• 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.
A quote from one of the other three blind mice

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.

Michael Collins, Author of everyone's favorite beach bonfire kindling jive bogus bull malarkey kindergarten pretend book, CARRYING THE FIRE(page 378), with regard to cislunar space, the Cislunar Nitwit writes;

"The stars are there, but they cannot be seen because, with sunlight flooding the spacecraft, the pupil of the eye involuntarily contracts, and the light from the stars is too dim to compete with the reflected sunlight, as both enter the eye through the tiny aperture formed by the contracted pupil.. No, to see the stars, the pupil must be allowed to relax......"

How dumb!

Funny how Mike's pupils are so constricted but Ed's are not;

"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)

Doesn't look like Ed had any trouble seeing stars. Or Fuzzy Buzzy when he tried to turn a buck and sell a few books. From the book MAGNIFICENT DESOLATION, The Glassy Eyed Ph.D Zombie himself, reporting from cislunar space, here's not so blind this time 'round Fuzzy Buzzy;

"We had to coordinate our times with Houston, since there was really no telling day from night in space. The sun was always shining, yet the sky around us was a constant black blanket dotted with millions of stars. One thing was certain: with each passing hour, the Earth was growing smaller and the moon was getting larger when we looked out our windows."

Abraham, Ken; Aldrin, Buzz (2009-06-23). Magnificent Desolation: The Long Journey Home from the Moon (p. 8). Crown Archetype.

Thanks for that Fuzzy, for a moment we'd thought none of you were able to see out of the window of that tin can. We thought you might not make it home.

AND FOR ALL THOSE MICHAEL COLLINS FANS OUT THERE, THE GUY IS AN IDIOT, FYI. PUPILARY CONSTRICTION HAS RELATIVELY LITTLE TO DO WITH DARK ADAPTATION UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THAT IT OCCURS WITHIN FRACTIONS OF A SECOND. That is, it does not take minutes for one's pupils to open up, or close back down for that matter.

CAN'T THEY FIND SOME DOCTOR TO TEACH THESE GUYS HOW TO LIE HALFWAY DECENTLY? CHARLES BERRY IS A MISERABLE FAILURE AT IT.

What accounts for this type of light/dark adaptation for the most part is the regeneration of the active photosensitive chemicals that actually interact with the photons that strike one's retinae. In light, these chemicals are consumed. In the dark, they are reconstituted and so the eye becomes light sensitive again, in step with this reconstitution. This process may take 30 or 40 minutes going from very bright light, to dark conditions where one would like to see dim objects such as stars in a night sky. Plenty of time for it too when one is twiddling his thumbs in pretend cislunar space.
 
Last edited:
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.

That would be no, no, no, and no...
 
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")

Did Apollo 11 suits have a removable visor? IIRC it looks one piece to me - but you are the experts.
 
What accounts for this type of light/dark adaptation for the most part is the regeneration of the active photosensitive chemicals that actually interact with the photons that strike one's retinae. In light, these chemicals are consumed. In the dark, they are reconstituted and so the eye becomes light sensitive again, in step with this reconstitution. This process may take 30 or 40 minutes going from very bright light, to dark conditions where one would like to see dim objects such as stars in a night sky.

Hooray for self-debunking posts.
There you go LGR, even the Pat admits it.

Kight to Queen 7*

You should ask U C Berkley for your money back. Imagine them teaching you maths but not including the difference between degrees and radians, that's really basic stuff. Really...basic.

Unless that Berkley thing was just a lie of course.


*(Even funnier because it's a direct quote from the Pat)
 
Last edited:
Did Apollo 11 suits have a removable visor? IIRC it looks one piece to me - but you are the experts.

The gold layer was a separate piece and could be slid up. Variations on the helmet design also included side panels and shades that could be opened separately.
 
This has NOTHING TO DO WITH PICTURES

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)

This has NOTHING TO DO WITH PICTURES! Who cares about photos!!!!!! That is a dumb diversion. Of course one cannot take pictures of stars in the context so referenced, unless so intentioned , and so intentioned in a most dedicated manor.

What is at issue are the claims about seeing and not seeing stars. The astronauts are not consistent about their claims over time and their claims are not consistent with reality.

With regard to the latter point, see the post above featuring quotes from professional astronomers, including NASA personal about this issue. An observer would be able to see stars from a space ship traveling to the moon or from the surface of the moon. This is a simple fact, a simple fact not in dispute among professional astronomers.

The astronauts say they cannot see stars because of the laser issue among others previously discussed. If they admitted to having been able to see stars, then they would have had to have admitted to being able to see lasers as well, see? From the Apollo 11 Mission Simulation Voice Transcription;


Time 01 11 25 49

" CapCom: We got a little laser visual experiment we'd like you to do for us;. If-if you got the Earth through any of your windows or through the telescope, would you so advise?
Over.

CMP: Stand by one, Charlie.

CMP: At this roll attitude, what should our high- gain angles be? MaNbe that would help us locate
you. We don't see you in the lens. "

So they shine lasers, supposedly, none of this happened, but anyway, they pretend to shine lasers on the three blind mice at various times in space, and then of course while the Boy Scout and the Ph.D Zombie are doing the pretend moon walk over at Space Mountain Orlando, lasers were to be fired at the Tranquility Base LRRR. Others have lasers as well, Russians and French to name 2 countries who were very advanced scientifically in that regard during those times. Lasers were imageable, and would be expected to be seen on some images as they were when Surveyor VII video imaged the one watt lasers directed at it on the moon from Kitt Peak and Table Mountain Observatories in January of 1968.

As the astronauts are very much not in space, not on the moon, they don't want someone turning a laser on them and saying, "Look mom!!!! I shined an argon laser right at Neil Armstrong and he didn't see it and his movie camera didn't film it either. Boy, that's funny, cuz' I remember the Surveyor camera filmed a much weaker laser no problem. Maybe those two are only pretending to be on the moon."

The list goes on, why the astronauts want to deny seeing stars. Imagine a casual question from a naive and curious journalist to the Cislunar Nitwit Michael Collins, "Did you see the Southern Cross Mike from outer space???" The guy barely knows up from down, let alone knowing how to field a question like this one and lie effectively under such difficult circumstances. With just this kind of simple , direct, innocent and very DANGEROUS question coming at him, Collins would decompensate in less chart half a heartbeat.

So they deny the stars. Very very very risky, dangerous dangerous dangerous lie, because it exposes them to this very type of withering criticism. But they have to. What else can they do? Well, one thing they try to do is "take it back" here and there, like when they have the man with impeccable astronaut heiny affinity Jay Barbree write;

" “Where were the stars?” the myth believers then asked. The cameras that NASA sent to the moon had to use short-exposure times to take pictures of the bright lunar surface and the moonwalkers’ white spacesuits. Stars’ images, easily seen by the moonwalkers, were too faint and underexposed to be seen as they are in photographs taken from space shuttles and the International Space Station. "

Barbree, Jay; Alan Shepard; Deke Slayton (2011-04-27). Moon Shot: The Inside Story of America's Apollo Moon Landings (E book Locations 3607-3609). Open Road E-riginal.

But Jay Jay Jay, that's not what Neil said. He said at the Apollo 11 Post Flight
Press Conference that "at no time did we see stars from the surface of the moon".

And here Jay thought it was easy to see stars. Silly Jay.
 
Last edited:
And yes, based on his visor & the viewing conditions, Armstrong could not see stars from the lunar surface. You know, it is a common saying that extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence, and the burden of proof rests on the one making the claim. Since you have failed so dismally at providing any proof of your claim that Apollo was hoaxed, perhaps you can provide something more simple, like verifiable proof of your educational claims...
 
Fuzzy Buzzy and Dumb Eddie saw stars RAF

That would be no, no, no, and no...

Fuzzy Buzzy, MAGNIFICENT DESOLATION;

"We had to coordinate our times with Houston, since there was really no telling day from night in space. The sun was always shining, yet the sky around us was a constant black blanket dotted with millions of stars. One thing was certain: with each passing hour, the Earth was growing smaller and the moon was getting larger when we looked out our windows.

Abraham, Ken; Aldrin, Buzz (2009-06-23). Magnificent Desolation: The Long Journey Home from the Moon (p. 8). Crown Archetype.


Dumb Eddie;


"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).
 
I showed the map to be mislabel, gridded incorrectly

And yes, based on his visor & the viewing conditions, Armstrong could not see stars from the lunar surface. You know, it is a common saying that extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence, and the burden of proof rests on the one making the claim. Since you have failed so dismally at providing any proof of your claim that Apollo was hoaxed, perhaps you can provide something more simple, like verifiable proof of your educational claims...

I showed the map to be mislabel, gridded incorrectly, hard evidence my friend.

Wake up and smell the TANG dude.
 
I showed the map to be mislabel, gridded incorrectly, hard evidence my friend.

Wake up and smell the TANG dude.

You showed you were ignorant of Cartography & Datums. How about some proof of your education, because you are doing a poor job of showing that you are college educated
 
Sure I am a researcher Jay, and one of Apollo History's very very best already.

I don't want to be rude, but this is the funniest thing I've heard all week!

Check it out. I have been at this 5 months, and am already parsecs beyond the likes of Sibrel, not to mention the Apollo faithful who gallantly and with the greatest futility imaginable, post against me here.

Many people have checked it out, and found your "research" to be laughable, and you rarely reply to questions. I've asked you three times for the page numbers in Carrying The Fire that you claim support some of your points.

Referencing Bart Sibrel does your credibility no good at all. This is the man who called Buzz Aldrin a liar, a coward and a thief as well as making the "documentary" A funny thing happened on the way to the moon. His "documemntarY" showed edited versions of freely available NASA footage which he claimed had been sent to accidentally. The edited footage was supposed to show that Apollo11 stayed in LEO instead of going to the moon.
 
Ha, I love the writing scrawled on that photo (and the backdrop also). What a pretentious twat.

Is it trolling time already?

The guy flies to the moon. The actual freakin' moon. He leaves a plaque there commemorating the event.

In your view, for such a person to quote that plaque on a signed photograph of himself in his spacesuit is "pretentious", his writing a "scrawl" and he a "twat".

This will serve as a useful guide to how I should value any further opinions you express.
 
Michael Collins, Author of everyone's favorite beach bonfire kindling jive bogus bull malarkey kindergarten pretend book, CARRYING THE FIRE(page 378), with regard to cislunar space, the Cislunar Nitwit writes;

"The stars are there, but they cannot be seen because, with sunlight flooding the spacecraft, the pupil of the eye involuntarily contracts, and the light from the stars is too dim to compete with the reflected sunlight, as both enter the eye through the tiny aperture formed by the contracted pupil.. No, to see the stars, the pupil must be allowed to relax......"

How dumb!

Thankyou for finally posting page numbers and direct quotes. I don't see anything dumb about the statement you have quoted. As the light level increases your pupils will contract to reduce the amount of light falling on the retina. Obviously, if the pupil is contracted, only bright objects can be seen, so stars would not be visible. In low levels of light your pupils will dilate to allow more light to fall on the retina and stars will be visible.

If the sun is visible through the window, then you simply will not be able to see the stars. However, if the sun is not visible in the window, your pupils will dilate and you will be able to see the stars. Simple.

The contracting and dilating of pupils is very easy to prove. Simply look at the pupils of friends and family in different lighting conditions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom