Your donations are appreciated and help keep this site running. Even the smallest amount helps.
Thankyou

 
PROMOTE YOUR SITE
HERE
Only $3 USD/month
TRUTHSPOON.COM
The man they can't recruit!
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me

TOPIC: Apollo images don't have stars

Apollo images don't have stars 22 Sep 2019 18:38 #1

  • TG
  • TG's Avatar
  • Online
  • Senior Member
  • Debate is not possible with a Troooofah!
  • Posts: 1556
  • Likes received: 16
Astonishingly, there are oxygen thieves around who claim stars should show up in Apollo photographs. The latest claim is from Laxative Interior, who laughably says ….set camera to use a flash on near field and something or other to capture the stars. Needless to say, such a claim is so stupid it belongs in the list with people unable to sit correctly on bogseats.

Here is what the jackass said:

"It's set a couple of stops below correct exposure, it illuminates the subject while correctly exposing the ambient light in the background. "


So, his idea involves CLOSING the aperture to allow the stars to be captured????? :facepalm: :shemused:

The main claim has been refuted, debunked, endlessly explained to the conveyor belt of cretins who wave their arms in the air wildly, claiming they should be present. Notwithstanding EVERY single photographic club, forum or gathering would be up in arms at this "omission", the idea it should occur, is refuted by every single guide on the internet.

NIKON
"To photograph the stars in the sky as pinpoints of light, start with as wide an f/stop as your lens allows, and shutter speed of about 20 seconds. Any more time than that and the stars will begin to blur. Increase the ISO as needed for a good exposure."

DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY SCHOOL
"You can nail this shot almost every time with these settings: 25 second exposure, f/2.8, ISO 1600. If your lens doesn’t open up to f/2.8 you can try 30 seconds at f/4 with ISO 1600.

Note: this kind of photography won’t work if there is a full moon out (or even a half moon). Don’t compete with large light sources, the stars will be over powered. The best location for star photography is way out in nature, away from city lights that cause “light pollution.”


digital-photography-school.com/beginners-tips-for-night-sky-and-star-photography/

I thought about putting up dozens of examples....but EVERY damn website out there says the same thing.

Not some cunt with a flash at under a second

You cannot reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Apollo images don't have stars 23 Sep 2019 00:20 #2

  • Frothy
  • Frothy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • True life is elsewhere
  • Posts: 16696
  • Likes received: 1744
According to the post Apollo 11 press conference the crew agreed that they didn't see any stars from the lunar surface.
Apparently, you'd only be able to see stars if you were standing on the dark side of the lunar terminator line. The brightside of the moon will have a corona from the surface reflection, the moon sky will still appear dark to the human eye but there's a haze of light hitting and reflecting from the lunar surface.

Out of the lunar corona in their craft, with the correct equipment and method, they should have been able to take photos of stars providing they could get a shot that was not being interfered with from the Sun or the refection of it from the moon or Earth.

The fact that no mission ever did take such photographs of the stars is a bit fishy because that would have confirmed their astronomical position.
Once a hyena always a hyena.
Last Edit: 23 Sep 2019 00:29 by Frothy.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Apollo images don't have stars 23 Sep 2019 01:15 #3

  • TG
  • TG's Avatar
  • Online
  • Senior Member
  • Debate is not possible with a Troooofah!
  • Posts: 1556
  • Likes received: 16
Frothy wrote:
According to the post Apollo 11 press conference the crew agreed that they didn't see any stars from the lunar surface.

Nor should they through triple layer helmets, bright daylight surface, sun reflecting everywhere and bright in the fucking sky. It's also fuck all to do with the OP!
Out of the lunar corona in their craft, with the correct equipment and method, they should have been able to take photos of stars providing they could get a shot that was not being interfered with from the Sun or the refection of it from the moon or Earth.

AS15/10075726.jpg
The solar corona, as photographed from Apollo 15 about one minute prior to
sunrise on July 31, 1971, is seen just beyond the lunar horizon. The bright
object on the opposite side of the frame is the planet Mercury. The bright
star near the frame center is Regulus, and the lesser stars form the head
of the constellation Leo. Mercury is approximately 28 degrees from the
center of the sun. The solar coronal streamers, therefore, appear to
extend about eight degrees from the sun's center.



The fact that no mission ever did take such photographs of the stars is a bit fishy because that would have confirmed their astronomical position.

GTFO!! They went to the Moon to study the moon, not take piss poor images from the surface, that are virtually identical to clear desert nights on Earth!! Apollo 16 took a UV camera that took UV pictures of the stars and Earth!

onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/ap16uv.html

You know less than nothing.
You cannot reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
Last Edit: 23 Sep 2019 01:17 by TG.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Apollo images don't have stars 23 Sep 2019 02:41 #4

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 7288
  • Likes received: 1571
Frothy wrote:
According to the post Apollo 11 press conference the crew agreed that they didn't see any stars from the lunar surface.
...
The fact that no mission ever did take such photographs of the stars is a bit fishy because that would have confirmed their astronomical position.

Remember that those clowns were not lying.

Collins was not lying, Armstrong was not lying.

"I don't recall seeing any", said Collins. He was allegedly doing impossible-to-exist orbits in his space thingy around the Moon while his buddies were bunnyhopping in impossible-to-exist sand.

He is not lying; he was never near the Moon (in a bunker with starless nights) and the "buddies" were two actors on wires, not the astronots themselves, they did voice overs.

But Michael Collins, and later so-called missions were even longer, according to their stories spent a full day in the shadow of the Moon *from the Sun) and thus could have spent 24 hours photographing the undisturbed beauty of the stars. Impossible for man to see, ever.



"Don't remember seeing any"

Clown.
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Last Edit: 23 Sep 2019 02:43 by Gaia.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Apollo images don't have stars 23 Sep 2019 03:02 #5

  • Frothy
  • Frothy's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • True life is elsewhere
  • Posts: 16696
  • Likes received: 1744
I'm sure they'd have had plenty of time to take photos of the stars during 'their 6 day journeys'' It's quite odd that they didn't.

But as I say, they maybe didn't want to give away their astronomical position.

I wonder how many more 'lunar landing' threads TG Pricks is going to inflict on the forum?

He's like a schizophrenic wandering around randomly yelling ''wibble wibble wibble'' and then screaming ''owned''. :dunno:

I guess that's what years of posting on Dif does to people, it's either that or he was born a gibbering idiot.
Once a hyena always a hyena.
Last Edit: 23 Sep 2019 03:05 by Frothy.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Apollo images don't have stars 23 Sep 2019 03:36 #6

  • Voltaire
  • Voltaire's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 3456
  • Likes received: 2060
how did film they used not get zapped by radiation rendering it useless to record events?


Truth is anti-semitic
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
User(s) who Liked this post: Gaia

Apollo images don't have stars 23 Sep 2019 05:04 #7

  • MrAnderson
  • MrAnderson's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Silver Member
  • Posts: 2878
  • Likes received: 1186
TG wrote:
I haven't seen that website before but again people could say it's only images and images can be tampered with , even back then

www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2011/199/book-water-forests.htm

Ive all ways wondered what they havent shown us , not what they have
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Apollo images don't have stars 23 Sep 2019 05:51 #8

  • Lux Interior
  • Lux Interior's Avatar
  • Online
  • Silver Member
  • Do you know de way?
  • Posts: 3348
  • Likes received: 1047
TG wrote:
Astonishingly, there are oxygen thieves around who claim stars should show up in Apollo photographs. The latest claim is from Laxative Interior, who laughably says ….set camera to use a flash on near field and something or other to capture the stars. Needless to say, such a claim is so stupid it belongs in the list with people unable to sit correctly on bogseats.

Here is what the jackass said:

"It's set a couple of stops below correct exposure, it illuminates the subject while correctly exposing the ambient light in the background. "


So, his idea involves CLOSING the aperture to allow the stars to be captured????? :facepalm: :shemused:

The main claim has been refuted, debunked, endlessly explained to the conveyor belt of cretins who wave their arms in the air wildly, claiming they should be present. Notwithstanding EVERY single photographic club, forum or gathering would be up in arms at this "omission", the idea it should occur, is refuted by every single guide on the internet.

NIKON
"To photograph the stars in the sky as pinpoints of light, start with as wide an f/stop as your lens allows, and shutter speed of about 20 seconds. Any more time than that and the stars will begin to blur. Increase the ISO as needed for a good exposure."

DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY SCHOOL
"You can nail this shot almost every time with these settings: 25 second exposure, f/2.8, ISO 1600. If your lens doesn’t open up to f/2.8 you can try 30 seconds at f/4 with ISO 1600.

Note: this kind of photography won’t work if there is a full moon out (or even a half moon). Don’t compete with large light sources, the stars will be over powered. The best location for star photography is way out in nature, away from city lights that cause “light pollution.”


digital-photography-school.com/beginners-tips-for-night-sky-and-star-photography/

I thought about putting up dozens of examples....but EVERY damn website out there says the same thing.

Not some cunt with a flash at under a second

Was Nikon referring to earth or lunar conditions Einstein?
You have such a limited grasp of A) the subject matter and B) basic English.
Have you considered asking your home help to reply on your behalf?
Even the most simplistic responses fail to breach your mono browned, sloping forehead neanderthaiism, in short, you lack the neural capacity.
Google works on the premise that the searcher has an understanding of what they're actually searching for, fumbling blindly won't cut it sonny, you'll end up putting your hands in more dogshit than even you could swallow.
#wottacunt :sokay:
liberabo te ab inferno

875 020 079
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Apollo images don't have stars 23 Sep 2019 10:54 #9

  • TG
  • TG's Avatar
  • Online
  • Senior Member
  • Debate is not possible with a Troooofah!
  • Posts: 1556
  • Likes received: 16
Voltaire wrote:
how did film they used not get zapped by radiation rendering it useless to record events?

Explain exactly how that occurs. The lunar mapping probes in the 60s, actually developed the film in the probe, scanned it and transmitted it. No evil bullshit conflated radiation there :facepalm:
You cannot reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Apollo images don't have stars 23 Sep 2019 10:59 #10

  • TG
  • TG's Avatar
  • Online
  • Senior Member
  • Debate is not possible with a Troooofah!
  • Posts: 1556
  • Likes received: 16
Lux Interior wrote:
Was Nikon referring to earth or lunar conditions Einstein?

Nightime terrestrial. I assumed you were not going to shoot yourself in the foot by making the even more moronic claim about it being in fucking BROAD DAYLIGHT on the Moon!!
You have such a limited grasp of A) the subject matter and B) basic English.

No, I just struggle to understand morons.
Even the most simplistic responses fail to breach your mono browned, sloping forehead neanderthaiism, in short, you lack the neural capacity.
Google works on the premise that the searcher has an understanding of what they're actually searching for, fumbling blindly won't cut it sonny, you'll end up putting your hands in more dogshit than even you could swallow.
#wottacunt :sokay:

Uhuh. Nice rebuttal. That's called an ad-hominem. You ignored the entire content and came after the poster.

Question cunty: How long do you expose the stars on the Moon, in fucking broad daylight, with your stopped down camera and flash to paint the nearfield scenery(which is already lit up by the Sun)? How many seconds shite for brains?
You cannot reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Apollo images don't have stars 23 Sep 2019 11:05 #11

  • TG
  • TG's Avatar
  • Online
  • Senior Member
  • Debate is not possible with a Troooofah!
  • Posts: 1556
  • Likes received: 16
Frothy wrote:
I'm sure they'd have had plenty of time to take photos of the stars during 'their 6 day journeys'' It's quite odd that they didn't.

They were there to study the Moon dipshit. They took pictures suing a UV camera. You ignored the analysis given to you.
But as I say, they maybe didn't want to give away their astronomical position.

Bullshit. It's identical to Earth. There would be zero parallax of any star.



Now what?
You cannot reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Apollo images don't have stars 23 Sep 2019 11:12 #12

  • TG
  • TG's Avatar
  • Online
  • Senior Member
  • Debate is not possible with a Troooofah!
  • Posts: 1556
  • Likes received: 16
Gaia wrote:
Remember that those clowns were not lying. Collins was not lying, Armstrong was not lying.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
"I don't recall seeing any", said Collins. He was allegedly doing impossible-to-exist orbits in his space thingy around the Moon while his buddies were bunnyhopping in impossible-to-exist sand. He is not lying; he was never near the Moon (in a bunker with starless nights) and the "buddies" were two actors on wires, not the astronots themselves, they did voice overs.

No you stupid twat. THIS is what he was asked. I'll highlight the bit your stupid brain missed out or didn't check...

00;47:25: Moore: ” I have two questions…..”

The first one was about the surface of the Moon not mentioning stars and the second, part about the Solar Corona Experiment on the way to the Moon. which did mention stars - in the context of the Solar Corona Experiment carried out in cislunar space from the Command Module.

Moore :..“…When you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the Solar Corona in spite of the glare”

00:47:23..Aldrin answers the first question about terrain.

00:48:23: Armstrong answers about stars. “ We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon without looking through the optics. I don’t recall during the time we were photographing the Solar Corolla ( sic) what stars we could see.

00:48:40: Collins: “I can’t recall seeing any”

But Michael Collins, and later so-called missions were even longer, according to their stories spent a full day in the shadow of the Moon *from the Sun) and thus could have spent 24 hours photographing the undisturbed beauty of the stars. Impossible for man to see, ever.
Utter shite!! They were looking through triple glazed windows. In addition to the fact they were orbiting thousands of miles an hour...DUHHH, looking through thick windows, they would need at least 20 second exposure to get anything.

LMAO at how ignorant you are. Maybe Laxcunty will pop along and say use a flash :facepalm:
"Don't remember seeing any"

While photographing the Solar Corona you moron.
Clown.

Yes, you are.
You cannot reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Apollo images don't have stars 23 Sep 2019 12:58 #13

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 7288
  • Likes received: 1571
Voltaire wrote:
how did film they used not get zapped by radiation rendering it useless to record events?

Remember Apollo 13, that comedy with Love... I mean Tom Hanks?

There they allegedly went with 3 bulky blokes in the LM (no CSM) through all the radiation and the atmosphere.

Every rock just burns to dust due to atmospheric friction, but the Hollywood actors on that mission all magically survived by not being affected by a naturally occurring inescapable process.

According to Truly Gagged now, the Hubble telescope could never function. Venera, Voyager, Mariner, all those clown shows couldn't take photos.

Finally he starts to see the light. Pun intended.
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Last Edit: 23 Sep 2019 12:59 by Gaia.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Apollo images don't have stars 23 Sep 2019 13:28 #14

  • TG
  • TG's Avatar
  • Online
  • Senior Member
  • Debate is not possible with a Troooofah!
  • Posts: 1556
  • Likes received: 16
Gaia wrote:
Voltaire wrote:
how did film they used not get zapped by radiation rendering it useless to record events?

Remember Apollo 13, that comedy with Love... I mean Tom Hanks?

There they allegedly went with 3 bulky blokes in the LM (no CSM) through all the radiation and the atmosphere.

Every rock just burns to dust due to atmospheric friction, but the Hollywood actors on that mission all magically survived by not being affected by a naturally occurring inescapable process.

According to Truly Gagged now, the Hubble telescope could never function. Venera, Voyager, Mariner, all those clown shows couldn't take photos.

Finally he starts to see the light. Pun intended.

Perleeeeease make the imbecile go away.

Why is it that useless fuckwit ignorant conspiracy turds, think they now better than Spacecraft designers, astrophysicists, engineers and people with double digit IQs?
You cannot reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Apollo images don't have stars 23 Sep 2019 13:45 #15

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 7288
  • Likes received: 1571
TG wrote:
Why is it that useless fuckwit ignorant conspiracy turds, think they now better than Spacecraft designers, astrophysicists, engineers and people with double digit IQs?

Priceless. Totally Gashed is looking up to people with "double digit IQs".

:shemused: :shemused: :shemused: :shemused: :shemused: :shemused: :shemused:
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Apollo images don't have stars 23 Sep 2019 14:21 #16

  • TG
  • TG's Avatar
  • Online
  • Senior Member
  • Debate is not possible with a Troooofah!
  • Posts: 1556
  • Likes received: 16
Gaia wrote:
TG wrote:
Why is it that useless fuckwit ignorant conspiracy turds, think they now better than Spacecraft designers, astrophysicists, engineers and people with double digit IQs?

Priceless. Totally Gashed is looking up to people with "double digit IQs".

:shemused: :shemused: :shemused: :shemused: :shemused: :shemused: :shemused:

Too thick to understand I'm looking down at morons like you with single digits.
You cannot reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Apollo images don't have stars 23 Sep 2019 14:51 #17

  • Gaia
  • Gaia's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Gold Member
  • Posts: 7288
  • Likes received: 1571
The ad hominem and appeal to unmerited authority fallacies you dominate quite "well".

Maybe scale down on those and real science may enter that skull. One day. When the payments stop, maybe.

Your act is getting so boring, it becomes funny. And how you shoot yourself in the foot, over and over again...

