|
Post by echnaton on Jul 6, 2011 14:17:01 GMT -4
I have read the debriefing reports several times for every single Apollo mission. In not one of the debriefing reports have I read dark/light adaptation concerns discussed intelligently. On every occasion where astronauts have responded to this concern in non debriefing popular accounts or interviews, the pupillary constriction explanation is the one offered and so must be very much viewed as the explanation intended for us, the funders of this exploration, the patrons of Apollo, to buy into. I have queried NASA in their public forums, ask a scientist type sites and have never heard anything other than the pupillary constriction line. Even when I ask professional astronomers this question, they refer to pupillary constriction as an explanation for the lack of adequate astronaut dark adaptation. Pupillary constriction is not an explanation I proffered, it is one the astronauts and NASA has proffered. We, the patrons of Apollo , cannot change their story for them. Their account has already been entered into the history books. They say pupillary constriction. So be it. That explanation cannot be correct. Our physiology is what it is. This seems like an awful lot of nothing. If the account is in fact incomplete, it is just as incomplete for a hoax as for a real mission. How does it prove the missions were faked?
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 14:33:37 GMT -4
It is a convenient way, an excuse that would be understood by the public in general, accounting for the astronauts not seeing what everyone knows they should have seen, stars. The goal, the intention of the lie, has to do with getting people to not even begin to think about questioning the astronauts with reference to the visibility of stars. One cannot answer a question about something one does not see. The best bogus story, the one most easily digested by an unsophisticated public, which surprisingly, includes professional astronomers who also buy into this ridiculous explanation, is to throw this nonsense out there. And sure enough, most people bought it.
It is watered down physiology, an expedient way to dispense with the not seeing stars matter. Had real physiology been acknowledged, then it would be clear to many that in some situations stars would, could and should have been seen. Who wants stars if the trip is fake and the astronauts could be easily caught in a lie as regards them.
Assume the thing is fake. How would Collins answer the question, "So Mike, did you see the Southern Cross? What did Venus look like? Did you try and photograph Venus? Will the Apollo 12 astronauts be able to take better pictures of Venus knowing now what you and NASA photographic experts learned on your trip?"
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 6, 2011 14:38:15 GMT -4
Why should they have seen stars in daylight? Why is looking at the stars more important than looking at the Moon?
|
|
|
Post by carpediem on Jul 6, 2011 14:42:27 GMT -4
Hello DrTea.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 15:12:37 GMT -4
Looking at the stars is not necessarily important on a real moon mission. However, on a real mission, stars would be seen in situations where they are denied in the context of the official story.
Looking at stars is not necessarily important at all for bona fide space travelers/moonwalkers, but for astronauts who are acting, they very much do not want to be caught in a trivial lie that snowballs as at first they may perhaps only be discussing something casually that suddenly turns toxic when a technical point about a star, a planet, or constellation is pressed.
As an example of how difficult it is to keep these star stories straight, consider Collins at the Apollo 11 post flight press conference. He denied seeing stars when the astronauts viewed and tried to photograph the solar corona as Apollo 11 approached the moon. Yet in the transcript report, in the astronauts' own words, one gets the impression that they are excited at this moment when they first come to see stars after 4 days. How could anyone forget the stars at that moment?
The first time essentially in the entire cislunar trip, the astronauts finally see stars/constellations, 4 days into the trip. they take out their camera. They are given instructions by experts back home as to how best to go about photographing the corona. It is a moment of supreme drama, and the drama is emphasized both in the transcript's live account and in Collins' recounting of the event in his "Carrying the Fire" memoir. How is it possible that Collins forgot the stunning appearance of stars in this moment? How could he say he did not recall seeing stars at this moment at the post Apollo 11 press conference, when at the same time we read of the astronauts' excitement , including Collins' great excitement, seeing the stars for the "first time"(per Armstrong) in all of their glory? How? Well if it was real, it would be impossible. This was the moment by the way when the moon was first observed, up close and dark. The moon up close, stars for the first time in a journey of 4 days and Collins forgets? He claims he could not recall seeing any stars.
It is possible because this is all script, all phony. Collins is not as bright as Armstrong. He forgot his lines there. Some even suggest that Armstrong elbows him at that moment in the press conference when Collins blurts out that error. The one time they wanted us to believe they did see stars and Collins denies them. Not easy to get star visibility "right" when it is all scripted and everyone is lying.
So even in these contrived situations where star visibility is limited by the script, the astronauts are inconsistent and get their own official story wrong. Obviously, no stars, no stars, no stars had been more or less pounded into Collins' head and in another moment of the supremely dramatic, though subtly so, Collins gets it wrong.
For those that have never seen the Apollo 11 post flight press conference, this statement of not seeing the stars during the moment of the corona's being photographed occurs roughly 47 minutes into the session.. The answer by Collins is sort of a personal comment made after Armstrong addresses Patrick Moore's(BBC journalist) question more broadly. See if you think Armstrong elbows Collins at that moment or not. Just YouTube search "Apollo 11 press conference".
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 6, 2011 15:20:31 GMT -4
It is possible because this is all script, all phony. Collins is not as bright as Armstrong. He forgot his lines there. Some even suggest that Armstrong elbows him at that moment in the press conference when Collins blurts out that error. The one time they wanted us to believe they did see stars and Collins denies them. Not easy to get star visibility "right" when it is all scripted and everyone is lying.
So now we are discussing the press conference not the book? I thought you meant the press conference anyway. What is your contention about how they should have seen the stars? Is that different from what was reported?
