LRO photos show ascent stage still on the ground?

[Andromeda]

Armstrong said regarding stars in cislunar space: "I was not aware of any."

Citation?

Is this not the same as saying that he saw no stars whatsoever, ka9q?

No. Was he answering a question about the entire journey? Any specific points on the journey? Provide the full quote. Context is everything.

Mm-hm.  Like I said, cheery-picking and absolutes.

[ka9q]

What I certainly do understand, (and which is plainly evident) is that regarding responses to conflicting comments by astronauts and scientists, there is much rationalisation.

The word "rationalization" (American spelling) implies explanations that are false. What, exactly, is false about our explanation for why stars are sometimes seen in space with the naked eye, and sometimes not?

Here, I'll give you some possibilities from which to choose. I can provide a list of relevant research material on request.

Does the human eye not have a very wide dynamic range, with the retina reaching full sensitivity to dim light only after minutes of slow chemical adaptation in the dark?

Do the Apollo spacecraft cabins (CSM and LM) lack bright white cabin lighting that can quickly reverse this chemical adaptation, i.e., kill night vision?

Do the Apollo spacecraft have large picture windows giving a panoramic vista of the celestial sphere that would make star sighting easy?

Were the windows on the Apollo CSM always unaffected by outgassing, escape tower solid rocket plumes and other problems that impaired visibility?

Did the Apollo astronauts land on the moon at night when stars would be easiest to see?

During their lunar EVAs, did the Apollo astronauts use highly transparent visors?

Was stargazing with the naked eye an official goal of any Apollo mission?

If "no", did the astronauts have plenty of spare time on the lunar surface that they could have used for stargazing?

This should get you started.







 
 

[Jason Thompson]

It's not necessarily true that they are 'telling lies',  Andromeda. A person may be of the opinion that a certain statement or view is a fact, and present it as such, yet they are not willfully telling lies.

If you want to argue semantics, I suggest you take a look at your own choice of words. What you are describing is 'being mistaken'. What you said was 'fiction'. Fiction is made up, deliberately, as a fabrication. It is, in a very real sense, a lie. A mistake is not fiction. A mistake is not a lie. Fiction is not a mistake. Fiction is a lie.

[Andromeda]

Yes.

fic·tion [fik-shuhn]

noun

1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, especially in prose form.
2. works of this class, as novels or short stories: detective fiction.
3. something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story: We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
4. the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
5. an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fiction?s=t

[ka9q]

Armstrong said regarding stars in cislunar space: "I was not aware of any." Is this not the same as saying that he saw no stars whatsoever, ka9q? Why did Armstrong make the above categorical statement, Trebor, if he at various times did indeed see stars?

Because it wasn't a categorical statement! Here's what he actually said:

Armstrong: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

Aldrin: I don't remember seeing any.


This is quite far from the categorical statement you claim it was. According to you, any statement at variance with the facts is necessarily a lie, so you were lying when you made it.

[JayUtah]

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.

No, since innumerable people share the typical experience and, in fact, cite this exercise as a demonstration of it, it's far more likely your report is fiction.

[JayUtah]

What I certainly do understand, (and which is plainly evident) is that regarding responses to conflicting comments by astronauts and scientists, there is much rationalisation.

No.

The position I and most of my colleagues have always taken is that whether one sees stars or not in a space environment depends greatly on circumstances of the viewing.  This is also the position stated by every astronaut who has ever flown in space and been asked about this.  Despite this, you insist on categorical answers.  Despite the obvious straw-man tactic, you additionally misquote and misrepresent your sources and patently refuse to respond when those shady tactics are revealed.

It's not rationalizing or equivocating to correctly reject the straw man you're trying to foist.  Now did you really come here and raise such a big stink to present an argument that was debunked 40 years ago?

[gillianren]

No, since innumerable people share the typical experience and, in fact, cite this exercise as a demonstration of it, it's far more likely your report is fiction.

Bingo.  There's one person I'm willing to call a liar on this one (remember, we need to add doctors to the people who disagree with the claim), and it sure isn't Buzz Aldrin. 

Seriously, though, why can't conspiracists ever own their words?  If you believe the Apollo missions were faked in any part, you believe that the people who claim from personal experience that they were true are liars.  They can't be "rationalizing" a claim that, for example, they walked on the Moon (or orbited around it!).  They either did or they didn't.  If you believe the missions were faked, you believe they're liars.  Admit it, and let's all move on.

[raven]

Here is Apollo 11 press conference.

47:14
It wasn't Armstrong who said Edwardwb1001 quotes, but Collins*, and they aren't describing stars in general, but on the daylight side of the moon or IN the solar corona, with the naked eye and not using the optics to shield  their view.
Conspiracy theorists just love to quote-mine this video, but watching the whole thing makes it clear they are not talking about stars in general under all conditions.
*Someone screwed up when writing out the transcript.

[Zakalwe]

"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.

Truly, you are different to humans then. The rods in human eyes (which are the most sensitive to light) take about 25 minutes to get to full sensitivity. The cones take at least 10 minutes, but they are much less sensitive to light. I would be interested in hearing what your definition of a "medium to faint magnitude star" actually is...are you sure that you aren't mistaking Jupiter for a star (it's about the only thing bright enough in the sky at the moment to be seen under street-lights)?

The streetlight had not had a great or very discernible effect on my ability to see stars, even when staring directly at the light.

As for the streetlight not having a "great or discernible effect"? I'm sorry, but that's weapons-grade B.S.  I am an amateur astronomer and astro-imager and I am VERY familiar with the process of dark adaption. The slightest exposure to a white light completely ruins the eye's dark adaption, and it takes another 30 or so minutes for the rhodopsin to leach out of the retina's cells to allow full sensitivity to be restored.

[Andromeda]

Zakalwe I agree with you, I just didn't want to be the first to say it.

[raven]

If I am a several feet from a window in a room with the lights on at night, I can't see stars in the view of the sky from the window, and as anyone who has walked in from outside on a sunny day knows, household lights are much, much dimmer than the sun.

[Glom]

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.

No, since innumerable people share the typical experience and, in fact, cite this exercise as a demonstration of it, it's far more likely your report is fiction.

More likely a misinterpretation of what he was seeing due to a bias towards drawing certain conclusions.  He was probably seeing a planet and the odd zeroth and first magnitude star.  The statement that staring directly at a street light made no difference to his ability to see stars is absurd.

[ChrLz]

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.

Not quite sure why I am engaging with this XXXXX {highly descriptive term deleted as there may be readers of a delicate temperament present}.. but those statements above are indeed absurd - and are blatant, absolute and unmitigated LIES - I would invite anyone to wander outside and check for themselves...

Just more falsehoods added to the out-of-context or just downright false 'quotes' and other deceptions - I think it's time 'Edward' was given his marching orders.

May I ask, are there any lurkers or observers out there who wish to support Edward with proper debate in good faith?  Edward is clearly incapable of it and will eagerly lie to support his ravings.  If he is the only person who pushes this garbage, then I think it's time to stop giving him the attention he desperately craves.

[Edwardwb1001]

All and sundry are very concerned about quoting and misquoting, yet Glom blatantly misquotes me. I did not say that staring directly at a streetlight made no difference in my ability to see stars.  I said that it 'had not had a great or very discernible effect'.  Furthermore, Glom and Zakalwe, I am very aware of the location of Jupiter, as I have observed it many times through my reflecting telescope. At the moment it is on the opposite side of the night sky in relation to where I conducted my 'experiment'. The star I referred to was far, far dimmer than Jupiter's appearence. I suggest you desist from making assumptions.

The findings I related are exactly as experienced, but if what I say is simply going to be regarded as 'blatant, absolute and unmitigated LIES', not to mention 'falsehoods, deceptions, ravings, and attention cravings' (ChrLz), I agree with him that I be banned from the site.  It seems to be the only solution to putting members of this site out of their misery.