no stars in moon photos!~

[kittynh]

I keep having to answer the "why are there no stars in photos of astronauts on the moon?" question. It must be a biggie with the "we didn't go to the moon" guys.

I've actually given up on the explainations, or sending people to a web site. A couple at the school where I teach mentioned it to me. I'm known as the skeptic. I told them to go outside and take a photograph of each other, using their special high techie digital camera, and look at the stars. Since we live in a rural area, there are lots of great star viewing areas.

They came back the next day and reported, "no stars!"

they then said, "well, we thought the flash was the problem, but even when we turned it off, no stars!"

right.........

[Lisa Simpson]

That very question was answered on the last Bullsh!t episode. By The Bad Astronomer--who can stand still for a very long time.

[ma1ic3]

I don't even bother giving people that are that dull an explanation. I just say something like "Do you really think a huge proffesional organization like NASA would just forget to add the stars in when creating a multinational conspiracy, and that all the other nations and scientists and photographers in the world just happened to not notice?"

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by ma1ic3
I don't even bother giving people that are that dull an explanation. I just say something like "Do you really think a huge proffesional organization like NASA would just forget to add the stars in when creating a multinational conspiracy, and that all the other nations and scientists and photographers in the world just happened to not notice?"

And the answer will be:

"Yes, I believe that they are capable of pulling off a hoax like this, but they are also stupid enough to make mistakes like that...."

Double-thinking.

[ma1ic3]

What is double-thinking?

[Beady]

Originally posted by kittynh
I keep having to answer the "why are there no stars in photos of astronauts on the moon?" question. It must be a biggie with the "we didn't go to the moon" guys.

During the Salt Lake Winter Olympics, there was a wide shot of the fireworks during the opening ceremonies. It was at night, of course, and the entire stadium was lit up. In the background you could see the mountains, the sky and the city. One thing you couldn't see, though, were the stars.

I figure that's proof that the Salt Lake Winter Olympics were held on a soundstage in the Arizona desert.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by ma1ic3
What is double-thinking? Double-think is the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time.
c.f. George Orwell - "1984"

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by ma1ic3
What is double-thinking?

The ability to hold two contradictory points of view with no mental agony at all.

It's from George Orwell's "1984".

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Dragon
Double-think is the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time.
c.f. George Orwell - "1984"

OK, I'm slow today... ;)

[Dragon]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
OK, I'm slow today... ;) Tee hee!:p

[Lucky]

From Kittynh:
they then said, "well, we thought the flash was the problem, but even when we turned it off, no stars!"Honestly, these folk are not very bright!

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
That very question was answered on the last Bullsh!t episode. By The Bad Astronomer--who can stand still for a very long time.

Phil was on Bullsh*t? Well, he does have books and a darn good website, so it's no surprise.

[kittynh]

I want to see bad as on Bullsh!t!!!!!

bummer, we have crappy cable.

[Chupacabras]

We also have crappy cable here, but that's not the rea$on I don't get BS...

For the time being, I watch "Sabrina, the teenage witch" (Nick Jr) for an ocassional Penn Jillette. Alas, I no longer keep my PC World magazines.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
And the answer will be:

"Yes, I believe that they are capable of pulling off a hoax like this, but they are also stupid enough to make mistakes like that...."

Double-thinking.
No, no, no.

They would say (people I know have read this):
"Ah, NASA couldn't plot the stars there because no astronomers would know how the stars look from the moon" (yeah right...)

To which the fairly obvious response is:
"Then how would anyone know they were wrong?"

People love conspiracies far too much.

[DavoMan]

After sitting amungst a conversation consisting of "and some nazi submarines had men half wedged into the walls and decks", I asked "does anyone actually have a submarine with men half wedged in the desk and walls?"

The response was "Oh come on, conspiracy theories are what make life fun!".

I have been thinking about this over & over, because I didnt say anything in return. There are 10,000 things I'd like to say in response to it:

"Fun for idiots. For the rest of humanity it makes for a royal pain in the ass"

"If your life is boring enough in constrast"

Are some of the many responses inside my head at the moment. They are all mean responses, I know that much.

[Brian the Snail]

Bah...explaining the no stars thing is easy. Try debunking this (http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~akapadia/moon.html).

[Odin]

I once believed in the "we didn't go to the moon" conspiracy,
The evidence being "there are no stars" "the flag moves in the breeze" "the craft would have been destoyed" and "some of the x's on the photos are behind the astronauts." The reason I preferred the conspiracy theory was because it made things more interesting, because I knew something most other people didn't and because there is something about finding the "clues" in the pictures, like some kind of puzzle.
I think I then moved on to "we actually did go to the moon, but the photographs were destroyed returning to earth so they had to be faked" I actually ignored any explanations given to preserve the 'evidence' that I liked best:rolleyes:

[songstress]

It is noteworthy that scientists have been receiving signals from machines placed on the Moon by the astronauts who went there. How then, did the machines get there in the first place?

This conspiracy theory is complete trouser!

Patsy.

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by kittynh
I want to see bad as on Bullsh!t!!!!!

bummer, we have crappy cable.

I can make a tape of it if you'd like and send it to you.

[DavoMan]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
I can make a tape of it if you'd like and send it to you.
DavoMan puts on his MPAA hat
I'm sorry thats terrorism. Oops I mean piracy. I'm going to have to anal search you for weapons of mass recording.
DavoMan takes off his MPAA hat
:p :p :p

[mayday]

It was and is a lie. There was no aircraft that landed on the moon. The US had every reason to want to lie because they were afraid of falling behind Russia and if you think the US government isn't capable of lying you need a lot more help than any of us can give you.
The US government is based on big lies.

[MRC_Hans]

Mayday, answer Songstress' question, will you?

;)

Hans

[Ashles]

Originally posted by mayday
It was and is a lie. There was no aircraft that landed on the moon. The US had every reason to want to lie because they were afraid of falling behind Russia and if you think the US government isn't capable of lying you need a lot more help than any of us can give you.
The US government is based on big lies.
Yes mayday, we are certainly going to pay large attention to any conspiracy theory that states "There was no aircraft that landed on the moon".

[CurtC]

Oh boy, someone is taking the bait!
Originally posted by mayday
The US had every reason to want to lie because they were afraid of falling behind Russia and if you think the US government isn't capable of lying you need a lot more help than any of us can give you.These two statements are mostly true. But if the US didn't really go to the Moon, Russia would have certainly known about it and it would have been a huge propaganda tool for them. Do you agree?

Is there anything else that you base your belief on (that we didn't actually go to the Moon), besides the fact that the government has been known to lie?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by CurtC
Oh boy, someone is taking the bait!
These two statements are mostly true. But if the US didn't really go to the Moon, Russia would have certainly known about it and it would have been a huge propaganda tool for them. Do you agree?

Is there anything else that you base your belief on (that we didn't actually go to the Moon), besides the fact that the government has been known to lie?
Of course. If you look at the photos on the moon... There were no stars in the background!
How can anyone explain that!

[DavoMan]

Originally posted by Ashles
Of course. If you look at the photos on the moon... There were no stars in the background!
How can anyone explain that!
I think 3 people already did.

No camera has the range to capture a bright moon as well as really dim stars.
Example: Get your camcorder and start filiming inside. Then go outside, and providing its a sunny day you'll notice the camera reports bright white light for a moment, then the camera adjusts to the brighter scenery outside.

The same happens if you film outside, then quickly run inside where its dark, and the camera momentarily sees only darkness untill it adjusts.

This is basic photography. Hell I didn't even take photography at school & I knew this junk.

[CurtC]

I think he was being sarcastic.

[The Bad Astronomer]

Sigh (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#stars).

[Frinkiak7]

As my first post to the boards, I thought I'd contribute one of my favorite sites as an enthusiastic (if unskilled) amateur astronomer. The site provides a pretty thorough overview of many popular lunar landing conspiracy theories, and why each one is wrong. Good reading if you have some time.

http://www.clavius.org/index.html

(edited because I can't spell)

[sackett]

Moon? Hell, they never got to Mars neither! If you come from Wyoming the way I do, you got to know that! Remember them pictures that lander-thing is supposed to of shot? That one of them is just old Jick Snyder’s place in the Gas Hills, hell I can recognize some of them rocks, used to twist my ankle on them rocks. (If Jick had lent me a horse it might of been different and them Nasa fellers would of chumped me. But him being such a cheap old son-of-a-Rule 8, I had to shoe-leather it, and you see how it all turned out.) You know how them guvernmint sumbitches’ll fool with you. I’m with Mayday on this here one, so you see she keeps good company.

[gnome]

Originally posted by mayday
It was and is a lie. There was no aircraft that landed on the moon. The US had every reason to want to lie because they were afraid of falling behind Russia and if you think the US government isn't capable of lying you need a lot more help than any of us can give you.
The US government is based on big lies.

And you have every reason to run from this thread rather than elaborate, because you know that every argument you make against the evidence we have landed on the moon, has a solid rebuttal.

I am more convinced than ever before that mayday is a troll who has no interest in convincing or being convinced.

Although, mayday could prove me wrong in an instant by staying behind to actually debate.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by songstress
It is noteworthy that scientists have been receiving signals from machines placed on the Moon by the astronauts who went there. How then, did the machines get there in the first place?

This conspiracy theory is complete trouser!Well, yeah, I agree with the sentiment (assuming "complete trouser" is a colloquial equivalent to the more correct English "bunch of arse"); but it could be argued that scientists have also been receiving signals from machines placed on Mars. How did those machines get there? :p

But yeah. I used to be, not a bleever so much as a sympathiser in this whole Moon Conspiracy thing, even after my sceptical leanings started annoying those around me.

The thing that got me was that NASA seemed quite arrogant about it all. There were these people, who had what superficially appeared to be at least legitimate questions, saying things like "well, if NASA would just supply answers to our questions, we'd shut up - but they haven't".

And then they got a NASA spokesman to go on that Fox programme, and he didn't answer a single one of their questions, he just seemed to find it all faintly amusing - which annoyed me, because these people's tax money (well, the one or two with jobs ;)) was funding NASA, so I thought that the least NASA could do was answer their questions. Looking back, I see it's quite possible that the spokesman was misrepresented through that cunning editing malpractice we hear so much about, but who can say?

I felt like I had to look quite hard to find explanations for some of these things (some being easily answerable by a layman such as myself anyway) - I don't think I can have been aware of the Bad Astronomy site then, but it did annoy me that NASA themselves didn't seem to have gone out of their way to explain this stuff.

I do see now that the main proponents of the moon conspiracy theory are largely those types of people we're all too familiar with now on this board, who even if it was patiently explained to them, with pictures and lego and stories, wouldn't give an inch; but there were lots of other people who would have benefitted from a proper, non-dismissive response from NASA, and not only that, but would have increased their real knowledge of astronomy and physics in the process like I did :)

So, yeah. I'm all better now, thanks to good people on sites such as this one and the BA who will go out of their way to explain things veeeerrryy slooowwly to people like me, but still nursing a slight gripe with NASA about their apparent attitude problem.

Or have I just been at the wrong end of some very biased media?

[Bronze Dog]

From my point of view: Faking the moon landings and then covering it up for decades would have been too hard, so NASA did the much easier thing and landed on the moon.

[kittynh]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
From my point of view: Faking the moon landings and then covering it up for decades would have been too hard, so NASA did the much easier thing and landed on the moon.

That is going to be added to my explaination! Everyone knows someone that has worked for NASA too. This is bigger than the whole UFO coverup! If our entire government is just a series of "cover ups" then you might as well go dig a hole and live in it.

Science is fun. More fun than conspiracy theories.

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by mayday
It was and is a lie. There was no aircraft that landed on the moon. The US had every reason to want to lie because they were afraid of falling behind Russia and if you think the US government isn't capable of lying you need a lot more help than any of us can give you.
The US government is based on big lies.

WARNING!!!

Mayday is a troll. The above statement made by her is deliberate trolling. She does not believe it. She is only yanking your chains. Do not respond to her, it will only fuel her mental masturbation.

[Mark]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
From my point of view: Faking the moon landings and then covering it up for decades would have been too hard, so NASA did the much easier thing and landed on the moon.

I love it! The conspiracy is that NASA is trying to cover up the failed conspiracy to fake the moon landings by landing on the moon! Brilliant!

[CurtC]

Yeah, I think they started off saying that they could really cheese off those Russians by pretending to land on the Moon, then when they got into the details of what it would take to actually pull off a conspiracy like that, they realized it would never work, and instead covered up their shenanigans by actually putting men on the Moon, which was much cheaper and easier.

We're through the looking glass here, folks!

[arthwollipot]

Originally posted by kittynh
...They came back the next day and reported, "no stars!"

they then said, "well, we thought the flash was the problem, but even when we turned it off, no stars!"

right.........

My userpic was taken outside, at night, with clear skies. No stars.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Nucular
... snip ...

