[geocentrism] Re: Space Shuttle Pics

  • From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 09:51:22 +0100

Dear Neville,
Great explanation, but I do have one query. Presumably all the shuttle 
astronauts must be under some pressure to maintain this lie, what about the 
jokers who paid to go into space with the Russians?

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Neville Jones 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 11:23 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Space Shuttle Pics

  Dear All,

  There has been much speculation over whether or not the astronauts could see 
and/or photograph stars.

  The lens effect proposed by Asimov is not true, since a star is a point 
source, not an extended one. It is well known that the higher one goes, the 
more impressive the view of the stars becomes. I certainly had a tremendous 
view of them outside the Lick Observatory in California. Hence, large optical 
telescopes are built at high elevation, where there is less atmosphere above 
the site.

  The stars are still there even in broad daylight. So why do we not see them? 
Well, the answer is that we both see them and do not see them, depending upon 
our definition of the concept of seeing.

  EMR incident upon the retina causes a chemical reaction over a particular 
integration time. This chemical reaction is converted into electrical impulses 
which travel along the optic nerve to the brain, where interpretation takes 
place. Therefore, is the act of 'seeing' the chemical reaction, or the 

  The difference is this: light from the stars is still falling upon the 
photoreceptors in the retina in broad daylight and causing some chemical 
reaction. Hence, with this definition the stars are being 'seen'. However, 
other EMR is reaching the same photoreceptors, but is much more bright, such 
that the chemical reaction caused by this secondary light source completely 
swamps that of the star. The brain then gets the majority vote, as it were, and 
does not register any stars.

  On the Moon or in space, when looking directly at the stars, rather than at 
the surface of some object, the stars would have nothing to swamp their signal 
and would therefore register in the brain, or on the photographic film or CCD. 
They would thus be 'seen' under either definition. Not too bright, with the 
exposure times used, but still visible. Furthermore, some of the shots on the 
Moon would definitely have been overexposed, since the astronauts had no light 
meter, either internal nor external, and thus had to guess the right exposure 
setting (a very hit-and-miss technique); these would show stars clearly and 
could thus have been used by NASA to answer this specific long-running 

  The eye very quickly adapts, although full dark adaptation does take some 
seconds. This is easily verified by walking outside from a bright room on a 
clear night. The stars can be seen straight away, and fainter stars slowly 
become visible as the eye continues to adapt. You can also look up and see the 
stars in the presence of street lighting.

  With a very fine photographic emulsion, as was seemingly used with the NASA 
Space Shuttle photographs under consideration, there should most definitely be 
some stars visible in the black regions of the photograph.

  The problem for NASA, as I see it (no pun), is that, having hoaxed the Apollo 
missions and claimed that stars were invisible, they were then stuck with this 
explanation for all time, including quite routine high-altitude/LEO stuff with 
the Space Shuttle. For them to change their story now, means admitting the Moon 

  It will be interesting to see what the Chinese say, God willing, especially 
as they have already dispensed with the Great Wall of China visible from space 
myth (I and many others stated that this was not possible years and years ago, 
from basic diffraction theory).


    -----Original Message-----
    From: joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx
    Sent: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 07:25:22 +1000

    But would the astronauts see stars? Armstrong said they couldn't - whose 
telling the truth?

    the scientific opinion, I cant confirm yet, is that they do not see 
stars... even from the shuttle... A lenz is necessary... What do those on the 
base station see..?  Asimov said we only see stars because of the amplification 
lenz effect of a curved atmosphere... OK Has anybody done a high flying 
passenger jet flight? any stars?  

    Lets clean this up.. 



  One-click Webmail Access - Easily monitor & access your email accounts!
  Visit http://www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out!

Other related posts: