|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 13, 2011 17:38:16 GMT -4
So far no one has given any evidence that Armstrong didn't lie. You are asking for us to prove a negative here. It's not possible to prove that someone didn't do something. It's up to you to show that he should have seen stars and lied about it. No, this is the fundamental core of it. We know that to have seen stars he'd have had to take time to allow for his eyes to adjust. Nowhere in the Apollo record for Apollo 11 do we see this occuring. As such we don't expect him to have seen stars. This has been answered multiple times, under these conditions, and given time for your eyes to adjust, yes you would see them. Armstrong never did this though. Others did later and reported seeing stars under those conditions. It's called the phenomenon of being in bright light and how our eyes work. During a full eclipse with enough time for your eyes to adjust, then I'd say yes, it should be possible.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 13, 2011 17:47:48 GMT -4
So far no one has given any evidence that Armstrong didn't lie. We have, you simply reject it. You haven't given any evidence that he did either. Your personal incredulity does not count as evidence. This is THE ISSUE! Why do you not understand that what you can see is totally and utterly dependent on what your eyes do? Are you really that ignorant of reality or just yanking our chains? Yes, quite possibly, and some astronauts do in fact report just that. Armstrong had a very tight schedule on the Moon, he did not have time to go strgazing in the 2 and a half hours he had to do all the lunar surface activities. EVERY other crew spent more than four times longer on the surface than he did, some period of which was spent travelling to points of interest some distance from the LM. You've been given the damn science from qualified people. Will you please explain why you will not accept it? Yes, as the light from the sun is lowered and your eyes adapt, but you can't see any but the brightest stars.
|
|
|
Post by chew on Nov 13, 2011 17:52:57 GMT -4
This non-sense about eyes adjusting is just a distraction from the issue. Translation: I am barely aware of my surroundings, let alone my cognitive limitations, and have gone my entire life without ever noticing I couldn't see stars while looking out a window in a brightly lit room. You're the type of person who reports Venus for a UFO.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 13, 2011 17:53:55 GMT -4
Out of interest, playdor, exactly what are your own qualifications and professional abilities?
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Nov 13, 2011 18:41:36 GMT -4
What is the difference in looking into space from the shadow of the earth verses the shadow side of a space capsule? Quite a bit, in the ways relevant to the issue here. When you enter the shadow of the earth or moon, you're in it for roughly half an orbit. That's 45-60 minutes, plenty of time for your eyes to dark adapt so you can see stars. During cruise, the Apollo stack turned slowly around its long axis for thermal control. On Apollo 8 the rate was one revolution per hour. On later missions, it was increased to one revolution every 20 minutes. That brought the sun into each window in turn. Since it can take up to half an hour to fully dark adapt, you wouldn't have much time to do it before the sun came back around to your window. Nonetheless, some of the astronauts did see some stars with their own eyes in cislunar space. During Apollo 8, several hours after translunar injection, Frank Borman reported seeing Orion out one window despite having the sun in another window. Obviously he took steps to gain and maintain his night vision. (The slower PTC on Apollo 8 may have made this easier to do.) Also, Orion contains some pretty bright stars and is probably the most recognizable constellation in the sky.
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Nov 13, 2011 18:50:50 GMT -4
During a full eclipse with enough time for your eyes to adjust, then I'd say yes, it should be possible. I saw the total solar eclipse of February 26, 1979. To my surprise the sky did not become totally dark. But I still saw quite a few stars because I had been careful to protect my night vision prior to totality.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Nov 13, 2011 19:28:08 GMT -4
You know, this whole star thing is so completely wrongheaded.
There have been times when I have had to do things at night, under a clear sky, and I didn't particularly remember or comment on the stars, because I was busy doing something else.
The astronauts were not on a pleasure trip for stargazing. They were on a risky scientific mission, where their activities were designed in advance to get as much work done as could be. Why argue that one could, if one tried really hard, see a handful of stars? They were ON THE FREAKING MOON! They had other things to look at!
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Nov 13, 2011 20:41:37 GMT -4
can you see stars during solar eclipse? A solar eclipse where? If you mean a total solar eclipse on Earth, then the answer is no, at least in my experience. I've seen three total solar eclipses and stars have never be visible. I've seen Venus and Jupiter, and one of my photographs captured Mercury, but no stars.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 13, 2011 20:55:37 GMT -4
You know, this whole star thing is so completely wrongheaded. There have been times when I have had to do things at night, under a clear sky, and I didn't particularly remember or comment on the stars, because I was busy doing something else. The astronauts were not on a pleasure trip for stargazing. They were on a risky scientific mission, where their activities were designed in advance to get as much work done as could be. Why argue that one could, if one tried really hard, see a handful of stars? They were ON THE FREAKING MOON! They had other things to look at! This is what I was commenting about being the sample of one fallacy. I would do this, and since everyone would react like me, they would do it too, and if they didn't do it, then something must be suspicious. When I am out at night I often look at the stars and moon, not always, but a lot. Others don't look up very often at all. Does that make them strange? Not really, they just aren't as interested as me. I'm not interested in the Twilight Saga, that doesn't mean that there is something suspicious about people that do, it's just means they are weird. The fallacy is often also called the "If I run the circus" or "If I ran the zoo" fallacy after the two popular Dr Seus books of the same titles. It's actually far more common that we might like to admit, and even the best thinkers can fall into the trap of thinking that because others don't think or act like they do, then there must be something suspect going on.
|
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Nov 13, 2011 22:42:16 GMT -4
My question is, if they are going to lie about going to the moon, and stars should have been visible to them in the circumstances you say, why the hell didn't they lie and say that they did in fact see stars? Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb after all. From the perspective of a hoax, making the assumptions that a conspiracy theorist does, it still makes no sense for NASA and the Apollo astronauts to do things this way. The only conclusion I can muster is that the assumptions of the conspiracy theorists are wrong and at the very least NASA did not fake it in the way the conspiracy theorists say. Like people who are not fools.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Nov 14, 2011 0:11:52 GMT -4
What sources do you use for your Apollo research? You came here insisting in ALL CAPS that NASA lied about Apollo. What research did you do to determine this?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 14, 2011 0:43:11 GMT -4
I have no qualifications that are pertinent here. I am not a rocket scientist. What gives you the expertise to dispute the conclusions of people who are?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 14, 2011 1:07:07 GMT -4
I have no qualifications that are pertinent here. Maybe that's why your beliefs differ from those who have studied the relevant sciences. I am. You need to understand that among the relevant qualified experts, there is no question whatsoever that Apollo was real. The belief that it was fake resides only in people who clearly never ventured beyond high school science classes.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 14, 2011 1:11:40 GMT -4
Why should Armstrong have taken the time to look at the stars, Playdor? What scientific purpose would it have served?
We can get a better look at the stars using Earth-based telescopes than the astronauts could with just their eyes, so I don't understand why you think it was important for Armstrong to look for them.
Also, the way you simply dismiss the issue of the time it takes for our eyes to adapt to darkness makes you look like a close-minded fool. You've clearly made up your mind that Apollo was faked and you won't let little annoyances like "facts" get in the way.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 14, 2011 1:12:36 GMT -4
To imply these issues influenced Armstrong's answer belittles Armstrong and his crew. I don't see how. What I see is you trying to pigeonhole one answer or another rigidly into allegedly contradictory interpretations. You've been given a description of the physiology and operation of the human eye. You've been given a description of typical distracted human behavior along with examples. What I or anyone else thinks Armstrong meant is irrelevant. Only he knows what he meant, and you're just trying to stir up as much controversy as possible about it. Most of the people here are rightly refusing to be baited into such a fruitless speculation. Stop the absurd line of reasoning that requires one person to determine authoritatively what another person meant. Sheesh, are you that desperate? You've been given the science. Your unwillingness to apply it to your question is your problem, not the rest of the world's. If you want to stubbornly ignore the sciences that pertain to Apollo data and testimony, that's your privilege. But you cannot do so and simultaneously say the data remain "questionable" with any degree of credibility.
|
|