ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: dwight on July 29, 2012, 06:52:14 AM
-
G'day all. I am having a shooting-fish-in-a-barrel discussion with some amature HBs and was trying to get the dark adaption discussion we had here (going in for the kill now). Was that actually here or on the old board. I can't seem to find anything on it and I recall some good explanations. Can someone point me in the right direction?
-
These may help... but the answers are scattered in amongst much waffling (fattydash & playdor). I apologise for immodestly linking to one of my own posts in these..
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=theories&thread=3335&post=95027
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=theories&thread=3335&post=95053
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=theories&thread=3198&post=91514
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=theories&thread=3198&post=91555
Is there a particular aspect that you want assistance with - there might be better coverage elsewhere, eg here:
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/115509-Why-Cernan-saw-stars-and-Armstrong-did-not
ADDED - by the way, this page contains a fair bit of stuff that may be useful.. but again, it's me, strangely taking some potshots at a non-denier at BAUT... go figure..
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/115509-Why-Cernan-saw-stars-and-Armstrong-did-not/page4
-
Many thanks. That actually contained precisely what I needed. I got my wires crossed thing it was the old board rather than baut.
-
Here's another one that might be useful:
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theories&thread=3198&page=3#91467
I've got a better one, but it's going to take some searching.
-
Found it:
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theories&thread=887&page=2#24181
This one has a simple experiment that anyone can do for themselves.
-
I just finished reading Mike Collin's Carrying The Fire and he comments that during Apollo 11's coast to the moon, it was almost impossible to see stars even with the cabin lights turned down because of sunlight coming in the windows. Just to do navigational star checks, they had to cover all the windows and use the telescope, first maneuvering so that there weren't any reflections from the exterior.
So it was possible to see stars in cislunar space, but you had to work at it, and then you could only see a relatively narrow field-of-view.
-
That is the thing Noldi, you get it, I get, and the astronauts sure got it. It is just that small bunch of loud-mouthed nut-bars that seem to think it is the very foundation of the lunar hoax. if you feel like weighing in, Just search YT for Neil Armstrong 1970 BBC Interview and look for the comments made by the hoax theorists. Take a swig of vodka before you do. It makes it more bearable and actually funny.
-
I've seen stranger ideas. There's someone on BAUT (er, CosmoQuest now) who evidently thinks there's a conspiracy to cover up the invisibility of stars outside Earth's ionosphere or magnetosphere, that light only travels through vacuum as an invisible plane wave and must be converted to visible transverse waves by ions or electrical charge...apparently involving Compton shifting of x-rays somehow. All the instruments that have seen stars have secretly incorporated "gratings" (presumably diffraction gratings) to do the same thing. The close inspection the Shuttle windows get after each flight? Debris impacts are just an excuse, they're checking the gratings for damage. He thinks the Apollo landings happened, but that the star sightings were done with telescopes equipped with gratings, and that they didn't take any visible-light pictures of the stars because they wanted to hide that they weren't visible, not because they just had something rather more interesting to take pictures of. Oh, but the moon itself is visible in sunlight because of its ionosphere, or something.
He just ignores it when people point out that transverse waves go through vacuum just fine, that plane waves and transverse waves are completely different concepts that are only similar in terminology, that spacecraft regularly image stars from outside Earth's ionosphere (he insists they must have gratings or something), or that such a conspiracy would have to go back centuries and would serve no purpose whatsoever, or any of the other myriad holes in his idea.
-
It a mixture of comedy and tragedy when you get HBers who try to justify their position with a word salad that reveals they have no clue about basic physics. Of course, any HBer doesn't, but the garden variety HBer usually keeps things fairly low key, avoiding the technical detail of physics. It's those who try to go there that exhibit this most cataclysmic failure.
-
Just search YT for Neil Armstrong 1970 BBC Interview and look for the comments made by the hoax theorists. Take a swig of vodka before you do. It makes it more bearable and actually funny.
I've seen it. There's an old saying that a thief thinks everyone else is a thief, and a liar thinks everyone else is a liar. Evidently empty-headed publicity seekers think everyone else is an empty-headed publicity seeker. They honestly don't seem to understand why someone would prefer a quiet private lifestyle.
Speaking of empty-headed publicity seekers, there's (what I believe is) a new page over at AULIS credited to "Aerospace Engineer Xavier Pascal" describing his perceived shortcomings of the AGC. It starts out:
"The author claims that there is much to study in the technical documentation of Apollo and that it is as much stuffed with incoherences and inconsistences as were the TV recordings and the still photographs. The incoherences, as in the imagery, were intentional and designed to blow the whistle – which is now blowing loud and clear." [Emphasis mine.]
Hmmmmm...... sound like anyone we know?
-
Be great of French records actually mentioned such an engineer.
-
There's an old saying that a thief thinks everyone else is a thief, and a liar thinks everyone else is a liar. Evidently empty-headed publicity seekers think everyone else is an empty-headed publicity seeker. They honestly don't seem to understand why someone would prefer a quiet private lifestyle.
aka "psychological projection".
Speaking of empty-headed publicity seekers, there's (what I believe is) a new page over at AULIS credited to "Aerospace Engineer Xavier Pascal" describing his perceived shortcomings of the AGC.
Yes, that is the real name of our friend Hunchbacked.
-
There's an old saying that a thief thinks everyone else is a thief, and a liar thinks everyone else is a liar. Evidently empty-headed publicity seekers think everyone else is an empty-headed publicity seeker. They honestly don't seem to understand why someone would prefer a quiet private lifestyle.
aka "psychological projection".
Speaking of empty-headed publicity seekers, there's (what I believe is) a new page over at AULIS credited to "Aerospace Engineer Xavier Pascal" describing his perceived shortcomings of the AGC.
Yes, that is the real name of our friend Hunchbacked.
http://www.aulis.com/pascal.htm
Why do I get this line at the bottom? There is no end-of-quote code after my text.
-
Do you make sure to put end-of-quote code after your quotes? Because if you don't, it'll make your entire post a quote.
-
There's an old saying that a thief thinks everyone else is a thief, and a liar thinks everyone else is a liar. Evidently empty-headed publicity seekers think everyone else is an empty-headed publicity seeker.
It's been studied: One Surprising Reason People May Believe Bizarre Conspiracy Theories | Alternet (http://www.alternet.org/story/150730/one_surprising_reason_people_may_believe_bizarre_conspiracy_theories)
-
Be great of French records actually mentioned such an engineer.
Perhaps a fake name is necessary to keep him safe, like Una Ronald. ::)
-
They've invented a new noun.
-
It's been studied: One Surprising Reason People May Believe Bizarre Conspiracy Theories | Alternet (http://www.alternet.org/story/150730/one_surprising_reason_people_may_believe_bizarre_conspiracy_theories)
What a great article! I've long suspected much the same thing -- psychological projection, a "I would do it myself" attitude -- and it's good to have some backing.
-
Speaking of stars.....
I just finished Eugene Cernan's "Last Man On The Moon" and, following that, I was going through the ALSJ for A-17 again. I found this comment that Cernan made about the visibility of stars from the lunar surface:
"When you were in the lunar module, looking out the window, you certainly couldn't see stars. Using the telescope was sort of like being in a deep well; it cut out all the reflected light and let you see the stars. It was also generally true that, when you were on the surface in the LM's shadow, there were too many bright things in your field-of-view for the stars to be visible. But I remember that I wanted to see whether I could see stars, and there were times out on the surface when I found that, if you allowed yourself to just focus and maybe even just shielded your eyes to some degree, even outside the LM shadow you could see stars in the sky."
So that pretty much goes along with what we already knew. It was his next comment that I found interesting.
"And, quite frankly, under the right conditions here on Earth on a bright sunlit day, you can do the same thing."
I have to admit I've never heard this before. Have any of you ever tried to visualize stars in the daytime? I plan to try it as soon as I have a paper towel tube free, but I had to wonder if this is a common experiment that I just hadn't heard about.
-
So that pretty much goes along with what we already knew. It was his next comment that I found interesting.
"And, quite frankly, under the right conditions here on Earth on a bright sunlit day, you can do the same thing."
I have to admit I've never heard this before. Have any of you ever tried to visualize stars in the daytime? I plan to try it as soon as I have a paper towel tube free, but I had to wonder if this is a common experiment that I just hadn't heard about.
I read this book back in my teens:
http://www.amazon.com/Samurai-Saburo-Sakai/dp/0743412834/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344101255&sr=1-1&keywords=samurai
Saburo Sakai goes into some detail about the rigorous training standards for Japanese pilots at that time. Part of it included learning how to spot stars during the daytime. Not that every trainee could do it but enough claimed to have the skill that there must be some truth to it.
-
I've seen Venus shortly after sunrise but it didn't remain visible for long. Heavens-Above (http://www.heavens-above.com/)has an option to spot iridium flares during daylight. It uses a cut-off magnitude of -6. I've seen a -7 during daylight and it was very, very faint. I call shenanigans on spotting a star during daylight at sea level.
-
I've seen Venus shortly after sunrise but it didn't remain visible for long. Heavens-Above (http://www.heavens-above.com/)has an option to spot iridium flares during daylight. It uses a cut-off magnitude of -6. I've seen a -7 during daylight and it was very, very faint. I call shenanigans on spotting a star during daylight at sea level.
Yeah. At high altitudes or from an aircraft, on the other hand...
It also depends on what "bright sunlit day" means. At noon, it's going to be a lot harder than it is at sunrise or sunset. At those periods, some stars certainly can be visible while the sun is still up, and if he was drawing a comparison to the moon (where all landings were done shortly after local dawn), that's reasonable.
-
I've seen Venus shortly after sunrise but it didn't remain visible for long. Heavens-Above (http://www.heavens-above.com/)has an option to spot iridium flares during daylight. It uses a cut-off magnitude of -6. I've seen a -7 during daylight and it was very, very faint. I call shenanigans on spotting a star during daylight at sea level.
Yeah. At high altitudes or from an aircraft, on the other hand...
It also depends on what "bright sunlit day" means. At noon, it's going to be a lot harder than it is at sunrise or sunset. At those periods, some stars certainly can be visible while the sun is still up, and if he was drawing a comparison to the moon (where all landings were done shortly after local dawn), that's reasonable.
I suspect with the very high standards used for Japanese pilot selection, they had quite a number with exceptional eye vision that I'm sure would help in such things. I read a while back how they used to test for such a thing by having the person point out which one of the big dipper stars is actually a double star. Apparently, you have to have better then 20/20 vision to see it.
-
Reasonable. I forgot to take into account that this is Gene Cernan we're talking about here - being a Naval aviator, he may have been thinking of being able to see stars in an otherwise bright sky while at altitude; and most likely he had ferociously good eyesight.
-
I read a while back how they used to test for such a thing by having the person point out which one of the big dipper stars is actually a double star. Apparently, you have to have better then 20/20 vision to see it.
Mizar and Alcor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizar_and_Alcor) Fair eyesight is required but... well, read the link.
-
Speaking of seeing stars from space in the daytime, the hoaxers frequently quote Mike Melville as claiming to have seen them on his flights. I find this very hard to believe as his SpaceShipOne was only a suborbital vehicle that spent very little time above the atmosphere. Melville would have been very busy flying it, there wasn't much time for his eyes to dark-adapt, and SpaceShipOne had many windows that would have let in sunlight in almost any orientation. But I can't completely rule out the possibility if he took steps to block the sun and keep his eyes at least partly dark-adapted on the way up. He might have had time to do this during the fairly long ride on the carrier plane.
I suspect that if Melville did say something like this, he was speaking optimistically before his first flight, unaware that he would not actually be able to see them. Or he was just making it all up to sound poetic. Any ideas where this came from?
-
That is the thing Noldi, you get it, I get, and the astronauts sure got it. It is just that small bunch of loud-mouthed nut-bars that seem to think it is the very foundation of the lunar hoax. if you feel like weighing in, Just search YT for Neil Armstrong 1970 BBC Interview and look for the comments made by the hoax theorists. Take a swig of vodka before you do. It makes it more bearable and actually funny.
Yep. A great interview btw. I tried Armenian Cognac in vain. And actually, I invited one of these hoax theorists (Edwardwb1001) to come over here and post some of his ideas. He says he will sign up.