Or have I just been at the wrong end of some very biased media? Possibly.
I suspect that anyone working for NASA would hold Sibrel and his ilk in complete contempt and wouldn't want to dignify the Moon Hoax nonsense with a detailed reply, just as Richard Dawkins no longer debates in public with young earth creationists.

Glad you're better now. :)

[Ashles]

Of course NASA has managed to perfectly maintain this elaborate cover up for nearly 40 years.

So we know about the cover up now because... ?

[monochrom]

Originally posted by arthwollipot
My userpic was taken outside, at night, with clear skies. No stars.

That makes you either an alien or a CIA-Agent. Probably both.

Hooray for me, my very first post in this forum and I am already deep in this debunking business!

[DavoMan]

What this actually proves is that the stars are all vampires. Thats why they don't appear in photographs.

[monochrom]

That is interesting.

All stars are vampires.
The sun is a star.
Vampires are generally not known for their sunbathing tendencies.

See where I am getting at?

Then again what do I know about the science of Astrovampirism. I was always more into Microlycantrophy. But having spied on this forum for a while, I daresay experts on the subject are bound to come up pretty soon.

[LW]

Originally posted by monochrom

All stars are vampires.
The sun is a star.
Vampires are generally not known for their sunbathing tendencies.


Don't know about you, but I've never seen the sun lying down sunbathing on a beach, so I don't think that there's a contradiction.

And of course, your second proposition flies in the face of the Scientific Evidence that states that stars are actually small (vampiric) lights that are pinned to the Firmament with thumbtacks.

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by arthwollipot
My userpic was taken outside, at night, with clear skies. No stars.

No, but that's a mighty big moon.











(listen, if you're gonna lob 'em in like that, I'm gonna swing at 'em ;) )

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by monochrom
That is interesting.

All stars are vampires.
The sun is a star.
Vampires are generally not known for their sunbathing tendencies.

See where I am getting at?

Then again what do I know about the science of Astrovampirism. I was always more into Microlycantrophy. But having spied on this forum for a while, I daresay experts on the subject are bound to come up pretty soon.

"Microlycanthropy". (assuming this is what you meant)

What a cool word.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by monochrom
The sun is a star.It sounds like somebody hasn't been studying his bible.

[Beady]

Pardon me for interrupting, but the *real* story is that NASA, itself, started the We-Never-Landed conspiracy theory, in order to cover up the fact that Neil and Buzz encountered aliens during their EVA.

[richardm]

Well, that makes sense. It also means that they don't have to disclose the Bigfoot remains they found near their landing site.

[P.S.A.]

Of course, whilst NASA isn't able to place a man on the moon, Aliens are flying galactic distances every single day, which NASA is also covering up, and despite having access to both the aliens and their technology (which they also cover up), they are completely unable to understand it and use it to get only the tiny distance to our own moon. But they can build all kinds of exciting flying discs for use in own atmosphere, which are what the UFO's we see actually are. Damn those NASA conspiracies to hide the truth! Except that then disproves the whole alien bit. Oh no!

I'm often reminded of a joke from BBC comedy "Attention Scum" when meeting minds like this (and I paraphrase); "The universe is circular; you start with your head in the clouds. Go a little further, and your head is amongst the stars... further still, and yes, at last, it's up your own arse"

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Nucular
*snip*
So, yeah. I'm all better now, thanks to good people on sites such as this one and the BA who will go out of their way to explain things veeeerrryy slooowwly to people like me, but still nursing a slight gripe with NASA about their apparent attitude problem.

Or have I just been at the wrong end of some very biased media? I think NASA at some point realized what most of us here have learned, usually the hard way: No argument whatsoever is going to convince most believers.

If NASA started arguing with these people, many of whom are no doubt attention junkies, there would be no end to it. Those idiots would continue to dream up new things that NASA ought to disprove, and when they ran out of that, they would just pretend that the explanations were never given and start over, Kumar style.

The skeptics here do this as a kind of hobby, no doubt feeding our own special version of attention craving, but the NASA people have a job to do, mostly under ever shrinking funding, so they simply cannot afford such folly.

Hans

[The Bad Astronomer]

Originally posted by Beady
Pardon me for interrupting, but the *real* story is that NASA, itself, started the We-Never-Landed conspiracy theory, in order to cover up the fact that Neil and Buzz encountered aliens during their EVA.

You joke, but that is exactly Richard Hoagland's claim. He says NASA found evidence of alien structures on the Moon (giant crystal shards, domes, etc.) so he is in the delicate position of having to defend NASA's claims about the reality of Apollo.

I wouldn't trade lives for him on a bet. Yuck.

[Beady]

Originally posted by The Bad Astronomer
You joke, but that is exactly Richard Hoagland's claim.

No, I wasn't joking. Well, not completely. ;) I'd read these claims before, though I don't think it was Hoaglund I'd been reading. I remember there was one web site that even purported to quote some dialogue from mission transmissions, as Neil gave a running account of his encounter with six(?) aliens standing across a crater from him.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I think NASA at some point realized what most of us here have learned, usually the hard way: No argument whatsoever is going to convince most believers.

If NASA started arguing with these people, many of whom are no doubt attention junkies, there would be no end to it. Those idiots would continue to dream up new things that NASA ought to disprove, and when they ran out of that, they would just pretend that the explanations were never given and start over, Kumar style.Yeah I can accept that as one of the motivations for NASA not wanting to play - though I think that's ultimately misguided, given that those documentaries were watched by lots of people, including myself (and various members of my family who are a lot more sympathetic to conspiracy theories like this), who needed some balance to avoid running off down the pretty but illusory path of wacky belief.

But given that, IIRC, NASA did spare a spokesman for the Fox documentary, who never once actually answered a question, but instead chuckled a lot and seemed to expect Dom Joly to pop out at any moment, his time and the money paid for his salary could have been better spent looking past the loonies and talking directly to us ignorant but willing-to-learn folk on the other end of the camera. I think.

[Beady]

Originally posted by Nucular
But given that, IIRC, NASA did spare a spokesman for the Fox documentary, who never once actually answered a question, but instead chuckled a lot and seemed to expect Dom Joly to pop out at any moment, his time and the money paid for his salary could have been better spent looking past the loonies and talking directly to us ignorant but willing-to-learn folk on the other end of the camera. I think.

Question: Did the NASA representative fail to do what he was sent to the studio to do, or did the program's editors who did the cutting and pasting after all the filming was done succeed in what they were in the studio to do?

Seems to me that you're blaming the victim.

BTW, Jim Oberg, one of Randi's acquaintances, was about to write a short booklet for NASA, refuting the hoaxists, when the news was leaked to Peter Jennings. The contract amount was only $150k or so, but the public reaction killed the idea.

[The Bad Astronomer]

It was the editing. The guy who runs www.clavius.org talked to Brian O'Leary, an astronaut interviewed for that Fox piece of waste matter. He said he was edited very liberally (haha, "liberally", an adverb I use for something involving Fox, haha!). Given the level of confabulation used in that program, it doesn't surprise me.

[kittynh]

this is kind of off topic, so I think I'll start a new thread, but I keep reading that the US Military pushed the UFO theory frequently to cover up top secret stuff. (I have to read most of the woo literature to keep up on what the UFO people are reading). Any truth?

[VeronicaX]

I just feel sorry for every single person who devoted so much time, effort and even put their own lives in danger and now people are basically saying that it didn't happen. What a big insult. :(

For me, everyone involved in the moon landing are heroes,nomatter what trolls say.

[Beady]

Originally posted by kittynh
this is kind of off topic, so I think I'll start a new thread, but I keep reading that the US Military pushed the UFO theory frequently to cover up top secret stuff. (I have to read most of the woo literature to keep up on what the UFO people are reading). Any truth?

It's always possible, I suppose, but think about it: People have known about Area 51 for decades. It's probably the biggest tourist attraction in the US that has never actually been visited by a tourist. It has got to be the worst-kept official secret , ever. It is so badly-kept that I would be tempted to believe that both it and UFOs are blinds for the real facility and its projects. The only thing that stops me from believing that is, AFAIK, the Testors Model Company has an incredible record of producing plastic model kits of experimental aircraft that have not yet been made public.

BTW, I trust that we are both using "UFO" in the nutbar sense, as synonymous with "flying saucer." In actual fact, there are plenty of Unidentified Flying Objects operating out of Area 51, and everyone in the surrounding area "knows" about them.

Now, there apparently is some truth that the Soviets pushed UFOs as a cover, but I'd hate to be too insistent about it. I will, however, send an email to a friend of mine who's something of an authority on the subject.