepted the explanation to what I believe might be stars, very early on in this post.

Thanks for taking part.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 12:09:12 PM
And for your information using Photoshop is the SAME as using a Dark room, only for different material!  You can reveal info recorded faintly in an image.  Digital negatives OF COURSE are NOT FILM!!!!  I know what A Jpeg is!!!! Jeeeeeeez.


Yes, you can sometimes use Photoshop to reveal faint images. What you can't do is use it to reveal images too faint to have been captured in the photograph in the first place

Agreed, hence me posting here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!to see if there was anything on what I thought i had found!
There quite clearly is not anything in it. You have agreed that there is not anything in it. Far as I am concerned, that ends the matter with the exception of any other technical enquiries you might have. 

If you have any such enquiries, the membership here can likely provide references aplenty and are happy to do so.

Can we consider the stars in Apollo photographs answered to your satisfaction and move right along to the orbit questions? Or do you have remaining photography questions?

Welcome back.  We can indeed this is the case, and was proven to me very early on.  No hard feelings. 

Try not to treat everyone like they're a bottom Dweller.  We're all friend on this Flat Earth.  :P
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 12:11:41 PM
Agreed, hence me posting here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!to see if there was anything on what I thought i had found!

But your questions were based on assumptions that a professional photographer would not make.  You volunteered that you were a professional photographer, which has turned out not to be true.  You may earn you living by using a camera, but you lack the knowledge that has at least previously characterized the professional practice of the art.   And more importantly, what you're trying to do is more properly termed image analysis, and that is a scientific and mathematical field.  Nothing in your hobbyist experience prepared your for that.

I am a Professional Photographer.  FACT!
I am not a scientific photographer.  FACT!
I've never taken pics on the Moon.  FACT!

But I know for certain that in certain cases, details can be revealed using digital manipulation.  Would you agree?

To add to this, I've no idea how black space is outside of the Earth atmos.  I've no idea how raw sunlight affects film.  I've no idea how the original film captured details.  I had NONE of this knowledge.  It's now more available to me.  You see i have a romantic Idea that space is dazzlingly luminous with uncountable stars.  It's got nothing to do with my camera.  It's an unknown to me to shoot in space.  I was hoping for more stars.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 10, 2017, 12:14:04 PM
Yours (not exclusively) was one that I found particularly rude and assuming.  Take is as something to learn from and move on.

Gillianren is on of the most unfailingly polite and generous posters on this forum.  If you're calling her rude, you really need to rethink your approach.  Being incessantly angry at being justly criticized is not going to make your case.

You came here as a conspiracy theorist.  That is not in question.  You professed expertise you did not have, and on the basis of that pretended expertise you insinuated a "conspiracy to deceive," citing a few long-debunked and often misconceived points amateurs bring up.  While you have indeed congenially accepted correction and participated meaningfully in the ongoing discussion, you still seem to be trying to save face in the form of pretending you didn't come here proposing a conspiracy theory.  You did, and it got shot down.  You can call yourself whatever you want -- "professional phographer," "photon wrangler," or whatever.  But if you profess expertise you do not have, you will get caught here.  Our regulars have a vast cross section of expertise.  Don't have a meltdown when you do get caught.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: jfb on January 10, 2017, 12:16:13 PM


I recently came across a video/article of the Spinning Corkscrew theory of our solar system, and in fact all stars within a Galaxy.  Namely that all planets 'follow' the Sun as it's hurtles thru space at ludicrous speed.

Are you familiar with it?

If you mean the ridiculous animation produced by DJ Sadhu, then yes.

As a model of how the planets move, it's garbage (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html)

Oh really? 

Now, before we go half cocked on me being a crazy un-educated basement rat, this 'theory' actually makes sense to me!  Why is it garbage?

It is true that the solar system is moving through space (orbiting the center of the Milky Way, which is also moving through space), so the planets do trace out complicated corkscrew-within-a-corkscrew patterns over time, and the video is a moderately useful visualization of that.

But...

The orbits of the planets around the Sun do not depend on the Sun's motion through space (the Sun isn't creating a vortex that affects the planet's motion) - they'd be effectively the same if the Sun were standing perfectly still relative to everything else.  Also, the solar system doesn't move through space perpendicular to the ecliptic, as shown in the video - it's more like /-> instead of |->.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 10, 2017, 12:25:40 PM

I've never taken pics on the Moon.  FACT!

But you can take photographs of the moon as a way of learning the problems of photographing a bright moon and stars at the same time. You can do one or the other, not both.

Quote
But I know for certain that in certain cases, details can be revealed using digital manipulation.  Would you agree?

Yes, providing the details are there. if they were never there no amount of manipulation will reveal them.

Quote
To add to this, I've no idea how black space is outside of the Earth atmos.  I've no idea how raw sunlight affects film.  I've no idea how the original film captured details.  I had NONE of this knowledge.  It's now more available to me.  You see i have a romantic Idea that space is dazzlingly luminous with uncountable stars.  It's got nothing to do with my camera.  It's an unknown to me to shoot in space.  I was hoping for more stars.

Space is dazzingly luminous with uncountable stars, as many astronauts have reported. You just can't photograph them with a bright moon in shot. Don't mistake a black sky for dark.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 12:28:26 PM
Yours (not exclusively) was one that I found particularly rude and assuming.  Take is as something to learn from and move on.

Gillianren is on of the most unfailingly polite and generous posters on this forum.  If you're calling her rude, you really need to rethink your approach.  Being incessantly angry at being justly criticized is not going to make your case.

You came here as a conspiracy theorist.  That is not in question.  You professed expertise you did not have, and on the basis of that pretended expertise you insinuated a "conspiracy to deceive," citing a few long-debunked and often misconceived points amateurs bring up.  While you have indeed congenially accepted correction and participated meaningfully in the ongoing discussion, you still seem to be trying to save face in the form of pretending you didn't come here proposing a conspiracy theory.  You did, and it got shot down.  You can call yourself whatever you want -- "professional phographer," "photon wrangler," or whatever.  But if you profess expertise you do not have, you will get caught here.  Our regulars have a vast cross section of expertise.  Don't have a meltdown when you do get caught.

I came here with a Conspiracy Concern.  Prove otherwise!

My 'Friend' is a total Conspiracy Nut Job.  Lizards and all!  He sends me links all the time to the point of me being concerned about him.  He recently told me that it's not even worth his time trying to prove the Space Program is Fake, he simply Knows it!  I have already stated in here that I have tried to prove to him why there are no stars in space.  Dynamic range etc.  I know this!  but there must always be room for doubt for without it, we won't attempt to prove it.
In an attempt to prove something to HIM, I took two pics and tried to reveal faint details of stars.  However, I found anomalies that for a moment, call me foolish or ignorant or lacking in Photographic knowledge and practice, suggested i may have something to consider.  The 'Stars' had moved!!!!  It is Most Likely, they are NOT Stars at all.  Most probable.  but as I live and breath I cannot allow myself to say for certaintly that they are NOT Stars either.  I am not certain about anything.  I have never once been angry here.  I could be lying, but what can we prove?  I certainly do have problems communicating at times, especially using type!  If I have offended Gillianren I will re-read what she has posted to see if I can conscientiously remove my remarks.  for this I have no problem.

This is all that has happened here.  I've not disagreed with anyone about anything put forward.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 10, 2017, 12:28:43 PM
Oh really? 

Now, before we go half cocked on me being a crazy un-educated basement rat, this 'theory' actually makes sense to me!  Why is it garbage?

I cannot explain why it makes sense to you. I will hazard a guess though- it's probably because you've never looked into how orbits work, never learned about Copernicus' work or had any experience in the motion of the planets. You're also probably wowed with fancy graphics and music rather than sitting down and researching stuff thats been known for centuries and proven to be the case.
The main reason why the video is garbage is that the author claims that the heliocentric model is incorrect. That's is a bold claim, given that it's been worked out and proven to work for centuries.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 10, 2017, 12:31:28 PM
I am a Professional Photographer.  FACT!

Call yourself whatever you want.  You don't have the appropriate expertise to attempt the sort of analysis you did, and on the basis of it allege a conspiracy.  No amount of photographing babies and pets teaches you what you need to know in order to make that study and draw that conclusion.

Quote
But I know for certain that in certain cases, details can be revealed using digital manipulation.  Would you agree?

You're asking me the uselessly generalized form of your claim, apparently in hopes that the inevitable "yes" answer will somehow justify what you attempted to do and somehow let you save face.  In certain cases, certain kinds of details in digitally encoded photographs may be made more visible to the eye by the skilled use of computer algorithms.  But what you tried to do is not one of those cases.  In certain other cases, inexpert use of computer algorithms on digitally encoded photography produces artifacts that well-meaning but misinformed amateurs mistake for details in the original image or original scene.  What you tried to do is one of those cases.  As so many amateurs have done before you, you just fiddled with the sliders until you saw something you didn't expect, and drew wholly inappropriate conclusions about what they might be.  Kudos to you for coming here to ask your question, and further kudos to you for accepting the answers.  But please take my advice and don't pretend that you have expertise you don't have.  If you set your anger and frustration aside, perhaps a few of us here will take the time to teach you.  But if you're just going to vent because you weren't given undeserved respect, then you won't reap much beyond recrimination.

People who can legitimately claim to be professionals in this sort of image study have spent years in the full-time learning of these digital techniques and have passed rigorous tests of their skill.  They have attained enough practice to know what they're looking at, either in chemical or digital photography.  No, just because tools exist and are useful in some cases does not make you a skilled user of those tools.  Owning a copy of Adobe Photoshop doesn't make you a skilled photo analyst anymore than having a hammer and chisel makes you Michelangelo.

Then there is photogrammetry, which is the science that deals with your attempt to reckon shadows in photographs.  While many years of photography practice will give a person an intuition for photography, the science of using shadows to reconstruct ("rectify," in photogrammetric terms) the scene and determine the locations of light sources and objects in the original scene cannot be done intuitively.  It is a rigorous practice of geometry and mathematics.  If, in your study of photography, you learned the mathematics of non-spherical lenses, you will have learned the rudiments of photogrammetry backwards.  But you will not have picked any of that up through hobby practice.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 10, 2017, 12:34:16 PM
as I live and breath I cannot allow myself to say for certaintly that they are NOT Stars either.

I can.

I have spent many hours poring over Apollo surface images and comparing them with what should have been visible in the night sky. I (along with others) have found Venus, but I have never matched a star with the various defects that appear in Apollo images.

The only stars you can match in Apollo images are those taken in orbit above an unlit lunar surface, in cislunar space, or those taken from the surface by the UV camera.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Abaddon on January 10, 2017, 12:38:22 PM
Agreed, hence me posting here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!to see if there was anything on what I thought i had found!

But your questions were based on assumptions that a professional photographer would not make.  You volunteered that you were a professional photographer, which has turned out not to be true.  You may earn you living by using a camera, but you lack the knowledge that has at least previously characterized the professional practice of the art.   And more importantly, what you're trying to do is more properly termed image analysis, and that is a scientific and mathematical field.  Nothing in your hobbyist experience prepared your for that.

I am a Professional Photographer.  FACT!
I am not a scientific photographer.  FACT!
I've never taken pics on the Moon.  FACT!

But I know for certain that in certain cases, details can be revealed using digital manipulation.  Would you agree?
Conditionally. No amount of photoshop slider gliding can reveal details which the camera/film are not capable of capturing no matter what. Using the available combination of ISO/stop/aperture on the lunar cameras, it simply is not possible. Just a couple of posts up, you agreed this.

Furthermore, any such "revealed" detail requires a level of expertise. I have some of it, having worked in photoshop for years. You do not. This is neither a problem, nor is it something which cannot be easily fixed by some learning. Nor is it an insult. I remain mostly ignorant of, for example, neurosurgery. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer to any question. "I don't know BUT..." is not most of the time.


I am a Professional Photographer.  FACT!
Sure. You make your living from it. De facto it is your "profession". I doubt anyone has an issue with that. This is not in question. Personally, I would encourage you to build a career and a business doing something you like and enjoy. In any milieu, I find that is always rewarding.

I am not a scientific photographer.  FACT!
Nobody claimed you were and you clearly are not. We agree.

I've never taken pics on the Moon.  FACT!
12 people have. You are not one of them, nor am I. Nonetheless, we can assess the resultant images.

Once again, you, me and everyone else agrees that there are no stars. Can we agree AGAIN, that this is a dead issue and move along to orbits?

This will not happen as long as you continue to re-insert a dead issue.


Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: twik on January 10, 2017, 12:39:21 PM
The specks you uncovered by Photoshop are obviously not stars, based on the fact that they change significantly in two photos taken in a short period of time. Stars couldn't do that. Therefore, the question must be, are they fake stars created by NASA, or mere artefacts of twiddling knobs in Photoshop. Since NASA never identified these specks as being stars, why would NASA include them at all? There would be no point in putting invisible stars into their photos, while claiming that stars didn't show up in them at all, in fact couldn't show up.

Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that they are not stars or deliberate fakes, they are artefacts of digitally manipulating the levels on multi-generation copies of the original photos until some pixels turn white.

If you still believe they could be stars, please explain your theory of why they change so much from one photo to the next. If you could relate the changes to the star field that actually would have been visible from the Moon at the time (with special equipment or by standing in deep shadow and letting one's eyes adjust), so much the better.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 12:40:53 PM
Why am I still debating this to people like you?

Because you're making mistakes and saying things that a real professional photographer would not make or say, and now trying to back away from them as if you hadn't made them.  No, Adobe Photoshop is not "just like using a darkroom."  I agree, when someone says he's downloaded digital photos from convenience sources on the Internet and thinks that fiddling with the sliders in Photoshop is equivalent to operations like pushing photochemical photography to reveal details in the latent image, that's just nonsensical.  And when he's talking about "stars," when the very first thing he should be thinking of is encoding or compression artifacts/noise or contamination of the dupe master, that's a very tell-tale thing around here.  As I said, you're not the first person to play this game.

Quote
Are you a failed Photographer?

Actually I'm a frequently consulted expert on the subject of Apollo photography.  I did a television show on the subject for Channel 4 back while you were still in school.  While I don't currently make my living by photography, I have in the past.  I also taught computer graphics at the University of Utah.  You may have heard of them -- most of the people who wrote Adobe Photoshop went to that school and are my friends.  My work on Apollo photography has been published in Science.  You may have heard of that too.  If paulknowlesphotography.com is your web site then it says you're a self-taught amateur who is turning his hobby into a business.  That doesn't impress me.  I did a stint as a wedding photographer.  I studied full-time for a year and apprenticed full-time for two more years with a credentialled professional before even attempting to practice it for pay (on film, using cameras that cost more than your car), which I did while I was studying engineering and computer science.  I later went on to design a few optical assemblies for scientific and medical photography.

You do not have the qualifications to analyze photography as you have attempted to do.  You are a self-taught amateur who has not been able to display the appropriate knowledge and background to understand why your original post is so very laughable.  Don't just stomp and whine because you got caught.  My advice to you was to not put on airs and listen carefully to what the well-trained and highly-experienced people here were telling you.  Instead you chose to double-down on your "expertise."  Your frustration is entirely of your own making.  Had you taken my advice, we wouldn't be in this predicament.

You have an excellent set of credentials claimed here Jay and off the bat, I'm simply going to accept them as being the Truth.  Why would I not?

No, that is website is not me.  I no longer have a website.  Although I still operate as a freelancer, my career in it almost ended 4 years ago when I invested 50 grand in a Chinese Chef who stole everything and threatened my partner and myself with a machete.  He was arrested at Gunpoint and we've struggled to rebuild our lives since.  As a Profession, meaning something I earn money at. I am a Photographer.  I also create video.

I've never claimed 'expertise' and I find myself again wasting time with these responses.  If you bothered to read thru this entire post, as is suggested I do regarding everything about space flight and Astro photography you might glean that I am not nor have I ever argued the case since it has been put forward with rational and proof.

this attack on my character is far far removed from my original pst and I'll suffer it no more.

I can only assume this is another case where the 'Conspirator' has been proven wrong and ran off with said 'tail between thy legs'... yet, you'd be a fool.

Kind Sincere Regards.

PS well done on Photoshop.  I couldn't do my job without it.  ::)
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 10, 2017, 12:41:26 PM
I came here with a Conspiracy Concern.  Prove otherwise!

Gladly.  From your first post in this thread:

My initial belief is that of a Conspiracy to deceive.

Quote
My 'Friend' is a total Conspiracy Nut Job.

Quote
However, I found anomalies that for a moment, call me foolish or ignorant or lacking in Photographic knowledge and practice, suggested i may have something to consider.

I am calling you lacking in photographic knowledge and practice.  It led you to draw completely unsupportable assumptions regarding what your tools would reveal.  And upon that basis you leapt to the irresponsible conclusion that the photographs had been faked somehow because you couldn't reconcile what the shadows and the "stars" were telling you.

Quote
I have never once been angry here.

Nonsense.  You spewed profanity when people didn't believe -- and rightly so -- that you were a "professional photographer" as they understand the term.  They felt you had misled them about the breadth and depth of your understanding, and they where right to feel that way.  Give yourself whatever title pleases you, but don't profess expertise you don't have when telling people why you believe there was a conspiracy.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 12:42:48 PM
The specks you uncovered by Photoshop are obviously not stars, based on the fact that they change significantly in two photos taken in a short period of time. Stars couldn't do that. Therefore, the question must be, are they fake stars created by NASA, or mere artefacts of twiddling knobs in Photoshop. Since NASA never identified these specks as being stars, why would NASA include them at all? There would be no point in putting invisible stars into their photos, while claiming that stars didn't show up in them at all, in fact couldn't show up.

Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that they are not stars or deliberate fakes, they are artefacts of digitally manipulating the levels on multi-generation copies of the original photos until some pixels turn white.

If you still believe they could be stars, please explain your theory of why they change so much from one photo to the next. If you could relate the changes to the star field that actually would have been visible from the Moon at the time (with special equipment or by standing in deep shadow and letting one's eyes adjust), so much the better.

While not wanting to be rude Twik, I've already been over this.  there are now 16 pages on here with most of them repeating the same issues.  this has been a non-debate for a long time now.  Try reading it from start to finish if you want me to consider any other replies.

Thanks
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 12:45:45 PM
I came here with a Conspiracy Concern.  Prove otherwise!

Gladly.  From your first post in this thread:

My initial belief is that of a Conspiracy to deceive.

Quote
My 'Friend' is a total Conspiracy Nut Job.

Quote
However, I found anomalies that for a moment, call me foolish or ignorant or lacking in Photographic knowledge and practice, suggested i may have something to consider.

I am calling you lacking in photographic knowledge and practice.  It led you to draw completely unsupportable assumptions regarding what your tools would reveal.  And upon that basis you leapt to the irresponsible conclusion that the photographs had been faked somehow because you couldn't reconcile what the shadows and the "stars" were telling you.

Quote
I have never once been angry here.

Nonsense.  You spewed profanity when people didn't believe -- and rightly so -- that you were a "professional photographer" as they understand the term.  They felt you had misled them about the breadth and depth of your understanding, and they where right to feel that way.  Give yourself whatever title pleases you, but don't profess expertise you don't have when telling people why you believe there was a conspiracy.

I can't argue with what you believe.  I stated very early on VERY early on that I have trouble getting down what I'm trying to say.  Maybe you missed it?

I can't offer you anything more.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Abaddon on January 10, 2017, 12:47:46 PM
Yours (not exclusively) was one that I found particularly rude and assuming.  Take is as something to learn from and move on.

Gillianren is on of the most unfailingly polite and generous posters on this forum.  If you're calling her rude, you really need to rethink your approach.  Being incessantly angry at being justly criticized is not going to make your case.

You came here as a conspiracy theorist.  That is not in question.  You professed expertise you did not have, and on the basis of that pretended expertise you insinuated a "conspiracy to deceive," citing a few long-debunked and often misconceived points amateurs bring up.  While you have indeed congenially accepted correction and participated meaningfully in the ongoing discussion, you still seem to be trying to save face in the form of pretending you didn't come here proposing a conspiracy theory.  You did, and it got shot down.  You can call yourself whatever you want -- "professional phographer," "photon wrangler," or whatever.  But if you profess expertise you do not have, you will get caught here.  Our regulars have a vast cross section of expertise.  Don't have a meltdown when you do get caught.

I came here with a Conspiracy Concern.  Prove otherwise!

My 'Friend' is a total Conspiracy Nut Job.  Lizards and all!  He sends me links all the time to the point of me being concerned about him.  He recently told me that it's not even worth his time trying to prove the Space Program is Fake, he simply Knows it!  I have already stated in here that I have tried to prove to him why there are no stars in space.  Dynamic range etc.  I know this!  but there must always be room for doubt for without it, we won't attempt to prove it.
In an attempt to prove something to HIM, I took two pics and tried to reveal faint details of stars.  However, I found anomalies that for a moment, call me foolish or ignorant or lacking in Photographic knowledge and practice, suggested i may have something to consider.  The 'Stars' had moved!!!!  It is Most Likely, they are NOT Stars at all.  Most probable.  but as I live and breath I cannot allow myself to say for certaintly that they are NOT Stars either.  I am not certain about anything.  I have never once been angry here.  I could be lying, but what can we prove?  I certainly do have problems communicating at times, especially using type!  If I have offended Gillianren I will re-read what she has posted to see if I can conscientiously remove my remarks.  for this I have no problem.

This is all that has happened here.  I've not disagreed with anyone about anything put forward.
Can open, worms everywhere.

I will be generous. This is yet another CT trope. "My friend". Who remains eternally anonymous.

Perhaps you really are not aware of this old CT tactic of making claims on behalf of "a friend". I doubt it.

If "a friend" is making such bovine claims, bring them here. Lets us deal directly with the claimant, who clearly is not you.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 12:51:25 PM
Is it possible to stop this thread now?

I think it's wasting time and life.

I must try and make light of this by suggesting I'm going back to my basement.  I'll know better next time and go straight to the Conspiracy forums instead and let them argue among themselves.  I've obviously come to the wrong place if I wanted self empowerment.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 10, 2017, 12:51:34 PM
I've never claimed 'expertise' and I find myself again wasting time with these responses.

What's the point of telling everyone right off the bat that you were a "professional photographer" if that wasn't meant to impart an air of authority to the argument you were about to lay out, which used photography as its evidence.  If it wasn't relevant, why mention it?  And the only way it could be relevant would be to impart the notion, "I know what I'm talking about."  Turns out you don't.

Quote
this attack on my character is far far removed from my original pst and I'll suffer it no more.

Then apologize for misleading the forum and we can leave this ugliness behind.  As has been explained to you several times, people come here all the time to engage in debates over Apollo evidence.  And they lie all the time.  They lie about what the evidence is.  They lie about what expertise they have.  They lie about their motives for asking questions or challenging the evidence.  I agree that places you in an unfortunate position.  But you need to formulate your argument in a way that doesn't inadvertently misstate the facts or mislead your readers.  Since you're new here and don't have a reputation to fall back on, the safe assumption for a reader to make here is that any misleading statements you make were made intentionally, and that you should be treated as a "hostile" claimant.

There are two (and perhaps more) rules that every conspiracy theorist follows who comes here:

(1) They all take a very similar and characteristic approach.
(2) They all believe they're the first to try that approach, and that it won't be picked up on.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 12:55:48 PM
Yours (not exclusively) was one that I found particularly rude and assuming.  Take is as something to learn from and move on.

Gillianren is on of the most unfailingly polite and generous posters on this forum.  If you're calling her rude, you really need to rethink your approach.  Being incessantly angry at being justly criticized is not going to make your case.

You came here as a conspiracy theorist.  That is not in question.  You professed expertise you did not have, and on the basis of that pretended expertise you insinuated a "conspiracy to deceive," citing a few long-debunked and often misconceived points amateurs bring up.  While you have indeed congenially accepted correction and participated meaningfully in the ongoing discussion, you still seem to be trying to save face in the form of pretending you didn't come here proposing a conspiracy theory.  You did, and it got shot down.  You can call yourself whatever you want -- "professional phographer," "photon wrangler," or whatever.  But if you profess expertise you do not have, you will get caught here.  Our regulars have a vast cross section of expertise.  Don't have a meltdown when you do get caught.

I came here with a Conspiracy Concern.  Prove otherwise!

My 'Friend' is a total Conspiracy Nut Job.  Lizards and all!  He sends me links all the time to the point of me being concerned about him.  He recently told me that it's not even worth his time trying to prove the Space Program is Fake, he simply Knows it!  I have already stated in here that I have tried to prove to him why there are no stars in space.  Dynamic range etc.  I know this!  but there must always be room for doubt for without it, we won't attempt to prove it.
In an attempt to prove something to HIM, I took two pics and tried to reveal faint details of stars.  However, I found anomalies that for a moment, call me foolish or ignorant or lacking in Photographic knowledge and practice, suggested i may have something to consider.  The 'Stars' had moved!!!!  It is Most Likely, they are NOT Stars at all.  Most probable.  but as I live and breath I cannot allow myself to say for certaintly that they are NOT Stars either.  I am not certain about anything.  I have never once been angry here.  I could be lying, but what can we prove?  I certainly do have problems communicating at times, especially using type!  If I have offended Gillianren I will re-read what she has posted to see if I can conscientiously remove my remarks.  for this I have no problem.

This is all that has happened here.  I've not disagreed with anyone about anything put forward.
Can open, worms everywhere.

I will be generous. This is yet another CT trope. "My friend". Who remains eternally anonymous.

Perhaps you really are not aware of this old CT tactic of making claims on behalf of "a friend". I doubt it.

If "a friend" is making such bovine claims, bring them here. Lets us deal directly with the claimant, who clearly is not you.

I am aware that people use the term 'my friend' while hoping to gain answers to a delicate or shameful topic, removing themselves from it; yes.

Why assume that is the case here?  we don't make assumptions in engineering do we?  The bridge would fall down!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 12:56:48 PM
I've never claimed 'expertise' and I find myself again wasting time with these responses.

What's the point of telling everyone right off the bat that you were a "professional photographer" if that wasn't meant to impart an air of authority to the argument you were about to lay out, which used photography as its evidence.  If it wasn't relevant, why mention it?  And the only way it could be relevant would be to impart the notion, "I know what I'm talking about."  Turns out you don't.

Quote
this attack on my character is far far removed from my original pst and I'll suffer it no more.

Then apologize for misleading the forum and we can leave this ugliness behind.  As has been explained to you several times, people come here all the time to engage in debates over Apollo evidence.  And they lie all the time.  They lie about what the evidence is.  They lie about what expertise they have.  They lie about their motives for asking questions or challenging the evidence.  I agree that places you in an unfortunate position.  But you need to formulate your argument in a way that doesn't inadvertently misstate the facts or mislead your readers.  Since you're new here and don't have a reputation to fall back on, the safe assumption for a reader to make here is that any misleading statements you make were made intentionally, and that you should be treated as a "hostile" claimant.

There are two (and perhaps more) rules that every conspiracy theorist follows who comes here:

(1) They all take a very similar and characteristic approach.
(2) They all believe they're the first to try that approach, and that it won't be picked up on.

you would know the answers to your own questions if you read the entire thread.

Thanks
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 10, 2017, 01:00:59 PM
Is it possible to stop this thread now?

You can stop contributing at any time and it will likely die away.  The past several pages seem mostly to be you trying to save face for a failed argument.  It's okay if you're on a journey to discovering this body of knowledge.  But don't try to tell people you didn't come here as a conspiracy theorist arguing a conspiracy theory.  Just say, "I was wrong; thanks for correcting me."

Quote
I've obviously come to the wrong place if I wanted self empowerment.

Yes, you have.  Claims of hoax or conspiracy are not coddled here.  They are tested with extreme rigor and from a collective background of vast knowledge.  If you came here seeking approval, you went about it entirely wrong.  To continue, you purported to have found an anomaly in a pair of photographs and you proffered the explanation that the photos may have been hoaxed by adjusting the lighting.  Part of the basis of that argument was a profession of expertise, lending credibility to your manipulation of the photos digitally.  Turns out that profession of expertise was misleading because you needed to know more than you did.  The proper response would have been "I guess there's a lot I still need to know," not repeatedly insisting your self-imposed title means something.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 01:04:03 PM
Is it possible to stop this thread now?

You can stop contributing at any time and it will likely die away.  The past several pages seem mostly to be you trying to save face for a failed argument.  It's okay if you're on a journey to discovering this body of knowledge.  But don't try to tell people you didn't come here as a conspiracy theorist arguing a conspiracy theory.  Just say, "I was wrong; thanks for correcting me."

Quote
I've obviously come to the wrong place if I wanted self empowerment.

Yes, you have.  Claims of hoax or conspiracy are not coddled here.  They are tested with extreme rigor and from a collective background of vast knowledge.  If you came here seeking approval, you went about it entirely wrong.  To continue, you purported to have found an anomaly in a pair of photographs and you proffered the explanation that the photos may have been hoaxed by adjusting the lighting.  Part of the basis of that argument was a profession of expertise, lending credibility to your manipulation of the photos digitally.  Turns out that profession of expertise was misleading because you needed to know more than you did.  The proper response would have been "I guess there's a lot I still need to know," not repeatedly insisting your self-imposed title means something.

No, YOU are becoming the entirely Wrong response.  This thread was conceded long ago with my acknowledgement of it's truth and my error in assumption of Stars.  I t is all there to be read and revealed in 18 pages.

Thanks
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 10, 2017, 01:06:15 PM
you would know the answers to your own questions if you read the entire thread.

My questions were rhetorical, and raised points you have not addressed.  You're trying to say you never claimed any expertise.  In fact you did, and now you're trying to weasel away from it.  This ongoing dishonesty is why no one trusts you yet.  You found out your professed expertise was irrelevant to what you needed to know in order to make the proper study.  You seem to think your late admission that you lack the appropriate expertise is tantamount to never having said you did.  You think that lately disavowing any conspiracy theory is tantamount to never having expressed a belief in one.  It's okay to posture your experience here as a journey from one point to another in your understanding and belief.  But trying to rewrite the early stages of the argument, here in the later stage, conveys the impression that you're not entirely honest in your approach.  It's not my credibility that's on the line here.  If you aren't a conspiracy theorist and don't want to keep being mistaken for one, I'm telling you what you need to do in order to avoid that.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 01:11:11 PM
you would know the answers to your own questions if you read the entire thread.

My questions were rhetorical, and raised points you have not addressed.  You're trying to say you never claimed any expertise.  In fact you did, and now you're trying to weasel away from it.  This ongoing dishonesty is why no one trusts you yet.  You found out your professed expertise was irrelevant to what you needed to know in order to make the proper study.  You seem to think your late admission that you lack the appropriate expertise is tantamount to never having said you did.  You think that lately disavowing any conspiracy theory is tantamount to never having expressed a belief in one.  It's okay to posture your experience here as a journey from one point to another in your understanding and belief.  But trying to rewrite the early stages of the argument, here in the later stage, conveys the impression that you're not entirely honest in your approach.  It's not my credibility that's on the line here.  If you aren't a conspiracy theorist and don't want to keep being mistaken for one, I'm telling you what you need to do in order to avoid that.

I may read this later.  I'm exhausted.

Thanks
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 10, 2017, 01:12:19 PM
This thread was conceded long ago with my acknowledgement of it's truth and my error in assumption of Stars.

Then why are you still so concerned with saving face?  It's one thing to say "This is what I now believe."  It's another thing to say, "I never had those old beliefs."  By all means change your mind, but own the change.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 01:25:19 PM
This, although not really a proof of anything as so far, anything i say is a lie, is my 'Friend' and a typical post from him on FB.

Note my reply.  I usually put the time in afterward to debunk what he is suggesting.

My head is literally banging now.  Maybe I'll come back later to reply.

Thanks

you know, assuming everyone is going to be the same probably isn't wise, and especially not helpful.  My approach at the beginning may have been familiar, but it's not familiar to me.  I've never joined or posted on a forum like this.  I'm quite frankly surprised that people have given this much time and effort to it.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: jfb on January 10, 2017, 01:37:39 PM

I've never taken pics on the Moon.  FACT!

But you can take photographs of the moon as a way of learning the problems of photographing a bright moon and stars at the same time. You can do one or the other, not both.

Keying off of this a bit...

Right now, the moon is waxing gibbous and is visible during the afternoon when the sun is still up. 

Now, think about this for a minute - the moon is visible while the sun is up.  No other object, not Venus, not Jupiter, not any other star, is bright enough to see while the sun is still up.  Their light is too dim to cut through the sunlight scattered in the upper atmosphere (it also helps that the moon is an area light source, not a point, so it's throwing more photons at you anyway).  That's kind of the situation happening on your negative - the stars are simply too dim to register compared to the lunar surface. 

The sunlit surface of the moon is something like fifty thousand times brighter than the next brightest object in the sky, far beyond the dynamic range of any film to handle (and that's as viewed from Earth - the situation would likely be even more extreme on the lunar surface itself).  B&W negative film can reliably capture around 10 stops of dynamic range (that is, about a 1000:1 range between highlights and shadow); pulling can extend that another stop or so.  However you'd need at least 16 stops to be able to capture the range between the sunlit lunar surface and the very brightest stars; I don't think you can pull enough to coax that kind of range out of B&W film, at least not with the emulsions that flew on Apollo. 

Forget about color film (negative or transparency).  You could probably use HDR techniques with a digital system to capture that range, but that doesn't help when it comes to Apollo images. 

(This is part of why the shadows on the lunar surface appear so stark in the Apollo images - yes, part of it is because there's no atmosphere to scatter light and create a diffuse light source, but it's also because the film can't handle the range from highlight to shadow, so shadow detail is lost). 

As it is, if you are taking pictures on the moon and you expose for the sunlit lunar surface (using the Sunny 16 rule or something close to it), you will get a pitch-black sky (clear negative in that part of the frame).  If you expose for the stars, the sunlit lunar surface will be a detail-free blob of pure white (maximally dense negative in that part of the frame).  You can't expose for both in the same frame (at least, not without one hell of a graded filter). 

Now, if you're on the far side of the moon during lunar "night", then you should be able to capture both the lunar surface and the stars at the same time, since the stars will be the only source of illumination.  And if someone ever launches a "night" mission to the far side one of these decades, that would be a cool picture to get (imagine the Milky Way rising over the lunar horizon without a hint of atmosphere to get in the way). 

Quote
Quote
But I know for certain that in certain cases, details can be revealed using digital manipulation.  Would you agree?

Yes, providing the details are there. if they were never there no amount of manipulation will reveal them.

CSI (and similar shows) have ruined the minds of a generation.  Sure, I can zoom in on a lone pixel and reveal a reflection of the killer's face in the window!

The stars didn't register on those shots.  No amount of manipulation is going to bring them out. 

Quote
Quote
To add to this, I've no idea how black space is outside of the Earth atmos.  I've no idea how raw sunlight affects film.  I've no idea how the original film captured details.  I had NONE of this knowledge.  It's now more available to me.  You see i have a romantic Idea that space is dazzlingly luminous with uncountable stars.  It's got nothing to do with my camera.  It's an unknown to me to shoot in space.  I was hoping for more stars.

Space is dazzingly luminous with uncountable stars, as many astronauts have reported. You just can't photograph them with a bright moon in shot. Don't mistake a black sky for dark.

To Icarus1: check out NASA TV for video from the ISS sometime; it will give you an idea of the lighting challenges. 
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 01:38:08 PM
Actually here is the conversation I had with 'My Friend' 3rd Jan 2017.  Literally the day I posted this poorly worded statement/question


.

Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 01:39:28 PM

I've never taken pics on the Moon.  FACT!

But you can take photographs of the moon as a way of learning the problems of photographing a bright moon and stars at the same time. You can do one or the other, not both.

Keying off of this a bit...

Right now, the moon is waxing gibbous and is visible during the afternoon when the sun is still up. 

Now, think about this for a minute - the moon is visible while the sun is up.  No other object, not Venus, not Jupiter, not any other star, is bright enough to see while the sun is still up.  Their light is too dim to cut through the sunlight scattered in the upper atmosphere (it also helps that the moon is an area light source, not a point, so it's throwing more photons at you anyway).  That's kind of the situation happening on your negative - the stars are simply too dim to register compared to the lunar surface. 

The sunlit surface of the moon is something like fifty thousand times brighter than the next brightest object in the sky, far beyond the dynamic range of any film to handle (and that's as viewed from Earth - the situation would likely be even more extreme on the lunar surface itself).  B&W negative film can reliably capture around 10 stops of dynamic range (that is, about a 1000:1 range between highlights and shadow); pulling can extend that another stop or so.  However you'd need at least 16 stops to be able to capture the range between the sunlit lunar surface and the very brightest stars; I don't think you can pull enough to coax that kind of range out of B&W film, at least not with the emulsions that flew on Apollo. 

Forget about color film (negative or transparency).  You could probably use HDR techniques with a digital system to capture that range, but that doesn't help when it comes to Apollo images. 

(This is part of why the shadows on the lunar surface appear so stark in the Apollo images - yes, part of it is because there's no atmosphere to scatter light and create a diffuse light source, but it's also because the film can't handle the range from highlight to shadow, so shadow detail is lost). 

As it is, if you are taking pictures on the moon and you expose for the sunlit lunar surface (using the Sunny 16 rule or something close to it), you will get a pitch-black sky (clear negative in that part of the frame).  If you expose for the stars, the sunlit lunar surface will be a detail-free blob of pure white (maximally dense negative in that part of the frame).  You can't expose for both in the same frame (at least, not without one hell of a graded filter). 

Now, if you're on the far side of the moon during lunar "night", then you should be able to capture both the lunar surface and the stars at the same time, since the stars will be the only source of illumination.  And if someone ever launches a "night" mission to the far side one of these decades, that would be a cool picture to get (imagine the Milky Way rising over the lunar horizon without a hint of atmosphere to get in the way). 

Quote
Quote
But I know for certain that in certain cases, details can be revealed using digital manipulation.  Would you agree?

Yes, providing the details are there. if they were never there no amount of manipulation will reveal them.

CSI (and similar shows) have ruined the minds of a generation.  Sure, I can zoom in on a lone pixel and reveal a reflection of the killer's face in the window!

The stars didn't register on those shots.  No amount of manipulation is going to bring them out. 

Quote
Quote
To add to this, I've no idea how black space is outside of the Earth atmos.  I've no idea how raw sunlight affects film.  I've no idea how the original film captured details.  I had NONE of this knowledge.  It's now more available to me.  You see i have a romantic Idea that space is dazzlingly luminous with uncountable stars.  It's got nothing to do with my camera.  It's an unknown to me to shoot in space.  I was hoping for more stars.

Space is dazzingly luminous with uncountable stars, as many astronauts have reported. You just can't photograph them with a bright moon in shot. Don't mistake a black sky for dark.

To Icarus1: check out NASA TV for video from the ISS sometime; it will give you an idea of the lighting challenges.

Sorry, but I haven't read this.  This is already proven!!!!  Please read the ENTIRE thread for any questions about me you might have.

Thanks
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 10, 2017, 01:41:05 PM
This, although not really a proof of anything as so far, anything i say is a lie...

Well, I'll do my part in backing down from the brink.  It really doesn't matter whether you're arguing for yourself or by proxy for a friend.  People here will take your questions, because we like talking about space and the history of its exploration.  Under most circumstances they don't need to know whether you really believe some claim.  If some of the Apollo program seems fishy to you, get your evidence in a row and make your case, and expect vigorous opposition.  If you just want to ask informational questions and get answers, the "Reality of Apollo" section is more appropriate for that.  It really doesn't matter whether you're a professional this or that.  Lots of people here aren't, and they still get treated respectfully.  What matters more is honesty in the approach.

Quote
you know, assuming everyone is going to be the same probably isn't wise, and especially not helpful.

Nobody's assuming everyone is going to be the same.  Instead we observe that all conspiracy theorists fall into the same pattern in their approach.  That's observation, not assumption.  The assumption takes place when someone new shows up and exhibits that pattern.  The assumption -- unless something shows otherwise -- is that the pattern arises because the newcomer has the same plan in mind as all the predecessors.  Don't chastise people for operating under an assumption that many years of experience and evidence has shown to be reasonable given the signs.  Now that you've been made aware of the situation, it's your job to provide that something falsifies the assumption.  If you don't want to be counted among "the same," don't be the same.  I give this advice to all the newcomers.  And I tell newcomers what they're specifically doing wrong.

Quote
I'm quite frankly surprised that people have given this much time and effort to it.

There are thousands of forums like this all over the Internet on every subject you can imagine.  Avail yourself of them.  Many are gold mines of information.  Just keep in mind that when posting in the Hoax Theory section in this one, it is very much about being able to prove your case and having the appropriate knowledge and information.  It's also about expecting to be challenged.  It's why this part of the forum exists.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 10, 2017, 01:44:41 PM
Sorry, but I haven't read this.  This is already proven!!!!  Please read the ENTIRE thread for any questions about me you might have.

Well, you should read it -- not necessarily now but at your leisure -- because he's giving you helpful information.  Not to prove or disprove what you may have claimed, but to explore why things happen the way they do in photography.  You may already know all of it, but the point of this forum is that people learn a lot amidst the discussion and debate.  As I said, we have a number of professional photographers here and a number of amateurs who would probably be in the same class of knowledge and experience as you.  This is often about debating what is or isn't the case, but it's also often about people sharing their understanding.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 01:47:14 PM
This, although not really a proof of anything as so far, anything i say is a lie...

Well, I'll do my part in backing down from the brink.  It really doesn't matter whether you're arguing for yourself or by proxy for a friend.  People here will take your questions, because we like talking about space and the history of its exploration.  Under most circumstances they don't need to know whether you really believe some claim.  If some of the Apollo program seems fishy to you, get your evidence in a row and make your case, and expect vigorous opposition.  If you just want to ask informational questions and get answers, the "Reality of Apollo" section is more appropriate for that.  It really doesn't matter whether you're a professional this or that.  Lots of people here aren't, and they still get treated respectfully.  What matters more is honesty in the approach.

Quote
you know, assuming everyone is going to be the same probably isn't wise, and especially not helpful.

Nobody's assuming everyone is going to be the same.  Instead we observe that all conspiracy theorists fall into the same pattern in their approach.  That's observation, not assumption.  The assumption takes place when someone new shows up and exhibits that pattern.  The assumption -- unless something shows otherwise -- is that the pattern arises because the newcomer has the same plan in mind as all the predecessors.  Don't chastise people for operating under an assumption that many years of experience and evidence has shown to be reasonable given the signs.  Now that you've been made aware of the situation, it's your job to provide that something falsifies the assumption.  If you don't want to be counted among "the same," don't be the same.  I give this advice to all the newcomers.  And I tell newcomers what they're specifically doing wrong.

Quote
I'm quite frankly surprised that people have given this much time and effort to it.

There are thousands of forums like this all over the Internet on every subject you can imagine.  Avail yourself of them.  Many are gold mines of information.  Just keep in mind that when posting in the Hoax Theory section in this one, it is very much about being able to prove your case and having the appropriate knowledge and information.  It's also about expecting to be challenged.  It's why this part of the forum exists.

Jay, it's a shame you weren't the very first person to post after I posted.

I've taken heed to all advice on here, specifically at the end here when 'what to expect if you're a Newbie.

However, mine is one of arguable ignorance and naivety.

you suggested I apologise for mis-leading the forum.  Maybe i can ask the forum to apologise to me and forgive me for falling into a familiar pattern and being scrutinised for it?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Apollo 957 on January 10, 2017, 01:58:27 PM
Let me give you and all others some advice:

Don't talk to strangers like they're children.!  The amount of accusation and assumption in here is astounding! You have absolutely No Idea who I am!  This shows the ONLY lack of intelligence in here; the lack of intelligence and rapport to treat and regard strangers with courtesy.

Thanks again.

Try being more humble in your approach.

As a native English speaker, and one of your fellow countrymen, I have to say I find nothing in the quote to which this was a response which suggests a lack of courtesy.

Please don't let the side down, old chap.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 10, 2017, 01:59:11 PM

Quote
CSI (and similar shows) have ruined the minds of a generation.

Ugh, hate that show.  Sadly a lot of my more right-brained colleagues love it.

Quote
The stars didn't register on those shots.  No amount of manipulation is going to bring them out.

Indeed, and I think we've belabored why.  There simply isn't enough exposure time for the light from stars to rise above the noise threshold.  We know this from the science of astronomy and the chemistry of the particular emulsion.  And we also know this from experimentation.  It's not hard to take E-6 ISO 160 film in the 120 format and a Biogon (albeit modern) lens out at night and see how long an exposure it takes before you begin to see stars.  30 seconds at f/5.6 for a recoverable image, 60 seconds for an exposure visible in the normal E-6 process.  No chance whatsoever of a latent image forming at 1/60.  And therefore no chance that a subsequent scan will pick it up, and no chance that fiddling with the Levels slider will reveal it.  (And contrast expansion should always be done using the algorithm behind the Curves adjustment anyway.)

But the important question is what is brought out by various kinds of image manipulation?  Noise.  Dirt.  Catadioptrics.  Compression artifacts.  Encoding artifacts.  Quantization.  Algebraic artifacts.  You name it, a misapplied contrast expansion will find it.  That's why it's important first to know what the helpful ranges are in the digital toolsets.  Just because you can move the slider all the way over doesn't mean you're getting usable information.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 02:02:44 PM

I will simply say, I am not a Conspiracy Theorist on this matter, and I'm really tired of explaining this over and over again. I will also say, since the advent of Digital my practices in Film no longer apply to me; nor is my memory of them.  The knowledge i didn't have was what film iso etc. was used and how it reacted in space.  As we've arrived here in an inquiring manner, you might have figured that I've already covered this in earlier posts.  You have, like others, assumed too much of me and my supposed ignorance.

Well, you sure act like a conspiracy theorist. Perhaps you should look at that before ranting at strangers? 

Sorry but i've still no idea how to post or quote, but how does appearing to Act like a CT, Prove I AM one?

Second to this, I am looking for truth!  Nothing else.

I seem to have found it!

Namely, the lack of stars in Space/Moon/Orbit photography, and also a reason or attempt, to prove or disprove the Hoax theories of going to the moon.

So I'm here to Prove or disprove the CT on why No stars??  What am I missing?

Assuming the moon photo's are legit

I'm relying on strangers to give me proof.  None of us have been there.  Assumption based upon proven knowledge are the backbone of the proof.  It's not 1st hand

Oh dear me; I've managed to find a Troll in my very 1st instance on this site.  Were you born Angry and Lonely or did you work at it?  Congratulations!

Not sure why you highlighted this and not HIS responses to me?
My initial belief is that of a Conspiracy to deceive.  I am left believing that in order for the foreground shadows to be constant and not moving they must be lit by a light source that is in a fixed position relative the object i.e either frozen in a moment of time as in a pic (assuming Sun is light source), or in a fixed position on the ground adjacent to the subject on the same terrestrial plane (Artificial Sun).

Magic words here is 'Initial belief'.  It was actually bknight that said there's was nothing here.  I simply asked for evidence or proof i.e knowledge for myself to know why for sure.


^^Your words, within the first handful of posts.

i know they're mine.  why did you repost only this and not the rest where i try to re-classify my question?  are you purposefully trying to ridicule me?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 02:04:17 PM
Let me give you and all others some advice:

Don't talk to strangers like they're children.!  The amount of accusation and assumption in here is astounding! You have absolutely No Idea who I am!  This shows the ONLY lack of intelligence in here; the lack of intelligence and rapport to treat and regard strangers with courtesy.

Thanks again.

Try being more humble in your approach.

As a native English speaker, and one of your fellow countrymen, I have to say I find nothing in the quote to which this was a response which suggests a lack of courtesy.

Please don't let the side down, old chap.

You've got a lot of catching up to do Apollo.  welcome back to my Roasting.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 10, 2017, 02:04:39 PM
Maybe i can ask the forum to apologise to me and forgive me for falling into a familiar pattern and being scrutinised for it?

I don't speak for the forum, but I suppose such an apology would depend on how well in future you follow the advice you've been given.  I agree you haven't at times been treated as well as you should have been, but that doesn't excuse you from being legitimately taken to task for statements you've made.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 10, 2017, 02:08:52 PM
...not the rest where i try to re-classify my question?

"Re-classifying" is suspicious because so many conspiracy theorists change horses or try to move the goalposts in an argument.  When that's followed up later by notions like, "I never said that," or "I never claimed that," it makes people think the claimant is trying to conjure up the appearance of success by changing the question to avoid a rebuttal.  From time to time it's necessary to clarify or recast an argument.  But make it painfully clear that's what you're doing.  Clearly abandon the previous question and state the next one de novo.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 02:10:04 PM

Quote
CSI (and similar shows) have ruined the minds of a generation.

Ugh, hate that show.  Sadly a lot of my more right-brained colleagues love it.

Quote
The stars didn't register on those shots.  No amount of manipulation is going to bring them out.

Indeed, and I think we've belabored why.  There simply isn't enough exposure time for the light from stars to rise above the noise threshold.  We know this from the science of astronomy and the chemistry of the particular emulsion.  And we also know this from experimentation.  It's not hard to take E-6 ISO 160 film in the 120 format and a Biogon (albeit modern) lens out at night and see how long an exposure it takes before you begin to see stars.  30 seconds at f/5.6 for a recoverable image, 60 seconds for an exposure visible in the normal E-6 process.  No chance whatsoever of a latent image forming at 1/60.  And therefore no chance that a subsequent scan will pick it up, and no chance that fiddling with the Levels slider will reveal it.  (And contrast expansion should always be done using the algorithm behind the Curves adjustment anyway.)

But the important question is what is brought out by various kinds of image manipulation?  Noise.  Dirt.  Catadioptrics.  Compression artifacts.  Encoding artifacts.  Quantization.  Algebraic artifacts.  You name it, a misapplied contrast expansion will find it.  That's why it's important first to know what the helpful ranges are in the digital toolsets.  Just because you can move the slider all the way over doesn't mean you're getting usable information.

I agree with everything you've just said here,and willfully admit that certain things you've mentioned, I've no Idea about.  However, suggesting i am a Professional Photographer does not suppose I know all of this.  I hope we can move past this now, moot point.   
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 02:19:18 PM
OK, Jay.  Let's wrap this up.

I hope even with those small screen caps I've posted we can agree my 'Friend' is real and this was my original reason for looking at images.

I was actually 'assuming' wrongly it seems as I have conceded long ago, that what I 'thought' were Stars are more than likely, cosmic rays, pubes, lice or just general dust.  Not to mention emulsion artifacts, damage, and aliens?

I have proved on all accounts I am a N00b, especially in the 'How to post a question in a truthers Forum' Category.  I've already been awarded a Medal in here.  Thanks for that.  I'd like to thank............

I will take my first step toward apologising If I have offended anyone at all.  It was never my intention. 

If you have added to this thread in a positive manner I thank, you but if you've added in a Nagative way, then I thank you twice.


Please take this as my final on the matter of 'Are these Stars' or 'These are Stars' or have I made a complete fool of myself publicy, again.

Take care and maybe i'll talk to you all again when I've become a Master Astro Tog and uncovered what is really going on in Alaska.

Regards

Paul

Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 02:26:59 PM
Last one.  To finish, my 'Friend' has just sent me this to look at.  Looks like I'm going to be busy tonight!

Thanks

Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 10, 2017, 02:34:31 PM
However, suggesting i am a Professional Photographer does not suppose I know all of this.

Yes it does, at least around here.  Claiming to be a professional photographer doesn't just say that's how you make your living.  It implies a body of knowledge, a degree of proficiency, and otherwise unobtainable experience with common pitfalls in the practice.  That's how your claim was received.  It was received as an assurance that the judgment involved in analyzing the two photographs was properly informed and shouldn't be written off as a layman's error.  And it was fairly apparent that's how you expected it to be received.  Maybe you didn't, but that's the customary reason for prefacing one's opinion by stating a relevant professional qualification.

Around here, knowledge of the things I mentioned to jfb is expected of a professional photographer.  What separates the amateur from the professional in terms of quality of work is that the latter knows about all the sources of failure, error, contamination, degradation, etc. in his work and takes steps to eliminate them.  All that I mentioned falls under that category.  The professional is expected to know a simple thing like an overblown contrast expansion simply amplifies noise.  Heck, that was true even back in film days -- it just wasn't noise in a rasterized grid.  Now I don't expect you blow a roll of 120 trying to shoot pictures of stars.  But a professional photographer is expected to know enough about film to have some intuition for what should and shouldn't expose.   Back in the day we didn't even have TTL light meters.  We metered and bracketed and metered again and bracketed again.  After a while you don't have to bracket so much because you came to know your equipment and supplies, and you got better at reading the environment.  After a while, remembering rules like "sunny 16," a professional is expected to know right off the bat that specks in a contrast-expanded photograph from the 1960s can't possibly be stars.

Now I apologize if you were held to a standard you weren't ready to meet.  But as far as your audience goes, all that I explained and more is indeed expected of someone who flies the flag of a professional in that field.

Quote
I hope we can move past this now, moot point.

Well, you've certainly taken your lumps over it and I think we'd all rather quit arguing in such a highly personalized form.  Whether it remains as moot as it is now depends on how accurately and honestly you represent your level of understanding in future.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 10, 2017, 02:44:03 PM
I have proved on all accounts I am a N00b, especially in the 'How to post a question in a truthers Forum' Category.

Luckily, the "New guy perhaps being innocently mistaken for a conspiracy theorist" trope arises often enough that it can be believed.  We have to confess to a bit of paranoia because we're constantly being baited into lowering our guard.  Argumentation, when it comes to fringe theories like appear here, is probably 90 percent bare tactics and rhetoric on the part of the claimant.  Very little actual discussion or debate.  So we've become attuned to what historically have been the warning signs of rhetorical trickery.

Quote
I will take my first step toward apologising If I have offended anyone at all.  It was never my intention.

It seems like everyone is calming down a little.

Quote
Please take this as my final on the matter of 'Are these Stars' or 'These are Stars' or have I made a complete fool of myself publicy, again.

The goal is not to make a fool of any but who deserve it.  If your purpose is simply to know things, there are a lot of people on this and similar forums who know things.  Or even if you want to challenge some tenet, the purpose is to help understand what makes a good case and good rebuttals.  While the regulars are fairly aligned on the authenticity of Apollo, you'll find elsewhere here (and, again, on other forums), that we disagree on some things too.  We hold people (even ourselves -- ask about the T-shirt) to high standards of knowledge, logic, and reason because we believe that's going to benefit us all.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Apollo 957 on January 10, 2017, 03:00:24 PM
I'm hoping to find a visual illustration of trajectory and scale in relation to Earth, moon and craft; if it's even possible.  I'll keep looking.

There's two, but not to exact scale, just a few posts above this one.

Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Apollo 957 on January 10, 2017, 03:23:24 PM
Last one.  To finish, my 'Friend' has just sent me this to look at.  Looks like I'm going to be busy tonight!

Just un-friend him. You know it makes sense.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Cat Not Included on January 10, 2017, 03:55:59 PM
So, random question on the topic...and this may be a very dumb question (I am very, very, very much NOT a professional photographer. In fact, my photography knowledge is at the level of "there's this thing called a camera and I point it and push a button and hopefully get a picture and I think maybe there are little gnomes involved in the process)...

If you digitally scan a print of an image, would you actually be able to do much as far as altering the scanned version to learn about the original? I would think you would lose a lot along the way; the scanned version would just be at the resolution of the scan, regardless of the original resolution.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: AtomicDog on January 10, 2017, 04:27:20 PM
"No other object, not Venus, not Jupiter, not any other star, is bright enough to see while the sun is still up."

I've seen Venus while the sun is up, in broad daylight. I saw it one morning a year or so ago, about two hours after sunrise. I used the crescent moon as a guide. Still hard to find,  but unmistakable once I finally spotted it.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: smartcooky on January 10, 2017, 04:55:56 PM
I'm hoping to find a visual illustration of trajectory and scale in relation to Earth, moon and craft; if it's even possible.  I'll keep looking.

Thanks.

Well here is one of the Earth and the Moon, drawn to scale

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/Earth-Moon-to-scale.png)

The scale here is approximately 640km per pixel

The image is 640 x 425 pixels

The Earth is the 20 pixel diameter (12,700 km) pale blue dot on the left
The Moon is the 5 pixel diameter (3,400 km) grey dot, 600 pixels (384,000 km) away to its right.

The problems come when you try to show the Apollo orbits to scale.

TLI took place at 334 km above the earth's surface. That is about half a pixel on the scale of the above diagram

The Apollo lunar orbit began at 310 km x 110 km (above the Lunar surface) which was then changed to a circular parking orbit of about 110 km. In terms of the scale of the diagram, those values are about one half, and one sixth of a pixel respectively.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Allan F on January 10, 2017, 05:03:17 PM
So, random question on the topic...and this may be a very dumb question (I am very, very, very much NOT a professional photographer. In fact, my photography knowledge is at the level of "there's this thing called a camera and I point it and push a button and hopefully get a picture and I think maybe there are little gnomes involved in the process)...

If you digitally scan a print of an image, would you actually be able to do much as far as altering the scanned version to learn about the original? I would think you would lose a lot along the way; the scanned version would just be at the resolution of the scan, regardless of the original resolution.

You will lose data in the process. Every time you reproduce a photo, you lose something in the process.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 10, 2017, 06:29:17 PM
The problems come when you try to show the Apollo orbits to scale.

Or in three dimensions.  Or over the time of the mission.  Over the vast sizes and distances involved, the required tolerances are just tiny.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 08:43:12 PM
The problems come when you try to show the Apollo orbits to scale.

Or in three dimensions.  Or over the time of the mission.  Over the vast sizes and distances involved, the required tolerances are just tiny.

JayUtah, what are your thoughts on the Spiraling Vortex Theory?  Once again , based upon my limited knowledge of how stars and galaxies are formed, it actually makes sense to me.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 09:08:46 PM
So, random question on the topic...and this may be a very dumb question (I am very, very, very much NOT a professional photographer. In fact, my photography knowledge is at the level of "there's this thing called a camera and I point it and push a button and hopefully get a picture and I think maybe there are little gnomes involved in the process)...

If you digitally scan a print of an image, would you actually be able to do much as far as altering the scanned version to learn about the original? I would think you would lose a lot along the way; the scanned version would just be at the resolution of the scan, regardless of the original resolution.

Scanning an already processed photo will almost NEVER reveal any extra info that was not present in the initial print and in all likelihood, add artificial detail such as tiny dust particles or printing defects.  Variances in the photographic paper used, for instance will create artifacts that can be distorted if overly processed;  especially if you use something like Photoshop to simply increase levels etc.  Scanning will also depend on the quality of the Scanner itself.  Not all hardware is created equal.  Ideally you would want the Original RAW digital File OR the original Film Negative to create a clean image.

There are a lot of people who think they are Photographers on here.  Make sure you listen to those that know their stuff.  A hobbyist making a few quid here and there is most definitely in this category.  Good Luck with your Scans.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Abaddon on January 10, 2017, 09:19:39 PM
So, random question on the topic...and this may be a very dumb question (I am very, very, very much NOT a professional photographer. In fact, my photography knowledge is at the level of "there's this thing called a camera and I point it and push a button and hopefully get a picture and I think maybe there are little gnomes involved in the process)...

If you digitally scan a print of an image, would you actually be able to do much as far as altering the scanned version to learn about the original? I would think you would lose a lot along the way; the scanned version would just be at the resolution of the scan, regardless of the original resolution.

Scanning an already processed photo will almost NEVER reveal any extra info that was not present in the initial print and in all likelihood, add artificial detail such as tiny dust particles or printing defects.  Variances in the photographic paper used, for instance will create artifacts that can be distorted if overly processed;  especially if you use something like Photoshop to simply increase levels etc.  Scanning will also depend on the quality of the Scanner itself.  Not all hardware is created equal.  Ideally you would want the Original RAW digital File OR the original Film Negative to create a clean image.

There are a lot of people who think they are Photographers on here.  Make sure you listen to those that know their stuff.  A hobbyist making a few quid here and there is most definitely in this category.  Good Luck with your Scans.
Wait, what? Are you now stating that you already knew the answer to your question in the OP?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 09:26:12 PM
I said I did.  I am Professional Photographer!

I've already pointed out in the very early posts that I ****** up in my post!  That sometimes I have trouble putting what I want to ask into a question.

I even used my own Tag line I often use and it's been missed; 'To answer the question, you first need to understand it!'

My point was never that I didn't know the process, it was to Ask for feedback on whether 'They could be stars'!  I didn't make myself understood.

Thanks for playing.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Abaddon on January 10, 2017, 10:19:28 PM
I said I did.  I am Professional Photographer!

I've already pointed out in the very early posts that I ****** up in my post!  That sometimes I have trouble putting what I want to ask into a question.

I even used my own Tag line I often use and it's been missed; 'To answer the question, you first need to understand it!'

My point was never that I didn't know the process, it was to Ask for feedback on whether 'They could be stars'!  I didn't make myself understood.

Thanks for playing.
You have no tag line.

Once again, can we agree that there are no stars and move along to your next question about orbits? Or not?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 10, 2017, 10:37:25 PM
I bloody hope so! ha.

Actually my orbit question is already covered for me.  I was trying to visualise the journey.  Drawings etc. suggest a constant curve. but i'm happy with the info provided.

I was cautious not to put too many questions on here as they're not specifically Apollo orientated, but I am really interested in the Spiraling Vortex Theory.

 ::)
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: smartcooky on January 11, 2017, 05:33:22 AM
Here is a pretty straightforward and concise explanation of why the "Spiraling Vortex Theory" is completely wrong.

http://www.universetoday.com/107322/is-the-solar-system-really-a-vortex/
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 11, 2017, 08:59:11 AM
Thanks. 

Someone posted another link to a 'Debunking' but this one seems very harsh and unprofessional and offers no real evidence to the contrary other then we're at a 60' Tilt to the Galactic plane and not 90*.  By all accounts he acknowledges the spiraling effect (which seems obvious) and that all planets orbit above the 'equatorial line'?? of the Sun, so the only thing he really disagrees on is the Use of word 'Vortex' as a description and that it's not at 90* to the Galactic plane.  He appears to reference the creator as a quack because he believes there is a huge mirror in space.  My thinking and knowledge does not allow me to dispel any theory based upon my lack of understanding or belief of it.  To poo poo his ideas because of another he has doesn't seem like a correct way to dismiss it.
Does this seem like a fair understanding?

I need to be careful here again on how I put questions forward, so I'll endeavor to be more concise.

I appreciate the 'theories' of how the Universe came into existence; Big Bang.  Not that I believe it in my infinite wisdom, but we'll leave that right here!

Can we be sure our solar system was created inside our galaxy, or can we also suggest that it was formed externally and pulled into the galaxy later fully formed?  I ask this to develop a deeper understanding of the physics involved.  For instance, if it was formed inside the galaxy, then we can assume as the Sun is the biggest influence within our SS, and also assuming it is also under constant gravitational influence of the galactic spin, then the Sun becomes a leading player of gravity in the locality re our SS.  Can we assume the planets were forming at the same time as the Sun, or did the sun create the planets after itself was formed; gravitational mass pulled in cosmic debris to form the other planets? 
I ask this to assume the sun is already moving, therefore the planets arrive later and trail the sun which is in motion.  I liken it to tying to catch a bus.  Traveling on the footpath, running toward the bus from the front, only for the bus to pass you as you 'sling shot' around to try and catch it from the rear.  I imagine this effect of gravity to be like that of a Bat and Ball on an elastic string.    For this I'm trying to understand how the planets, though on a 60* tilt could move past or more correctly, Forward of the Sun as the SS is pulled around the galaxy.  as referenced in earlier posts the use of orbits and how they speed up and slow down.

OK, so, either the Sun formed externally to the galaxy, or was formed inside of it.   I'm asking this as I assume because the sun has a greater mass, it is influenced more by the galactic gravity, therefore the sun moves first and the planets are under the influence of the Sun before the galaxy as the locality of the sun, though lower in overall gravity compared to the galaxy, is closer to the planets.

At a 60* title to the galactic plane, can we confirm with all certainty that some, if not all of the planets do exceed forward of the suns perpendicular centre to the GP (galactic plane)?   If they do, then how is this possible? Is it the Bat and Ball on elastic effect of Orbital differences in speed that would allow the planets to move forward of the sun?

That could have probably been shorter and more to the point, but my head is firing off all at once.  I'm sure I've more to ask in a clearer manner, but not right now.  To add I think the model is correct.  We just need to address the 60* tilt and forward accelerated motion of the planets to be in front of the leading sun.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: nomuse on January 11, 2017, 10:41:49 AM
Short answer (as short as I can make it):

You can make any description of the universe pretty if you are using is a word picture. Pick the right words and it will sound convincing.

The accepted mainstream theories of the formation, motion, etc. of our solar system are not founded on words. They are founded on MATH. The physics of the solar system as generally agreed upon is not understood through text, but through formulae, and to paraphrase Lord Kelvin, to do it the other way is to have a knowledge which is meager and unsubstantial.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Apollo 957 on January 11, 2017, 11:05:21 AM
Can we be sure our solar system was created inside our galaxy ....

There's all manner of popular science books which will give you a good starter for 10 on this.

Stephen Hawking - Brief History of Time
Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything

come to mind immediately, I'm sure there's more....
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 11, 2017, 11:17:59 AM
Short answer (as short as I can make it):

You can make any description of the universe pretty if you are using is a word picture. Pick the right words and it will sound convincing.

The accepted mainstream theories of the formation, motion, etc. of our solar system are not founded on words. They are founded on MATH. The physics of the solar system as generally agreed upon is not understood through text, but through formulae, and to paraphrase Lord Kelvin, to do it the other way is to have a knowledge which is meager and unsubstantial.

But there's very little in disagreement with his model?  60 degrees, not 90.  Vortex.

I'm asking 'what am i missing in his model?  We are traveling with the sun.  It does create a spiral.  This actually relates to me earlier question about the figure 8 orbit of the moon trajectory. 

I must be missing something in his proposal that is obvious to everyone else?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: gillianren on January 11, 2017, 11:45:03 AM
I know we've moved on--I've been having computer troubles lately.  But can I just interject how childish I find "pubes, lice" as listed possible contaminants? 
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Cat Not Included on January 11, 2017, 12:31:49 PM
Allan F, Icarus1, thanks for the answers on the 'scan' question! Sorry for the side question. :)
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 11, 2017, 12:34:37 PM
I know we've moved on--I've been having computer troubles lately.  But can I just interject how childish I find "pubes, lice" as listed possible contaminants?

Well, we 'Thought' we'd moved on!

Duly noted.  Add Childish to my list of received insults or lack of mature character, as well as being a Liar, CT, hiding behind 'My Friend' etc.......

Let's leave this?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 11, 2017, 12:36:21 PM
Allan F, Icarus1, thanks for the answers on the 'scan' question! Sorry for the side question. :)

No problem, but ironically this was not a 'Side' question.  The very foundation of this thread, started by myself, was in direct relation to your very question.

:D
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 11, 2017, 12:39:31 PM
I know we've moved on--I've been having computer troubles lately.  But can I just interject how childish I find "pubes, lice" as listed possible contaminants?

I thought it was his attempt at defusing with humor what had clearly descended into unproductive rancor.  Childish, yes, but funny at least to me.  As a matter of actual fact, I have had to deal with prints from negatives or enlargers clearly contaminated with suspicious looking hair.  I didn't ask.  And before I took the carpet out of my studio, I did have a box of negatives infested with carpet beetles that had feasted on the envelopes.  Not quite the same as lice, but they leave excrement behind and that contaminates negatives.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 11, 2017, 12:42:41 PM
JayUtah, what are your thoughts on the Spiraling Vortex Theory?

It's nonsense.  Just another erroneous conclusion drawn from an inaccurate depiction of orbital motion.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 11, 2017, 12:55:41 PM
Can we be sure our solar system was created inside our galaxy ....

There's all manner of popular science books which will give you a good starter for 10 on this.

Stephen Hawking - Brief History of Time
Bill Bryson - A Short History of Nearly Everything

come to mind immediately, I'm sure there's more....

I've actually read, believe it or not (not necessarily understood!) A brief History of time about 20 years ago.  I also have a Short History of Nearly Everything, somewhere, though I lost interest in it.

My question still stands however.  In the link provided, there's little disagreement in the principle.  Save for the 'degrees' and use of the word 'Vortex'.  Everything else stands.

We are traveling with the sun, that is traveling around the galaxy.  We do create a spiral by default.

I'll keep looking. 
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: AtomicDog on January 11, 2017, 01:04:19 PM
Planetary motions do create a spiral, but they are as significant as the fact that a moving bicycle pedal creates a cyclic; not at all, from the point of view of the pedal. From the point of view of the solar system,  the spiral is as insignificant.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 11, 2017, 01:27:45 PM
Planetary motions do create a spiral

Not always.  The spiral arises if the primary's motion within a reference frame is perpendicular to the orbit of the satellite for long enough to matter.  If the reference frame is some arbitrary space-fixed frame, and your time period is sufficiently short, then you can arrange for it to be whatever you want to create the "spiral" motion.  But, for example, if we use the galaxy as our reference frame then the Sun does not follow a straight-line path; it orbits the center of the galaxy.  But the Solar System maintains the same orientation regardless of its direction of orbit, so the "spiral" degenerates into epicycles.

As I said, it's a conclusion drawn on yet another inaccurate model of orbital motion.  It may be an attractively rendered model, but it's wrong.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: smartcooky on January 11, 2017, 02:05:16 PM
Short answer (as short as I can make it):

You can make any description of the universe pretty if you are using is a word picture. Pick the right words and it will sound convincing.

The accepted mainstream theories of the formation, motion, etc. of our solar system are not founded on words. They are founded on MATH. The physics of the solar system as generally agreed upon is not understood through text, but through formulae, and to paraphrase Lord Kelvin, to do it the other way is to have a knowledge which is meager and unsubstantial.

But there's very little in disagreement with his model?  60 degrees, not 90.  Vortex.

I'm asking 'what am i missing in his model?  We are traveling with the sun.  It does create a spiral.  This actually relates to me earlier question about the figure 8 orbit of the moon trajectory. 

I must be missing something in his proposal that is obvious to everyone else?

Everything creates a vortex if you look at it that way. An aircraft propellor makes a corkscrew through the air that appears to be led by the spinner cone. However you also have to take into account the rotation of the earth, the revolution of the earth around the sun, the revolution of the solar system around the galactic core, the motion of the galaxy through our local group (did you know that the Milky Way and M31 in Andromeda, a.k.a. the Andromeda galaxy, are heading towards each other at over 100 km/sec and will collide in about 4 billion years?)

Everything depends on your frame of reference. While the Spinning Vortex looks pretty and the animation is very well done, it actually has no scientific significance of any kind, and the other attached woo woo that comes with the ideas of its creator have no merit whatsoever.

As for the the formation of the the solar system, it is well understood that the sun and its retinue of planets, moons, comets, asteroids and other solid materials were all formed at the same time.



ETA: And here is some evidence that we are observing this process taking place. I give you the proto-planetay disk of HL Tauri...

(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/ApolloHoax/HLTauri-PPDisk.png)

... "photographed"  by ALMA, the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array — a giant telescope consisting of 66 individual antennas, located high up in the Atacama desert in northern Chile.

HL Tauri, is only about a million years old. The glowing rings are dust and gas swirling around the protostar gradually forming into planets and asteroids.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 11, 2017, 02:48:58 PM
Quote
At a 60* title to the galactic plane, can we confirm with all certainty that some, if not all of the planets do exceed forward of the suns perpendicular centre to the GP (galactic plane)?   If they do, then how is this possible?

Why shouldn't it be possible? Or, to turn the question back to you, what would be stopping them from moving ahead of the Sun? The Moon moves ahead of the Earth and back again every orbit too.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Abaddon on January 12, 2017, 01:28:37 AM
Short answer (as short as I can make it):

You can make any description of the universe pretty if you are using is a word picture. Pick the right words and it will sound convincing.

The accepted mainstream theories of the formation, motion, etc. of our solar system are not founded on words. They are founded on MATH. The physics of the solar system as generally agreed upon is not understood through text, but through formulae, and to paraphrase Lord Kelvin, to do it the other way is to have a knowledge which is meager and unsubstantial.

But there's very little in disagreement with his model?  60 degrees, not 90.  Vortex.

I'm asking 'what am i missing in his model?  We are traveling with the sun.  It does create a spiral.  This actually relates to me earlier question about the figure 8 orbit of the moon trajectory. 

I must be missing something in his proposal that is obvious to everyone else?
Yes. It is a trivial fact to which an invented meaning has falsely been attached.

Imagine I am in my car in a multi-storey car park seeking a space to park in. As I drive up through the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc floors, one could plot my trajectory and quickly find that my path was helical. There it stops. That helical trajectory has no further meaning. It is simply a consequence of physical reality.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Peter B on January 12, 2017, 08:58:09 AM
...
My 'Friend' is a total Conspiracy Nut Job.  Lizards and all!  He sends me links all the time to the point of me being concerned about him.  He recently told me that it's not even worth his time trying to prove the Space Program is Fake, he simply Knows it!  I have already stated in here that I have tried to prove to him why there are no stars in space.  Dynamic range etc.  I know this!  but there must always be room for doubt for without it, we won't attempt to prove it.
In an attempt to prove something to HIM, I took two pics and tried to reveal faint details of stars.  However, I found anomalies that for a moment, call me foolish or ignorant or lacking in Photographic knowledge and practice, suggested i may have something to consider.  The 'Stars' had moved!!!!  It is Most Likely, they are NOT Stars at all.  Most probable.  but as I live and breath I cannot allow myself to say for certaintly that they are NOT Stars either.  I am not certain about anything.  I have never once been angry here.  I could be lying, but what can we prove?  I certainly do have problems communicating at times, especially using type!  If I have offended Gillianren I will re-read what she has posted to see if I can conscientiously remove my remarks.  for this I have no problem.

This is all that has happened here.  I've not disagreed with anyone about anything put forward.

There's an interesting contrast between these two attitudes bolded above. Absolute certainty is, IMHO, an unhelpful attitude to hold. Personally, I know my own limitations. That's why, for example, I've posted little in this thread as I know little about photography.

But the opposite attitude which you appear to hold - that you aren't certain about anything - can be just as unhelpful. This is the sort of attitude that can lead to the casual dismissal of legitimate expertise. It's frustrating and disrespectful when it happens because it appears to equate the expertise of someone who's studied a topic for years with someone who's undertaken a couple of Google searches.

Sure, we can't be absolutely certain about anything. But equally, there are plenty of things we can be as good as certain about - the Earth is a globe not flat, water boils at 100 degrees C, and so on - that to keep repeating "I'm not certain about anything" is to be perverse.

As I said in an earlier post, all of the evidence available about Project Apollo points to the same conclusion - that it happened pretty much as NASA said it did. Saying so doesn't mean we endorse everything that NASA has ever said or done - far from it. There are some harsh critics of NASA even on this forum, and people who post here have a variety of political views (look at the threads about Trump to see how we disagree there). But none of that alters the stunningly wide array of evidence that's available for people to look at and ask questions about.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Peter B on January 12, 2017, 09:06:23 AM
Short answer (as short as I can make it):

You can make any description of the universe pretty if you are using is a word picture. Pick the right words and it will sound convincing.

The accepted mainstream theories of the formation, motion, etc. of our solar system are not founded on words. They are founded on MATH. The physics of the solar system as generally agreed upon is not understood through text, but through formulae, and to paraphrase Lord Kelvin, to do it the other way is to have a knowledge which is meager and unsubstantial.

But there's very little in disagreement with his model?  60 degrees, not 90.  Vortex.

I'm asking 'what am i missing in his model?  We are traveling with the sun.  It does create a spiral.  This actually relates to me earlier question about the figure 8 orbit of the moon trajectory. 

I must be missing something in his proposal that is obvious to everyone else?

One thing you need to consider is that there are many solar systems other than ours. The planets in those solar systems orbit their suns at all sorts of angles to the galactic plane, from being exactly parallel to the plane to being at 90 degrees to it. These angles are determined by the characteristics of the collapsing dust-and-gas clouds that formed those solar systems, not the fact that those solar systems orbit the centre of the Milky Way galaxy just like us.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 13, 2017, 07:31:23 AM
...
My 'Friend' is a total Conspiracy Nut Job.  Lizards and all!  He sends me links all the time to the point of me being concerned about him.  He recently told me that it's not even worth his time trying to prove the Space Program is Fake, he simply Knows it!  I have already stated in here that I have tried to prove to him why there are no stars in space.  Dynamic range etc.  I know this!  but there must always be room for doubt for without it, we won't attempt to prove it.
In an attempt to prove something to HIM, I took two pics and tried to reveal faint details of stars.  However, I found anomalies that for a moment, call me foolish or ignorant or lacking in Photographic knowledge and practice, suggested i may have something to consider.  The 'Stars' had moved!!!!  It is Most Likely, they are NOT Stars at all.  Most probable.  but as I live and breath I cannot allow myself to say for certaintly that they are NOT Stars either.  I am not certain about anything.  I have never once been angry here.  I could be lying, but what can we prove?  I certainly do have problems communicating at times, especially using type!  If I have offended Gillianren I will re-read what she has posted to see if I can conscientiously remove my remarks.  for this I have no problem.

This is all that has happened here.  I've not disagreed with anyone about anything put forward.

There's an interesting contrast between these two attitudes bolded above. Absolute certainty is, IMHO, an unhelpful attitude to hold. Personally, I know my own limitations. That's why, for example, I've posted little in this thread as I know little about photography.

But the opposite attitude which you appear to hold - that you aren't certain about anything - can be just as unhelpful. This is the sort of attitude that can lead to the casual dismissal of legitimate expertise. It's frustrating and disrespectful when it happens because it appears to equate the expertise of someone who's studied a topic for years with someone who's undertaken a couple of Google searches.

Sure, we can't be absolutely certain about anything. But equally, there are plenty of things we can be as good as certain about - the Earth is a globe not flat, water boils at 100 degrees C, and so on - that to keep repeating "I'm not certain about anything" is to be perverse.

As I said in an earlier post, all of the evidence available about Project Apollo points to the same conclusion - that it happened pretty much as NASA said it did. Saying so doesn't mean we endorse everything that NASA has ever said or done - far from it. There are some harsh critics of NASA even on this forum, and people who post here have a variety of political views (look at the threads about Trump to see how we disagree there). But none of that alters the stunningly wide array of evidence that's available for people to look at and ask questions about.

Peter, you can't really argue with how I see the world, or my Philosophy on life; and your post appears more Philosophical in nature that relating to the question or the Facts.  My thinking and resolution is mine and mine alone.  The workings of my mind are not up for debate.  Knowledge is Archaic and can change daily.  New theories and evolution of thought occur often at random but on a regular basis.

For this reason alone, I question everything; as unhelpful as you may deem it to be.

Your post hasn't really been helpful to me; if at all!

No harm done, however. 

Thank you.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 13, 2017, 08:18:01 AM
If that vortex garbage was correct and the heliocentric model incorrect then the method that we have used for decades to send probes to the planets would not work. Using our existing models we can do things like launching the Rosetta probe in 2004 and 12 years later have the probe in exactly the right place to rendezvous with a comet.



New Horizons was launched in 2006 and a decade after launch it arrives at Pluto with an error in the order of a few tens of kilometres after travelling 4.7 billion Kms.


The problem is not with our existing models of how planets move, it's with some peoples inability to think critically.

Surely anyone with a modicum of critical analysis can look at a video, no matter how snazzy the graphics and music, and think "well, if that's correct then all the other stuff - Voyager, New Horizons, Mariner, Rosetta, the hundreds of Earth-orbiting, GPS, satellite TV and international phone calls are all wrong. Therefore, it must be the video that's bunkum" . Or is a segment of the population so gullible and so easily swayed by flashing lights? How do they manage to walk out the door every day and not be shocked by a passing cloud???

Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Apollo 957 on January 13, 2017, 09:50:57 AM
I question everything

I doubt you do mean everything. I know you took issue with my previous examples of what you might take for granted, but ....
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 13, 2017, 10:08:01 AM
I question everything

I doubt you do mean everything. I know you took issue with my previous examples of what you might take for granted, but ....

"I question everything" is just another version of "I'm only asking questions". No, he doesn't question everything. No one does.
Does Icarus1 wake up in the morning and think "I wonder if gravity is bunkum or has vanished overnight? I best question it before taking the stairs down to the kitchen"
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 13, 2017, 10:59:00 AM
I question everything

I doubt you do mean everything. I know you took issue with my previous examples of what you might take for granted, but ....

"I question everything" is just another version of "I'm only asking questions". No, he doesn't question everything. No one does.
Does Icarus1 wake up in the morning and think "I wonder if gravity is bunkum or has vanished overnight? I best question it before taking the stairs down to the kitchen"

haha Yes......... Erm......not to be taken Literally! :P
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 13, 2017, 11:28:24 AM
If that vortex garbage was correct and the heliocentric model incorrect then the method that we have used for decades to send probes to the planets would not work. Using our existing models we can do things like launching the Rosetta probe in 2004 and 12 years later have the probe in exactly the right place to rendezvous with a comet.



New Horizons was launched in 2006 and a decade after launch it arrives at Pluto with an error in the order of a few tens of kilometres after travelling 4.7 billion Kms.


The problem is not with our existing models of how planets move, it's with some peoples inability to think critically.

Surely anyone with a modicum of critical analysis can look at a video, no matter how snazzy the graphics and music, and think "well, if that's correct then all the other stuff - Voyager, New Horizons, Mariner, Rosetta, the hundreds of Earth-orbiting, GPS, satellite TV and international phone calls are all wrong. Therefore, it must be the video that's bunkum" . Or is a segment of the population so gullible and so easily swayed by flashing lights? How do they manage to walk out the door every day and not be shocked by a passing cloud???

I don't actually know why the erst would become impossible because of this video.  I'm actually assuming this vid is just a visualisation of the SS moving thru space?  I haven't considered this isn't the case.

I'm obviously seeing something that I shouldn't, understanding it wrongly or simply lacking in so much knowledge on the subject I appear retarded!

I don't know why so many people are against this idea.  So I'll break my understanding down into specific questions, relating only to what I understand.  For now, forget that video of the Vortex!



Our Solar System has the Sun at the centre.  The Sun is the greatest Gravitational influence, locally (though the planets act upon each other).  We are traveling thru space 'following' the Sun? 

How does a planet accelerate past the Sun, if the Sun IS our gravitational lead, and the Sun is traveling at 150miles per second?  Is it like me being on a plane and swinging a cat around me head?  In my head it can't be because of the forces involved.  Swinging a cat creates an outward force, yet Gravity is a pulling force, therefore they're not the same equation?

Is our Orbit around the Sun always the same, apart from it being elliptical?;  The orbital pattern itself, not the spiraling effect as the entire SS move thru space.


In fact...............PPPPffffftttt.  I can't figure out gravity other than thinking of water down a plug hole.  What would happen to something in the vortex of the plug hole if the plug hole was traveling in a forward direction, or is the Plug Hole drama not accurate?

I need some visual aid of the moving solar system AS it's traveling around the galaxy??  Does this exist?  Or more specific, does a video of what is currently understood exist that clearly points out the flaws in the Vortex vid?


Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 13, 2017, 11:29:42 AM
"Let us keep our minds open by all means, as long as that means keeping our sense of perspective and seeking an understanding of the forces which mould the world. But don’t keep your minds so open that your brains fall out! "

Prof. Walter Kotschnig
1940 February, The Smith Alumnae Quarterly, Volumes 31, Number 2
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 13, 2017, 11:38:20 AM
"Let us keep our minds open by all means, as long as that means keeping our sense of perspective and seeking an understanding of the forces which mould the world. But don’t keep your minds so open that your brains fall out! "

Prof. Walter Kotschnig
1940 February, The Smith Alumnae Quarterly, Volumes 31, Number 2

haha.  Maybe this is the case here. :D
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: sts60 on January 13, 2017, 11:47:36 AM
Icarus1, the Sun doesn't "pull" the rest of the solar system around the galaxy - that is the impression I get of your mental picture.  The entire solar system is in free fall about the barycenter of the galaxy, just like the Earth-Moon system is in free fall about the Sun, and Cassini is in free fall about Saturn, and so on. 

On the scales of interest for each objects motion, each object is dominated by its primary's gravity: for example - sure, Cassini is in free fall about the center of the galaxy too, but there's generally no point in considering it that way.  So we naturally view it as us falling about the Sun, and the Sun falling about the galactic center.  It doesn't take any extra "effort" on the Sun's part for us on Earth to move about the galaxy.

I hope I undersood where your coming from on this and that this helps.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 13, 2017, 12:01:22 PM
I don't know why so many people are against this idea.
Because it is incorrect.




We are traveling thru space 'following' the Sun? 
No we are not. We (as in the planets) orbit the Sun (strictly speaking, both the Sun and the individual planets orbit a a barycentre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter), which because the Sun is so massive, is inside the Sun's volume). The Solar System, in turn, orbits the Galactic Centre.



How does a planet accelerate past the Sun, if the Sun IS our gravitational lead, and the Sun is traveling at 150miles per second?  Is it like me being on a plane and swinging a cat around me head?  In my head it can't be because of the forces involved.  Swinging a cat creates an outward force, yet Gravity is a pulling force, therefore they're not the same equation?
It doesn't "accelerate past the Sun". Gravity isn't a "pulling force". The planet orbits the Sun because the mass of the Sun distorts spacetime in such a way that the orbit is the most stable way for the planet to move. During its orbit a planet's orbital velocity will increase near perihelion and slow at aphelion. This has been known for hundreds of years  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_orbit)



Is our Orbit around the Sun always the same, apart from it being elliptical?;  The orbital pattern itself, not the spiraling effect as the entire SS move thru space.

What do you mean? As above, the planet's orbital velocity will differ at different points of it's orbital path.



In fact...............PPPPffffftttt.  I can't figure out gravity other than thinking of water down a plug hole.  What would happen to something inthe vortes of the plug hole is the plug hole was traveling in a forward direction??


That's a failure in your knowledge, not a failure in gravity or orbital mechanics.
An orbit is not a vortex.




I need some visual aid of the moving solar system AS it's traveling around the galaxy??  Does this exist?
If our SS was on an exact Horizontal plane to the Galaxy

Please read the Phil plait debunking of the vortex video that I've shown you not once, but twice. That contains a description of the Solar System's path around the galaxy.
Our SS is not on a flat plane...as it orbits it "oscillates" due to the gravitational attraction of the mass in the arms of the Galaxy.



The Sun is is being pulled around the galactic centre by what? 

It's not.
The Galaxy's mass distorts spacetime. This distortion means that the mass in our SS follows a certain path.

assuming gravity is acting upon everything constantly, is it arguable that the Arms of our Spiral Galaxy are more of a thick cosmic soup? 
I've no idea what you are talking about here.

what I mean is, are we encased in a space time relative only to it's own locality, not influenced by the motion of the galaxy?
Ditto.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 13, 2017, 06:08:43 PM
We are traveling thru space 'following' the Sun?

No, we are travelling with the Sun. The Sun is not dragging the planets around the galaxy with it, the entire solar system formed already moving around the galactic core, right from when it was a cloud of dust and hydrogen. In terms of motion around the galactic centre the entire solar system can be considered a single object. 

Quote
How does a planet accelerate past the Sun, if the Sun IS our gravitational lead, and the Sun is traveling at 150miles per second?

The Sun isn't the gravitational lead. It's the centre of mass of what is now a cluster of objects that all orbit the galactic centre, but which have been doing so since long before they became the discrete masses we now recognise.
Quote
I can't figure out gravity other than thinking of water down a plug hole.  What would happen to something in the vortex of the plug hole if the plug hole was traveling in a forward direction,

OK, let's go with the plughole. If you have a bath full of water on the ground and drain it, the water will forma  vortex down the plughole, as you will have seen on many occasions. If you put the bath on a plane and had it in flight and pulled the plug out, the water would drain down the plughole in exactly the same way. Why? Because the bath and the water already have the forward motion of the plane as part of their motion, and so the local effects within the bath will remain the same. This is for the same reason that you don't have to exert any more force in order to throw a ball forward in a moving plane than you do on the ground, and why dropped things in a plane cabin don't fly to the back.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 13, 2017, 06:15:24 PM

OK, let's go with the plughole. If you have a bath full of water on the ground and drain it, the water will forma  vortex down the plughole, as you will have seen on many occasions. If you put the bath on a plane and had it in flight and pulled the plug out, the water would drain down the plughole in exactly the same way. Why? Because the bath and the water already have the forward motion of the plane as part of their motion, and so the local effects within the bath will remain the same. This is for the same reason that you don't have to exert any more force in order to throw a ball forward in a moving plane than you do on the ground, and why dropped things in a plane cabin don't fly to the back.

You wouldn't even have to put it on a plane. The plughole is on Earth which is moving through space.  ;D ;D
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: bknight on January 13, 2017, 10:32:48 PM
We are traveling thru space 'following' the Sun?

No, we are travelling with the Sun. The Sun is not dragging the planets around the galaxy with it, the entire solar system formed already moving around the galactic core, right from when it was a cloud of dust and hydrogen. In terms of motion around the galactic centre the entire solar system can be considered a single object. 

Quote
How does a planet accelerate past the Sun, if the Sun IS our gravitational lead, and the Sun is traveling at 150miles per second?

The Sun isn't the gravitational lead. It's the centre of mass of what is now a cluster of objects that all orbit the galactic centre, but which have been doing so since long before they became the discrete masses we now recognise.
Quote
I can't figure out gravity other than thinking of water down a plug hole.  What would happen to something in the vortex of the plug hole if the plug hole was traveling in a forward direction,

OK, let's go with the plughole. If you have a bath full of water on the ground and drain it, the water will forma  vortex down the plughole, as you will have seen on many occasions. If you put the bath on a plane and had it in flight and pulled the plug out, the water would drain down the plughole in exactly the same way. Why? Because the bath and the water already have the forward motion of the plane as part of their motion, and so the local effects within the bath will remain the same. This is for the same reason that you don't have to exert any more force in order to throw a ball forward in a moving plane than you do on the ground, and why dropped things in a plane cabin don't fly to the back.

For similar reasons, one could jump straight up in a moving train and land on the same spot even though the train has moved x feet forward during your jump, you have moved the same distance.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Kiwi on January 15, 2017, 04:17:19 AM
Please read the Phil plait debunking of the vortex video that I've shown you not once, but twice.

I got a feeling from Icarus1 saying the following that he might have ignored your link back in post 223, page 15, or was too foolish or incapable to study it properly.

JayUtah, what are your thoughts on the Spiraling Vortex Theory?  Once again , based upon my limited knowledge of how stars and galaxies are formed, it actually makes sense to me.

He did go on about someone providing a link to some criticism that was "unprofessional" but wasn't smart enough to say who he was talking about, and he's sometimes so poor at communicating clearly that it's hard to tell what he means:--
Someone posted another link to a 'Debunking' but this one seems very harsh and unprofessional and offers no real evidence to the contrary other then we're at a 60' Tilt to the Galactic plane and not 90*.  By all accounts he acknowledges the spiraling effect (which seems obvious) and that all planets orbit above the 'equatorial line'?? of the Sun, so the only thing he really disagrees on is the Use of word 'Vortex' as a description and that it's not at 90* to the Galactic plane.  He appears to reference the creator as a quack because he believes there is a huge mirror in space.  My thinking and knowledge does not allow me to dispel any theory based upon my lack of understanding or belief of it.  To poo poo his ideas because of another he has doesn't seem like a correct way to dismiss it.

I hope, Icarus1, that you weren't rubbishing Phil Plait because in my opinion he has one of the better brains on this planet (as do some of the members here), so shame on you if you were.

Anyway, how about applying your brain to Zakalwe's early post on this vortex stuff -- specifically reply #223 on page 15 and clicking on the link. It's the last word, "garbage." (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html)

If that is the criticism you read but failed to identify when criticising it, shame on you for dissing just one tiny part of Phil Plait's valuable work which is appreciated by sensible people worldwide. And if was someone else's criticism you were rubbishing, then why didn't you identify it properly? Too lazy? We do better than that on this forum -- please do the same.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Peter B on January 15, 2017, 05:34:35 AM
...Can we be sure our solar system was created inside our galaxy, or can we also suggest that it was formed externally and pulled into the galaxy later fully formed?  I ask this to develop a deeper understanding of the physics involved.  For instance, if it was formed inside the galaxy, then we can assume as the Sun is the biggest influence within our SS, and also assuming it is also under constant gravitational influence of the galactic spin, then the Sun becomes a leading player of gravity in the locality re our SS.  Can we assume the planets were forming at the same time as the Sun, or did the sun create the planets after itself was formed; gravitational mass pulled in cosmic debris to form the other planets? 
I ask this to assume the sun is already moving, therefore the planets arrive later and trail the sun which is in motion.  I liken it to tying to catch a bus.  Traveling on the footpath, running toward the bus from the front, only for the bus to pass you as you 'sling shot' around to try and catch it from the rear.  I imagine this effect of gravity to be like that of a Bat and Ball on an elastic string.    For this I'm trying to understand how the planets, though on a 60* tilt could move past or more correctly, Forward of the Sun as the SS is pulled around the galaxy.  as referenced in earlier posts the use of orbits and how they speed up and slow down.

OK, so, either the Sun formed externally to the galaxy, or was formed inside of it.   I'm asking this as I assume because the sun has a greater mass, it is influenced more by the galactic gravity, therefore the sun moves first and the planets are under the influence of the Sun before the galaxy as the locality of the sun, though lower in overall gravity compared to the galaxy, is closer to the planets.

At a 60* title to the galactic plane, can we confirm with all certainty that some, if not all of the planets do exceed forward of the suns perpendicular centre to the GP (galactic plane)?   If they do, then how is this possible? Is it the Bat and Ball on elastic effect of Orbital differences in speed that would allow the planets to move forward of the sun?

Personally I think this is an understandable view to hold, in that the motions of planets, moons, stars and galaxies move in unusual ways, so it makes sense to try to grab at terrestrial analogies to get a sense of what's going on.

Unfortunately, it's wrong.

One of the first things to understand is that the Solar System is a system in the sense of a group of interacting parts forming a whole. The second thing to understand is that the SS began its life as a giant, amorphous cloud of dust and gas: originally, it was this cloud of dust and gas which was orbiting the centre of the galaxy. The individual particles in this cloud were all moving in random directions within the cloud.

Now this cloud would have continued to orbit the centre of the galaxy for quite a while as just a cloud. However, at some point it seems the cloud hit a shockwave from a nearby supernova (or something like that) which compressed the dust and gas enough that it began to collapse. As the cloud began to collapse it began to spin (conservation of momentum - like the spinning ice skater pulling his/her arms in), in the direction determined by the average of the motions of all the particles (out of all the random directions the particles were moving, some particular direction was going to be favoured). It so happened that the favoured direction was tilted at 60 degrees to the plane of the galaxy. The cloud also flattened out into a disc.

And all while this was happening, the cloud continued to orbit the centre of the galaxy.

As the cloud continued to collapse, particles began to clump, with the largest clump at the centre. That became the Sun, while some of the other clumps became the planets and moons (the rest of the other clumps became planets which were either expelled from the Solar System or swallowed up by the Sun).

So the current motions of the planets around the Sun are determined by events which happened in the actual formation of the Solar System itself - a spinning disc of dust and gas, tilted at 60 degrees to the plane of the galaxy, transformed into the Solar System we know today.

Which is why the idea that there's something unusual about the planets sometimes moving "ahead" of the Sun as it orbits the centre of the galaxy is wrong - the planets and the Sun are a system as defined up above, all created out of the one cloud of dust and gas, and conserving the momentum of that cloud as it transformed into the Solar System.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Rob48 on January 17, 2017, 02:19:14 PM
Or is a segment of the population so gullible and so easily swayed by flashing lights? How do they manage to walk out the door every day and not be shocked by a passing cloud???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory

 ;)
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Abaddon on January 18, 2017, 08:43:07 AM
Icarus seems to have bailed.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 18, 2017, 12:31:56 PM
Stealth flounce.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: bknight on January 19, 2017, 07:48:09 AM
Since he didn't have much of an argument regarding image analysis, perhaps he shown the light.  :)
And now he hides in the shadows?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Abaddon on January 19, 2017, 09:18:49 AM
Since he didn't have much of an argument regarding image analysis, perhaps he shown the light.  :)
And now he hides in the shadows?
I don't honestly know. I do know for certain that hoax proponents often pop up with what they think is the killer argument and find themselves oddly deflated when they discover that A: We have the actual answers to hand (both here and elsewhere), B: The logical holes are copiously pointed out to them and C: All of us are really in a "been there done that" space because their imagined "killer argument" is old hat that has been long since beaten to death.

In my experience, the reactions are somewhat limited. It ends up in
A: entrenchment, commonly including the traditional Gish Gallop and a refusal to acknowledge counter points proffered. Sometimes the ebil gubmint shill gambit appears.
B: the flounce. Sometimes a stealth flounce, sometimes the noisy offensive kind or anything in between.
C: Passing the buck. These are not my ideas I'm just asking for A. Friend
D: The faux confession. Concede some minor point as though the hoax was dismissed only to lob in a bigger claim later
E: The genuine. These are really rare, but it can and has happened that a hoax proponent will finally realise how unsupportable the hoax claims really are. I could name two but would struggle to add a third to that .
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 07:00:42 AM
Right you lot.

No baling here, but I do have a life and I needed to get back to it.

It's obvious that some of you LOVE coming here and spend a great deal of time.  It's great to have a hobby, but it's helpful to remove yourself from it from time to time for a fresh perspective.  Some of you need to work on your approach.  Not sure how you get along in social environments, but it's clear a few of you may struggle. 

I've returned to some very clear and genuinely informative replies, but as it has often been received, some poorly assumed 'opinions' on me as well.  Bored of it now, hence why I left you all to it.

It's important to understand and some of you clearly don't, that the sheer amount of knowledge and responses from many of you had overwhelmed me and it was near impossible for me to read, digest and reply to every single point being made.  So If I've missed any, try not to criticise me for it.  you need to be a little more diligent.  Understanding 101!

Kiwi, I could use a list of words in an attempt to communicate what I think of your post.  Hopefully this will do. Shame on you!!! for being so Assuming  Rude and Disrespectful.  Common in here!  Let's keep to the FACTS and less of your FEELINGS and OPINIONS!

sts60 offered a good reply so thank you for that.  No hint of abuse insight.

Jason Thompson thank you also.

Zakalwe......Are you Bi-Polar or suffer multiple personalities?  Maybe you and bknight are the same person??

bknight........Failure in my knowledge is why I'm here you!  I've also NEVER ARGUED in here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Please pay more attention to my posts.  They require further study if you want to understand them.  Must like Science, communication requires the same level of study.  We can't interpret it if we don't understand it.

So, with that said maybe we can get back to learning and sharing of knowledge.  Lets the Class continue.

Peter B thank you for that reply.  However, i understand entirely the given explanation of how star planets etc. are formed.  I'm not here for what I know, I'm questioning the alternative.  bknight has already pointed out what I had already assumed; that our SS had it's own Space Time.  I didn't want to mention this earlier as assumed I'd get it in the neck for talking Star trek Speak!

However, I'd like to question 2 observable instances which you both mentioned; moving in a vehicle.  Jason you say it takes no extra effort.  Yet if I walk to the front of the bus while it's moving it's easier, but if I try moving to the back it's harder.

bknight, in theory, if you were to jump high enough OR stay in the air long enough, would it be correct to assume that it would likely occur that you would NOT land on the same spot?



EDIT....If FACT, bknight, Zakalwe Abaddon, Kiwi.  I don't require any more input from you.  Feel free to entertain yourselves with another post.  It's seems your assumptions and rhetoric are mostly what is keeping this thread alive.  Surely you all have better things to do than spend time in here ridiculing me?

Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 20, 2017, 07:36:50 AM
However, I'd like to question 2 observable instances which you both mentioned; moving in a vehicle.  Jason you say it takes no extra effort.  Yet if I walk to the front of the bus while it's moving it's easier, but if I try moving to the back it's harder.

Which is why I didn't mention a bus. A vehicle moving along the ground will be subject to terrain and the requirements of slowing, speeding up, turning, stopping etc. Generally the only time you walk anywhere in a bus is to your seat after boarding or to the door before disembarking, so during acceleration phases of the journey. I specifically used a plane as an example because once at cruising altitude it generally remains at a pretty steady speed without any requirement to go up or down hills or round corners until it's approaching the landing site. That means there are extended periods during which you, the plane and everything else not moving in the cabin will have the same velocity. At that point, the effort you require to walk forward or backward inside the cabin is the same as if you were on the ground. Objects in the plane will behave in the same way as if they were on the ground.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 20, 2017, 07:45:40 AM
It's great to have a hobby, but it's helpful to remove yourself from it from time to time for a fresh perspective.

Please don't patronise us.

Quote
Not sure how you get along in social environments, but it's clear a few of you may struggle.

If you're going to criticise the members here for their treatment of you, don't return it. You don't know the members here any more than we know you, so if you want us to be civil to you, set the bar.
 
Quote
I didn't want to mention this earlier as assumed I'd get it in the neck for talking Star trek Speak!

You are on a board populated by scientists and engineers, so why would you make such an assumption? Also, since you have criticised the members here for making assumptions about you, perhaps you should refrain from making your own.

Quote
EDIT....If FACT, bknight, Zakalwe Abaddon, Kiwi.  I don't require any more input from you.  Feel free to entertain yourselves with another post.

I think they will contribute or entertain themselves in whatever post they choose, since this is an open forum. If you don't like their input, ignore it. However, only the moderator of the board can give and enforce instructions as to who may post what and where.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 08:20:06 AM
It's great to have a hobby, but it's helpful to remove yourself from it from time to time for a fresh perspective.

Please don't patronise us.

Quote
Not sure how you get along in social environments, but it's clear a few of you may struggle.

If you're going to criticise the members here for their treatment of you, don't return it. You don't know the members here any more than we know you, so if you want us to be civil to you, set the bar.
 
Quote
I didn't want to mention this earlier as assumed I'd get it in the neck for talking Star trek Speak!

You are on a board populated by scientists and engineers, so why would you make such an assumption? Also, since you have criticised the members here for making assumptions about you, perhaps you should refrain from making your own.

Quote
EDIT....If FACT, bknight, Zakalwe Abaddon, Kiwi.  I don't require any more input from you.  Feel free to entertain yourselves with another post.

I think they will contribute or entertain themselves in whatever post they choose, since this is an open forum. If you don't like their input, ignore it. However, only the moderator of the board can give and enforce instructions as to who may post what and where.

I'VE BEEN PATRONISED SINCE I CAME TO THIS FORUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHERE'S YOUR DEFENCE OF THIS???????????????????

Jason I thanked you for your reply.  However you've now suggested it is you ALL as a collective, against Myself.  Why?

Why would you put yourself in the same instance?

Also as it's apparent you want to put me in my place, then why not start by firstly addressing the remarks to me about me and defending me, while then also suggesting I do the same.?  Why would you not address the attitude toward me but only remark on my remark to them???


You're giving me advice on how to deal with abuse on this forum!!!!  Instead of addressing the abuse!

What a joke.

I have nothing more to learn here.


You clearly have no idea on how to communicate.  It's not about the words used.  It's the empathetic ability to understand.

I'm tired of this forum..

I'm sure you'll agree I have NO Place in here, though I'm certain our reasons differ.


What an exercise in futility this has been.


You all openly assume and citisicse but don't like it back.  You're forever giving out instructions on how to be a better person, how to communicate more effectively, yet you all do the opposite.  I can't help but lol in bafflement.


Beam me the **** out of here Scotty. 
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 08:29:01 AM
However, I'd like to question 2 observable instances which you both mentioned; moving in a vehicle.  Jason you say it takes no extra effort.  Yet if I walk to the front of the bus while it's moving it's easier, but if I try moving to the back it's harder.

Which is why I didn't mention a bus. A vehicle moving along the ground will be subject to terrain and the requirements of slowing, speeding up, turning, stopping etc. Generally the only time you walk anywhere in a bus is to your seat after boarding or to the door before disembarking, so during acceleration phases of the journey. I specifically used a plane as an example because once at cruising altitude it generally remains at a pretty steady speed without any requirement to go up or down hills or round corners until it's approaching the landing site. That means there are extended periods during which you, the plane and everything else not moving in the cabin will have the same velocity. At that point, the effort you require to walk forward or backward inside the cabin is the same as if you were on the ground. Objects in the plane will behave in the same way as if they were on the ground.

Jason it was me that mentioned the Bus as it's my question to ask.  The answers need to be relative to my questions.  The moving bus was to further explore the Bat and Ball on elastic effect to understand gravity.  This question is in relation to the speeding up and slowing down of an elliptical orbit. 
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: bknight on January 20, 2017, 08:36:29 AM
....

bknight, in theory, if you were to jump high enough OR stay in the air long enough, would it be correct to assume that it would likely occur that you would NOT land on the same spot?

EDIT....If FACT, bknight, Zakalwe Abaddon, Kiwi.  I don't require any more input from you.  Feel free to entertain yourselves with another post.  It's seems your assumptions and rhetoric are mostly what is keeping this thread alive.  Surely you all have better things to do than spend time in here ridiculing me?
That is one of the problems your perceptions/thoughts are incorrect.  It makes no difference how high you jump in a train, as both you and the train are moving forward at the same speed.  There is nothing to impede your forward speed, so you will land on the same spot you jumped.
Zakalwe and I are indeed different people, check our posts carefully, besides Lunar Orbit does NOT like socks and bans them.

I have not ridiculed you, but your adolescent thoughts, learn some physics and you won't make them.

EDIT:  Changed word launched to jumped.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 20, 2017, 08:37:52 AM
Firstly, no one needs your permission to post on here Icarus1.
Secondly, you have said that you've nothing more to learn from here. On the contrary, you have admirably demonstrated that your understanding of even basic facts is extremely poor. I would counter that you have a lot to learn here. Whether you are willing or capable is another thing.

I have posted a number of cogent and clear posts for you to explore. Have you attempted to read them?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 08:38:45 AM
In fact, what I'd like to do is go thru all your posts and see if you've attacked others who've visited this forum.  I'll read thru and defend those that suffer this pedantic ridicule.  (Of course I'm not going to do that; who cares right?)

Have you any idea on how much of this thread is about me personally and NOTHING at all to do with the topics?

What are you goals here people?

Again, to those that are genuinely trying to answer my questions without rude assuming comments, please don't put yourselves in this category.

For anyone else who would like to educate me on Forum Etiquette, manners, respect, communication, shopping habits or how I interpret the world and Universe around me then PLEASE read thru the entire thread and point out ALL that need it also.  You will find evidence from Day 1.

Baaaaaahhhhhhhhhh ha.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 20, 2017, 08:59:02 AM
Get on with it and save your hubris and patronising for elsewhere please.

You've been shown clear and cogent answers to your questions. Can you acknowledge the points that you've asked and have had answered or are you going to demonstrate wilful ignorance?

For example, you asked about the sun dragging the planets around, which has been answered. Do you acknowledge this and have you any other questions on this point?

You also asked why the vortex description could not be correct. Has the answers that were freely given helped to address you erroneous assumptions?

Please remember that no one here is under any obligation to give their time up to educate you, especially when an hour spent with Wikipedia would allow you to do that. Please don't abuse people's generosity by crying your eyes out about being robustly handled.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 09:01:05 AM
....

bknight, in theory, if you were to jump high enough OR stay in the air long enough, would it be correct to assume that it would likely occur that you would NOT land on the same spot?

EDIT....If FACT, bknight, Zakalwe Abaddon, Kiwi.  I don't require any more input from you.  Feel free to entertain yourselves with another post.  It's seems your assumptions and rhetoric are mostly what is keeping this thread alive.  Surely you all have better things to do than spend time in here ridiculing me?
That is one of the problems your perceptions/thoughts are incorrect.  It makes no difference how high you jump in a train, as both you and the train are moving forward at the same speed.  There is nothing to impede your forward speed, so you will land on the same spot you jumped.
Zakalwe and I are indeed different people, check our posts carefully, besides Lunar Orbit does NOT like socks and bans them.

I have not ridiculed you, but your adolescent thoughts, learn some physics and you won't make them.

EDIT:  Changed word launched to jumped.

I'm trying to fucking learn...but my poor adolescent musings can't cope with my negative poor self image and delicate sensibilities conflicting with the constant attacks at either my character, intelligence of poor poor barely fundamental knowledge of fucking Space, Science and the entire fucking Universe. 
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 09:02:14 AM
Get on with it and save your hubris and patronising for elsewhere please.

You've been shown clear and cogent answers to your questions. Can you acknowledge the points that you've asked and have had answered or are you going to demonstrate wilful ignorance?

For example, you asked about the sun dragging the planets around, which has been answered. Do you acknowledge this and have you any other questions on this point?

You also asked why the vortex description could not be correct. Has the answers that were freely given helped to address you erroneous assumptions?

Please remember that no one here is under any obligation to give their time up to educate you, especially when an hour spent with Wikipedia would allow you to do that. Please don't abuse people's generosity by crying your eyes out about being robustly handled.

Haha, Irony!!!

Right back at you Bud!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 20, 2017, 09:15:14 AM
Your inability to frame a response without swearing is not helping your cause.

Can you please answer the questions and leave the butt-hurt at the door?
Pretty please. With bells on.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 09:16:22 AM
Your inability to frame a response without swearing is not helping your cause.

Can you please answer the questions and leave the butt-hurt at the door?
Pretty please. With bells on.

Haha, Irony, Hypocrisy. 

Right back at you Bud!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 09:19:05 AM
Can I download this entire thread?

I'd like to make a book of it.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 20, 2017, 09:25:40 AM
OK. You appear happy to avoid direct questions. I will assume that you have conceded the points.
Thank you.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 09:55:15 AM
OK. You appear happy to avoid direct questions. I will assume that you have conceded the points.
Thank you.

You're Welcome.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Northern Lurker on January 20, 2017, 10:28:49 AM
I'm trying to fucking learn...but my poor adolescent musings can't cope with my negative poor self image and delicate sensibilities conflicting with the constant attacks at either my character, intelligence of poor poor barely fundamental knowledge of fucking Space, Science and the entire fucking Universe.

Icarus, do you know what is the difference between science and pursuits like law, politics or advertising? In nonscientific pursuits it's usually who makes the most compelling case wins. But in science facts and evidence rule and trump everything. This forum is scientifically oriented and frequented by professional scientist and engineers and hobbyists. So here the language spoken is language of science.

Why that distinction is important? Because if we would be in bar having couple of beers after hard day at work and you said you like sushi or like heavy metal music or vote for republicans and we would answer that you are wrong and ignorant, that would be offensive and personal attack because those things are subjective and everyone has his right for opinions. Why language of science isn't that courteous? Because you are talking about hard facts which have real consequences in real life. Either that pressure vessel, support column, medical molecule or orbit is properly designed  and executed. Otherwise money will be wasted and lives lost.

Why that rigor is important in casual conversation about our movement of our solar system? Because how else you would learn anything (what you claim to want to) or make informed decisions in life? An example from my homeland is one antinuclear activist gave this reason for her stance: "Because in nuclear plant they hone the uranium rock with water and then discharge that poisonous waste water into nature".

Your lack of self esteem is regretable thing and I commiserate you because of that. But attempting to boost self esteem by pretending to have scientific knowledge you don't have on science board won't go well. If you are sincere in your willingness to learn you find many knowledgeable and friendly persons willing to teach. Otherwise please go away because you won't find you esteem boost here and you don't at the moment you don't add much to discussion here.

Lurky
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 20, 2017, 10:42:56 AM
^^^ Very well put.
This is not a popularity contest or afternoon tea with the vicar. Post your ideas and be prepared to defend them vigorously. Do not confuse opinion with facts...post-truth doesn't apply here.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: twik on January 20, 2017, 10:49:54 AM
....

bknight, in theory, if you were to jump high enough OR stay in the air long enough, would it be correct to assume that it would likely occur that you would NOT land on the same spot?

EDIT....If FACT, bknight, Zakalwe Abaddon, Kiwi.  I don't require any more input from you.  Feel free to entertain yourselves with another post.  It's seems your assumptions and rhetoric are mostly what is keeping this thread alive.  Surely you all have better things to do than spend time in here ridiculing me?
That is one of the problems your perceptions/thoughts are incorrect.  It makes no difference how high you jump in a train, as both you and the train are moving forward at the same speed.  There is nothing to impede your forward speed, so you will land on the same spot you jumped.
Zakalwe and I are indeed different people, check our posts carefully, besides Lunar Orbit does NOT like socks and bans them.

I have not ridiculed you, but your adolescent thoughts, learn some physics and you won't make them.

EDIT:  Changed word launched to jumped.

I'm trying to fucking learn...but my poor adolescent musings can't cope with my negative poor self image and delicate sensibilities conflicting with the constant attacks at either my character, intelligence of poor poor barely fundamental knowledge of fucking Space, Science and the entire fucking Universe.

Perhaps the first thing to learn is that adults communicate thoughts in public without swearing. It doesn't add anything to the persuasive power of your statement, and shows disrespect towards those you are addressing. Multiple exclamation points also weaken, rather than strengthen, your argument.

Second, learn that someone saying "you are wrong about that conclusion" isn't an attack on your character. It's an attack on your conclusion, and in science no one is required to coddle a conclusion. If you admit you have a "barely fundamental" knowledge of space, you should not only be prepared for, but welcome, correction by those who have a deep and extensive knowledge of that topic.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: jfb on January 20, 2017, 11:12:37 AM
bknight, in theory, if you were to jump high enough OR stay in the air long enough, would it be correct to assume that it would likely occur that you would NOT land on the same spot?

As long as the vehicle (train, plane, bus, whatever) doesn't accelerate while you're in mid-air, you will land in the same spot regardless of how high you jump (at least up to the limit of the ceiling, anyway) or how long you stay in the air. 

If the vehicle accelerates1 while you're in mid-air, you won't land in the same spot (from your perspective, anyway - someone standing on a platform as the train/bus/plane/whatever moves by will see you trace out a parabolic arc). 

1.  Which can mean speeding up, slowing down, or changing direction.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 20, 2017, 11:14:10 AM
Quit whining, Icarus1.  You haven't been treated inappropriately, but you are sure trying so very hard to make it seem as if you have been.  What are your goals here?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 11:37:59 AM
bknight, in theory, if you were to jump high enough OR stay in the air long enough, would it be correct to assume that it would likely occur that you would NOT land on the same spot?

As long as the vehicle (train, plane, bus, whatever) doesn't accelerate while you're in mid-air, you will land in the same spot regardless of how high you jump (at least up to the limit of the ceiling, anyway) or how long you stay in the air. 

If the vehicle accelerates1 while you're in mid-air, you won't land in the same spot. 

1.  Which can mean speeding up, slowing down, or changing direction.


I'm trying to fucking learn...but my poor adolescent musings can't cope with my negative poor self image and delicate sensibilities conflicting with the constant attacks at either my character, intelligence of poor poor barely fundamental knowledge of fucking Space, Science and the entire fucking Universe.

Icarus, do you know what is the difference between science and pursuits like law, politics or advertising? In nonscientific pursuits it's usually who makes the most compelling case wins. But in science facts and evidence rule and trump everything. This forum is scientifically oriented and frequented by professional scientist and engineers and hobbyists. So here the language spoken is language of science.

Why that distinction is important? Because if we would be in bar having couple of beers after hard day at work and you said you like sushi or like heavy metal music or vote for republicans and we would answer that you are wrong and ignorant, that would be offensive and personal attack because those things are subjective and everyone has his right for opinions. Why language of science isn't that courteous? Because you are talking about hard facts which have real consequences in real life. Either that pressure vessel, support column, medical molecule or orbit is properly designed  and executed. Otherwise money will be wasted and lives lost.

Why that rigor is important in casual conversation about our movement of our solar system? Because how else you would learn anything (what you claim to want to) or make informed decisions in life? An example from my homeland is one antinuclear activist gave this reason for her stance: "Because in nuclear plant they hone the uranium rock with water and then discharge that poisonous waste water into nature".

Your lack of self esteem is regretable thing and I commiserate you because of that. But attempting to boost self esteem by pretending to have scientific knowledge you don't have on science board won't go well. If you are sincere in your willingness to learn you find many knowledgeable and friendly persons willing to teach. Otherwise please go away because you won't find you esteem boost here and you don't at the moment you don't add much to discussion here.

Lurky

Northern Lurker, have you read the entirety of this thread?

Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 11:42:40 AM
....

bknight, in theory, if you were to jump high enough OR stay in the air long enough, would it be correct to assume that it would likely occur that you would NOT land on the same spot?

EDIT....If FACT, bknight, Zakalwe Abaddon, Kiwi.  I don't require any more input from you.  Feel free to entertain yourselves with another post.  It's seems your assumptions and rhetoric are mostly what is keeping this thread alive.  Surely you all have better things to do than spend time in here ridiculing me?
That is one of the problems your perceptions/thoughts are incorrect.  It makes no difference how high you jump in a train, as both you and the train are moving forward at the same speed.  There is nothing to impede your forward speed, so you will land on the same spot you jumped.
Zakalwe and I are indeed different people, check our posts carefully, besides Lunar Orbit does NOT like socks and bans them.

I have not ridiculed you, but your adolescent thoughts, learn some physics and you won't make them.

EDIT:  Changed word launched to jumped.

I'm trying to fucking learn...but my poor adolescent musings can't cope with my negative poor self image and delicate sensibilities conflicting with the constant attacks at either my character, intelligence of poor poor barely fundamental knowledge of fucking Space, Science and the entire fucking Universe.

Perhaps the first thing to learn is that adults communicate thoughts in public without swearing. It doesn't add anything to the persuasive power of your statement, and shows disrespect towards those you are addressing. Multiple exclamation points also weaken, rather than strengthen, your argument.

Second, learn that someone saying "you are wrong about that conclusion" isn't an attack on your character. It's an attack on your conclusion, and in science no one is required to coddle a conclusion. If you admit you have a "barely fundamental" knowledge of space, you should not only be prepared for, but welcome, correction by those who have a deep and extensive knowledge of that topic.

Re Read the entire thread Twik.  Pick out the many times I've argued with anyone about anything.

Do some Math against the  amount of posts in here, and the amount of accusations, assumptions and attack on my general character.

Then question me on my use of language and exclamation marks uses, more in my last posts (25 pages on here!!!)
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 11:44:09 AM
Quit whining, Icarus1.  You haven't been treated inappropriately, but you are sure trying so very hard to make it seem as if you have been.  What are your goals here?

Try no to be so dismissive or Rude.  You're better than that.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: gillianren on January 20, 2017, 11:51:51 AM
Zakalwe......Are you Bi-Polar or suffer multiple personalities?  Maybe you and bknight are the same person??

Actually, I am bipolar, and we can clearly add psychiatry to the list of things you don't know about.  Leaving aside that Dissociative Identity Disorder cannot conclusively be proven to exist (regardless of the garbage James McAvoy spewed on The Daily Show last night), it's certainly not a condition that one would confuse with bipolar disorder.  I believe your intent is to indicate that Zakalwe's posting style is erratic?  I don't find that to be true, but even if I did, I certainly would not phrase it in a way that indicated that describing a medical condition is an insult.  Further, your posts come across as much closer to bipolar, in that one of the symptoms of the condition can be irrational anger.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 11:57:47 AM
Zakalwe......Are you Bi-Polar or suffer multiple personalities?  Maybe you and bknight are the same person??

Actually, I am bipolar, and we can clearly add psychiatry to the list of things you don't know about.  Leaving aside that Dissociative Identity Disorder cannot conclusively be proven to exist (regardless of the garbage James McAvoy spewed on The Daily Show last night), it's certainly not a condition that one would confuse with bipolar disorder.  I believe your intent is to indicate that Zakalwe's posting style is erratic?  I don't find that to be true, but even if I did, I certainly would not phrase it in a way that indicated that describing a medical condition is an insult.  Further, your posts come across as much closer to bipolar, in that one of the symptoms of the condition can be irrational anger.

A fair assumption and makes sense.

Allow me to do what you and everyone else has not:

I apologise if I have offended you gillianren.  It was never my intention.  As I do not know you, but can only interpret your words based upon my own life experiences and literal knowledge, at times It may seem abrupt, condescending or angry.

Do me the courtesy if you dare, to re-read the entirety of this thread to find accusation or insult directed at me.


Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: ka9q on January 20, 2017, 12:01:31 PM
Jason it was me that mentioned the Bus as it's my question to ask.  The answers need to be relative to my questions.  The moving bus was to further explore the Bat and Ball on elastic effect to understand gravity.  This question is in relation to the speeding up and slowing down of an elliptical orbit.
I detect in here the rudiments of an actual question.

All you have to know to understand an elliptical orbit is one absolutely fundamental law of nature: mass/energy is conserved.

When a satellite in an elliptical orbit moves to a higher altitude, its gravitational potential energy increases. Its kinetic energy and therefore its velocity must decrease to keep their sum a constant. It will remain constant unless some other mechanism acts to dissipate or remove or add to this energy.

In the "dissipation" category would be atmospheric drag, if the satellite gets too low in the atmosphere. In the "remove or add to" category would be a third gravitational body perturbing the orbit.

Without those perturbing mechanisms, in a simple 2-body system, the satellite's total energy will remain constant forever and so will the orbit.
 
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Halcyon Dayz, FCD on January 20, 2017, 12:05:04 PM
Guess Icarus1 doesn't want to talk about Apollo anymore...
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: twik on January 20, 2017, 12:13:00 PM
Re Read the entire thread Twik.  Pick out the many times I've argued with anyone about anything.

Do some Math against the  amount of posts in here, and the amount of accusations, assumptions and attack on my general character.

Then question me on my use of language and exclamation marks uses, more in my last posts (25 pages on here!!!)

Sorry, I don't see many "accusations" or "attacks on your general character".

I do see a lot of people telling you that you are incorrect in your conclusions. Telling you that you are wrong about science isn't an attack on you. Suggesting that your logic is faulty isn't assassinating your character. It's just saying you that you are wrong. Facts don't care if you're a beginner, or if you have low self-esteem. They simply exist. If you can't handle them, that's your problem.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Northern Lurker on January 20, 2017, 12:16:21 PM
Northern Lurker, have you read the entirety of this thread?

Yes I have.

You came in like so many conspiracy theorists before you; you promoted scientifically unsound ideas to boost your ego. You dismissed corrections and resorted to complaining about your treatment and moving to new subjects without coming to conclusion with previous subjects. Still you don't seem to fathom the difference between attacking you personally and attacking your false premises and debating tactics suited to winning the argument instead of finding the truth.

You can learn about science, space and universe here and let the increased knowledge rightfully boost your self esteem. Or you can continue promoting pseudoscience in effort to boost your ego by having special knowledge. In that case, I again ask you to move on.

Lurky
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 20, 2017, 12:20:16 PM
Try no to be so dismissive or Rude.  You're better than that.

Your ongoing complaints and your assessment of my character are irrelevant.  What are you actually hoping to accomplish by posting in this forum?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 12:20:41 PM
Guess Icarus1 doesn't want to talk about Apollo anymore...

We're 25 pages in.  The Apollo debate ended on the 1st page.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 12:21:26 PM
Try no to be so dismissive or Rude.  You're better than that.

Your ongoing complaints and your assessment of my character are irrelevant.  What are you actually hoping to accomplish by posting in this forum?

A knowledge of the truth, which I attained in the very first pages.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 12:23:40 PM
Northern Lurker, have you read the entirety of this thread?

Yes I have.

You came in like so many conspiracy theorists before you; you promoted scientifically unsound ideas to boost your ego. You dismissed corrections and resorted to complaining about your treatment and moving to new subjects without coming to conclusion with previous subjects. Still you don't seem to fathom the difference between attacking you personally and attacking your false premises and debating tactics suited to winning the argument instead of finding the truth.

You can learn about science, space and universe here and let the increased knowledge rightfully boost your self esteem. Or you can continue promoting pseudoscience in effort to boost your ego by having special knowledge. In that case, I again ask you to move on.

Lurky

There's no way you read this entire thread yet still come up with that conclusion!

I never NEVER argued or disagreed with ANY information put forward, on either the Apollo pics OR the Vortex vid.

This is my thread.

I suggest YOU Move on!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 12:25:17 PM
Jason it was me that mentioned the Bus as it's my question to ask.  The answers need to be relative to my questions.  The moving bus was to further explore the Bat and Ball on elastic effect to understand gravity.  This question is in relation to the speeding up and slowing down of an elliptical orbit.
I detect in here the rudiments of an actual question.

All you have to know to understand an elliptical orbit is one absolutely fundamental law of nature: mass/energy is conserved.

When a satellite in an elliptical orbit moves to a higher altitude, its gravitational potential energy increases. Its kinetic energy and therefore its velocity must decrease to keep their sum a constant. It will remain constant unless some other mechanism acts to dissipate or remove or add to this energy.

In the "dissipation" category would be atmospheric drag, if the satellite gets too low in the atmosphere. In the "remove or add to" category would be a third gravitational body perturbing the orbit.

Without those perturbing mechanisms, in a simple 2-body system, the satellite's total energy will remain constant forever and so will the orbit.

Thank you for your answer.  This is in agreement with what I have come to understand.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 20, 2017, 12:26:24 PM
Jason it was me that mentioned the Bus as it's my question to ask.  The answers need to be relative to my questions.

And your responses need to be relative to ours. I gave a plane example. Your response suggested you were disagreeing with my statement, since you said vehicle, not asking a follow-on question using a different set-up. If that's a misinterpretation then I apologise, but could you please clarify if you accept the answer given regarding the plane?

Quote
The moving bus was to further explore the Bat and Ball on elastic effect to understand gravity.  This question is in relation to the speeding up and slowing down of an elliptical orbit.

Which is not really understandable by using a bus or a ball on elastic. As was already explained previously, the entire solar system already moves in that eliptical orbit, and has always done so. The Sun is not dragging the planets and everything else around with it so it accelerates and pulls them all with it as it does so. Those other objects are already in that orbit and so accelerate along with the Sun. Their orbits around the Sun are superimposed upon that fundamental underlyiing motion. Everything that takes place within the solar system is a local perturbation of an overall motion.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 12:28:01 PM
People please.  My comments about Low Self Esteem weren't to be taken literally.  It was an assumption of how you all see me.  Adolescent in knowledge, childish, ignorant, arrogant, egotistical etc. etc. etc.

I will go thru my entire post and copy paste all references, but don't hold your breath.  It may take some time.

Jeeeeez you guys are putting a lot of time into this!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: AtomicDog on January 20, 2017, 12:28:36 PM
Icarus1, I thought that you came here to learn about Apollo.
The Argument Clinic is down the hall.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 12:33:02 PM
Jason it was me that mentioned the Bus as it's my question to ask.  The answers need to be relative to my questions.

And your responses need to be relative to ours. I gave a plane example. Your response suggested you were disagreeing with my statement, since you said vehicle, not asking a follow-on question using a different set-up. If that's a misinterpretation then I apologise, but could you please clarify if you accept the answer given regarding the plane?

Quote
The moving bus was to further explore the Bat and Ball on elastic effect to understand gravity.  This question is in relation to the speeding up and slowing down of an elliptical orbit.

Which is not really understandable by using a bus or a ball on elastic. As was already explained previously, the entire solar system already moves in that eliptical orbit, and has always done so. The Sun is not dragging the planets and everything else around with it so it accelerates and pulls them all with it as it does so. Those other objects are already in that orbit and so accelerate along with the Sun. Their orbits around the Sun are superimposed upon that fundamental underlyiing motion. Everything that takes place within the solar system is a local perturbation of an overall motion.

I understand the accepted explanation of how the planets and solar system works.  I am re-thinking it to find relevance in the Vortex Vid. 

There is maybe one particular bit of info, that I already had, that clearly explains what I didn't know (to know something is to understand it) which is that the SS exists within it's own space.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: twik on January 20, 2017, 12:36:00 PM
People please.  My comments about Low Self Esteem weren't to be taken literally.  It was an assumption of how you all see me.  Adolescent in knowledge, childish, ignorant, arrogant, egotistical etc. etc. etc.

I will go thru my entire post and copy paste all references, but don't hold your breath.  It may take some time.

Jeeeeez you guys are putting a lot of time into this!

Definitely odd. You come on a website dedicated to a particular topic, announce "I've got something controversial to say about this topic," and lots of people comment.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 12:38:40 PM
Icarus1, I thought that you came here to learn about Apollo.
The Argument Clinic is down the hall.

Haha you fool.

Where is my argument?  I had a question that a very small amount of you have answered politely and unassumingly.  Without criticism or defamatory insult.

My question on Apollo was answered when the posts came in.  My question was to question the images, and that has happened.  The answers were in days and days ago.

What did you come back for, Atomic Dog?  Has the Dallas re-run finished?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Zakalwe on January 20, 2017, 12:39:11 PM
Icarus1, I thought that you came here to learn about Apollo.
The Argument Clinic is down the hall.

He's only paid for a five minute arguement though.....
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 12:40:24 PM
People please.  My comments about Low Self Esteem weren't to be taken literally.  It was an assumption of how you all see me.  Adolescent in knowledge, childish, ignorant, arrogant, egotistical etc. etc. etc.

I will go thru my entire post and copy paste all references, but don't hold your breath.  It may take some time.

Jeeeeez you guys are putting a lot of time into this!

You clearly have not read this entire thread and understood it.

I made no claims.  I asked if they were stars.  The rest is 25 pages of insults with rare instances of actual topical debate.

Even this is ridiculous.  We're talking more about me!!!

Definitely odd. You come on a website dedicated to a particular topic, announce "I've got something controversial to say about this topic," and lots of people comment.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 20, 2017, 12:42:53 PM
There's no way you read this entire thread yet still come up with that conclusion!

Why do you have such a hard time with people who disagree with your opinion?  Maybe you're really not as put-upon as you think, and maybe people here have experience dealing with people who play the victim in order to try to save face.

Quote
I never NEVER argued or disagreed with ANY information put forward, on either the Apollo pics OR the Vortex vid.

Again, this is what I warned you about earlier.  It's one thing to say you have changed your mind after having been presented with the facts.  It's another thing to pretend you never held your prior position.

The first substantive answer you received to your question about Apollo photographs was that what you had mistaken for "stars" were really artifacts in the image.  You very clearly disputed that explanation, for example here (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1245.msg40021#msg40021) and here (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1245.msg40029#msg40029).  But you sure wasted no time lighting into into several of the posters, calling them "trolls" and getting immediately down to the business of denigrating the forum and its respondents.  You want to be given the benefit of the doubt on these points, that you really are here just to ask questions and learn.  But you keep ignoring all the advice and removing all the doubt.  You need to do better.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 12:44:54 PM
Jason it was me that mentioned the Bus as it's my question to ask.  The answers need to be relative to my questions.

And your responses need to be relative to ours. I gave a plane example. Your response suggested you were disagreeing with my statement, since you said vehicle, not asking a follow-on question using a different set-up. If that's a misinterpretation then I apologise, but could you please clarify if you accept the answer given regarding the plane?

Quote
The moving bus was to further explore the Bat and Ball on elastic effect to understand gravity.  This question is in relation to the speeding up and slowing down of an elliptical orbit.

Which is not really understandable by using a bus or a ball on elastic. As was already explained previously, the entire solar system already moves in that eliptical orbit, and has always done so. The Sun is not dragging the planets and everything else around with it so it accelerates and pulls them all with it as it does so. Those other objects are already in that orbit and so accelerate along with the Sun. Their orbits around the Sun are superimposed upon that fundamental underlyiing motion. Everything that takes place within the solar system is a local perturbation of an overall motion.

I sincerely accept and appreciate your apology.  I can move on from it without discourse.

My understanding of the motion of the SS and the Galaxy is as it was before I even saw the Vortex Vid; that of the accepted view.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 20, 2017, 12:49:24 PM
I understand the accepted explanation of how the planets and solar system works.  I am re-thinking it to find relevance in the Vortex Vid.

Then the question I have to ask is: why?

The 'accepted explanation' isn't just accepted as some form of dogma. It is the result of (literally) centuries or millennia of study. Is it perfect? No. Is it open to question? Absolutely, as are all scientific conclusions. Can it be overturned by a video on YouTube that demonstrates some fundamental misunderstandings of the mechanics of the system? Not at all.

Earlier on you took issue with the fact that one of the linked debunkings of the vortex video made a big deal of the fact that the angle of motion of the solar system was mis-represented, and suggested that picking holes in something so trivial wasn't really much of a debunking. The thing is, it is. If someone, anyone, wants to present an alternative explanation or model for the motion of the solar system then getting the representation and description of the observed motion is actually a basic requirement for their argument to be taken seriously.

In science it is insufficient to present an alternative to the accepted theory without a) showing that you have grasped the actual situation your alternative describes (whatever the possible reasons or underlying mechanism for it, the fact that the solar system moves in a particular way is an observed phenomenon) so that your model fits observation, and b) showing where it fits the observations at least as well as or better than the exisiting theory. Then you have a chance of being taken seriously. The vortex video failed to do that, hence its debunking by those who understand this requirement of getting the foundation right before trying to replace the current theory with a new one.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 12:50:14 PM
There's no way you read this entire thread yet still come up with that conclusion!

Why do you have such a hard time with people who disagree with your opinion?  Maybe you're really not as put-upon as you think, and maybe people here have experience dealing with people who play the victim in order to try to save face.

Quote
I never NEVER argued or disagreed with ANY information put forward, on either the Apollo pics OR the Vortex vid.

Again, this is what I warned you about earlier.  It's one thing to say you have changed your mind after having been presented with the facts.  It's another thing to pretend you never held your prior position.

The first substantive answer you received to your question about Apollo photographs was that what you had mistaken for "stars" were really artifacts in the image.  You very clearly disputed that explanation, for example here (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1245.msg40021#msg40021) and here (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1245.msg40029#msg40029).  But you sure wasted no time lighting into into several of the posters, calling them "trolls" and getting immediately down to the business of denigrating the forum and its respondents.  You want to be given the benefit of the doubt on these points, that you really are here just to ask questions and learn.  But you keep ignoring all the advice and removing all the doubt.  You need to do better.

You've referenced 2 instances of here and here, but I don't know what you're bringing my attention to. 

As for Denigrating the forum and it's respondents; I asked a question and the first response was to correct my use of Grammar, which I consequntly retored to with dismissal of his offering, he then came back with an insult.

Did you miss that?

You do realise this is now a psychological debate and no longer about space?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 20, 2017, 12:56:40 PM
I sincerely accept and appreciate your apology.  I can move on from it without discourse.

But you have still not answered my question. You accept the statement about how easy it is to move around in a cruising plane, and that a bath will drain in the same way there as on the ground?

Quote
My understanding of the motion of the SS and the Galaxy is as it was before I even saw the Vortex Vid; that of the accepted view.

You said to know something is to understand it in an earlier thread, but this is demonstrating that knowing and understanding are two different things. There is a difference between knowing what the motion is and understanding it, and the lack of understanding is presuambly what is motivating you to ask questions and suggest possible analogies such as ball on elastic or travel in a bus.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 20, 2017, 12:56:52 PM
My question on Apollo was answered when the posts came in.  My question was to question the images, and that has happened.  The answers were in days and days ago.

And you've expended considerable energy both then and now trying to convince yourself (and others, unsuccessfully) that in that process you've somehow been horribly victimized.  Gaslighting really doesn't work around here, Icarus1.

Regarding orbits, ka9q has given you a key bit of understanding in how the energy of orbits work.  An orbit has constant energy, but simply trades it back and forth between two forms.  While that's correct from a physics standpoint, it doesn't usually offer a helpful way of visualizing how orbits maintain a particular shape.

A tidbit from earlier in the discussion may help.  Instead of thinking of a tiny object orbiting a relatively massive object, think of two relatively same-sized objects.  One can be put in orbit around the other according to the same physics, but it will be more apparent that instead of one orbiting the other, the bodies orbit a common center.  When the two bodies have roughly the same mass, that common center will lie somewhere between them.  This is true for a planet and our sun as well, except that because of the much larger mass of the Sun, that common center lies not very far from the geometric center of the Sun, so it looks like the Sun is a sort of gravitational "master" and the planet is a sort of "slave" and that the Sun will drag planets along with it.

The noodle-baker comes from understanding that the reckoning of a two-body orbital system as it moves along some other path is via that common center, not either of the two bodies.  The velocity state of, say, the Earth-Moon system along its orbit around the Sun is most properly reckoned from the common center of that system, which lies somewhere along the line connecting the geometric center of the Earth with the geometric center of the Moon, but obviously within the boundaries of Earth's surface.  Does this help visualize better how systems of orbits work?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 12:59:16 PM
I understand the accepted explanation of how the planets and solar system works.  I am re-thinking it to find relevance in the Vortex Vid.

Then the question I have to ask is: why?

The 'accepted explanation' isn't just accepted as some form of dogma. It is the result of (literally) centuries or millennia of study. Is it perfect? No. Is it open to question? Absolutely, as are all scientific conclusions. Can it be overturned by a video on YouTube that demonstrates some fundamental misunderstandings of the mechanics of the system? Not at all.

Earlier on you took issue with the fact that one of the linked debunkings of the vortex video made a big deal of the fact that the angle of motion of the solar system was mis-represented, and suggested that picking holes in something so trivial wasn't really much of a debunking. The thing is, it is. If someone, anyone, wants to present an alternative explanation or model for the motion of the solar system then getting the representation and description of the observed motion is actually a basic requirement for their argument to be taken seriously.

In science it is insufficient to present an alternative to the accepted theory without a) showing that you have grasped the actual situation your alternative describes (whatever the possible reasons or underlying mechanism for it, the fact that the solar system moves in a particular way is an observed phenomenon) so that your model fits observation, and b) showing where it fits the observations at least as well as or better than the exisiting theory. Then you have a chance of being taken seriously. The vortex video failed to do that, hence its debunking by those who understand this requirement of getting the foundation right before trying to replace the current theory with a new one.

Agreed, and I brought up the question to re-discover it and prove/disprove/understand!

I think the main problem is I AM NOT A SCIENTIST, but I am an artist.  As a psychological study, I have more questions than answers, but I rarely rely on Facts! or things that have become a Fixed Knowledge.  I'm sure it's frustrating.  I cam here for people such as yourself to present answers to my questions.  Some of you have done a great job, others are simply Trolling my posts and jumping in.  It would take a very keen and observant mind to read this entire post and WANT to UNDERSTAND where I am coming from.

It's already been suggested that I have been received as a Conspiracy Theorist, and I have been met with the hostility of a well worn, observed systemic approach, deserving of such a person.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 20, 2017, 01:05:34 PM
You've referenced 2 instances of here and here, but I don't know what you're bringing my attention to.

I'm drawing your attention to posts where you argued and disagreed with the answers you were given about the Apollo photos.  You tried to tell us you never did that.  You are once again trying to rewrite the thread to make it look better for you.  You are once again trying to save face instead of being honest.  You insisted that if someone were to read this thread, they would conclude you had been grossly mistreated.  Someone read the thread, failed to draw the conclusion you desired, and this set you off on another spell of revisionism and recrimination.

Just knock it off.  You're not fooling anyone.

Quote
You do realise this is now a psychological debate and no longer about space?

Yes, I do, and so does everyone else.  They're watching you play your little puerile victimization game and probably laughing to themselves over it.  By all means keep playing it if that's how you prefer to participate.  But don't pretend it's everyone's fault but yours.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 01:07:08 PM
I sincerely accept and appreciate your apology.  I can move on from it without discourse.

But you have still not answered my question. You accept the statement about how easy it is to move around in a cruising plane, and that a bath will drain in the same way there as on the ground?

Quote
My understanding of the motion of the SS and the Galaxy is as it was before I even saw the Vortex Vid; that of the accepted view.

You said to know something is to understand it in an earlier thread, but this is demonstrating that knowing and understanding are two different things. There is a difference between knowing what the motion is and understanding it, and the lack of understanding is presuambly what is motivating you to ask questions and suggest possible analogies such as ball on elastic or travel in a bus.

Sorry, I'm dealing with every post as it comes in and as a left handed creative thinker all of my balls are in the air at once.  I can't get to each person quick enough.

It'll be easier for me to re-package the question here than to try and re-read every post since.  This has already been regarded as suspect as it's a sign of side stepping to save face!  FFS I'm a grown man with my own business.  If only you knew me in person this would be different.

However, Yes i agree either on a plane, or on the ground.  This is knowledge I already KNOW as i observe it.  My questions are to understand WHY!

So, with this, Yes knowing and understanding are 2 different things.  Hence I know the planets are in orbit, but the WHY is the question; I'm not asking this anymore as I already had this knowledge.

My reason for asking questions about orbit gravity and elastic bands was to understand IN MY OWN MIND how the Vortex is wrong.

The answer is as I already thought;  Our SS is within it's own Space time and planets are not individually affectd the gravity of the galaxy.  Hence, the mass of our Sun does NOT lead the planets, but the SS moves as a whole!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 01:08:23 PM
You've referenced 2 instances of here and here, but I don't know what you're bringing my attention to.

I'm drawing your attention to posts where you argued and disagreed with the answers you were given about the Apollo photos.  You tried to tell us you never did that.  You are once again trying to rewrite the thread to make it look better for you.  You are once again trying to save face instead of being honest.  You insisted that if someone were to read this thread, they would conclude you had been grossly mistreated.  Someone read the thread, failed to draw the conclusion you desired, and this set you off on another spell of revisionism and recrimination.

Just knock it off.  You're not fooling anyone.

Quote
You do realise this is now a psychological debate and no longer about space?

Yes, I do, and so does everyone else.  They're watching you play your little puerile victimization game and probably laughing to themselves over it.  By all means keep playing it if that's how you prefer to participate.  But don't pretend it's everyone's fault but yours.

I suppose the majority has it then?

Thanks
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: AtomicDog on January 20, 2017, 01:11:01 PM
Icarus1, I thought that you came here to learn about Apollo.
The Argument Clinic is down the hall.


Haha you fool.

Where is my argument?  I had a question that a very small amount of you have answered politely and unassumingly.  Without criticism or defamatory insult.

My question on Apollo was answered when the posts came in.  My question was to question the images, and that has happened.  The answers were in days and days ago.

What did you come back for, Atomic Dog?  Has the Dallas re-run finished?

I'm a Trekkie. That's why I know a Tellarite when I see one.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Northern Lurker on January 20, 2017, 01:13:32 PM
There's no way you read this entire thread yet still come up with that conclusion!

I strongly resent that you imply I am a liar because I don't agree with you.

I never NEVER argued or disagreed with ANY information put forward, on either the Apollo pics OR the Vortex vid.

I disagree.

This is my thread.

I suggest YOU Move on!

You have been told before that this is an open forum where anyone can participate. You have also been told before that only the owner, Lunar Orbit can decide whether someone participates or not.

Lurky
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 01:14:03 PM
Icarus1, I thought that you came here to learn about Apollo.
The Argument Clinic is down the hall.


Haha you fool.

Where is my argument?  I had a question that a very small amount of you have answered politely and unassumingly.  Without criticism or defamatory insult.

My question on Apollo was answered when the posts came in.  My question was to question the images, and that has happened.  The answers were in days and days ago.

What did you come back for, Atomic Dog?  Has the Dallas re-run finished?

I'm a Trekkie. That's why I know a Tellarite when I see one.

hahha, that was actually funny.

No hard feelings to anyone.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Jason Thompson on January 20, 2017, 01:14:54 PM
I rarely rely on Facts! or things that have become a Fixed Knowledge.

Sorry, but scientist or not, you certainly do rely on facts and 'fixed knowledge'. It was these things that resulted, among other things, in the creation of computers and the worldwide web that is allowing you to tell people all over the world that you don't rely on them! Now you haven't gone so far as to say that quantum physics is pure bunk while using a bunch of semiconductors (the function of which was eludicated through quantum physics), which I have heard, but honestly, I'd suggest you re-evaluate what you do and don't rely on before making proclamations about facts and knowledge.

Quote
It would take a very keen and observant mind to read this entire post and WANT to UNDERSTAND where I am coming from.

Really? That really sounds patronising.

Quote
It's already been suggested that I have been received as a Conspiracy Theorist, and I have been met with the hostility of a well worn, observed systemic approach, deserving of such a person.

Icarus, it has not been suggested, it has been stated plainly along with explanations of what you have done to present that impression, and advice on how to avoid it and move on. Yet you continue. You can pick and choose what to respond to here, so if you are only interested in the substatial responses to your scientific queries, as you profess to be, then simply ignore the rest and the conversation will soon fall to where you want it to be.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 20, 2017, 01:15:35 PM
I think the main problem is I AM NOT A SCIENTIST, but I am an artist.  As a psychological study, I have more questions than answers, but I rarely rely on Facts! or things that have become a Fixed Knowledge.  I'm sure it's frustrating.

Well, yes, it's appropriately frustrating when people make allegations that aren't based on fact, and dispute or deny contrary fact when it's presented to them.  The reason we have science is in order to make a systematic, repeatable examination of the physical world.  That's in order to obtain as much of fact as we are capable of discovering.  You're asking questions that appeal to that systematic method.  But you don't seem to appreciate the workings of that method.

Quote
I cam here for people such as yourself to present answers to my questions.

You're behaving increasingly like you've come here to bait a debate between science and what we might term new-age mysticism.  That's not an inappropriate topic or debate, but if that's why you're here then just flat-out say so.  You'll get your debate, and with a whole lot less side-debate over whether you're concealing a hidden motive.

Quote
Some of you have done a great job, others are simply Trolling my posts and jumping in.

And instead of ignoring those and focusing on your stated purpose, you vigorously encourage them.  That, combined with your revisionism and your ham-fisted attempts at casting yourself as a victim raise considerable skepticism that you are being honest with your motives.

Quote
It's already been suggested that I have been received as a Conspiracy Theorist, and I have been met with the hostility of a well worn, observed systemic approach, deserving of such a person.

You behave more and more like a run-of-the-mill -- let's say -- fringe theorist.  Why is it suddenly someone else's fault that you're being treated according to the way you present yourself?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 01:19:05 PM
There's no way you read this entire thread yet still come up with that conclusion!

I strongly resent that you imply I am a liar because I don't agree with you.
[
I never NEVER argued or disagreed with ANY information put forward, on either the Apollo pics OR the Vortex vid.

I disagree.

This is my thread.

I suggest YOU Move on!

You have been told before that this is an open forum where anyone can participate. You have also been told before that only the owner, Lunar Orbit can decide whether someone participates or not.

Lurky

Sorry I don't know how to use Quotes.

I strongly resent that you imply I am a liar because I don't agree with you.

Couldn't agree more.  Please re-read this entire thread where I've been called Liar.

You Disagree?

OK!  You'll hear nothing in remark from me for you disagreeing.

Your previous post you told ME 'MOVE ON!'  I used it back at you and your retort is about free speech!   Practice what you preach!



Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 20, 2017, 01:22:21 PM
No hard feelings to anyone.

Calling me a Trekkie is a high honor.  I've been on the sets of Voyager, and I've had a hand in the designs for the upcoming (but long delayed) new television series.  I'm not only a fan of Star Trek, I've contributed to making it.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 20, 2017, 01:27:35 PM
I suppose the majority has it then?

Yes.  If you ask people to render their judgment on something and they all disagree with you, that should tell you something.  You're not a victim, so stop acting like one.

And yes, we still need to clear up your latest revisionism because it speaks to the honesty with which you are approaching this thread.  That in turn informs people's decisions about what footing to engage you on.  In the heat of dealing with an opinion that differed, you claimed you never disputed the answers you were given regarding the Apollo photos.  Within seconds I found two posts from you that clearly disputed them.  Can you explain those two posts in light of your statement today?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 01:27:44 PM
I think the main problem is I AM NOT A SCIENTIST, but I am an artist.  As a psychological study, I have more questions than answers, but I rarely rely on Facts! or things that have become a Fixed Knowledge.  I'm sure it's frustrating.

Well, yes, it's appropriately frustrating when people make allegations that aren't based on fact, and dispute or deny contrary fact when it's presented to them.  The reason we have science is in order to make a systematic, repeatable examination of the physical world.  That's in order to obtain as much of fact as we are capable of discovering.  You're asking questions that appeal to that systematic method.  But you don't seem to appreciate the workings of that method.

Quote
I cam here for people such as yourself to present answers to my questions.

You're behaving increasingly like you've come here to bait a debate between science and what we might term new-age mysticism.  That's not an inappropriate topic or debate, but if that's why you're here then just flat-out say so.  You'll get your debate, and with a whole lot less side-debate over whether you're concealing a hidden motive.

Quote
Some of you have done a great job, others are simply Trolling my posts and jumping in.

And instead of ignoring those and focusing on your stated purpose, you vigorously encourage them.  That, combined with your revisionism and your ham-fisted attempts at casting yourself as a victim raise considerable skepticism that you are being honest with your motives.

Quote
It's already been suggested that I have been received as a Conspiracy Theorist, and I have been met with the hostility of a well worn, observed systemic approach, deserving of such a person.

You behave more and more like a run-of-the-mill -- let's say -- fringe theorist.  Why is it suddenly someone else's fault that you're being treated according to the way you present yourself?

I can't keep doing this; i'll have a Breakdown!!!


I'm not shouting.  i want to be clear!

I HAVE ALREADY SAID VERY VERY EARLY ON THAT I HAVE DIFFICULTIES MAKING MYSELF CLEAR, OR ASKING QUESTIONS.  I SAID THAT I HAD WORDED MY QUESTION OR UTTERANCE AND SHOULD HAVE ASKED 'IF' THESE 'COULD' BE 'STARS' AND 'NOT' 'THESE ARE STARS'. 

I appreciate your assumption that because I claimed I was a Professional Photographer which I am! that you all 'assumed' 'WRONGLY' that this meant I knew ALL  about the Apollo missions and photo's the use of the Blad and the settings and film used.


THE ONLY THING THAT HAS HAPPENED HERE IS I ASSUMED THE 'POSSIBILTY' OF STARS' AND YOU ALL ASSUMED MY IGNORACE;CORRECTLY.

The rest belongs in a Psychology Study!

There is NO way you have all read this entirely with this Understood!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 01:28:46 PM
I suppose the majority has it then?

Yes.  If you ask people to render their judgment on something and they all disagree with you, that should tell you something.  You're not a victim, so stop acting like one.

And yes, we still need to clear up your latest revisionism because it speaks to the honesty with which you are approaching this thread.  That in turn informs people's decisions about what footing to engage you on.  In the heat of dealing with an opinion that differed, you claimed you never disputed the answers you were given regarding the Apollo photos.  Within seconds I found two posts from you that clearly disputed them.  Can you explain those two posts in light of your statement today?

Please point out to me these points and I will answer sincerely.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 20, 2017, 01:34:03 PM
I can't keep doing this; i'll have a Breakdown!!!

Then stop repeating the behavior that results in these sorts of exchanges.  I warned you before that this would happen if you continued to behave in a questionable manner.

Quote
I appreciate your assumption that because I claimed I was a Professional Photographer which I am! that you all 'assumed' 'WRONGLY' that this meant I knew ALL  about the Apollo missions and photo's the use of the Blad and the settings and film used.

That's not what I claimed you should know as a "professional photographer."  You specifically told us that you identified yourself as a professional photographer to assure us you had ruled out prosaic causes for the marks on the film.  In fact you had not, and I cited knowing about potential sources of artifacts in photography as something that a professional photographer should know.  I stand by that assessment.  It had nothing to do with specialized knowledge of Apollo photography or the idiosyncrasies of some particular camera system.  It had to do with basic knowledge such as exposure and best practices in film handling.

Quote
There is NO way you have all read this entirely with this Understood!

And once again you keep trying to gaslight your critics.  Until you knock off this childish behavior, you will continue to be treated like a child.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 01:34:16 PM
Re Read the entire thread Twik.  Pick out the many times I've argued with anyone about anything.

Do some Math against the  amount of posts in here, and the amount of accusations, assumptions and attack on my general character.

Then question me on my use of language and exclamation marks uses, more in my last posts (25 pages on here!!!)

Sorry, I don't see many "accusations" or "attacks on your general character".

I do see a lot of people telling you that you are incorrect in your conclusions. Telling you that you are wrong about science isn't an attack on you. Suggesting that your logic is faulty isn't assassinating your character. It's just saying you that you are wrong. Facts don't care if you're a beginner, or if you have low self-esteem. They simply exist. If you can't handle them, that's your problem.

You don't see 'Many' meaning you do see them?

Out of over 1000 posts how many do you think there are?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 20, 2017, 01:35:33 PM
Please point out to me these points and I will answer sincerely.

I provided links above.  Go back and find them.  You should have read and commented on them when they were presented, not after several posts of your incessant whining.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Northern Lurker on January 20, 2017, 01:37:33 PM
Your previous post you told ME 'MOVE ON!'  I used it back at you and your retort is about free speech!   Practice what you preach!

If you are sincere in your willingness to learn you find many knowledgeable and friendly persons willing to teach. Otherwise please go away because you won't find you esteem boost here and you don't at the moment you don't add much to discussion here.

You can learn about science, space and universe here and let the increased knowledge rightfully boost your self esteem. Or you can continue promoting pseudoscience in effort to boost your ego by having special knowledge. In that case, I again ask you to move on.

Firstly I'd like to congratulate you on quite creative way of quoting me.
Secondly the definition of free speech means that the government can't censor you. If your speech broke laws you maybe sued afterwards. Any commercial or interpersonal venture is not government and free speech doesn't apply.

For third time:
-if you are willing to learn, please do so and let go of face saving
-if you want to have debate about fringe theories, please declare your intent so that debate can start.
-if you want to whine how demands of fact on scientific board is persecution against you, please leave. You don't accomplish anything and we don't give up so you could declare victory by default when all other posters have fled your threads.

Lurky



Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 01:37:56 PM
I can't keep doing this; i'll have a Breakdown!!!

Then stop repeating the behavior that results in these sorts of exchanges.  I warned you before that this would happen if you continued to behave in a questionable manner.

Quote
I appreciate your assumption that because I claimed I was a Professional Photographer which I am! that you all 'assumed' 'WRONGLY' that this meant I knew ALL  about the Apollo missions and photo's the use of the Blad and the settings and film used.

That's not what I claimed you should know as a "professional photographer."  You specifically told us that you identified yourself as a professional photographer to assure us you had ruled out prosaic causes for the marks on the film.  In fact you had not, and I cited knowing about potential sources of artifacts in photography as something that a professional photographer should know.  I stand by that assessment.  It had nothing to do with specialized knowledge of Apollo photography or the idiosyncrasies of some particular camera system.  It had to do with basic knowledge such as exposure and best practices in film handling.

Quote
There is NO way you have all read this entirely with this Understood!

And once again you keep trying to gaslight your critics.  Until you knock off this childish behavior, you will continue to be treated like a child.


And until you stop acting like my father I will rebel.

We've nothing more to discuss.  You may have knowledge of the Stars etc. but you're lacking at this level of Psychology.

I'm NOT going to have a Breakdown.  What I have said about you all being too Literal?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Northern Lurker on January 20, 2017, 01:40:04 PM
Your previous post you told ME 'MOVE ON!'  I used it back at you and your retort is about free speech!   Practice what you preach!

If you are sincere in your willingness to learn you find many knowledgeable and friendly persons willing to teach. Otherwise please go away because you won't find you esteem boost here and you don't at the moment you don't add much to discussion here.

You can learn about science, space and universe here and let the increased knowledge rightfully boost your self esteem. Or you can continue promoting pseudoscience in effort to boost your ego by having special knowledge. In that case, I again ask you to move on.

Firstly I'd like to congratulate you on your quite creative way of quoting me.

Secondly the definition of free speech means that the government can't censor you. If your speech broke laws you maybe sued afterwards. Any commercial or interpersonal venture is not government and free speech doesn't apply.

For third time:
-if you are willing to learn, please do so and let go of face saving
-if you want to have debate about fringe theories, please declare your intent so that debate can start.
-if you want to whine how demands of fact on scientific board is persecution against you, please leave. You don't accomplish anything and we don't give up so you could declare victory by default when all other posters have fled your threads.

Lurky
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 01:41:50 PM
Your previous post you told ME 'MOVE ON!'  I used it back at you and your retort is about free speech!   Practice what you preach!

If you are sincere in your willingness to learn you find many knowledgeable and friendly persons willing to teach. Otherwise please go away because you won't find you esteem boost here and you don't at the moment you don't add much to discussion here.

You can learn about science, space and universe here and let the increased knowledge rightfully boost your self esteem. Or you can continue promoting pseudoscience in effort to boost your ego by having special knowledge. In that case, I again ask you to move on.

Firstly I'd like to congratulate you on quite creative way of quoting me.
Secondly the definition of free speech means that the government can't censor you. If your speech broke laws you maybe sued afterwards. Any commercial or interpersonal venture is not government and free speech doesn't apply.

For third time:
-if you are willing to learn, please do so and let go of face saving
-if you want to have debate about fringe theories, please declare your intent so that debate can start.
-if you want to whine how demands of fact on scientific board is persecution against you, please leave. You don't accomplish anything and we don't give up so you could declare victory by default when all other posters have fled your threads.

Lurky

Thanks Lurky.  You're still telling me to Move On from My Own Post!

You like Facts?

Based on John Milton's arguments, freedom of speech is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects:

    the right to seek information and ideas;
    the right to receive information and ideas;
    the right to impart information and ideas

International, regional and national standards also recognize that freedom of speech, as the freedom of expression, includes any medium, be it orally, in written, in print, through the Internet or through art forms. This means that the protection of freedom of speech as a right includes not only the content, but also the means of expression
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 20, 2017, 01:42:23 PM
We've nothing more to discuss.

Clearly not, if you insist on carrying on this discussion in such a childish manner.  Since practically everyone here is put off by your behavior, perhaps you should reconsider the proposition that it's everyone's fault but yours.

Quote
You may have knowledge of the Stars etc. but you're lacking at this level of Psychology.

So now you're an expert in what I know about the psychology and behavior patterns of fringe claimants?  Do tell; how did you acquire this knowledge?

Quote
I'm NOT going to have a Breakdown.

Screaming in all caps would certainly indicate otherwise.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 01:45:01 PM
Please point out to me these points and I will answer sincerely.

I provided links above.  Go back and find them.  You should have read and commented on them when they were presented, not after several posts of your incessant whining.

I did click on the link.  you calling me a Liar again?

You links took me to my own pages with several instances on. 

If you wanted to show someone a star would take a broad view and expect them to find it or would you highlight it.

Make it easier will you.  I'm no too clever.  I thought we'd already revealed this?

It's Friday Night here people and I've got Conspiracies to Conjure.

Thanks for watching.

Kirk Out
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 01:45:48 PM
We've nothing more to discuss.

Clearly not, if you insist on carrying on this discussion in such a childish manner.  Since practically everyone here is put off by your behavior, perhaps you should reconsider the proposition that it's everyone's fault but yours.

Quote
You may have knowledge of the Stars etc. but you're lacking at this level of Psychology.

So now you're an expert in what I know about the psychology and behavior patterns of fringe claimants?  Do tell; how did you acquire this knowledge?

Quote
I'm NOT going to have a Breakdown.

Screaming in all caps would certainly indicate otherwise.


There you go again with your assumptions.  I hope your house isn't built on them!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Northern Lurker on January 20, 2017, 01:46:08 PM
    the right to seek information and ideas;
    the right to receive information and ideas;
    the right to impart information and ideas

You aren't doing any of that.

Lurky
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 01:50:00 PM
We've nothing more to discuss.

Clearly not, if you insist on carrying on this discussion in such a childish manner.  Since practically everyone here is put off by your behavior, perhaps you should reconsider the proposition that it's everyone's fault but yours.

Quote
You may have knowledge of the Stars etc. but you're lacking at this level of Psychology.

So now you're an expert in what I know about the psychology and behavior patterns of fringe claimants?  Do tell; how did you acquire this knowledge?

Quote
I'm NOT going to have a Breakdown.

Screaming in all caps would certainly indicate otherwise.

The knowledge I sought I acquired days and posts ago!!!!!  Those that offered the more concise non-personal responses have been sincerely Thanked and they have not added again to this debacle.

This is MY POST and you all keep coming here for amusement.

Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 01:50:56 PM
    the right to seek information and ideas;
    the right to receive information and ideas;
    the right to impart information and ideas

You aren't doing any of that.

Lurky


Really?  you can Prove that?

Interesting.

Please enlighten me?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 01:52:54 PM
Northern, with 28 pages of my own thread, and my answers already accepted, why did you come here and what are you trying to impart that would benefit?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 20, 2017, 01:53:46 PM
I did click on the link.  you calling me a Liar again?

Yes, very much so.

You told us you never disputed the answers you were given.  I linked to two posts in which you disputed the answers you were given.  Therefore you lied.  Insofar as you are being dishonest in this forum and won't be accountable for it, I don't think you have the right expect any sort of coddling from the members here.  Expect to be grilled as a hostile witness.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 20, 2017, 01:56:59 PM
The knowledge I sought I acquired days and posts ago!!!!!

You're not even reading my posts anymore.  You asserted that I "...may have knowledge of the Stars etc. but you're lacking at this level of Psychology."  You seem to profess knowledge of how much I know about the psychology and behavior patterns of conspiracy theorists and other fringe theorists.  I want to know how you came by this expert awareness of what I have in my head.
 
Quote
This is MY POST and you all keep coming here for amusement.

If this displeases you then stop acting in an amusing manner.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: smartcooky on January 20, 2017, 02:00:11 PM
You've referenced 2 instances of here and here, but I don't know what you're bringing my attention to.

The "here and here" are two hyperlinks to other posts you have made on this forum.

Go back to that post

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1245.msg40570#msg40570

position your mouse over a "here" and left click.

If you quote the post and look through the text of it, you can see how to format making a word into a hyperlink using BBCode.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 02:02:04 PM
I did click on the link.  you calling me a Liar again?

Yes, very much so.

You told us you never disputed the answers you were given.  I linked to two posts in which you disputed the answers you were given.  Therefore you lied.  Insofar as you are being dishonest in this forum and won't be accountable for it, I don't think you have the right expect any sort of coddling from the members here.  Expect to be grilled as a hostile witness.


Ooooh I've certainly come to expect it lol.

Thanks.

Here is when I realised my error in my OP

Howdy Icarus!  Welcome to the forum.

I think I see the crux of your problem here as related to your question.  In your opening post, you wrote:

Quote from: Icarus1 on January 05, 2017, 07:14:24 AM

    My initial intention was to reveal Stars in the blackness of space.  I wanted to research the 'Why No Stars in Moon pics' theory.  I am a Professional Photographer.  I have Photoshop.  I opened these two images in PS (I will either post or link or whatever, later) and increased the Levels to reveal stars in the blackness.  At first I thought 'Great; there are stars'.  However, I overlay the 2nd image and did the same, lowering the opacity to align with the image below it.  Content with the alignment, and selecting between the two images, something was revealed.

(Emphasis added)

Your error is in assuming that the dots you found were, in fact, stars.

They are not.

What are they?  Well, it they don't match up from image to image, then you can safely rule them out as anything that was actually in the scene photographed.  That is to say, it is "noise".  I use the term loosely; although it is usually used in reference to transmission and reception, it is also valid when describing any spurious data on a detector (which, technically, camera film is) or in an image.  The 'noise hypothesis' is testable in several different ways, from the general (If you photograph a very black object using a film camera and daylight settings, then digitize the result and adjust the levels, do you get noise?) to the specific (After adjusting the levels on images in question (thanks for listing them, btw), did you check the shadows in the foreground to see if they showed dots, and -if so - did those dots match-up on consecutive images).

When you first adjusted your levels and saw dots on the black, your first thought should not have been, 'Great, there are stars,' but rather, 'I've got something, are they stars?'  Matching it with a consecutive pic was a valid test for eliminating the possibility that they are stars.

Having thus eliminated the possibility of them being stars, your whole question as stated...

Quote

    To make this more clear as a question, and bearing in mind my knowledge of celestial movement and observation from the Moon's surface is non-existent, would the foreground shadows on the moon (created by the Sun only?) change in angle as the moon travels thru space in a manner that would be easily observed over a very short/immediate period of time?  Would the stars also move so drastically in the same instance?  Is it possible for the foreground shadows to be exactly the same in both images, but the stars be totally different?


...becomes irrelevant (the answer to your question, by the way, is "No, but who cares - That's noise, not stars").

I think what got others here riled is the perceived train of thought:
"I see dots ---> Dots are stars ---> Stars don't match ---> 'Conspiracy to deceive'"
instead of
"I see dots ---> Dots don't match ---> Dots are not stars"

Which do you think is more reasonable?

If one were to ask me to consider the conspiracy angle (only considering the issue raised with these two photographs and ignoring the entire rest of the Apollo record), my first thought would be, 'If someone were faking this scene in some way, why would they rearrange a whole lot of 'stars' in the background sky between two consecutive images?  That would be silly and - more to the point - unnecessary!'

Hope this helps.  Cheers!

Sorry Jay, didn't mean to upset you.  You seem Irate?  You know if you spout off like a Father figure call someone childish and desrving os such treatment then you really need to Man Up and simply accept it.  I'm off out for drinks and Karaoke.

Thanks

Oh to anyone who actually Does Read ALL the posts.

This thread was agreed and ended a long long time ago in a Galaxy Far Far away.


The answers I agree with are:

Dust or compression artifacts etc.
Not a Vortex

Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 02:05:39 PM
You've referenced 2 instances of here and here, but I don't know what you're bringing my attention to.

The "here and here" are two hyperlinks to other posts you have made on this forum.

Go back to that post

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1245.msg40570#msg40570

position your mouse over a "here" and left click.

If you quote the post and look through the text of it, you can see how to format making a word into a hyperlink using BBCode.


Thank you but not sure I understand.  I know how to follow a LINK.

My point is I followed the link and took me to an entire page.

Sorry I'm still not getting the Quote thing.  but I have a headache and I'm off out now.

Cheers.

Have a great weekend all of you.  New Prez in Da House!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: smartcooky on January 20, 2017, 02:10:30 PM
You've referenced 2 instances of here and here, but I don't know what you're bringing my attention to.

The "here and here" are two hyperlinks to other posts you have made on this forum.

Go back to that post

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1245.msg40570#msg40570

position your mouse over a "here" and left click.

If you quote the post and look through the text of it, you can see how to format making a word into a hyperlink using BBCode.


Thank you but not sure I understand.  I know how to follow a LINK.

My point is I followed the link and took me to an entire page.

Sorry I'm still not getting the Quote thing.  but I have a headache and I'm off out now.

Cheers.

Have a great weekend all of you.  New Prez in Da House!

When you follow a link to a post on a forum site, the post being linked is the top one, the first one that appears on the page
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 02:12:28 PM
You've referenced 2 instances of here and here, but I don't know what you're bringing my attention to.

The "here and here" are two hyperlinks to other posts you have made on this forum.

Go back to that post

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1245.msg40570#msg40570

position your mouse over a "here" and left click.

If you quote the post and look through the text of it, you can see how to format making a word into a hyperlink using BBCode.


Thank you but not sure I understand.  I know how to follow a LINK.

My point is I followed the link and took me to an entire page.

Sorry I'm still not getting the Quote thing.  but I have a headache and I'm off out now.

Cheers.

Have a great weekend all of you.  New Prez in Da House!

When you follow a link to a post on a forum site, the post being linked is the top one, the first one that appears on the page

Oh I see.  I'll go back and check them tomorrow then.

No doubt I'll receive another loads of insults by then.

I know I know, i seem to ask for it. Doh!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 20, 2017, 02:12:53 PM
I think I see the crux of your problem here as related to your question.

No, that's got nothing to do with it.  You claimed you never disagreed or argued with any of the answers you were given.  I provided links to two of your posts on the first page of this thread, wherein you most certainly did disagree and argue with the first on-topic answers you were given.  I have cited this as an example of how you try to rewrite the thread to make it seem like you're doing everything right and your critics are somehow in the wrong.  This behavior is not consistent with someone who is sincerely seeking answers to innocent questions.

Quote
Sorry Jay, didn't mean to upset you.  You seem Irate?

Gaslighting doesn't really work on us, Icarus1.  You've been behaving like an ass, trying to blame everyone else for it, and have been rightly called on it.  I gave you advice, back when you had the benefit of the doubt, regarding how to avoid misunderstandings regarding your presentation here.  You haven't seen fit to follow it, so there isn't much doubt left of which to give you the benefit.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: twik on January 20, 2017, 02:14:28 PM
Icarus1, I thought that you came here to learn about Apollo.
The Argument Clinic is down the hall.

Haha you fool.

Said the person who was so offended that people "attacked his character" by explaining in detail why his proposals weren't scientifically accurate.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 02:15:25 PM
I think I see the crux of your problem here as related to your question.

No, that's got nothing to do with it.  You claimed you never disagreed or argued with any of the answers you were given.  I provided links to two of your posts on the first page of this thread, wherein you most certainly did disagree and argue with the first on-topic answers you were given.  I have cited this as an example of how you try to rewrite the thread to make it seem like you're doing everything right and your critics are somehow in the wrong.  This behavior is not consistent with someone who is sincerely seeking answers to innocent questions.

Quote
Sorry Jay, didn't mean to upset you.  You seem Irate?

Gaslighting doesn't really work on us, Icarus1.  You've been behaving like an ass, trying to blame everyone else for it, and have been rightly called on it.  I gave you advice, back when you had the benefit of the doubt, regarding how to avoid misunderstandings regarding your presentation here.  You haven't seen fit to follow it, so there isn't much doubt left of which to give you the benefit.

That re-post wasn't just for you Jay.  Perhaps you think this song is about you too?

I've no Idea what Gaslighting means.  Please don't speak in Troll. 

I need you to take a step back and un-do all you think you know about me!

I have thanked you previously for your replies.

I'm beginning to resent it now though.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 02:16:51 PM
Icarus1, I thought that you came here to learn about Apollo.
The Argument Clinic is down the hall.

Haha you fool.


Next?
Said the person who was so offended that people "attacked his character" by explaining in detail why his proposals weren't scientifically accurate.



I am a fool; and an ignorant one at that!  A fool in the pursuit of knowledge.  I have it now. 

Thank you.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: AtomicDog on January 20, 2017, 02:51:56 PM
 
No hard feelings to anyone.

Calling me a Trekkie is a high honor.  I've been on the sets of Voyager, and I've had a hand in the designs for the upcoming (but long delayed) new television series.  I'm not only a fan of Star Trek, I've contributed to making it.

I suppose you've signed a nondisclosure agreement?  ;)
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: jfb on January 20, 2017, 02:53:11 PM
Icarus1, I thought that you came here to learn about Apollo.
The Argument Clinic is down the hall.

Haha you fool.


Next?
Said the person who was so offended that people "attacked his character" by explaining in detail why his proposals weren't scientifically accurate.



I am a fool; and an ignorant one at that!  A fool in the pursuit of knowledge.  I have it now. 

Thank you.

Good Lord.

Don't take everything so damned personally - it's just a forum on the Internet, not real life.  These people don't know you, you don't know them.  In the grand scheme of life, anything that happens here is meaningless and not worth getting exercised about.

The nature of these boards is such that people can be blunt, especially when they've seen the same flavor of argument literally hundreds of times before (I've been following talk.origins since the early 1990s, ask me how many times I've heard/read "if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes" being presented as though it were a novel argument). 

How many times have I seen someone get hammered for posting something that's easily debunked, get their feelings hurt, and respond by changing the subject while doubling down on the victimization complex? 

So yeah, you're getting abused a bit.  Been there. 

Best way out of it is to first drop the victimization complex.  You're not going to get special treatment just because you don't know everything yet.  Hell, I don't know everything either - I'm just a code monkey with delusions of adequacy.  But I at least try to take some time to get a feel for the place before diving in. 

Secondly, you literally have a world's worth of knowledge at your fingertips.  Familiarize yourself with some basic physics (Newtonian mechanics, some thermodynamics, etc.).  You're a photographer, you should already have some basic knowledge of optics, light, exposure, etc.  We're not going to spend an entire thread teaching you everything from conservation of momentum to Special and General Relativity. 

Take some time to do some basic research.  If you have questions, by all means ask them, but don't expect to be coddled.  Before asking, you might want to do a search to see if a similar question hasn't already been asked. 
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 02:58:15 PM
No hard feelings to anyone.

Calling me a Trekkie is a high honor.  I've been on the sets of Voyager, and I've had a hand in the designs for the upcoming (but long delayed) new television series.  I'm not only a fan of Star Trek, I've contributed to making it.

I suppose you've signed a nondisclosure agreement?  ;)

Bit late getting out here.  I don't have an accolade as High as Voyaer but i was in a Film with Luke Goss called Interview with a Hitman.  Coincidentally I was originally the Set Photographer as a Professional!  Earning a minimum of £200 per day for 5 hours work.  Wow, who'd have thunked it.

I was a big fan of ST especially back when I was younger.  There was an episode of a Space Time Rip where the ship was slit into to time Zones.  One thought they could hear a buzzing but half the crew had vanished and the other half we frozn in time.  Fantastic stuff.  High Regard!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 20, 2017, 03:01:34 PM
I've no Idea what Gaslighting means.  Please don't speak in Troll.

So instead of looking it up and wondering whether the explanation might legitimately apply to you, you just decided to call me names instead.  Funny, since "gaslighting" is a common pscyhological term and you questioned my understanding of psychology.  I guess we found another subject you don't know as much about as you insinuate.

Gaslighting, in brief, is behavior that is intended to manipulate others into questioning their own perceptions.  You're trying to manipulate people into accept your self-characterization as the innocent flower-child victim of an ill-behaved rabble of skeptics, rather than let them draw their own conclusions about the propriety of your approach here and its likely goals.

Quote
I need you to take a step back and un-do all you think you know about me!

No, i really don't think I do.  As I told you before, everyone thinks they're the first one to try this approach and that their critics won't see it for what it is.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 20, 2017, 03:02:23 PM
I suppose you've signed a nondisclosure agreement?  ;)

Several.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: smartcooky on January 20, 2017, 05:30:10 PM
Gaslighting, in brief, is behavior that is intended to manipulate others into questioning their own perceptions....

...from the 1940 Film Noir "Gaslight" starring Anton Walbrook and Diana Wynyard.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Glom on January 20, 2017, 05:48:39 PM
How is there three pages of posts all showing on Tapatalk as "just now"? How can you all type that fast? And it's not even about a juicy hoaxgument.

I think it is time to wheel out the XKCD.
https://xkcd.com/386/
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: JayUtah on January 20, 2017, 05:51:49 PM
Gaslighting, in brief, is behavior that is intended to manipulate others into questioning their own perceptions....

...from the 1940 Film Noir "Gaslight" starring Anton Walbrook and Diana Wynyard.

But the better film was the 1944 version.  Angela Lansbury's first feature film role, and her first Oscar nomination.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: smartcooky on January 20, 2017, 06:34:00 PM
Gaslighting, in brief, is behavior that is intended to manipulate others into questioning their own perceptions....

...from the 1940 Film Noir "Gaslight" starring Anton Walbrook and Diana Wynyard.

But the better film was the 1944 version.  Angela Lansbury's first feature film role, and her first Oscar nomination.

With Boyer, Bergman  and Cotton, it couldn't miss really.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 06:55:17 PM
Icarus1, I thought that you came here to learn about Apollo.
The Argument Clinic is down the hall.

Haha you fool.


Next?
Said the person who was so offended that people "attacked his character" by explaining in detail why his proposals weren't scientifically accurate.



I am a fool; and an ignorant one at that!  A fool in the pursuit of knowledge.  I have it now. 

Thank you.

Good Lord.

Don't take everything so damned personally - it's just a forum on the Internet, not real life.  These people don't know you, you don't know them.  In the grand scheme of life, anything that happens here is meaningless and not worth getting exercised about.

The nature of these boards is such that people can be blunt, especially when they've seen the same flavor of argument literally hundreds of times before (I've been following talk.origins since the early 1990s, ask me how many times I've heard/read "if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes" being presented as though it were a novel argument). 

How many times have I seen someone get hammered for posting something that's easily debunked, get their feelings hurt, and respond by changing the subject while doubling down on the victimization complex? 

So yeah, you're getting abused a bit.  Been there. 

Best way out of it is to first drop the victimization complex.  You're not going to get special treatment just because you don't know everything yet.  Hell, I don't know everything either - I'm just a code monkey with delusions of adequacy.  But I at least try to take some time to get a feel for the place before diving in. 

Secondly, you literally have a world's worth of knowledge at your fingertips.  Familiarize yourself with some basic physics (Newtonian mechanics, some thermodynamics, etc.).  You're a photographer, you should already have some basic knowledge of optics, light, exposure, etc.  We're not going to spend an entire thread teaching you everything from conservation of momentum to Special and General Relativity. 

Take some time to do some basic research.  If you have questions, by all means ask them, but don't expect to be coddled.  Before asking, you might want to do a search to see if a similar question hasn't already been asked.

Thank you for noticing but relax.  I'm taking this all in good humor actually.  I'm not taking it personally in the slightest; how could I?  As you have stated I'm a stranger here and this is merely a forum of text interpreted as person.

I am in good folly.  No harm done nor am I suffering in the slightest.  This can and will I foresee, carry on for some time yet.  It has become fascinating.

Regards.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 07:01:47 PM
I've no Idea what Gaslighting means.  Please don't speak in Troll.

So instead of looking it up and wondering whether the explanation might legitimately apply to you, you just decided to call me names instead.  Funny, since "gaslighting" is a common pscyhological term and you questioned my understanding of psychology.  I guess we found another subject you don't know as much about as you insinuate.

Gaslighting, in brief, is behavior that is intended to manipulate others into questioning their own perceptions.  You're trying to manipulate people into accept your self-characterization as the innocent flower-child victim of an ill-behaved rabble of skeptics, rather than let them draw their own conclusions about the propriety of your approach here and its likely goals.

Quote
I need you to take a step back and un-do all you think you know about me!

No, i really don't think I do.  As I told you before, everyone thinks they're the first one to try this approach and that their critics won't see it for what it is.

Someone calling you names Jay.  Ahhh Bless.  I've been called all kinds of names on here.  Pucker up Butter Cup.  It's only words.  You'll survive.

Try not be so whiny!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 07:12:44 PM
How is there three pages of posts all showing on Tapatalk as "just now"? How can you all type that fast? And it's not even about a juicy hoaxgument.

I think it is time to wheel out the XKCD.
https://xkcd.com/386/

Hi, Glom.  I sincerely hope what you're referring to as a Hoaxgument and there being No Sign Of it is evidence enough of the shameless attempts to ridicule me, dare I say, Further?

Please let me find a kind hospitable soul in here that is not out to torture my fragile mind.  These Forumulin tyrants have a Death Wish on me!

I can't take it anymore.  I made a defamatory comment in suspect of the official Apollo Pics.  I've conceded I made a mistake in my wording and question.. I'm reliving the drama every day.  I can't work, sleep or pleasure my wife.  I'm so bereft.  I've been a fool for even questioning the greatest human endeavor of all time.  I'm not sure how I will recover.

Ooooh is that wine?

I'm fine now. Thanks   :-* :-X ::) :P
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Abaddon on January 20, 2017, 07:16:44 PM
We've nothing more to discuss.

Clearly not, if you insist on carrying on this discussion in such a childish manner.  Since practically everyone here is put off by your behavior, perhaps you should reconsider the proposition that it's everyone's fault but yours.

Quote
You may have knowledge of the Stars etc. but you're lacking at this level of Psychology.

So now you're an expert in what I know about the psychology and behavior patterns of fringe claimants?  Do tell; how did you acquire this knowledge?

Quote
I'm NOT going to have a Breakdown.

Screaming in all caps would certainly indicate otherwise.

The knowledge I sought I acquired days and posts ago!!!!!  Those that offered the more concise non-personal responses have been sincerely Thanked and they have not added again to this debacle.

This is MY POST and you all keep coming here for amusement.


Technically, it isn't your thread at all. Nor are any of your posts, once made, yours either. Once you post them, they become the property of the forum.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 07:20:40 PM
We've nothing more to discuss.

Clearly not, if you insist on carrying on this discussion in such a childish manner.  Since practically everyone here is put off by your behavior, perhaps you should reconsider the proposition that it's everyone's fault but yours.

Quote
You may have knowledge of the Stars etc. but you're lacking at this level of Psychology.

So now you're an expert in what I know about the psychology and behavior patterns of fringe claimants?  Do tell; how did you acquire this knowledge?

Quote
I'm NOT going to have a Breakdown.

Screaming in all caps would certainly indicate otherwise.

The knowledge I sought I acquired days and posts ago!!!!!  Those that offered the more concise non-personal responses have been sincerely Thanked and they have not added again to this debacle.

This is MY POST and you all keep coming here for amusement.


Technically, it isn't your thread at all. Nor are any of your posts, once made, yours either. Once you post them, they become the property of the forum.

Makes sense.  Post away.   ;D
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Abaddon on January 20, 2017, 07:24:36 PM
We've nothing more to discuss.

Clearly not, if you insist on carrying on this discussion in such a childish manner.  Since practically everyone here is put off by your behavior, perhaps you should reconsider the proposition that it's everyone's fault but yours.

Quote
You may have knowledge of the Stars etc. but you're lacking at this level of Psychology.

So now you're an expert in what I know about the psychology and behavior patterns of fringe claimants?  Do tell; how did you acquire this knowledge?

Quote
I'm NOT going to have a Breakdown.

Screaming in all caps would certainly indicate otherwise.

The knowledge I sought I acquired days and posts ago!!!!!  Those that offered the more concise non-personal responses have been sincerely Thanked and they have not added again to this debacle.

This is MY POST and you all keep coming here for amusement.


Technically, it isn't your thread at all. Nor are any of your posts, once made, yours either. Once you post them, they become the property of the forum.

Makes sense.  Post away.   ;D
I never need your permission to do so, nor does anyone else. Instructing posters to cease posting or "go away", as you have done, is as about as useful as a chocolate crash helmet.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 07:30:06 PM
We've nothing more to discuss.

Clearly not, if you insist on carrying on this discussion in such a childish manner.  Since practically everyone here is put off by your behavior, perhaps you should reconsider the proposition that it's everyone's fault but yours.

Quote
You may have knowledge of the Stars etc. but you're lacking at this level of Psychology.

So now you're an expert in what I know about the psychology and behavior patterns of fringe claimants?  Do tell; how did you acquire this knowledge?

Quote
I'm NOT going to have a Breakdown.

Screaming in all caps would certainly indicate otherwise.

The knowledge I sought I acquired days and posts ago!!!!!  Those that offered the more concise non-personal responses have been sincerely Thanked and they have not added again to this debacle.

This is MY POST and you all keep coming here for amusement.


Technically, it isn't your thread at all. Nor are any of your posts, once made, yours either. Once you post them, they become the property of the forum.

Makes sense.  Post away.   ;D
I never need your permission to do so, nor does anyone else. Instructing posters to cease posting or "go away", as you have done, is as about as useful as a chocolate crash helmet.

Er...Yeah totally agree.  Stop Cherry picking your info Bud!  Try reading the post where I was instructed to Move on!  Get a Hobby dude.  Seriously.  What are you here for?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: ka9q on January 20, 2017, 07:48:57 PM
Icarus1, I thought that you came here to learn about Apollo.
The Argument Clinic is down the hall.
Actually, this is Getting Hit On The Head Lessons.

Now just hold your head like this and go "Waaaaah!"
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Obviousman on January 20, 2017, 07:52:17 PM
Out of curiosity, Icarus1, why o you capitalise some words that do not require capitalisation? For example:

"Get a Hobby dude."

"Stop Cherry picking your info..."

"...there being No Sign Of it is evidence enough of the shameless attempts to ridicule me, dare I say, Further?"


It's a minor dig at you but I am genuinely curious as to why you do it; perhaps english is not your first language?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 07:52:56 PM
Icarus1, I thought that you came here to learn about Apollo.
The Argument Clinic is down the hall.
Actually, this is Getting Hit On The Head Lessons.

Now just hold your head like this and go "Waaaaah!"

Ahhh you've turned on me as well.  And for what reason can I ask?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 07:54:27 PM
Out of curiosity, Icarus1, why o you capitalise some words that do not require capitalisation? For example:

"Get a Hobby dude."

"Stop Cherry picking your info..."

"...there being No Sign Of it is evidence enough of the shameless attempts to ridicule me, dare I say, Further?"


It's a minor dig at you but I am genuinely curious as to why you do it; perhaps english is not your first language?

Coz i iZ N unedicated feller Bro.  Dint yo read the thred?

coz
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Abaddon on January 20, 2017, 08:02:29 PM

Er...Yeah totally agree. 
I don't believe you.
Stop Cherry picking your info Bud! 
I'm not cherry picking. I quote your posts in full whenever I respond to them. Perhaps you should consider adding the term to the growing list of things you do not understand.

Try reading the post where I was instructed to Move on!
Which one of them?
Get a Hobby dude.  Seriously.
By any definition, my participation here meets the criteria of a hobby.
What are you here for?
What business is that of yours? What does it matter? The fact is that I am here and have been for years. However, I am an engineer and have an interest naturally in projects at the limits of engineering. Thus I am interested in space and space exploration.

Now you know that, does it somehow make you feel better?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: ka9q on January 20, 2017, 08:03:54 PM
I've no Idea what Gaslighting means.  Please don't speak in Troll. 
The term has become quite widely used in the English-speaking world over the past year or so to describe Donald Trump's behavior, so I'm a little surprised that you don't know it. It usually refers to repeated flat denials of ever having said or done certain things despite the existence of solid, indisputable evidence that they were said or done, e.g., videotapes and Twitter logs.

Because normal people simply can't conceive of repeatedly uttering such flat-out and easily disproved lies in public without any hint of shame or self-awareness, continual exposure to the practice eventually makes people question their own grasp on reality. It's a form of psychological warfare that can be highly effective if the victim isn't aware of it, or able to accept that truly pathological liars really do exist. But on this forum we are quite acquainted with it, and we're rather tired of it.

So just stop arguing about what you said or didn't say or how you've supposedly been mistreated here. Just ask your technical questions and we'll still do our best to answer them. There's no such thing as a "stupid" question as long as the person asking it honestly wants to know the answer. But we're very familiar with the misuse of questions as rhetorical weapons, and we don't like it very much.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 08:04:17 PM
Out of curiosity, Icarus1, why o you capitalise some words that do not require capitalisation? For example:

"Get a Hobby dude."

"Stop Cherry picking your info..."

"...there being No Sign Of it is evidence enough of the shameless attempts to ridicule me, dare I say, Further?"


It's a minor dig at you but I am genuinely curious as to why you do it; perhaps english is not your first language?

Minor Dig right back at you!  'why o you capitalise'

 perhaps 'english' is not your first language?  Capital E
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: ka9q on January 20, 2017, 08:07:59 PM
Icarus1, I thought that you came here to learn about Apollo.
The Argument Clinic is down the hall.
Actually, this is Getting Hit On The Head Lessons.

Now just hold your head like this and go "Waaaaah!"

Ahhh you've turned on me as well.  And for what reason can I ask?
You have a persecution complex. I was trying to inject a little humor, since it's obvious that we have many Monty Python fans here. I was also implying that the current discussion isn't very productive, and as I just said in my last message I suggest you simply push the reset button and ask your technical questions. We'll do our best to answer.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 08:12:05 PM
Icarus1, I thought that you came here to learn about Apollo.
The Argument Clinic is down the hall.
Actually, this is Getting Hit On The Head Lessons.

Now just hold your head like this and go "Waaaaah!"

Ahhh you've turned on me as well.  And for what reason can I ask?
You have a persecution complex. I was trying to inject a little humor, since it's obvious that we have many Monty Python fans here. I was also implying that the current discussion isn't very productive, and as I just said in my last message I suggest you simply push the reset button and ask your technical questions. We'll do our best to answer.

Apologies I missed the Nod.  I'm doing my best to deal with this.

I sincerely Do Not have a persecution complex.  While I agree it would not be uncommon for a type to allow this to continue, this is not the case here.

Please, Inject away. :D
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 08:14:08 PM
Icarus1, I thought that you came here to learn about Apollo.
The Argument Clinic is down the hall.
Actually, this is Getting Hit On The Head Lessons.

Now just hold your head like this and go "Waaaaah!"

Ahhh you've turned on me as well.  And for what reason can I ask?
You have a persecution complex. I was trying to inject a little humor, since it's obvious that we have many Monty Python fans here. I was also implying that the current discussion isn't very productive, and as I just said in my last message I suggest you simply push the reset button and ask your technical questions. We'll do our best to answer.

Much like the post above you, I'm sure he/she was just trying to inject a little Homour to lighten the post.  The title thread is about a possible Moon hoax.  there are nearly 500 posts and over 30 pages, yet he wants' to know about my use of Capitals in my sentences while admitting it's a little Dig!.

Hmm.
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: ka9q on January 20, 2017, 08:21:00 PM
So ask your technical  questions.

We're waiting...
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 08:23:32 PM
So ask your technical  questions.

We're waiting...

You're LATE.  This debate and my answers arrived long ago!

You'r waiting for a Bus that will never arrive.  You need a new destination.  ???
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: ka9q on January 20, 2017, 08:27:43 PM
Then why are you still here?
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 08:30:47 PM
Then why are you still here?




hahaha, seriously??

Coz people keep posting and i feel rude if i don't reply!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: Icarus1 on January 20, 2017, 08:38:50 PM
Hello everyone.  I have a new question.  Would you like to hear it?  It is of a different matter, but relating the the ISS.

Please let me know if you would sincerely like to hear my question, then I will go ahead and ask it.

Thanks Trumpeteers!
Title: Re: Moon pics static shadows and moving stars.
Post by: LunarOrbit on January 20, 2017, 08:48:57 PM


Then why are you still here?




hahaha, seriously??

Coz people keep posting and i feel rude if i don't reply!

Let me help you with that then. I absolve you of any guilt you might feel for not responding because it's no longer your choice. I am locking this thread.