If you believe we put a man on the Moon ...

[Dreams End]

While you're 69 argument kinda lost me, I did notice this. Go to the photo without the 69 but hit the "high res" version. You'll see xeveral stars on the left not visible in the low res scan. It's the res of the SCAN that's at issue. I won't waste anymore bandwidth but here's the link:<br><br>(edit) sorry, copied the link but it goes to the low res one. Have to do it yourself. <br><br><br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 4/20/06 1:53 am<br></i>

[Dreams End]

Hey stick, go to this one:<br><br>AS11-40-5862<br>Hit the high res scan. Stars everywhere. <br><br>Sorry I can't link directly but it's 11 page 2.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[stickdog99]

Um, this is the photo I'm talking about:<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5845.jpg"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>Once again, why aren't stars visible when you point the camera at the sky? Because you forgot to point the light meter where you pointed the camera? Because you made a mistake with the exposure setting? Because the Earth would be overexposed if you tried to show the planets and stars as well?<br><br>Just asking again. IIRC, stickdog never seems to have claimed that the Moon landings didn't happen. He has claimed that he didn't understand some things about it. Is that OK around here? <p></p><i></i>

[Prac]

"NASA's Biggest Lie to be exposed..."<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.fantasticforum.com/1res/showthread.php?s=54679d10f54fdf07d1e4bacf257c3cf4&threadid=17534&perpage=15&pagenumber=1">www.fantasticforum.com/1r...genumber=1</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[thoughtographer]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>you missed the point.<br><br>they were trying to get answers<br><br>just like we're still trying to get today.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>No, I didn't miss your point. It still sounds like harassment to me.<br><br>Admittedly, it's the reaction of the astronauts as well as the behavior of the hoax believers which keeps me paying attention to these long-standing myths and tiresome speculation. Who can blame Aldrin for punching that guy in the face? I would probably do the same thing if someone came at me in public with a bible, trying to get me to swear on it.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Ali G: When you arrived on the moon, was the people who lived there very friendly, or was they scared of you?<br>Buzz Aldrin: There was absolutely no thought of encountering any living beings whatsoever.<br>Ali G: Do you ever think man will walk on the sun?<br>Buzz Aldrin: No. The sun is too hot. It is not a good place to go to.<br>Ali G: What happens if they went in winter when the sun is cold?<br>Buzz Aldrin: The sun is not cold in the winter.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></p><i></i>

[Pirx]

I snagged a 4400x4600 tif file with no color correction, and cropped a bit to include the stars. <br> Posted <br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://home.usit.net/~aeromancy/images/ISD_highres_AS11_AS11-40-5845c.jpg">here.</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br>Does that help?<br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://home.usit.net/~aeromancy/images/preview%2040_5845.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pirx@rigorousintuition>Pirx</A> at: 4/20/06 6:26 am<br></i>

[Pirx]

Just a few thumbnail <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://home.usit.net/~aeromancy/images/shittyapollopics.jpg">examples</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> posted for your enjoyment. <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

sorry stickdog. Must have missed that post. You had an earlier one on the first page that also asked about stars.<br><br>Now, let me help you out. There is a bright object in the midst of a dark field. A light meter will expose for the bright object. How much contrast it can handle depends on the camera and the settings. Compared to the black background, the earth is pretty bright.<br><br>But, of course, more fun than that, is that you've just proven that ALL photos from space, as in the "unmanned vehicles" you suggest are the only things that made it to the moon, are likely not to show stars.<br><br>Which means, of course, that for astronauts on the moon, IT'S PERFECTLY NORMAL AND EXPECTED FOR NO STARS TO SHOW UP IN THE BACKGROUND.<br><br>So, I guess you switched teams on this one?<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[professorpan]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>So this really does appear to me to be a pr tool for the nationalist government that just eats up huge budgets and makes weapons.<br>Fuck NASA, indeed.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>More simplistic rhetoric. Would you rather not know when a hurricane is heading your direction? Would you prefer to be unaware of climate change and how it is affecting the planet? The go ahead and "fuck NASA."<br><br>Would you prefer humans didn't explore space? I find that to be a noble, worthy pursuit. It's thrilling to me to see images from Mars, Saturn's moons, Europa, and soon even Pluto. People who rail against the space program seem like dull Luddites to me. How can anyone not be awed at Hubble's images of stars being birthed?<br><br>Unless, of course, it's all a big hoax?<br><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Sarutama]

Stickdog, please go back to my post on page for and respond. <br><br>You asked for answers to a series of questions and I provided as many as I could.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[anotherdrew]

so it must be... that Andy Kaufman took over as head of our moonbase after JFK finally passed away. He's... our Man in the Moon now. <br><br>==<br><br>anyway, of course we went to the moon. We weren't as stupid and useless back in the late 60's early 70's - the chemicals and toxins in our air/food/water/media hadn't dame bramaged the population yet. It's challeneging but not THAT hard to make it to the moon.<br><br>===<br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://home.usit.net/~aeromancy/images/ISD_highres_AS11_AS11-40-5845c.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>Look the giant black line of doom approaches! this must be twhat they've been hiding all these years! LOL <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=anotherdrew>anotherdrew</A> at: 4/20/06 10:41 am<br></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

ProfPan wrote-<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I find that to be a noble, worthy pursuit. It's thrilling to me<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>That seems like precisely the simplistic rhetoric you referred to, the same kind that is used to recruit boys with cool planes'n'stuff.<br><br>I went to some trouble to find an example of American's attitudes towards the space program. I put up data complete with a qualifier about whose data it was.<br>That wasn't just simplistic rhetoric.<br><br>Yes, a better way to make my case would be to have NASA budget numbers parsed out by project. But that ain't gonna happen because most of it is National inSecurity State stuff.<br>Now even weather information comes under that heading.<br><br>But comparing dollars spent on landing toys on distant rocks compared to nurturing humanity doesn't require actual numbers to be a MORAL issue...does it?<br><br>The 'Space Program' was all to develop military hardware and Control the High Ground with a huge slathering of 'wonder and awe' cosmic cosmetics just as you admit to feeling yourself. <br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>I think you missed the point about the morality of budgets not meeting human necessities.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br>Government spending projects are not in the vacuum of space, they have a social context.<br><br>The Pentagon and NASA are the same branch of government and have caused incomprehensible destruction to all life on this planet in the pursuit of destroying more farther faster. <br><br>So despite weather satellites and this groovy internet we're chatting over, NASA is a weapons program that kills just by using up funds. Fuck NASA.<br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 4/20/06 12:04 pm<br></i>

[Pirx]

Ever considered a career in pamphlets?<br>With some work and the right editor, you could be the next Jack Chick.<br><br>"Fuck NASA" could be your first title. Maybe even expand those ideas into a trilogy. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[stickdog99]

So I'm supposed to "swtich teams" (from uncertain to certain, right?) because:<br><br>1) the lack of stars and planets in a photo pointed away from the surface of the Moon proves that you can't expect stars or planets to show up on photos taken from the Moon because you would have to overexpose even the Earth just to make them visible<br><br>and because<br><br>2) you can actually see the stars (and planets?) on several photos that also show a lunar surface that's not overexposed.<br><br>I guess it's pointless to investigate further now that my questions have been completely answered in two contradictory ways. Ain't (dis)information grand in the way that it can dismiss even the same question from two completely opposite directions?<br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=stickdog99>stickdog99</A> at: 4/20/06 3:45 pm<br></i>

[Sarutama]

Stickdog, please go back to my post on page for and respond.<br><br>You asked for answers to a series of questions and I provided as many as I could.<br> <p></p><i></i>