You must believe "Stephen Hawking" was some genius too, right? Oh, they made a movie about it! Then that computer voice actor must be fur real.

Keep trolling, Timelessly Gagged!
The Only Limit is Your Own Imagination
A truth seeker is someone who dares to wade through thick series of toxic smoke screens and tries not to inhale - Gaia
"What do you call 'genius'?" "Well, seeing things others don't see. Or rather the invisible links between things."
- Vladimir Nabokov (1938)
"The silence of conspiracy. Slaughtered on the altar of apathy." - Lords of the New Church (1982)
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Apollo images don't have stars 23 Sep 2019 15:09 #18

  • TG
  • TG's Avatar
  • Online
  • Senior Member
  • Debate is not possible with a Troooofah!
  • Posts: 1556
  • Likes received: 16
Gaia wrote:
The ad hominem and appeal to unmerited authority fallacies you dominate quite "well".

Maybe scale down on those and real science may enter that skull. One day. When the payments stop, maybe.

Your act is getting so boring, it becomes funny. And how you shoot yourself in the foot, over and over again...

You must believe "Stephen Hawking" was some genius too, right? Oh, they made a movie about it! Then that computer voice actor must be fur real.

Keep trolling, Timelessly Gagged!

Cowardly arse. You ignore every fucking post showing you are talking shit.

You are an absurd joke of a human being...get a life.
You cannot reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Apollo images don't have stars 23 Sep 2019 15:26 #19

  • Lux Interior
  • Lux Interior's Avatar
  • Online
  • Silver Member
  • Do you know de way?
  • Posts: 3348
  • Likes received: 1047
Comedy gold here. Numbnuts posts system drivel, berates those who refuse to suck on the teat, calls them cunts then complains, about ad homs.
#dopeycunt.
Are terrestrial conditions, atmospheric and luminosity, the same as lunar models?
Somebody help fickfuck with the basics please.
*CLUTCHINGATNASASTRAWS.
liberabo te ab inferno

875 020 079
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.

Apollo images don't have stars 23 Sep 2019 15:52 #20

  • TG
  • TG's Avatar
  • Online
  • Senior Member
  • Debate is not possible with a Troooofah!
  • Posts: 1556
  • Likes received: 16
Lux Interior wrote:
Comedy gold here. Numbnuts posts system drivel, berates those who refuse to suck on the teat, calls them cunts then complains, about ad homs.

Prove it's "system drivel" you lying sack of shit. An ad hom is where somebody avoids the content, you fucking moron!! It isn't just an insult - especially when I don't avoid a damn thing you prick.
Are terrestrial conditions, atmospheric and luminosity, the same as lunar models?

No. There is 10-15 less luminosity from the stars.
Somebody help fickfuck with the basics please.

Basics like some cunt claiming you capture stars by using a flash on a short exposure that also captures the fucking daylit surface?

What a wanker you are.

curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/150-people-in-astronomy/space-exploration-and-astronauts/general-questions/926-why-do-photos-of-space-taken-from-sp...y-stars-intermediate

"The pictures of human-made objects in space that you speak of all suffer from one fatal flaw: they lack what astronomers call "integration time". Even in space, stars are very faint. If you use a camera to take a picture of an object in space, then, you have to illuminate it using some kind of flash (just like on Earth). The flash is bright enough that the time over which the camera film is being exposed is, like on Earth, only a fraction of a second. This short time is more than sufficient to get a picture of the man-made object that your flash illuminates, but way too short to capture the stars. The fundamental difference between pictures of the stars themselves taken by telescopes and the pictures of things in space with stars in the background is the exposure time, or integration time: in fact, astronomers do everything they can to avoid "doctoring" images they obtain, since this might hide the very science that they are trying to get at."
You cannot reason anyone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

The funny thing is that such credophiles see themselves as sharp-eyed piercers of the veil, too sophisticated to be taken in by fakery. But they fall for almost anything that feeds into their convictions.
Last Edit: 23 Sep 2019 15:56 by TG.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.
Moderators: novum, rodin, Flare
Powered by Kunena Forum

Annual Server Target

Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it. Secure transactions via paypal.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2019 - May 2020, in USD.
$ 340 - Target
( £ 278 GBP )
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
$ 160 - Raised
( £ 130 GBP )
donation thermometer
47%
Updated
2nd October 2019

No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.