LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?

[JayUtah]

The two statements however, are at enormous odds with each other.

Nonsense.  You have little if any rejoinder to the restored context and analysis of those two statements.  Simply repeating your original belief doesn't count.

Your claim is rejected.  Move on.

[JayUtah]

Also do not think that a spacesuit or even the LM could have caused appreciable or much additional glare.

Are you able and willing to back up that belief with a photometric analysis?  Here's some food for thought:  polished aluminum is probably the most reflective of all the common materials you'll see in your lifetime.  Beta cloth has a geometric albedo, as stated, of about 0.8.  Solar influx is 1,300 W per square meter.

Please present your analysis confirming that such surfaces in sunlight would not cause "appreciable or much" glare.

[Edwardwb1001]

I did not mean that neither the LM or astronaut's spacesuit would be reflective (perhaps even highly) in themselves. What I meant was that I found it unlikely that either the LM or astronaut's suit(s) would cause enough 'additional' glare in the wide open spaces on the moon to have an appreciable effect towards making it difficult to view stars, (as mentioned by a member in the forum) considering their small reflective surfaces in relation to their surroundings.

[ka9q]

If by that you mean that the sunlight reflecting off the lunar surface would by itself be plenty to make it impossible to view stars with the naked eye, you are correct.

[JayUtah]

What I meant was that I found it unlikely that either the LM or astronaut's suit(s) would cause enough 'additional' glare in the wide open spaces on the moon to have an appreciable effect towards making it difficult to view stars, (as mentioned by a member in the forum) considering their small reflective surfaces in relation to their surroundings.

You seem to be arguing that the configuration factor within the field of view is the key factor in ocular sensitivity.  Is it your belief that the eye does not calibrate to the brightest received illumination within the field of view?  If that is your belief, please explain further.

An overhead street light occupies a very small solid angle within the viewer's field of view, yet dominates his ability to perceive dim objects.  This is easily testable.  As stated, the objects you name in addition to the lunar surface tend to occupy much larger solid angles in the configuration factor than a streetlight.

You seem to be doing little more than trying to handwave past otherwise testable and computable phenomena.  You're simply begging the question repeatedly.  This will not do.  You rebuked the other members of this forum for improperly rejecting your claims and accused them of some sort of ideological bias.  You now owe us an appropriate level of rigor.  Or else you may concede that your claims amount to little more than supposition and conjecture and have been properly dismissed.

[Jason Thompson]

What I meant was that I found it unlikely that either the LM or astronaut's suit(s) would cause enough 'additional' glare in the wide open spaces on the moon to have an appreciable effect towards making it difficult to view stars, (as mentioned by a member in the forum) considering their small reflective surfaces in relation to their surroundings.

They won't have an 'additional' effect, they will have the dominating effect. If you place a bright object in your field of view your eye will adapt to that brightness, making it harder to pick out dimmer things around it. It doesn't matter how much of your field of view that bright thing takes up. Look at the sky on a moonless night and on a full moon if you doubt that one. You'll notice a great difference in how well your eyes adapt to seeing stars. Car headlights take up very little of anyone's field of view, but just watch a crowd of astronomers gathered around telescopes complain about losing their dark adaption when someone drives in with headlights on.

Your eyes will adapt to the brightest thing in their field of view, not to the thing that takes up most of it.

[darren r]

If what you are wearing is shiny and reflective that's going to affect what you can see in the dark, surely?

[Zakalwe]

What I meant was that I found it unlikely that either the LM or astronaut's suit(s) would cause enough 'additional' glare in the wide open spaces on the moon to have an appreciable effect towards making it difficult to view stars, (as mentioned by a member in the forum) considering their small reflective surfaces in relation to their surroundings.

The important piece is in bold.
Just because you find it unlikely doesn't mean that it did not happen...after all, you might just have a hole in your understanding.

Go and stand near a streetlight at night. Can you see any stars? Or as Jason Thompson says, see how many stars you can see when the Moon is full. Then report your findings back here. You ight just plug one of the holes in your world-view.....

[Edwardwb1001]

"Go and stand near a streetlight at night. Can you see any stars?" - Zakalwe. The ol' streetlight experiment. I have a bright streetlight
less than three metres from my front gate. I have carried out this 'experiment' many times incidentally, with always identical results, viz: I could see plenty of stars. Nevertheless, I tried it once more.

Looking up directly at the lamp, with it's encircling halo effect, I could easily make out a medium to faint magnitude star just outside the aforementioned halo, yet in my field of vision.  Averting my eyes just past the halo to look directly at this star, I could easily make out many other stars.  The streetlight had not had a great or very discernible effect on my ability to see stars, even when staring directly at the light.  I was still aware of many stars twinkling in my peripheral field of vision.  If I glanced away from the lamp's halo, although with it nonetheless in my field of vision, many hundreds of stars were easily discernible.  Findings reported. What was I supposed to see/not see again, Zakalwe?  There seems to be not only a hole in the veracity of your 'experiment',  but also one in your own world-view.

On NASA's 'Cosmicopia' - http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_star.html , the following question is asked: 'Is it true that in space a person is not able to see stars all around them like we do on Earth?" A Dr. Eric Christian answers as follows: "No, I hear that in space the stars look wonderful, bright (although not twinkling) and very clear." (Obviously he did not hear this from Armstrong). He goes on to explain that confusion arose due to stars not being visible in photos or video images of space. He continues: "Luckily, the human eye handles the different light levels much better than a camera does."

The failure of the streetlight 'experiment' explained, but not Armstrong's 'observations'.

[Andromeda]

but not Armstrong's 'observations'.

As I have already explained, Armstrong was wearing a thick helmet attached to a bright white suit standing on a brightly lit landscape.

[ka9q]

The failure of the streetlight 'experiment' explained, but not Armstrong's 'observations'.

Apparently your eyesight is truly exceptional. Unfortunately it does not seem to be matched by your ability to reach a valid logical conclusion from a stated set of facts.

[Edwardwb1001]

I'm referring to Armstrong's 'observation' of seeing no stars whatsoever whilst in cislunar space, Andromeda.

[ka9q]

A Dr. Eric Christian answers as follows: "No, I hear that in space the stars look wonderful, bright (although not twinkling) and very clear."

I do not see a Dr. Eric Christian listed as an astronaut, which would be consistent with his use of the phrase "I hear...".

It is a general principle in general inquiry as well as in law that direct testimony is preferred over hearsay. Since we can all agree that Mr. Neil Armstrong was an astronaut who did indeed fly in space while Dr. Eric Christian is/was not, one can quite reasonably give Mr. Armstrong's direct observations considerably greater weight than those of Dr. Christian.

It should also go without saying that Dr. Christian did not qualify his hearsay remarks as to whether the actual observer was talking about the appearance of the stars in the daytime or at night (i.e. while eclipsed by the earth or moon). This is precisely why hearsay evidence is almost always excluded at trial.

[Edwardwb1001]

It's not that my eyesight is exceptional, ka9q. It is more likely that at least some of the 'stated set of facts' you mention are fiction.

[Andromeda]

I'm referring to Armstrong's 'observation' of seeing no stars whatsoever whilst in cislunar space, Andromeda.

You mean, when he was inside a lighted spacecraft, watching various lit-up panels?