*

Offline nametaken

  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • ͡ ͡° ͜ ʖ ͡ ͡°
    • View Profile
No Stars
« on: March 26, 2016, 06:53:05 PM »
You can skip this; I searched, "No stars" and "any stars" is mentioned several times, but usually only in passing. I think I saw one of FE A-hole's videos 'touch on it', but it didn't go 'deep enough' (bad puns aren't against the rules, are they?). Re-watching the videos from one of my posts (the (1) url is wrong there, I lost the right video for it though), I confirmed my suspicions:

Where are all the stars? The obvious answer; Hollywood! All the NASA pics obviously have no stars, but I've been watching amateur 'near-space' go-pro and balloon videos, and none of them show any stars either. I may be wrong here, and obviously nearly every single video of this type is done during day time. I have only found one video (at about 2:20, when the balloon pops) which *might* show a star, but considering it's spot on the horizon, it may be a 'planet' such as Venus (aka the 'morning star').

Just curious, has this apparent 'anomaly' been addressed by the FE world in any great detail yet? I haven't found much on the topic [in my mere 3-weeks of interest in FE], but I assume it has to do with a few obvious variables;

1) day time (but then why are all NASA pictures, portraying a planet starless? NASA has deep space pictures of stars, but all pictures of ALL planets ~are starless?)
2) atmospheric lensing, optical illusion ~but wouldn't this mean that the stars themselves are illusions, say, reflecting off a dome?
3) fading perspective ~I don't know the term for this, Line of Sight? How things fade where horizons meet at great distances (as seen in this picture, or in some of the 'near space go-pro' videos) ~but fading when you get closer to their apparent position?
4) Light/Photons - back to points 1-3, I assume there is theory that the light from the sun is interfering no matter how 'high' you go; it is like an 'invisible curtain' all around you, blocking out the 'starlight'. Has anyone launched a go-pro to near-space at night?

Anyway that's where I'm coming from. I don't know a lot, other than what I've observed, as in Zetetic Tradition. If anyone has any insight or corrections for me, I'm game. Here are some video examples: example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5, example 6, example 7 (with major city locations) ~see the trend of day-time?
The Flat Earth Society has members all around the Globe
[H]ominem unius libri timeo ~Truth is stranger.

Offline model 29

  • *
  • Posts: 422
    • View Profile
Re: No Stars
« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2016, 07:05:04 PM »
Camera exposure settings.  If the exposure is high enough to show stars in the picture, the other larger and normally illuminated objects will appear over-exposed and washed out.

*

Offline nametaken

  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • ͡ ͡° ͜ ʖ ͡ ͡°
    • View Profile
Re: No Stars
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2016, 07:21:27 PM »
Camera exposure settings.

Ugh can't believe I forgot this. Thank you, I knew my points were incomplete, but that should be the most obvious.
Still, would be nice to find (or make) a go-pro at night video. Closest I've found are a few eclipse videos.
Edit Also forgot to mention the 'shadow' of each planet (globe model), which represents 'night time'; it's only from within this that starlight gets enough relative 'exposure' to show up.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2016, 07:25:20 PM by nametaken »
The Flat Earth Society has members all around the Globe
[H]ominem unius libri timeo ~Truth is stranger.

Offline UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet

  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • The Moon orbits spherical Earth!
    • View Profile
Re: No Stars
« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2016, 08:18:52 PM »
NASA does have stars in their long exposure photos
See http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encounter/index.php
Look at any picture detail and you'll find their exposure, pictures that do show star have long exposure.
Also, if you zoomed in the Blue Marble photo, it actually does contain some stars.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2016, 08:22:55 PM by UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet »
The size of the Solar system if the Moon were only 1 pixel:
http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: No Stars
« Reply #4 on: March 26, 2016, 09:00:01 PM »
NASA does have stars in their long exposure photos
See http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encounter/index.php
Look at any picture detail and you'll find their exposure, pictures that do show star have long exposure.
Also, if you zoomed in the Blue Marble photo, it actually does contain some stars.


That's not a real photo.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

Offline UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet

  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • The Moon orbits spherical Earth!
    • View Profile
Re: No Stars
« Reply #5 on: March 26, 2016, 09:21:51 PM »
That's not a real photo.
Irrelevant, the OP was asking why don't we see stars in NASA's pictures containing sunlit planet, but in fact the Blue Marble does contain some stars when zoomed in. And if the Blue Marble was a fake, why the heck would they even bother put the stars that are hard to see anyway? They could just say no stars because low exposure.
The size of the Solar system if the Moon were only 1 pixel:
http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: No Stars
« Reply #6 on: March 26, 2016, 09:46:39 PM »
That's not a real photo.
Irrelevant, the OP was asking why don't we see stars in NASA's pictures containing sunlit planet, but in fact the Blue Marble does contain some stars when zoomed in. And if the Blue Marble was a fake, why the heck would they even bother put the stars that are hard to see anyway? They could just say no stars because low exposure.

So basically you're saying that you can't see stars in their "real" photos, but you can in the ones that aren't real.  Well, thanks for the contribution.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: No Stars
« Reply #7 on: March 27, 2016, 02:42:07 AM »
NASA does have stars in their long exposure photos
See http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encounter/index.php
Look at any picture detail and you'll find their exposure, pictures that do show star have long exposure.
Also, if you zoomed in the Blue Marble photo, it actually does contain some stars.
That's not a real photo.
Evidence!

*

Offline nametaken

  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • ͡ ͡° ͜ ʖ ͡ ͡°
    • View Profile
Re: No Stars
« Reply #8 on: March 27, 2016, 04:30:56 AM »
Evidence!

There are a few compelling arguments, some presented by NASA themselves, that they use composite images. As far as evidence... who knows. As far as I know right now, it's the same as religion; just a matter of opinion if it's real or not. As there is a virtual monopoly on images of the Earth from space, it makes the argument all the more compelling, though.

Anyway I kinda saw the way this topic would go from a mile off, but thanks guys for keeping my topic alive. Related to 'no stars', doesn't it seem that the higher you go, the shorter your field of view becomes? Almost like in a video game? If you extrapolate that to the inevitable... the world would be completely 'gone' past a certain point, making it impossible to replicate the 'composite' photos.
The Flat Earth Society has members all around the Globe
[H]ominem unius libri timeo ~Truth is stranger.

Offline Unsure101

  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: No Stars
« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2016, 06:22:24 AM »
NASA does have stars in their long exposure photos
See http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encounter/index.php
Look at any picture detail and you'll find their exposure, pictures that do show star have long exposure.
Also, if you zoomed in the Blue Marble photo, it actually does contain some stars.


That's not a real photo.
And you have proof of this claim?

*

Offline nametaken

  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • ͡ ͡° ͜ ʖ ͡ ͡°
    • View Profile
Re: No Stars
« Reply #10 on: March 27, 2016, 06:28:13 AM »
UPDATE I finally FOUND ONE IT HAS STARS

EDIT I say, without understanding the implications, this IS A MAJOR IMPORTANT VIDEO



Finally found one. Hell of a Spring Break, getting into FE and all.

Also sorry for large font, just edited post because this is the single most significant piece of research I've found in my entire life ~at least so it feels... so far. Probably means nothing, ultimately, but this is something that has been driving me nuts. Feel free to ignore the music and text of the video, just the night time launch is enough (why doesn't nasa or anyone have this?)
« Last Edit: March 27, 2016, 07:03:32 AM by nametaken »
The Flat Earth Society has members all around the Globe
[H]ominem unius libri timeo ~Truth is stranger.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: No Stars
« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2016, 09:23:39 AM »
That's not a real photo.
And you have proof of this claim?

It's actually a well-known fact.  I invite you to do your own research, as UOSSP should have before he even bothered posting it.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Hoppy

  • *
  • Posts: 1149
  • Posts 6892
    • View Profile
Re: No Stars
« Reply #12 on: March 27, 2016, 10:28:35 AM »
UPDATE I finally FOUND ONE IT HAS STARS

EDIT I say, without understanding the implications, this IS A MAJOR IMPORTANT VIDEO



Finally found one. Hell of a Spring Break, getting into FE and all.

Also sorry for large font, just edited post because this is the single most significant piece of research I've found in my entire life ~at least so it feels... so far. Probably means nothing, ultimately, but this is something that has been driving me nuts. Feel free to ignore the music and text of the video, just the night time launch is enough (why doesn't nasa or anyone have this?)
NASA doesn't have vid because it would s
how the lies they have been inventing.
God is real.

Offline Unsure101

  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: No Stars
« Reply #13 on: March 27, 2016, 10:41:19 AM »
That's not a real photo.
And you have proof of this claim?

It's actually a well-known fact.  I invite you to do your own research, as UOSSP should have before he even bothered posting it.
That is still not proof. Saying "it is because it is" sounds quite childish.
Where is the proof that this is not a real photo?

Offline model 29

  • *
  • Posts: 422
    • View Profile
Re: No Stars
« Reply #14 on: March 27, 2016, 07:09:03 PM »
UPDATE I finally FOUND ONE IT HAS STARS

EDIT I say, without understanding the implications, this IS A MAJOR IMPORTANT VIDEO



Finally found one. Hell of a Spring Break, getting into FE and all.

Also sorry for large font, just edited post because this is the single most significant piece of research I've found in my entire life ~at least so it feels... so far. Probably means nothing, ultimately, but this is something that has been driving me nuts. Feel free to ignore the music and text of the video, just the night time launch is enough (why doesn't nasa or anyone have this?)
I'm not really seeing anything major in that video.  Horizon pretty much consists of clouds, nothing really demonstrates the moon is as close as claimed, and it's so bright because the exposure is so high (which is why the stars are visible). 

*

Offline nametaken

  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • ͡ ͡° ͜ ʖ ͡ ͡°
    • View Profile
Re: No Stars
« Reply #15 on: March 27, 2016, 07:19:16 PM »
I'm not really seeing anything major in that video.  Horizon pretty much consists of clouds, nothing really demonstrates the moon is as close as claimed, and it's so bright because the exposure is so high (which is why the stars are visible).

I mentioned there's not much point reading what the uploader said, assertions don't mean anything to me either, I agree; I was excited exclusively over finding a commercial Night Launch of a balloon. As I admitted, I don't fully understand what it could mean yet; main issue is, why are NASA pictures showing no stars, if commercial videos show them.

I've found a few more videos now, here's one with a meteor shower; point is there aren't many, or at least hard for me to find. It is *very* niche, and a somewhat expensive hobby if the camera breaks or is lost each time.
The Flat Earth Society has members all around the Globe
[H]ominem unius libri timeo ~Truth is stranger.

Offline UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet

  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • The Moon orbits spherical Earth!
    • View Profile
Re: No Stars
« Reply #16 on: March 28, 2016, 10:55:50 AM »
That's not a real photo.
And you have proof of this claim?

It's actually a well-known fact.  I invite you to do your own research, as UOSSP should have before he even bothered posting it.
I'd admit both side have bias, i did research why this photo is real, not why it's not. I could say it's real without cite my claim just like what you did, but if you ask for proof, why should i be the one who give you proof?
Maybe if anyone can make a new topic for this debate, we could research each other source to reach a final conclusion.

main issue is, why are NASA pictures showing no stars, if commercial videos show them.
Most NASA pictures are low exposure, some of them actually does show stars that are hard to see.
All of their high exposure photos do show stars.
The size of the Solar system if the Moon were only 1 pixel:
http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html

Re: No Stars
« Reply #17 on: March 28, 2016, 02:45:42 PM »
Quote from: UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet link=topic=4809.msg92960#msg92960
Most NASA pictures are low exposure, some of them actually does show stars that are hard to see.
All of their high exposure photos do show stars.

Can you show me some of these photos, not composites, that show stars?
« Last Edit: March 28, 2016, 03:57:59 PM by TheTruthIsOnHere »

Offline model 29

  • *
  • Posts: 422
    • View Profile
Re: No Stars
« Reply #18 on: March 28, 2016, 03:31:24 PM »
main issue is, why are NASA pictures showing no stars, if commercial videos show them.
In the NASA pictures that show no stars, what is the main subject of the picture?  In the commercial videos that show them, what is the main subject of the video?

Offline UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet

  • *
  • Posts: 126
  • The Moon orbits spherical Earth!
    • View Profile
Re: No Stars
« Reply #19 on: March 28, 2016, 04:46:06 PM »
Quote from: UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet link=topic=4809.msg92960#msg92960
Most NASA pictures are low exposure, some of them actually does show stars that are hard to see.
All of their high exposure photos do show stars.

Can you show me some of these photos, not composites, that show stars?
LORRI images from the New Horizons spacecraft show lots of stars, "some" even visible in low exposure
http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/soc/Pluto-Encounter/index.php?order=dateTaken&page=1

Stars also visible for the Martian rovers during Comet siding spring flyby
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/2013_A1#During_comet_flyby

And here is a legit composite that do show stars, from Martian sky
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Spirit_phobos_deimos.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/PIA17937-MarsCuriosityRover-FirstAsteroidImage-20140420.jpg

Several stars and planets (including Earth) visible on this Saturn image:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/PIA17172_Saturn_eclipse_mosaic_bright_crop.jpg

Several of DSCOVR's image like this one contains some star when zoomed in
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Blue_marble_2015.jpg/800px-Blue_marble_2015.jpg
The size of the Solar system if the Moon were only 1 pixel:
http://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html