• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
Big Ed, you should give SUSpilot a jingle too.

SUSpilot said:
Easily seen if dark adapted. Armstrong and Aldrin didn't have time for that. Discussed and dismissed.
Click to expand...

Big Ed, you should give SUSpilot a jingle too.


"We were in outer space, that vast domain where I had once been taught the kingdom of heaven lay. Though space is only a vacuum, it is just as beautiful and strange as anything possibly conjured by a child's potent imagination. There is a sense of unreality here, with the absence of gravity and the tapestry of blackness broken only by an overwhelming glitter of stars that surrounded our craft."


Dr. Edgar Mitchell. The Way of the Explorer, Revised Edition (p. 61).

Wonder why Ed and Buzz could see the stars there surrounding the craft and Neil and Mike couldn't? Guess star visibility is situational. When you need to deny visibility to not get caught lying about faking a manned moon landing, you have one answer. When you are trying to sell an insanely dumb book about going somewhere special that you never went, you've got another.
 
Last edited:
matt.tansy said:
Another quote worthy of a Stundie nomination!
Click to expand...

I don't think Patrick1000 knows anything about the Stundies, and I also think that if he went to the thread he wouldn't know what it is that everyone there laughs at, or the reason for your signature.

Perhaps you should explain it to him. But use simple words -- he has repeatedly shown here that he has a very big problem with comprehension.
 
The Bird Hunting Nonsense Is Really Funny When One Pauses To Think About It.

THIS IS REALLY FUNNY WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT.

Consider this regarding the hunt for the Eagle, from Craig Nelson's ROCKET MEN (Penguin Books, 2009);

" Using this data, NASA mapping scientist Lou Wade and his team plotted fourteen possible landing points, while a band of geologists,using Armstrong's description of the terrain, insisted there was only one possible answer: West Crater. They sent NASA their reasoning, but it wash't taken seriously at Mission Control. On July 21 at 8:30 a.m. CST, Collins radioed from Columbia, "You've given up looking for the LM, right? and Houston replied, "Affirmative". "

Now think about this. This is supposed to be the first lunar landing. Not only is some knowledge of the landing site's position practically important in providing a launch solution, to get the LM and Columbia back together, but simply from a straight forward historical perspective. Wouldn't you want to know WHERE the first space ship that landed on the moon actually landed on the moon? AND, the geologists examining rocks would of course want to know where the rocks came from.

So ask yourself if this is at all believable, remotely plausible. The Eagle is said to have landed at 3:17 pm CST. It has therefore been on the moon allegedly for roughly 17 hours when Collins asks whether the Houston people are giving up on identifying the site's location in real-time. This is the first manned moon landing, and they are going to "give up" looking for the Eagle?

First of all, if this was a real landing, they'd have located the thing long ago. Secondly, if they hadn't found it after 17 hours of looking, you'd be dang sure they'd keep looking and LOOKING HARD! This is the first moon landing for God's sake and these guys care not a whit for where the ship is? No big deal?



How does one come to terms with this seemingly nonsensical situation? There is but one answer which makes sense, and only one answer, the thing is fake. I do not believe any of this, nor can any reasonable person. This Apollo 11 Mission is a fabrication.

Keep in mind, this assessment is corroborated by NASA's own Fight Dynamics Officer, Reed. He comes to work, roughly at this time, and no one knows where the thing is. So Reed does his rendezvous radar trick in an effort to determine the LM/Columbia relation, not to mention find the lunar coordinates corresponding to the location of the Eagle's landing site. Also, as brought to the attention of the forum in a prior post, we have found evidence of further nonsense in our uncovering the fact that they didn't even use Reed's solution in the simulated Eagle launch. Wonder what the FIDO would have to say were he informed of that fact, then or now? From the Apollo 11 Simulated Mission Report;

".The coordinates used for ascent targeting were the best preflight estimate of landing site radius and the onboard-guidance estimate of latitude and longitude at touchdown (corrected for initial state vector errors from ground tracking). The estimated errors in targeting coordinates were a radius 1500 feet less than desired and a longitude 4400 feet to the west. "

Collins asks if they are giving up 17 hours into the simulated landing, and the CapCpm confirms they are, not looking for the bird any more. If it wasn't for Reed who had to have a launch solution for the simulated ascent, we'd have nothing here whatsoever that was even remotely plausible at all story line wise. And even then, we read in the Mission Report that Reed's solution wasn't even used. It's all NASA gobbledygook.

As I've said before, if the joke wasn't so expensive, it would be flat out hysterical. CAN YOU BELIEVE, LITERALLY, CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS RIDICULOUS RIDICULOUS STUFF? I most surely cannot and do not.

The whole Apollo thing, must be fake, has to be.
 
Last edited:
here we have a photograph taken by me on a clear night at Haleakala with 30x magnification. Where are all the stars? You would think that they would be visible according to your logic, so where are they?
 

Attachments

  • full moon.jpg
    full moon.jpg
    15.6 KB · Views: 9
Just out of curiosity did they/should you see stars on the Lunar surface during "Day" or not? (leaving aside photographs and exposure times)
 
Yes, absolutely.

little grey rabbit said:
Just out of curiosity did they/should you see stars on the Lunar surface during "Day" or not? (leaving aside photographs and exposure times)
Click to expand...

It is scientific common sense and it is scientific commonsense supported by consensus from the relevant scientific community.


David Kornreich of Cornell and Humbolt;




Eric Christian of NASA;









The astronomers/scientists that maintain the NASA website for young people;

 
Last edited:
Yes I would have thought so.

After all stand under a street lamp and you still see stars - even diluted by our atmosphere - so if you crank up the street lamp to the lux of the sun on the moon's surface I think you would see still them.

But lets see what the Apolloists have to say.
 
So absolutely, yes one would see stars, but our Apollo 11 astronauts denied the stars

little grey rabbit said:
Just out of curiosity did they/should you see stars on the Lunar surface during "Day" or not? (leaving aside photographs and exposure times)
Click to expand...

Yes, one would see stars. The Apollo 11 astronauts claimed they saw no stars from the surface of the moon, nor did they see stars while riding to and from the moon. That is 240,000 miles of no stars each way.

As pointed out above, when astronauts Aldrin and Mitchell wrote popular books about their fraudulent travels, they changed their stories. Guess it would have sounded funny to their readers, trying to have them imagine that an astronaut would ride for 3 or 4 days in a spaceship, all of the way from the earth to the moon and not see any stars.
 
Last edited:
little grey rabbit said:
Yes I would have thought so.

After all stand under a street lamp and you still see stars - even diluted by our atmosphere - so if you crank up the street lamp to the lux of the sun on the moon's surface I think you would see still them.

But lets see what the Apolloists have to say.
Click to expand...


Sunlight is a lot brighter than a streetlamp, especially when it's bouncing off a surface that fills half your vision. It's the main reason we can't see stars during the day on earth.

The Pat got something right, seeing stars is situational, and everyone has experience of that. It's why observatories get build in remote places and tend to work at night.

You could see stars on the lunar surface if you stood in the shadow of the LM and blocked out as much of the surface as possible and waited for dark adaption. Armstrong never tried that, having better things to do, Cernan did, sucessfully. Armstrong also said it would be possible to see stars from the surface , perhaps by looking through a tube of some kind, (which is correct). It's the same reason stars aren't seen from the ISS when it's on the day side of Earth.

Also the pAt claims that Armstrong said he never saw stars in CISlunar space, yet he hasn't ever produced a quote to back that up.
He did however produce a quote that could be read that way if you had a reading disorder.

Again it's situational. In a lit craft with light bouncing off the inside of the windows you're not going to see stars, in the same way that you don't when inside at night with the lights on. BUT they used stars for attitude alignment, so clearly they could see them through the sextant.
 
Last edited:
Kiwi9 said:
I don't think Patrick1000 knows anything about the Stundies, and I also think that if he went to the thread he wouldn't know what it is that everyone there laughs at, or the reason for your signature.

Perhaps you should explain it to him. But use simple words -- he has repeatedly shown here that he has a very big problem with comprehension.
Click to expand...

He's turned into a regular Stundie machine. Perhaps he's going for some sort of record, most nominations in one month or something.
 
SUSpilot said:
Easily seen if dark adapted. Armstrong and Aldrin didn't have time for that. Discussed and dismissed.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I misunderstanding you, Sus pilot, but are you saying that Armstrong and Aldrin didn't see stars because their eyes weren't dark adapted?

What does that mean precisely?
 
I have cited the Neil Armstrong Patrick Moore interview ad nauseam drewid

drewid said:
Sunlight is a lot brighter than a streetlamp, especially when it's bouncing off a surface that fills half your vision. It's the main reason we can't see stars during the day on earth.

The Pat got something right, seeing stars is situational, and everyone has experience of that. It's why observatories get build in remote places and tend to work at night.

You could see stars on the lunar surface if you stood in the shadow of the LM and blocked out as much of the surface as possible and waited for dark adaption. Armstrong never tried that, having better things to do, Cernan did, sucessfully. Armstrong also said it would be possible to see stars from the surface , perhaps by looking through a tube of some kind, (which is correct). It's the same reason stars aren't seen from the ISS when it's on the day side of Earth.

I have cited the Neil Armstrong interview in 1970 with Patrick Moore and the Apollo 11 post flight press conference ad nauseam. DON'T GIVE ME YOUR JIVE!!!

Also the pAt claims that Armstrong said he never saw stars in CISlunar space, yet he hasn't ever produced a quote to back that up.
He did however produce a quote that could be read that way if you had a reading disorder.

Again it's situational. In a lit craft with light bouncing off the inside of the windows you're not going to see stars, in the same way that you don't when inside at night with the lights on. BUT they used stars for attitude alignment, so clearly they could see them through the sextant.
Click to expand...

I have cited the Neil Armstrong interview in 1970 with Patrick Moore and the Apollo 11 post flight press conference ad nauseam. DON'T GIVE ME YOUR JIVE!!!
 
Neil Armstrong from the 1970 Moore interview

drewid said:
Sunlight is a lot brighter than a streetlamp, especially when it's bouncing off a surface that fills half your vision. It's the main reason we can't see stars during the day on earth.

The Pat got something right, seeing stars is situational, and everyone has experience of that. It's why observatories get build in remote places and tend to work at night.

You could see stars on the lunar surface if you stood in the shadow of the LM and blocked out as much of the surface as possible and waited for dark adaption. Armstrong never tried that, having better things to do, Cernan did, sucessfully. Armstrong also said it would be possible to see stars from the surface , perhaps by looking through a tube of some kind, (which is correct). It's the same reason stars aren't seen from the ISS when it's on the day side of Earth.

Also the pAt claims that Armstrong said he never saw stars in CISlunar space, yet he hasn't ever produced a quote to back that up.
He did however produce a quote that could be read that way if you had a reading disorder.

Again it's situational. In a lit craft with light bouncing off the inside of the windows you're not going to see stars, in the same way that you don't when inside at night with the lights on. BUT they used stars for attitude alignment, so clearly they could see them through the sextant.
Click to expand...

BBC 1970 , NEIL ARMSTRONG, ASTRONAUT AND WORLD WRESTLING FEDERATION REFEREE, INTERVIEWED BY PARICK MOORE,

Quote from the blind astronaut himself;

"THE SKY IS A DEEP BLACK WHEN VIEWED FROM THE MOON, AS IT IS WHEN VIEWED FROM CIS-LUNAR SPACE, THE SPACE BETWEEN THE EARTH AND THE MOON. THE EARTH IS THE ONLY VISIBLE OBJECT OTHER THAN THE SUN THAT CAN BE SEEN, ALTHOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN REPORTS OF SEEING PLANETS. I MYSELF DID NOT SEE PLANETS FROM THE SURFACE BUT I SUSPECT THEY MIGHT BE VISIBLE".
 
What about a suggestion that the sun is so bright in the atmosphere-less moon they would need heavy filters on their helmets to protect their eyes, that they wouldn't see stars even in the shadows?
 
One would think that someone with so many degrees would have better reading comprehension skills...I see only where he states that he could not see stars or planets from the lunar surface. (which is not surprising when you consider the amount of reflected sun light...my lunar pictures are usually shot at ISO 100, f5.4 & 1/400th of a second exposure time)
 
According to Ken Mattingly that was the case. He could only see stars with the visor up, and he only raised it since he was weirded out by their absence, even in cislunar space where there wasn't a lunar surface to blind his night-vision.

It's difficult to try yourself unless you can get hold of a small pane of that sun-reflecting glass they use on skyscrapers, but I suppose it's similar to wearing sun-glasses at night and trying to see the stars. For a closer resemblance to the astronauts' situation, go straight from a lit interior to the outside and see how it works.

(I live in London, so from my perspective the usual sky colour is "dark grey, with clouds")
 
The Human eye is a funny thing...Look at the Saturn Nebula through my 6" Reflector & it is faint grey, almost the color & density of cigarette smoke, you have to almost look indirectly at it in order to see it, but image that same Nebula for 30 minutes with my ccd & run it the images through Registax & you get brilliant greens & yellows, making an amazing photograph...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom