"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 24, 3:10 pm, "GeekBoy" wrote:

Actually you should not be able to see the stars. We see them from the
Earth
because the atmosphere is making it possible just like at certain times
of
the day the sun looks larger than it normally is because of optics of the
atmosphere.

Could you explain how the orbiting Hubble observatory is able to see
into billion and billions of years into the past? After all, it
operates in an airless environment.


With lenses????

Google is your friend....try it some time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope

On Feb 24, 9:50 pm, "GeekBoy" wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message

Could you explain how the orbiting Hubble observatory is able to see
into billion and billions of years into the past? After all, it
operates in an airless environment.

With lenses????

Google is your friend....try it some time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope

Thanks for the link, but it is useless.

Are you saying without a lens you cannot see stars in vacuum?

Do you suppose the camera that took the starless pictures on the moon
was lensless?

Do you even know how optics work?

Jesus T.J., **** with Bush you'll lose, idiot.
Rich people didn't get that way by ****ing with people like Bush.
Either your attitude changed recently or you're past-due for the fall.

People are hysterical by nature... and you are 10 times worse.
9/11 was probably done by Saudis who felt for the neglected.
_ Deal _ with _ the _ Neglected _ and the terrorists will go away.

If society doesn't deal with them, then lives and property are in danger.
Take care of those already here, give them housing, food and medicine.
If that's too much, then reduce the population via paid sterilizations.

Why do you pour money into new, thirsty cars
instead of caring for the needs of the neglected ?

Communism, the dollar and Big Oil are all examples of monopolies,
they arise naturally... Playing King of the Hill is natural...

But don't forget that wealth is relative and money is a poor yardstick.
i.e. " I'm God to my slaves and a slave to my God. "

Likewise, suicide is natural, you can't legislate it away, because...
Consuming more just means dying that much sooner.

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 24, 9:50 pm, "GeekBoy" wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message

Could you explain how the orbiting Hubble observatory is able to see
into billion and billions of years into the past? After all, it
operates in an airless environment.

With lenses????

Google is your friend....try it some time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope

Thanks for the link, but it is useless.

Are you saying without a lens you cannot see stars in vacuum?

Do you suppose the camera that took the starless pictures on the moon
was lensless?


Do you even know how optics work?

Aparantly better than you. The lenses expand the size of the star like the
atmosphere without the distortion.

Try doing some research.

GeekBoy wrote:

Do you even know how optics work?

Aparantly better than you. The lenses expand the size of the star like the
atmosphere without the distortion.

Stars did not show on the moon photographs because the latitude of the
film was not great enough to image the stars which were not as bright as
the objects on the moon, and they were far away (small) besides. Their
apparent distance is even greater compared to foreground because the
camera used a wide angle lens (50mm over 6x6cm film.) Great apparent
distance means mere pinprick images on the film and being dim, they did
not show up.

On Feb 24, 5:20 pm, wrote:
On Feb 24, 9:28 pm, wrote:





On Feb 24, 8:58 pm, "GeekBoy" wrote:

wrote in message

oups.com...

http://www.dave.co.nz/space/moon-hoa...11-40-5921.jpg
Here, here is some good evidence...

Now when the LEM lifts off, you can't see the exhaust or dust,
because,
well do the math, what did the thing weight, a couple thousand pounds?

Have you completely forgetton about the difference of gravity? The moon has
1/6th of the Earths

The whole thing weighed in at 32,399 lbs and the return module 10,024 lbs on
Earth.
[source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module]

So.... the return module would only weight 1670 lbs on the Moon.
Big deal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDTH...elated&search=

How much thrust would you need to use, to lift a Harrier Jet, not much
and
they weigh so much more, than that.

And the noise, well, duh, they were in space, and everyone knows,
in space, no one can hear you scream.

Exactly 1600 pounds, a Volkswagen, and how much thrust would it take
to
propel it into the air, not much, and to land it, the same.

Let me tell you something, when I was a kid, I went to the science
center
in Toronto, and they had a computer model of the LEM, and the
controls,
and you had to land the LEM on the moon, using those controls,
and sure, no one could do it, but that was because we didn't have the
right stuff.
No one did.

Those guys trained for that. You know, looking out the window, get er
done boys
get er done and all that.

They were focussed.

And it really isn't that difficult to fly a craft that has one central
jet under it,
because the jet swivels you see, and you can compensate, for it
wanting
to tip over, by swiveling the jet, in the direction, that you are
tipping over.

They practiced. As has been clearly shown in the video.
There are no actual reports of successful landings of the LEM on
earth,
and yes Armstrong had to eject, at the last second when he tried it,
but then, the difference is clear, because you go _slower in space,
and so, you have more time, to react, and so thats why.

Yes thats true, the moon only has one 6th, the earths gravity,
so if you stood at attention, jumped up and saluted, you would fly up,
6 feet, but that is if you weren't carry those 50 pound packs and
that.

And the antennae were retractable antennae, and thats why
you can't see them all the time.

And yes, they lost all the original footage and original telemetry
but heck who keeps that stuff around?

The Smithsonian I mean they are too busy with other stuff,
you know there is more that goes on than just that sort of thing,
important stuff, and you know when someone retires, they clean out
their
desks and stuff gets moved around.
It is probably there somewhere on a shelf, collecting dust.

And people are always saying you can't see the stars behind them and
all that
well you just have to look closer.

And you are supposed a photographer, with experince with Hasselblad
cameras? A "photographer" who doesn't know anything about exposures?

Tell me what aperature on a Hasselblad will get the exposure correct
for another astronaut on the highly reflective moon (without
overexposure), and STILL pick up very faint stars in the background.

Or just take an ordinary SLR 35 mm camera, and tell me the exposure
that would get a person under a street lamp in the proper exposure,
and ALSO get the stars in the sky.

Moron.



http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Apollo.html

See, if you look closer, now you can see the stars behind him.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 24, 11:43 pm, "GeekBoy" wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message

Are you saying without a lens you cannot see stars in vacuum?

Do you suppose the camera that took the starless pictures on the moon
was lensless?

Do you even know how optics work?

Aparantly better than you. The lenses expand the size of the star like the
atmosphere without the distortion.

Try doing some research.

The stars would not show up only if the focus is set for very close
shots. However, these photographs cover entire horizon. The focus
must have been set for very far view. A few stars should have been
picked up.

On Feb 25, 7:10 am, JJ wrote:
GeekBoy wrote:

Stars did not show on the moon photographs because the latitude of the
film was not great enough to image the stars which were not as bright as
the objects on the moon, and they were far away (small) besides. Their
apparent distance is even greater compared to foreground because the
camera used a wide angle lens (50mm over 6x6cm film.) Great apparent
distance means mere pinprick images on the film and being dim, they did
not show up.

I still don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying the
stars are too dim to be picked up?

On Feb 25, 4:26 pm, "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
On Feb 24, 11:43 pm, "GeekBoy" wrote:

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
Are you saying without a lens you cannot see stars in vacuum?

Do you suppose the camera that took the starless pictures on the moon
was lensless?

Do you even know how optics work?

Aparantly better than you. The lenses expand the size of the star like the
atmosphere without the distortion.

Try doing some research.

The stars would not show up only if the focus is set for very close
shots. However, these photographs cover entire horizon. The focus
must have been set for very far view. A few stars should have been
picked up.

You have apparently never taken a photograph using anything other than
a "point and shoot" camera. It has NOTHING to do with focus, but
everything to do with APERATURE and exposure. The foreground on the
moon is extremely bright, the stars are extremely faint. To avoid
overexposing the astronaut in the foreground, you have to "stop down".
If you don't know what "stopping down" is, you should shut the **** up
and learn something before slandering others. If the aperature (the
opening) tom the camera is too wide open, too much light comes in and
overexpsoes the film (you get all white). When you stop down, you get
less light, so you can't pick up the light from faintly bright stars.

You get EXACTLY the ame results when taking photographs near water,
sand, or snow, all of which reflect lots of light. To avoid
overexposure, you stop down, and then your subject (usually a person),
is in silhouette. And this is a PERSON in sunlight, not a distant
star, and you STILL can't see their face.

Still the dolts come up with these "Why can't you see the stars?"
arguments that a 3 year old could counter. Jeez....

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 25, 7:10 am, JJ wrote:
GeekBoy wrote:

Stars did not show on the moon photographs because the latitude of the
film was not great enough to image the stars which were not as bright as
the objects on the moon, and they were far away (small) besides. Their
apparent distance is even greater compared to foreground because the
camera used a wide angle lens (50mm over 6x6cm film.) Great apparent
distance means mere pinprick images on the film and being dim, they did
not show up.

I still don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying the
stars are too dim to be picked up?


Correct, he wrote they are mere pinpricks. Lenses focused correctly and an
atmospheres allow stars to be seen.