Stars/no stars - and other space oddities

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Re: Stars/no stars - and other space oddities

Postby molodyets on December 10th, 2017, 2:48 am

I found this nice video of stars on a night balloon flight. They claim to go to 27km, but I cannot tell if that is correct. Pretty cool to watch though.

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuqLEuYs-CY

The astrophotographer is a young man from Germany and has a lot of mainstream press, and promotes all the typical mainstream theory.
More info can be found at http://jwastronomy.com/Stratos/Stratos-at-Night

As an aside, he claims to have captured the ISS transit across Jupiter.
Image

I find the following quote from the site to be interesting, and strangely familiar.

I'm happy to tell you that my Stratos Project is going one better with Stratos at Night.
My latest launch was a full success and over 20 Million people all over the world watched the result.
Since then I wanted to go further and wanted to make a video nobody has seen before.
Launching a weather balloon at night, capturing the stars and the city lights like the astronauts see them from the international space station.


So he wanted to make a video nobody has ever seen before. I think that is very strange, that a space agency hasn't bothered to make a video like this before. I'd very much like to see the view from a rocket ascending in the daylight, to encounter a sky full of stars. As usual, they let the puppy-dog-eyed amateurs do it for them.
molodyets
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: April 28th, 2017, 9:01 pm

Re: Stars/no stars - and other space oddities

Postby rusty on December 10th, 2017, 1:43 pm

molodyets » December 10th, 2017, 2:48 am wrote:I found this nice video of stars on a night balloon flight. They claim to go to 27km, but I cannot tell if that is correct. Pretty cool to watch though.


This looks very strange to me. Not at all like anything of the other balloon videos I've seen. It may be due to high ISO settings and most other videos are made during day time, but even the night time ones look different. The movement of the camera looks unnatural to me as well. I'm not sure what to make of it, but I deem it possible that everything above the cloud cover is fabricated. Even if not, it does not look like more than 10000m or so to me anyway.
rusty
Member
 
Posts: 125
Joined: October 10th, 2012, 11:01 am

Re: Stars/no stars - and other space oddities

Postby simonshack on December 10th, 2017, 3:58 pm

molodyets wrote:
The astrophotographer is a young man from Germany and has a lot of mainstream press, and promotes all the typical mainstream theory.
More info can be found at http://jwastronomy.com/Stratos/Stratos-at-Night

As an aside, he claims to have captured the ISS transit across Jupiter.

Well, dear molodyets...

That would be Mr Julian Wessel - the clown exposed as a pathetic photo-fraudster ... by none other than his NASA-loving peers!
Read all about it in this recent post of mine: viewtopic.php?p=2404888#p2404888
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6511
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Stars/no stars - and other space oddities

Postby molodyets on December 10th, 2017, 4:30 pm

simonshack » December 10th, 2017, 3:58 pm wrote:
molodyets wrote:
The astrophotographer is a young man from Germany and has a lot of mainstream press, and promotes all the typical mainstream theory.
More info can be found at http://jwastronomy.com/Stratos/Stratos-at-Night

As an aside, he claims to have captured the ISS transit across Jupiter.

Well, dear molodyets...

That would be Mr Julian Wessel - the clown exposed as a pathetic photo-fraudster ... by none other than his NASA-loving peers!
Read all about it in this recent post of mine: viewtopic.php?p=2404888#p2404888


My apologies, I thought it was a different guy because of the Jupiter transit, versus the Saturn transit. He apparently faked both.

I think NASA came up with a brilliant tactic by letting amateur astrophotographers provide supporting evidence of the standard model. The ones exposed as frauds will just be viewed as independent fraudsters, and not connected with the establishment. And the mainstream media will be viewed as just stupid, independent reporters who got fooled too, rather than purposefully pushing the agenda. Maybe they're even assigned a quota of fraudsters who will be exposed.

The clown, as you aptly call him, throws doubt on everything he does, and for me, that includes the stars at high altitude.

[edit: I admit that it does not necessarily have to be some conspiracy. These amateur sites could be marketing strategies from photographic equipment manufacturers.]
Last edited by molodyets on December 10th, 2017, 6:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
molodyets
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: April 28th, 2017, 9:01 pm

Re: Stars/no stars - and other space oddities

Postby Altair on December 10th, 2017, 6:01 pm

So, it seems that now there is a Christmas campaign with pizza supplies and the like. Anyway, to keep centered on the 'stars' issue, shouldn't they appear in this nice shot?

https://twitter.com/NASA/status/9359925 ... 85/photo/1

As for what NotRappaport noted, I guess that you can achieve the same effect by any or a combination of
a) low f-stop
b) High ISO sensitivity and
c) long exposure time

Anyway, objects of similar luminosity should appear 'similarly' in the photo.

So on the link I posted, being shot at night, I suppose some stars would be welcome.

Even more, have a look at this vid: https://twitter.com/AstroKomrade/status ... 2138612736

I thought there were also no stars, until I noticed two tiny specs... but they are at times superimposed on Earth's image!!! Debris, photo artifacts, WTF?
Altair
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: February 2nd, 2017, 3:05 pm

Re: Stars/no stars - and other space oddities

Postby molodyets on December 10th, 2017, 7:13 pm

Altair » December 10th, 2017, 6:01 pm wrote:
As for what NotRappaport noted, I guess that you can achieve the same effect by any or a combination of
a) low f-stop
b) High ISO sensitivity and
c) long exposure time



I don't know what to say about the video and picture you linked. I spent some time trying to learn how the GoPro cameras operated, but failed to get any useful information. I do think, however, that they don't just use fixed exposure parameters. I believe they constantly auto-adjust, depending on light levels. There are so many times in the upper atmosphere videos, where you see the black sky and just small part of the horizon. I had assumed that they would have self-adjusted and failed to detect any light.

On a personal level, I admit to being biased towards "They are not detectable in the visible spectrum", but that doesn't mean I can't accept the real situation, it will just be harder to convince me. If it were true, that would be a huge clue of what they are trying to hide which is kind of exciting. If the PTB were trying to hide this little bit of information, they wouldn't want to draw any attention to it. So, if I were them, I'd use amateurs to defend the standard model. That minimizes exposure and limits the discussion to a small population. I don't know, really, but most everything nonrappaport says is what I had already considered. It's like watching a lot of the nasa stuff. You can explain abnormalities using standard answers, but it just feels off! BTW, another tactic I would use, is to send a photographic experts to forums like this to dazzle us with their wisdom.

The reason why I discuss this personal motivation angle, is because sometimes I wonder how much people are motivated by a desire to defend their beliefs, rather than trying to find the answers.

The implications are huge, just like if an alternate solar system model is true. The sun's distance and size would have to be reconsidered. The distance to other stars might be quite different than we think.
molodyets
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: April 28th, 2017, 9:01 pm

Re: Stars/no stars - and other space oddities

Postby NotRappaport on December 10th, 2017, 9:55 pm

molodyets » December 10th, 2017, 10:13 am wrote:On a personal level, I admit to being biased towards "They are not detectable in the visible spectrum", but that doesn't mean I can't accept the real situation, it will just be harder to convince me.

Thus far you've presented no compelling reason to seriously consider such an idea, so the onus would be on you to explain why you think
stars "are not detectable in the visible spectrum". So far all I've seen is a non-understanding of basic photographic principles.

molodyets » December 10th, 2017, 10:13 am wrote:most everything nonrappaport says is what I had already considered. It's like watching a lot of the nasa stuff. You can explain abnormalities using standard answers, but it just feels off! BTW, another tactic I would use, is to send a photographic experts to forums like this to dazzle us with their wisdom.

Having a working knowledge of amateur photography does not make one an expert. Although in comparison to your own shocking lack of knowledge about the subject perhaps I do seem like an "expert". The fact that you feel threatened enough by this to suggest I might be an agent of some sort is paranoia of the highest order.

Why don't you try taking some pictures of the stars and see what's required, rather than personally attacking someone who points out the (painfully obvious) flaws in your reasoning?

Whether or not an explanation is "mainstream" or "generally accepted" is not what's important. What's important is whether or not explanations can withstand intelligent scrutiny.

molodyets » December 10th, 2017, 10:13 am wrote:The reason why I discuss this personal motivation angle, is because sometimes I wonder how much people are motivated by a desire to defend their beliefs, rather than trying to find the answers.

You mean the belief that stars emit no light in the visible spectrum? I must admit I am very puzzled why you would defend such an idea since there is no evidence to suggest it is true (unless you believe the lying Apollo actornots who said "we really didn't notice any stars").

molodyets » December 10th, 2017, 10:13 am wrote:The sun's distance and size would have to be reconsidered.

Ideas like that are snug up against flat-earth disinfo and have the strong potential to discredit by association the important work on media fakery that this forum is supposed to be about. Why don't you research (this is a research forum, no?) the different methods for measuring the sun's distance and explain what, if anything, is wrong with them?
NotRappaport
Member
 
Posts: 124
Joined: October 3rd, 2017, 10:01 pm

Re: Stars/no stars - and other space oddities

Postby NotRappaport on December 10th, 2017, 10:47 pm

Altair » December 10th, 2017, 9:01 am wrote:As for what NotRappaport noted, I guess that you can achieve the same effect by any or a combination of
a) low f-stop
b) High ISO sensitivity and
c) long exposure time

Low f-stop alone is nowhere near enough to photograph stars. A high ISO alone will tend to show more image graininess than is acceptable. A long exposure alone (at low ISO) will show streaks caused by the stars apparent motion (unless you're using a motorized mount that tracks the stars).

