Why are NASA astronauts (still) lying?

[allancw]

This post is based on my video at

Clearly, four recent NASA astronauts -- plus a bevy of Apollo boys -- claim outright that you cannot SEE stars from the vacuum of low earth orbit (or cislunar space re Apollo, same thing), which is clearly a LIE. Let's start with that and leave the faked imagery for later.

The question has nothing to do with the usual BS that stars do not register on film. We are only talking about what these NASA people say they can SEE in space. By the laws of physics and simple common sense, these people are lying. I ask, Why?

Allancw is baaaack.

[ChrLz]

This post is based on my video at

Clearly, four recent NASA astronauts -- plus a bevy of Apollo boys -- claim outright that you cannot SEE stars from the vacuum of low earth orbit (or cislunar space re Apollo, same thing), which is clearly a LIE. Let's start with that and leave the faked imagery for later.

The question has nothing to do with the usual BS that stars do not register on film. We are only talking about what these NASA people say they can SEE in space. By the laws of physics and simple common sense, these people are lying. I ask, Why?

Allancw is baaaack.

To deal with the last first, if ONLY he had brought new found knowledge and wisdom....

First up, posting youtube videos as your spam argument is rude (to those of us with limited connection quality) and just plain lazy.  Why do you think they call these DISCUSSION forums?
So, QUOTE the astronauts here, in full and in context, and then we'll talk about the visibility of stars under various conditions, including daytime viewing.  I'll be happy to elaborate in detail.

And before we proceed, please state up front, is this aspect your best evidence?

If it's NOT, you need to tell us why did you bring it up first?

[ChrLz]

BTW, the name allancw rang a bell, so i took the liberty of checking back to look at your initial posts here..

In your very first post, you stated this:

Bean has stated that a LEM on the moon with no power (as it was on the powerless LEM returning from the moon, a three day trip under the same conditions) would heat up to 250 degrees f. Yet the Apollo story is that the cabin cooled down to '34 degrees,' according to Lovell.

Sorry, Allan, but asking a question like that shows you didn't even know the difference between heat and temperature, let alone have the faintest knowledge of thermodynamics and all of the issues that would need to be taken into account.  I won't embarrass you further by quoting your later comment about lighting angles...

Now of course since then you could well have brushed up and learnt stuff - if so I will be the first to congratulate you.. but I noted that during your last visit as your posts progressed at NO point did you ever acknowledge your errors and accept the correcting information.  The nearest we got was this:

You guys are over my head with some of your data/explanations.

but it was immediately followed by you refusing to accept the explanations you were given... peppered with some interesting language..


So, to anyone about to respond to allancw (aka Allan Weisbecker), I'd strongly suggest you examine his posting history, and that he is not permitted to try the same avoidance tactics again...

BTW, I have a conspiracy theory of my own - allancw is pushing a movie and book (watch out for the spam..), and he has apparently caught something from Jim Fetzer..... yes, it's that sort of rabbit.. er weasel-hole.


So let's stick to the stars FIRST, shall we?

[Zakalwe]

Allancw is baaaack.

 

Before you go off rambling on another gish-gallop, how about acknowledging the errors in your other posts? Namely that no documents or evidence existed that could possibly refute your ludicrous claims. Yet, within minutes of making that claim you were presented with copious documents doing just that.

Or will you just decide to ignore everything and respond with a video of drunken ramblings from round the camp fire? To use a phrase from your own website, you have previously displayed that you suffer from HUYA. I wonder if anything has changed since your last little foray on here?

[gwiz]

As always, the main factor in whether you can see stars is how dark-adapted your eyes are.  Astronauts are thus unlikely to see stars if the sun or a sunlit object is in their fields of view, or if they are inside a brightly-lit spacecraft, but they should be able to see stars if they are on the night side of the earth with the spacecraft lights turned down.

It all depends on the circumstances, which is why we want full quotes, not edited ones.

[dwight]

I have my bingo card at the ready. Given the amount of real action around here lately, methinks it shall be rather messy rather quickly.

[Mag40]

I just had one of those omg moments. This individual is basing his claims on this NASA composite image -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0706/solsticesun_lodriguss720.jpg

He says that since we can see the sun and the stars in the picture, that is what we should see with our eyes. If the full Moon is dazzling enough on a clear night to stop the eyes seeing anything close to it in the way of stars, surely this person has the brain power to understand that the Sun itself is going to stop anyone from even looking in that direction, let alone seeing stars.

Yet again one of these ludicrous hoax star threads - a conveyor belt of ignorance that never ends it seems.

[Zakalwe]

I just had one of those omg moments. This individual is basing his claims on this NASA composite image -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0706/solsticesun_lodriguss720.jpg

He says that since we can see the sun and the stars in the picture, that is what we should see with our eyes. If the full Moon is dazzling enough on a clear night to stop the eyes seeing anything close to it in the way of stars, surely this person has the brain power to understand that the Sun itself is going to stop anyone from even looking in that direction, let alone seeing stars.

Hilarious, isn't it?

Hey Allan, would you care to explain why you can't see the Sun as it appears in that image?

[Zakalwe]

Allan, can you please evidence your experience in astrophotography please? An online album with details of how you took the images would be a good start. Total integration time, equipment used and processing techniques.

If you are going to talk about an area such as astrophotography then some background of your knowledge and experience would at least show that you know a modicum about the subject.

Otherwise you might just appear as yet another blowhard that doesn't really know the difference between the hole in your backside and a hole in the ground when it comes to the subject.

[ChrLz]

Oh.  My.  God.

This is the very first time I regret not looking at a tinfoilhatter's video, to be the first to see that unbelievably daft gaffe.

Allancw, that is the most moronic thing I've seen/heard claimed by an Apollo denier.  If you are not trolling, then for heaven's sake pick a new hobby - one that you have at least a glimmer of a clue about.  That's just way beyond embarrassing..



Yeah - comes from NASA, seems legit, and fully applicable!!   

[Zakalwe]

Yeah - comes from NASA, seems legit, and fully applicable!!   

The image isn't even a NASA image. It's a composite image by well-known amateur astrophotographer Jerry Lodriguss. The image is a composite, with the components coming from different astrophotographers. It was an Astronomy Picture of the Day on 21st June 2007 http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html

The APOD site is hosted on a NASA server, so Allan's unparalleled, investigative-journalism prowess probably means that he thinks that is an image taken during a NASA mission. 

Man, we need the equivalent of a Stundie award on this site, because this thread would be a worthy nomination.

[ChrLz]

Yeah - comes from NASA, seems legit, and fully applicable!!   

The image isn't even a NASA image...

I shoulda been clearer with my sarcasm, that was my point..
"comes from NASA" - no, as you said it was a picture from elsewhere, as are most of the images at that site
"seems legit" - no, it's not a legitimate image at all - it's a composite, showing different things that have had extremely different exposures and cover a dynamic range that would be impossible for any camera, let alone eye..
"fully applicable" - by its nature it's fully INapplicable to whether astronauts could view stars in different conditions and with different eye adaptations..

Man, we need the equivalent of a Stundie award on this site, because this thread would be a worthy nomination.

Agreed.  I find it hard to envisage how someone who seems vaguely literate could be this devoid of the ability to understand basic logic..  I'd say troll, except for what is on his website - no conspiracy is too ridiculous for his 'world-view', no facts will get in the way of the delusion, and to paraphrase Jonathan Swift - there will likely be no way to reason him out of it, given he has used no reason whatsoever to get into it...

Or, perhaps, as Upton Sinclair put it:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

[Zakalwe]

Agreed.  I find it hard to envisage how someone who seems vaguely literate could be this devoid of the ability to understand basic logic..  I'd say troll, except for what is on his website - no conspiracy is too ridiculous for his 'world-view', no facts will get in the way of the delusion, and to paraphrase Jonathan Swift - there will likely be no way to reason him out of it, given he has used no reason whatsoever to get into it...

"“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity.” But what is much more widespread than the actual stupidity is the playing stupid, turning off your ear, not listening, not seeing". There's not much point in arguing or debating with the wilfully ignorant.  Mr. Weisbecker is most certainly wilfully ignorant, and his previous attempts at explaining his ideas fully confirm this. Even when presented with the very material that he said did not exist, he refused to even acknowledge it.

Or, perhaps, as Upton Sinclair put it:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

I like that one!

[Jason Thompson]

Allancw is baaaack.

Good. Perhaps you can answer some of the outstanding questions from your previous time here. No? Oh, shame....

[ka9q]

By the laws of physics and simple common sense, these people are lying. I ask, Why?

Have you ever heard this expression?

Never attribute to malice that which can readily be explained by stupidity or even mere ignorance

There are many causes of disagreements and misunderstandings, and in my experience a deliberate intent to deceive (i.e., to lie) is not one of the more common ones. Why don't you at least consider them before you jump to the conclusion that everyone is lying to you? That kinda poisons the air and makes it difficult to actually learn anything, assuming that's what you're after.