Why is it that you don't remember the obvious reasons for this?

1) The lights were on in the CM .
2) He was not looking for stars out the windows. He was busy with CSM systems and on-orbit tasks during the time the LM crew was off station...very busy.




You search for a reason why the obvious is not obvious.

There are NO photographs in space, anywhere, where an object that is lit by the Sun (i.e., the photographic subject) is imaged against the backdrop of space...Apollo or not.





Gemini 12, 1966...where are the stars? They're supposed to be all over the place?


You won't find any in the thousands of pictures that have been taken in space...for obvious and logical reasons.

Why has this become so difficult?

No, MID - that is simply not true! The human eye is far better at processing different levels of light existing within the same environment than a camera! This is a fact, noted by numerous sources, including a NASA website....

Is it true that in space a person is not able to see stars all around them like we do here on Earth?

No, I hear that in space the stars look wonderful, bright (although not twinkling) and very clear. What has probably caused some of this confusion is that in the typical photo or video image from space, there aren't any stars. This is because the stars are much dimmer than the astronaut, Moon, space station, or whatever the image is been taken of. It is extremely hard to get the exposure correct to show the stars. Luckily, the human eye handles the different light levels much better than a camera does.

Dr. Eric Christian
(July 2001)

From another source...

The Eye and the Camera

The human eye and brain are able to process a wide range of light. A camera, under the same circumstances, can handle only a limited range. If the camera adjusts to the bright subject areas, the dark areas are black. Inversely, if the camera can distinguish the dark images, the light areas are 'burned out' (image right). While not scientifically accurate, for illustration's sake it is like saying the eye can detect images in a light range from 1 to 100, but a camera can 'see' only a 20 point range (i.e. 1 to 20, 40 to 60 or 80 to 100). The eye is much better than the camera; you have to recognize these limitations, and work with them (or let them work for you).

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexm...lient=firefox-a

________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

Here is another source which further helps to support my argument...

The Dynamic Range of the Eye

The Human eye is able to function in bright sunlight and view faint starlight, a range of more than 10 million to one.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html


Physicist and Astronomer Dr. David Kornreich is quoted below, and what he says completely validates my argument...

Stars do glow during the day, but we can't see them because of the glare of sunlight. When the sun is up, the blue color in sunlight gets scattered all over the atmosphere, turning the sky the familiar bright blue color. This blue light is much brighter than the faint light coming from the stars, so it prevents us from seeing them.

If you were standing on the Moon, for instance, where there is no atmosphere, you would see the stars both day and night.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=122

Two sources which provide a few details on his background and qualifications...

Dave Kornreich

Dave was the founder of Ask an Astronomer. He got his PhD from Cornell in 2001 and is now an assistant professor in the Department of Physics and Physical Science at Humboldt State University in California.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/aboutus.php#1

Dr. David Kornreich did his undergraduate work at Cal Tech, earning a B.S. in Astronomy in 1995. From there, he went to Cornell, where he earned his Ph.D. in Physics in the year 2000, with a thesis that studied the Dynamics of Stars and Galaxies.

http://online.redwoods.cc.ca.us/instruct/colloquium/

The reason we don't see stars on Earth in the daytime is due to our atmosphere! Because there is no atmosphere on the Moon, we would be able to see stars both day and night! If there was no atmosphere on Earth, and I went outside and stood in the middle of my back yard, I would see a star-filled sky. My lawn would not cast a "bright light" into my eyes and prevent me from seeing them!!

And, I would hope that it's understood that the human eye and a camera DO NOT respond to different levels of light in the same way!

He's obviously well qualified, but what he says doesn't tally with the actual experience of astronauts. From a previous post of mine:-

Source


If he couldn't see stars when his orbit was on the daylight side of earth, would you expect to be able to see stars on the surface of the moon, illuminated by the sun, with the sun shining brightly in the sky? I wouldn't.

Maybe you could contact Dr. David Kornreich to ask him for clarification, given the actual experience of astronauts, Apollo and otherwise?

No, Turb, they do not respond in the same way. That has been explained already.



This is well understood. It doesn't mean that we can see all the light levels at one time. It means exactly what it means, that the human eye can process images in very bright sunlight and in very dark conditions...not all of them at once.

You again disregard what is posted for your consideration in favor of finding some snippet from a PhD to support what has never been confirmed by actual experience.

From your own links:




See? If you have clear skies away from city lights, you will probably see magnitude 3 stars. Why would this be the case?
Because you have to have darkness to see the stars. City lights, a blazing Sun in a lunar sky, reflecting vividly off of everything around you prohibts seeing the dim stars.

You quote a PhD who says that you should see stars on the lunar surface even if it's daylight.
Now, once again, this has already been theoretically stated as a possibility...but, it has also been pointed out to you that certain conditions must be fulfilled in order to allow the eye to do this.

I think if you contact the good Professor, you will find out that his statement is theoretical. It is also fundamentally correct. However, he's not describing some pertinent conditions that existed on the lunar surface which pose a problem in this respect.


If you went out on the lunar surface, in daylight, just as you would do on Earth, and you looked up into the blackness, keeping out reflected light, put your hands up to make sure you were seeing nothing but dark sky, you would see the stars appear...for a few sesconds maybe, until you went unconscious and died.

During Apollo, I have already explained to you why the stars were not visible to the astronauts, and why they only saw stars on the surface when using the OAT.

The Apollo astronauts were inside an EMU, and part of that was a big globe of a helmet, which their heads were buried in. They could see the helmet in their periphery. Light reflected off the helmet structure into their faces most of the time. Further, it was refracted by the spherical shells of the multi-layered visor plates which were several inches in front of their faces. They could actually see themselves reflected in them many times.

They spent their time almost exclusively in bright sunlight, utilizing protective tinted and reflective plates over their faces for a reason: the light was too bright, and being unfiltered, was too dangerous for their eyes to be exposed to without these layers.

Additionally, they had between two and seven hours (depending on the mission) to execute a very large list of tasks which were timed out and planned to the minute. All of those tasks involved looking at the Moon...not the sky. Trying to visulaize stars in the config these fellows were in would have been a large waste of time, when there were infinitely more useful things that they could be doing. Thus, there were no look at the stars from the lunar surface activities in the EVA timelines.

As I've already told you, IF you could get in the dark and IF you had a shield you could slip over your hat, made of some black material which would block out all reflections and direct and indirect lighting so you could let you eyes adapt and see the stars, and IF you could get your head in the appropriate attitude to look aloft at a field of black sky, then you would eventrually see many stars up there. It's already been stated.

Unfortunately, there was absolutely no Selenologic purpose in doing so, we had no such shield (there was one on the OAT, so WE COULD SEE THE STARS THROUGH IT...I wonder why they designed it with that??), and the men were necessarily working with their eyes focused on the tasks at hand, all of which involved seeing the lunar surface, each other, and their equipment...in broad daylight.


And of course, seeing stars in space has been described by astronauts from the beginning until now, and all of those observations are consistent, and logical. You only saw them on dark side passes when there was no sunlight, and the interior lights were off, and the eyes had dark adapted. Further, due to the conditions I've described concerning Apollo lunar surface astronauts, none of them saw stars.

Now, given the empitrical data that exists, I think you'll have a very difficult time finding that they were lying, and faked it.

i have a question about the moonlandings,well,about the astronauts. im sure this has been asked before,but I dont remember seeing a good explanation.(and Im to lazy to go through the hundred+ pages in this thread)

Its the way the astronaut on the moon "jumps up" from the surface... I think he was just about to fall but,like he was suspended with a wire,jerked back up on his feet??Its one of the hoaxbelievers "evidence". How could the astronaut move like that?

Anyone knows what Im talking about?

I don't know which specific clip you're referring to, but in general clips I've seen that display similar properties are probably explained by 2 things. The obvious one is the much reduced gravity, so it takes a much smaller force to lift oneself up. The other is the design of the spacesuit, in particular the knee joints. The suits had a restrictive range of movements, but the design of the knee joints ( a bellows-like construction) meant that the more they were bent, the bigger the force tending to "spring" the joint back to its default position.

Whether this applies in the clip you're talking about I don't know - but the reduced gravity certainly does! It would take an increased amount of time to fall over in the 1/6th gravity - hence they had more time to react and try and regain their balance.

DEBUNKER:

Posty is correct.

The suspended-from-a-wire looking thing is an effect of reduced gravity, and the effect of less force being required to move a reduced weight in 1/6 g.


A reference to a specific incident would provide the means to explain more thoroughly.

I said...

And, I would hope that it's understood that the human eye and a camera DO NOT respond to different levels of light in the same way!



?!? Haven't you been arguing that they do respond in the same way?

I posted this statement from a source...

"The Human eye is able to function in bright sunlight and view faint starlight, a range of more than 10 million to one."



True, but I never said that we could see all the light levels at the same time. I was pointing out that we can see a far wider range of light at the same time than a camera can "see".



No, MID. The single sentence you cited above simply noted that the human eye can process "bright sunlight and view faint starlight". Nothing else.

I want to remind you of what you claimed earlier...



You keep arguing that a camera and the human eye respond "very much" the same way to different light levels - that because there are no stars in the photos, it automatically means that the human eye would not be able to see any stars, either. That is a completely false assumption!

It seems that you failed to get the message from my previous post - THEY DO NOT RESPOND THE SAME WAY!!

As I said, the human eye is far better at processing different levels of light existing within the same environment than a camera! This is a fact, which I noted by citing sources such as these...

No, I hear that in space the stars look wonderful, bright (although not twinkling) and very clear. What has probably caused some of this confusion is that in the typical photo or video image from space, there aren't any stars. This is because the stars are much dimmer than the astronaut, Moon, space station, or whatever the image is been taken of. It is extremely hard to get the exposure correct to show the stars. Luckily, the human eye handles the different light levels much better than a camera does.

The human eye and brain are able to process a wide range of light. A camera, under the same circumstances, can handle only a limited range.

These sources can't make my point any clearer than that.



Come on, MID!

What I've disputed are the comments from Armstrong - that stars cannot be seen on the sunlit lunar surface by the human eye. I've pointed out several reasons why that is incorrect, and have recently supported my case with the comments of Dr. Kornreich.

Just because those comments contradict your claim, don't try and simply dismiss them as "some snippet from a PhD"! That's nonsense. I have cited someone fully qualified to speak on this issue. If you want to dispute his claims, make a valid case for it.



I have no idea why you're citing this to support your argument, MID. I've already gone over this, and explained to you why it has absolutely no bearing on my argument (about seeing stars on the Moon). The reason we don't see stars (or very few of them) at nighttime near a big city is - once again - related to the fact that Earth has an atmosphere. It's due to an Earth-based phenomenon, commonly called "light pollution"...

Light escaping from poorly shielded streetlights illuminates the air above us. Light scatters on air molecules and the sky becomes brighter. This is the reason the sky is bright even in dry, clear winter nights. Adding moisture and dust to the sky makes the situation worse. The scattering becomes terribly efficient and the sky becomes red from the light escaping HPS lamps or white from Mercury lamps. Faint stars disappear, only the Moon and the brightest planets stars remain visible.

http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~atolea/second/page1.html

The Moon has no atmosphere, and has no relevance to what occurs on Earth because of city lights.



Correct.



And I have subsequently pointed out to you that the conditions you claim are necessary in order to see stars are not required.



If you think his comments - or specifically, the one comment that contradicts your argument - was meant in the "theoretical" sense, then perhaps you should contact him about it. His comments stand up as is, from my reading.

This is a repost of those comments from Dr. Kornreich..

"Stars do glow during the day, but we can't see them because of the glare of sunlight. When the sun is up, the blue color in sunlight gets scattered all over the atmosphere, turning the sky the familiar bright blue color. This blue light is much brighter than the faint light coming from the stars, so it prevents us from seeing them.

If you were standing on the Moon, for instance, where there is no atmosphere, you would see the stars both day and night."

His explanation is perfectly clear. Earth's atmosphere is what prevents us from seeing stars during the day. The Moon's lack of atmosphere allows us to see stars during the day.


What you have to grasp is the single reason given by every qualified source for why we don't see stars on Earth during the day, or near big cities at night - Because of Earth's atmosphere.

These sources don't say..

"Earth's atmosphere is one of the reasons why we can't see stars during the day. But, even if there was no atmoshpere, we still wouldn't be able to just look up and see the stars, because of the bright light reflecting off of the Earth's surface."

Nothing at all is ever mentioned about surface reflections. Why would that be?

Because it wouldn't prevent us from seeing stars, it's not a factor, therefore it is not mentioned.

Turbs

How do you reconcile his opinion with the actual experience of an astronaut oboard MIR?

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~gorman/schoolqs.htm



Have you contacted your PhD for clarification given this experiential evidence?

.

Is this supposed to be an argument?
You say it's true (which it is) that the human eye cannot perceive all the light levels at the same time, and then you argue about the same thing restated by me in a subsequent sentence? You seem to be implying that we can actually see dim starlight when in broad daylight. Not possible.

I have told you before that it was very bright on the lunar surface. Brighter in fact than it is on the Earth in most cases.
You come back with an irrelevant argument about albedo.

Again, I shall provide a wee bit of evidence from the astronauts who were there themselves:

From the AS-11 Technical Debriefing, 31 July 1969:

Neil Armstrong:
"Probably the most surprizing thing to me , even though I guess we suspected a certain amnount of this, was the light and color observations of the surface.
"The down-Sun area was EXTREMELY BRIGHT. It appeared to be light tan in color, and you could see into the washout region reasonably well. Detail was somewhat obscured by the washout, but not badly."

Discussing the observation of soil color, he added,
"When you're actually faced with trying to interpret this kind of color in that light reflectivity, it is amazing.""When you first come down the ladder, you're in shadow. You can see everything perfectly; the LM, the things on the ground. When you walk out into the sunlight and then back into the shadow, it takes a while to adapt."


Buzz Aldrin:

" ..when you first move from the sunlight to the shadow, when the Sun is still shining on the helmet as you traverse cross-Sun, you've got this reflection on your face. At this point, it's just about impossible to see anything in the shadow. As soon as you get your helmet into the shadow, you can begin to perceive things and go through a dark adaptation process. Continually moving back and forth between sunlight and shadow should be avoided, because it's going to cost you some time in perception ability."

Later on they spoke about sleeping in the LM:

Neil Armstrong:
"A couple of comments with respect to going to sleep in the LM: One is that it's noisy and two is that it's illuminated. We had the window shades up AND LIGHT CAME THROUGH THOSE WINDOWS LIKE CRAZY."

Buzz Aldrin:
"...to cut down on the light level, we're just going to have to do something about those window shades to make them more effective."


Now Turb, this means only one thing.

It was very bright on the lunar surface. There is no possibility that you can argue these observations as meaning anything else.

The crew had direct and reflected sunlight to deal with, needed "sunglasses" to function in the sunlight, and had a suit helmet that provided reflections right in their faces cross-Sun...all the time. And they couldn't lay on the floor of the LM and sleep even with sunshades drawn because the light was so intense that it came through the shades! Where'd it come from? They were trying to lay on the floor below the level of the windows!

It came from the reflections off of the surface outside.

It was too bright to see stars in the sky, no atmosphere not withstanding.
You can argue against the obvious all you like. They couldn't see them, even if they were permitted to attempt to look for them! They needed to block all extraneous light and reflections. They had no means to do this.





And no one argued this. It is true.
However, you are completely off-base if you're implying that stars can be seen in intense sunlight, by anyone, anywhere, without shielding the eyes from the intense light that enters them.

You keep citing quotes such as these:




It is not "difficult", it is impossible to get the exposure correct to image the stars and the astronauts or spacecraft with a camera. It's not difficult...you can't do it.

Again, it also says exactly what is correct. That the eye and brain are able to process a wide range of light, wider than a camera. But no where does it say that objects and light with magnitudes on the order of -10+ can bee seen concurrent with objects that are magnitude 1,2, 3, etc...which are bright stars. The human eye cannot simultaneously porocess this range of magitudes and luminosities. It doesn't say that it can, either.





So that's the argument?
Mr. Armstrong was wrong, and he was there. Mr Aldrin was also wrong, and he was there, and so were 10 other men, none of whom could see stars in the broad lunar daylight. Empirical evidence, and yet, you dispute this?




Turb, empirical evidence and observation do dispute it and make a valid case. The case has been made, and won. He is NOT as fully qualified to speak on this issue as THE PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE EXPERIENCING IT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCERS THEY WERE FIRST HAND.

This cannot be that difficult to understand.

And so, you revert to a typical HB position:




No, Turb. He's your source (and he doesn't even know it!). You contact him, and explain what you neglect to acknowledge....all of the factors inherent in standing on the Moon's surface which prohibit one from seeing stars. Tell him about the empirical evidence to the contrary, some of which I've posted here for your consideration, and explain about the tasks at hand, where they eyes of the astronauts were necessarily focused, the manner in which that bubble helmet of their's scattered reflection all over the place...

Remember this, which you seem to ignore?




And further, you may also remember that I AGREED WITH THE GOOD DOCTOR IN PRINCIPAL:




No, YOU contact Dr. Kornreich, and give him ALL OF THE DETAILS.

You may be surprized at the answers you receive.




You have revealed yourself here , Turb.
You have blatantly stated that you don't believe the accounts of the men who were actually there. In fact, you don't believe that the men who were there...were there at all! And you have failed to show one jot of proof of your contentions...because; it is a belief based upon very little (although I shall admit, very creative manipulations of a very little bit of information), and one which ignores the obvious.


You reject empirical evidence for the theoretically correct statement of someone who wasn't there, and who in fact wasn't even in existence until after Apollo was over. He doesn't have all the information, and certainly doesn't know you're using him as a source for such untenable positions. If he has all the information, and he is in fact a PhD, and, if he realizes that you're using him in order to bolster your position against what any PhD fully understands was a fact, he'll certainly be able to explain it to you.

No scientist argues with the empircally observed facts.

I bet you he won't either.

But again, that's your job, not mine.

Let's consider the quote from your astronaut..

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.

First of all - his reply is not entirely correct. As we know, it's the atmosphere which prevents us from seeing stars during the day on Earth - it scatters the sunlight and "washes them all out" of our view. In LEO, there is no atmosphere, so stars can only be "washed out" of view because of the direct sunlight, and even then, only if you look out from the Shuttle in a direction near to the sun.

Here is a Shuttle astronaut, who affirms that stars can indeed be seen in LEO, in daylight...

Question from John Kessaram in Devonshire, Bermuda
Why does space appear black even around the sun, when viewed from orbit?

Answer from Mission Specialist-1 John Grunsfeld
John, the reason is that when we're standing on Planet Earth, the sky appears blue and very light because the sunlight scatters off of the atmosphere. When were in orbit, we're above most of the atmosphere, almost all of the atmosphere, and so there is nothing for the light to scatter off of so the sunlight, if we're looking at [the sun] it can come directly to us, but if we look away from the sun in a direction not near the sun, there is nothing to scatter the sunlight back to us, so the only light we can see is starlight.

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Shuttle/Astro...ew_answers.html

This is yet another source that confirms what I've been saying - it is the atmosphere which prevents us from seeing stars on Earth during the day. In LEO, or in deep space, or on the Moon, there is no atmosphere, so we can see stars if "we look away from the sun in a direction not near the sun,", because "there is nothing to scatter the sunlight back to us, so the only light we can see is starlight"

I'm sure that your MIR astronaut would have known this, as well as the role of Earth's atmosphere. It's obvious that he's just giving basic answers to a bunch of schoolkids, not filing a technical report.



No. I've already validated Dr. Kornreich's comments with the quote from John Grunsfeld. They both state it is the atmosphere which prevents us from seeing stars on Earth during the day. And they both support my argument - that by looking in a direction away from the sun, stars can be seen - from a Shuttle in LEO, and on the Moon - because there is no atmosphere.

No, I said that the human eye can see a very wide range of light of varying levels at the same time. "All the light levels" would mean we could see every speck of the dimmest light at the same time as the brightest sunlight!



Why do you keep repeating this tripe about the lunar surface?? You're wrong on all counts....

Brightness

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

If you care to look, that quote comes from a NASA site.

It is NOT very bright on the lunar surface. It is NOT brighter than it is on the Earth in most cases. And, my argument about albedo is ENTIRELY relevant.



Again, you're holding up the same sources I'm questioning as your evidence! That's like Al Capone bringing Lucky Luciano into a courtroom to vouch for his complete innocence!!



The stars can be seen because there isn't any "intense sunlight" reflecting into your eyes! A very poor reflector like the lunar surface does not, and cannot, reflect "intense sunlight"!



Not that it's important, but it is indeed possible, according to some of the experts I've heard on this matter. Either way, it's irrelevant to the argument.



I was pointing out how the human eye can process a much wider range of light than a camera can, because you've been claiming that they process different levels of light in "pretty much" the same way!! The article has nothing at all to do with whether or not we can see stars on the Moon, so I have no idea why you're implying that it has any relevance to it.



It's obviously very difficult for you to understand that you can't validate a case with the very same sources being questioned for their validity!!

If you want to counter my argument, then you need to find sources that actually do validate your case. That is, don't hold up the words of one or more Apollo astronauts, and then try to claim that they validate the words of yet another Apollo astronaut!

The albedo of the moon is very angle dependent Turbonium, The moon is a non-lambertian reflector, meaning that light tends to get reflected from the surface at oblique angles. This increase would only be visible on the surface.

Turbs, we all knoe the atmosphere prevents us seeing stars during the day - but that does NOT preclude other optical phenomena that would prevent us seeing stars as well that simply isn't as apparent on Earth, because we're kind of used to having the atmosphere around us all the time. In other words, it is NOT the only mechanism at work here. I think you're (inadvertently) falsely representing other people's statements as inferring that in order to prop up your position.



Actually the shuttle astronaut confirms why you'd struggle to see starlight on the moon.



Well, on the moon we know that there is something to scatter sunlight back - the lunar surface itself. There's also the internal reflections on the helmet that MID mentioned which isn't something that had occurred to me before. There's also the sunvisor being down most of the time as well. The effect of this will be two-fold of course - it will reduce glare from the sun and lunar surface, but it will also reduce the amount of starlight.

The clincher is, you need something to reflect sunlight back into the eyes of the astronaut. On the moon, we have this in the form of the lunar surface.



Sounds like you're representing the answers the space shuttle astronaut gave as being from a technical report, which clearly they weren't. He was answering questions put to him from the public via the internet, one of whom was a 2 ¹/₂ year old boy who wanted to know if the space shuttle had a parachute. Guess what? He said it didn't.



What's this then?



If you're going to characterise the MIR astronaut as giving basic answers to a bunch of schoolkids, you shouldn't give the impression that the shuttle astronaut is filing a technical report, but should characterise him the same way.



Noone is arguing that on Earth, the atmosphere stops you seeing stars during the day! Of course it does! The hypothetical question remains, if there were NO atmosphere, would the brightness of the sun and the surface still make it difficult or impossible to see stars during the daytime.

Seems you're not entirely confident the good Dr Kornreich will validate your theory if you contact him, so I'll contact him myself and ask him for clarification, given that the Apollo astronauts almost never saw stars from the moon's surface.

Actually, it's visible from Earth. It's the reason the full moon is so much brighter than any other phase, much more than you would expect from the change in the visible area of the lunar disc.

Turboniun,

Considering what Frenat and I have posted, do you agree or not that parallax is not a good explanation for the lack of stars in Apollo surface photographs? If you do not agree, why not?

Finally got added to the ALSJ! Fifth Paragraph down on 13th July 2006 entry. http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj.funpix.html. Fantastic! Got my biography added and everything!

You dis-information spreader you, it's actually the 13th July 2007 entry!

Fantastic indeed, Gav!

Good show!

For those who aren't aware of what you're referring to, it's in regard to this question you raised a few days ago....



I replied that the reason(s) NASA didn't put stars in the photos and videos could only be speculated on, but the most common answer I had heard about was that it would have been extremely difficult, or impossible, for NASA to create star maps (for backdrops) that were accurate enough to fool astronomers. It may have concerned them that in future decades, with much more precise measurements than they had in the 1970's, those discrepancies would become too great to dismiss.

I posted a few sources relevant to the issue (astrometry) ..

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 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..

[i]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.

Now, as for what you and frenat have posted about parallax...





It's very possible that parallax wasn't the primary reason (or one of the reasons), that NASA didn't include stars in the Apollo photos. As I said, it's a question which requires speculation. But the relative position of the stars appears different, depending on where you view them from, even on Earth. The (alleged) landing sites on the Moon would have also have very different relative positions, and creating accurate enough star backdrops to fool astronomers (at the time and/or in the future) may have been impossible - or so difficult, that they decided to just leave the stars out completely.

But, as I said, it's a matter of speculation.

I realize the albedo of the Moon varies, because of it's rough, uneven surface. The upper limit reflectivity for the non-lambertian lunar surface has been taken into account by astronomers, who have measured and calculated the lunar surface albedo.


If the Moon were a smooth sphere then its average albedo would be raised a little.

http://website.lineone.net/~petergrego/anjul97.htm

The Moon is, quite simply, a very poor light reflector - no matter what variables you take into account.

The fact is, there are no areas on the lunar surface which are even near to reflective enough to prohibit someone from seeing stars.

No it isn't a fact, it is unsupported speculation on your part. Claiming something to be a fact doesn't make it so. It is a claim based on your lack of understanding of albedo. You have an over simplified view of what the low albedo is and then you are using this incorrect assumption to try to back up more incorrect assumptions.

The quoted albedo's of planets and satellites are average figures. The question you should be asking is not why the albedo of the Moon is so low but why is the albedo of the Earth is so high?

The Earth's albedo is about 0.39. Earth has cloud cover and ice caps, both highly reflective and lacking from the moon. Soil on Earth can have a lower albedo than the lunar surface, it doesn't stop it being bright to the human eye. As has already been pointed out to you, if you have a low sun angle then reflected light from tarmac can be very bright (remember that the Apollo EVA's all took place early in the Lunar day and so there would have been a comparable sun angle).

Water can have an albedo as low as 0.03 considerably lower than that of the surface of the Moon, do you really claim that the surface of a lake does not reflect enough light to appear bright.

Link: The Encyclopaedia of Earth

You have repeatedly stated that all the astronauts would have to do is look straight up to see stars. In doing so you have ignored just how difficult that would be inside an Apollo spacesuit and helmet. You have also ignored the fact (which has been pointed out to you) that during much of the time they were on the surface the astronauts would have had there protective visor down and so would have had the equivalent of sunglasses on. Even when this visor was up they had a clear, curved visor in front of them which would have reflected the lunar surface. This visor would also have become dusty. Take my word for it as a glasses wearer, dirty glasses are not a great aid to seeing stars, dust and dirt reflects stray light and no doubt a dirty visor would be a similar handicap.

Given all these factors I really do not see how a reasonable person can claim that the fact that Armstrong and Aldrin did not see stars from the lunar surface is proof of a hoax.

You left out another quote of mine, Turboniun.


NASA has astronomers, too. If some astronomers can point out discrepancies in stellar positions, NASA astronomers are smart enough to see this and put the stars in the proper positions in the first place. They are, after all, the ones that use these same stellar positions to navigate spacecraft to the Moon and the planets. Your explanation thus makes no sense.



What do you think astronomers do for a living? The relative positions of stars from one geographic location to another is so easy to compute that they were used hundreds of years ago to navigate ships to destinations thousands of miles apart on Earth. I was in a planetarium forty years ago and vividly remember the director changing the view from the northern to the southern hemisphere and pointing out the Magellanic Clouds and the Southern Cross, and then when the tour of the southern skies was over, shifting the sky back again.

Astronomers have known stellar positions with enough precision to discover unknown planets and predict astronomical events occurring in the sky of other worlds in the nineteenth century; how hard do you think it would be to go to a place with a dark sky, make sky photos with the same exposures which the astronauts would use (which, by the way, you yourself has said would come out black) and adjust the position of said "star" photos to the sky and time of the lunar landings? It would be a pretty poor astronomer indeed that couldn't accomplish a task so simple.

Turb, we've been through this before.
Albedo and surface perception are two different things. Albedo is irrelevant to local surface observation and local brightness. Low albedo objects on Earth can be exceeding bright in direct sunlight. Besides, read again your own quote:



The moon is THE BRIGHTEST OBJECT IN THE HEAVENS (next to the Sun). Indeed, this poorest reflector of light in the solar system hurts the eyes if you're looking at it with 20 x 50 binoculars! A little of the Sun's light is enough to be real bright. 7% of it is quite enough. Besides, as I've stated before, the visual effects on the lunar surface were the product of not only reflected light off the surface, but reflected light off of the equipment, and the glare of a more intense sunlight than is seen on Earth anywhere.

You disregard empirical observation in favor of posting a link to an obsolete NASA kid's page, which necessarily puts elementary explanations of complex topics on line, in favor of what the people who were there described in detail.

The fact is that it is very bright on the lunar surface, when you're standing on it, just as it's very bright in a black paved asphalt parking lot when you're standing in it in bright sunlight here on Earth. You are wrong in your assumptions regarding the Moon's darkness.






Again, you confuse astronomical albedo with local surface brightness. You insist on doing this. If you're going to keep insiting that what observation has clearly shown is not possible, we have exhausted this discussion.





You are really stretching here, Turb.

Sources that validate my case?
I have no case to prove here. It's you who have the case you must prove. What we have is empirical observations from the men who were there. You're implying that those observations are invalid???

Well then, that's another case you must prove. Prove that the observations of the men who were on the Moon, and all the other men who've flown in space and never saw stars in broad daylight are invalid.


So far, you site someone who says that stars should be visible because there's no atmosphere, something I've told you is fundamentally correct (with conditions). Of course, you refuse to contact him with the particular conditions prevalent on Apollo EVAs so that a clarification can be had (Posty has conceded to do this for you, as I observe above), and I think the reasons for this are obvious.

I have pointed out to you what you're really getting at here...that the empirical observations of every man who's been in space are invalid. This is because you don't believe they were there, and you are doing everything in your power to make arguments in favor of your position.

But you revert to a loop of counter arguments here as the position weakens. You could clarify this by asking your PhD source, but you decline. Thus, your arguments are invalid. You haven't proven the premise to your arguments...which is that Apollo never landed on the Moon.

Posty, hopefully, will be able to do the work you should be doing for you.

I said...

The fact is, there are no areas on the lunar surface which are even near to reflective enough to prohibit someone from seeing stars.



Really? Well, let's continue with your comments, and see if you have a valid point...



Perhaps you've forgotten that I posted various sources regarding albedo, back on Oct. 10? Indeed, the very first paragraph that I cited went over most of the same points you've raised...

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 problem, I'm afraid, is that you've shown how you have a "lack of understanding of albedo". By describing everything from water with an albedo of 0.03m, to Earth soil with an albedo of <0.07, as "bright", to calling tarmac reflections "very bright", you've turned "albedo" from a fully quantifiable scientific term, into a springboard for personal hyperbole.

"Bright" is a subjective term. "Albedo" is a quantitative term...

The albedo of an object is the extent to which it reflects light, defined as the ratio of reflected to incident electromagnetic radiation. It is a unitless measure indicative of a surface's or body's diffuse reflectivity.

Albedo - the ratio of reflected/scattered power to incident power

Wherever possible, we need to discuss this issue in scientifically quantifiable terms, and consider the relevant data - and not leave it to personal opinions. That is why albedo is a very relevant aspect of this discussion, but saying something "appears very bright" is not.



The lunar surface isn't reflecting enough sunlight to have any noticeable affect on someone viewing stars, period - it doesn't matter whether one wears such a visor or not.



Then you'll have to start doing a lot better than this pile of dreck.

Wrong. Albedo is completely relevant to local surface observation and brightness.



That's why you believe that albedo is irrelevant to local surface observation and brightness?

Indeed, low albedo surfaces on Earth can become more reflective/brighter under certain conditions - if the surface is wet, or from an additional light source (besides sunlight) hitting it. Grass will become more reflective just after a rainfall, for example. As for tarmac, it can indeed appear brighter on a hot summer day - but not because it is reflecting more sunlight...

Asphalt in parking lots and on rooftops, in particular, soaks up everything and reradiates it as thermal infrared radiation.

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd08may97_1.htm" target="_blank">http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd08may97_1.htm

These are factors which can have a short-term effect[i] on the brightness of certain surfaces on Earth. But, none of these conditions even exist on the lunar surface.

QUOTE (MID @ Oct 17 2007, 02:44 PM)

Besides, read again your own quote:

The moon is THE BRIGHTEST OBJECT IN THE HEAVENS (next to the Sun). Indeed, this poorest reflector of light in the solar system hurts the eyes if you're looking at it with 20 x 50 binoculars! A little of the Sun's light is enough to be real bright. 7% of it is quite enough. Besides, as I've stated before, the visual effects on the lunar surface were the product of not only reflected light off the surface, but reflected light off of the equipment, and the glare of a more intense sunlight than is seen on Earth anywhere.

I'm trying hard not to crack up in fits of laughter, MID. Yes, the Moon is the brightest object (after the Sun) that we can see..... FROM HERE ON EARTH!

But the brightest object (after the Sun) "in the Heavens"?!? If that means Heaven is defined as "The Universe, as seen from someone on Earth"? Then hey, sure! But otherwise, you can't be serious with that claim?!? I hope not!

It "hurts the eyes" through binoculars?!? Please, that's really getting silly.

QUOTE (MID @ Oct 17 2007, 02:44 PM)

The fact is that it is very bright on the lunar surface, when you're standing on it, just as it's very bright in a black paved asphalt parking lot when you're standing in it in bright sunlight here on Earth. You are wrong in your assumptions regarding the Moon's darkness.

I've explained why asphalt can appear brighter - through re-radiation. Not because "local brightness" renders albedo irrelevant!

QUOTE (MID @ Oct 17 2007, 02:44 PM)

Again, you confuse astronomical albedo with local surface brightness. You insist on doing this. If you're going to keep insiting that what observation has clearly shown is not possible, we have exhausted this discussion.

Hope you realize what "local surface brightness" really is, and what it is not, by this point.

QUOTE (MID @ Oct 17 2007, 02:44 PM)

There is only one case I need to make - the hoaxing of the Apollo Moon landings!! I am putting the entire bunch of them "on trial", so to speak. It isn't as if they are all from different countries, and worked completely independent of each other, in unrelated space programs, etc.! They were all in the same program as Apollo astronauts, so if one of them is proven to be lying, then it proves they are all lying.

You do realise that we can't see infrared radiation?

Never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

And there you have it people, Waspie just hit the nail, dead on.

I think its lack of understanding that is the source of the moonhoax theory.

Rather than finding out how the equipment worked, many hoax proponents prefer to take a poor guess at how they think it might have worked, and then show how their own guess wouldnt work. And most of the theories that concern the photographs are due to a failure to understand how photography works.

Photographs are only two dimensional records of light falling on a chemically treated sheet of plastic. They can easily give a misleading picture of the nature of an unfamiliar three dimensional world, especially if have already decided what you want to see and have no understanding of photographys strengths and limitations.

Moonhoaxbelievers...Rather than believe what evidence of all stripes seems to demonstrate beyond a doubt, they create a world of sound stages and cover-ups, whistle blowers and—GASP!!—murder.

No matter that each of their “anomalies” are explained using simple, easily verifiable evidence. Its simply more comforting to believe that either their evidence is better, or those disproving their claims are in on the conspiracy.

Part of the allure of conspiracism seems to be the excitement of believing something that few other people believe. Its a way of saying, "Im different."

We can go beyond that, they think their beliefs are not only different but also better. But simply the difference is enough to worry about here. After all, what good is being different if no one notices? What needs to be done regarding the various credulous hypotheses, and crack pot ideas that are all too common here, is to apply a good solid dose of critical reasoning.

If an argument is based on nothing more than assumptions and blatantly lacks any factual corroboration, its just a bunch of anecdotal observations from people saying its true because they "say so", then its just not credible.

Here is a good advise for you, study science, real science.

This will really help when it comes time to look at someones argument and be able to know if what they are saying actually "holds water", or is just a belief based on nothing remotely valid or scientifically confirmed.

Mosts HBs doesnt care about the thruth, this is because they are interested in lashing out at the perceived power structure, not in discovering any kind of objective truth.






In the end, the moonhoax believers are just annoying, but the Holocaust and 911 hoaxbelievers are dangerous and the most despicable of them all.

Yes. I didn't have the time yesterday to post sources which explain what causes asphalt to appear 'brighter' (or to glow/shimmer) on a hot summer day. The one source I did post, unfortunately, did not go into this issue. Although, it should first be noted that....

The boundary between visible and infrared light is not precisely defined. The human eye is markedly less sensitive to light above 700 nm wavelength, so shorter frequencies make insignificant contributions to scenes illuminated by common light sources. But particularly intense light (e.g., from lasers, or from bright daylight with the visible light removed by colored gels[1]) can be detected up to approximately 780 nm, and will be perceived as red light. The onset of infrared is defined (according to different standards) at various values typically between 700 nm and 800 nm.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared</a>


In the case of asphalt, it emits electromagnetic radiation - in both the visible range (light/glow), and the non-visible range (infrared).

Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation emitted from the surface of an object which is due to the object's temperature. Infrared radiation from a common household radiator or electric heater is an example of thermal radiation, as is the light emitted by a glowing incandescent light bulb.


The yellow-orange glow is the visible part of the thermal radiation emitted due to the high temperature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

...objects at any temperature emit electromagnetic radiation of all frequencies (wavelengths) that depends upon the temperature (black body radiation) and the relative amounts are given by Planck's distribution law. The reason that the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum is stressed when we talk about heat energy is that is where the maximum in the Planck distribution occurs for what we nominally call "hot objects".

Of course some hot objects emit radiation in the visible range -- they glow. Radiation from the sun or other sources is not necessarily a continuum. In addition, light of various wavelengths can be converted to other wavelengths by a variety of processes. Some examples are:

visible radiation converted to infrared radiation (heat) when it is absorbed by the ground, or even more so by a black asphalt driveway.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00350.htm

The bottom line - albedo is entirely relevant to "local surface observation and local brightness".

"Low albedo objects on Earth can be exceeding bright in direct sunlight" - because of the effects of various phenomena on those objects/surfaces - such as EM radiation (asphalt) and precipitation (wet grass).

Never let someone have a chance to clarify the facts before you start carping about it.

And keep on carping about it....

So true. A perfect example is the current argument, about whether or not one would see stars on the sunlit lunar surface. I've argued that the relevant scientific measurements (albedo) indicate that we would indeed see stars. It's been conclusively proven that the lunar surface has a very low visual albedo (0.07 - 0.08).

But, many of the retorts I get are "a bunch of anecdotal observations from people saying its true because" the astronauts "say so"!

And, as you said, that's just not credible.



As noted above, I have looked into the "real science" regarding this issue. Why don't you take your own "good advice", and start to do the same?



Typical GCT psycho-babble. The truth is precisely what I am after, as are the many other people I know personally who disagree with the various "official" accounts of certain events.



Therefore, you start posting in a moonhoax thread.



No, it's the people who spout flaming piles of crap like that who are the most dangerous and despicable of them all.

Slagging the Holocaust disputers / deniers is one thing, but grouping it together with the millions of people who question 9/11 is utterly disgusting.

Enough said on that non-issue.

Ahh, now I get it!

You and postie think his comments need further clarification. Therefore, I should ask him for further clarification. Why?

Well, obviously, because I don't think there is any need for further clarification - duh!!

Put another way - because you and postie are the ones who think he should be asked about his comments, you should not be the ones who ask him!!

I have no idea why it took me so long to figure this out. It makes perfect sense.