Here is where we first found out that stars (supposedly) cannot be seen if you're standing on the sunlit surface of the Moon!! (edited transcipt)....
REPORTER - I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect. And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?
ARMSTRONG - 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. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/FirstLunarLanding/ch-7.html
Actually, this is where we first found out that Armstrong et al didn't really land on the Moon, because if they had, they absolutely would have been able to see stars!
The sky is pitch black on the Moon. Just by looking upward, in any direction away from the Sun, you would see far more stars than you'd ever see anywhere, anytime, on Earth.
Full Version: Did we land on the moon?
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > News, Media & World Events > Conspiracies & Secret Societies
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103
QUOTE(RabidCat @ Oct 5 2007, 08:35 PM) 
Say What? Mid, I'm disappointed. No such evidence? Surely you jest!
As to the thousands of surface photos, there are thousands of those thousands that have been deliberately blurred to obscure that which exists upon the ground in those photos. Trust, me, that is the pure, unadulterated truth.
As to the thousands of surface photos, there are thousands of those thousands that have been deliberately blurred to obscure that which exists upon the ground in those photos. Trust, me, that is the pure, unadulterated truth.
Shhhh, Rabid!
You must really resist the attempt to let the cat out of the bag!
QUOTE(snowjob @ Oct 5 2007, 08:46 PM)
i have watched the conspiracy theories: did we land on the moon video....it proved alot of points:
1. Photos with objects behind crosshairs
2. 3 months before the "moon landing" the same pod was tested and proved unstable on EARTH GROUNDS!
3. when the speed of videos were doubled it appeared as if the astronauts were running.
4. Video quality sucked
5. The only light source was the sun, but the shadowing of every object were in different directions, thus extra light source.
6. Why hasn't there been more travels to the moon?
7. Mysterious deaths of nasa workers.
8. Depression on moon when pod landed, astronauts also claimed the ground was powdery.
9. why is area 51 heavily guarded, a moon crater matched a crater in area 51, believed to have been filmed here.
10. Two photos of a different area of landing resembled EXACT same geographic or topographic features.
***SNIP***
1. Photos with objects behind crosshairs
2. 3 months before the "moon landing" the same pod was tested and proved unstable on EARTH GROUNDS!
3. when the speed of videos were doubled it appeared as if the astronauts were running.
4. Video quality sucked
5. The only light source was the sun, but the shadowing of every object were in different directions, thus extra light source.
6. Why hasn't there been more travels to the moon?
7. Mysterious deaths of nasa workers.
8. Depression on moon when pod landed, astronauts also claimed the ground was powdery.
9. why is area 51 heavily guarded, a moon crater matched a crater in area 51, believed to have been filmed here.
10. Two photos of a different area of landing resembled EXACT same geographic or topographic features.
***SNIP***
Actually, snowjob, you have succumbed to a snow job.
Now, all of these 10 points are rather elementary, and have been shown to be rubbish here, and on other threads, many times before.
Nonetheless, we'd love to discuss ANY ONE OF THEM AT A TIME with you, since you seem not to have been around for most of the discussions, and since fleshing them out one at a time tends to result in the best educational experience.
You're buying into a classic paradigm here, where one who's knowledge of the matter is lacking, accepts the crafty presentation of others who knowledge is equally lacking. This is a recipe for intellectual frustration to be sure.
For instance, we could look at your point 2:
QUOTE
2. 3 months before the "moon landing" the same pod was tested and proved unstable on EARTH GROUNDS!
1) The "pod" was called the Lunar Module (LM).
2) The LM was never tested on "earth grounds" (whatever that means). It was designed strictly for space operations. It could not be flown in the Earth's atmosphere.
3) 3 months before the first landing on the Moon was April 1969. No LM testing was performed then. In fact, the first manned test flight of the LM happened a month earlier, in March, and that was done in space.
4) The LM (and not the same one (we used a different one for each flight where a LM was used)) was tested in space 2 months before the Apollo 11 landing, in May 1969, and prior to that had been heavily tested in space on Apollo 9 in March of the same year. Additionally, it was tested in space un-manned prior to that.
Just simple facts, that you do not understand.
By all means, pick a point and ask about it...one at a time. You will learn that you were indeed snowed by "Did We Land On The Moon?", and you may learn that the answer to this silly question is "Yes".
QUOTE(MID @ Oct 6 2007, 09:58 AM)
Shhhh, Rabid!
You must really resist the attempt to let the cat out of the bag!
You must really resist the attempt to let the cat out of the bag!
This cat's already out. Somebody should catch him and put him back in. Oh well, back to work.
QUOTE(turbonium @ Oct 6 2007, 04:29 AM)
Here is where we first found out that stars (supposedly) cannot be seen if you're standing on the sunlit surface of the Moon!! (edited transcipt)....
REPORTER - I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect. And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?
ARMSTRONG - 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. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/FirstLunarLanding/ch-7.html
Actually, this is where we first found out that Armstrong et al didn't really land on the Moon, because if they had, they absolutely would have been able to see stars!
The sky is pitch black on the Moon. Just by looking upward, in any direction away from the Sun, you would see far more stars than you'd ever see anywhere, anytime, on Earth.
REPORTER - I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect. And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?
ARMSTRONG - 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. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/FirstLunarLanding/ch-7.html
Actually, this is where we first found out that Armstrong et al didn't really land on the Moon, because if they had, they absolutely would have been able to see stars!
The sky is pitch black on the Moon. Just by looking upward, in any direction away from the Sun, you would see far more stars than you'd ever see anywhere, anytime, on Earth.
You're kidding me Turb, right?
Neil said he never saw any stars from the lunar surface on the daylight side by eye.
This clearly means they couldn't be seen by eye on the daylight side...which is where they were on the surface. The reasons for this have been explained thoroughly, and are the result of the mechanics of the human eye, which is somewhat similar to the reason why a camera couldn't pick up stars when photographing brightly sunlit objects.
They absolutely could not, and should not have been able to pickup stars in that broad daylight condition.
You conclude this proves Apollo was faked because you conclude that since the sky was black you should've been able to see far more stars than you would ever see anytime, anywhere on Earth? He clearly confirmed the obvious! You can't see them in broad daylight. It's not nightime there, Turb.
The eyes have sunlight infiltrating them all the time. The eye, despite the lack of atmosphere, cannot adapt to see the relatively dim stars when a blazing sun is illuminating everything around you more brilliantly than it could possibly do on Earth. And, they were using two sets of sun shades on their helmet visors!
That being said, if the astronauts could've shielded their field of view from the sunlight and focused their eyes through this shading device on a small segment of black sky, eventually they would've been able to see some stars in the blackness as their eyes adapted to the darkness within the shade, since there's no atmosphere which spreads the light around. But...they had no such device, and there was no purpose in devising some sort of cone one could slip over his helmet to block out all sunlight.
You hear a reference to seeing stars through the "optics". He is referring to sightings which were taken to update the guidance computer aboard the LM through the Optical Alignment telescope (OAT). That telescope was specifically designed with a sun shield so that a segment of sky could be looked at and certain stars could be sighted, and marked, providing specific time and poisition data to the LM guidance system computer. It was specifically designed to block out sunlight and allow certain stars to be sighted in the black sky. It was an essential device for guidance and navigation updates.
So in this post, you say that Neil Armstrong, describing how he never saw any stars with the naked eye while on the surface is proof that we never landed on the Moon, citing an erroneous idea that they should've been able to see thousands of stars, without any supporting evidence to back that up.
It wasn't possible, Turb, given the visual conditions. This has been thoroughly explained before and can be easily demonstrated right here on earth on any clear night. Go to a night baseball game with all those daylight-creating lights shining down on the field, and try to see any stars in the clear sky. You can't. All you'll see is black. Leave the stadium, go someplace dark, let your eyes adapt, and the stars are now visible. This is a simple principle of visual acuity and capability, which applies here on Earth, and is even more pronounced in Space, where the sunlight is much more intense.
The only place where substantial stars could be seen in space was in those times (very few, in fact) where the spacecraft was on a night side pass, the cabin lights were shut down, and the eyes could dark adapt...in almost all operations, these conditions didn't exist. For most of the time a spacecraft was in flight, the Sun was in the sky brightly illuminating everything. Shades were installed on the windows for sleep periods to keep it out of the cabin.
p.s.
QUOTE
Here is where we first found out that stars (supposedly) cannot be seen if you're standing on the sunlit surface of the Moon!! (edited transcipt)....
Actually Turb, we never expected to see stars on the lunar surface. We had already been in space for 8 years, and the environment was well understood. This statement by Neil was simply a confirmation of what we already knew.
QUOTE(turbonium @ Oct 6 2007, 04:29 AM)
The sky is pitch black on the Moon. Just by looking upward, in any direction away from the Sun, you would see far more stars than you'd ever see anywhere, anytime, on Earth.
Good grief, you're still arguing "no stars"?
And have you never heard of dark adaptation?
Dark Adaptation
According to the linked article, this is a process that takes from nine minutes to get going well and takes thirty minutes to complete. You have watched the lunar surface video. Is it reasonable to expect an astronaut to stand still and tilt his head out of the sunlight and away from the surface for nine to thirty minutes when he has work to do? And if he turns his head in the slightest he loses his dark adaptation and has to start all over again.
Hoax believers have berated the Apollo astronauts before over what they called frivolous activities. Well, I can think of nothing so frivolous and wasteful than standing around doing nothing (working on the lunar surface required looking at what you were doing) waiting for your eyes to adapt so you can report seeing stars while your EVA clock was ticking and there was work to be done.
QUOTE(AtomicDog @ Oct 6 2007, 02:12 PM)
According to the linked article, this is a process that takes from nine minutes to get going well and takes thirty minutes to complete. You have watched the lunar surface video. Is it reasonable to expect an astronaut to stand still and tilt his head out of the sunlight and away from the surface for nine to thirty minutes when he has work to do? And if he turns his head in the slightest he loses his dark adaptation and has to start all over again.
Hoax believers have berated the Apollo astronauts before over what they called frivolous activities. Well, I can think of nothing so frivolous and wasteful than standing around doing nothing (working on the lunar surface required looking at what you were doing) waiting for your eyes to adapt so you can report seeing stars while your EVA clock was ticking and there was work to be done.
Hoax believers have berated the Apollo astronauts before over what they called frivolous activities. Well, I can think of nothing so frivolous and wasteful than standing around doing nothing (working on the lunar surface required looking at what you were doing) waiting for your eyes to adapt so you can report seeing stars while your EVA clock was ticking and there was work to be done.
Yes indeed Atomic..!
As I've indicated, observations of stars was not on the docket. Everything was planned in advanced and timed out, based upon estimated consumable usage. Standing around trying to see stars was not on the list of things to do, as the tasks were lunar surface observations, scientific station set up, sample collection, and surface photography.
Broad daylight activities. No time for attemting to get dark adapted...especially difficult when there was always something around you that was brightly lit.
In consideration of the purpose of the missions, and the environment in which these activities needed to be accomplished, the idea of attempting such a thing is rather silly.
I can't believe that turbonium, the one hoax proponent who appears to retain some rationality, can still propose the "no stars" argument.
Turbonium - go out and photograph some stars, then post the results here and tell us how you did it. Until then, there is no point in debating this.
Turbonium - go out and photograph some stars, then post the results here and tell us how you did it. Until then, there is no point in debating this.
QUOTE(MID @ Oct 5 2007, 10:05 PM)
Actually, that "aluminum box" wasn't a box, but a highly irregular combination of cylindrical (and other) sections which resulted in ~ 235 cu.ft. of volume....the same as a 6'x6'x6' cube. That was alot smaller than anyone's living room (more like a reasonable walk-in closet space). There were only two fellows in that thing. A small living room of say 15' x 12' x 8' has at least 6 time the volume of a LM cabin.
A small living room in the US might be 15' x 12' x 8', but here in blighty things are a tad smaller
For instance, we used to live in a terraced house, the living room was roughly 8' x 10' x 8'. QUOTE(MID @ Oct 5 2007, 10:05 PM)
I wonder why the Earth itself wouldn't be a reasonable place to find evidence of a sufficiently advance pre-historic civilization? No matter, I suppose, since no such evidence has been found in either place. With thousands of orbital photos, many thousands of surface photos, and all the film and video we have documenting the Apollo lunar missions, I think it would be rather hard to cover anything up...
This one is easy, "if" there had ever been an advanced pre-historic civilisation, with no atmosphere, and no inhabitants since its last visit, the moon would provide the perfect place for preserving the evidence.
QUOTE
'Duality' date='Oct 7 2007, 05:54 AM'
A small living room in the US might be 15' x 12' x 8', but here in blighty things are a tad smaller For instance, we used to live in a terraced house, the living room was roughly 8' x 10' x 8'.
A small living room in the US might be 15' x 12' x 8', but here in blighty things are a tad smaller
For instance, we used to live in a terraced house, the living room was roughly 8' x 10' x 8'.Personally, I think that's sufficient. I like smaller. In the U.S. it appears that homes are being built bigger and bigger...way too big honestly.
How many 25 x 20 living rooms people have here that actually serve as a display facility for a never-used collection of expensive furniture is amazing.
If 8 x 10 x 8 was the size of your living room, then the "aluminum can" we used to land on the Moon was still only 1/3 that size!
QUOTE
QUOTE(MID @ Oct 5 2007, 10:05 PM)
I wonder why the Earth itself wouldn't be a reasonable place to find evidence of a sufficiently advance pre-historic civilization?
I wonder why the Earth itself wouldn't be a reasonable place to find evidence of a sufficiently advance pre-historic civilization?
QUOTE
This one is easy, "if" there had ever been an advanced pre-historic civilisation, with no atmosphere, and no inhabitants since its last visit, the moon would provide the perfect place for preserving the evidence.
So, you're saying that the Moon would preserve the artifacts, if a civilization had landed there, perhaps established a base of operation, etc.
I think this is probably true. It would likely be very well preserved, even if it had been abandoned for centuries.
But back to the original statement:
QUOTE
For myself, it was the possibility that the Government was covering up what it found on the Moon rather than never going there. If there had ever been any technologically advanced civilisation in earth's pre-history then the moon would be the obvious place to find evidence of them.
I am assuming that it "was" the possibility, and that based upon the obvious, it it no longer a possibility that the government covered something up?
QUOTE(MID @ Oct 7 2007, 08:19 PM)
So, you're saying that the Moon would preserve the artifacts, if a civilization had landed there, perhaps established a base of operation, etc.
I think this is probably true. It would likely be very well preserved, even if it had been abandoned for centuries.
But back to the original statement:
I am assuming that it "was" the possibility, and that based upon the obvious, it it no longer a possibility that the government covered something up?
I think this is probably true. It would likely be very well preserved, even if it had been abandoned for centuries.
But back to the original statement:
I am assuming that it "was" the possibility, and that based upon the obvious, it it no longer a possibility that the government covered something up?
Well, i think my faith will last a little longer yet.
QUOTE(Duality @ Oct 7 2007, 10:54 AM)
A small living room in the US might be 15' x 12' x 8', but here in blighty things are a tad smaller For instance, we used to live in a terraced house, the living room was roughly 8' x 10' x 8'.
For instance, we used to live in a terraced house, the living room was roughly 8' x 10' x 8'.A terraced house? That were luxury. We 'ad to live, eight of us, in an 'ole in the ground.
(sorry, had a Python moment there)
well i read only a bit and one day hope to read more 
. so won't make any serious commitment yet 
MIB (sorry make that MID) makes a decent point about the stars not being seen in the day.. but i don't know about a lot of other things..
..so my suggestion is for somebody who posts near the top of each new page to keep a small list of points that have been argued out and what prev pages to find them on. i know it's anal but if you want to have a serious discussion here, the cryptic words of a forum mod in this topic come to mind "if the topic is not found to be productive..(it may be closed whatever).." ..hmm what's productive i wonder?
i know it's my responsibility to read thru the prev posts if i have a serious interest, but 111 pages is something i am not prepared for at this time, which brings me to ask how did you let it get so large and still be talking about various uncoordinated stuff like MID so ..eloquently contributed to? if staff have indeed warned, then please do something to rectify situation or.. (why does the word 'proctology' suddenly come to mind? anyway back on topic) ah nothing.. it was a rant.. just start the reactor, douglas quad, and free mars
it IS strange how they suddenly just stopped going there, is it not? expenses do not seem to be the problem, because old moon propaganda has virtually the same charm as that B&W simpsons skit where they holiday on the moon.. they had plans to get there for strategic (and mineral) reasons also (and i've been hearing some buzz recently about something i think called helium3 to be gleaned there?) and everything else i'm ignorant about
..they had these bright hopes or projected those ideas into the public mind only to stop and stonewall ever since.. the space shuttle program (to an average drone from sector 7 such as me) is ..well, in a word "strange" ..consider this.. here they are about to embark on star-trek stuff and explore space and they're using outdated stuff to do it (i forsee problems at that last statement so i'll chuck in a mention of the many shuttle disasters and a nod in the direction of negligence)
..i did not see anything in these 111 pages about crosshairs/photo anomalies so what happened with that? hoax? Turb's list can maybe now include the rock that has the "C" marking (some say is the same as studio procedure for props) same with the stuff about the scafolding in the darkness (background) of some shots (i did not see this in 111 pages) ..and for you numerology fans out there.. 111+800=911 heh
multiple light sources seem apparent to me? if they claim no extraneous lights what's this from? (also the 111 page excuse there, make that list thing i mentioned to stop all this future spam?) ditto that with the reflections in the visors etc, my spacial-relations and maths or whatever it is are not so cool.. i can catch a ball but don't ask me to write a thesis on the moon landing or play snooker, so feel free to criticize me on that query.
there is also the nonsense of the many UFO reports in general to consider due to the nature of the mission, and things such as the statement made when they did the orbit of the dark side "I'd like to confirm that there is indeed a santa-claus" (let's not stray too much into psych related issues and why that particular wording was said, to me when taken with other little red pills, those words are strange to say the least.. why make that association? wasn't it the first time a human supposedly ever saw that particular side of the moon, or is this the obscured 'night-time' side of the moon? anyway it's got me all curious so educate me?) ..yeh that was a little bit of sarcasm there
well thnx for reading thus far.. will be back to see what you lot have to say and how things go.. didn't see much on supposed structures on moon or mars in 111 pages (i've mentioned 111 five times so far.. 5x111=555 equals.. oh damn.. i should have kept my mouth shut untill i did it 6 times to add that aura of menace to the post) posting on internet msg boards is so useless.. but thanks for letting me take a blog on the carpet
. so won't make any serious commitment yet MIB (sorry make that MID) makes a decent point about the stars not being seen in the day.. but i don't know about a lot of other things..
..so my suggestion is for somebody who posts near the top of each new page to keep a small list of points that have been argued out and what prev pages to find them on. i know it's anal but if you want to have a serious discussion here, the cryptic words of a forum mod in this topic come to mind "if the topic is not found to be productive..(it may be closed whatever).." ..hmm what's productive i wonder?
i know it's my responsibility to read thru the prev posts if i have a serious interest, but 111 pages is something i am not prepared for at this time, which brings me to ask how did you let it get so large and still be talking about various uncoordinated stuff like MID so ..eloquently contributed to? if staff have indeed warned, then please do something to rectify situation or.. (why does the word 'proctology' suddenly come to mind? anyway back on topic) ah nothing.. it was a rant.. just start the reactor, douglas quad, and free mars
it IS strange how they suddenly just stopped going there, is it not? expenses do not seem to be the problem, because old moon propaganda has virtually the same charm as that B&W simpsons skit where they holiday on the moon.. they had plans to get there for strategic (and mineral) reasons also (and i've been hearing some buzz recently about something i think called helium3 to be gleaned there?) and everything else i'm ignorant about
..they had these bright hopes or projected those ideas into the public mind only to stop and stonewall ever since.. the space shuttle program (to an average drone from sector 7 such as me) is ..well, in a word "strange" ..consider this.. here they are about to embark on star-trek stuff and explore space and they're using outdated stuff to do it (i forsee problems at that last statement so i'll chuck in a mention of the many shuttle disasters and a nod in the direction of negligence)
..i did not see anything in these 111 pages about crosshairs/photo anomalies so what happened with that? hoax? Turb's list can maybe now include the rock that has the "C" marking (some say is the same as studio procedure for props) same with the stuff about the scafolding in the darkness (background) of some shots (i did not see this in 111 pages) ..and for you numerology fans out there.. 111+800=911 heh
multiple light sources seem apparent to me? if they claim no extraneous lights what's this from? (also the 111 page excuse there, make that list thing i mentioned to stop all this future spam?) ditto that with the reflections in the visors etc, my spacial-relations and maths or whatever it is are not so cool.. i can catch a ball but don't ask me to write a thesis on the moon landing or play snooker, so feel free to criticize me on that query.
there is also the nonsense of the many UFO reports in general to consider due to the nature of the mission, and things such as the statement made when they did the orbit of the dark side "I'd like to confirm that there is indeed a santa-claus" (let's not stray too much into psych related issues and why that particular wording was said, to me when taken with other little red pills, those words are strange to say the least.. why make that association? wasn't it the first time a human supposedly ever saw that particular side of the moon, or is this the obscured 'night-time' side of the moon? anyway it's got me all curious so educate me?) ..yeh that was a little bit of sarcasm there
well thnx for reading thus far.. will be back to see what you lot have to say and how things go.. didn't see much on supposed structures on moon or mars in 111 pages (i've mentioned 111 five times so far.. 5x111=555 equals.. oh damn.. i should have kept my mouth shut untill i did it 6 times to add that aura of menace to the post) posting on internet msg boards is so useless.. but thanks for letting me take a blog on the carpet
Unit, there are several sites around debunking the more common Apollo hoax claims, including sites aimed at specific sources like Dark Moon or the Fox Conspiracy programme. I suggest you try some or all of these:
http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htm
http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm
http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/Apollo11/
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
http://ww.clavius.org
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Conspi...GototheMoon.htm
As for the C-rock, the C is missing on the best-quality scans and it appears that it was in fact a hair in the scanner.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images...6-107-17446.jpg
http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htm
http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm
http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/Apollo11/
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
http://ww.clavius.org
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Conspi...GototheMoon.htm
As for the C-rock, the C is missing on the best-quality scans and it appears that it was in fact a hair in the scanner.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images...6-107-17446.jpg
QUOTE(unit @ Oct 9 2007, 01:46 PM)
..so my suggestion is for somebody who posts near the top of each new page to keep a small list of points that have been argued out and what prev pages to find them on.
I'm not sure why you expect other people to do the work for you. If you are serious about learning then you can easily use the search function at the bottom of this page to find the posts you are interested in. This thread and this site is not run for you convenience I'm afraid and that seems unlikely to change.
'unit' date='Oct 9 2007, 08:46 AM'
Thanks for the compliment. As Waspie said there is a search function. If you think 111 pages is alot, you should go look at the "grandaddy". I think that was over 250 pages, and 4000 posts!
Not really strange at all. Rather typical actually, if you take the time to study America, it's people's tendency to become jaded with the extraordinary in rather short order, and also realize who's program Apollo was, who the President of the United States was at the time of Apollo greatest accomplishments, and what was going on with him.
Expense has never been a problem for America. You're correct. It's used as an excuse, but it's not a reason for scrapping Apollo. Considering what Americans spend their money on, and in what quantities, Apollo was a drop in the bucket.
I'm not sure what you mean by embarking on "star trek stuff" with "outdated stuff". Star Trek stuff is in the realm of fantasy. What we're embarking on in reality is not. The machinery we've developed, and which we are developing is state of the art technology.
I think there was a snippet about the Resseau marks earlier on, but the matter was thoroughly fleshed out in the prior thread, as well as all the other "photo anomalies" (including the famous C-rock).
The bottom line was this:
There were no anomalies in lunar surface photos. There were only illustrations of lack of understanding of basic photographic representations.
Resseau marks commonly disappear in high contrast areas, and there was no "C" on that rock. As Swanny indicated, that was artifact produced on multi-generational prints of that photo. There was no scaffolding anywhere (I don't think I ever heard that...?).
One shouldn't criticize you on a query.
There were no multiple light sources, and there is no evidence of such things (save in the minds of some folks who refuse to understand what they're seeing, and where they're seeing them).
The impression of differing shadow directions is typical on two dimensional reproductions of three dimensional things. It happens on Earth photos as well as on lunar photos and it is utterly common. It also appeared profoundly on assembled panoramae for completely logical reasons...and it had better, or as I've said previously, something's terribly wrong with reality.
The only light souce was the Sun, and that's plenty.
Reflections in the visors?
There was some discusion about people seeing things in reflections on visors...but reflections on visors were simply that, reflections off of a curved mirror. Making an issue about these things was frankly a profound stretch of the imagination...
I could swear this was recently discussed (again), by ME!
The statement was uttered by Jim Lovell, Apollo 8, 24 December 1968 (Recognize the date? Christmas eve, 1968...Ho ho ho, Santa Claus, etc...), upon emerging from the back side of the Moon following the first successful Trans-Earth Injection burn of the Service Modules SPS engine. Now, this engine had to fire properly in order to get these men home, and it did. Jim Lovell's highly professional and sedate comment sent cheers through the MOCR in Houston, because all these educated men knew exactly what it meant.
Translated, the statement meant:
"Houston, that damned engine fired right on time and burned smoothly for the exact amount of time it was supposed to and we are on our way home and we're gonna have a chance to live rather than being stranded around the Moon, condemned to die of asphyxiation! We are happier than hell, and what a Christmas present that is!"
I trust that makes the Santa Claus reference clear? Chrismas eve, the first men to the Moon are coming home, lots of relief and happiness, etc....?
You're most welcome.
The supposed structures on the Moon (of which there are none, and there has never been any evidence of) have been discussed ad-nauseam in the UFO threads.
QUOTE
i know it's my responsibility to read thru the prev posts if i have a serious interest, but 111 pages is something i am not prepared for at this time, which brings me to ask how did you let it get so large and still be talking about various uncoordinated stuff like MID so ..eloquently contributed to?
Thanks for the compliment. As Waspie said there is a search function. If you think 111 pages is alot, you should go look at the "grandaddy". I think that was over 250 pages, and 4000 posts!
QUOTE
it IS strange how they suddenly just stopped going there, is it not? expenses do not seem to be the problem, because old moon propaganda has virtually the same charm as that B&W simpsons skit where they holiday on the moon.. they had plans to get there for strategic (and mineral) reasons also (and i've been hearing some buzz recently about something i think called helium3 to be gleaned there?) and everything else i'm ignorant about
Not really strange at all. Rather typical actually, if you take the time to study America, it's people's tendency to become jaded with the extraordinary in rather short order, and also realize who's program Apollo was, who the President of the United States was at the time of Apollo greatest accomplishments, and what was going on with him.
Expense has never been a problem for America. You're correct. It's used as an excuse, but it's not a reason for scrapping Apollo. Considering what Americans spend their money on, and in what quantities, Apollo was a drop in the bucket.
QUOTE
..they had these bright hopes or projected those ideas into the public mind only to stop and stonewall ever since.. the space shuttle program (to an average drone from sector 7 such as me) is ..well, in a word "strange" ..consider this.. here they are about to embark on star-trek stuff and explore space and they're using outdated stuff to do it (i forsee problems at that last statement so i'll chuck in a mention of the many shuttle disasters and a nod in the direction of negligence)
I'm not sure what you mean by embarking on "star trek stuff" with "outdated stuff". Star Trek stuff is in the realm of fantasy. What we're embarking on in reality is not. The machinery we've developed, and which we are developing is state of the art technology.
QUOTE
..i did not see anything in these 111 pages about crosshairs/photo anomalies so what happened with that? hoax? Turb's list can maybe now include the rock that has the "C" marking (some say is the same as studio procedure for props) same with the stuff about the scafolding in the darkness (background) of some shots (i did not see this in 111 pages) ..and for you numerology fans out there.. 111+800=911 heh
I think there was a snippet about the Resseau marks earlier on, but the matter was thoroughly fleshed out in the prior thread, as well as all the other "photo anomalies" (including the famous C-rock).
The bottom line was this:
There were no anomalies in lunar surface photos. There were only illustrations of lack of understanding of basic photographic representations.
Resseau marks commonly disappear in high contrast areas, and there was no "C" on that rock. As Swanny indicated, that was artifact produced on multi-generational prints of that photo. There was no scaffolding anywhere (I don't think I ever heard that...?).
QUOTE
multiple light sources seem apparent to me? if they claim no extraneous lights what's this from? (also the 111 page excuse there, make that list thing i mentioned to stop all this future spam?) ditto that with the reflections in the visors etc, my spacial-relations and maths or whatever it is are not so cool.. i can catch a ball but don't ask me to write a thesis on the moon landing or play snooker, so feel free to criticize me on that query.
One shouldn't criticize you on a query.
There were no multiple light sources, and there is no evidence of such things (save in the minds of some folks who refuse to understand what they're seeing, and where they're seeing them).
The impression of differing shadow directions is typical on two dimensional reproductions of three dimensional things. It happens on Earth photos as well as on lunar photos and it is utterly common. It also appeared profoundly on assembled panoramae for completely logical reasons...and it had better, or as I've said previously, something's terribly wrong with reality.
The only light souce was the Sun, and that's plenty.
Reflections in the visors?
There was some discusion about people seeing things in reflections on visors...but reflections on visors were simply that, reflections off of a curved mirror. Making an issue about these things was frankly a profound stretch of the imagination...
QUOTE
there is also the nonsense of the many UFO reports in general to consider due to the nature of the mission, and things such as the statement made when they did the orbit of the dark side "I'd like to confirm that there is indeed a santa-claus" (let's not stray too much into psych related issues and why that particular wording was said, to me when taken with other little red pills, those words are strange to say the least.. why make that association? wasn't it the first time a human supposedly ever saw that particular side of the moon, or is this the obscured 'night-time' side of the moon? anyway it's got me all curious so educate me?) ..yeh that was a little bit of sarcasm there
I could swear this was recently discussed (again), by ME!
The statement was uttered by Jim Lovell, Apollo 8, 24 December 1968 (Recognize the date? Christmas eve, 1968...Ho ho ho, Santa Claus, etc...), upon emerging from the back side of the Moon following the first successful Trans-Earth Injection burn of the Service Modules SPS engine. Now, this engine had to fire properly in order to get these men home, and it did. Jim Lovell's highly professional and sedate comment sent cheers through the MOCR in Houston, because all these educated men knew exactly what it meant.
Translated, the statement meant:
"Houston, that damned engine fired right on time and burned smoothly for the exact amount of time it was supposed to and we are on our way home and we're gonna have a chance to live rather than being stranded around the Moon, condemned to die of asphyxiation! We are happier than hell, and what a Christmas present that is!"
I trust that makes the Santa Claus reference clear? Chrismas eve, the first men to the Moon are coming home, lots of relief and happiness, etc....?
QUOTE
well thnx for reading thus far.. will be back to see what you lot have to say and how things go.. didn't see much on supposed structures on moon or mars in 111 pages
You're most welcome.
The supposed structures on the Moon (of which there are none, and there has never been any evidence of) have been discussed ad-nauseam in the UFO threads.
MID.....
You need to look at the footage in this thread: AMAZING lost moon landing footage in Jokes and Humor
Then tell me we actually went to the moon!!!
the Cat
You need to look at the footage in this thread: AMAZING lost moon landing footage in Jokes and Humor
Then tell me we actually went to the moon!!!
the Cat
QUOTE(RabidCat @ Oct 9 2007, 06:03 PM)
MID.....
You need to look at the footage in this thread: AMAZING lost moon landing footage in Jokes and Humor
Then tell me we actually went to the moon!!!
the Cat
You need to look at the footage in this thread: AMAZING lost moon landing footage in Jokes and Humor
Then tell me we actually went to the moon!!!
the Cat
Oddly enough, I just did Cat!!!!
Amazing concurrance!
It confirms everything that's ever been said about arc lights, secondary lighting racks, etc...
I am completely defeated....
QUOTE(MID @ Oct 9 2007, 03:48 PM)
Oddly enough, I just did Cat!!!!
Amazing concurrance!
It confirms everything that's ever been said about arc lights, secondary lighting racks, etc...
I am completely defeated....
Amazing concurrance!
It confirms everything that's ever been said about arc lights, secondary lighting racks, etc...
I am completely defeated....
Ha. Right. And I'm forty feet tall. But it is fun, isn't it?
QUOTE(MID @ Oct 6 2007, 10:54 AM)
You conclude this proves Apollo was faked because you conclude that since the sky was black you should've been able to see far more stars than you would ever see anytime, anywhere on Earth? He clearly confirmed the obvious! You can't see them in broad daylight. It's not nightime there, Turb.
There is a considerable difference between "broad daylight" on Earth and "broad daylight" on the Moon. The lunar "sky" is very much like our night-time sky, except for the presence of the Sun.
QUOTE(MID @ Oct 6 2007, 10:54 AM)
The eyes have sunlight infiltrating them all the time.
Not true, on the Moon. On the daylight side of the Moon, there is no sunlight infiltrating the eyes when looking up, away from the lunar surface and away from the Sun. You would see thousands of stars, dotting the pitch black darkness of deep space.
QUOTE(MID @ Oct 6 2007, 10:54 AM)
The eye, despite the lack of atmosphere, cannot adapt to see the relatively dim stars when a blazing sun is illuminating everything around you more brilliantly than it could possibly do on Earth. And, they were using two sets of sun shades on their helmet visors!
A blazing sun is NOT illuminating everything around you on the Moon. As I said, there is no sunlight entering the eyes when you look up and above the lunar surface, away from the Sun. Only a blanket of stars against the black canvas of space.
QUOTE(MID @ Oct 6 2007, 10:54 AM)
It wasn't possible, Turb, given the visual conditions. This has been thoroughly explained before and can be easily demonstrated right here on earth on any clear night. Go to a night baseball game with all those daylight-creating lights shining down on the field, and try to see any stars in the clear sky. You can't. All you'll see is black. Leave the stadium, go someplace dark, let your eyes adapt, and the stars are now visible. This is a simple principle of visual acuity and capability, which applies here on Earth, and is even more pronounced in Space, where the sunlight is much more intense.
The reason you can't see any stars at a night baseball game is because the lights are within your field of vision when you look up to the sky, either directly, or from haze scattering the light. That's the same reason you see far fewer stars in the city than you do in the suburbs, and fewer stars in the suburbs than out in the isolated countryside, or out in the desert. But on the Moon, you can look up, away from the Sun, and there is no atmospheric haze to interfere with your view of the stars.
Not that it would be necessary - because you could look up and see stars regardless of where you stood on the sunlit surface of the Moon - but consider if you were standing on the Moon, in the shadow of a large object, such as the LM. The only light you would see is several feet away from your position, on the lunar surface, beyond the shadow being cast by the LM.
Now, facing the direction of the LM shadow, with your back to the LM-blocked Sun, you raise your head up and look towards the sky. You would see countless stars.
Where would light come from to enter into your field of vision on the Moon, if you looked up and away from the Sun? In order to have light infiltrate your view, there has to be a source for it to emanate from. The only sources of light on the Moon are the direct light of the Sun, and the indirect light from the lunar surface or reflections coming from other objects on the ground (equipment, etc.). By pointing your eyes away from the direct light of the Sun, and away from the indirect light of the lunar surface and objects on the ground, there is no sunlight - either direct or indirect - to infiltrate your vision.
QUOTE(AtomicDog @ Oct 6 2007, 11:12 AM)
Good grief, you're still arguing "no stars"?
And have you never heard of dark adaptation?
Dark Adaptation
According to the linked article, this is a process that takes from nine minutes to get going well and takes thirty minutes to complete. You have watched the lunar surface video. Is it reasonable to expect an astronaut to stand still and tilt his head out of the sunlight and away from the surface for nine to thirty minutes when he has work to do? And if he turns his head in the slightest he loses his dark adaptation and has to start all over again.
Hoax believers have berated the Apollo astronauts before over what they called frivolous activities. Well, I can think of nothing so frivolous and wasteful than standing around doing nothing (working on the lunar surface required looking at what you were doing) waiting for your eyes to adapt so you can report seeing stars while your EVA clock was ticking and there was work to be done.
And have you never heard of dark adaptation?
Dark Adaptation
According to the linked article, this is a process that takes from nine minutes to get going well and takes thirty minutes to complete. You have watched the lunar surface video. Is it reasonable to expect an astronaut to stand still and tilt his head out of the sunlight and away from the surface for nine to thirty minutes when he has work to do? And if he turns his head in the slightest he loses his dark adaptation and has to start all over again.
Hoax believers have berated the Apollo astronauts before over what they called frivolous activities. Well, I can think of nothing so frivolous and wasteful than standing around doing nothing (working on the lunar surface required looking at what you were doing) waiting for your eyes to adapt so you can report seeing stars while your EVA clock was ticking and there was work to be done.
Dark adaptation is a phenomenon related to the Earth's environment, not to the conditions which exist on the sunlit surface of the Moon. As your source states...
The eye takes approximately 30 minutes to fully adapt from bright sunlight to complete darkness..
Bright sunlight on the Earth includes a bright blue sky. In the "daylight" of the Moon, the sky is entirely dark except for the Sun.
Standing or walking around outside on Earth, we have both the ground and the sky in our field of view. When standing or walking around on the Moon, both the dark lunar sky and the sunlit lunar surface are in your field of view.
The astronauts would be exposed to both dark and light, as they stood or walked around on the Moon. They wouldn't continuously stare down into the sunlit surface, or stare directly into the Sun! There is no "dark adaptation" involved in this environment.
QUOTE(flyingswan @ Oct 6 2007, 03:36 PM)
I can't believe that turbonium, the one hoax proponent who appears to retain some rationality, can still propose the "no stars" argument.
Turbonium - go out and photograph some stars, then post the results here and tell us how you did it. Until then, there is no point in debating this.
Turbonium - go out and photograph some stars, then post the results here and tell us how you did it. Until then, there is no point in debating this.
I'm not talking about photographing stars, flyingswan. I'm talking about looking at stars on the sunlit lunar surface by eye.
QUOTE(turbonium @ Oct 10 2007, 03:57 AM)
Dark adaptation is a phenomenon related to the Earth's environment, not to the conditions which exist on the sunlit surface of the Moon. As your source states...
The eye takes approximately 30 minutes to fully adapt from bright sunlight to complete darkness..
Bright sunlight on the Earth includes a bright blue sky. In the "daylight" of the Moon, the sky is entirely dark except for the Sun.
Standing or walking around outside on Earth, we have both the ground and the sky in our field of view. When standing or walking around on the Moon, both the dark lunar sky and the sunlit lunar surface are in your field of view.
The astronauts would be exposed to both dark and light, as they stood or walked around on the Moon. They wouldn't continuously stare down into the sunlit surface, or stare directly into the Sun! There is no "dark adaptation" involved in this environment.
The eye takes approximately 30 minutes to fully adapt from bright sunlight to complete darkness..
Bright sunlight on the Earth includes a bright blue sky. In the "daylight" of the Moon, the sky is entirely dark except for the Sun.
Standing or walking around outside on Earth, we have both the ground and the sky in our field of view. When standing or walking around on the Moon, both the dark lunar sky and the sunlit lunar surface are in your field of view.
The astronauts would be exposed to both dark and light, as they stood or walked around on the Moon. They wouldn't continuously stare down into the sunlit surface, or stare directly into the Sun! There is no "dark adaptation" involved in this environment.
Dark Adaptation is a phenomenon that is related to the human eye, not the environment it is in. It behaves exactly the same, whether the light is entering on the Moon or on the Earth, it is irrelevant. You seem to think they can just turn away from the Sun, and then be able to see stars. You seem to forget that the surface is brightly lit as well. So whatever direction the Astronaut faces, light will be entering the eye. Infact, based on the shape of the EVA helmet, I'd say they would have to tip the head back a full 90 degrees to prevent any light entering the helmet, thus enabling the eye to adapt to the darkness, and even then I'd guess light would still enter because it would be able to enter from underneath and reflect back to the astronauts eyes. The only way I could see them seeing stars would be if they looked through a tube which completely blocked all the light out.
QUOTE(turbonium @ Oct 9 2007, 10:57 PM)
Dark adaptation is a phenomenon related to the Earth's environment, not to the conditions which exist on the sunlit surface of the Moon. As your source states...
Cite?
I think the point Turbs is trying to make is that you don't need to be fully dark-adapted to actually see stars, which is correct. It may be a requirement for the best possible seeing, and to see nebulae and faint galaxies etc even through bions or a telescope, but it isn't a requirement. To actually see stars (on the moon), the only requirement is that your iris is open sufficiently to allow enough starlight in. Unfortunately, on the surface of the daylight side of the moon, there is going to be an awful lot of light reflected off the surface that will keep the iris small. Looking directly upwards would reduce this to a certain degree, but you're still going to get light entering the eye. To compound things, it's impossible to look directly upwards anyway due to the design of the spacesuit and helmet (without lying flat on the surface).
I think it might be possible if an astronaut were working in the shadow of the LM, and close enough to the LM that most extraneous light was blocked out (possibly using the side shades on the later helmets). With the sun blocked out by the LM, it may well be possible to see some stars looking as high as possible, to either side of the LM itself. However, looking backwards away from the LM would start closing the iris up again since a lot of light would be reflected back into the eye by the lunar surface.
From inside the LM, I think the best chance of seeing stars would be sitting on the floor of the LM, below the level of the window, and looking upwards. Whether any of the astronauts did this or not I don't know. I read a few days ago that there was mention of using an improvised cardboard tube or similar to block out light while looking out of the LM windows on Apollo 11, but they never actually got round to doing it. It's also possible they did this during rest periods that aren't transcribed on the ALSJ (do you really want details of them taking a dump?)
I think it might be possible if an astronaut were working in the shadow of the LM, and close enough to the LM that most extraneous light was blocked out (possibly using the side shades on the later helmets). With the sun blocked out by the LM, it may well be possible to see some stars looking as high as possible, to either side of the LM itself. However, looking backwards away from the LM would start closing the iris up again since a lot of light would be reflected back into the eye by the lunar surface.
From inside the LM, I think the best chance of seeing stars would be sitting on the floor of the LM, below the level of the window, and looking upwards. Whether any of the astronauts did this or not I don't know. I read a few days ago that there was mention of using an improvised cardboard tube or similar to block out light while looking out of the LM windows on Apollo 11, but they never actually got round to doing it. It's also possible they did this during rest periods that aren't transcribed on the ALSJ (do you really want details of them taking a dump?)
There were some astronauts that did report seeing stars on the Moon while standing in the shadow of the LM and taking the time for their eyes to adapt. Others did not report seeing stars as they were busy working. What's the point?
QUOTE(turbonium @ Oct 10 2007, 04:07 AM)
I'm not talking about photographing stars, flyingswan. I'm talking about looking at stars on the sunlit lunar surface by eye.
The key fact here is the difference in brightness between stars and a sunlit foreground. If you don't appreciate this difference, you make a lot of very silly statements (see your posts above). Trying to photograph stars is an excellent way of gaining the required appreciation.
QUOTE(flyingswan @ Oct 10 2007, 07:18 PM)
The key fact here is the difference in brightness between stars and a sunlit foreground. If you don't appreciate this difference, you make a lot of very silly statements (see your posts above). Trying to photograph stars is an excellent way of gaining the required appreciation.
I think Sunofone said he was going to do this... he has yet to post pics, like so many things he says he can't back up.
QUOTE
'turbonium' date='Oct 9 2007, 10:32 PM'
There is a considerable difference between "broad daylight" on Earth and "broad daylight" on the Moon. The lunar "sky" is very much like our night-time sky, except for the presence of the Sun.
There is a considerable difference between "broad daylight" on Earth and "broad daylight" on the Moon. The lunar "sky" is very much like our night-time sky, except for the presence of the Sun.
Turb, that Sun in the sky makes all the difference...
QUOTE
Not true, on the Moon. On the daylight side of the Moon, there is no sunlight infiltrating the eyes when looking up, away from the lunar surface and away from the Sun. You would see thousands of stars, dotting the pitch black darkness of deep space.
It appears to me that you are disregarding the facts.
In any directioon you look, without being able to shield all direct or indirect sunlight from the eyes, your iris is going to be contracted. Inside that suit, you'll be catching reflections off of the helmet and through the glass on the curved outside. All of this will cause a contration which will make it impossible to see stars. What is necessary is to completely block out all reflected light. There was no such provision on the Apollo helmet to do this.
The human eye can see anything within almost half a sky (~140 degrees vertically and nearly 180 degrees horizontally, depending on the person). Any light in that range will affect the iris. Youi need a complete light shade in order to do what you're implying, and we didn't have one.
QUOTE
A blazing sun is NOT illuminating everything around you on the Moon. As I said, there is no sunlight entering the eyes when you look up and above the lunar surface, away from the Sun. Only a blanket of stars against the black canvas of space.
Not so. You will nearly always pick up something illuminated by the blazing Sun with the field of vision that human eyes have.
QUOTE
The reason you can't see any stars at a night baseball game is because the lights are within your field of vision when you look up to the sky, either directly, or from haze scattering the light. That's the same reason you see far fewer stars in the city than you do in the suburbs, and fewer stars in the suburbs than out in the isolated countryside, or out in the desert. But on the Moon, you can look up, away from the Sun, and there is no atmospheric haze to interfere with your view of the stars.
As I've indicated, you'd have to shield the eyes completely from all light, which means you'd need a narrow field of view and something to completely block out light. This applies on the Moon, and on Earth, although on Earth, in certain circumstances, haze will refract light around itself, and can seriously inhibit seeing even if you block out all direct or reflected light from ground sources.
QUOTE
Not that it would be necessary - because you could look up and see stars regardless of where you stood on the sunlit surface of the Moon - but consider if you were standing on the Moon, in the shadow of a large object, such as the LM. The only light you would see is several feet away from your position, on the lunar surface, beyond the shadow being cast by the LM.
And if any of that got into your field of view (which is almost a certainty, you still would have iris contraction. Even looking up...you can still perceive a large field of view.
QUOTE
Where would light come from to enter into your field of vision on the Moon, if you looked up and away from the Sun?
Already explained. The field of view of the human eye is very large.
Neil Armstrong confirmed that he couldn't see any stars, save when using the optics, the OAT, which as I explained, had a sun shield on it because the principal is the same as that I've explained. You must block out all direct and indirect light in order to look into the blackness and see stars. The OAT shield did that and allowed the optic a clean unobstructed view of a much smaller field of the blackness than the suits allowed a human eye to see.
It was designed to allow what humans couldn't do on the surface. There is too much light, and too much reflected light bouncing all around. The human eye will always have bright light coming into it on the Moon, even in shadow, because our field of perception can see things outside the confines of shadow. Further, and as has been pointed out, we had no way to shield all light reflection out of the helmets, we had curved glass plates on the front of the helmets with several layers, and it was impossible to bend backward enough to even attempt to look straight up, as well as ill-advised, since one necessarily had to hunch forward a bit in order to center all that PLSS mass over the body's CG. All one could do was tilt ones head back and look up.
It wasn't possible to see stars in the daylight on the Moon.
QUOTE(turbonium @ Oct 9 2007, 10:57 PM)
Dark adaptation is a phenomenon related to the Earth's environment, not to the conditions which exist on the sunlit surface of the Moon. As your source states...
The eye takes approximately 30 minutes to fully adapt from bright sunlight to complete darkness..
Bright sunlight on the Earth includes a bright blue sky. In the "daylight" of the Moon, the sky is entirely dark except for the Sun.
Standing or walking around outside on Earth, we have both the ground and the sky in our field of view. When standing or walking around on the Moon, both the dark lunar sky and the sunlit lunar surface are in your field of view.
The astronauts would be exposed to both dark and light, as they stood or walked around on the Moon. They wouldn't continuously stare down into the sunlit surface, or stare directly into the Sun! There is no "dark adaptation" involved in this environment.
The eye takes approximately 30 minutes to fully adapt from bright sunlight to complete darkness..
Bright sunlight on the Earth includes a bright blue sky. In the "daylight" of the Moon, the sky is entirely dark except for the Sun.
Standing or walking around outside on Earth, we have both the ground and the sky in our field of view. When standing or walking around on the Moon, both the dark lunar sky and the sunlit lunar surface are in your field of view.
The astronauts would be exposed to both dark and light, as they stood or walked around on the Moon. They wouldn't continuously stare down into the sunlit surface, or stare directly into the Sun! There is no "dark adaptation" involved in this environment.
This is utterly untrue, Turb. Dark adaptation is a function of the human eye, as has been pointed out...not the particular environment.
It is more pronounced in space than it is on the Earth, because the light is more intense on the Moon and in Space than it is on Earth.
The light is many times brighter than it is on Earth. They are constantly perceiving it, even if they walk through shadows...the brightly lit outer areas are still visible.
QUOTE
'postbaguk' date='Oct 10 2007, 08:43 AM'
I think it might be possible if an astronaut were working in the shadow of the LM, and close enough to the LM that most extraneous light was blocked out (possibly using the side shades on the later helmets). With the sun blocked out by the LM, it may well be possible to see some stars looking as high as possible, to either side of the LM itself. However, looking backwards away from the LM would start closing the iris up again since a lot of light would be reflected back into the eye by the lunar surface.
I think it might be possible if an astronaut were working in the shadow of the LM, and close enough to the LM that most extraneous light was blocked out (possibly using the side shades on the later helmets). With the sun blocked out by the LM, it may well be possible to see some stars looking as high as possible, to either side of the LM itself. However, looking backwards away from the LM would start closing the iris up again since a lot of light would be reflected back into the eye by the lunar surface.
Perhaps, Posty, but given the balance issue with that PLSS strapped on one's back, that might be a hazard! And, you'd have to make certain that you weren't catching any thing reflecting from anything in your field of view, or refracting through your visors...I think a large tube would be necessary to do this with any success, one which would cover your hat and extend out some distance.
QUOTE
From inside the LM, I think the best chance of seeing stars would be sitting on the floor of the LM, below the level of the window, and looking upwards. Whether any of the astronauts did this or not I don't know. I read a few days ago that there was mention of using an improvised cardboard tube or similar to block out light while looking out of the LM windows on Apollo 11, but they never actually got round to doing it. It's also possible they did this during rest periods that aren't transcribed on the ALSJ (do you really want details of them taking a dump?)
...no, I don't think we need any accounts of that little chore! ...Inside the LM, doing what you say, the only up-looking window was the rendezvous window over the CDR's station. That was on top of the LM, looking up, yes, but the body of the LM roof, and the VHF antenna were up there too, reflecting sunlight off of them. They tried to block all the windows off so they wouldn't see any light and get some sleep up there (unsucessfully for the most part during the early missions).
The best was way actually the designed manner...looking through the OAT to get star sightings for NAV fixes.
QUOTE(MID @ Oct 10 2007, 11:42 PM)
...Inside the LM, doing what you say, the only up-looking window was the rendezvous window over the CDR's station. That was on top of the LM, looking up, yes, but the body of the LM roof, and the VHF antenna were up there too, reflecting sunlight off of them. They tried to block all the windows off so they wouldn't see any light and get some sleep up there (unsucessfully for the most part during the early missions).
The best was way actually the designed manner...looking through the OAT to get star sightings for NAV fixes.
The best was way actually the designed manner...looking through the OAT to get star sightings for NAV fixes.
I tend to agree MID - however this particular line of enquiry is somewhat moot since it is impossible for anyone to prove empirically what it is possible to see, even on Earth. You need to get out tere and try it yourself. That's a tad more difficult on the moon of course.
The "no photos of stars from the moon" argument is very easily debunked of course.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Moving this argument in a different direction. I've heard the claim that NASA didn't fake photos because it was too difficult to do. Have CTs never heard of planetaria? They would be ideal for the job. Bung one of them inside one of Percy's geodesic domes and away you go. Suck out a bit of air to make the dust look realistic.
I knew I should have been a CT rather than on the side of truth!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let's not forget Venus. Was it Apollo 12 or 14 where it showed up (albeit quite faint) in about 9 or 10 photos, in just the spot where it should be according to Planetaria software?
QUOTE(MID @ Oct 10 2007, 03:20 PM)
Turb, that Sun in the sky makes all the difference...
It appears to me that you are disregarding the facts.
In any directioon you look, without being able to shield all direct or indirect sunlight from the eyes, your iris is going to be contracted. Inside that suit, you'll be catching reflections off of the helmet and through the glass on the curved outside. All of this will cause a contration which will make it impossible to see stars. What is necessary is to completely block out all reflected light. There was no such provision on the Apollo helmet to do this.
The human eye can see anything within almost half a sky (~140 degrees vertically and nearly 180 degrees horizontally, depending on the person). Any light in that range will affect the iris. Youi need a complete light shade in order to do what you're implying, and we didn't have one.
Not so. You will nearly always pick up something illuminated by the blazing Sun with the field of vision that human eyes have.
As I've indicated, you'd have to shield the eyes completely from all light, which means you'd need a narrow field of view and something to completely block out light. This applies on the Moon, and on Earth, although on Earth, in certain circumstances, haze will refract light around itself, and can seriously inhibit seeing even if you block out all direct or reflected light from ground sources.
And if any of that got into your field of view (which is almost a certainty, you still would have iris contraction. Even looking up...you can still perceive a large field of view.
Already explained. The field of view of the human eye is very large.
Neil Armstrong confirmed that he couldn't see any stars, save when using the optics, the OAT, which as I explained, had a sun shield on it because the principal is the same as that I've explained. You must block out all direct and indirect light in order to look into the blackness and see stars. The OAT shield did that and allowed the optic a clean unobstructed view of a much smaller field of the blackness than the suits allowed a human eye to see.
It was designed to allow what humans couldn't do on the surface. There is too much light, and too much reflected light bouncing all around. The human eye will always have bright light coming into it on the Moon, even in shadow, because our field of perception can see things outside the confines of shadow. Further, and as has been pointed out, we had no way to shield all light reflection out of the helmets, we had curved glass plates on the front of the helmets with several layers, and it was impossible to bend backward enough to even attempt to look straight up, as well as ill-advised, since one necessarily had to hunch forward a bit in order to center all that PLSS mass over the body's CG. All one could do was tilt ones head back and look up.
It wasn't possible to see stars in the daylight on the Moon.
It appears to me that you are disregarding the facts.
In any directioon you look, without being able to shield all direct or indirect sunlight from the eyes, your iris is going to be contracted. Inside that suit, you'll be catching reflections off of the helmet and through the glass on the curved outside. All of this will cause a contration which will make it impossible to see stars. What is necessary is to completely block out all reflected light. There was no such provision on the Apollo helmet to do this.
The human eye can see anything within almost half a sky (~140 degrees vertically and nearly 180 degrees horizontally, depending on the person). Any light in that range will affect the iris. Youi need a complete light shade in order to do what you're implying, and we didn't have one.
Not so. You will nearly always pick up something illuminated by the blazing Sun with the field of vision that human eyes have.
As I've indicated, you'd have to shield the eyes completely from all light, which means you'd need a narrow field of view and something to completely block out light. This applies on the Moon, and on Earth, although on Earth, in certain circumstances, haze will refract light around itself, and can seriously inhibit seeing even if you block out all direct or reflected light from ground sources.
And if any of that got into your field of view (which is almost a certainty, you still would have iris contraction. Even looking up...you can still perceive a large field of view.
Already explained. The field of view of the human eye is very large.
Neil Armstrong confirmed that he couldn't see any stars, save when using the optics, the OAT, which as I explained, had a sun shield on it because the principal is the same as that I've explained. You must block out all direct and indirect light in order to look into the blackness and see stars. The OAT shield did that and allowed the optic a clean unobstructed view of a much smaller field of the blackness than the suits allowed a human eye to see.
It was designed to allow what humans couldn't do on the surface. There is too much light, and too much reflected light bouncing all around. The human eye will always have bright light coming into it on the Moon, even in shadow, because our field of perception can see things outside the confines of shadow. Further, and as has been pointed out, we had no way to shield all light reflection out of the helmets, we had curved glass plates on the front of the helmets with several layers, and it was impossible to bend backward enough to even attempt to look straight up, as well as ill-advised, since one necessarily had to hunch forward a bit in order to center all that PLSS mass over the body's CG. All one could do was tilt ones head back and look up.
It wasn't possible to see stars in the daylight on the Moon.
You're greatly overestimating the reflectivity of the lunar surface, MID.
Visual albedo is defined by the “reflectivity of the surface of a planet, moon, asteroid, or other celestial body that does not shine by its own light. Albedo is measured as the fraction of incident light that the surface reflects back in all directions.
Earth’s albedo is 0.37...It should be pointed out that these planetary albedos are averages. Taking Earth as an example, clouds vary from 0.4 to 0.8, snow varies from 0.4 to 0.85, forests vary from 0.04 to 0.1, grass is about 0.15, and water varies from 0.02 with the Sun directly overhead to 0.8 at low levels of incidence. So the Earth’s albedo varies, and depends on the extent of cloudiness, snowfall, and the Sun’s angle of incidence on the oceans...Our Moon’s average albedo is 0.12. The brightness of the Moon changes dramatically as its phase changes. During first and third quarters, the visible Moon is 50% illuminated by the Sun, but its brightness is only about 8% of full Moon -- an increase of 2.7 magnitudes. The Moon’s visual albedo on its illuminated segment gets progressively smaller as the angle between the Earth and Sun on the Moon (phase angle) increases. A major reason for this decrease of albedo with increasing phase angle is the greater creation of shadows on the irregular lunar surface, thereby reducing reflected light back to Earth...As seen from the Moon, our Earth would look about 100x brighter than our full Moon. This is because of the Earth’s larger size and higher albedo.
http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut26-1.htm
Next to the sun, the full moon is the brightest object in the heavens. However, its surface is rough and brownish and reflects light very poorly. In fact, the moon is about the poorest reflector in the solar system. The amount of light reflected by a celestial object is called the albedo (Latin: albus, white). The moon relects only 7% of the sunlight that falls upon it, so the albedo is 0.07.
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Academy/UNIVERSE/MOON.HTML
Terrestrial albedo
Most land areas are in an albedo range of 10 to 40%. The average albedo of the Earth is about 30%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
MID - from looking into the sources (such as those above), it's quite evident that this claim...
"The human eye will always have bright light coming into it on the Moon, even in shadow, because our field of perception can see things outside the confines of shadow."
...is absolutely incorrect.
It's an indisputable fact that the lunar surface is a very poor reflector of light. Therefore, an astronaut on the Moon would not have "bright light coming into" his eyes from sunlight reflecting off the lunar surface. Even if we allow for such a phenomenon to exist (where the lunar surface became highly reflective and impaired the astronauts' ability to see stars), it would only occur under rare circumstances and conditions.
The lunar sky would always be in view from a standard upright position. That is, someone standing or walking on the lunar surface, looking straight ahead, would see both a sunlit surface and a star-filled black sky. He would not need to wrench his neck back, say, 20 or 40 degrees - because he would not need to take the lunar surface out of his range of vision in order for him to see stars!!
Even if the lunar surface had been the ever-present source of "bright light" you claim, he'd probably just have to
to solve the problem!Try it yourself - go outside, and cast your eyes skyward, without moving your neck back in the slightest. You'll be able to take most of the ground out of your range of vision.
Of course, there is so little reflection of sunlight off the lunar surface that this isn't a relevant issue, anyway.
The bottom line is that an astronaut on the Moon would easily be able to see stars in the sky. Thousands and thousands of stars. Without any doubt.
QUOTE(Trinitrotoluene @ Oct 10 2007, 03:02 AM)
Dark Adaptation is a phenomenon that is related to the human eye, not the environment it is in. It behaves exactly the same, whether the light is entering on the Moon or on the Earth, it is irrelevant. You seem to think they can just turn away from the Sun, and then be able to see stars. You seem to forget that the surface is brightly lit as well. So whatever direction the Astronaut faces, light will be entering the eye. Infact, based on the shape of the EVA helmet, I'd say they would have to tip the head back a full 90 degrees to prevent any light entering the helmet, thus enabling the eye to adapt to the darkness, and even then I'd guess light would still enter because it would be able to enter from underneath and reflect back to the astronauts eyes. The only way I could see them seeing stars would be if they looked through a tube which completely blocked all the light out.
Sorry. I meant that the article you cited was describing the phenomenon in an Earth environment, which is why I posted this relevant snippet from that article....
The eye takes approximately 30 minutes to fully adapt from bright sunlight to complete darkness..
As I said, "bright sunlight" on the Earth means everything around you is "lit up", so to speak, including a bright blue sky. But in the "daylight" of the Moon, the sky is very much dark, except for the Sun.
And again, the lunar surface is a very poor reflector of sunlight. No matter how "brightly lit" you may think the lunar surface is, it will not - and cannot - beam bright sunlight back up into the eyes of an astronaut!
QUOTE(turbonium @ Oct 11 2007, 05:34 AM)
<snip>
MID - from looking into the sources (such as those above), it's quite evident that this claim...
"The human eye will always have bright light coming into it on the Moon, even in shadow, because our field of perception can see things outside the confines of shadow."
...is absolutely incorrect.
MID - from looking into the sources (such as those above), it's quite evident that this claim...
"The human eye will always have bright light coming into it on the Moon, even in shadow, because our field of perception can see things outside the confines of shadow."
...is absolutely incorrect.
Turbs
Humans have nearly 180 degrees field of view. Source. Only someone suffering from tunnel vision wouldn't have bright light entering their eyes even when stood in shadow (unless on the shadow side of the LM, pointing towards it, and quite close to it).
QUOTE
It's an indisputable fact that the lunar surface is a very poor reflector of light. Therefore, an astronaut on the Moon would not have "bright light coming into" his eyes from sunlight reflecting off the lunar surface.
Non sequitur! Tarmac has a low albedo, so is also a poor reflector. Try standing next to a road in broad daylight and tell me there's no bright light entering your eyes.
QUOTE
Even if we allow for such a phenomenon to exist (where the lunar surface became highly reflective and impaired the astronauts' ability to see stars), it would only occur under rare circumstances and conditions.
The lunar sky would always be in view from a standard upright position. That is, someone standing or walking on the lunar surface, looking straight ahead, would see both a sunlit surface and a star-filled black sky. He would not need to wrench his neck back, say, 20 or 40 degrees - because he would not need to take the lunar surface out of his range of vision in order for him to see stars!!
Even if the lunar surface had been the ever-present source of "bright light" you claim, he'd probably just have to to solve the problem!
The lunar sky would always be in view from a standard upright position. That is, someone standing or walking on the lunar surface, looking straight ahead, would see both a sunlit surface and a star-filled black sky. He would not need to wrench his neck back, say, 20 or 40 degrees - because he would not need to take the lunar surface out of his range of vision in order for him to see stars!!
Even if the lunar surface had been the ever-present source of "bright light" you claim, he'd probably just have to
to solve the problem!Again you're ignoring peripheral vision and field of view. Just about wherever you look, there is going to be bright light entering the eyes from some angle. Most of the time it will be very noticeable.
QUOTE
Try it yourself - go outside, and cast your eyes skyward, without moving your neck back in the slightest. You'll be able to take most of the ground out of your range of vision.
It's still in your peripheral vision though Turbs, so your pupil diameter will be small.
QUOTE
Of course, there is so little reflection of sunlight off the lunar surface that this isn't a relevant issue, anyway.
The bottom line is that an astronaut on the Moon would easily be able to see stars in the sky. Thousands and thousands of stars. Without any doubt.
The bottom line is that an astronaut on the Moon would easily be able to see stars in the sky. Thousands and thousands of stars. Without any doubt.
On who's authority?
Let's ask an astronaut. A schoolkid posed that very question to Andy Thomas, an astronaut on board MIR.
Source
QUOTE
Can astronauts see stars while in space?
Answer: Well, yes, of course you can. You can see them just for the same reason you can see them at night. We circle the earth 16 times a day, and when we're on the dark side of the planet, when there's no sun, then you can see the panorama of stars much like you see on Earth. When we're on the light side, the sunlit side of the Earth, you can't see them because the sunlight is so bright it washes them all out, just as it does during the day on Earth.
Answer: Well, yes, of course you can. You can see them just for the same reason you can see them at night. We circle the earth 16 times a day, and when we're on the dark side of the planet, when there's no sun, then you can see the panorama of stars much like you see on Earth. When we're on the light side, the sunlit side of the Earth, you can't see them because the sunlight is so bright it washes them all out, just as it does during the day on Earth.
No offence Turbs but I'll take his word based on experience over your word based on conjecture any day of the week!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here's some another article on the moon's albedo.
http://jeff.medkeff.com/astro/lunar/obs_tech/albedo.htm
QUOTE
The following is a list of the "visual normal albedo at 5% phase angle" of various lunar features. These numbers can be used to directly compare to terrestrial surfaces (reference cited below):
Darkest areas: 8.6%
Tranquillitatis south of Plinius: 9.1%
Plato's floor: 9.6%
Serenitatis east of Linne: 10%
Imbrium south of Plato: 10.4%
Nectaris: 11.4%
Ptolemaeus floor: 13.1%
Arzachel: 17%
Tycho ejecta: 20%
Aristarchus: 20%
Aristarchus interior: 22%
Bright spot in Deslandres: 24%
Proclus E wall: 28%
Stevinus A, Abulfeda E: 30%
These values are, as you can see, considerably higher than the other lunar albedos given. For comparison, the albedo of a green golf course is about 13%, roughly the same as that of the Cayley Formation which covers the floor of Ptolemaeus. So you see, the moon is not quite as dark as is often claimed - something about in the middle range of lunar brightnesses is just as bright as a grassy yard at noon.
Darkest areas: 8.6%
Tranquillitatis south of Plinius: 9.1%
Plato's floor: 9.6%
Serenitatis east of Linne: 10%
Imbrium south of Plato: 10.4%
Nectaris: 11.4%
Ptolemaeus floor: 13.1%
Arzachel: 17%
Tycho ejecta: 20%
Aristarchus: 20%
Aristarchus interior: 22%
Bright spot in Deslandres: 24%
Proclus E wall: 28%
Stevinus A, Abulfeda E: 30%
These values are, as you can see, considerably higher than the other lunar albedos given. For comparison, the albedo of a green golf course is about 13%, roughly the same as that of the Cayley Formation which covers the floor of Ptolemaeus. So you see, the moon is not quite as dark as is often claimed - something about in the middle range of lunar brightnesses is just as bright as a grassy yard at noon.
All of this stumbling around in the trees of "seeing stars" leads me to once again ask the "forest" question?
Of what evidence of a hoax is seeing stars or not seeing stars?
We know that the public expects to see stars in space. Every space based sci-fi movie and TV show made has conditioned viewers to expect to see stars in space scenes and on airless worlds. Id NASA was producing a hoax, they would know this. Hell, you can even see NASA produced animations of space missions that have stars in them.
So, knowing that the public expected to see stars in space, the simplest thing to do would be to put them in the "hoaxed" photos and footage. Why didn't they?
Of what evidence of a hoax is seeing stars or not seeing stars?
We know that the public expects to see stars in space. Every space based sci-fi movie and TV show made has conditioned viewers to expect to see stars in space scenes and on airless worlds. Id NASA was producing a hoax, they would know this. Hell, you can even see NASA produced animations of space missions that have stars in them.
So, knowing that the public expected to see stars in space, the simplest thing to do would be to put them in the "hoaxed" photos and footage. Why didn't they?
QUOTE(AtomicDog @ Oct 11 2007, 03:12 PM)
So, knowing that the public expected to see stars in space, the simplest thing to do would be to put them in the "hoaxed" photos and footage. Why didn't they?
To pick up this point and run with it...
turbonium's claims are about what the astronauts should have seen not what could be photographed (I think he, unlike most of the rest of the HBs has realised that this is a thoroughly debunked claim and makes those who stick to it look very daft indeed).
Let's look at what turbonium is saying; the astronauts should have seen hundreds of stars on the Moon. Why then did they say they hadn't?
If Apollo was hoaxed then the astronauts should have been thoroughly prepared for the questions they were likely to be asked and told what answers to give. If they should have seen stars then this is what they would have been saying. If stars were easily visible then the answer they should have given in this situation would have been the one that appeased the HBs, but it wasn't.
Let's suppose for a minute that someone forgot to prepare them for this question, or all three highly trained, highly qualified, highly intelligent and highly professional astronauts simultaneously forgot the correct answer. The astronauts are taken by surprise and have to think of an answer on the spot and under pressure. They have all been on space missions before, they know what can and can't be seen and under what conditions. Caught on the hop they will almost certainly come up with the most likely answer they can think of. As the general public expected there to be hundreds of stars surely this is what the astronauts should have expected too. If they can see hundreds of stars in brightly lit conditions in Earth orbit then it seems to that the answer they would most likely have given in this situation was that they could see hundreds of stars. They didn't. Why not?
The third scenario I can think of that stars could not be easily seen from the lunar surface. In this scenario turbonium's has no case. Even if Apollo was faked then the astronauts answers were consistant with what they would actually seen anyway, and of course if they did walk on the Moon then turbonium has no case at all.
I can simply see no way in which the "they didn't see stars" = Apollo was faked argument has any logic to it at all.
QUOTE
'postbaguk' date='Oct 10 2007, 07:52 PM'
I tend to agree MID - however this particular line of enquiry is somewhat moot since it is impossible for anyone to prove empirically what it is possible to see, even on Earth. You need to get out tere and try it yourself. That's a tad more difficult on the moon of course.
The "no photos of stars from the moon" argument is very easily debunked of course.
I tend to agree MID - however this particular line of enquiry is somewhat moot since it is impossible for anyone to prove empirically what it is possible to see, even on Earth. You need to get out tere and try it yourself. That's a tad more difficult on the moon of course.
The "no photos of stars from the moon" argument is very easily debunked of course.
Indeed it is....
QUOTE
Let's not forget Venus. Was it Apollo 12 or 14 where it showed up (albeit quite faint) in about 9 or 10 photos, in just the spot where it should be according to Planetaria software?
I've read about that, but I can't remember which mission it was...it would stand to reason that Venus could indeed appear, with it's very low magnitude value. We can see it on Earth after sunrise in certain parts of the year, through the atmosphere, so it would certainly be visible on the lunar surface.
QUOTE(MID @ Oct 11 2007, 09:46 PM)
Indeed it is....
I've read about that, but I can't remember which mission it was...it would stand to reason that Venus could indeed appear, with it's very low magnitude value. We can see it on Earth after sunrise in certain parts of the year, through the atmosphere, so it would certainly be visible on the lunar surface.
I've read about that, but I can't remember which mission it was...it would stand to reason that Venus could indeed appear, with it's very low magnitude value. We can see it on Earth after sunrise in certain parts of the year, through the atmosphere, so it would certainly be visible on the lunar surface.
Here it is.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...6875&page=1
QUOTE
'turbonium' date='Oct 11 2007, 12:34 AM'
You're greatly overestimating the reflectivity of the lunar surface, MID.
You're greatly overestimating the reflectivity of the lunar surface, MID.
Something that I have noticed about HBs is that they utilize this term "albedo" without fully understanding it, and what it represents.
What you are doing is greatly overestimating the effect of albedo on the function of the human eye, and it's response to light reflecting off of anything at all that casts a reflection from a few feet away.
Albedo is relatively valueless when considering standing in a sunlit place.
Most major urban areas on Earth have an albedo about half of that of the lunar surface on average...yet, you sure see them in daylight. Albedo varies from a low level of about .08 to a high of about .30 on the Moon. All of this is of course easily visible in broad daylight.
What you need to realize is that 13% or 30% doesn't matter. One's brighter than the other, of course, but both, if lit by the sun, will cause the iris to contract to a level that exceedingly dim stars in the sky will not be visible unless you are shielded from all light, direct, or incidental. The Moon is very bright when lit by unfiltered sun and you're standing right there, just as any paved parking lot is here on earth. They both have about the same average albedo (in fact, many lunar surface features have more reflectivity than a parking lot).
I have a futon here with a black pad on it.
If I took that black pad outside, and shown a spotlight on it so I could see it in a dark night...I would clearly see it, and my iris would contract upon looking at it so I could not see stars. It's albedo is around .01, maybe. It's bright enough when you're right on top of it.
The apparent luminosity of virtually any sunlit object that you're looking at at close range is greater than the apparent luminosity of any star in the sky...the very brightest stars in the sky are 1, 0, maybe -1 (Venus is brighter and certainly could be seen)...only they have a remote chance of being seen relative to a mountain lit by the Sun on the lunar surface, who's magnitude is far greater, low albedo or not.
QUOTE
The lunar sky would always be in view from a standard upright position. That is, someone standing or walking on the lunar surface, looking straight ahead, would see both a sunlit surface and a star-filled black sky. He would not need to wrench his neck back, say, 20 or 40 degrees - because he would not need to take the lunar surface out of his range of vision in order for him to see stars!!
Yes, he would. Again, you don't understand the difference between albedo and apparent luminosity of objects.
QUOTE
Even if the lunar surface had been the ever-present source of "bright light" you claim, he'd probably just have to to solve the problem!
to solve the problem!He...didn't have a problem to solve. He wasn't there to look at stars, and he wasn't about to waste time attempting it.
QUOTE
Try it yourself - go outside, and cast your eyes skyward, without moving your neck back in the slightest. You'll be able to take most of the ground out of your range of vision.
Yes...but not all of it, and not the reflected light from the surface! Light bounces off at all sorts of angles, depending on its angle of incidence to the illuminated object. Even if you're looking away from objects, light is still coming into your eyes, especially in a spacesuit with a curved helmet visor which is refracting light itself at odd angles.
QUOTE
Of course, there is so little reflection of sunlight off the lunar surface that this isn't a relevant issue, anyway.
Again, you mistake albedo for luminosity. It's not so little. It's maybe half of the Earth's average, and more than many terrestrial surfaces, but the light coming into your eye from all quarters, even on the lunar surface is far and away more luminous than any star.
...if you must talk about albedo, you must also realize that the albedo of those white space suits was very high (light from which was reflecting into their face plates all the time), as was the albedo of all the equipment they were continually utilizing on the lunar surface. You know, they had a glare shield and a tinted visor for a reason...!
QUOTE
The bottom line is that an astronaut on the Moon would easily be able to see stars in the sky. Thousands and thousands of stars. Without any doubt.
If you have doubts about this, you have not fully researched the human eye, nor what albedo is intended to measure, nor the fact that it has nothing to do with what you're trying to imply, since you don't know that the quantity of light coming off of a lunar surface, or an Earth surface, when you're right there on it, is far greater than the quantity of light than any star puts into your eye.
It is really very simple principals of visual acuity and the function of the human eye which tells one that seeing stars on the daylight side of the Moon is not plausible. Neil Armstrong even confirmed this for you...and somehow, you used that as a piece of evidence to support your contention that they should've seen thousands of stars.
Your contention is completely incorrect. They couldn't be seen, and no one who was there will tell you otherwise. Further, no camera saw them either...for the same reasons that the eye didn't see them.
I don't know how much more simple it has to be.
It's really just this simple:
(AS14-66-9240)
There are no stars in this picture.
That's because the camera that took it had it's "iris" closed enough so that it could clearly image that low albedo surface, lit by blazing unfiltered sunlight, and as well, that fellow in the white suit and his TV camera, and the other junk on the ground.
That camera works very much like the human eye, which also cannot perceive the relatively very dim stars relative to the relatively bright stuff illuminated in the foreground.
(AS14-66-9240)
There are no stars in this picture.
That's because the camera that took it had it's "iris" closed enough so that it could clearly image that low albedo surface, lit by blazing unfiltered sunlight, and as well, that fellow in the white suit and his TV camera, and the other junk on the ground.
That camera works very much like the human eye, which also cannot perceive the relatively very dim stars relative to the relatively bright stuff illuminated in the foreground.
QUOTE(AtomicDog @ Oct 11 2007, 07:12 AM)
All of this stumbling around in the trees of "seeing stars" leads me to once again ask the "forest" question?
Of what evidence of a hoax is seeing stars or not seeing stars?
Of what evidence of a hoax is seeing stars or not seeing stars?
That's simple. If we actually can see stars from the sunlit lunar surface (which indeed we can), then Neil Armstrong did not set foot on the Moon, because he claimed that they were never able to see any stars from the lunar surface just by eye (without using the optics).
QUOTE(AtomicDog @ Oct 11 2007, 07:12 AM)
We know that the public expects to see stars in space. Every space based sci-fi movie and TV show made has conditioned viewers to expect to see stars in space scenes and on airless worlds. Id NASA was producing a hoax, they would know this. Hell, you can even see NASA produced animations of space missions that have stars in them.
So, knowing that the public expected to see stars in space, the simplest thing to do would be to put them in the "hoaxed" photos and footage. Why didn't they?
So, knowing that the public expected to see stars in space, the simplest thing to do would be to put them in the "hoaxed" photos and footage. Why didn't they?
This is a different issue. The reason(s) NASA didn't put stars in the photos and videos can only be speculated on, of course. The most common explanation I've come across is that it would have been extremely difficult - even impossible - for NASA to create accurate star maps, from the viewpoint of someone located at the various coordinates of the alleged Apollo landing sites. Some relevant info....
Astrometry is the branch of astronomy that relates to precise measurements and explanations of the positions and movements of stars and other celestial bodies...The history of astrometry is linked to the history of star catalogues, which gave astronomers reference points for objects in the sky so they could track their movements...n 1989, the European Space Agency's Hipparcos satellite took astrometry into orbit, where it could be less affected by mechanical forces of the Earth and optical distortions from its atmosphere. Operated from 1989 to 1993, Hipparcos measured large and small angles on the sky with much greater precision than any previous optical telescopes. During its 4-year run, the positions, parallaxes, and proper motions of 118,218 stars were determined with an incredible degree of accuracy. A new catalogue “Tycho” drew together a database of 1,058,332 to within 20-30 mas. Additional catalogues were compiled for the 23,882 double/multiple stars and 11,597 variable stars also analyzed during the Hipparcos mission.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrometry
The limitations of the ground based astrometry are: the atmospheric turbulence and refraction, Earth's motions and the impossibility to view the entire sky with a single instrument. These limitations are discussed and it is shown how astrometry from space can overcome them. A priori, a gain of two orders of magnitudes in accuracy for all types of astrometry is expected, but at this new level of precision, new effects and limitations will appear, as already shown in the studies of the approved programs.
..the dominant error in determining positions by astrography comes from the uncertainties in the positions of the reference stars..
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w8q2v208l1021809/
Parallax is the apparent change in position of a star due to the actual change in our (the earth's) position in our orbit around the sun. A photograph is taken of a star at one time during the year, and the position of the star with respect to the background stars is measured. Then a photograph is taken six months later, when the earth is on the opposite side of the sun, and the position of the star with respect to the background stars is measured again. The star will appear to move slightly with respect to the background stars, and this motion is called its parallax. Using some simple geometry, we can use this parallax to calculate the star's distance away from the earth. Distances are highly prized quantities to obtain in astronomy, so the study of stellar parallaxes is of utmost importance to astronomers.
Unfortunately, the further a star is away from the earth, the smaller amount it will appear to move with respect to the background stars, so our knowledge of distances to stars which are further away than about 100 parsecs is not very good. To put that into perspective, the Milky Way Galaxy, the galaxy which contains the sun, is about 30,000 parsecs in diameter. So we really can't determine distances to very many stars even in our own galaxy in this way.
While parallax observations give us information about how far away a star is from us, the study of proper motions tells us how these stars are moving in space, relative to each other, in 3 coordinates. Although we see the motion of celestial objects projected on the plane of the sky (in 2 dimensions), in reality, these objects are moving in 3 dimensions. Radial motion is the motion of an object along our line of sight, and this can be calculated using the Doppler shift of the object's spectral lines. For astronomers, this is a relatively easy task. Finding the motion of an object in the other 2 dimensions, or coordinates, is a bit tougher. The motion of an object in these other two coordinates, perpendicular to the line of sight, are what is known as the proper motion. Finding the proper motion of a celestial object takes up much time an energy in the life of an astronomer because he or she has to wait long periods of time to actually observe the physical motion across the sky of the object. Only after seeing how the star moves over many years relative to background stars can we calculate the proper motion of the star.
http://astsun.astro.virginia.edu/~rjp0i/mu...astrometry.html
So, while there is (obviously) no way to prove this was the reason NASA left stars out of the Apollo photos and videos, it certainly offers up a viable explanation. NASA may have been concerned that astronomers would have been able to point out discrepancies in the Apollo images, possibly (in a worst case scenario) while the Apollo program was still underway. Or if not, then most certainly it would eventually come back to haunt them, in the subsequent years and decades.
QUOTE(Waspie_Dwarf @ Oct 11 2007, 07:43 AM)
To pick up this point and run with it...
turbonium's claims are about what the astronauts should have seen not what could be photographed (I think he, unlike most of the rest of the HBs has realised that this is a thoroughly debunked claim and makes those who stick to it look very daft indeed).
turbonium's claims are about what the astronauts should have seen not what could be photographed (I think he, unlike most of the rest of the HBs has realised that this is a thoroughly debunked claim and makes those who stick to it look very daft indeed).
Just to clarify this issue - it's well known that stars can be photographed from the lunar surface, with the proper camera settings.
QUOTE(Waspie_Dwarf @ Oct 11 2007, 07:43 AM)
Let's look at what turbonium is saying; the astronauts should have seen hundreds of stars on the Moon. Why then did they say they hadn't?
If Apollo was hoaxed then the astronauts should have been thoroughly prepared for the questions they were likely to be asked and told what answers to give. If they should have seen stars then this is what they would have been saying. If stars were easily visible then the answer they should have given in this situation would have been the one that appeased the HBs, but it wasn't.
Let's suppose for a minute that someone forgot to prepare them for this question, or all three highly trained, highly qualified, highly intelligent and highly professional astronauts simultaneously forgot the correct answer. The astronauts are taken by surprise and have to think of an answer on the spot and under pressure. They have all been on space missions before, they know what can and can't be seen and under what conditions. Caught on the hop they will almost certainly come up with the most likely answer they can think of. As the general public expected there to be hundreds of stars surely this is what the astronauts should have expected too. If they can see hundreds of stars in brightly lit conditions in Earth orbit then it seems to that the answer they would most likely have given in this situation was that they could see hundreds of stars. They didn't. Why not?
If Apollo was hoaxed then the astronauts should have been thoroughly prepared for the questions they were likely to be asked and told what answers to give. If they should have seen stars then this is what they would have been saying. If stars were easily visible then the answer they should have given in this situation would have been the one that appeased the HBs, but it wasn't.
Let's suppose for a minute that someone forgot to prepare them for this question, or all three highly trained, highly qualified, highly intelligent and highly professional astronauts simultaneously forgot the correct answer. The astronauts are taken by surprise and have to think of an answer on the spot and under pressure. They have all been on space missions before, they know what can and can't be seen and under what conditions. Caught on the hop they will almost certainly come up with the most likely answer they can think of. As the general public expected there to be hundreds of stars surely this is what the astronauts should have expected too. If they can see hundreds of stars in brightly lit conditions in Earth orbit then it seems to that the answer they would most likely have given in this situation was that they could see hundreds of stars. They didn't. Why not?
I've bolded the relevant parts of the press conference, from NASA's transcript....
REPORTER I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect. And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?
ALDRIN The first part of your question, the surface did vary in its thickness of penetration somewhere in flat regions. The footprint would penetrate a half an inch or sometimes only a quarter of an inch and gave a very firm response. In other regions near the edges of these craters we could find that the foot would sink down maybe 2, 3, possibly 4 inches and in the slope, of course, the varlous edges of the footprint might go up to 6 or 7 inches. In compacting this material it would tend to produce a slight sideways motion as it was compacted on the material underneath it. So we feel that you cannot always tell by looking at the surface what the exact resistance will be as your foot sinks into a point of firm contact. So one must be quite cautious in moving around in this rough surface.
ARMSTRONG 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. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.
ALDRIN I don't remember seeing any.
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/FirstLunarLanding/ch-7.html
One thing I want to point out is that the transcript wrongly attributes the quote - "I don't remember seeing any" (stars) - to Buzz Aldrin. In fact, the actual video of the press conference shows that it was Michael Collins who said this.
First of all, I find it rather odd that in the 18 years since this transcript was published (1989), NASA has (apparently) never noticed this obvious error and corrected it, either directly in the transcript, or mentioned it in a sidenote. Or, perhaps they have noticed the error, but decided to leave it in. Or, perhaps they deliberately put it in the transcript to begin with.
Why is this issue relevant? Because Collins - the astronaut who actually said it - never set foot on the Moon. He remained in the CM, (allegedly) orbiting the Moon, while Armstrong and Collins (allegedly) took the LM to the lunar surface.
Why didn't Collins mention seeing any stars when he was on the shadow side of the Moon during his orbits in the CM? There would certainly have been countless stars for him to see in the total darkness!
There is no way for NASA to have known every question the astronauts could possibly get from the reporters beforehand, so it would be impossible to prepare the right answers for the astronauts for every possible question on their "cheat sheets". It was a live event, and if the astronauts couldn't find the answer to something on their cheat sheets, they would have had to improvise. That is quite likely the reason for the replies given by Armstrong and Collins about seeing (no) stars.
A few minutes ago, I looked out my fully lit living room window - and saw a beautiful, star-filled sky. Then, I stepped several feet back from the window, where the brightly lit walls, ceiling, and floor came into my field of vision - and I could still see the stars through the window.
But how is this even possible, if you say bright light prevents seeing stars on the Moon?
But how is this even possible, if you say bright light prevents seeing stars on the Moon?
QUOTE(turbonium @ Oct 12 2007, 09:12 AM)
A few minutes ago, I looked out my fully lit living room window - and saw a beautiful, star-filled sky. Then, I stepped several feet back from the window, where the brightly lit walls, ceiling, and floor came into my field of vision - and I could still see the stars through the window.
But how is this even possible, if you say bright light prevents seeing stars on the Moon?
But how is this even possible, if you say bright light prevents seeing stars on the Moon?
How odd. That goes completely against my experience the other night. I was stood outside, with the security light on. Facing toward the light, it was impossible to see any stars at all (pupil diameter small). A soon as I turned around, I could see stars (pupil diameter large).
Unfortunately neither of these scenarios is exactly the same as the astronauts would have experienced on the moon, as we don't know exactly what the light levels were on the moon, in your living room, or on my driveway.
Another thing that's occurred to me, is the