|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 6:59:13 GMT -4
Actually ka9q, I have Donald Beatie's "Taking Science to the Moon" and have studied it well. I also have thoroughly studied the original articles in Nature and Science magazines about the laser ranger experiments. I have been to Lick Observatory nearby my home and investigated the particulars of that eveing and I know how and when the determination of Tranquility Base's location was made and why it took so long.
I am not gaming anyone, I assume you guys all know this stuff. I am trying to get a feel for how you interpret it. How it settles out for you differently than it does for me. I can think of one way the astronauts might have been able to determine their location there on the moon and inform the people at Lick of that. But if I blurt out my idea, it might influence your own take on what or what not was possible that evening given the circumstances.
So I am not asking leading questions to be coy, I know for the most part we are familiar with many of the same facts and I wish to know how it is your side arrives at a different conclusion from me.
I am not so identified with the perspective of Apollo as fraud that I could not change my views. That said, I have been at this for a while and am comfortable with how I see this generally.
Also, there are many things of which I am quite ignorant. well I know more than the guy in the street, but on another thread , someone asked me about radiation issues and I do not know that well enough to participate in an exchange with him/her that would be beneficial to either of us, and I will say that if such is the case.
The visibility stuff, the physiology, the lasers, and so on, I know this stuff inside and out. I presume you do as well. we draw different conclusions from the same basic facts. when I ask a leading question, the reader knows that I am looking for a chain of reasoning and not a report of a fact. You guys on that side are doing the same with me.
thanks for your posts, they are great by the way.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 6:43:48 GMT -4
Yes I withdraw it, though I never claimed it. I mentioned it as having been reported here and there as an explanation for Haise's difficulties. Is that not allowed? The other forum members are doing lots of this, bringing up seconal ingestion reports in Borman's case and so on. I do not object to their doing so. I am aware of such reports myself. It seems the exchange here is full of this sort of thing. I have trouble therefore understanding what is viewed as reasonable. No big, I will try my best to sort through how best to present my views and respect any guidelines the forum has.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 6:35:59 GMT -4
I know that trebor. It was a leading question. Go on please. The other questions asked in that post, go on.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 6:34:05 GMT -4
With all due respect ka9q, we have been over this. Your point is a good one and accepted in a sense. I agree the astronauts have better things to do than view stars. It is the way they discount the stars altogether, as though they were not even casually accessable. It is one thing to say one is busy doing something more important, it is another thing to say astronauts did not for the most part see any stars for essentially the entirety of the cislunar journey(up to the solar corona viewing episode) when it is well recogniozed there were times when the cabin was dark, when it did not rotate, when stars were allegedly being sought in the context of navigating, when Aldrin himself says in interviews that there wasn't much to do en route to the moon. They kind of sat around if one were to take his account at face value.
I would imagine Armstrong would have said something like, "yeah I saw them and I wasn't impressed". But denying them so robustly, that is not credible.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 6:24:58 GMT -4
OK, fair enough. But can't they just say what you did? I don't get the name calling stuff.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 6:20:20 GMT -4
I am aware of that. If you were to look in more detail, you would find visibility would be iffy with the ruby reds. The argon lasers used for the Surveyor experiment were weak, 1 watt. but they operated in a spectral range more visibility friendly than the ruby reds. The light from the argon lasers was seen by the surveyor 7 camera with a magnitude roughly that of Sirius. This is per the original report. I found the report on the experiment with the details regarding visibility in the Apogee book on surveyor, in the text and on the disk.
The ruby red lasers employed, one at Lick, on 07/20/1969 and thereafter, were much more powerful than the 1 watt argon lasers of the 1968 surveyor 7 experiment. So for the sake of arguement, let's say the ruby reds were at least as visible as the argon lasers since you have brought up the point. Why didn't the astronauts see the lasers from the surface of the moon? They began operating immediately. Journalists were at Lick prepared to announce that Tranquility Base had been found. Why was there no returned light from the reflector if Armstrong/Aldrin really did set it down at 07/21/1969 02:39 UTC plus a few? Why didn't they see the lasers firing from the CM vantage? If surveyor got a shot of the argon lasers at roughly Sirius' magnitute, and these ruby reds were wattage wise way more powerful, and if you would favor this ruby red light as being visible with respect to the physiology of the astronauts under the circumstances, why was the light never seen? The lasers operated day after day once the reflector was set down.
Ditto for all of the other Apollo trips. If the lasers were visible, why was the light not seen, not photographed?
And again, why was Tranquility base so hard to find on 07/20/1969. If NASA tracked things so well, why did they not know where exactly the Eagle was on the surface of the moon on that night and why did it take so long afterwards to make a reasonably precise determination of the location of Tranquility Base? Why was the reflector for the laser experiment not found by the Lick Observatory team until August?
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 5:52:24 GMT -4
Not back pedaling, for example a simple UTI would not explain a fever of 103-104. So that cannot be the entire explanation, the entire diagnosis. A UTI in a man of that age would not cause a fever that high unless it were complicated, kidneys infected, associated blood infection, profound dehydration and so forth.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 5:46:37 GMT -4
The prostatitis thing is no big deal. I thought others might be interested. Stick with UTI, it is fine.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 5:45:22 GMT -4
The first van Allen article, at least the first I am familiar with is from Scientific American, 1959.
|
|
|
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 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 fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 5:03:45 GMT -4
Any chance HB types and official story types might be able to do the debate thing, the back and forth thing, sans the personal stuff, the name calling?
This is a serious question. Am I viewed as so out there that it is impossible to simply argue with me and let the personal stuff go? Do I appear so crazy that it is virtually impossible not to call me names?
|
|
|
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 fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 4:52:56 GMT -4
ka9q
I miss read the original post. I thought you had written pre flight. Must be a little tired fooling around with this all day. Anyway, sorry , my mistake. It still does not change the substance of my original point about these matters. The in flight evaluation of astronauts does not seem to me to be meaningful, real. It leads me to doubt the authenticity of the flights altogether.
Here's an anecdote that I find interesting. If one watches the deluxe version of Ron Howard's Apollo 13, and you go to the voice over/commentary version with Lovell and his wife talking over the film, one will hear Marilyn Lovell say that Dr. Berry was always "over reacting". she makes this comment in reference to Haise's reported fever/temp elevation of 104. It is a statement that makes no sense. I for the life of me cannot say what it might possibly mean. I could make some crazy guesses, but nothing fits well. why would she say that when the issue of Haise's fever of 104 is brought up? It would seem to me, under the circumstances, a doc couldn't possibly over react. I wonder what it is that motivated her to say that. Did she just hear her husband and his colleagues say, "That Berry, he's always over reacting! I ain't gonna' tell him squat ever again! You open your mouth about a pain, and you're off the flight". I have no idea.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 7, 2011 4:37:45 GMT -4
ka9q, they are making reference to Haise now , not Borman. Haise's situation is typically viewed as one where there is some agreement on the reported diagnosis, UTI. As mentioned, I have also seen prostatitis. But the situation diagnosis wise is not like Borman where you read one thing and then something else entirely without explanation as to why one possible diagnosis was favored over another
|
|