reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jan 3, 2008 7:11:01 GMT -4
Would that be found in the sci-fi section or the adult section?
|
|
|
Post by Trinitrotoluene on Jan 14, 2008 10:32:32 GMT -4
I've only just seen Jarrah's video entitled Cat's and Elephants: www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJuuraAMAUsI'm the Gavin Stone he mentioned in the video. He goes onto show that there has been conflicting statements made by "Propogandists" regarding the brightness and visibility of Apollo 11. I originally stated that it would be barely noticeable, and I still think I'm right. I will cut and paste you a transcript from a video I will be shortly making about Proton 4 as to why I think this is the case: " Jarrah's comments in his video "Cats and Elephants" do actually have a basis for discussion. It seems that some people will say that it would have been hard to miss, and some people say it would have been barely noticeable. I am the Gavin Stone that he talks about in his video, and I still stick by this in terms of noticeably for orbiting objects. Most orbiting objects are barely seen at all, some are quite dim. Apollo would, however, have been quite bright and moving fast, but not noticeable in terms of people calling the police. All though Jay Windley is right when he says that it would have been the brightest object in the sky next to the moon and venus, I still suggest that most people would have shrugged this of in 1969; However, it would have been of more interest to Astronomers, who are a lot more likely to question and research something anomalous orbiting the Earth. After thinking about it some more, I was a bit naive in not remembering that there were only a few orbiting satelites in 1969. Growing up with multiple satellites above me (iridium network etc) has rendered me more or less immune to orbiting objects. If the Apollo 11 CSM was orbiting Earth, It's only in the sky for around three minutes at a time, hence moving quite fast; at which point you would probably notice it outside out the corner of your eye. The magnitude of Apollo 11, assuming it was around the same height as the ISS would have been just a little less than the magnitude of the ISS. To see how bright this is, you can use the website Heavens Above to track the ISS and view it when it comes over your part of the world (If you're lucky) and you will see what I mean. The ISS is bright, and noticeable as it is moving fast. Given the lack of freely accesible resources in 1969 to research things like this (No google, No Heavens Above, No Immediate access to experts) it would not have been noticeable or questioned by the majority of the world; but it still would have been noticeable. This still doesn't change the fact, however, that what was seen in Australia was still not an orbiting spacecraft. If Apollo 11 was orbiting the Earth there would have been more of these sightings and phone calls to police across the entire ground track of the Apollo 11 CM across it's entire 4 day duration. The fact we only get reports from one location, at one specific time indicates that we are seeing something different. This however is irrelevant to this particular argument, as I will demonstrate shortly." What does everyone think? EDIT:Modified Transcript.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 14, 2008 10:45:26 GMT -4
I've seen the ISS fly overhead many times, and it's the second brightest object in the night sky when it happens, the Moon being the first. It's also visibly moving -- unlike, say, Venus. The ISS is a frequent source of UFO reports. It's enough to make people stop what they're doing and take notice.
If Jarrah admits that the Apollo 11 stack would be only slightly dimmer than the ISS then he cannot claim it will simply have passed unnoticed.
|
|
|
Post by Trinitrotoluene on Jan 14, 2008 10:59:29 GMT -4
Hi Jay,
I do agree that it would be bright and visible, but I'm not too sure about the noticeability to the public. If you take into account a) the publics lack of knowledge when it comes to astronomy b) the lack of available resources to research what was seen c) The amount of people who would question seeing something bright in the sky (google, heavens above, easy access to ontopic experts) not being available. When we look in the sky and see the ISS we know what we are seeing because orbital elements are known and we can predict with good accuracy when it will transit our area of the Earth; and this information is easily available. Back in 69 it wasn't, which is what I assume would make people less likely to report something that they had seen. I do understand what you are saying, and you do have a good point; I just don't think the effect would have been as pronounced in 69.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 14, 2008 11:07:07 GMT -4
There were many fewer thing in orbit in 1969. At the same time, people were far more interested in what was in orbit because of the novelty of space flight and cold war concerns that thing in orbit could be dropping atomic bombs on your head. As always the interest of the public has limits but the interest was enough for many people to be looking.
|
|
|
Post by Trinitrotoluene on Jan 14, 2008 11:12:09 GMT -4
Good point, that is not something I'd considered. EDIT: Also I guess I'm used to seeing things orbit in the sky given that I more or less grew up with the Iridium network in orbit etc. EDIT2: I've updated my transcript to reflect my Naivety, can't believe I forgot there were fewing orbiting objects in 69! I'm spoilt as an 80's child
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 14, 2008 11:37:27 GMT -4
Also, don't forget that in the early days of spaceflight, there were people that tracked satellites and spacecraft as a hobby; there's no way that something as bright as the Apollo 11 stack would escape their notice.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 14, 2008 11:52:42 GMT -4
Another point to consider: back in 1969, there was less light pollution, so things in the night sky were more visible.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 14, 2008 12:11:59 GMT -4
I should have taken a picture of all the people stopped in my street to gawk at the last ISS transit. These were people who largely didn't expect it. They noticed a bright, steadily moving object that had no airplane navigation lights, and stopped to wonder what it was. Contrary to Jarrah's opinion, you don't have to be looking right at the station in order to notice it. Your natural field of view while doing other things encompasses enough of the night sky to make it highly improbable that an Apollo stack or the iSS can fly over a populated area without notice. Even in today's Iridium-congested sky, the ISS still commands special notice.
And keep in mind what's actually being claimed. We don't have to claim that everyone will see the Apollo stack. It's not like the iconic Superman cartoon image of fingers suddenly pointing skyward. Jarrah's claim relies on nobody seeing the stack and reporting it. He has the burden to prove that the Apollo stack would be so invisible as to escape everyone's notice. Don't accept the burden to refute by proving the polar opposite; it's not necessary. We only have to demonstrate the likely hood that someone will have seen it. The opposite of "nobody" is not "everybody;" it's "somebody."
Not only was satellite-hunting a popular activity in 1969, but UFO-hunting was too. Everyone was looking up into the sky. Some people looked up hoping to see a satellite, and other people looked up hoping to see little green men hot-rodding.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jan 14, 2008 12:25:32 GMT -4
What about the Apollo flights that did stay in earth orbit (7 and 9)? Are there a lot of firsthand accounts of people seeing them and how bright they were? Because if they were highly noticeable, that would certainly cast doubt on the HB theory that an Apollo spacecraft could be in earth orbit for over a week without anyone noticing it.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 14, 2008 12:27:12 GMT -4
An important thing to remember about orbiting objects is that they are only visible when sunlit. This means darker skies within around an hour or so of sunset or sunrise. Even so, there are occasions where the ISS (in it's higher inclination orbit) is very visible in two subseguent passes.
The CSM would only be visible to those who could view it in it's lower inclination orbit as well, which excludes the majority of the US.
But it still would have been visible to very many, had it stayed in LEO for a couple of weeks.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Jan 14, 2008 12:34:29 GMT -4
And where is the report of a single person who looked for Apollo in orbit and didn't see it? There is no such report and only such a report would constitute any kind of evidence.
This is a similar argument to one that greenmagoos is trying to use on YouTube. He seems to (finally) understand why stars don't show up in the photographs, but now claims that the astronauts should have taken longer exposures -- and the fact that they didn't is highly suspicious, according to him.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 14, 2008 15:19:36 GMT -4
The well-known page of astronomical observations of Apollo lunar missions includes one observation, unexpectedly and by naked eye, of an S-IVB fuel dump. Apollo 8 was some 50000 km away at the time. If it was visible that far away, what would it have been like in low orbit?
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 14, 2008 15:44:52 GMT -4
A recent Canaveral launch had a booster fuel dump off the US east coast...it was clearly seen from Canada to Florida, and hung there for a long time...
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jan 14, 2008 19:16:04 GMT -4
And where is the report of a single person who looked for Apollo in orbit and didn't see it? There is no such report and only such a report would constitute any kind of evidence. This is a similar argument to one that greenmagoos is trying to use on YouTube. He seems to (finally) understand why stars don't show up in the photographs, but now claims that the astronauts should have taken longer exposures -- and the fact that they didn't is highly suspicious, according to him. The best YouTube argument I've heard recently is that the name Eagle is part of some sinister Masonic code (and I thought it was just patriotic, silly me). I tried asking the person if Charlie Brown and Snoopy were also secret code names, but they didn't listen to me.
|
|