|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 23:01:39 GMT -4
I was hoping someone would bring that up ka9q. So this would be one thing considered, along with many others. And in space, with the astronauts out of reach, there is no good way to tell what they have. But a fever in Borman would argue more for infection. So one would take his temperature regularly. This would be one way to tell Space Adaptation from infectious enteritis, not fool proof , but a start. Was this done, serial temperature measurements, repeated temperature measuremnts,? NO.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 22:57:16 GMT -4
I agree Lunar Orbit, no need to look at stars assuming this were all real. It is the Apollo astronauts themselves, Armstrong/Aldrin/Collins who emphasize no stars.
When Moore asks his question, one would expect, yeah, I saw this and that, a star here there, a planet, venus was bright. No big deal. But they make it clear, no stars. It is the fact that there are no simple casual encounters with what should be obvious, stars. No need to emphasize, just acknowledge they are there. But surprisingly, they are denied, not absolutely, but nearly so. It is very much not consistant with the environment and our physiology.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 22:51:59 GMT -4
He recovered because he was never sick. Say he really did have salmonella gastroenteritis. More likely than not, if the thing were real, 3 guys in a can with bugs everywhere, they would all get very sick and remain so until they got home, if they got home. It's no big deal because it is not real.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 22:44:26 GMT -4
Count Zero.
Take a look at NASA's own web site "Lunar Science for Kids", not to mention many others. Many professional astronomers, including NASA astronomers point out that stars would actually be better seen from the lunar surface. This is typically when they are discussing the issue outside of the context of Apollo. Some astronomers actually change their answer with regard to this when hoax implications are realized.
Often times, when astronomers are discussing why one cannot see stars here on earth during the day time, this comes up. The moon situation is used as a counter example. No atmosphere, therefore one sees stars from the surface of the moon in the day time. Check out Lunar Science for kids. Also can be found on NASA's Cosmocopia and many other places.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 22:38:21 GMT -4
Tedward.
The prioblem is one cannot get at the astronauts. So in such a situation, doctors would assume many thisngs to be possible, including infectious diease problems. They would act accordingly. Ask the astronauts to take their temperatures, try and assess Borman for dehydration and so forth. Often times, even with very sick patients in a hospital where there is tons of technology to sort things out, we may not know for some time, in certain cases a long time, what exactly is wrong with someone. We treat them, treat the situation, as though those problems deemed most likely are in fact responsible. And then you go from there.
Think about AIDS, back in 1980. No one knew what was going on. we assumed it to be related to an infectious agent and behaved accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 22:31:48 GMT -4
Lunar Orbit asked for a possible explanation. He did not ask for THE explanation. He did not ask me to prove that Apollo was fraudulent. His question was why not admit the truth were radiation concerns prohibative and I pointed out that assuming this to be the case, assuming radiation concerns were prohibative, there would still be a perception of the possibility for significant secondary gain by faking the landing. Lunar Orbit asked a very specific question and I provided one possible answer. His question to me was based on speculation,.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 22:23:25 GMT -4
I read in Chaikin's book that despite the doctors' concern, it was too late to bring Apollo 8 home immediately. So aborting the mission was not an option, though that would have been my preference, bruing it back ASAP.
What was aboard Apollo, what was available, soap, water, anything else? One would begin with making a serious effort to clean all of the surfaces and clean them well with whatever was available. This would be the place to start. Also, the astronauts should be ordered not to touch their mouths. Special precautions should be recommended about what to do at meal time.
The food on board, regardless of pre blastoff perception would/should be viewed as a possible source of infection, as would the water supply. Instructions would need to be given as to how best one might evaluate the drinking water and the food, both that which was already ingested and meals not yet consumed.
There would be much more. But these things are worth considering as a start.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 22:04:37 GMT -4
Lunar Orbit. They might not admit it if they thought it would be almost as good to fake it. There would be a lot to gain in pretending if the theater was convincing enough. Just with regard to the American people themselves, convincing the general public how capable we were as a nation, that would provide a great deal short term gain wise.
Also, just for the sake of throwing one idea out there, consider this Lunar Orbit, say the Soviets did know about the radiation risk. If we faked it well enough, they might be fooled into believing we had a radiation protection technology that they simply did not understand. It might have been scary for them. This is just a hypothetical, but this type of thing is worth thinking about. Often times, I view the astronauts as cold war overt operatives. Kind of like spies in that they do secret work, secret work out in the open.
Ultimately, I would imagine that most countries with sophisticated spying capabilities, Russia, Isreal, Great Britian, China and others, all came to know over time, some sooner than others, that Apollo was nopt real.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 21:55:30 GMT -4
Fiveonit. Have another doc take a look at what I am writing. They should be able to confirm. If not, have them pitch me a few questions.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 21:52:38 GMT -4
Scooter, if you have a reference where I might be able to read/hear the discussions between doctors and astronauts, anything of that nature, I would be very keen on taking a look for obvious reasons.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 21:50:45 GMT -4
For Lunar Orbit.
The actions following the evaluation, for example, what to do about a cabin contaminated with feces, are not actions consistant with the threat so presented. If an appropriate evaluation occurred, they would have done more than simply tried their best to pick the feces out of the air. They would have at the very least discussed doing a lot more. But the astronauts go about their business as if nothing happened in a cabin which should be presumed to have pathogenic bacteria on every surface and in the air as well. And this should be the medical posture until proven otherwise. That is not to say bacterial gastroenteritis is the correct diagnosis, but it does need to be respected as one of many possible explanations for Borman's illness until proven otherwise.
The activity in the cabin after the diarrhea episode is not commensurate with activity of competent individuals assessing and addressing the problem as presented. Ergo, the problem cannot be real given the stakes. There is no possibility for pathogenic bacteria on every surface because the diarrhea in the cabin never occurred. The whole thing is fake.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 21:38:14 GMT -4
For the teacher.
Yes you are absolutely correct about pilots' appreciation of their visual physiology. They could not care less about some of the details. The names of the photosensitive chemicals for example. I bet many, most probably, that once heard and read the names, have long forgotten them.
However, pilots nevertheless have great practical knowledge, especially as regards how long it takes their eyes to adapt, and how to help that process along, perhaps help it along. They also know things like the most sensitive part of the retinae is in the non color sensitive periphery. This is why pilots and others in the know, tip their head, angle it so that dim light will strike in such a way as to impact the retina's periphery and not the much less light sensitive center.
So though they are exposed to all the terms physiologists use when they are introduced to the subject, as time goes on, what they develop is a deep practical understanding of dark/light adaptive mechanisms. What to do when. That said, the fairly simple basic principles as to why their eyes work the way they do, are not forgotten.
If one looks at aerospace medicine texts, authors often emphasize the importance of pilots studying these principles with great attention. It is important for them to have a good basic sense as to what is going on, as visibility concerns are often paramount.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 21:24:32 GMT -4
For the teacher.
I do not have my book with me. You should have no trouble finding the relevant passages. Take a look at the part when he describes their arriving at the moon's dark side. It is a very dranmatic moment. In that general area of the book, I believe it is there, Collins discusses some points dealing with navigation and he also talks about cislunar space as being starless owing to the cabin's bright sunlit interior and the consequent pupillary constriction which was responsible for the starless feature of the cislunar sky.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 21:18:31 GMT -4
The question asked by Patrick Moore at the post Apollo 11 press conference was given a three component answer by Neil Armstrong. He did not formally indicate there were three components to the answer, but take a look, youtube search "Apollo 11 post flight press conference" and you'll hear his answer about 47 minutes in. The answer to Moore's question features 3 important points.
!)Armstrong answered that at no time did the astronauts see stars from the surface of the moon during the EVA.
2)His answer also includes the astronauts not seeing stars from the sunlit side of the moon while in the CM.
3)The answer also includes the point that when they first approched the moon from its dark side, a point in the journey when they witness an eclipse of the sun, Armstrong could not recall the stars/constellations that he did see. This is the point in the journey, the eclipse point, where the astronauts view the solar corona. Patrick Moore was particularly interested in this moment, what was visible.
Collins follows Armstrong with a statement that he could not recall seeing any stars/constellations at that time. The time being reffered to here by Collins is the time of the eclipse, the solar corona viewing. Some observers believe Neil Armstrong disapprovingly nudges Collins after the command module pilot contradicts the mission commander. See what you think about the nudge. If it is there, it is subtle.
And so, Collins contradicts Armstrong in that the commander is admitting stars at this time, at the point of the eclipse and the viewing of the solar corona, and there were said to have been many of them, like a night out here on earth when star visibility is good, or perhaps better given the alleged circumstances. Armstrong does not recall which stars/constellations he did see.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 21:00:01 GMT -4
For ka9q. Of course the other 2 astronauts did not get sick. Borman is not sick to begin with.
|
|