In fact some other astronauts reported seeing stars. IIRC, Gene Cernan did.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 6, 2011 15:27:00 GMT -4
Why should they have seen stars in daylight? I can't even see stars when I am at a Texans night football game when the stadium roof is open. In fact its hard to see more than the brightest handful of stars in the much less well lit parking lot after the game.
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 15:29:49 GMT -4
Echnaton, not only Cernan, but in Deke Slayton and Alan Shepard' "Moon Shot", written with a coauthor, the claim is made that moonwalkers easily saw stars from the lunar surface.
The one time the Apollo 11 transcripts provide us with a description of an event when the astronauts saw stars and saw them well, was when they viewed the solar corona and photographed it en route to the moon. So they were supposed to say that they did see stars here, and at the Apollo 11 press conference, Collins said he did not. He contradicts himself and Armstrong.
How could he have gotten this wrong? Why the contradiction? Especially as regards this moment of supreme drama. The moment wasn't real. Lying, misdirecting in this fashion is not easy. Collins did a poor job of keeping the phony story straight. He forgot the previous lie told. Oh what a tangle web....................
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 6, 2011 15:31:07 GMT -4
Since you started two topic on the hoax theory, I'll repeat some question here.
1. Do you have any published research to back up your expectations?
2. Why is "the whole thing was staged" the best answer to your misgivings?
3. What other possible answers have you examined and found to be less compelling, and why do you reject them?
|
|
|
Post by fattydash on Jul 6, 2011 15:35:27 GMT -4
They see stars from the cockpit of the SR-71 blackbird in daylight and it is only 80,000 feet up. To emphasize here, in the daylight.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 6, 2011 15:40:47 GMT -4
Can you please post a clip of the discussion you are referring to. I think I know the quote, but I want to be sure. If it is the one I was thinking of, it was a question asked to Collins about the experiment he was doing while in orbit. He answered that. Then Armstrong stepped in to discuss the visibility7 of stars on the lunar surface. They were talking about two different things it would make no difference if their answers were not the same. Collins answer doesn't have any bearing on what surface astronauts saw or didn't see. I still don't see nay point to your objections, other than to say that you have your own set of expectations that are not being met. That is a pretty bland argument. Echnaton, not only Cernan, but in Deke Slayton and Alan Shepard' "Moon Shot", written with a coauthor, the claim is made that moonwalkers easily saw stars from the lunar surface. The one time the Apollo 11 transcripts provide us with a description of an event when the astronauts saw stars and saw them well, was when they viewed the solar corona and photographed it en route to the moon. So they were supposed to say that they did see stars here, and at the Apollo 11 press conference, Collins said he did not. He contradicts himself and Armstrong. How could he have gotten this wrong? Why the contradiction? Especially as regards this moment of supreme drama. The moment wasn't real. Lying, misdirecting in this fashion is not easy. Collins did a poor job of keeping the phony story straight. He forgot the previous lie told. Oh what a tangle web....................
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 6, 2011 15:42:38 GMT -4
They see stars from the cockpit of the SR-71 blackbird in daylight and it is only 80,000 feet up. To emphasize here, in the daylight. And this has what bearing on what Mike Collins should or should not have seen while performing an experiment while in orbit around the moon?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 6, 2011 15:53:42 GMT -4
Fattydash, what would it take to convince you that Apollo happened as the evidence shows?
|
|
|
Post by rob260259 on Jul 6, 2011 16:06:12 GMT -4
And sure enough, most people bought it. This whole 'no stars' thing started when the internet was launched. And ofcourse, there is this general psychological tendency for a lot of people to think that a significant event must have been caused by something similarly major, significant or powerful. The conspiracy theories see the light. However, I can't understand how some people can get sucked into a hoax belief system based on the premise that every scientist and engineer in the world is either stupid or lying. "Most people bought it"... don't make me laugh. What's particularly weird is that conspiracy theorists claim anyone with a basic understanding of physics or medical science could easily see through NASA's lies. I have yet to read a plausible reason as to why scientists the whole world over fail to see what is incredibly obvious for the conspiracy crowd. Seriously, don't you think that’s a little odd? I don't agree with your opinion on Collins. The Apollo astronauts were not raised to beat their chest, or do the funk dance or pat themselves on the back for their achievements. They were modest, humble and very focused on the task at hand. They did not show emotion or show their personal side. Otherwise NASA would not let them fly. Any little distraction could cost them their lives & impede the space effort if an accident occurred. Nasa would be accused of poor training. The Apollo astronauts all were unique. The have very similar characters. They would be the very best of Top Gun today. Very intelligent and at the same time, very introverted. These guys were no media whores. Your suggestion of brain washing or even hypnosis is outrageous.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Jul 6, 2011 16:41:32 GMT -4
Looking at the stars is not necessarily important on a real moon mission. This is utter nonsense based on ignorance. Observing the stars and measuring their position with the sextant was basic to manual navigation. If that possibility had not existed, Apollo 13 would never have made it home. Why, for heavens sake, should they be denied, when they were so important, contrary to what you think? The entire press conference can be seen here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtE8EewIjpU&feature=relatedThey are asked two questions by that specific journalist beginning at 43.10. The first is about the nature of the lunar surface, and the second is, verbatim: “When you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the Solar corona in spite of the glare?” Neil Armstrong specifically answers: “I don’t recall, during the period of time that we were photographing the Solar corona, what stars we could see”. Then Collins adds to specify: “I don’t remember seeing any”, in the solar corona, that is! Collins doesn't remember seeing any stars in the solar corona. That is what he specifically answers. No more, no less.
|
|