LMAO

good one! reminds me of this knock knock joke

@@timothyneiswander3151 who's there?

Cracked me up. Thanks for the giggle.

Another person who thinks they’re a wizard for making this joke.

thats the best answer i've heard

@@seakayak4425 i agree there and another thing nobody has driven a car over the edge or ships gone over the side, there no doubt about it we have some idiots on this planet.

tom williams You’re wrong, I been to the edge and looked over the side. We’re floating in an old stale beer sitting on a bar and the earth is a mould raft floating on the beer. In the distance I could just make out a barmaid cleaning up. We’re all about to be tipped down the drain.

Edge? What edge?

lol

I bet the Astronauts saw all kinds of cool stuff up there

But they took no photos of the stars themselves and also forgot to take a telescope,LOL.....busted.

@Nature and Physics did appollo 11?

@@patmalloy3569 only as far as the eye could see as they forgot to bring a telescope aka as its a hoax.

@@TheKwod it must be.

The Moon is hot enough to produce it's own light ... in the far infra-red ... so not even hot enough to melt cheese, or the LEM would have sunk ... sorry, the Moon's not made of cheese, no reason to go back ...

@@russcrawford3310 very well done. Thanks a lot for the comment. You may have had an aneurysm just from speaking to this guy.

@@brandonmartin8258 - Am I spinning out of control again? ... I like having fun with this particular CT ... it's mostly forgotten now, but 90% of the effort for a Moon landing is the Saturn V rocket ... once in LEO, going to the Moon and back is easy ...

Wheres that good ole moon heat on them (colder than hell winters nights). you shouldn't speak to that person again. I'm just saying... funny story though.

The moon has no heat. It is, essentially, a gigantic reflector.

Well if you'd be there in person, you could see stars if you weren't 'blinded' by scattered light or in areas of reduced solar exposition. Movies are supposed to be immersive, not reproducing analog photography.

@@LoboPreto Nobody would be "blinded" by the sun, when turning away from it (no atmosphere to scatter the light to the other side of the sky) and nobody would be blinded by the sunlight's reflection in the moon dust because it has a pretty low albedo. So, looking away from the sun and upwards into the sky, there is no way someone could be blinded so much that one wouldn't see any of the stars.

@@AntonVeliTajan The astronauts said they could see a few of the brighter stars if they stood in the lunar modules shadow and lifted their visors.

@Lord Giygas So... that's the "smartest" thing you could come up with to say?!

@@ror3258 Interesting point. Are you sure the Hasselblads had no protection from radiation?

I think the idea is that digital image originals are more easily doctored than emulsion based ones that have to be done on the film while in the camera.

@@spocksvulcanbrain - image post production has nothing to do with exposure theory, and that's not what she's talking about.

@@fyimediaworld You're misunderstanding my point. But not important enough to go over it again.

@@spocksvulcanbrain It's harder do 'doctor' digital images because of meta-data. Film is easy by comparison. The point here may be that one can see a digital image immediately. Film you guess and hope.

You don't have to worry as much about a super bright object overexposing the entire picture on digital. You can have both a dark object and a bright object in the same photo on digital much more easily than traditional film photography. You'll probably still lose the detail of the bright object if you choose a shutter speed that lets you see the dim objects, but you can see the dim objects. In film if you tried this, you just get a white blob covering most of the photo and brightening of the dark area so that you lose detail on the dim object, or a blank white photo.

Wait, what? I just did the model and Venus was way off. Am I misunderstanding you? Edit: Oh I got the date wrong. Yes, you are correct, there was Venus right there. Interesting observation.

It should be

Of course the only thing we can use to take videos and images of space is the camera.. who says you can take pictures using an underwear or a dildo lol that's a no-brainer, noob

"Why You Can't See Stars on the Moon." Well, this is the topic of this post...which, you Miss Colaco, managed to miss completely.

😂🤣😂🤣😅

@@fahadfaisal7855 TY. If I'm standing on the Moon, can I see stars? I'm guessing, barely. If you were to look through a rolled cardboard tube, I bet your eyes would adjust, and you could see plenty. Now, on the dark side of the Moon, when the Sun has set, it should be pretty good and dark. Seems like that might be a good place for an observatory. The video wasn't about starlight on the Moon. It was about discrediting trolls. Sigh. The trolls win again.

Change your camera settings, loser!

Don't bring easily provable evidence anyone can replicate into this. It's not fair to the kooks.

You are comparing taking a photo on the dark ground of the night and taking a photo on the reflective sand on the light side of the moon. World of difference. Quite simple

***** Rubbish. Anyone on earth with normal eye sight can see the stars at night even in a large city. In a place far from city lights, you see countless stars. And that through the atmosphere. The moon has no atmosphere and so there you would see even more stars.

No. The astronauts had pull-down reflective visors in their helmets. If they pushed the visors up, they could see stars. For that matter, if they elevated their cameras enough where none of the surface was in the picture, they could have easily lowered the f-stop enough to take pictures of the stars. But that wasn't their purpose there.

The title should be "Why you can't see stars from the moon". There are no stars on the moon!

Human eyes don't need a 'manual' setting because the brain is far more advanced than the firmware inside of even our most advanced DSLRs. As we scan a scene with bright highlights and deeper shadows, our brain is constantly resetting our eyes' apertures to accommodate the varying degrees of brightness in the various portions of the scene. Still cameras don't do that. They get one shot at setting the aperture, and that aperture is the only one we see reflected in the photograph. So if the camera is 'set' for the bright highlights, the shadows darken out to black. Conversely, if the camera's aperture is set to properly see the details in the shadows, the highlights become a glowing white blob. And the human eye has somewhere around 20-22 stops of dynamic range, while a good quality DSLR can muster about 12-14 stops

+Bob Masucci Eyesight is mostly our brain depicting what it estimates the actual scene is likely to be. Absolute accuracy is far less important than spotting the bear, and running away from the occasional thing that isn't a bear after all is MUCH preferable to one 'oops, that thing was a bear'. (Lions are the more probable issue for humans, but our species has nearly entirely rectified that issue by killing the sh*t out of those poor furry bastards. Bears are still something to be wary of in North America, so that seems more likely to not be relegated to fantasy for the point being made.) Photographs are far more accurate, within the physical limitations imposed upon them. We instinctively trust what we see, because that is what we think reality is. The huge dynamic range of our eyesight (actually our brain doing some very complex fakery based on a small amount of information) can mislead us into believing that an accurate record such as a photograph is 'wrong'.

Mark::: Absolutely a great point. If there were bright stars in the images shown by NASA, it would have been evidence of fraud and fakery, as you say.

+Mark Holm Exactly. If they had faked going to the moon and put stars on the photos, then every astrophotographer would have called them out on it, and the hoax nuts would then think it was real. LOL

That won't make for a convincing point since we have an atmosphere on earth that reflects and refracts light.

@@DantesInferno96 then how come we see stars at night? Same atmosphere at night I guess

@@CsikiAttila because during the day the light that hits the Earth from the Sun is refracted by the atmosphere and reflected upon it from the ground. The amount of light in the atmosphere overpowers the amount of light coming from the stars and thus they are not visible. At night the amount of stars that are visible will vary depending on your location. The further you are away from urban areas, the more stars that you will see at night.

@@randybehrmann5454 actually, this makes a pretty convincing argument

Shit I shouldn't trust my camera p900 that can see stars hela far away, and that's putting it lightly. To even consider this concept from a logical perspective leads to the belief that humanity is susceptible to being completely brainwashed by a false fallacy. Time to wake up and read the bible 😉

DrB1900 Lol! Same here. In fact, I still shoot film.

😭

DrB1900 it's a shame, how unfairly diverting from the topic is she! What is to be answered she obviously doesn't answer! Diversion & confusion is her "explanation"! Astonishing insolence, also!

DrB1900 this f****** b**** is an apologist for NASA I just found out that the producer of the show he produce a lot of content for NASA under another name so it's natural that they are Towing the pro NASA line its propaganda NASA is allowed to counteract any anti propaganda against them this b**** you don't think she's doing and she is not going to bite the hand that feeds her once I found out that this guy the guy that owns this production company produced a lot of stuff for the government and NASA that's when I begin to smell a rat the same thing applies about MythBusters MythBusters are never going to do a story about 911 and how aviation fuel melted Steel as far as MythBusters concern that's considered conspiracy and they don't do f****** conspiracy s*** same thing applies here but that's okay they got a dumbass globe orrefors often do it and support this channel whatever

No, you dumbass we all know what film is,

Best comment of the week.

You know too much.. von braun's ghost is spraying chemtrails over your house.. the secret must be kept

von Braun is actually still alive and running the NWO. He is really the evil mind behind the whole thing (being Hitler's secret son) and has been kept alive through an electronic/cryogenic process which keeps his brain functioning in a separate jar while his precious bodily fluids are regenerated through the same proprietary process that keeps David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger alive.

+RRaquello not really that funny. more people died creating the v2s than died on delivery. Both death tolls are a reason for sobriety. Van Allen was a slave driver who enabled and abetted the blitz of London and oversaw forced labour of thousands of civilians. All of a sudden is okay to joke about nazis killing Jews, right? I love London and free people everywhere. If you need Van Braun as a hero, you're too late, he's already a monster. Go find yourself a Gus Grisham or that other astronauts they killed for blowing the whistle. And, no they didn't go to. the moon. And yes you can snap stars, try it!

James Donaghy There are 2 russian retro reflectors and 3 american ones on the moon. Anyone here on earth can detect them.. so that debunks that crazy conspiracy.

Thank you.

You can see stars on the moon. There was at least 1 American flag left there, which has stars on it. BOOM!

@@SarthorS That means the stars are on the flag. Not on the moon. BOOM!

@@henrikhyrup3995 But doesn't that mean that you are not on Earth? That you are on your shoes. You were not even born on Earth, so you are an alien! NUKE!

@@SarthorS Fuck - you got me.....!

Dale would have to assume both parties know what constitutes an argument. This sounds more like something that refers to contradiction.

maybe some people doesnt know Newton or what he said...

It only explains why the pictures they took couldn't capture stars. It doesn't explain why they didn't take pictures of stars. We had photographs of stars from earth prior to this. Why did they purposefully not take pictures of stars and adjust their cameras and film to do so?

@@josephplumb4130 I would guess because they where interested in taking pictures of the moon and not the stars. They didn't purposefully not take pictures of the stars, they purposefully took pictures of the moon. To take pictures of the stars, they would need to take a picture which purposefully doesn't have the earth in it, which isn't the most obvious think to do when you are on the bright side of the moon.

Joel Harris he was joking saying he has never been to the moon, it was a wordplay joke

Thisthatandtheother Chan LOL 👍😎👉🌕⭐🌟🌠

i guess you need to look at the sky and search stars during the day.

Wtf you haven't been to THE MOON? Nerd

Joel Harris I don't think you're a moron. But perhaps you don't have a sense of humor.

And all because of our atmosphere, it scatters light, even at night. there is no atmosphere on the lunar surface. This is why we have Hubble far above our atmosphere. And still, with all of that sunlight and light-scattering atmosphere here we can STILL see with the naked eye Venus and Mars occasionally during the day. And albedo? Really? You folks who claim that the problem with photographing the sky whilst on the Lunar surface has a lot to do with the albedo of 0.12, when the Earth's is 0.33? I don't see that as a problem here on terra firma.

Light pollution=noise, starlight=signal. In badly light polluted skies the noise (brightness of the sky) is > than the signal (light from the stars).

@Stephen Morton~ I am sure that you are far more proficient in things photographic, my own thoughts are based on common sense. Surely there is a considerable difference in the sun's effects; more direct and totally indirect, on photographic attempts?

We call it light pollution on the west coast. Even the downtown SD stars are very easy to see🤔

go back to Norway

Did you see a launch? I wish my parents took me to see a Saturn V launch. But, they had no money for that sort of thing.

What was that much more prominent crescent? An over-exposed Earth, I presume? Earth in crescent phase as seen from the moon = moon in gibbous phase as seen from Earth?

Note I used the word 'see' and not 'shoot' ;)

Michael Farrell so you have been to the moon too?

Actually albarino, 12 astronauts from 6 Apollo missions have set foot on the moon - FACT.

Michael Farrell prove it mate

Go look at the Apollo archives or the thousands of news reports from the time. The only reason why people believe in the so-called "Moon Hoax" is from willful ignorance - e.g. they don't care about the facts, just about pushing a conspiracy theory that somehow makes them feel important.

Thank you for that correction

@@stvp68 It's a serious omission, because you actually CAN see stars on the Moon! This is a form of clickbait...that worked even though it did not involve T&A!! Smart lady, she is, but the explanation, once revealed, is for dunces.

nixl Only if you happen to be on whichever side of the moon is facing away from the sun and is in darkness. When one happens to be on whichever side of the moon is in broad daylight, no stars are visible; just like on earth. It’s no different.

@@keirfarnum6811 Thank you for supplying such obvious information, but where did I contend that one can see stars "on the sunlit side of the moon"? Wow!! I got caught by the stupidity of this comment!! The answer is fully supplied by Tom Hansen's message beginning with "Not True". The Lunar sky is always black and the stars always visible to the naked eye as it is to a camera. The eye automatically adjusts to the light conditions whereas cameras, specially the older ones used on the moon need to be manually adjusted to see the stars. Since they were set up to take pictures on the surface, those settings are incompatible with those needed to see the stars, hence starlight did not register on the film!

@@keirfarnum6811 Not true. On earth the atmosphere, lit by the sun, obscures the stars. The moon has no atmosphere, so stars can be seen during daylight there, although our eyes have the same problem as the camera... adjusting to the relative brightness of the lunar surface make it very difficult, but Gene Cernan said that, while standing in the shadow of the Apollo 17 LM, he could see some stars while he was outside.

Im a novice photographer and i know that. Mess around with the Manual mode on any dlsr and you'll figure it out in 5 minutes.

Because with photographers' arguments, in 2 minutes you can know if they are on the lunar surface, (with those images shown in this video)

@@shadowhenge7118 YOU SAID: "Mess around with the Manual mode on any dlsr and you'll figure it out in 5 minutes." == Well, there isn't a conspiracy nutter whose attention span is longer than 30 seconds.

Non sense,, in a press briefing the astronauts themselves said " we didn't see any stars on the moon". This photography thing is BS

May Manginsay Did they not do their missions during the full phase time periods, so they could see? The moon is very bight, hence the shield they need to protect their eyes. This is a no-brainer quite honestly. Astrophotography is one of my favorite types of photo fun.

smh

So go to nasa' site,find lunar earth rise images,raise the contrast 'till the pasted earth image box appears,or dont.

Imustfly 🤮

I I landed on the Moon, I would be in aw of Blue Earth and the TV camera 🎥 would have hours of video of it. Please show some of that TV video 😳

I do understand the principle of of light washing out less bright light,but the idea or fact that those lunar astronauts who say they could not see stars,not just when on the moon ,but at any time they were in the vacuum of space,and those on the ISS claim to see the brilliance of the heavens,seems contradictory. Im only citing the claims,not my own opinion.Plus the other points i mentioned too,all checkable.

Nice

try and reload the page maybe you`ll understand the video ...

Ah, but I enjoyed that four minutes admiring her beautiful...er...eyes..?

Yah, but I enjoyed it.

@@MacDaddyRico Rrrrrrright !! 😉😊😃😜😝🤣😄🙃👍🏾

You must be a dreamer to think these idiot deniers are capable of rational thoughts.

Are you saying that you can see them with the naked eye?If so,Neil Armstrong said he couldn't recall seeing any!

[ Are you saying that you can see them with the naked eye? Neil Armstrong said he couldn't recall seeing any!] because of light pollution from the sun..

I know how stupid film camera work and also understand it because it was in my engineering syllabus. If you watched the entire apolo footage from take off to landing you won't find a single star. There have been photographs taken from earth using film cameras that showed starts in the night sky.

horrible explanation. During a clear sky in the night, stars are visible. Now you would think if you go to the moon you would see some stars but not somehow you can't because its dark but that same light from the stars is visible on earth.

You'd probably need to make a composite image out of two separate shots to get around the difference in brightness between the surface and the stars. Even with a modern camera.

that works in atmo - the moon doesn't have one though same sort of issue basically but it's not light pollution in the air (cause there isn't any) just the moon is hella bright compared to tha stars which are hella dim

@@leeman27534 That's not how light defuses, when looking away from the suns-direction, there is no light reflection on the moon, All the Apollo astronauts lied, explaining the optical-printer and film in one comment is a little over the top. EP3 Narrative Continuity on my channel for actual-source documentation. The call is spoken, heed the call today.

No they couldn't see stars on the moon. Patrick Moore (famous astronomer) asked the astronauts this question when they came back to earth, but he said he knew the answer anyway. It's on KZfaq. Though Patrick worked for jodrell bank radio telescope that tracked the mission to the moon so some people will say he is involved in the whole fake conspiracy.

Whenever we can’t see any stars on earth is probably because it's cloudy due to rain, snowing, thunderstorms etc.

@@mattfoley7242 what about at night then ??? The glare of the sun is the main reason .

@@gravyboat2370 at night depends on the clouds if you live in Saskatchewan. Are there any clouds covering where you're from?

@@mattfoley7242 if it's a clear night you can see the stars .....if it's a clear day you can't see the stars. What part don't you understand?

Well, no astronaut saw stars while on the moon's surface (except if they looked through the LEM's optics). But, that's because they were only there during the daytime. If they were there at night, they'd have seen stars, yes.

"people" are stupid.

What I love is how people think that unshielded cameras with 1960's-era photosensitive film wouldn't immediately become overexposed due to the high radiation levels, electromagnetic waves, and thermal conditions on the moon's surface. I mean... if you throw a roll of 35mm film into a microwave, toss the microwave into a tanning booth, throw the tanning booth into an x-ray machine, and then toss the whole apparatus into a walk-in freezer... how well do you think the photographs would turn out? (And the "plans" for the handheld "space camera" they used is available... they didn't even use a layer of lead paint on that thing...)

Yes, right up to the point where a knowledgeable photographer would then point out that the two images shouldn't be able to be seen at once...They'd be shouting "Fake !!!" JMO.

+Rick Stewart You can prove it yourself by taking a photo at night. Digital cameras (such as the one you'll have in your phone) also have limited dynamic range, so can't capture feeble light such as starlight at the same time as brighter objects (such as the moon). Manufacturer's of cameras offer special modes to allow you to better capture low ambient light scenes (usually called 'night scene' or similar), so it isn't as though this is a problem that is so unknown that there is no demand for a solution. How people can be so ignorant in an age where information is a few seconds away amazes me -- it has to be wilful.

fuckin funny...

saxecoburggothas UK If You are the least interested, You have already found out.

The sun.

You can see the stars just fine from the Moon, you just can't see them in photos. The human eye can perceive a much greater variation in light levels than any film of the period was able to record. In fact, they could have easily photographed the stars IF the camera was pointed up and away from anything that would reflect light and the exposure was set much longer than what they'd use for pictures of the lunar surface. Since the Moon has no significant atmosphere there's nothing to scatter sunlight and wash out the stars during the daytime.

lol

Thank you for the nice comment. :-)

Evidence and reason? More than 11,000 (all) telemetry tapes missing? The Van Allen Belts are still an obstacle to "manned space flights" outside low Earth orbit? We've never left low Earth Orbit since? We brought a dune buggy to the moon in a lander that could hardly hold the AstroNOTs? Neil Armstrong became a virtual hermit following the greatest achievement in humanity?Plenty more evidence and reason available for anyone with half a brain.

I'm sure that is plenty of evidence for someone with half of a brain, but since I have an entire brain, I'm gonna need a little more. (Although, I've never had a CT scan and there is a weird scar on the back of my head...suspicious) None of the items on your list are evidence that a fake moon landing was produced. Your entire list is completely compatible with a real moon landing. In the face of the ginourmous amount of evidence supporting a real moon landing, the onus is on you to either provide evidence of a Hollywood moon landing or demonstrate that the accepted theory is impossible. Inventing standards that reality doesn't live up to doesn't make something false. Your arguments sound a lot like those of creationists when they merely try to point out what's missing ("there should be fossils of everything!") instead of producing evidence that contradicts the accepted theory. Missing telemetry tapes, while compatible with a fake landing, are also compatible with a real one. I have no idea what happened to the tapes or even if your claim is true, but in this universe, it is possible to go to the moon and not have the telemetry tapes afterwards. The Van Allen Belts are harmful to humans, not impassible. Not going above LOE (with humans) since 1972 is compatible with going to the moon before that. The universe does not require that humans keep doing something once they do it. Having tight quarters in a spaceship doesn't exclude the possibility of taking stuff. Be a little more precise if you think it's impossible to bring a car to the moon, and look at this picture i.ytimg.com/vi/ZM6h7MbkRCM/sddefault.jpg Is it really that surprising if Neil Armstrong didn't like being famous? He wasn't an actor, he was a pilot. If the moon landing was actually in Hollywood, wouldn't they pick someone that would love the limelight? Please tell me what really happened. If they didn't land on the moon, then there was a movie production somewhere. Please provide some evidence of that production. I will immediately change my mind if you show me one picture of an astronaut on the moon with his helmet off talking with the director. Every movie has mistakes. Show me one example of an incontinuity or some other goof.

+mborgs44 you can see the lunar module through a telescope...

NO, you cant. You can see a bunch of blobs on the moon that look less like landers than the alligators on Mars look alligators. We will eventually have a telescope that can adequately show the landing modules, but we don't currently.

The buggy was outside the lander. And why should they go again, the race was over, they had won! Open the telly and watch something from the Olympics, the people there don't race on either, when the race is over!

David Guerrero Just show me some non-altererad astronomical photos of Mars or Jupiter with stars around the planets. You Will not find any.

yep, i remember the first time i took a picture of the moon, it was night time already, i, of course, over-exposed it. The moon ended up looking like the sun and the sky was blue as in daytime. A friend of mine had a hard time believing it was a picture of the moon at night :D

Joshua Ezekiel: If your camera has a spot meter you should use that so that it doesn't take the surrounding darkness into consideration when setting the exposure.

You're gonna love this: When comet Hale-Bopp was passing by I decided to try to take a picure of it. I knew and still know nothing about photography but I am familiar with concepts like the speed of light, cosmic distances, luminosity... so when I went to take the picture I thought momentarily about the camera flashes impact on the vastly distant object. What possible use would a flash be? Imagine being on the comet and looking at Earth when this bitty little flash happens... Then my now ex-wife sticks her head out to suggest I use the flash. She's a dear woman but dumb as a box of rocks.

@@paganphil100 I'll do you one better than that. Just use the looney 11 rule. "In lunar photography, the Looney 11 rule (also known as the Looney f/11 rule) is a method of estimating correct exposures without a light meter. For daylight photography, there is a similar rule called the Sunny 16 rule. The basic rule is, "For astronomical photos of the Moon's surface, set aperture to f/11 and shutter speed to the [reciprocal of the] ISO film speed [or ISO setting]." With ISO 100 film / setting in the camera, one sets the aperture to f/11 and the shutter speed to 1/100 or 1/125 second (on some cameras 1/125 second is the available setting nearest to 1/100 second). With ISO 200 film / setting and aperture at f/11, set shutter speed to 1/200 or 1/250. With ISO 400 film / setting and aperture at f/11, set shutter speed to 1/400 or 1/500." Since the distance to the moon doesn't change enough to throw off the exposure by even a 1/3 of a stop from anywhere on earth, and the sun's brightness in illuminating it will be constant, as is the terrain reflecting the light at you, the only variables are really weather. f/11 and shutterspeed of 1/ISO even works during the day. www.flickr.com/photos/rwillia532/46418634845/in/dateposted-public/

Robert Williams what an easy rule to remember, and such tiny apertures will focus easily on a very deep field. Thanks!

You must work for her

Looks like she has a pimple on her boob

@@oxdaking4328 : No I don't. Perhaps you have a thing for her, or hate her for some reason.

Actually, I disagree. For the simple fact that they have no idea what exposure time means. Or for the same reason what an aperture is all about. They just know that to take a photo you press abutton and somehow - almost like magic - you get a picture of what you see. Most of the time. Just think of the guys thinking, that using a flash light to photograph a basball field from 200 meters away is a good idea :-)

Canon/Nikon (the camera companies) don't have as big a budget as a NASA space project. Would be awesome if they did :)

Ani mal Ok buddy boy. If you research how many photos were taken compared to the actual time on the moon. A picture would have to be taken literally every second. Was that possible with their equipment. Nope. Ill be back with a link referencing this shortly.

Like... flat earth Jesus God?

+Elliot D hey don't assume that all Christians are flat earthers or moon landing deniers, 'cause they're not.

Jon I'm a bisexal Christian and I know the earth aint flat and that Stanley Kubrick went to the moon so there!

+Edward R becaue you sound so effing dumb when you are fundamentally wrong about so much. You can absolutely oppose theories, if you take the time and learn about what a theory is, how the scientific process works, then also seak education (outside of the internet) then use the fundamental laws of nature, in order to strengthen your opposition. Look at the vast amount of dolts who think the moon landing was fake, on this thread alone. The posts are barely comprehensible. I don't understand how that isn't clear to you? Oh wait i do... your a moron.

+Elliot D Wow! you must be a gas at parties. Tell us more about yourself, please. Trust me, you dont sound like a complete window licker. I love it when all these "deniers" gather in one spot, like this. It is great fun.

The full moon, as seen from Earth, is about 50,000 times brighter than the brightest star. A camera with a dynamic range of 50,000, correctly adjusted for exposure, would show the moon as a mostly white disc and the very brightest star as a barely perceptible, dot. In fact, without image manipulation, you could not see that star on any current digital display or paper print. It would not show any other stars at all. In order to convincingly image stars and the moon, one would need a dynamic range at least 4 times higher, 200,000. The numbers I find for film dynamic range go from about 256 to 8000. Based on my own experience and reading, I am sure that 256 is too low, but 8000 seems reasonable, more than 20 times too low to convincingly image the lunar surface and stars in the same exposure.

+Mark Holm 8000, actually 8192, is equivalent to 13 photographic stops. I am sure photographic experts will agree that 13 stops is a pretty generous estimate for film dynamic range. It is also way, way much more than can be distinguished on any, unmanipulated photographic print, or any digital desplay.

The simplest way to put it--which is used by the photographers advising others about taking photos of the moon from the earth's surface--is that the surface of the moon is a daylight scene lit by the sun in the same fashion that daytime on the earth is, and therefore requires a daytime exposure.

Actually, to do a proper comparison, you need to divide that 50,000 times (I get 32,000 myself, using Sirius as the comparison star and the mean full Moon, but in that ballpark) brighter by how much larger the image of the Moon is than the image of the star. Depending on how zoomed in you are, how well focused, and the size of your sensor pixels, probably a couple of hundred, squared. I've gotten pictures of the Moon with much dimmer stars, but that was using a telescope, and the only details on the Moon you could make out at all were the Earthshine-illuminated ones on the dark side; the sunlit side was just a white blob.

Dude, stop the mansplaining. She did explain the phenomenon in layman's terms

I dont think its misleading. I think they (the people who uploaded the video) know that people will search the title of this video before they specifically search something like "why cant we see stars in the background of Apollo moon landing mission photographs"

I thought the same while watching this. Only I thought that instead of click bait, I almost didn't click this vid at all based on the stupid premise being presented in the title.

I think the title is perfect to aim for the people who'll be interested in the apollo mission images 'where are the stars?' arguments.

Just clean your room. Earth is still safe even with misleading YT titles.

then why did the apollo astronauts say they could not see the stars from cist lunar space or the surface of the moon?

Well, more than one star at least.

Wrong. The earth has an atmosphere which scatters light from the sun and makes the background brighter than the stars.

@@georgebishop4941 Well, that's not true either. Had they actually wished to photograph the stars from the surface of the moon, and not wish to include detail from the surface of the moon (unless it was lunar night and there was an artificial light source), they could, like many photographers (myself included) did back in the day: put the camera on a tripod, use a film with a pretty high ISO/ASA, open the aperture and set a fairly long shutter speed.

George B you wish your smartphone camera had 1/10 of the quality those cameras used on the moon had.

@@georgebishop4941 wow, I cant believe you wrote what you did in you comment. Apparently you have. ZERO idea of photography. Let me clarify it for you. The cameras used on the moon were the best you can buy. They were made by Hasselblad, the finest medium format camera on the market at the time. The lenses were made by Carl Zeiss, again the finest lenses made. The film was super small grain color film specifically made for the moon landing by Kodak. If you even try to compare film to digital even by todays standards film would beat out digital. Only the higher end digital cameras come close to film. Film has a quality called latitude ans is meansured in f-stops. Film manufactured that period had a 14 stop latitude. High end digital has 12-13 stop lattitued. Far more than a typical digital DSLR. Yes you can shoot in HDR and obtain the required latitude but you csnt use HDR on anything in motion. So in conclusion high end film cameras was better in 1969 than standard DSLRS of todsy

nope i disliked just to prove you wrong

The dislikes are from some people who know the difference between "Science" and Science Fiction".

Why doesn't NASA just build some more Apollo moon modules and send a few astronauts up to the moon again... It would cost 0 dollars in R&D and it's a tested proven design, that would debunk all of the conspiracy theorists. It would cost next to nothing compared to modern NASA projects.

Jimbo Bojim, I assume because of the lack of any perceived reason to back, coupled with the fact that it would still be expensive (even if not as expensive as other projects). There is some talk about building a moon base, but it hasn't gotten a lot of traction thus far. It seems to me, the Moon is a better starting point than Mars (Venus is also a better option than Mars, but that's another subject altogether...). :)

+Jimbo Bojim. Do you honestly think that would make any difference to the conspiracy theorists ? They wouldn't believe it because it was NASA. It would become a crazy extension of the conspiracy. Once they get fully committed to this sort of belief they cannot let go. They cherry pick anything that appears to show they are right, however unlikely, and ignore the simple straight evidence that confirms the landings. It's because it would be too psychologically painful to accept that they were wrong.

@@jimbobojim4634 Sorry to say but NASA has admitted that they could not even build a Saturn 5 today. Sure they have the blue prints, but the blue prints don't show what the engineers of the day actually built. All that knowledge, the tweeks, the patches has been lost. To our detriment.

@@petert3355 yep we know that nothing can be built off of blue prints....

DIM

no u

That would be cylindrical, albeit a very SHORT cylinder, not a sphere. For example, a marble.

A dinner plate is also circle shaped and "flat".

I concur, she is one sexy spin doctor

Why didn’t she just explain the facts that you can’t see the stars from the indoor sound stage where they were taken at then most of the photos were destroyed so they couldn’t be checked along with all of the plans for the rockets 🚀 so no one could check or copy them they did it all for our protection. How would you feel if you found out that they lied about the hole thing just for a lot of money I even remember when Kennedy started the space program and now they say it was Nixon Kennedy apparently was never involved because he was a democrat and they never do anything shady

@Julio Yes, and its take a little work to figure out what all the fuss is about. To demise, the hoax about Apollo and the stars requires an understanding of basic science, physics, cameras, photography spaceflight, soil science, mechanics and the Moon itself.No one answer applies. Hence the controversy. We both photographed stars and other astronomical objects from the Moon and at times we could see stars as well. In the shade, allowing our eyes to compensate for a few minutes, yes, we could see some stars. Under normal conditions,no. We were in the direct sunlight, with our gold visors down.It was much to bright.to just look up and see stars. Ever been to a ski resort. The snow is bright and blinding .The moon was no different.The Moon has no erosion, weathering, so the soil particles are sharp, angled ,like millions of tiny mirrors,, throwing more light into the sky.You can see how complicated the answers are. Lots of variables, hence all the BS over stars. On the far side of the Moon, out of the bright sunlight, yes we could see stars. The EVA's were done at lunar dawn [sun was lower, thus cooler ]Under normal circumstances you had your visor down, the sun was extremely bright, you wouldn't notice any stars. Likewise, to photograph them we used special optics, UV cameras, etc to capture the dimly lit stars. So with a little reading and asking lots of questions, it all comes into focus. The surface images here seen in these 8000 images ,did not show any stars, why, ?it was daytime, we set the exposure, aperture, lighting etc to capture the LEM, astronauts, terrain, rover ,etc in the sun. Had we tried to capture the dimmer, fainter stars in the background, the images would have been overexposed. Hope this helps.If I confused you, I'll be glad to clarify my answers. English wasn't my favorite class.

@@glenparker234; You can't see stars either. For the same reason. Your eyes work similar to a camera lens aperture. Point being that you use a flashlight at night and can see it for miles, but during the day, you can't see the light from the flashlight more than a few feet away. All of the NASA moon photos were taken on the bright side of the moon. If they would have gone to the dark side of the moon, then they would be able to see them, AND take pictures of them! You "moon hoax" morons need to learn how things really work before you try to use them to explain your agenda! Both, Mythbusters and this gal have debunked your debunking by using this "but the stars can't be seen" B.S. You can't see the stars during the day on Earth either (don't say it is because of the atmosphere, because you can see the moon during the day)!

#facepalm #smh #moonhoaxersaremorons

oooooooo. smart people are very cool. thanks

Exactly, misleading title.

But is the exposure range the same in digital? Human eyes have a wider range where they can see bright objects and dim objects together which a film couldn't.

@@ruialexandre6197 Modern digital cameras in general can capture more dynamic range than film, but not anything from more than 15 years ago. Black and white negative film is actually quite powerful in this respect, although still lagging far behind the human eye-brain combo. E-6 slide film is notorious for having a very narrow exposure latitude, roughly half of black and white negative. The most commonly available C-41 negative is somewhere in between. If you went to the moon with a modern digital camera today, most likely you still couldn't photograph any stars during lunar day. Maybe the Sun:-)

@@oliverracz2686 thanks! Knowledge is everything :)

@Trebor You could. You'd just have to look away from anything bright, including the surface, long enough for your eyes to adjust to the dark. That doesn't work in an atmosphere because of how it scatters sunlight, but in a vacuum, you're good.

did your class involve radiation...? idiot.

@@tomschmitt6911 I love it when people call 'idiot' ! Photography means 'light painting'. And light is radiation. So yes. It did. What was your point again?

@Trebor Yes, like Hubble here on earth, maybe a way to take it from the moons orbit or from the moon's surface.

@Trebor Well that was my question, is the sky over there exactly how we would see it on earth? would it change in any way?

@@RenatoMelendezFroFro Just making sure here... I think you're asking if astronauts ever took photos from the surface of the moon at night, right? (They were never on the surface of the moon at night.)

​@@rockethead7 Thank you, i was asking if there was a rover or a telescope that could capture images of the moon sky at night (not necessarily during the Apollo missions). Although if it is basically the same as the sky here on earth, i suppose it would be too expensive and not really useful.

She has answered that in another video

@@rinse-esnir4010 Do you have a link?

@@davechezem3222 Nope, just browse through her videos. She has a lot of interesting stuff.

@@rinse-esnir4010 OK thanks.