Why are NASA astronauts (still) lying?

[Andromeda]

Allan, read pages 12 to 16.

http://web.mit.edu/digitalapollo/Documents/Chapter6/hoagprogreport.pdf

[Zakalwe]

He's posting this garbage on Cluesforum, where apparently he is best buds with Simonshack.

Sheesh...you know you are a room with crazies when they start thinking that Hollywood movies like The Right Stuff as evidence but yet claim that the Virgin Galactic videos are faked.

[ChrLz]

Let's keep it simple to make misdirection a little more difficult. The first 'astronaut' ...

Allan, you want to go line by line and be absolutely precise, so YOU do the same.  First up you have astronaut in quotes - are you suggesting he wasn't one, or is that simply childish sarcasm?  Explain your use of quotes.

.. says: 'When you're in space and you're looking into deep space and you're in the sun side of the orbit, the sunlight washes out all the star light so you can't see any stars, just like here on earth.'

Allan, as you are taking everything at face value, when the astronaut says 'washes out', what does he mean?  After all, there is no water or detergent involved, surely?

C.1 In that case, is this just an analogy, perhaps?

C.2 If you concede it is an analogy, then what possible interpretations have you considered?  If it is only one, then I accuse you of bias.

"Washes out" could mean that the whole sky was bright, and that prevented his eyes from adapting - this seems to be your interpretation, as you state that you think the lack of atmosphere is the problem and that couldn't happen...

..(I'm numbering the issues for you Allan, to make sure you address every one..)

C.3 Could it be (and I know this is WAY out there, as it involves basic logic and common sense, that when he said that the Sun 'washes out' the stars, he is actually referring to the Sun washing out the..   wait for it .. WHOLE SCENE?   Who would have thought!!!, It could be that this astronaut is actually aware of his entire environment, rather than looking with tunnel vision (eg thru a telescope or other optical device - more about that later..)  So what is in that entire scene?  Here let me help..

C.4 There's the Sun itself.

C.5 There's this big bright earth - sunlit, daytime.

C.6 There's the refractions/reflections and scattering through the porthole.

C.7 There's the porthole edges, and any external parts of the spacecraft that might be in view.

C.8 There's any part of the spacecraft interior and the astronaut's attire and even his nose and anything else in his vision that is sunlit.

Feel free to add more, Allan - I'm sure you can come up with lots of valid information -  we can see just what sort of a deep thinker you are...

C.9 And as anyone with an operational brain knows, if your eye has adjusted to anywhere near a daylight exposure (which is what it does as soon as anything at that light level is in the field of view), then it cannot possibly detect stars which are incredibly faint compared to daylight.

C.10 How bright is starlight compared to daylight, Allan?  I know the numbers - do you?

I'm happy to post those numbers and a whole pile of pictures and a lot of detail to demonstrate exactly how this works..  But I won't be bothering until you, Allan Weisbecker, grow some cojones and actually address the refutations POINT BY POINT that are being shown to you.



PS - Keep an eye out folks, and be ready for Allan to Gish Gallop onto something else rather than actually address the huge gaping holes in his claims.

[allancw]

Which one of you said this:

What they couldn't do was see the stars if the Sun was in the same field of view. No different to being on earth...after all, do you see the stars in the daytime?

Anyone have a problem with this statement?

[smartcooky]

allancw, the following two experiments can be revealing.

First
Go outside on a clear evening with a pair of binoculars (around 7x50 would be fine; 11x80 would be better) about 30 minutes after sunset. Even though its twilight, and the sky will still be appreciably blue, you should be able to a see some of the "first" magnitude stars such as Sirius, Canopus and Artcurus. Now look with your binoculars! You will be amazed how many more stars you can see. I have actually seen Sirius in broad daylight (around 1pm IIRC)

Second
Later on that evening (or on another evening) when it is truly dark, go to a local park and look up. See how many stars you see? Now go stand under a bright street (preferably not one of those orange/pink sodium lamps, a mercury lamp is best) and look up. How many stars do you see now? Better yet, go to a sports stadium for a night game under floodlights or a clear night, and look up. How many stars do you see?

If you do these experiments honestly, make the observations honestly, draw your conclusions honestly and report the results honestly you will gain a better understanding of the reasons why some astronauts reported seeing stars in cislunar space while others didn't.

This is what real scientists do; experiment, observe, conclude, report with a completely open mind. They do not do what you and other CTs and HBs do; guess, assume and take their "knowledge" from YouTube videos uploaded by the likes of Hunchbacked, and the He-from-down-under-who-shall-not-be-named!
 

 

[Echnaton]

Better yet, go to a sports stadium for a night game under floodlights or a clear night, and look up. How many stars do you see?

I have done this over and over.  Every time I go to a night time game or concert.  I occasionally do see a star or two, but normally I don't see any stars at night.  Even in the parking lot after a game, the stars are pretty few.  It should be no surprise to anyone who looks at the world around them that the astronauts only saw stars under certain conditions and did not see stars at all when the sun was in their filed of view.  Allan, is just unobservant of his world. 

[raven]

The first NASA astronaut on a Mercury sub-orbital lob didn't  see stars either. Heck, he even says why in the National Geographic article. I have a physical copy of this as well.

[Jason Thompson]

Which one of you said this:

What they couldn't do was see the stars if the Sun was in the same field of view. No different to being on earth...after all, do you see the stars in the daytime?

Anyone have a problem with this statement?

So, you pick the one part of all the replies you can pick holes in (namely that having the sun in your field of view in space is not the same as having light scattered by the atmosphere in the daytime on Earth) and ignore everything else? Why am I not surprised?

Read the links you have been given on how the human eye works and why having a really bright thing in your field of view, or indeed having anything that is illuminated by that really bright thing in your field of view, will compromise your ability to see stars while in space.

[ChrLz]

Allancw / Allan Weisbecker, first I must note that you have NOT addressed a single item posted here by those who know an awful lot more about light, astronomy, space sciences, photography, optics and the eye than you do...  Not ONE.  What might a sane person infer from that?  And how long were you planning to spend on this forum *abusing it* by treating it as a blog?  It won't be long if this continues.. I'll repeat the unanswered questions below.

Second I note that you have not responded on the question of whether this stars thing is your favorite, best evidence.  I guess then we can assume that, as this was the first thing YOU wished to bring up in your new visit, that it is the best in your opinion..

Third, earlier you asked that everything be dealt with systematically, so I'll be addressing everything you say line by line, just as I have above, UNLESS you introduce a new topic before you have answered all questions on this one, in which case I (and I hope others) will be reporting you for the forum abuse I spoke of above.

So, while waiting for you to answer the questions already asked, let's continue on the same topic.  I wouldn't leave it for too long, Allancw, as the list of things you cannot answer (but everyone else here CAN..) will quickly become embarrassingly long, and a very good indication of your lack of knowledge in ANY of the required disciplines...

Which one of you

Wait - you are quoting someone and you ask others to tell you who it was?  Are you seriously this ignorant/incompetent or is it just childish rudeness?  What a lazy request - I'm not looking it up - could have been me, but who cares - let's just address it properly and with the proper context added.  Watch how this works Allan Weisbecker - this is what YOU should be doing..

.. said this:
What they couldn't do was see the stars if the Sun was in the same field of view.

Indeed, that is correct - you cannot see stars* if the Sun is in your field of view (due to simple eye capability and biology - I can roll out the Lux levels if you want, but I think that is pretty well accepted that if you have the Sun in your eyes you won't be seeing any stars..).  There are other situations where the Sun may be out of your field of view where the stars will still be invisible, so it is not a comprehensive statement, but that is certainly one of those situations and it is correct.

C.11 If you believe otherwise, please outline why, or propose an experiment to prove your claim.

* By 'stars' - in the context of this discussion we are discussing stars other than our Sun.  I think only a blithering idiot would dispute the statement on that technical semantic..

No different to being on earth...

In the respect stated, ie that the Sun is in your field of view, then yes, that too is correct.  No matter whether you were in cislunar space, in orbit, on the Moon, on Earth.. IF the sun is in your field of view, then you will not be seeing stars.  The Sun is a tiny bit brighter in space, sure, but that is not relevant here, as the difference in brightness of a distant star versus the Sun, is bazillions of times greater (that's a technical term..) than any tiny difference caused by having an atmosphere to scatter a bit of the light.

C.12 Allancw, in respect of the earlier statement, namely that having the Sun in your field of view will prevent you from seeing stars, is being in space in any significant way different to being on Earth?

after all, do you see the stars in the daytime?

While it is possible - under some very precisely defined circumstances - to see stars in daytime, it is extraordinarily difficult, and is not possible while the Sun (or anything illuminated by the Sun..) is in your field of view.  So again, that would seem to be perfectly correct within the terms of the discussion.

C.13 Allancw, under what circumstances do you claim to see stars in the daytime?

C.14 Allancw, if you stand in a brightly lit parking lot at night, under one of the lights, can you see any stars in the region of those lights?

C.15 How much light (in numeric terms) is there in that scene?  What about when you are in a scene that is sunlit?  And then, how much light (in numeric terms) do distant stars emit?

I'll be happy to bring along some photographic evidence, showing how it relates to the operation of the human eye, if Allancw starts answering questions.  hmmm... perhaps that is why he is staying quiet?

Anyone have a problem with this statement?

Nope, not if the context is correct - those statements are quite reasonable, even though they go nowhere near covering the entire situation.  If it is NOT, then stop dancing around AND PUT YOUR CASE.  And then start working through all the following questions:

(re the statement about stars being 'washed out')
C.1 Is this just an analogy, perhaps?

C.2 If you concede it is an analogy, then what possible interpretations have you considered?
(If it is only one, then I accuse you of bias.  "Washes out" could mean that the whole sky was bright, and that prevented his eyes from adapting - this seems to be your interpretation, as you state that you think the lack of atmosphere is the problem and that couldn't happen...)

C.3 Could it be that when he said that the Sun 'washes out' the stars, he is actually referring to the Sun washing out the WHOLE SCENE?
(Who would have thought!!!, It could be that this astronaut is actually aware of his entire environment, rather than looking with tunnel vision (eg thru a telescope or other optical device - more about that later..)  So what is in that entire scene?  Here let me help..)

C.4-C.8 There's the Sun itself, the sunlit earth, the refractions/reflections and scattering through the porthole, the porthole edges, any external parts of the spacecraft that might be in view, any illuminated part of the spacecraft interior, the astronaut's attire and even his nose and anything else in his vision that may be illuminated by direct or indirect sunlight.  Do you dispute any of that?

C.9 Do you dispute the fact that if your eye has adjusted to anywhere near a daylight exposure (which is what it does as soon as anything at that light level is in the field of view), then it cannot possibly detect stars which are incredibly faint compared to daylight? (see C10).

C.10 How bright is starlight compared to daylight, Allan?  I know the numbers - do you?

[Abaddon]

You can get the same effect by simply standing under a street light on a clear night, but that requires leaving the security of the basement for a while...

[Andromeda]

Or the bridge...

[raven]

Why would they lie in the first place? Even if Apollo was fake, many Apollo astronauts were Gemini or even Mercury veterans, and those who weren't could be coached by the ones who were.
Why lie about what stars in space looked like under various lighting conditions when they could simply, um, tell the truth?

[Mag40]

Every single time.

Without fail, along comes an hb, who makes the same claim as someone previously. The claim as always gets soundly beaten, with numerous points raised and many justifiable questions raised. We then get diversion, selective responses, gish gallups, with none of the major points responded to and none of the questions answered. It is so tedious and by no means an exclusive tactic to the sad individuals who doubt Apollo.

[Mag40]

Which one of you said this:

What they couldn't do was see the stars if the Sun was in the same field of view. No different to being on earth...after all, do you see the stars in the daytime?

Anyone have a problem with this statement?

Nobody agrees with that statement in the context you are inferring!  Even if the atmosphere was not scattering the light and stopping visibility, even if the sky was pitch black, we already have a precedent of what we can and cannot see at night with a full Moon. Substitute that for the Sun 400,000 times brighter than a full Moon and it is obvious the limiting and dazzling effect that produces.


I use the word "obvious" in terms not recognised by conspiracy theorists.

[dwight]

I'm astounded at the concise use of words Allan has utilized in order to systematically debunk our foolish ways. The true mark of genius, I say.