Author Topic: Apollo 13  (Read 221553 times)

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Apollo 13
« Reply #60 on: October 14, 2013, 04:36:57 PM »
Please point out where I can see the BBC interview in its entirety or link me to a page here that covers that. I'd really like to clear this one up.

Don't you think it would have been a good idea to try and find that yourself before making an unequivocal statement about what it contained?
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Andromeda

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 746
Re: Apollo 13
« Reply #61 on: October 14, 2013, 04:38:41 PM »
Allan, it is good forum etiquette to be sure of what your claims are before you start launching them at us, to say nothing of your rudeness.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov.

Offline allancw

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 33
Re: Apollo 13
« Reply #62 on: October 14, 2013, 04:39:34 PM »
Yes, Jason, please refer me to where the belts avoidance is covered (by a contemporaneous account). As I say, this would shut me up. In fact, I'd apologize even to the jerk Halcyon if you do that. I promise.

Offline Mag40

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 278
Re: Apollo 13
« Reply #63 on: October 14, 2013, 04:40:10 PM »
Please point out where I can see the BBC interview in its entirety or link me to a page here that covers that. I'd really like to clear this one up.



Patrick Moore: "Mr Armstrong, I do realise that when you were on the moon you had very little time for gazing upwards but could you tell us something about what the sky actually looks like from the Moon, the Sun, the Earth the stars if any and so on?"

Armstrong: "The sky is a deep black when viewed from the moon, as it is when viewed from cis-lunar space, the space between the earth and the moon. The earth is the only visible object other than the sun that can be seen, although there have been reports of seeing planets. I myself did not see planets from the surface but i suspect they might be visible".

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Apollo 13
« Reply #64 on: October 14, 2013, 04:41:27 PM »
Let's stick to the stars-seeing subject. Even according to your buddy Phil Plait, 'If you were standing on the moon you would indeed see stars, even in the day.'

Do you want the link to that page of Discover?

'We were not able to see stars from the moon's surface.' Neil Armstrong (or was it Aldrin? I can look it up.)

Who was it? Armstrong or Aldrin? Your credibility doesn't do well if you can't even tell us who said what.

Look, it's very simple: the sky is black on the Moon, meaning there is no atmosphere to block the view of the stars when the sun is up. However, your eyes adapt to lighting conditions. IF you could find a shaded area and IF you could exclude all bright sunlit objects from your field of view and IF you gave your eyes time to adapt you could see stars. If you don't you can't. If you're working around on the surface you won't just happen to see stars when you look up, or if you have the sky in your view. Your eyes are adapted for the sunlit scenery and will not detect stars. Phil Plait was correct, but you ripped his comment from any and all context (including the 'understood' context, where he doesn't actually have to spell it out for his intended audience) and presented it as a contradiction. it's not. It only becomes one when you rip the two statements out and present them as if they were the be all and end all on the subject.

Quote
If you're going to say that my quotes are out of context, please refer me to a link wherein I can be enlightened as to what the astronauts actually meant.

Usual hoax believer strategy. 'Show me everything because I can't be bothered to do any of my own research'.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Apollo 13
« Reply #65 on: October 14, 2013, 04:42:01 PM »
Yes, Jason, please refer me to where the belts avoidance is covered (by a contemporaneous account). As I say, this would shut me up. In fact, I'd apologize even to the jerk Halcyon if you do that. I promise.

You'll take back the name calling of others if you expect me to do anything for you. Rudeness will get you nowhere.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Andromeda

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 746
Re: Apollo 13
« Reply #66 on: October 14, 2013, 04:42:33 PM »
"Out from behind the shadow of the earth, we are into the constant sunlight. In a way, there is constant darkness as well, for it depends on which way one looks. Toward the sun, nothing can be seen but its blinding disk, whereas down-sun there is simply a black void. The stars are there, but they cannot be seen because, with sunlight flooding the spacecraft, the pupil of the eye involuntarily contracts, and the light from the stars is too dim to compete with the reflected sunlight, as both enter the eye through the tiny aperture formed by the contracted pupil. No, to see the stars, the pupil must be allowed to relax, to open wide enough to let the starlight form a visible image on the retina, and that can be done only by blocking out the sunlight. In practical terms, that means putting metal plates over all five windows, and then pointing the telescope at exactly the right angle, an angle which is not only away from the sun but which also does not permit any sunlight to bounce off the LM or CM structure into the telescope's field of view. Under these conditions the eye slowly "dark adapts" itself, and the brighter stars gradually emerge from the void. After a few minutes the familiar patterns of the constellations become recognizable (assuming you are fortunate enough to have familiar constellations in the part of the sky you have been forced to use to escape the sunlight), now the navigator can continue with his work."

- Michael Collins, Carrying The Fire
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov.

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1651
Re: Apollo 13
« Reply #67 on: October 14, 2013, 04:46:09 PM »
They were on the first mission. If you were on the moon, and took the time to get yourself in a position where sunlight or light reflecting off the lunar surface and the lunar module wasn't affecting your night vision, took the time to dark adapt, yes, you would see stars. But how long was that first Apollo lunar EVA? Two and a half hours and there was a lot to do. They didn't have time for no star gazing. Some of the later, longer missions, I've heard some astronauts took the time, but Apollo 11 just didn't have that leeway.
Frankly, I hate personal insults entering into this discussion, but I think, considering they have seen numerous conspiracy theorists trot out the same tired hoax claims as you, they are behaving quite well. Maybe a little grumpy, a little cynical, but you so far haven't given them any reason to be otherwise. So far, the worst I've noticed is them calling you ignorant. That's not an insult, that's simply a statement of your present state of knowledge regarding Apollo. Hey, we are all ignorant about something.

Offline ChrLz

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
Re: Apollo 13
« Reply #68 on: October 14, 2013, 05:01:49 PM »
Allancw, I have a small but rather obvious challenge for you.

Pick out your very best evidence/proof of your claim - the one you have the absolute most expertise on.

Then, politely, let us all go through it, step by step, each point being agreed before proceeding.  Anything that you (or we) cannot properly and scientifically cite and prove beyond reasonable doubt must be conceded.

After all, if you are the expert and logical thinker that you say, that process (of focusing on the issues of most importance and applying proper methodology) would be very familiar to you - it is of course the only way to get to the guaranteed truth on a complex topic.

It also will stop you (or us) from doing the ridiculous jumping from topic to topic and thereby avoiding addressing ANY of the answers given...


Surely this would be the best way to proceed - if not, can you explain why you don't like the idea?


So, Allan C Weisbecker - what single issue is the *best* evidence?

PS - choose carefully, Allan...... 8)
« Last Edit: October 14, 2013, 05:08:00 PM by ChrLz »

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Apollo 13
« Reply #69 on: October 14, 2013, 05:03:52 PM »
You all protest too much, me thinks.

Your Shakespeare is wrong again.  Hint--using it incorrectly doesn't help make you look smart.

Quote
If you all are NOT shills (as an investigative journalist I have to assume that possibility) . . . .

No.  Now, your journalism is wrong.

Under what circumstances would an investigative journalist have to assume that the people with whom he is speaking on a random internet message board are paid shills?  First, the organization in question must be known to pay shills to hang out on random internet message boards.  So unless you have evidence that NASA has ever done that, even once, you don't have to assume that anyone is a paid NASA shill.

Second, as I've pointed out elsewhere, 97% of NASA is on furlough at the moment.  Do you really believe that debunking conspiracy theories counts as an essential government service?  If it doesn't, what are the odds that any of us would be doing that right now if the reason we were doing it was that we get paid?

Third, if you are investigative journalist, you don't simply assume your source is lying.  You do your due diligence to find out.  Now, it's awfully easy to find out that Jay is who he says he is.  There are several other people around here who are not too difficult to track down.  I, personally, use a screen name, but it's the same one I use pretty much everywhere, so it's not too difficult to track down a lot of things about me. 

I mean, you've given us a name.  But I think that, as a former journalism student, it's my job to assume that you're lying about it and trying to hang on the coat tails of someone who "helped create" one of the most tedious and vacuous shows of the '80s.  Enjoy proving me wrong!
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Chew

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: Apollo 13
« Reply #70 on: October 14, 2013, 05:13:52 PM »
Yes, Jason, please refer me to where the belts avoidance is covered (by a contemporaneous account). As I say, this would shut me up. In fact, I'd apologize even to the jerk Halcyon if you do that. I promise.

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/TLI-animation.htm

Offline Chew

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: Apollo 13
« Reply #71 on: October 14, 2013, 05:14:03 PM »
If you all are NOT shills (as an investigative journalist I have to assume that possibility),

Bwahahahaha! Seriously dude? As an "investigative journalist" you no doubt did some "investigating" and interviewed many aeronautical engineers before appearing here and posting the same worn-out long-debunked nonsense?

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Apollo 13
« Reply #72 on: October 14, 2013, 05:17:52 PM »
In the BBC interview with Armstrong, the whole question and answer equaled Armstrong saying that he could not see stars from cislunar space.  Period.
First you claim some vague hoax based on a single Neil Armstrong interview.

Then you reveal that you haven't seen the whole interview.

Please point out where I can see the BBC interview in its entirety or link me to a page here that covers that. I'd really like to clear this one up.

This confirms my initial suspicion that you are not presenting original material but parroting other hoax believers.  Please feel free to dispute this by providing something original in you posts here.  I am certainly willing to be proven wrong.  As long as you are posting trite, well used canards and using the old trick of complaining about how people are treating you to avoid answering the critics you sought out, you will remain just another conspiracy monger.  It is up to you. 
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline Chew

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: Apollo 13
« Reply #73 on: October 14, 2013, 05:19:38 PM »
By the way, that Bean was unfamiliar with the Van Allen belt IS incredible, whether he could 'feel' it (the radiation) or not. That I get insulted for pointing that out also goes to motives here.

No, it goes to show your complete lack of knowledge about the subject matter. Don't start whining when you come up with a stupid analogy and get spanked for it.

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: Apollo 13
« Reply #74 on: October 14, 2013, 05:20:03 PM »
Yes, Jason, please refer me to where the belts avoidance is covered (by a contemporaneous account). As I say, this would shut me up. In fact, I'd apologize even to the jerk Halcyon if you do that. I promise.
While people on the forum sometimes go out of their way to point CTs to facts, it really is up to you to shut your self up until you actually know what you are talking about.  What you are doing is shifting the burden of proof.
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett