Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[little grey rabbit]

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.

Since the moon is a bare, uninhabited piece of rock it seems a bit pointless to say "we come in peace", no?

Was he hoping to met Big Bunny?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evtm39kvIsg

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Since the moon is a bare, uninhabited piece of rock it seems a bit pointless to say "we come in peace", no?

Ask Patrick. He's the one who insists Apollo was a military programme, intent on sooper-seekritly weaponising the moon, the better to rain destruction on those pesky Soviets.

It wasn't. So in the context of the time - during a nuclear arms race between superpowers - the statement was far from pointless.

 

[Erock]

Space Mountain , Orlando Florida, visor not essential.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_516144e78abc241a3f.png[/qimg]

So now he has the bright surface reflection to contend with and reflected light from the LM. If you're a doctor I'm an elephant.

Visor down, filters stars - no question. Sunglasses at night would do the same thing.

Visor up, loads of light reflection.

It really is such basic stuff.

 

[dafydd]

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.

The opinions of a Jew hating Hitler groupie should always be ignored. That is the best way to annoy trolls like LGR. I have had him on ignore for a long time now.

 

[Kiwi9]

How about Michael Collins SUSpilot? He flew all the way to the moon, 240,000 miles and saw no stars.

Oh, silly me.

Yes, silly you indeed. Very, very silly.

Is the above quote another example of your ignorance about Apollo or is it just another of your umm... terminological inexactitudes?

Can you tell us what it is that Collins is talking about below? Scotch mist?

No, he's talking about Venus and stars, and this lot is from just four early pages of the Apollo 11 Flight Journal, which anyone can inspect. I'll leave it up to others to find more examples.
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/

Some of the stars mentioned:
Atria
Gienah
Spica
Star 30, Menkent in Centaurus
Star 33, Antares in Scorpius
Star 36, Vega in Lyra
Star 37, Nunki in Sagittarius
Star 43, Deneb in Cygnus

000:45:02 Collins (onboard): Yes, I noticed that. Before, it was maintaining less than that; it was abnormally low. I almost asked them about it during boost, and then I decided to heck with it. Damn, it'll be hard to see through these optics... down a little bit. Okay, proceed to Menkent. There she goes, Menkent.
000:45:31 Collins (onboard): Menkent. God, what a star.
000:45:35 Aldrin (onboard): Nobody in their right...
000:45:36 Collins (onboard): Menkent's good...
000:45:37 Aldrin (onboard): ...nobody in their right mind would pick that one.
000:45:38 Collins (onboard): ...Menkent's a good star.

000:46:35 Aldrin (onboard): I was going to mark on 37, and that's Nunki; 30 and 37?
000:46:39 Collins (onboard): Yes, sir.
000:46:45 Armstrong (onboard): I can see some stars. Well, maybe I...
000:46:53 Collins (onboard): Okay, again, looking through the telescope, I'm absolutely unable to tell if it's Nunki, but I have it in the sextant. So let's mark on it.
000:47:18 Collins (onboard): ... you guys would appreciate doing this with old G&N men.
000:47:24 Armstrong (onboard): 0.01.
000:47:26 Collins (onboard): 0.01, alright. Shoot, I forget, I think that's gray Gienah.
000:47:29 Armstrong (onboard): Cup of coffee around here later on, when you get a little time.
000:47:34 Aldrin (onboard): You like that, Neil? You want us to record that star?

002:48:07 Collins (onboard): I see a bright star out there, must be Venus. Forgot to memorize John Mayer's views out the window well enough to say that's Venus or not, but it's sure bright.
[John Mayer was Chief of the Mission Planning and Analysis Division.]
002:48:17 Aldrin (onboard): What would you do about it?
002:48:18 Collins (onboard): Nothing.
002:48:19 Armstrong (onboard): Four minutes.
002:48:20 Collins (onboard): Tell you what, that's Venus.

007:20:56 Collins: Houston, Apollo 11. Star 40 has just disappeared now in the sextant. Could the trunnion angle 47 - something be a little high?
007:21:05 Duke: Stand by.
007:21:21 Duke: Hello, Apollo 11. Houston. We'd like you to press on to star 44. Over.
007:21:26 Collins: Yeah, Roger. How many marks have you recorded on star 40?

007:33:03 Collins: Roger. Forty-four is just not bright enough for this. There is a reddish glow filling the black area of the sextant, and the star is lost somewhere in there, and I cannot see it.
007:33:17 Duke: Roger. Stand by. We'll come up with another star. Over.
007:33:21 Collins: Yeah. I'd appreciate that. [Long pause.]
[Crews often found that if the Sun was impinging near the optics apertures, it could cause substantial flare within their optical paths. It is worth reminding ourselves how incredibly dim even the brightest stars are with respect to the Sun. Stars are virtually impossible to see when the eye is adapted to sunlight and it usually needs a period of adaptation to the dark to allow any but the bright stars to become visible.]
007:33:48 Duke: Hello, Apollo 11. Houston. We'd like you to go on to star 45. Over.

008:24:44 Duke: Hello, Apollo 11. Houston. We'd like you to do a P52, option 1 preferred, and establish PTC as listed in the Flight Plan at 12 hours. We'd like you to commence that right now, Mike. And we have some stars recommended for you. For stars 26, 30, and 24, when you get to attitude 000. Over.
008:25:19 Armstrong: Okay, Charlie. He's off the wick right now. Understand you're ready for us to do a P52, option 1?
008:25:31 Duke: 11, it's a P52, option 1 preferred. Over.
008:25:36 Armstrong: Roger. And, let's see, that is Spica, Menkent, and what else?
008:25:43 Duke: Roger. Stars - Codes are stars 26, 30, and 24. Over.

009:40:34 Collins: Okay, Houston. That completes the P52. We verified the third star with Antares, and Auto optics are pointing at it pretty closely. How do our platform drift angles look so far, Charlie?
009:40:46 Duke: Stand by.

024:24:00 Collins: Rog. I'm in a good attitude here to do - I have in the sextant this last P52 star [off-mike to crewmate] What number's [garble]? [to CapCom] star 3 7. Is that all right for the optics calibration to save some gas, or do you want to go over to star 40?
024:24:23 McCandless: Star 37 will be fine for the optics calibration. And we haven't noticed a Verb 66, yet, after our state vector uplink. Over.

024:32:13 McCandless: Roger. We copy. And that's for star 01?
024:32:19 Collins: Star 01, Earth near horizon. Code 110.
024:32:22 McCandless: Roger.
[Long comm break.]
[When the CMP measures the angle between a star and a planet's horizon, he has to tell the computer whether he's measuring to the horizon nearest the star or furthest from the star. This is required because only one horizon will be visible depending on which side of the planet is illuminated by the Sun.]

024:41:07 Collins: Houston, Apollo 11. On this star, the Auto maneuver works just fine. I'm right at the substellar point. Everything looks beautiful except there is no star in sight. It is just not visible.
024:41:20 McCandless: Roger. This is for star 01?
024:41:23 Collins: That's correct.
024:41:29 McCandless: You're not getting any reflections or anything like that that would obscure your vision, are you?
024:41:40 Collins: Well, of course, the Earth is pretty bright, and the black sky, instead of being black, has sort of a rosy glow to it, and the star , unless it's a very bright one, is probably lost somewhere in that glow, but it is just not visible. I maneuvered the reticle considerably above the horizon to make sure that the star is not lost in the brightness below the horizon. However, even when I get the reticle considerably above the horizon so the star should be seen against the black background, it still is not visible.
024:42:16 McCandless: Roger. We copy. Standby a minute, please. [Long pause.]
024:42:47 McCandless: 11, this is Houston. Can you read us the shaft and trunnion angle off the counters?
024:42:55 Collins: Yeah, be glad to. Shaft, 331.2 and trunnion, 35.85.
024:43:04 McCandless: Roger. Thank you.
[Comm break.]
024:45:35 Collins: It's really a fantastic sight through that sextant. A minute ago, during that Auto maneuver, the reticle swept across the Mediterranean. You could see all of North Africa, absolutely clear; all of Portugal, Spain, southern France; all of Italy, absolutely clear. Just a beautiful sight.
024:45:54 McCandless: Roger. We all envy you the view up there.
024:45:59 Collins: But still no star.

 

[matt.tansy]

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

And yet the LM plots near the same craters regardless of which map is used.

 

[JayUtah]

...

My professional qualifications!!!? My Professional Qualifications??!!!

Yes, and don't act so surprised. Do you really think that if you walked in off the street at Boeing or Lockheed and asked to be one of their commercial flight directors, they aren't going to ask you if you've ever been within 10 miles of a rocket before? Or if you have ever read anything about how they're built and operated?

Since you're setting yourself up as the judge of people who have actually built and flown rockets, I think it's only fair to ask if you have any basis from which to judge. Your whole argument rests not only on your ability to fly space launches, but your ability to do that better that just about anyone. You are comparing historical facts against your judgment and telling us that your judgment wins. Sorry, you only get to do that if you can demonstrate that your judgment is based on something besides ignorant guesswork.

I've got half a brain Jay.

No, I'd say the percentage is much lower.

I've got an entire brain, but I don't have a law degree. Would you want me defending you in court against a capital murder charge brought by an extremely competent prosecutor? Or would you prefer someone who knew the details about criminal defense and who had perhaps argued a case previously in court? I don't have a medical degree either. So would you like me to perform major surgery on you? Or would you prefer someone with a validated understanding of anatomy and physiology?

At least this time you didn't just invent a new persona with the proper expertise. After Doctor Tea got ripped to shreds by people who had actual medical understanding, and after HighGain couldn't demonstrate any actual expertise in radar, maybe you've learned that the "rank amateur" status you admit to under this identity is the only one you can credibly maintain for the duration of a conversation.

Don't worry: I know you don't have any actual qualifications in aerospace. You made that abundantly clear when as Fattydash you fell into some classic layman's errors about guidance and orbital mechanics. That was hilarious, and you finally had to admit the evidence showed Apollo was real. The subject at hand was exactly rocket science (i.e., the guidance and flight dynamics of the lunar module) and you conceded the debate.

I just wanted to make you come up with some new story that these fellows here could torture you over. I don't know about everyone, but I'm enjoying making you dance like my little Crackpot Puppet on a string.

As I am fond of saying, Apollo is not about rocket science, not primarily anyway. It's only common sense dude.

No, it's engineering. And you don't know anything about it. And it's obvious to everyone that you don't.

There's a reason the entire world uses the term "rocket science" as the epitome of a difficult and demanding profession. You may not recognize it as an activity that requires expertise and experience, but everyone else does. So by all means, keep showing just how out of touch with reality you are. It's very entertaining.

I know you'll ignore this question like the lying coward you are, but I'll ask again: Why do you think everyone who is suitably educated believes Apollo is real?

If the Queen Mary got hit by lightening on her maiden voyage out...

Translation: "I don't know anything about ship-handling either."

How fitting that you would try to patch up ignorant claims in a field you know nothing about by making more ignorant claims in yet another field you don't know anything about.

 

[Patrick1000]

My previous point about the ever so mysterious blue dot of Flown Map LAM 2

They aren't, they did, and it's the descent stage, along with the ALSEP, PLSS's, etc.

You can't even get that part right. Sheesh.

SUSpilot,

I thought my idea above was a good one. Actually, it's an idea bordering on the insanely fabulous, my idea that the Apollo 11 mission fraud perpetrators employed a "reference frame shift" as one of several tools to park the unmanned Eagle at Tranquility Base during the phony astronauts' pretended lunar landing period. In this way, the truant "MEN OF DEPENDS" would not be caught with their Depends down, not be caught not being there on the lunar surface when they were supposed to be. The mysterious blue dot of the Apollo 11 Simulated Mission Lam 2 flown map itself precisely references the nature, the measure, of that frame shift.

My thinking now is that you only need to hide the bird during the time of the landing, during the real-time of the simulated fake operation. Remember, the operation is only "fake", only fraudulent, in the sense that they are not landing men. They ARE landing an unmanned piece of military equipment, in all likelihood, a military equipped(with sensors) LM named Eagle. Once the operation is over and the pretend astronauts have left the surface of the moon, then its OK to have your unmanned Eagle "found" at 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east. Actually, it is desirable on some levels to have the bird found after the fact, "after the fact" as Neil himself is so very fond of saying. This is so because such a finding serves to "authenticate" the Apollo 11 military mission. Finding the military equipment by way of LRO imaging proves the US landed stuff there. Since most people believe the stuff seen is stuff associated with a 1969 manned landing, these LRO images are presented as evidence for the Apollo 11 Mission's authenticity.

Let's rehash Patrick1000's favorite scenario for the benefit of SUSpilot since he missed my point.

The Apollo 11 Mission was not a "fake" mission in that nothing happened , plenty happened. It was only fake in that men were not landed on the moon. A gigantic Saturn V rocket launched a huge package, an unmanned LM named Eagle, and it was successfully landed on the lunar surface on 07/20/1969 at 20:17 UTC. The Eagle's lunar landing site coordinates would be determined by the day's most precise techniques of measurement to be 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east.

Now for reasons mentioned; not wanting truant astronauts to get caught not being imaged by LUNA 15, not wanting truant astronauts to get caught by their not imaging a laser when they should have been imaging one, and so forth and so on, the perps can't let on that 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east is the real landing site until its all over, 'til the two blind mice have hooked up with the third blind mouse in the pretend tin can, in make believe space, somewhere in the vicinity of Anaheim California at US zip 92802.

One of the ways the perps pull off the bird hiding stunt is with blind mouse number three's, the Cislunar Nitwit's, LAM 2 "flown map" being fraudulently labeled. The map is labeled as thoroughly discussed above, with coordinates that are skewed 1.3 miles to the west/tad north. So while 400,000 people work diligently to land a relatively large piece of military equipment, the unmanned LM Eagle at 00 41'15" north and 23 26' 00" east, the LAM 2 flown Map of the orbiting mouse shows those coordinates to be 1.3 miles west/tad north of where they really are. It's just one more tool in the perpetrator bird hiding armamentarium that helps to get the job done.

As 07/20/1969 turns to the launch day, 07/21/1969, and then days , months, years and lifetimes of bogus histories, libraries of phony books and videos beyond, the Eagle's perch becomes just that, the Eagle's perch, the place 400,000 unsuspecting schmucks landed it on 07/20/1969, at 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east, thinking the whole time they were landing men. Now when one takes a picture of it, as perhaps the LROs have, one sees the military sensing device "Eagle", right where it is supposed to be.

Proves we "landed men", while the whole time we were in reality targeting Peking and Moscow, targeting Peking and Moscow with a little help from some equipment we had planted on the moon.

De'tente anyone?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

...One of the ways the perps pull off the bird hiding stunt is with [the] LAM 2 "flown map". The map is labeled as thoroughly discussed above with coordinates that are skewed 1.3 miles to the west/tad north. So while 400,000 people work diligently to land a relatively large piece of military equipment, the unmanned LM Eagle at 00 41'15" north and 23 26' 00" east, the LAM 2 flown Map of the orbiting mouse shows those coordinates to be 1.3 miles west/tad north of where they really are.

But M. Poirot, there are still one or two things I don't understand:

Please explain to us in what way would this map (purporting to be aboard the CM during the entire mission) be useful in concealing the location of the LM during the period the astronauts were supposed to be on the moon?

Describe, if you would, how NASA used Collins' map during the landing to fool the world.

 

[abaddon]

SUSpilot,

I thought my idea above was a good one. Actually, it's an idea bordering on the insanely fabulous, my idea that the Apollo 11 mission fraud perpetrators employed a "reference frame shift" as one of several tools to park the unmanned Eagle at Tranquility Base during the phony astronauts' pretended lunar landing period.

Hooray, D-K syndrome for the win.

In this way, the truant "MEN OF DEPENDS" would not be caught with their Depends down, not be caught not being there on the lunar surface when they were supposed to be.

Hooray, scatalogical obsession for the win.

The mysterious blue dot of the Apollo 11 Simulated Mission Lam 2 flown map itself precisely references the nature, the measure, of that frame shift.

Hooray, let's measure it in radians, or was that degrees minutes and seconds, or perhaps furlongs, or was it chains?

My thinking

You have yet to exhibit any

now is that you only need to hide the bird during the time of the landing, during the real-time of the simulated fake operation.

So once you put weapons on the Moon, then it doesn't matter who knows where they are?

Remember, the operation is only "fake", only fraudulent, in the sense that they are not landing men. They ARE landing an unmanned piece of military equipment, in all likelihood, a military equipped(with sensors) LM named Eagle.

And your evidence is... non existant.

Once the operation is over and the pretend astronauts have left the surface of the moon, then its OK to have your unmanned Eagle "found" at 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east.

Is that Rad/Dec, radians, DMS or some other mad measurement?

Actually, it is desirable on some levels to have the bird found after the fact, "after the fact" as Neil himself is so very fond of saying. This is so because such a finding serves to "authenticate" the Apollo 11 military mission. Finding the military equipment by way of LRO imaging proves the US landed stuff there. Since most people believe the stuff seen is stuff associated with a 1969 manned landing, these LRO images are presented as evidence for the Apollo 11 Mission's authenticity.

So now you claim LRO did image it, despite claiming otherwise earlier on. Make up your mind.

Let's rehash Patrick1000's favorite scenario for the benefit of SUSpilot since he missed my point.

Perhaps you don't have one.

The Apollo 11 Mission was not a "fake" mission in that nothing happened , plenty happened. It was only fake in that men were not landed on the moon. A gigantic Saturn V rocket launched a huge package, an unmanned LM named Eagle, and it was successfully landed on the lunar surface on 07/20/1969 at 20:17 UTC. The Eagle's lunar landing site coordinates would be determined by the day's most precise techniques of measurement to be 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east.

You keep oscillating between it did or it didn't. Which is it?

Now for reasons mentioned; not wanting truant astronauts to get caught not being imaged by LUNA 15, not wanting truant astronauts to get caught by their not imaging a laser when they should have been imaging one, and so forth and so on, the perps can't let on that 00 41' 15" north and 23 26' 00" east is the real landing site until its all over, 'til the two blind mice have hooked up with the third blind mouse in the pretend tin can, in make believe space, somewhere in the vicinity of Anaheim California at US zip 92802.

Ya mean the coordinates you don't understand?

<snip pointless repetition>

And finally, you lapse into mindless repetition of previous solidly debunked posts.

After all these pages have you nothing else?

 

[drewid]

Remember, the operation is only "fake", only fraudulent, in the sense that they are not landing men. They ARE landing an unmanned piece of military equipment, in all likelihood, a military equipped(with sensors) LM named Eagle.

And off we go into unprovable fiction la-la land again.

I thought you were looking for facts thePat?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

As has already been asked but not answered, why did this fantasy automated landing not happen at the appointed landing site, but rather overfly it and land several miles downrange?

Did NASA have it piloted by Evil Robot Neil and Buzz?

 

[Border Reiver]

I'm going to probably regret this - what 1969 era military equipment could they have landed on the moon that would have any practical use?

Sensors? - satellites and spy aircraft do a better job for less

Missiles? - land or ship based systems are faster to react and to deliver payloads, plus those systems are a whole lot cheaper to maintain

Comms relay? - Again that whole satellites are just so much cheaper and easier to maintain thing

Much as we like to think of the military being the land of the $700 toilet seat and damn the expense if it can't serve a useful purpose we ain't touching it unless some polititician has lots of pull and needs a pork-belly project in his riding.

 

[Patrick1000]

The point is, little grey rabbit, they would see stars sometimes

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?

Little grey rabbit,

What is at issue is very much not the validity of the argument that with bright sunlight filling a ship cabin, or your field of vision, starlight would in essence be washed out, perhaps washed out much of the time, what is ridiculous is the assertion that the Apollo 11 astronauts NEVER see stars. It is not a NEVER in an absolute sense, they do admit to seeing stars when viewing and attempting to photograph a solar eclipse. But in a practical sense, they are adamantine in their denial. This is why I emphasize NEVER. They NEVER want to deal with this issue. It is one of the fraud's hotter space potatoes.

Were the trip real, then during those periods on the long and uneventfully boring ride out to the moon, when the astronauts shutter their command module windows to darken it for sleep, taking one example, then the CM cabin is illuminated only by the dim weak light of its internal instruments. In such darkness, one's eyes would dark adapt. Peering out of a window away from the sun would come as only natural. You and I would do it. "Hey! Little grey rabbit, look over there", I would say, the two of us huddled before a window mesmerized, looking out into that infinite and frightening black sea, "there's Scorpio!!!!!, What sign are you?"

The astronauts not infrequently point out that they had nothing but time on their hands during these pretended cislunar coasts of 4 days' duration. You'd see stars, plenty of them. Not always, but certainly when you wanted to, when you tried to, and any of us flying in a real ship would try. It would be only natural. HEY LOOK!!!! VENUS!!!!!!

Ditto for the situation on the lunar surface, EVA aside. Inside the LM, cover the sun side windows and look straight up, stars everywhere. This is all nonsense, and quite badly acted I must say. Armstrong is most unconvincing. Try this Little grey rabbit, YouTube video search; Neil Armstrong, BBC interview 1970, Patrick Moore. Watch the first two minutes of the thing. Moore asks Armstrong what an observer can be expected to see in the cislunar sky and from the surface of the moon, and Armstrong says the only objects visible are the Earth and the sun.

A remarkable lie. An incredibly risky lie.

And, as I have pointed out many times, to say something like this, something so obviously false, something so patently untrue, something that would expose its teller to such incredible pressure from the likes of thoughtful people questioning the landing's authenticity, this something, this lie, must have had a whopper of a pay off. We did not go to the moon to show up the Ruskies, that's for sure.

 

[Border Reiver]

So, what is the purpose of this easily disproved conspiracy then?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's such a staggeringly weak argument that I really don't understand why Patrick still clings to it. It's only making him look idiotic. When Neil Armstrong tells Patrick Moore's audience that, despite the black sky, bright daylight on the moon is not like a clear, dark night on earth for stargazing, the only person who fails to grasp why is Patrick.

Just a few posts after a chunk of transcript was posted demonstrated to him that the astronauts could indeed see stars when they wanted to, here is Patrick stamping his little feet and insisting they could have seen stars if they had wanted to.

It's insane. A non-argument.

 

[drewid]

It is one of the fraud's hotter space potatoes.

Only for you it seems.

YouTube video search; Neil Armstrong, BBC interview 1970, Patrick Moore. Watch the first two minutes of the thing. Moore asks Armstrong what an observer can be expected to see in the cislunar sky and from the surface of the moon, and Armstrong says the only objects visible are the Earth and the sun.

This is a lie, or rather a deliberate misinterpretation.

He says the sky on the moon is black, as it is in cislunar space. This is true.
He says he didn't see stars from the surface, this is also true.

He doesn't say that he didn't see stars in CISlunar space.

 

[Patrick1000]

The point about the stars, about the lasers, is not about absolutes

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 point about the stars, about the lasers, is not about absolutes. It is not about answering the question in an absolute sense as to whether or not one can see stars from the surface of the moon, or from cislunar space. The answer to that question is given to us by professional astronomers and is known with utter certainty. Stars are easier to see from the surface of the moon and from cislunar space than they are from the Earth, this, providing the sun's light is blocked so that starlight reaches the observer's dark adapted eyes without competition from stronger solar rays. It is something even children are able to understand, a point they are not only able to understand in a general sense, but it is a simple enough issue, that the RATIONALE for star visibility being better on the moon than on the Earth under appropriately managed conditions is something children can fully appreciate as well.


From NASA's own scientists, writing on NASA's own web site;




What is at issue is how the astronauts LIE about when, where and how they can see stars. Everyone recalls that dramatically awkward moment during the Apollo 11 Post Simulated Flight Press Conference(Houston, 12 August 1969) when Michael Collins says he couldn't recall seeing any stars when they were photographing the solar corona from cislunar space.

This was of course the WRONG THING TO SAY, as it was the one time they HAD TO ADMIT TO SEEING STARS. The simulated moon had just eclipsed the simulated sun and with the simulated dark being so simulated black black black, and with no simulated sunlight, well they had to say they saw in some at least simulated sense, some simulated stars, in that simulated moment of simulated supreme drama. This is indeed reflected in the voice transcript. From the Apollo 11 Simulated Mission Voice Transcript at time 02 23 56 35. They have flown 200,000 miles and just now, they see stars in a meaningful sense/constellations, just now, for the very first time on the entire trip. THREE DAYS IN SPACE AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME ARMSTRONG SEES A CONSTELLATION?!?!?!?!?!? I SAY SPACE MALARKEY TO THAT!!!!! According to the Apollo 11 official narrative, star visibility has become a reality/constellations are evident at this time, thanks to the simulated eclipse. Once again, the CapCom and the Three Blind Mice in a Tin Can;

" CapCom: Roger. Understand that you can see the corona approximately 200 solar diameters out along the ecliptic, and the bright light extends out approximately one-eighth to one-quarter lunar radius. Over.

CDR: That's two lunar - two lunar diameters along the ecliptic in the bright part, right; a quarter to an eighth of a lunar radius out, and that's perpendicular to the ecliptic line on the South Pole.

CC: Roger.

CDR: Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.

CC: I guess it has turned into night up there really, hasn't it?

CDR: Really has. "

200,000 MILES!!!, THREE DAYS!!!, and it's the first time they have been able to see constellations, stars in some meaningful, recognizable sense? Yeah right Neil. Couldn't Ronald Reagan have given you guys acting lessons or something?

So Armstrong is smart enough to remember this stuff, the subtleties, "no stars except here and there". If you think about it, it has to be that way. If they were to say NEVER NEVER NEVER in an absolute sense, not once admitting stars, then even Jay Utah himself, not in a zillion years, would ever ever ever believe this nonsense. The lie is subtle enough to just get past Jay, matter of fact, they used Jay as the "test subject" for a lot of this nonsense. If Jay was "fooled", if Jay bought into the phony "not seeing star stuff", or the "map relabeling is no big deal stuff", then they figured they could pitch the thing to the American public cuz' they had a good empiric test of whether or not the cock and bull was sufficiently salable to a non critically thinking, television watching, mainstream newspaper reading, American of very average intelligence.

The problem was that the Cislunar Nitwit was/is not as bright as Armstrong, his handlers had kept pounding it into his head like a Zombie mantra "NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS", so much so, that when Patrick Moore asked the star visibility question at the August 12 1969 Apollo 11 Post Simulated Flight Press Conference, Collins, not being the sharpest of simulated pencils behind the NASA engineer's ear, forgetting this was the moment of an eclipse, a moment of supreme drama, WHEN ONE WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE SEEN STARS, said "I don't recall seeing any". Armstrong corrects the dodo there, nudging him to hopefully shut him up. Just prior, Armstrong had said not that they could not see stars during the eclipse/while photographing the corona, but rather, he couldn't recall what stars they did see.

If you have never seen that interaction, you have to. It is so revealing. The question by Moore, an initial response to a separate matter by Aldrin, then Armstrong, then Collins, then the nudge/elbow to shut the dummy up/the Armstrong implied correction/message to NitWit Mike.

Youtube search, "Apollo 11 post flight press conference". Go in about 45 minutes, not too long after that you'll hear Moore in his British accent ask a question about star visibility.

 

[drewid]

Hooray for self debunking posts...

Stars are easier to see from the surface of the moon and from cislunar space that they are from the Earth providing the suns light is blocked so that the starlight reaches the observer's dark adapted eyes without competition from stronger solar rays. It is something even children are able to understand,

But you don't it seems.

Everyone recalls that dramatically awkward moment when Michael Collins says he couldn't recall seeing any stars when they were photographing the solar corona from cislunar space.

So he couldn't see stars when using an camera pointed straight at the sun?

providing the suns light is blocked so that the starlight reaches the observer's dark adapted eyes without competition from stronger solar rays.

Can you say cognitive dissonance? Do you read what you write?

"NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS NO STARS"

It's noun76 all over again

Yet another Stundie nom.

 

[matt.tansy]

Is it too much to ask you to stop insulting the people who were involved with the Apollo program?