[geocentrism] Re: Space Shuttle Pics
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 09:11:07 +1000
Isn't that why they put the Hubble telescope up there so it would be free of
atmospheric distortion?
Jack
Exactly.. A lenze mind you free of the atmospheric impurities and
distortions.. only it was faulty wasn't it.. so I heard..
But you are right... we must pursue this again.. Neville will recall we have
been here before.
Phil.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Lewis
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 7:56 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Space Shuttle Pics
Surely you don't really believe that they would ignore the stars? You didn't
comment on NASA's artist impression of what the stars would look like above the
atmosphere.
Isn't that why they put the Hubble telescope up there so it would be free of
atmospheric distortion?
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 10:35 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Space Shuttle Pics
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. Jack
a valid point, but not necessarily a true one.. The last thing a real man
on the moon would think is that anyone would not believe he was there.. and or
that he would need to provide a star map photo to prove it .. My main photo
objectives would be of the moon and myself on it , wouldn't It? And of course
bring back a sample stone or two... which they did I m told, and shared
around.. What happened to these?
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Lewis
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 11:27 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Space Shuttle Pics
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.8/993 - Release Date: 6/09/2007
3:18 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.8/993 - Release Date: 6/09/2007
3:18 PM
Other related posts:
