It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lovell and Shepard Star Sighting Contradiction Proves Navigation Bogus and Apollo Inauthenticity

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

STARLIGHT OF KRYPTONITE, part two



Which is it ? STARS OR NO STARS ? Surely there must be consistency to this experience. And furthermore, Collins claim that his not seeing stars was due primarily to constriction of his pupils is a claim which fighter pilots know to be simply incorrect, flat out wrong. In bright light the pupils do constrict and account for some loss of sensitivity, but the main reason for the loss is the "consumption" of photo sensitive chemicals by light and the need to replenish those chemicals, make them light sensitive again which takes 30/40 minutes in the dark. My friends and I purchased a 1968 USAF flight surgeon's manual, and contemporaneously published aerospace medicine texts, and read about how fighter pilots were actually acutely aware of all this, the photo chemical receptor issue with dark adaptation. From a practical standpoint, they needed to understand this stuff in a fair amount of detail as they flew at night and their lives depended on seeing well, preparing their eyes to see well in the dark as/if need be.


We in fairly short order concluded, as one must, simply thinking about these matters with an open mind, that Apollo was fraudulent, and that this seeing stars/not seeing stars business was a clue in some sense as to HOW it was fraudulent. It provided a clue as regards fraud logistics. We realized that lying about stars this way was a RISKY BUSINESS. The tales about seeing and not seeing stars constituted VERY RISKY LIES. Lies the perpetrators could be found out over. As such, it meant the lies were ESSENTIAL in some way. They HAD TO TELL THEM. (Not to go off course here and get into that aspect of our investigation, the WHY OF THE LIE about stars. I'll move on, but still did want to broach this subject as it is related and emphasize that as newly minted Apollo fraud readers and historians, we "got it", and got it right quick, spotting a lie was important for two reasons, one being it shows the Apollo activities to be fraudulent, that is about something other than claimed, whatever that "other" may be. And the nature of the lie may well lead one to the revealing of some specific aspect of the fraud which the lie covers. Find the lies, and then follow their threads to the truth about some detail or other regarding the machinations of the fraud. )

We also realized that in contradistinction to the views of many, the astronauts were not denying stars absolutely. They wanted to have it both ways. Indeed it had to be so. They had to see stars at least in some sense, for example to align their IMU. But if they saw stars, that would open them up to questions that they could not handle, "DID YOU SEE THE SOUTHERN CROSS ? CAN YOU SEE THE MCDONALD OBSERVATORY BLUE-GREEN LASER ? CAN YOU IMAGE THE LASER WITH YOUR CAMERA FOR US IN REAL TIME RIGHT NOW ?" And on and on and on. Very dangerous stuff that starlight. We came to call it "STARLIGHT OF KRYPTONITE".

For the Apollo fraud to "work", the stars had to be turned off and on. Below is a fabulous video by YouTube's GreaterSapien. GreaterSapien is an off the hook talented video poster who in this video debunks very effectively this idea that the astronauts denied in some absolute sense star visibility.



As just mentioned, we of course realized this is what was most decidedly NOT going on. The lying was not about denying stars in an absolute sense, it was instead about denying them in situations where to have admitted them would readily have lead to fraud exposure, but on the other hand, admitting stars when/as needed/essential even. To align the IMU for example. Or admitting stars in pop book contexts when people are expecting to "see the stars". This, as per the 3 excellent examples of the same I gave above. A complex and fascinating topic to be sure.


THE PUNCHLINE

As physicians, well aware of the relevant human physiology details, we decided to comb the net and elsewhere to see what professional astronomers had to say about seeing stars from the surface of the moon and cislunar space OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT OF APOLLO. As expected, essentially everywhere one looked, there was confirmation of star visibility from cislunar space and the surface of the moon , when the question was posed outside the context of Apollo, the manned moon landing effort. For example Professor David Kornreich, then of Cornell and now of Humbolt, had this to say in response to a query from a school teacher on his ASK AN ASTRONOMER FORUM;

curious.astro.cornell.edu...


Cosmicopia, NASA's own site and its own Dr. Eric Christian had this to say;


helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...




We wound up corresponding with 20 or so scientists on "Ask an Astronomer" type forums. We wrote to Lick Observatory, Cornell, Dr. Kornreich at Humbolt, observatories in England, and indeed received good responses from them all initially. Everybody says/said, at least the astronomers with whom we corresponded , that one can see stars from the surface of the moon and (cislunar) space. It got VERY interesting when we began to point out that was not what the astronauts claimed on the Apollo 11 mission, Armstrong/Collins as above. We provided the relevant quotes, the video references and so forth. Some of the scientists were really interested. On several occasions I was asked if they could use our question, "WHY COULD THE ASTRONAUTS NOT SEE STARS" as a challenge question of their own for their web site or what not. This was all from about a year ago by the way. But some astronomers immediately felt threatened and said their answer had nothing to do with supporting any kind of "HOAX POSITION" , which of course we never asked for. We simply asked what they thought and at that point in time were suspicious of , but by no means convinced of, Apollo as fraud anyway. Indeed, this was one of the things we did to first explore "Apollo as Fraud" hypothetically. See what astronomers thought of the "star problem", see if they would think "hoax" too once they became aware that THEIR ANSWERS WERE NOT THE SAME AS COLLINS' AND ARMSTRONG'S.

In summary/conclusion, not a one astronomer thought the fact his/her answer was different from that of the Apollo 11 astronauts translated to "hoax". Most stuck to their answers, YES ONE COULD SEE STARS, and the astronauts could not for some technical reasons about which they were unaware. And most significantly , some sort of changed their answers, backpedaled. And of course we thought, "WHY WOULD YOU EVER DO THAT ? CHANGE YOUR ANSWER ? "


Of course those backpedaling were not/are not fraudsters, but THEY LET THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT THEY KNOW TO BE TRUE INTERFERE WITH THEIR OTHERWISE EXCELLENT JUDGEMENT IN SUCH MATTERS. In other words. if what i know to be true means the astronauts may not have landed on the moon and that Apollo may be fraudulent , then i will take back what i said, at least some. Apollo cannot be fraudulent, and so my answer will be so accordingly mitigated.

UNBELIEVABLE !
edit on 17-5-2012 by decisively because: added headline

edit on 17-5-2012 by decisively because: fixed link

edit on 17-5-2012 by decisively because: added an apostrophe and comma

edit on 17-5-2012 by decisively because: added comma

edit on 17-5-2012 by decisively because: removed "to", added "on the other hand", them>stars

edit on 17-5-2012 by decisively because: comma added




posted on May, 17 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



I am a physician with a special interest in the basic sciences, human physiology and biochemistry. Armstrong's comments about what he saw "got to us", got to a few colleagues of mine, and got to me me me too. We knew they had to sight stars to navigate/guide/align their platform, and as physicians we knew in great detail the relevant aspects of the physiology of vision. Certainly he could see stars if he looked "down sun" at any rate, NO ?


So you're so desperate you have to dredge up the "no stars" argument? Tell me, as an esteemed physician, how long does it take the human eye to become dark adapted?

Edit to add: Ah, I see you know your argument is simply wrong. Spectacular fail.
edit on 17-5-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



We wound up corresponding with 20 or so scientists on "Ask an Astronomer" type forums. We wrote to Lick Observatory, Cornell, Dr. Kornreich at Humbolt, observatories in England, and indeed received good responses from them all initially. Everybody says/said, at least the astronomers with whom we corresponded , that one can see stars from the surface of the moon and (cislunar) space.


Please post a copy of this correspondence. Why do I get the feeling your e-mail was:

"Me and Timmy and my sister are wondering if you were in a spaceship in space and on the Moon in the daytime wen the son was up if you coud see stars and planets and stuff? Please forgive my speling my sister haz to hple me tipe."

And the response was:

"Of course you could see stars, there is no atmosphere in space."

Context is everything, which is why you know your "contradictions" are rubbish.
edit on 17-5-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 

Our Side Hardly Needs The Stars/No Stars Inconsistency To Prove Apollo Fraudulent, We Have Shown The Manned Landing Tale To Be Bogus In Many Ways Already, Ways As Countless As The Stars Seen From A Genuine Cislunar Vantage




Not at all. We are well beyond that. It is a matter of following up on a promise of sorts I had made to GaryN with regard to an anecdote I wanted to relate. I mentioned in a previous post to him that I would write to him about this. One of my ways to encourage others to check these things out for themselves.

The post does make a couple of important material points. First of all, it emphasizes that those of us interested in this subject do not object to an astronaut saying that they cannot see stars in such and such a situation. That is OK. However, their experiences, if this thing is true, must be consistent, one moonwalker to the next. If Neil Armstrong says he did not see stars from the surface of the moon, then Alan Shepard in his book MOONSHOT(also alleged to be by Slayton, Armstrong wrote the intro endorsing his colleagues and coauthor Jay Barbree) is not allowed to say;

“Where were the stars?” the myth believers then asked. The cameras that NASA sent to the moon had to use short-exposure times to take pictures of the bright lunar surface and the moonwalkers’ white spacesuits. Stars’ images, easily seen by the moonwalkers, were too faint and underexposed to be seen as they are in photographs taken from space shuttles and the International Space Station."

He's "not allowed" because he is saying that stars images were "EASILY SEEN" by moonwalkers. Armstrong says no stars, Shepard says stars, and so their story in sum is disqualified, neither walked on the moon. The story is rightfully claimed to be NOT REAL, that is, MADE UP, because were they real moonwalkers, they would have seen the same thing, or not seen the same thing. They would have been consistent as regards their tale about star visibility. We have caught them in a lie. A lie it is, not because they say they cannot see stars, but rather a lie because now they see them and now they don't.

Ditto for cislunar space. Armstrong says no constellations seen from cislunar space, Lovell said yes constellations, Aldrin said "millions of stars". So these lesser dark luminaries of Apollo fraud contradict the first man to have pretended to walk upon the moon.

This is hardly a full on proof of Apollo fraudulence, we've done that better and in spades no less. It is full on proof of astronaut lying and shenanigans, and it is a great way for newcomers to begin to explore the fraud because no technical facility is required. It is about the stories simply being consistent vs inconsistent.

So point one materially is that official story advocates are dead on wrong when they represent our views on this issue as one in which we suggest that astronaut claims of not seeing stars translates to fraud. Our claim is that astronaut inconsistencies about seeing stars translates to astronaut lying. Follow this clue, the fact that the astronauts are inconsistent, and therefore can be shown to be lying about the stars, this lie is a cover for deep truths about the fraud, follow this thread and you will discover much.

The other material point for GaryN was to tell him about how a few of the astronomers CHANGED THEIR MINDS in a sense regarding the details of their answer simply based on the fear their first and best honest answer might have fraud implications. This point has nothing to do with whether or not Apollo is or is not for a fact fraudulent. The point is the astronomers are swayed by authority, even though IT IS THEY WHO KNOW MORE THAN ANYONE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT TRUTH BE TOILD.
edit on 17-5-2012 by decisively because: MOONWALKER > MOONSHOT

edit on 17-5-2012 by decisively because: added (also alleged to be by Slayton, Armstrong wrote the intro endorsing his colleagues and coauthor Jay Barbree)

edit on 17-5-2012 by decisively because: comma added

edit on 17-5-2012 by decisively because: removed "on the moon"

edit on 17-5-2012 by decisively because: added "vs inconsistent"

edit on 17-5-2012 by decisively because: removed "from our side"



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


We may choose to publish some of our responses in an iBOOK that we hope to write about Apollo. They would be featured in some general sense as anonymous interactions. We have no permission as of now to publish the names of those with whom we corresponded. Later on in our studies/communications, as I mentioned was the case with the Lick Observatory astronomers and Apollo lunar scientists, we did ask for and indeed received permission to publish.

And again, my point was, though it seems like he needs little encouragement as he is already "experimenting" on his own, to push GaryN to do this type of thing for himself. See under what conditions he could or could not see stars. Write to the astronomers as I did. And so forth. All of us that do Apollo from either side of the fence should be doing this stuff. Only way for the truth to come out.

You should do likewise DJW001. Don't take my word for it, write to Kornreich, Christian, and anyone else that has such a public forum for we the curious. It's only our money , at least in the case of Christian and NASA types anyhow. They will be happy to respond. See if you find other than we did. Very enlightening I thought.

As mentioned previously in another post, on one occasion when corresponding with a very nice flight officer who was thoughtful enough to answer my many questions, he cut off the communication and told me NOT NOT NOT to use his name on anything I were to write. This, I believe because he realized his own views on things had "hoaxy" implications.

Wild, and VERY interesting, NO ?
edit on 17-5-2012 by decisively because: removed "was at any rate"

edit on 17-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



We may choose to publish some of our responses in an iBOOK that we hope to write about Apollo.


I look forward to reviewing it.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Wouldn't hold your breath, not a priority at this time, though a great way to get the word out I think.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Our Side Hardly Needs The Stars/No Stars Inconsistency To Prove Apollo Fraudulent, We Have Shown The Manned Landing Tale To Be Bogus In Many Ways Already, Ways As Countless As The Stars Seen From A Genuine Cislunar Vantage


Then why did you bring it up? The information you put forward in your own post proves the argument spurious. Even looking down Sun, the astronauts'eyes were still adapted to the bright terrain. Some astronauts looked for the stars on the voyage, some did not. Still others waxed poetically about the "panoply of heavens" for literary reasons.

Let us review all your alleged "proofs."

1. Medical arguments

a. Alan Shepard was diagnosed with Meniere's disease and claimed that surgery cured him and restored his hearing, therefore Apollo is fake.

Meniere's Disease is not a disease, but a syndrome, a complex of symptoms that can have more than one etiology. You failed to deduce the correct etiology. Reducing the tinnitus would indeed improve his audio acuity. In any event, you failed to show logical connection between his syndrome and the necessity that Apollo be a hoax. FAIL.

b. Deke Slayton believed that vitamins cured his heart condition. He was put back and the roster and therefore Apollo is fake.

Deke Slayton's beliefs are beside the point. Physical standards were higher during Project Mercury because the whole endeavor was new. After ten years without incident, Slayton's condition was no longer considered an impediment. Again, you failed to draw a logical connection to your conclusion. FAIL.

c. Borman would never have taken a second Seconal if he were really sick, therefore Apollo is fake.

Discussed in detail here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Again, you fail to show that this necessitates Apollo not being real. FAIL.

2. The quindar tones mark where Mission Control was edited on to the recorded footage, therefore Apollo must be fake.

I can't believe you were serious with this one. Even if it were fake, there are too many disadvantages to recording it ahead of time. Besides, why would they draw attention to the editing with beeps? I'll give you half credit for this one: if you had proven that the entire mission were pre-recorded, you would actually have proven the missions fraudulent. As it is, another FAIL.

3. The sextant would not have worked, therefore Apollo was faked.

The sextant was not necessary. FAIL.

4. Mission Control did not know exactly where the LM was, therefore the mission was faked.

Your own source indicated that the precise location was unnecessary. Again, you did not make a proper logical argument. FAIL.

5. You could easily duplicate the pendulum and falling hammer and feather sequences on Earth.

You came up with several possibilities that would not work. You accidentally let slip that you thought a light hammer and metal feather would fall at the same rate in an atmosphere:


One could use a feather made of metal and the two would fall together.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

FAIL.

6. No-one saw the lightning bolt strike Apollo 12, therefore the mission was a fake.

It was obscured by clouds. You have yet to explain why a recorded launch would anticipate the weather conditions in advance. FAIL.

7. The astronauts contradict themselves about seeing stars.

Oh, please. You'll have to try something original. Here's a reference that will give you some idea what chestnuts to avoid:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your threads have gotten extremely boring. Give some thought to your next post, please.
edit on 17-5-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Wouldn't hold your breath, not a priority at this time, though a great way to get the word out I think.


Really? Better than pretending to be a congenital idiot and spamming across multiple forums? Why have you fallen back on Plan B, exactly?
edit on 17-5-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I brought it up because it is an interesting anecdote. It underscores the fact that people, even very very very smart and usually confident people, bend when pressed by authority. That is the point of the post. It is a meta post. a post ABOUT conspiracies/alternative explanations. And it is interesting, whether men landed on the moon or not.
edit on 17-5-2012 by decisively because: comma added



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


but why bring up direct contact if you knew line of site was only for 6.5mins? as smart as you should be you should know that direct contact is not viable. did you bring it up to deliberately get called on it?



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


Hi dec,
Damn good thing you and the sane ones can keep the moles busy.
With all the gobment cut backs so, many here would have go out and occupy Orlando. lol
Keep up the good work and when the deck is cleared, perhaps
real folks can then find a way to navigate a real live human up to La Luna
with or without the Hunters help.
the best ljb
PS we need another von Braun.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



I brought it up because it is an interesting anecdote. It underscores the fact that people, even very very very smart and usually confident people, bend when pressed by authority. That is the point of the post. It is a meta post. a post ABOUT conspiracies/alternative explanations. And it is interesting, whether men landed on the moon or not.


I see. Is that why you're pretending to be a doctor now? Hoping that the assumed authority will be persuasive? Why don't you actually address any of the points raised in the above post? The emperor has no clothes, Doc.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Here is part of an interesting NASA document, 19710021493_1971021493.pdf




"A more subtle problem is the difficulty of avoiding extremely-low-level stray light from the spacecraft cabin and from spacecraft-thrustor firings during attitude changes and stabilization. The cabin crew must literally work in the dark during periods of data collection to avoid the problems that might obscure the phenomena under study. In some cases, the contaminating light levels are well below the visual threshold of the crew, and their presence is undetected."

They are trying to detect Gegenschein, looking out a porthole. They never mention starlight, which when fully dark adapted, as they must have been, should be glaringly bright.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


Indeed GaryN, a splendid reminder to be sure. I brought up a similar point in a previous post about the "Gegenschein efforts".



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


I read in a physiology text that when the human eye is fully dark adapted it is so sensitive it can pick up/register light from a struck match 25 miles away. I've even read 50 miles. Regardless, INSANE, and very cool.

I believe there is something about being fully dark adapted that the astronauts fear. Of course I view Apollo as fraudulent, so my point is above and beyond things touched on so far in these threads and indeed elsewhere, throughout the annals of Apollo fraud research, there is something we are missing. There is something that scares them to death about our pointing out at various times and in various ways and in various places they were fully dark adapted.

For example, I'll take a flyer here GaryN, light pollution was not what it is now, but perhaps in 1969 London should have been VISIBLE. As you are probably aware, the human eye , unlike a camera, has great sensitivity over a range for luminosities. Any ideas in this regard ?



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Hi decisively. Though we might have similar views on some of the Apollo stuff, I do differ greatly on others. I don't have time right now to elaborate, but I'll post a piece I did late last night, but didn't submit as I wanted to 'sleep on it'. Some of it is a repeat of posts from earlier today. I also noticed on another thread that someone else mention the Nazi technology, so mine isn't an original idea. I note that someone also posted about the Moon being seen by one astronaut as a jet black disk, only detectable by the stars around it. This is a fact, as far as I am concerned, and until I see an image of the Moon NOT close to a crescent Earth, or an image of any of the planets, I'll continue to believe I am correct. I can't believe the people who continue to insist that NASA or the astronauts have never had an interest in astronomy while in space. Some of them said they were bored to tears at times, would't you have been snapping a few shots of the heavens? Won't be back 'till Tuesday, long weekend coming up, off to have some fun!
...
I'm caught in between most of the opinions on this subject. Firstly, I do believe there were manned missions to the Moon. But I don't believe they did it without help, and I mean physical help in getting there and back. I've read the Apollo 16 Mission Report, and I have to say I think those craft were a joke, things failing, breaking, falling off all the time, and even their vacuum cleaner quit after a short while during an attempt to clean up all the trash floating around once they were in orbit. Little screws, washers, wire end trimmings, cable ties, and other junk. Hardly sounds like a delicate, high tech piece of machinery does it?
So where did the help come from? Not aliens, but someone driving MUCH more advanced vehicles than NASA was using, and I'd say an Uber-Military, using craft developed and acquired from the Germans after, or perhaps during, WW2. Above Top Secret, for sure. The astronauts claimed they were being observed from the very first trip, and UFOs were reported on the Lunar surface when they first arrived. They were not being observed, they were being shepherded! May sound crazy, but it answers a lot of questions.
As to stars being or not being visible, again the answer is glaringly obvious if you give it a little thought. BOTH are correct, but it is not to do with dark adaptation. The astronauts eyes were dark adapted most of the times, even on the Moon. The cabin lights were often very low level, or even completely off so they could perform many of the experiments. From 19710021493_1971021493.pdf

"A more subtle problem is the difficulty of avoiding extremely-low-level stray light from the spacecraft cabin and from spacecraft-thrustor firings during attitude changes and stabilization. The cabin crew must literally work in the dark during periods of data collection to avoid the problems that might obscure the phenomena under study. In some cases, the contaminating light levels are well below the visual threshold of the crew, and their presence is undetected." They are trying to photograph Gegenschein, looking out a porthole. They never mention starlight, which when dark adapted, should be glaringly bright.
The maximum light intensity on the lunar surface was 2.9% of the sunlight on Earth, and the lowest level is .002% in the Lunar night. You can find all these figures in declassified NASA documents that were used for training the astronauts for the mission. They fitted them with goggles with ND filters to simulate Lunar light conditions to see if they could perform the surface experiments in the expected illumination levels. The Lunar surface is NEVER bright.
This is due to the way light travels in the vacuum of space. The daylight of Earth is only produced in the atmosphere/ionosphere by the interaction of UV or X-ray planewaves with the atoms, or rather the electrons of those atoms. If there is no atmosphere, there will be no light. Stars are visible from orbit, or between Earth and Moon, under specific circumstances, and that involves looking through the Earths atmosphere at a very low angle, or around the Earth or Moon when the Zodiacal light is visible over the limb of the Moon, or Earth. So, it depends on the circumstances as to if the stars will be visible or not. There is a way to see the stars, and that is with a grating based 'optic', as the first men on the Moon clearly stated. The transmission grating is chosen to allow for the conversion of the UV planewave light of the Balmer emission line of Hydrogen. You will only get one wavelength of light from the device. It is my belief that the sextant also used a transmission grating, and the reason why it was useless was that it was picking up the glow of the ice particles around the craft. The particles were not glowing from reflected sunlight, but again from the emissions of UV from the hydrogen in the ice particles, again from x-ray or UV planewave interaction. The particles would not have been visible as bright points looking like stars if they had been lit by reflected sunlight, as they would have been out of focus at the distance they were from the craft, due to depth of field.
I have to believe they went to the Moon though, as much of the research I have done, and the conclusions I have reached, is based on the images from the FUV camera/telescope, the only astronomy performed on the Moon. The device showed that spectroscopy was the only efficient way to detect 'light' in space, and it is how nearly all astronomy is performed nowadays. A normal telescope in space, or even in the rarefied atmosphere at the space station altitude, will see no stars in deep space, only those viewed through Earths atmosphere. The only use of telescopes on the ISS is for checking on approaching visitors, through the windows and portholes which SHOULD allow them to see the planets and stars, but have never been used for astronomy. Find me a picture of any of the planets from the ISS, or a conjunction would be nice, through a telephoto lensed camera, or a telescope with camera attached, and I'll parade nude down Broadway singing Yankee Doodle. It'll never happen.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


Thank you so much for that GaryN, so interesting, as you must be I am sure. Well let me sleep on that and will write you back in a day or two. Best there buddy, ciao !!!



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 



They never mention starlight, which when dark adapted, should be glaringly bright.


Go out into the country on a moonless night. Close your eyes for forty minutes, then open them and look up. Would you describe the sky as "glaringly bright?" Starlight is not appreciably brighter in outer space. The atmosphere does not absorb much starlight, as you can prove to yourself by comparing the brightness of a star overhead (minimal atmosphere) and as its setting (maximal atmosphere). Other than absorbing or scattering certain wavelengths, like IR and UV, the atmosphere's chief effect on starlight is to cause it to twinkle. The stars would not be blinding in space.



posted on May, 19 2012 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Disclaimer: I really hate Nasa ok!


Explanation: Uhmmm?


Ok ... OL is going to come at this from a COMPLETELY different angle!

1stly What was Alan Shepards pre-astronaut job description?

Alan Shepard [wiki]


Other occupation: Test pilot



Shepard began his naval career after graduation from the United States Naval Academy in 1944, and served on the destroyer USS Cogswell while it was deployed in the Pacific Ocean during World War II. He subsequently entered flight training at Corpus Christi, Texas and Pensacola, Florida, and received his naval aviator wings in 1947. He was assigned to Fighter Squadron 42 based at Norfolk, Virginia and Jacksonville, Florida, and served several tours aboard aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean Sea with the squadron.

In 1950, he attended the U.S. Naval Test Pilot School at Patuxent River, Maryland. After graduation, he participated in flight test work which included high-altitude tests to obtain data on light at different altitudes and on a variety of air masses over the American continent; test and development experiments of the Navy's in-flight refueling system; carrier suitability trials of the F2H-3 Banshee; and Navy trials of the first angled carrier deck. He was subsequently assigned to Fighter Squadron 193 based at Moffett Field, California, a night fighter unit flying Banshee jets. As operations officer of this squadron, he made two tours to the western Pacific on board the carrier USS Oriskany.

Shepard returned to Patuxent for a second tour of duty and engaged in flight testing the F3H Demon, F8U Crusader, F4D Skyray, and F11F Tiger. He was also project test pilot on the F5D Skylancer, and his last five months at Patuxent were spent as an instructor in the Test Pilot School. He later attended the Naval War College at Newport, Rhode Island, and upon graduating (master of arts in military science) in 1958 was assigned to the staff of the Commander-in-Chief, Atlantic Fleet, as aircraft readiness officer.

He logged more than 8,000 hours flying time—3,700 hours in jet aircraft.



In 1959, Shepard was one of 11 military test pilots invited by the newly-formed National Aeronautics and Space Administration to volunteer for the first US manned space flight program. Following a gruelling series of physical and psychological tests, NASA selected Shepard to be one of the original group of seven Mercury astronauts.



Shortly before the launch, Shepard said to himself: "Don't # up, Shepard..." This quote was reported as "Dear Lord, please don't let me # up" in The Right Stuff, though Shepard confirmed this as a misquote. Regardless, the latter quote has since become known among aviators as "Shepard's Prayer."

According to Gene Kranz in his book, Failure Is Not an Option, "When reporters asked Shepard what he thought about as he sat atop the Redstone rocket, waiting for liftoff, he had replied, 'The fact that every part of this ship was built by the low bidder.'"

Shepard during Freedom 7 flight on May 5, 1961After a dramatic Atlantic Ocean recovery, Commander Shepard observed, "…didn't really feel the flight was a success until the recovery had been successfully completed. It's not the fall that hurts; it's the sudden stop."



Shepard piloted the Lunar Module Antares to the most accurate landing of the entire Apollo program.



Personal Disclosure: Continued next post on next page ...

edit on 19-5-2012 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to change from 'below' to 'next page' :shk:



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join