|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 2:11:46 GMT -4
Scooter. The lasers were ruby red, not necessarily visible.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 2:19:46 GMT -4
That is an excellent point about the ISS. I have the kindle book with me and the hard bound book at home. I believe the latter is an original. I bought it from a used book store on line. I first saw the quote there, in the hard bound book, at least that is my recollection. So it will be interesting to see how the quote is different. I will report back tomorrow about that. Again, excellent point.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 7, 2011 2:34:20 GMT -4
I think a problem here is that people are poor witnesses and some will use testimony as fact beyond compare. OK, some are better than others and technical aspects of an occasion may be remembered better than the bits outside the imediate event that someone is concerned with, maybe notes made at the time will help. A scene played out to to people will get different comments and observations when the watchers are questioned.
This is not denigrating any testimonies, the evidence backing them up is there. Therefore the conclusion I draw is they went, the observations were in the main similar and that they were not trained PR people but engineers and pilots and individuals.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 2:41:14 GMT -4
Again, thoughtful, concise, excellent point(s) Tedward.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jul 7, 2011 3:14:43 GMT -4
Collins follows Armstrong with a statement that he could not recall seeing any stars/constellations at that time. That is not what he said. I already provided you with a transcription of the conversation, but you twist the wording. Collins does not refer "the time". He refers to "in the solar corona", which was the question. He does not refer to a "time" but to a location in the sky. Collins did not contradict Armstrong. He said " I don't remember seeing any [ in the solar corona]". How that can amount to a contradiction is beyond me. Yes, and anybody can dream up any meaning to it, he wants.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 3:48:21 GMT -4
Patrick Moore asks the question of the astronauts because he is aware that at the time of the eclipse, at the time of the solar corona photographing, stars were visible. He knows this and so that is why his question is relatively pointed. I believe he is an astronomer himself of some ability, though I am not entirely sure of that.
Armstrong says "at no time" with reference to seeing stars from the surface of the moon or from the light side of the moon when in orbit. With reference to the earlier experience of flying by the dark side of the moon for the first time, the time of the solar corona photographing, Armstrong said he did not recall which stars, which constellations that he did see, acknowledging that he saw stars and constellations as is very much in evidence per the transcript. Collins then says with reference to that same experience, the solar corona photographing, flying by the moon eclipsing the sun experience that he did "not recall seeing any", in reference to stars. This was a contradiction. Armstrong had just said he did not recall WHICH stars/constellations were seen. Collins did not recall seeing any.
It is important(I guess) to point out that there is generally no controversy with regard to what Collins was referring to . It is very much accepted in the official story community and the HB community that Collins is referring to stars visible at the time the astronauts flew by the eclipse and witnessed the solar corona. So I believe I am missing your point.
Collins is entitled to have not remembered seeing any stars. No one can fault him for that necessarily, though my making reference to the transcript was done to emphasize that at the time they photographed the corona, there were lots of stars that were visible, and as a matter of fact, Armstrong comments that it was the first time the constellations were seen. They had not been previously seen for reasons we have discussed at length already. By the way, I believe Collins was the photographer at that time, taking orders from the people back home as to how best to photograph the corona.
Armstrong says he did not recall the stars/constellations that he did see, that were evident, in that dramatic moment and then Collins goes on to add that he did not recall seeing any. He did not recall seeing any stars, any constellations. That is what the "any" refers to, stars. So perhaps he did not remember the details of that dramatic moment, but Armstrong did, at least as regards the stars. So when Collins says this, not recalling having seen any, he is indeed contradicting his commander.
I welcome other interpretations from forum members, but my impression in discussion with official story advocates over the years is that there is no ambiguity with regard to what Collins was referring to here. He is generally viewed as having made the statement that he did not remember seeing any stars when they viewed/photographed the solar corona.
You are welcome to your own take on this
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jul 7, 2011 4:52:02 GMT -4
So I believe I am missing your point. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 4:57:52 GMT -4
I am sorry, but I gathered you were implying there was ambiguity as regards Collins statement. I was simply pointing out, as far as I was aware, most people interested in this stuff view the substance of Collins point as clear. i apologize if the intention of your post was not to differ with this position. that was simply my impression.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 7, 2011 5:03:24 GMT -4
Notes: 1. fattydash has NOT provided the quote or the context for his initial claim. I think it's time the mods had a word, but in the meantime, it should be obvious to readers why he won't quote with full context. Note that when he finally offered the quote from 'Moon Shot' he keeps claiming it was said by Shepard, when the quote does not say any such thing, and it is not even specific about under what circumstances the stars might have been visible. This is misrepresentation at its absolute worst and he is clearly trying to mislead this forum, again illustrated by his misleading statements about Collin's view during the solar corona photography.2. fattydash has not explained how his notes on dark adaptation apply to an astronaut on the moon, with 180 degress of daylit surface around him, and wearing a large helmet, visor and white gloves. 3. fattydash is a 'doctor' who can't spell 'manuel' or 'prohibative' Who gives degrees out these days... 4. fattydash makes innumerable claims like 'I have queried NASA in their public forums, ask a scientist type sites and have never heard anything', but he NEVER gives links or cites. 5. fattydash has still not explained *why* the astronauts should have been trying to dark adapt their eyes, and in fact has said 'Looking at the stars is not necessarily important on a real moon mission.', thus destroying his own premise for this thread. 6. fattydash is constantly changing the subject in the hope that different people will engage with him/her and it might be forgotten that s/he isn't answering questions. Fatty, let's just cut to the chase. Please answer these questions - the ones you ran away from at BAUT: 1. Would the presence of a bright area (say sunlit asphalt..) in a portion of the eye's f-o-v (say 10%) cause pupil constriction? Would it also stop/reverse any neural or biochemical dark adaptation? 2. What is the difference (in whatever light measurement terms you prefer) between sunlit asphalt and starlight?3. If someone's eyes were in the state referred to in q.1, would they be able to see any stars? How many, or up to what magnitude? Please outline how you determined your answer.4. If you were an astronaut on the sunlit lunar surface, how (and WHY) would you go about the process of seeing stars? Would there be any reasons why you wouldn't do so? Please be comprehensive and *specific* in your answers. That means providing numbers and citations if necessary. And I'll repeat that I generally don't ask questions like these unless I know the answers already.. And if you won't answer those answers, can you explain why you think they are not relevant to your claim?
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 5:10:13 GMT -4
I did provide the context and a clear reference. The Apollo 11 press conference took place in August after the astronauts were released from quarantine. It is a session that is familiar to us all and can easily be brought up on youtube. Simply search "Apollo 11 press conference". The statements so referred to by Armstrong and Collins occur roughly 47 minutes in. Go 45 minutes in and listen for Patrick Moore's question. His accent is unmistakable. He is the only one that asks about seeing the stars, so there is very much no ambiguity as to what the question is.
Likewise, I mentioned the well known BBC interview. Another piece of Apollo history well known to us all. Easily found on youtube at "Neil Armstrong interview, 1970, BBC, Patrick Moore".
I referenced Collins "Carrying the Fire" book where Collins explicitly states stars were not seen in cislunar space and why and I encouraged one forum member to go to the section in the book that featured the description of the eclipse/solar corona photographing, that was the section of the book where navigation was discussed along with issues regarding visual perception in the dark/pupillary constriction. I of course will be more than happy to provide a page number when I have access to my own book.
That said, surely we are all quite familiar in a general sense of the astronauts' claims as regards not seeing stars in cislunar space and why they did not see stars without the assistance of optics during the flight.
The thread was phrased such that Collins' awareness of dark/light adaptation would be acknowledged for he was a test pilot , a high level aviator. I will happy to provide my forum colleagues with specific references from my aerosopace medicine texts and also the 1968 USAF flight surgeons physiology book which I own when I return home and have access to my library.
Again, that said, others that have examined such materials whether out of professional need or simple curiosity are well aware of the familiarity both flight surgeons and aviators have with the principles discussed.
I have trouble understanding the comment. This issue, the "Carrying the Fire" book, the press conference and BBC interview clips, these are all quite mainstream and I very much referenced them and referenced them well as we have gone along.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 7, 2011 5:17:15 GMT -4
Scooter, fair enough, but the point is, one would expect to see lots of stars. Certainly many astronomers do. Perhaps you should try looking for stars when most astronomers (except radio astronomers) do most of their observing: at night. You might then discover that not every star is of equal brightness, or that there are far more dim stars than bright ones. You might even discover that the brightest star in the sky (Sirius) is about 13 billion times dimmer than the Sun and consider the possible implications of this ratio on the physiology of the human eye and the prospects for viewing stars in the daytime even without an atmosphere. I'm sure it must be very tempting to base your arguments on quotes mined from materials written for children. As a doctor you must surely know how difficult it is to explain something in terms simple enough for a child to understand yet strictly and technically correct and complete. But you're talking to adults here, so it would probably be better to stick to materials written for other adults. Even better, instead of pitting one person's subjective experience against another's without regard to all the relevant details that distinguish them, perhaps you could make your case by drawing logical inferences from general and broadly applicable principles. For example, if you were to find a statement by an Apollo astronaut that he couldn't see any stars despite a deliberate and undistracted effort to do so that carefully blocked and avoided all artificial lights and stray and reflected sunlight after a sufficiently long period of dark adaptation, then you might begin to make your case. You say you can't find any such statements? That's too bad.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 7, 2011 5:39:31 GMT -4
I did provide the context NO. You have not. Can you not read your original post? Here's what you said: See that bit about MICHAEL COLLINS, which you then clarified as being from his book? Those are YOUR words, aren't they? That was your OP wasn't it?So now, QUOTE THAT text. In context. That means, depending on the text, the paragraph ABOVE, INCLUDING and BELOW the actual words you are prefacing this claim upon.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 5:40:42 GMT -4
One can find similar quotes provided by high level professional astronomers addressed to an adult audience. Some of these statements are made by none other than NASA scientists themselves. For example; google "Eric Christian, Cosmicpia, Ask Us". Click on "Light from stars" and you'll find Dr. Christian of NASA not only mentioning that stars can be seen from the lunar surface providing one appropriately screens the sun, but additionally, Dr. Christian mentions how wonderfully bright stars, visible stars, appear in space. This is an adult web site, Cosmicopia, and there are many other adult sites that feature relevant comments. I mention this one as Dr. Christian is so very highly regarded and he is of course one of NASA's own scientists, so very credible by all accounts.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Jul 7, 2011 5:41:50 GMT -4
Scooter. The lasers were ruby red, not necessarily visible. With a quick Wikipedia search taking literally 10 seconds you could have learned that ruby lasers operate at 694.3 nm, in the visible (red) part of the spectrum. Not that that's especially relevant as the equipment was obviously designed to receive the wavelength being transmitted. As for why it took so long to get the first returns from the Apollo 11 laser reflector, it is not generally appreciated (especially by those who haven't bothered to do the math) just how 'lossy' the lunar reflector path really is. The early laser observatories had to fire many pulses at the moon, each containing some gadzillions of photons, just to get a single photon back from the moon. The newest such observatory, Apache Point, can actually average more than one return photon per pulse from the Apollo 15 reflector that's three times the size of the Apollo 11 reflector. That's after applying the benefit of several decades of laser, optical and computer technology unavailable at the time of Apollo 11. And it assumes you know a priori where the mirror is. The Apollo 11 landing site was not precisely known until well after the mission ended; as has been thoroughly documented elsewhere, the Eagle landed about 7km downtrack from the center of its target ellipse. Because of the extremely lossy round trip path, locating the mirror isn't just a simple matter of sweeping the beam over the moon while somebody watches in a telescope eyepiece for a glint from the moon. The initial alignment and acquisition of even the most efficient modern lunar laser ranging observatory is a tedious process requiring minutes to accumulate enough of a return to be sure either that a return is or is not present. Then you move to the next trial location and wait several minutes more, and so on, keeping in mind that there are no observatories where the moon is continually above the horizon while the sun remains continually below the horizon.
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Jul 7, 2011 5:56:24 GMT -4
One can find similar quotes provided by high level professional astronomers addressed to an adult audience. Some of these statements are made by none other than NASA scientists themselves. GOSH! Did you miss the bold bit? Has anyone here said otherwise? How would they shield their eyes? How long would it take for them to get a decent view? (be specific) What reasons can YOU think of that might make such an effort either unworthwhile or dangerous? Yes, and I can tell you that stars are also wonderfully bright from a desert location and with dark adapted eyes. The stars from the lunar landscape at night with dark adapted eyes would be just as wonderful, in fact a few percent better (barely perceptible). But this wasn't at night. They did not have dark adapted eyes. These were astronauts wearing large helmets and visors. These were astronauts wearing white suits and gloves. These were astronauts who were doing daytime tasks, and for whom night-adapted eyes, even if they *could* have shielded them in a way that would allow that, could present a danger. Be brave, fattydash, and address all these issues and the major questions above.I'll repeat them, just so you don't forget: 1. Would the presence of a bright area (say sunlit asphalt..) in a portion of the eye's f-o-v (say 10%) cause pupil constriction? Would it also stop/reverse any neural or biochemical dark adaptation? 2. What is the difference (in whatever light measurement terms you prefer) between sunlit asphalt and starlight? 3. If someone's eyes were in the state referred to in q.1, would they be able to see any stars? How many, or up to what magnitude? Please outline how you determined your answer. 4. If you were an astronaut on the sunlit lunar surface, how (and WHY) would you go about the process of seeing stars? Would there be any reasons why you wouldn't do so?
|
|