http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2007/11/img..._kaguya_01.jpg

Hi folks,

wonder why or when CTs will jump onto this clearly faked photograph of the lunar landscape with an obvious faked earth picture in the background. These stills clearly are faked AS THERE ARE NO STARS VISIBLE!

Extracelestial ;-)

P.S.
Of course - they might refrain from it for obvious reasons

__________________
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic - Arthur C. Clarke

Nonsense. I can quite clearly see David Hasselhoff in the lower left.

Jaxa Video

p.s....it's Arthur C. Clarke...

__________________
The views expressed are the febrile product of an overactive imagination of a person who in shadows sees the gyrating Elvis-like ghost of Leonid Brezhnev.

Nonsense!

It just looks like the back side of Mt. Fuji!

__________________
Derek Colanduno
host - skepticality
http://www.skepticality.com/

Sadly, when I watched this video on YouTube (couldn't find the original video at that time), there were already posts of "OBVIOUSLY 3D LOLOL". And that was a month ago.

__________________
I animate LEGO Bricks as a hobby. Isn't that just awesome?!

It is a fake picture of Earth because connot be done so close from the black planet. Maybe they have discovered some life there

__________________
Free Download Google Earth and Google Talk software

Heh, well, there are no Stars in all the pictures and videos that come from Shuttle flights or shots from the ISS either, and yet "Theres no Stars in Apollo photos!!!" is still the #1 claim of HBs.

So what can you do? You can only explain thing like light exposure so many times.

__________________
The proceeding post was brought to you by NASA, the National Association of the Sellers of Alcohol.

Even more creative -- one comment said "60 year old NASA footage". Which would make it... 1947?

__________________
Fiction has to be plausible. Reality is under no such constraint.

What?! You mean taken at the same time as the Roswell incident .... aha!!! It all becomes clear now! The "crash" wasn't actually a crash at all, but they covered it up to make it seem that way!!!

Then they had an intact useable alien ship to use to take such pictures ..... yes! That's it!!!


...


...


...


(did I use enough exclamation marks to make it "the truth"?!! )

... but I forgot the CAPITALS!

__________________
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm.... that's funny...'
- Isaac Asimov

Are we alone in the Universe? Are we the only intelligent life? Who knows? But the universe is so BIG, it somehow seems such a waste of space if we are ....

Oh, just to confuse people, there are plenty of video frames taken at night showing stars, like this one over the moonlit Earth from STS-67.

Attached Images

astro2moonlit.jpg (74.6 KB, 95 views)

It's too bad people aren't smart enough to realize the stars ARE there, they just don't show up because of the film exposure.

I suggest those who don't understand the concept to grab a camera and take a picture of the night sky in a totally dark environment and then take the same shot but with a light turned on. You won't see stars on that second shot, all you'll see is the bright light.

We're living in sad times people... people whine and cry over things they don't understand!

We're living in sad times people... people whine and cry over things they don't understand!
The problem arises when they *think* they understand--then refuse to admit that they don't.

Apparently, the moon's lack of atmosphere gives optics and light magical properties seperate than here on earth.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

"A long time ago, yet somehow in the future"

Assuming that the camera has a sufficiently broad range of auto-exposure, which is unlikely at best. Even with a high ISO getting stars to show up in a picture taken with non-specialized equipment requires very long exposures (upwards of 10 seconds), well beyond what most auto settings can accommodate and manually setting a camera is beyond what anyone who doesn't already know enough realize that it would be impossible to photograph stars (on the Moon or anywhere else) with settings useful for taking photos in direct sunlight.

Also it is quite possible to photograph stars with a light turned on, its just that any lit objects will be horribly overexposed (i.e. solid white with no detail).

__________________
Girl: Mister Darwin! The stupid people are breeding and taking over the planet!
Charles Darwin: Tut tut, little girl, don't worry! I'll take care of them with my CHAINSAW OF NATURAL SELECTION! Ahahahahahhaha!!!!!!
-QUeen of Wands 12/08/2003

Even with a high ISO getting stars to show up in a picture taken with non-specialized equipment requires very long exposures (upwards of 10 seconds), well beyond what most auto settings can accommodate and manually setting a camera is beyond what anyone who doesn't already know enough realize that it would be impossible to photograph stars (on the Moon or anywhere else) with settings useful for taking photos in direct sunlight.
My girlfriend's a professional photographer. One relatively clear night, I was bored so I took her camera and tripod and remote (pushing the button by hand creates too much movement) and decided to play around with the settings. IIRC, from where I was I needed about a 30 second exposure to be able to pick up the stars, and even then they were less than dazzlingly bright. Of course, the other problem was I don't have a suitable lens for those types of pictures, so the stars were so small it didn't really help their visibility.

I was suprised that I actually had to up the ISO (from what average daylight settings were) to get a good picture of the moon because it was very easy to overexpose it.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

"A long time ago, yet somehow in the future"

If I take my standard digital camera and point it to the stars I get nothing.
If I choose the long exposure program (15 seconds) I get a couple of stars.
And thats without lights switched on...

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916

I tried a timed shot to get the circled effect using a DSLR on a tripod. Seemed to work but not the full circle swirly effect, have to check the exposure setting but one glaring thing that shone through was the light pollution

Edited to add info from the image data, 164 seconds and I start to get a trail. 42 seconds and I start to see stars but have to muck around in elements to highlight them. Have to add I am just starting down this path of photography so probably have a few things wrong.

could it be something to the fact that it's daylight, and much like earth stars do not appear?

I wanted to test this myself, so I took my digital camera out, aimed at the night sky, where there are clearly stars, and snapped a couple of pics.

Guess what? No stars.

No biggie.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that.

"Staying young requires the unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." - Heinlein

"Freedom begins when you tell Ms. Grundy to go fly a kite." - Heinlein

I tried it with a 20sec. exposure time.
I got about a dozen stars...

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916

Just pointing and snapping won't really do it for you. You will need a tripod, and play around with several settings. Here's one I took last summer while at a Cornish campsite at night

I had increased the ISO setting and opened the f stop as wide as possible. Then I played with the shutter speed until I got this. Quite a few stars show up as well as the (overexposed) moon.

__________________
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm.... that's funny...'
- Isaac Asimov

Are we alone in the Universe? Are we the only intelligent life? Who knows? But the universe is so BIG, it somehow seems such a waste of space if we are ....

The reason that the stars are not visible is that they did not use a flash. Flashbulbs do not work in space. Let me know if you need any thing else explained.

__________________
Bill Slugg
Albany, GA