Alien Anomalies

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

RE: Starry Night in Space

Mark Anthony · Member

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/moon/clem_strtrk.jpg

Here are some visible stars viewed from the moon - Clementine

ICEMAN · Senior Member

What is the problem I'm posting, it is the registration of certain truths. If someone does not understand what I'm doing, then just take it. No one makes himself valuable by words alone.

If you had viewed the image and the markings on it you would see that you're walking in a circle.

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

so why did you post some example pictures if you are not prepared to explain them and how they relate to the question asked?

No-one is forced to post anything. They do so because they want to.

There will always be people who know or understand less than us, just as there will be people who know more than us. We are all teachers, students, classmates etc.

How do you think you learned what you know? I assume you read it or were taught it by someone else who knew more than you did at that time.

ICEMAN · Senior Member

I do not consider myself as omniscient teachers responsible for the interpretation of some students, I work this way, to bring things that can shed light on the subject, people use the information if they want it. I avoid all strife, do not have time to spend on unnecessary things. it's like to fight in the dark.

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

It is perhaps not necessary to analyze this carefully because this is not a test project in photography. The point is to understand the basic elements of photographic principles.

Yes Iceman, but you have not explained if my understanding is right or wrong, all you have done is to post an image.
Since you are very kindly trying to help me understand the basic elements of photography, are my statements wrong?
If not, then which one of these circumstances refers to the stars in the spaceflight.nasa.gov image?
If they are wrong, then how does the mid-speed walking subject example correspond to the far distant stars?

Eaol · Veteran Member

What's with the last one?

Mark Anthony · Member

NASA; ISS006-E-41641, Green Aurora Borealis, City lights, Night, International Space Station (Expedition 6); Image Science and Analysis Laboratory, NASA-Johnson Space Center. "Astronaut Photography of Earth - Display Record." <http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=ISS006&roll=E&frame=41641>

NASA; ISS013-E-69635, Green Aurora Borealis (Northern Lights), Earth's Moon, Stars, International Space Station (Expedition 13); Image Science and Analysis Laboratory, NASA-Johnson Space Center. "Astronaut Photography of Earth - Display Record." <http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=ISS013&roll=E&frame=69635>

ICEMAN · Senior Member

The third picture shows the different speeds ranging from stationary to normal walking speed, which corresponds to the subject of the main issues. It is perhaps not necessary to analyze this carefully because this is not a test project in photography. The point is to understand the basic elements of photographic principles.

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

As I understand it,

1) if the camera moves then everything in the picture will be blurred.

2) If the the items are moving then they will be blurred but everything not moving will not be blurred.

3) if the items are close by, then if the exposure is long enough (example 2seconds) , they will be blurred

4) If the items are far away and the exposure is long enough (eg 2 seconds) and they are moving, they will not be blurred (unless they are moving very swiftly)

Just so that we completely understand one another,
which one of these circumstances refers to the spaceflight.nasa.gov image?

ICEMAN · Senior Member

I had unfortunately no time to read all your ideas, but do however point out that given picture was taken with long exposure time.

Examples:

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-134/hires/iss028e006193.jpg

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

Ahh... thats better. Thank you.
A picture without "camera shake" or moving stars too.

This has restored my belief that there are stars up there after all.

Mark Anthony · Member

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2014.html

Here's another image of stars as seen from the ISS Expedition 28 crew of shuttle Atlantis heading back to the surface of the Earth.

Atlantis landing seen from the station

Eaol · Veteran Member

I think I already answered that, too.

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

I now understand what Eaol is talking about. thanks Humanoid for explaining.

It is still a mystery to me how so many images dont have stars though.
(sounds of hands slapping forehead!)

Humanoid · Veteran Member

qmantoo wrote:
BUT... no-one has explained how the 'stars' get in front of the Earth.

DONT ignore this question as it is a central issue to whether this photo is faked or not.

Hello Qmantoo, hope this will clear it for you.

Eaol · Veteran Member

I already answered it.

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

BUT... no-one has explained how the 'stars' get in front of the Earth.

DONT ignore this question as it is a central issue to whether this photo is faked or not.

Eaol · Veteran Member

Obrien summed it up nicely. How come when I say it, nobody listens, yet when obrien says it, people listen? -.- Whatever, you got the message.

To Qmantoo's question:

I also do not understand your point about space being transparent

I never said space was transparent. I said that the Earth's atmosphere is far more transparent at night, allowing you to see through it and observe stars, planets, etc. The strange effect you observe with stars "behind" the planet are stars behind the semi-transparent atmosphere. That's all.

Mark Anthony · Member

OBrien told me the following which actually brings up some points made earlier:

That's because this is a photo in full sunlight, with the sunlit Earth in the foreground. The exposure is a small fraction of a second. You wouldn't expect to see a picture of the sky taken from Earth on a sunny day to show pictures of stars.

The OP photo is a time exposure, taken when the Shuttle and Earth are in darkness. It is a few seconds long (evidenced by the streaks of the city lights while the Shuttle moves along its orbital path). That length of exposure allows stars to be visible. You *would* expect to see stars if you took a time exposure of the dark night sky from Earth that was a few seconds long.

This has nothing to do with space and where the image was taken, and everything to do with the correct exposure setting for the light level of the scene. Ask any photographer.

For people who spend a lot of time looking at images, none of them seem to have any experience with camera equipment.

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

I do not believe that NASA uses cheap one-shot cameras. I would expect this kind of exposure specs from those. I sus pect that they use very expensive cameras and they would make pretty certain that they capture all of the available information they can capture.

I have already pointed out that there are old images of stars and bright objects in the same image(as is the first fake image in this thread), and I am inclined to believe that there are or would be stars bright enough to show in the above photo by mark anthony.

The image you posted in the start of this thread shows potentially hundreds of "stars" of varying brightness along with a very bright shuttle. You really cannot explain both images using the same logic.

I also do not understand your point about space being transparent. Keep repeating this is like shouting at someone who cannot speak your language. It will not make them understand you if you shout louder.

Eaol · Veteran Member

Actually, you can fiddle with that image and reveal the stars, albeit with a great loss in quality. They do appear in the right places.

Eaol · Veteran Member

The stars are too faint in comparison. This is what cameras do. If you were there in person, you would see stars if you squinted. If the same camera took a picture of an area with NO objects within it, aka "empty" space, the glare would be minimal and stars would be visible. That's all there is to it. Now, it would of course be a great thing to exploit and hide things that you don't want to be seen, but I have little reason to suspect that all the time (though I have seen examples of copied stars apparently patched over small areas).

Mark Anthony · Member

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1969.html

This is typically the kind of sky/earth rubbish nasa posts...no stars - or fake stars and blobs.

shuttle and station docked in orbit

Eaol · Veteran Member

They don't. It appears that way for the same reason you can see stars through a window - the atmosphere is TRANSPARENT. You can make it out, but it's still clear enough to see objects within and behind it.

That's what I am trying to say.

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

Sorry, you will have to explain more than that. I dont understand. What do you mean? HOW can the stars exists between the Earth and the camera?

Eaol · Veteran Member

It's not - the atmosphere is not opaque.

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

So tell me, how can 'stars' exists between the Earth and the camera? THAT is my reasoning. ... Please explain how this can happen?

And that the same blobs exist all over the image.

Eaol · Veteran Member

Because I don't understand your reasoning. That's all.

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

No, and none of us are here for that reason.

However, after starting a thread saying that the image was beautiful, when I pointed out that it was fake and why it was fake, you continue to defend it and say that these are true stars - which they are clearly not. So, we all prbably wonder why you would do that?

Eaol · Veteran Member

-.-

Well, I'm not here to tell you what to think.

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

Quite frankly, even if Earth were swarming with spaceships, the odds of seeing one in any given photo wouldn't be very high. And we can't point fingers at them if we have no evidence of anything wrong with this photo. It's a night photo - little to no glare, and the stars are visible. The atmosphere at night is more transparant. It follows that you would still see the stars through the atmospheric hazing. This is low orbit. During the day, that patch of sky would be illuminated and more opaque and the stars would be totally invisible.

I didn't post this to showcase something anomalous. I posted it for three reasons:
1) Not all space photos are faked.
2) Stars are visible in the nighttime imagery but not the daytime, confirming my explanation of the lack of visible stars due to glare from bright objects.
3) It looked cool.

I beg to disagree (I was going to put it more stongly, but I managed to restrain myself). I really dont understand what makes you say these statements which are totally utterly wrong.

There is hardly one true sentance in your post. Maybe This is low orbit. but the rest is way off.

Where did spaceships come into this? The Shuttle? These days I am not even sure we can rely on NASAs photgraphs of that. Yes, I have seen the telescope images from Earth of the spaceshuttle docked at the ISS, so I do believe there is such a thing. From your comment, you seem to be referring to other spacecraft or UFOs etc. Taking all the photos ever taken and then all the photos which contain a spacecraft, then yes, I agree. And...whats your point?

we can't point fingers at them if we have no evidence of anything wrong with this photo.I have just pointed out evidence - see above - or maybe you choose to disregard it?

It's a night photo - little to no glare, and the stars are visible. Where are the stars? Are those blobs of light stars? The ones which extend over the image of the Earth and if they are real, are between the Earth and the camera. They cannot be stars, surely?

During the day, that patch of sky would be illuminated and more opaque and the stars would be totally invisible.The sky itself is not illuminated (although NASA seems to think it should be) and anyone can see some of the brightest stars in the day time. From where I am, there is often one near-ish to the Moon in the sky. (I use stars and planets in an unscientific way. Anything not moving and representing a planetry body in space, is a 'star' to me)

Not all space photos are faked.Wow, thats amazing. Now show me a part of this particular photo you are illustrating your points with, which isn't faked or modified.

...confirming my explanation of the lack of visible stars due to glare from bright objectsThere are plenty of old photos of space with stars in the image as well as the subject - be it planet or spacecraft. It is only fairly recently that NASA have obscured the stars. For example the images of space shuttle at the ISS, and astronauts on space walks.

It looked cool.Yes, I suppose it does if you IMAGINE all those streaky blobs are stars. But they aren't and so it is just plain fake.

Eaol · Veteran Member

Quite frankly, even if Earth were swarming with spaceships, the odds of seeing one in any given photo wouldn't be very high. And we can't point fingers at them if we have no evidence of anything wrong with this photo. It's a night photo - little to no glare, and the stars are visible. The atmosphere at night is more transparant. It follows that you would still see the stars through the atmospheric hazing. This is low orbit. During the day, that patch of sky would be illuminated and more opaque and the stars would be totally invisible.

I didn't post this to showcase something anomalous. I posted it for three reasons:

1) Not all space photos are faked.

2) Stars are visible in the nighttime imagery but not the daytime, confirming my explanation of the lack of visible stars due to glare from bright objects.

3) It looked cool.

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

In the old days, we were allowed to see the stars, and we can see what we have always known as 'stars' from Earth. So, I guess that they should look something like that. Star Trek and Star Wars had some great effects, didn't they!

In my opinion, This sloppy image means that they are past caring now. So they dont mind if they show us any old rubbish as long as whatever they decide is obscured from the image.
We must be very near the end of the game.
Q

Eaol · Veteran Member

I don't know. I doubt either of us are familiar with what it SHOULD look like. If it is real, then it is probably the atmosphere which it shows through, explaining the lack of detail and transparency.

If not, then I've got nothing. I just thought it looked cool.

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

But... why bother to fake it? The 'stars' extend over the image of the earth! How ridiculous is that?

Eaol · Veteran Member

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-134/hires/iss028e006193.jpg

Beautiful photo.