The Sky Was Black On The Moon?

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
reply to post by bokonon2010

 

Now then, why do you persist in thinking that stars should be visible for astronauts on the surface of the Moon?

How do you know what I think? Can you read people minds over internet?

reply to post by Tomblvd

Read this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Your futile attempts to change the subject and flood the thread are explained there.

Originally posted by bokonon2010
reply to post by Tomblvd

 

Read this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Your futile attempts to change the subject and flood the thread are explained there.

Nice try to run away from the facts, but as you point out yourself, the purpose here is:

To establish the evidence,
we discuss confessions, oral and written records of the Apollo astronots
seeing or not seeing stars in space and on the moon,
and not observations with optical instruments or photo equipment.

I have posted "evidence" from "astronauts seeing or not seeing stars in space". That is what the discussion is about, no? I'm merely pointing out the reams of evidence that starts can't be seen in daylight in any recorded spaceflight (excluding extraordinary conditions).

This totally invalidates your argument.

Ignore it if you want, the rest of the posters, pro and con can judge it on its own merits.


[edit on 24-8-2010 by Tomblvd]

reply to post by Saint Exupery
reply to post by Tomblvd

The eyewitnesses from the Apollo astronots and Russian cosmonauts
have been presented since I joined this thread. Read them before writing false statements again. It appears that your memory span is somehow limited to one page, so take some more:

Mike Melvill, SpaceShipOne - Cape Times www.capetimes.co.za...

Seeing the bright blue sky turning pitch-black and seeing stars appear while it is day time is absolutely mind-blowing.

Phil Plait - Bad Astronomer www.badastronomy.com...

On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.

[edit on 24.8.2010 by bokonon2010]

Originally posted by bokonon2010
reply to post by Saint Exupery
reply to post by Tomblvd

The eyewitnesses from the Apollo astronots and Russian cosmonauts
have been presented since I joined this thread. Read them before writing false statements again. It appears that your memory span is somehow limited to one page, so take some more:

Q&A with Astronaut Jerry Linenger

Question: When I see pictures of Mir, Hubble, and even the older photos of the astronaut on the moon, I notice that the sky is completely black. Why don't the stars show up in these photographs?

Answer: Again, the stars are out there. Some of it is a problem with capturing it with the film. For example, on Mir, I had to take very slow-speed film. 100 A.S.A. was the fastest film I could carry because of radiation damage over the five months, and so part of it is a limitation of photographic technique. In actuality, when you are on the dark side of a planet and you look out into the heavens, the stars are absolutely incredible. You are seeing the entire sky. Things are much more distinct. You can see the planets very clearly. In my case, Hale Bopp comet looked like a flashlight lighting up the sky, and so the stars are out. There, you probably see four times the number of stars that you would see if you were on planet Earth, having to look through the atmosphere. The one thing that looked different is none of the stars twinkle, because you do not have the abrasion of the atmosphere, and the reason why Hubble was so successful is because it gets a very, very clear look at the heavens.

Night Sky Network Telecon with Dr. Janice Voss

Absolutely, and you could see in those pictures -- the Hale-Bopp one is the best one. I think you can see a few stars in that shot. There's a couple of things; just like on the ground, if it's bright, your eyes don't iris down enough, so you want to dim the shuttle or the station if you really want to see a lot of stars. The second thing is that stars don't twinkle.

reply to post by Tomblvd

If you genuinely interested in the subject, some reading might help:

www.aulis.com...
mo---on.narod.ru... Астронавты не видели звезд с поверхности Луны (противоречия в докладах и воспоминаниях)

Originally posted by bokonon2010
I do not disregard such observations but separate them from the eyewitness details from the Apollo astronots.

They go to the same issue; being able to see very dim objects when viewing a very bright object (the surface of the moon). Some astronauts made specific efforts to block out stray light and see stars. Others only saw stars when stray light was naturally blocked (such as when preparing to sleep in the LM and looking straight up through the rendezvous window, or in the trans-lunar gulf when the spacecraft was rolled away from the sun).

Agreed and that is why they should be discussed separately.

It all goes to the same issue; stray light from the surface will block the stars from being seen be it for a camera or an eye.

The problem with looking closely at astronaut "testimony" is that they are usually describing their subjective "impressions" of their experiences, rather than an objective account. That's why Mitchell uses phrases like "the panoply of the heavens." His was an essentially religious experience, which is why he went on to become something of a New Age guru in later life. Others emphasize the blackness because it must have been terrifying to think of being alone in all that vast emptiness. Astronauts are just people, after all.

Originally posted by bokonon2010
reply to post by Tomblvd

 

If you genuinely interested in the subject, some reading might help:

www.aulis.com...
mo---on.narod.ru... Астронавты не видели звезд с поверхности Луны (противоречия в докладах и воспоминаниях)

Why do you keep running away? I don't care what Aulis says, I want to know what you say.

Originally posted by DJW001
The problem with looking closely at astronaut "testimony" is that they are usually describing their subjective "impressions" of their experiences, rather than an objective account. That's why Mitchell uses phrases like "the panoply of the heavens." His was an essentially religious experience, which is why he went on to become something of a New Age guru in later life. Others emphasize the blackness because it must have been terrifying to think of being alone in all that vast emptiness. Astronauts are just people, after all.

A very good point. I read the Melvill quote in the newspaper and saw it as either a bit of editorial embellishment by the writer or a bit of exaggeration by Mike. This interview by Brian Binnie, who flew the second leg, put the star idea to rest. When asked what he saw, he only talks about the "black void", which is exactly what Melville said in the interviews I saw of him after his flight. Which, of course, is why the History Channel's documentary on the flights was called "Black Sky".



The discussion is at about 2:30

Originally posted by bokonon2010


The eyewitnesses from the Apollo astronots and Russian cosmonauts
have been presented since I joined this thread. Read them before writing false statements again. It appears that your memory span is somehow limited to one page, so take some more:

Mike Melvill, SpaceShipOne - Cape Times www.capetimes.co.za...

Seeing the bright blue sky turning pitch-black and seeing stars appear while it is day time is absolutely mind-blowing.

As I expected, this quote is a bit embellished. If you go to around 3:50 mark of this video, Mike is atop SpaceShipOne immediately after the flight when someone asks him if he could see stars. His response is practically identical to what you have been told over and over on this thread about the brightness of the sun not allowing enough light into your eyes to see the stars. He states "If you look up long enough your eyes will dilate enough to see them. But you can see planets but not stars immediately 'cause your eyes are contracted from the bright light".

You can't get much more definitive than that.

Originally posted by DJW001
The problem with looking closely at astronaut "testimony" is that they are usually describing their subjective "impressions" of their experiences, rather than an objective account. That's why Mitchell uses phrases like "the panoply of the heavens."

It could be side effects of meds they were on.

history.nasa.gov...

Drug sensitivity testing was performed to determine the response of flight crewmembers to each item in the medical kit to preclude allergic reactions and other able side effects in flight. Each Apollo crewmember was tested under controlled [54] conditions to determine his response to medical kit items carried onboard the spacecraft. (The medical kit is described later in this chapter in the section concerning inflight Procedures and Findings.) After a medical history was obtained by a physician regarding the experience of each crewmember with each medication under test, and it had been determined that (1) no adverse reaction had been experienced, and (2) there was no evidence of impaired health at the time of testing, the medication was administered to the astronaut. The crewmember was observed by the physician for an appropriate period of time following administration of the medication and was queried about subjective responses. If positive subjective findings were reported, the test was either repeated with a double-blind placebo method, or an appropriate drug was substituted for which no undesirable side effects had been reported. Individuals were additionally tested for any allergic reaction to the electrode paste.

Table 4 indicates the drug administration and observation constraints applied. All medications used were treated in a similar fashion.

Originally posted by DJW001
His was an essentially religious experience, which is why he went on to become something of a New Age guru in later life. Others emphasize the blackness because it must have been terrifying to think of being alone in all that vast emptiness.

It appears some of them continue flying and being high ever since.

history.nasa.gov...

ASPO requested a plan for flight crew tests of sleeping pills and other drugs. The plan was to include number of tests to be performed by each crew member; time of the test with respect to the last sleep period; amount and kind of food and drink taken during a specified time before the test; general physical activity by the crew before taking a drug; and, for comparison purpose, any available statistical information on the effect of these pills after being taken.

Memo, George M. Low, ASPO Manager, to Charles A. Berry, Medical Research and Operations Directorate, MSC, "Use of sleeping pills," April 3, 1969.

Originally posted by bokonon2010

Originally posted by DJW001
The problem with looking closely at astronaut "testimony" is that they are usually describing their subjective "impressions" of their experiences, rather than an objective account. That's why Mitchell uses phrases like "the panoply of the heavens."

It could be side effects of meds they were on.

Are you including the spaceshipone crews in that rather insulting claim (as if sensitivity testing prior to flight would result in them being high during the flight)? You know, maybe it's just me, but it seems to me like your agenda is more about insulting the astronauts and less about learning the truth.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by bokonon2010

Originally posted by DJW001
The problem with looking closely at astronaut "testimony" is that they are usually describing their subjective "impressions" of their experiences, rather than an objective account. That's why Mitchell uses phrases like "the panoply of the heavens."

It could be side effects of meds they were on.

history.nasa.gov...

Drug sensitivity testing was performed to determine the response of flight crewmembers to each item in the medical kit to preclude allergic reactions and other able side effects in flight. Each Apollo crewmember was tested under controlled [54] conditions to determine his response to medical kit items carried onboard the spacecraft. (The medical kit is described later in this chapter in the section concerning inflight Procedures and Findings.) After a medical history was obtained by a physician regarding the experience of each crewmember with each medication under test, and it had been determined that (1) no adverse reaction had been experienced, and (2) there was no evidence of impaired health at the time of testing, the medication was administered to the astronaut. The crewmember was observed by the physician for an appropriate period of time following administration of the medication and was queried about subjective responses. If positive subjective findings were reported, the test was either repeated with a double-blind placebo method, or an appropriate drug was substituted for which no undesirable side effects had been reported. Individuals were additionally tested for any allergic reaction to the electrode paste.

Table 4 indicates the drug administration and observation constraints applied. All medications used were treated in a similar fashion.

Originally posted by DJW001
His was an essentially religious experience, which is why he went on to become something of a New Age guru in later life. Others emphasize the blackness because it must have been terrifying to think of being alone in all that vast emptiness.

It appears some of them continue flying and being high ever since.

history.nasa.gov...

ASPO requested a plan for flight crew tests of sleeping pills and other drugs. The plan was to include number of tests to be performed by each crew member; time of the test with respect to the last sleep period; amount and kind of food and drink taken during a specified time before the test; general physical activity by the crew before taking a drug; and, for comparison purpose, any available statistical information on the effect of these pills after being taken.

Memo, George M. Low, ASPO Manager, to Charles A. Berry, Medical Research and Operations Directorate, MSC, "Use of sleeping pills," April 3, 1969.

And you accuse others of trying to change the subject?

Here, this might help:

Read this post: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Your futile attempts to change the subject and flood the thread are explained there.

Russian cosmonauts have stated in their books that as soon as they left earths atmsosphere the stars were an incredible sight, I know they never stepped foot on the moon but I find the whole "I don't remember seeing any stars" kind of odd. Watching the press conference with the Apollo astronauts after the lunar mission I thought they looked uncomfortable confirming they were unable to see the stars as if they were wondering what they were supposed to say? However I still believe we have walked on the Moon but I also believe that most of the photographs from the Apollo moon landing were faked but the question is why?

Originally posted by dava6711
Russian cosmonauts have stated in their books that as soon as they left earths atmsosphere the stars were an incredible sight, I know they never stepped foot on the moon but I find the whole "I don't remember seeing any stars" kind of odd. Watching the press conference with the Apollo astronauts after the lunar mission I thought they looked uncomfortable confirming they were unable to see the stars as if they were wondering what they were supposed to say? However I still believe we have walked on the Moon but I also believe that most of the photographs from the Apollo moon landing were faked but the question is why?

Yes, WHY didn't you read any of the thread before posting?

Originally posted by dava6711
I ... believe that most of the photographs from the Apollo moon landing were faked but the question is why?

No, the question is whether you are correct that the photos were fake.

Your question is like speculating why I killed my wife, without first verifying that she is, in fact dead (she's not, btw). Similarly, why speculate the reason for Apollo photos being faked, if they are, in fact, genuine.

Arguements against the photos can be boiled down to one sentence: "I don't understand."
In the context of this thread, people don't understand why stars don't appear in these photographs.
They don't understand why the difference in brightness between sunlit objects and distant stars renders correct exposure for each object impossible (and why the presence or absence of an atmosphere is irrelevant).
They don't understand why the same considerations make human observations highly dependent on specific circumstances.
In other arguments, they don't understand how perspective and uneven terrain can affect the way shadows appear in photographs.
They don't understand how sunlight reflecting off the lunar surface can provide adequate fill-light in shadows.
They don't understand how a small rise in foreground or middle ground can make the background look like a backdrop.
Lense flare, sunstrikes, dust in the scanner, parallax, reflections... the list goes on and on.

It's frustrating to me because, instead of trying to learn how and why these things work, they just assume that they are seeing proof of sinister activity. This is not only willfully ignorant, it is downright insulting to the people who worked hard and gave a lot bring these photographs home to those ingrates.

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
...
Arguements against the photos can be boiled down to one sentence: "I don't understand."
In the context of this thread, people don't understand why stars don't appear in these photographs.
They don't understand why the difference in brightness between sunlit objects and distant stars renders correct exposure for each object impossible (and why the presence or absence of an atmosphere is irrelevant).
They don't understand why the same considerations make human observations highly dependent on specific circumstances.
In other arguments, they don't understand how perspective and uneven terrain can affect the way shadows appear in photographs.
They don't understand how sunlight reflecting off the lunar surface can provide adequate fill-light in shadows.
They don't understand how a small rise in foreground or middle ground can make the background look like a backdrop.
Lense flare, sunstrikes, dust in the scanner, parallax, reflections... the list goes on and on.

It's frustrating to me because, instead of trying to learn how and why these things work, they just assume that they are seeing proof of sinister activity. This is not only willfully ignorant, it is downright insulting to the people who worked hard and gave a lot bring these photographs home to those ingrates.

Comprehensively and beautifully put.

Bravo, SE!

reply to post by dava6711


Have a look at this thread and look at the picture let us know why you think there are NO STARS in that picture!!!!

www.abovetopsecret.com...