|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
 Posted - 11/22/2005 : 14:01:46
|
It's incredible but NASA buffoons don't know there are stars in the universe
|
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
Edited by - bigbrain on 11/22/2005 14:19:16
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 11/22/2005 : 14:25:01 [Permalink]
|
Ah, the old "I don't understand how cameras work" argument. It's been explained to you already.
Why can't you stick to one thing, B6? Take a step back, and tell us how fast Cassini would have had to leave Earth to make a direct trip to Saturn? Surely, since you know that NASA's calculations are wrong, you can give us the answer.
Or better yet, take a step back even farther, and tell us, yes or no, whether there are any satellites in orbit around Earth right now. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 14:46:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Ah, the old "I don't understand how cameras work" argument. It's been explained to you already.
Exposure of your cameras on the moon was adjustable and on Cassini is adjustable.
Astronauts, not knowing the right exposure on the moon, will have tested different exposures. How is it possible that no one image shows the stars?
Have they never mistaken exposure? NASA buffoons are only swindlers and you are only gullible people
|
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 14:53:20 [Permalink]
|
| I think it is cycling through the arguments again. Can we all agree to end this charade? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
bigbrain
BANNED
409 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 15:01:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by pleco
I think it is cycling through the arguments again. Can we all agree to end this charade?
No, I'm not cycling.
Often my questions are original, like this:
Have astronauts never mistaken exposure? NASA buffoons are only swindlers and you are only gullible people
|
"Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit" (Flattery gets friends, truth hatred)
Publius Terentius Afer, "Terence", Roman dramatist
|
|
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 15:54:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by bigbrain
No, I'm not cycling.
Often my questions are original, like this:
Have astronauts never mistaken exposure? NASA buffoons are only swindlers and you are only gullible people
All you're doing here is showing your ignorance of incredibly basic photograhy by stating it's all fake because of no stars in the lunar/Saturn photos.
Go to this link....
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
Scroll down a few lines to the hyperlinks. Click on "No stars in picture" link. Read it and learn a bit of Photography 101, high school level.
Here's an except from the Bad Astronomy link:
===================================
So why aren't they in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.
So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!
====================================
|
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
|
|
|
DR_C
New Member
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 17:01:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Ah, the old "I don't understand how cameras work" argument. It's been explained to you already.
I think I had read somewhere that NASA does paint out stars on some of their pics, but it's only so the focus of the viewer is on the actual subject being shot, and not the surrounding stars. Not sure they did that on moon photos, though. I would think that the light of the sun reflecting off the surface of the moon would hide any stars in the sky, especially on the horizon. If they pointed the camera straight up they might see stars, but they would be very faint at best. |
Fundie: "I believe God created me in one day."
Bill: "Looks like he rushed it."
The late Bill Hicks |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 17:38:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by DR_C
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Ah, the old "I don't understand how cameras work" argument. It's been explained to you already.
I think I had read somewhere that NASA does paint out stars on some of their pics, but it's only so the focus of the viewer is on the actual subject being shot, and not the surrounding stars. Not sure they did that on moon photos, though. I would think that the light of the sun reflecting off the surface of the moon would hide any stars in the sky, especially on the horizon. If they pointed the camera straight up they might see stars, but they would be very faint at best.
It's not the reflection that's the problem. It's the exposure time set on the camera. The surface of the moon is several orders of magnitudes brighter than the stars and in order not to make it look REALLY overexposed, shutter speeds have to be quite short. Also, you would not see stars in a photo if you were handholding your camera since you wouldn't be able to hold the camera steady for long enough. (Try this with a camera at home: exposure time for the moon - ISO 100 f/11 1/60 sec. Exposure time of stars - ISO 100 f/11 1200 sec) |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Randy
SFN Regular
USA
1990 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 18:49:11 [Permalink]
|
Bigbrain, the larger image below is a simple unretouched moon photo I took thru my 8" Newtonian telescope with a digital camera. If you save this image to file on your computer, you can look at the embedded EXIF photo information. Digital cameras save JPEG files with EXIF (Exchangeable Image File) data. Camera settings and scene information are recorded by the camera into the image file. Examples of stored information are shutter speed, date and time, focal length, exposure compensation, metering pattern, etc, etc.
My crude moon photo was taken in my backyard a few years ago. Note the 'absence' of stars. That is always to be expected when shooting lunar photos.
The photo's EXIF info states the reason you don't see the stars in this image.....the shutter exposure time was 1/30 seconds, with a F stop of 7.40. ISO Speed setting was 200. Those settings give the exposure image you see below. At the above camera settings, it was IMPOSSIBLE for my camera to capture any star images (unless it was our sun). To do so, I would have to have a shutter speed of several seconds and open the F stop fully. ISO Speed would be bumped to 400.
If the below image truely had stars in it, the detail you now see on the moon image wouldn't be there. The moon would be near completely blown out detail wise; it'd be nearly all white.
Make sense???
How about this little detail related to my image below. Tell us, where in the photo is the earthshine -- why does my photo NOT HAVE EARTHSHINE PASS THE TERMINATOR (shadow) LINE, hm???? Earthshine is sunlight reflected off the Earth illuminating the shadow part of the moon. I'll tell you why you don't see earthshine below...it's the camera settings -- the settings to capture the moon as you see it is way too fast to capture the earthshine. SAME GOES FOR CAPTURING ANY STARLIGHT.
Get it, now?
Below my moon pic is a web photo of lunar earthshine. Note the harsh, overexposed direct sunlight area of the moon. This is due to a longer shutter speed to capture the earthshine. Note still no stars. You'd have to have a much longer shutter speed to capture star light.
Same with the Apollo images. Same with your posted Saturn image.
What I've tried to explain to you is INCREDIBLY BASIC photography.
Earthshine on the moon....
|
"We are all connected; to each other biologically, to the earth chemically, to the rest of the universe atomically."
"So you're made of detritus [from exploded stars]. Get over it. Or better yet, celebrate it. After all, what nobler thought can one cherish than that the universe lives within us all?"
-Neil DeGrasse Tyson |
| Edited by - Randy on 11/22/2005 18:55:14 |
|
|
|
DR_C
New Member
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 20:44:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
quote:
Originally posted by DR_C
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Ah, the old "I don't understand how cameras work" argument. It's been explained to you already.
I think I had read somewhere that NASA does paint out stars on some of their pics, but it's only so the focus of the viewer is on the actual subject being shot, and not the surrounding stars. Not sure they did that on moon photos, though. I would think that the light of the sun reflecting off the surface of the moon would hide any stars in the sky, especially on the horizon. If they pointed the camera straight up they might see stars, but they would be very faint at best.
It's not the reflection that's the problem. It's the exposure time set on the camera. The surface of the moon is several orders of magnitudes brighter than the stars and in order not to make it look REALLY overexposed, shutter speeds have to be quite short. Also, you would not see stars in a photo if you were handholding your camera since you wouldn't be able to hold the camera steady for long enough. (Try this with a camera at home: exposure time for the moon - ISO 100 f/11 1/60 sec. Exposure time of stars - ISO 100 f/11 1200 sec)
Ah, I see. If the shutter speed was slower, you wouldn't get a pic of the moon so much as a big white overexposed waste of film. Cool.
Thanks for the clear up. |
Fundie: "I believe God created me in one day."
Bill: "Looks like he rushed it."
The late Bill Hicks |
|
|
|
lord_hevonen
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 22:37:28 [Permalink]
|
| Interested people should read www.badastronomy.com or www.clavius.org Hey Bigbrain, how far would you say this conspiracy reaches? Are all the people building and testing the components and software of probes, satellites and launch vehicles fooling us? Or are some of the brightest brains on Earth building fully working and tested equipment, which is then never actually launched by NASA, ESA etc.? |
| Edited by - lord_hevonen on 11/22/2005 22:46:07 |
|
|
|
Scotty
New Member
United Kingdom
12 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 07:51:46 [Permalink]
|
Ok BB - lets assume for one tiny second that your deluded and mad view of the world is correct , ok NASA/ESA have to keep dozens of research teams all over the world, none of whom actually work for NASA/ESA, convinced that the mountand of dats coming fom Cassini on a daily basis is correct -HOW?
Are there teams of scientists , all of whoe have agreed to keep silent for years , busily faking the dats - trying to second guess the rest of the scientific community ...  Mad, just barking mad
How do you account for those discoveries such as Voyager 1's discovery of active volcano's on Io in 1979 - no one could have predicted them, but after the fly by , the existance of geological heating linked to gravitational forces seemed obvious - as was the outcome - large volcanic eruptions -
You do ealise , in passing, that the Huygens element of the Cassini mission was operated by EAS , and had NOTHING to do with NASA, other than hitching a lift... so does that mean there are European Buffoons as well ?
Just accept BB tht sometime there are people out there who are brigher than you , who can see further , |
"Nac Mac Feegle! The Wee Free Men! Nae king! Nae quin! Nae laird! We willna be fooled again!" -
T. Prattchett - Wee Free Men |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 08:31:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scotty
Ok BB - lets assume for one tiny second that your deluded and mad view of the world is correct , ok NASA/ESA have to keep dozens of research teams all over the world, none of whom actually work for NASA/ESA, convinced that the mountand of dats coming fom Cassini on a daily basis is correct -HOW?
Are there teams of scientists , all of whoe have agreed to keep silent for years , busily faking the dats - trying to second guess the rest of the scientific community ... Mad, just barking mad
How do you account for those discoveries such as Voyager 1's discovery of active volcano's on Io in 1979 - no one could have predicted them, but after the fly by , the existance of geological heating linked to gravitational forces seemed obvious - as was the outcome - large volcanic eruptions -
You do ealise , in passing, that the Huygens element of the Cassini mission was operated by EAS , and had NOTHING to do with NASA, other than hitching a lift... so does that mean there are European Buffoons as well ?
Just accept BB tht sometime there are people out there who are brigher than you , who can see further ,
Indeed.... But alas, b-to-infinity has shown himself impervious to logic, reasoning, and even mild ad hominem attacks (being called an idiot). You've got to admire him a little for this, once you have your blood pressure under control.
I only wish he'd find a new groove....
"Fareweel to a' our Scottish fame,
Fareweel our ancient glory;
Fareweel ev'n to the Scottish name,
Sae fam'd in martial story.
Now Sark rins over Solway sands,
An' Tweed rins to the ocean,
To mark where England's province stands-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
What force or guile could not subdue,
Thro' many warlike ages,
Is wrought now by a coward few,
For hireling traitor's wages.
The English stell we could disdain,
Secure in valour's station;
But English gold has been our bane-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
O would, or I had seen the day
That Treason thus could sell us,
My auld grey head had lien in clay,
Wi' Bruce and loyal Wallace!
But pith and power, till my last hour,
I'll mak this declaration;
We're bought and sold for English gold-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!"
-- Robert Burns.
Welcome to SFN, Scotty. Looking forward to your further input.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Scotty
New Member
United Kingdom
12 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 08:53:33 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for the welcome - Oh boy I really should have reviewed my contribution before posting !
ah burns - incomprehensible as ever! - I was force fed him in School, and was less than impressed by him because of that .. besides his dialect comes from the wrong side of Scotland , I'm from the NE, and doric is the preferred dialect , not that I would know ,
Since e I could string 5 words together , without slurring , I was beaten up for being that most dreaded of things , An "Englishman" - I still get the odd look , since I've devloped an almost perfect BBC accent!- pity about my spelling!
I've followed BB in his many guises since he appeared on the Apollohoax board for a couple of weeks in the summer , I really can't stop coming here , since its rather like watching a freak show - you hate your self for watching , but you just can't drag yourself away... |
"Nac Mac Feegle! The Wee Free Men! Nae king! Nae quin! Nae laird! We willna be fooled again!" -
T. Prattchett - Wee Free Men |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2005 : 09:11:25 [Permalink]
|
| Welcome Scotty! Hope you enjoy the lunacy. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
