Dear Paul, I do understand exposure and light levels because I am interested in photography. Did you know that the astronauts claimed they couldn't even see the stars which is utter rubbish. If I can see them through an atmosphere then astronauts should see them with even more clarity. Neville once posted a NASA link to an artist's impression of what the stars would look like above the atmosphere even near the sun. Why did we need an artist's impression? Why not real photos by those who were there and are there on shuttle flights? Question: Why didn't the astronauts not take any photos of the stars when on the moon? It is incredible that they didn't. The conspiracy answer is that to show the stars would have meant painting them onto a backdrop and this would have been too difficult to do accurately and to reposition them for each subsequent visit to the moon. ----- Original Message ----- From: Paul Deema To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 1:04 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Space Shuttle Pics Jack L Please allow me to intrude. It's all about physics and the way your eyes respond to light. Try this experiment. You'll need access to a 500W QI lamp and a large white sheet and a rotary cloths line and a dark clear night at New Moon. Well it doesn't need to be rotary but these are the most common here in Oz; and while New Moon is best, most any time the Moon is below the horizon at night will do. Of course you won't want to be on the foreshore in Blackpool either -- I believe it's pretty well lit up there at night. The drill is this -- go out to the cloths line where you've hung the sheet and stand where you can see the stars but the sheet is just below your field of view. The lamp should be between you and the sheet and directed to shine directly on the sheet but so placed that none of its light shines directly into your eyes. It will help if your clothes line is hidden from street lights. Get used to the conditions -- a few minutes at least -- and have a willing assistant who is out of sight, turn on the lamp without warning and notice how the number of stars you can see diminishes. Then -- in your mind -- put yourself in full sunlight with no atmosphere and surround yourself with white and gold reflecting surfaces -- and think of how many fewer stars you would be able to see that if all those reflecting surfaces were absent. You could also try the reverse situation. It is said that you can see stars in full sunlight if you are at the bottom of a deep well. I don't know if it's true or not. However, if you don't have a well, two lengths of PVC 90mm storm water pipe painted dull black on the inside -- one for each eye -- may well do the trick. Arrange a light tight viewing aperture between your eyes and the pipes and look up, again allowing several minutes for your eyes to adjust. Again, I don't know if this will work but it sounds plausible. This whole exercise is about reducing to an absolute minimum, the light which can shut down your irises while maximising the opportunity for your retinas to collect enough of the faint light from the stars to register an impression. And remember -- cameras work on the same principles. Paul D ----- Original Message ---- From: Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, 6 September, 2007 9:54:03 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Space Shuttle Pics But would the astronauts see stars? Armstrong said they couldn't - whose telling the truth? ----- Original Message ----- From: philip madsen To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 6:59 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Space Shuttle Pics Stars or no stars depends on the exposure and shutter speed. I would not expect to see stars in a photo, coz then the main object would be overexposed.. wouldn't it? Philip. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it now.