NASA LIES

Attached: ! 1518527742569.jpg (1200x1195, 1.7M)

The same reason you don't see them during the day.

Long exposure with a sub f/5 optical tube assembly (fast).
What do you want me to say... That you're retarded?

because the sun is brighter than them and when we look up we are looking toward the sun?

unfortunately in OP pic we are looking away from the sun, as we would on Earth night

so you are saying that the apeture used on the camera was too high compared to exposure to pick up stars on a black background? Then the moon and earth would be darker.

Or are you saying the apeture was lower to require less exposure? which would make any stars on a black background too bright.

Or are you saying htat the stars are just too dim to be picked up on a camera? Or are you saying shut it down?

Attached: 6fda4cdef39caf7dc6a54e1173305b62a0dd48b7e7dd83c87e081529e6c3b64d.jpg (682x704, 192K)

Clearly, CLEARLY, they forgot to put them in when they faked all of those photos
It couldn't be basic fucking common knowledge that any photographer could impart to you, no, clearly the multi billion dollar (at the time) agency forgot to add the stars when they faked the photos.
Thank you OP, you really opened my eyes

...

>Hubble Deep Field
>an image obtained by staring at the same spot for 2 weeks refutes why stars can't be seen with cameras that record 30 frames per second

Dude get the basics straight. You're talking gibberish.

>Photons stop moving when you look away
Nigga if you are in the sun's path your cameras are going to pick up the daytime light of the sun. Out atmosphere bounced that light all around and saturates us with it.

In space the human eye can see the faintness of stars during the day and more at night but a weak camera with a standard aperture is only going to care that everything in the vacuum is being illuminated directly by the sun no matter what direction you look.

and? A smaller apeture captures more detail, but it requires much longer exposure versus a larger apeture. an instantaneous exposure coupled with an average apeture on a cheap consumer grade camera, will capture the stars at night.

Hubble actually has a focal ratio of f/24. Who'd have thunk! I'm blown away by that.

>A smaller apeture captures more detail
Are you trolling?

Attached: NASA.webm (1280x720, 2.95M)

It pushes off the fuel expansion you brainlet. There's also the issue of many shuttle flights taking place in low orbit with extremely thin atmosphere.

Fucking retard doesn't know about Newtons laws of motion. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That is why a space shit cap propel itself forward.

the real reason is the lack of atmosphere in space, the visual aspect of light only manifests when it interacts with matter, nasa wont tell you this, except if you watch early videos of astronauts who went into space, they will all state that they see no stars in space

This has to be a joke....

Attached: 1517888119448.png (536x557, 393K)

>doesn't understand newton's third.
>proceeds to argue that space is a myth from an argument grounded in physics

Brilliant user.

How is that BB-8 thing even in the air? There's no wings haha they're not even try ing

Because that's clearly a pic of daytime on the moon dumbass.

Stars don't power on until the sun goes away

Attached: - DWMFVGgWsAATpum -.jpg (1200x837, 215K)

Attached: moon.webm (486x360, 2.94M)

>basics straight
I went to school to be a photographer before I decided I didnt want to catch aids. How about you stop flinging bullshit around

>no thats wrong because I know basic photography terminology
>no, in none of my posts will I explain why its actually wrong
>someone that knows how a camera actually function comes in
>get your basics straight

Gas yourself you fucking kike

Ever wondered why you never see stars from your mom's basement?

Cia niggers

>What is exposure

Wow, pretty, you have a point?

No, because I'm not a fucking idiot, and I know what ambient light does to stellar visibility.

What the fuck is up with Australia? You people are becoming dumber than Americans.

or satellites. Funny how every time one of these threads comes around, only attempts at insults get posted, no one has any answer. I wonder why?

Attached: 1512910446506.jpg (916x1024, 250K)

>implying a larger apeture captures more detail

I'm an amateur astronomer dude. Get the basics straight.

What does being gay have to do with any of this?

Hurrr drrrr are you a retard? My bosses at the cia told me to post this

It does. The more light you collect, the more detail you'll see. That's all a telescope is - a light funnel.

So they don't see the sun?

Checked

Attached: A5002350-B3DE-492F-8DBF-79DA5CE368E7.png (666x500, 321K)

You sound smart but you're not.

Oh a wire nice look at the hair spray holding her hair up ha ha ha ha

>t. bogan intellectual

thats a good point
youtube.com/watch?v=tIeEotdOVew

Not really. The moon's gotta be hella bright, and to correct for exposure they'd be invisible.

Attached: canyouhearmemajortom.webm (1280x720, 2.85M)

Please don't tell me you're making the assertion that that photo is proof of some sort of fakery...please, you can't be that stupid.

Good question

Here is how china fakes their spacewalks

youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g

Attached: scubadivers.webm (720x576, 464K)

You lack some 13 y old basical physics knowledge, poor retarded Norway-boy.

It's impressive how you try to argue when you don't understand shit about basics of the subject. It looks very pathetical... I'm almost sad for you.

Yeah that too thanks for thinking

Attached: backflip.webm (1280x720, 2.88M)

so you shouldnt be able to see stars from the space station? checkmate get in the shower.

what movie is this

His finger obviously got hooked in his pocket you brainlet

you arent a very good one then.

>92 KB JPG
Anyone ever wounder why you never see any stars in the back ground of the NASA photos ?

No, I don’t wonder because I know how cameras work. In NASA’s moon photos for instance, the exposure settings are set so that the subject if the photo is illuminated properly. The stars in the background are far dimmer than the subject of the photo which is illuminated by direct sunlight. If they adjusted the exposure to show the stars, eveything in the foreground would be a blinding white blob. Thats why you can’t see the stars.

More wires nice

Idk man, you tell me. Did you ever try to take a photograph of the stars with your shitty camera phone that time you looked up in the evening sky and thought "Wow, what a beautiful creation this universe is"? You wont see stars in that photo either even though you see them by eye.

Attached: 1517168094786.gif (500x500, 927K)

>what is debris

Attached: 1508474738549.gif (300x223, 2.99M)

Attached: wirer3.webm (884x552, 2.78M)

I've used top-secret NASA technology to simulate what you would have seen, had they made sure to set the exposure for stars.

Stars, I'd like to point out, you can see just fine from Earth. What would be the point of wasting valuable film weight, taking pictures like this?

Attached: 1522767640525.jpg (1200x1200, 321K)

Attached: ParabolicFlight.webm (720x576, 1.23M)

Attached: - DNT4adpVwAAf17I -.jpg (1200x601, 328K)

At least I know the basics. And I know them well enough to do some very comfy stargazing. How about you?

Attached: washing.webm (720x576, 1.55M)

yeah its called camera exposure you twat

>double down on attempts at insults
>please respond to my straw-man user
The photo shows Freemasons. Tell me how you came to the conclusion of me using that photo as a proof of "fakery".

I'll bet the jews stole those stars.

Attached: - DVd8lGTWsAIcYIC -.jpg (1024x1023, 495K)

The ozone functions as a veil allowing us to better observe the stars

Attached: bsm.jpg (630x630, 102K)

Classic Jow Forums

Attached: merch.jpg (480x360, 9K)

youtu.be/-RcKLAo62Ro

happy men who have just been to the moon

Attached: what.webm (1280x720, 2.92M)

Loook at all the stars

Attached: $ 1516246639987.jpg (1200x1200, 97K)

Attached: green.webm (1280x720, 2.93M)

Fucking hubble long exposure vs a fully lit moon.
kys.

youtube.com/watch?v=KaOC9danxNo
there was a good compilation of these webems but I cant find it anymore. Do you have the clip when the astronaut floats around a corner, and they just fade his body out of the shot?

Attached: $ 1512371672645.gif (500x500, 109K)

>The moon's gotta be hella bright,
why? in that image the earth looks about as bright as the moon does in the sky

Curious to know how you did this. Is this modified or original?

at the end of this one

Attached: greenscreen.webm (1280x720, 2.91M)

look at how flat the earth is too

>that flag with this post
It doesn't even surprise me

Attached: brainlet.png (800x729, 48K)

debris would be traveling at dangerous velocities and would certainly not be traveling in a zigzag pattern

Attached: sunrayhq.webm (1920x1080, 2.92M)

Attached: sunnmoon.webm (1280x720, 2.73M)

That hair makes me laugh every time. I can't believe anyone gives that one the benefit of the doubt.

Attached: 143320690131.jpg (1384x2052, 262K)

Attached: NasaOnAString.webm (1280x720, 2.95M)

>Kerbal Flight Test

I think you need to go a bit higher up.

according to nasa

Dear god, we're even getting there.
What is Perspective?
And, more importantly, how did you manage to live your whole life without noticing this 'detail'.

Attached: vision-retard.jpg (1000x662, 233K)