I think what is amazing here is the belief that constellations that are light years away would look different from the moon.

Not only that, there are many times (approximately 26 a year) as the Earth orbits around the sun and the moon orbits around the Earth that the moon ends up in a position in line with Earth's path of orbit (either in front of or behind Earth) as it goes around the sun, guaranteeing that it would have the same perspective of stars as the Earth those 26 times a year...

Nobody is saying that they would look different.

I am saying it would be extremely hard to FAKE it.

My point was that the vantage point is irrelevant in such small distances relative to the distance to stars in the constellations, meaning there was no reason to leave them out because "they're too difficult to fake." So in reality, it would be pretty straight forward to "fake" them with accuracy.

No, it would be extremely hard to fake them. If the staged event happened in a hangar, they would have had to put every single visible star and constellation onto the ceiling so that it would remain consistent throughout every different angle of each of the thousands of photos.

I'd like to see you reproduce the effect you think should happen on Earth. Take a clear in focus photo of the full moon, and I want to see stars around it.

do a google image search for 'moon with stars' you'll see they are all fake.

What do you mean?

No moon landings took place during the lunar night.

How many stars do you see during the daytime on Earth?

wow how are you possibly that dumb?

The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars.

On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#stars

In an August 12, 1969, Apollo 11 post-flight press conference, astronaut Neil Armstrong states, "We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics." Stars were visible with the naked eye only when they were in the shadow of the Moon. All of the landings were in daylight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs#Absence_of_stars

I know, that's my point, Armstrong is full of shit.

Also worth noting:

http://blog.nasm.si.edu/highlights-from-the-collection/neil-armstrongs-apollo-11-extravehicular-gloves-and-visor/

The visor is the giant sun goggles that astronauts needed to survive in absence of the Sun-filtering effects of the Earth’s atmosphere.

So, they were basically wearing sunglasses too.

To their defense, they were on the sun side for their landing. Probably were a little busy on the dark side to pay attention to the stars. A little nervous being out of radio contact. I know I would be.

You would be able to see clearer stars on the "sun side" of the Moon than on ANY spot on Earth. This is a fact. Even NASA and today's top scientist have confirmed this fact. Do a little more research.

I dont know how they got past the Van Allen belt. That is a much bigger issue than not seeing stars on the sun side of the moon.

I agree!

You're saying the stars should have been much more brilliant from the moon?

Yes, obviously. Science itself confirms this fact.

Except it doesn't. From earth, the light at night from the sun is completely blocked by the earth, whereas even though the moon has no atmosphere, the suns rays still emit enough light to drown out the weak light from stars.

It's been said before. Everything I've seen that people use to try and debunk the moon landing has been itself, debunked.

Nope. You are wrong. Completely.

...................

The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars.

On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#stars

I've heard it said that the surface of the Moon is quite bright. Maybe a good analogy would be picturing yourself in a spotlight in a dark room, and the way you couldn't see much outside that spotlight. Someone outside the spotlight could make up details in the dark to a greater extend.

We on Earth are the audience looking at the spot light on the Moon, and the astronauts on the Moon would be the performers in the spotlight, who could only see the brightest objects in the darkness, like the Earth.

You are underestimating the fact that the moon has no atmosphere or pollution of any kind.

The stars on the moon would be the most spectacular and clear view of the night sky. This has been PROVEN by science and Neil Degrasse Tyson has confirmed this.

I feel that you are not considering that in my example of a dark room and spotlight, the air and environment are homogenous except for the lighting conditions. If the room had no atmosphere, would you perceive the environment differently looking from the light to darkness? I'm not convinced that you would, but this is solely based on science fiction movies and their imagery.

Could you link what Neil deGrasse Tyson had to say about this?

Starts around 6:35 minute mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YjZ6zPs0ac

edit: I changed the minute mark.

What I hear is Tyson saying that people who want to see the moon landing as a hoax, say that there should be visible stars in the images, because there is no atmosphere on the Moon. He then says that basic understanding of photography, that if you have a illuminated object, like the moon, as the main focus of the image, the darker parts of the scene, like the sky, are not exposed enough to show details, like stars.

I think you may have misunderstood what he is saying. How do you interpret him?

Funny, I just literally typed exactly what he said. I am not misinterpreting it, he states this (in bold):

NdT says @6:34

“Well take for example, the assertion that the photos from the moon lunar surface, since the moon has no atmosphere, then a daytime picture, if you’re there during the daytime on the moon then you see a full night sky of stars even with the sun in the sky as well.

You don’t see stars in the daytime on Earth, not because they’re not there but because the atmosphere is a glow with scattered light from the sun. If you take away the atmosphere, the sun will still be there but the sky goes dark. Thats what the folks get when they go to the edge of the atmosphere and they’re calling that the edge of space, but when you get to the edge of the atmosphere, the atmosphere is no longer between you and edge of the Universe. And the stars reveal themselves just as they would at night. So, everyone knew this.”

(He then goes on to explain how the cameras and photographic conditions are the ONLY reason that the stars don’t appear in the photos.)

He even says: “If you turn the camera to the sky, a much longer exposure with sensitive film, you’ll get the stars but then you overexpose the stuff in the foreground”.

What I hear, is that your quote is what he explains that the people who believe in the moon hoax assert, that is not what he himself asserts. In other words "these people who claim that the moon landings were a hoax, claim that because there is no atmosphere there should be visible stars." At approximately 7:25 he stops talking about what other people say, the people who believe that moon landing was a hoax and there should be stars in the images, and explains why there are no stars in the images and how it can be explained.

Your quote is out of context of the discussion, so even if it is correct word to word, the meaning is completely changed from the original.

Then why would he go on to mention the camera and photographic conditions? He says that they are the reason that no stars are visible in the photos.

How do you explain this statement:

“If you turn the camera to the sky, a much longer exposure with sensitive film, you’ll get the stars but then you overexpose the stuff in the foreground”

which confirms this earlier statement:

since the moon has no atmosphere, then a daytime picture, if you’re there during the daytime on the moon then you see a full night sky of stars even with the sun in the sky as well.

.............

I agree that his wording is weird and he tends to shift topics and it is hard to tell whether he is referring to what Apollo deniers believe or stating an astronomical fact.

I am going to try to find other evidence to corroborate his statement.

That statement explains why we don't see the stars in the images: because the objective of the images was to show man on the Moon, not the stars on the sky. You would need to take a much longer exposure and overexpose the foreground, the man on the Moon, if you wanted to show the stars in the sky.

Why they didn't take images with longer exposure times? Maybe they didn't think they would have any value, because they are the same stars we can see from Earth or from orbit with telescopes like the Hubble, and the astronauts had limited time to operate on the surface.

Tyson continues: "so, photography 101 answers that question, but there are huge websites given unto this, so what that told me, was that people simply wanted to believe that it was a hoax, and then made all the information fit that need without actually caring about the scientific truths, that with any evidence would disprove all what they were thinking"

Maybe at this point we should both listen to the whole conversation between Tyson and Rogan.

I am not disagreeing with any of the statements in this last comment.

My debate is why the astronauts claimed to have NOT seen stars when (in my opinion) NdT just explained that being on the "daylight" side of the moon would have no effect on stars being visible from the moon.

I got sidetracked and forgot about the claims of the astronauts. Still, I don't think that it was explained in the video that the stars would be visible to the astronauts on the Moon, because the context of the conversation in the video was the photos, not the claims of the astronauts. Whether or not the astronauts saw the stars while on the Moon was outside the conversation between Tyson and Rogan.

Interesting video, thanks for sharing. I have been wary about listening to Rogan, with the little information I've had about his opinions and views, even though people have said that he hosts interesting conversations. After listening to this I'm less reserved about him.

video/image wise i would say it could be chalked up to exposure values.

the light off the surface and the things it would be reflecting off of would have possibly made them much harder to see.

the reflected light would probably be considerably stonger there than on earths surface. that said there is no atmosphere for that reflected light to then scatter on so...

I am not disagreeing with any of the statements in this last comment.

My debate is why the astronauts claimed to have NOT seen stars when (in my opinion) NdT just explained that being on the "daylight" side of the moon would have no effect on stars being visible from the moon.