In practice, with a stationary tripod, you always use the lowest f-stop along with a long exposure (5-10 seconds) and a moderate ISO (400-800) to get a lot of stars visible in the image.

These images are all a close-up of Orion's Belt using ISO 800 and f 5.7, with the exposure varying as shown.
Image
Image
(note: "20 second" exposure is captioned incorrectly - it is actually 15 seconds)
Last edited by NotRappaport on December 10th, 2017, 10:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NotRappaport
Member
 
Posts: 124
Joined: October 3rd, 2017, 10:01 pm

Re: Stars/no stars - and other space oddities

Postby molodyets on December 10th, 2017, 10:52 pm

NotRappaport » December 10th, 2017, 9:55 pm wrote:...
Thus far you've presented no compelling reason to seriously consider such an idea, so the onus would be on you to explain why you think
stars "are not detectable in the visible spectrum". So far all I've seen is a non-understanding of basic photographic principles.
...
Having a working knowledge of amateur photography does not make one an expert. Although in comparison to your own shocking lack of knowledge about the subject perhaps I do seem like an "expert". The fact that you feel threatened enough by this to suggest I might be an agent of some sort is paranoia of the highest order.

Why don't you try taking some pictures of the stars and see what's required, rather than personally attacking someone who points out the (painfully obvious) flaws in your reasoning?

Whether or not an explanation is "mainstream" or "generally accepted" is not what's important. What's important is whether or not explanations can withstand intelligent scrutiny.

You mean the belief that stars emit no light in the visible spectrum? I must admit I am very puzzled why you would defend such an idea since there is no evidence to suggest it is true (unless you believe the lying Apollo actornots who said "we really didn't notice any stars").



Mr. NotRappaport your insults are a disappointment. I remember agreeing with your statements for the most part. When someone does not accept your explanations or thinks there's something being missed, it does not mean they lack understanding. The situation may be much more complicated than what we think and I don't want to make the wrong conclusions too hastily, especially when they might be important. Yes, there are some obvious reasons why stars may not be shown which I do not disagree with.

When I suggested a possible tactic by the people behind nasa, to use an expert on this forum, why didn't you take that as a compliment? If they were trying to hide something like this, wouldn't they try the tactic? BTW, I would expect gatekeepers to use human emotions to get their desired result, personal attacks/insults.

Just as clarification, I am exploring the implications of an observation, not declaring my belief. I do not claim that stars don't emit visible electromagnetic radiation, but maybe there's some mechanism in the upper atmosphere, or in the vacuum, or in the solar system's boundary... that makes the light undetectable except at other wavelengths. That doesn't make sense to you and me, but who am I to argue with observation.

molodyets » December 10th, 2017, 10:13 am wrote:The sun's distance and size would have to be reconsidered.

Ideas like that are snug up against flat-earth disinfo and have the strong potential to discredit by association the important work on media fakery that this forum is supposed to be about. Why don't you research (this is a research forum, no?) the different methods for measuring the sun's distance and explain what, if anything, is wrong with them?


I was referring to Simon's upcoming theory which he claimed to be similar to Tycho Brahe who believed in a geocentric system. At least this is what I thought he was talking about on the CluesChronical last podcast on rocketry. In such a system where the sun orbited the Earth, I would think the sun couldn't be so much larger than the Earth as the standard model says.
molodyets
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: April 28th, 2017, 9:01 pm

Re: Stars/no stars - and other space oddities

Postby NotRappaport on December 10th, 2017, 11:42 pm

molodyets » December 10th, 2017, 1:52 pm wrote:When I suggested a possible tactic by the people behind nasa, to use an expert on this forum, why didn't you take that as a compliment?

Because I am not being "used" by the clowns at NASA or whoever is behind them and resent the implication. I am only presenting conclusions that have been arrived at through experience, study, and observation of things that absolutely anyone else can verify themselves through experience, study, and observation.

The point of all this, to me, is to get at the truth instead of just engaging in wild conjecture. Especially when that conjecture is falsified through research.

molodyets » December 10th, 2017, 1:52 pm wrote:Just as clarification, I am exploring the implications of an observation, not declaring my belief. I do not claim that stars don't emit visible electromagnetic radiation, but maybe there's some mechanism in the upper atmosphere, or in the vacuum, or in the solar system's boundary... that makes the light undetectable except at other wavelengths.

The spectrum of sunlight (and starlight) can be measured and quantified. And through the emission and absorption lines it can be determined that the visible light we see through our atmosphere is basically the same color the stars and Sun are actually emitting and shining on the Moon and planets. (research "astronomical spectroscopy").

molodyets » December 10th, 2017, 1:52 pm wrote:In such a system where the sun orbited the Earth, I would think the sun couldn't be so much larger than the Earth as the standard model says.

The size and distance of the objects in the Solar System are known regardless of whether one supposes the Sun orbits the Earth or vice-versa.
NotRappaport
Member
 
Posts: 124
Joined: October 3rd, 2017, 10:01 pm

Re: Stars/no stars - and other space oddities

Postby simonshack on December 11th, 2017, 12:21 am

NotRappaport wrote:The size and distance of the objects in the Solar System are known regardless of whether one supposes the Sun orbits the Earth or vice-versa.


Yes, dear Notrap - that is correct.

However, those sizes and distances are only correct for the celestial objects WITHIN our little system - because we use a trustworthy baseline (our Earth's diameter of circa 12,750 km) in order to calculate those sizes and distances.

What is not correct though, is the sizes and distances of our distant stars - since the trigonometric baseline used for such calculations is inherently flawed: this baseline is believed to be about 300 million km (the purported lateral dispacement of Earth in six months). As I will soon demonstrate, Earth does NOT move laterally by 300 Mkm every six months - but only by about 7018 km. Hence, the stars are MUCH closer than currently believed.

As I shall thoroughly expound and illustrate, the stars are about 40,000 X closer than currently believed.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6511
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Stars/no stars - and other space oddities

Postby molodyets on December 12th, 2017, 9:22 pm

simonshack » December 11th, 2017, 12:21 am wrote:
NotRappaport wrote:The size and distance of the objects in the Solar System are known regardless of whether one supposes the Sun orbits the Earth or vice-versa.


Yes, dear Notrap - that is correct.

However, those sizes and distances are only correct for the celestial objects WITHIN our little system - because we use a trustworthy baseline (our Earth's diameter of circa 12,750 km) in order to calculate those sizes and distances.

What is not correct though, is the sizes and distances of our distant stars - since the trigonometric baseline used for such calculations is inherently flawed: this baseline is believed to be about 300 million km (the purported lateral dispacement of Earth in six months). As I will soon demonstrate, Earth does NOT move laterally by 300 Mkm every six months - but only by about 7018 km. Hence, the stars are MUCH closer than currently believed.

As I shall thoroughly expound and illustrate, the stars are about 40,000 X closer than currently believed.


Dear Simon, pretty exciting stuff! Maybe you'll consider throwing us another bone? Specifically, does the Sun orbit the Earth in your model, as Tycho thought? That's what I thought you already said in the podcast. If so, wouldn't that require for the Earth to be more massive than the Sun?

Please excuse me if I'm overstepping my bounds and I will continue to impatiently wait.
molodyets
Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: April 28th, 2017, 9:01 pm

Re: Stars/no stars - and other space oddities

Postby simonshack on December 13th, 2017, 12:53 pm

Dear molodyets - no excuses needed - but please wait impatiently for another little while. ^_^
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6511
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Stars/no stars - and other space oddities

Postby roastrunner on May 16th, 2018, 1:18 pm

In 1962, the US Air Force sent up two astronauts in a weather balloon called StarGazer to film the sky from above the Earth's atmosphere (I guess).

Image

Source: http://www.britishpathe.com/video/the-s ... ry/balloon

I especially like how there's a star shining through the shadowed portion of the moon.

Be sure to watch the video - they edit in a few seconds of a video pan of the heavens at the end. The effect is so horrible that it's pretty obvious why no attempt was made by NASA to fake stars on the Apollo missions.

As far as I know, this is the first official video of outer space.
roastrunner
Member
 
Posts: 24
Joined: April 25th, 2015, 9:27 pm

Re: Stars/no stars - and other space oddities

Postby patrix on May 16th, 2018, 1:32 pm

roastrunner » May 16th, 2018, 1:18 pm wrote:In 1962, the US Air Force sent up two astronauts in a weather balloon called StarGazer to film the sky from above the Earth's atmosphere (I guess).
Source: http://www.britishpathe.com/video/the-s ... ry/balloon
I especially like how there's a star shining through the shadowed portion of the moon.
Be sure to watch the video - they edit in a few seconds of a video pan of the heavens at the end. The effect is so horrible that it's pretty obvious why no attempt was made by NASA to fake stars on the Apollo missions.
As far as I know, this is the first official video of outer space.

Very interesting. Thanks. I found a Youtube of the movie (it was not watchable for me since I don't have Flash installed):

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K3u0rEmOoo
Original link: https://youtu.be/_K3u0rEmOoo
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 247
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests