I have been involved in a thread on another forum about Appollo being a hoax. One poster replied
note: AFTHOTWTTM is "A Funny Thing Happend on the Way to the Moon"

Did they say this? Is it out of context quote mining? Were they being sarcastic?

__________________
"Man has always found it easier to sacrifice his life than learn the multiplication table." - Somerset Maugham

My understanding is that they couldn't recall seeing stars from the Moon's surface--which makes sense; it was daytime. If they had taken the time to stare upward for half an hour or so--which they didn't have time to do--they might have seen stars, but it was awfully bright. They could see them just fine in orbit, though.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

The quote is from the from the Apollo 11 debrief where, iirc, Patrick Moore asked about the stars.

The question he asked was if they could see any stars in the coroma of the sun from the surface. It was really a rather mixed up question because they wouldn't have seen the coroma on the lunar suface, but they had done experiments involving it during the flight. Neil answers that he didn't recall seeing any from the surface without the optics and didn't recall seeing any in the coroma, then passed that part of the question to Collins, who did the coroma experiment with him, who also replied that he didn't recall seeing any. Many HB's claim that Collins incorrectly answered for Buzz, since Collins was never on the surface, but in reality Neil got mixed up because of the Coroma experiment and Moore asking about the Coroma in the question, hence he gave the question to Michael who had done the experiment, rather then Buzz who would have been on the surface.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

I recall reading they were more likely talking about photos of the solar corona or whatever it was. The question asked was a long one and covered more than one thing, and their reply was kind of... chaotic? I thought there was something about Clavius about this, though I don't know. You can likely find the clip of it all over the internet.

__________________
Spread the Love!

There are a couple issues here. First is the issue is what the astronauts could and could not see in regard to stars. Second is what the astronauts said during the referenced press conference. Let’s take these in order…

For faint stars to be visible, an observer’s eyes must be adapted for “night vision”. Night vision, or dark adaptation, means that the pupils dilate to let in more light and a chemical change occurs in the eye that allows faint objects to be seen.

On Earth the Sun must set before the sky is dark enough for stars to come out. The absence of the Sun means that the lighting level is low and thus our eyes have a chance to adapt to the darker conditions before the stars start to appear. We see the stars not only because the sky is dark, but also because it is nighttime and there are no bright light sources to destroy our night vision. However, when a bright light does happen to fall into our vision, such as a street light, it is virtually impossible to see stars in that situation.

On the Moon the sky is always dark thus many people expect the astronauts to be able to see stars. However what they neglect to consider is that it was also daytime at the lunar landing sites. The Sun was in the sky and the surface all around the astronauts was brightly illuminated. This caused a constant glare in their eyes and made it impossible for their eyes to become dark adapted. Under these conditions the astronauts simply could not see stars from the surface of the Moon. There were some cases however when the astronauts said they could see a few bright stars while in the shade of the Lunar Module.

There are situations however when stars are most certainly visible from space, such as when a spacecraft moves into the shadow of the Earth or Moon. We therefore have quotes from astronauts saying they can see stars and other quotes saying they can’t see stars. It all depends of the specific circumstances. The hoax believers like to take these quotes out of context and portray it like the astronauts are contradicting themselves, but there is no contradiction.

[EDIT: Any Apollo believers who say the astronauts where able to see lots of stars from the lunar surface are wrong. Not everyone who discusses this topic is fully informed, thus faulty information gets repeated on both sides of the debate. It is entirely understandable that Armstrong and Aldrin could not see stars while on the Moon.]

Now in regard to the press conference … PhantomWolf already largely covered this. Since the questioner specifically mentioned the solar corona, there was some confusion regarding exactly what he meant. Mike Collins’ answer was in reference to solar corona observations and photography performed while in the Command Module. Since the typical hoax believer has no idea what Collins is talking about, they assume the answer must be about the visibility of stars while on the lunar surface. But since Collins was never on the surface of the Moon, the HBs claim this is a gaffe and evidence of a hoax. In reality it is just another case of the HBs not understanding the context of what is being said.

__________________
Webmaster, Rocket & Space Technology

Why do HBs always claim it's some piffling little thing like this that convinces them that it's a hoax?

I don't believe them,

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

thanks people. Taking Clavius and your responses I posted the following:


This and many other Sibrel points are addressed here(Clavius)



Here is the relevant part of the transcript:

QUERY: I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect? And secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?
ALDRIN: The first part of your question, the surface did vary in its thickness of penetration somewhere in flat regions. [...]

ARMSTRONG: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics [i.e., the lunar module's navigation telescope]. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

ALDRIN [actually Collins]: I don't remember seeing any




The last bit was actually Collins answering. He conducted the experiment that involved looking at the Sun's corona(in case you missed the question involved the corona) and is answering in follow up to Armstrong's answer.
So the answer to the question asked is 'no, stars were not visible in the corona'.

There is another aspect to this though, that is that the astronauts did not see stars from the Moon's surface except, as Armstrong clearly states, if they looked through the optics.

This is a consequence of the bright surface of the Moon. In order for the human eye to detect faint light such as that of the stars the pupil has to be dilated, that is adjusted for the dark. The surface of the Moon is very bright and the full sun was also in the sky. On Earth our eyes have time to adjust to darkness as the Sun sets and by the time it does our eyes are adjusted so as to allow the stars to be visible.

Many people assume that since the lunar sky is always dark that the stars would be visible but one certainly cannot see stars while looking towards the sun as the eye adjusts for the glare. Looking downsun you have the reflected light off the surface and again your pupils adjust for that light level. There were times when the astronauts reported that they could see stars such as when they looked up while in the shadow of the lunar lander.

The stars were not captured on film since the purpose of the mission was to explore the Moon. The stars are no different there than here other than they do not twinkle. But the astronauts had been in space for days where stars also do not twinkle. When on the Moon you are really hardly closer to any of the stars and thus their relative positions do not change by more than a few thousandths of a degree. The astronauts had a limited supply of film. Pictures of stars that could be had on Earth as easily as on the Moon would not make sense to take given the finite number of photos they could take(you could not run down to Fotomart for more film). Furthermore any shots taken on the Moon would have to have the aperature set for the light conditions on the surface of the Moon which as I say above is very brightly lit. So then pictures taken were all of the surface and those would not have stars in the background because of the aperature setting and no one took a picture of the stars in the sky (for which the aperature could have been opened wide and the lens shaded from Sun and surface glare) because it was more trouble than it would be worth since the stars are no different there than here.

__________________
"Man has always found it easier to sacrifice his life than learn the multiplication table." - Somerset Maugham

That and they were busy!

Its amazing how insignificant the stars can become when you have other things on your mind!

For instance, true story.

My one and only chance to visit Australia back in '81 the whole time in transit down to Perth I was very much looking forward to observing the Jewel Box. Day one off the boat and I meet an utterly charming student nurse. Spent nine days there. I was all the way back up to the Persian Gulf when I went "Doh!"

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

So the astronauts met pretty moon women?

__________________
Spread the Love!

The Twighlight Zone ('90s version) did that story. Scientists in the future devised a way to send people back, one way, no ability to communicate. So they pick killing Hitler as an infant, and send a young woman to infiltrate the household. She successfully steals baby Adolf from the nanny and ends up sacrificing herself to ensure the baby's death. The mortified nanny, afraid to reveal the truth to Adolf's father, buys a replacement baby from the sick beggar woman around the corner. Thus explains Adolf's club foot.

The larger issue is if Hitler was truly evil from birth, or if there couldn't be other ways to change history. Couldn't he be educated differently, change his ideas and beliefs? Also, if Hitler were killed, could there not be the rise of some other dynamic speaker with largely the same ideas and results? How much was the result of common attitudes of the people?

This is typical hoax believer logic.

Why are there no stars in the photographs?
Because NASA couldn't take the chance of having astronomers blow the hoax's cover. If there were stars, and they were positioned even slightly wrong, astronomers would be able to tell.

Why is it that every geologist on the planet affirms the authenticity of moon rocks?
Because they are afraid or have been paid by the Government

So, tell me again why there are no stars in the photographs? Why aren't astronomers afraid or paid by the government??

Uh, er, uh... (change of subject) Why did the astronauts say they "couldn't recall" seeing stars? A-Ha! It's because they never went to the moon!

So, the astronauts are lying by saying they went to the moon, but they *wont* lie in a press conference and just say that they saw stars in the sky?? That's where they draw the line? "I'll lie to 6 billion people, but by god I'm not going to look Walter Cronkite in the eye and tell him I saw stars when I didn't!"

Well, the fact that someone was sent back to kill Hitler was a give away that the mission failed, otherwise there would have been no reason to send anyone back

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

"Twilight," Irishman!

The film Max speculates some about this. It stars John Cusack as a one-armed Jewish art dealer. (Unfortunately, John Cusack himself isn't one-armed, so you see his right arm a time or two over the course of the movie. It's still very good.)

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Oops, wrong thread. [/chagrin]

Carry on, nothing to see here. No Hitler involvement in the Moon Hoax.

(Twilight. Twighlight. You're right. - Ighrishman. )

I wouldn't say that so quickly. If there isn't already some claim that Hitler was/is involved in the "moon hoax", give it some time........

tbm

__________________
Paddle faster!! I hear banjo music!!

Although probably not. The coating on their visors was intended to take raw sunlight, fully six times as bright as that which reaches the Earth, and tone it down to that of a normal sunny day in your typical North American town.

That reduction, when combined with the fact that their pupils would be pinpoints filtering out the still-bright light, mean that even if a shelter had been set up to filter out all direct and reflected sunlight, the coating itself may have been enough to keep them from seeing stars.

Although probably not. The coating on their visors was intended to take raw sunlight, fully six times as bright as that which reaches the Earth, and tone it down to that of a normal sunny day in your typical North American town.

That reduction, when combined with the fact that their pupils would be pinpoints filtering out the still-bright light, mean that even if a shelter had been set up to filter out all direct and reflected sunlight, the coating itself may have been enough to keep them from seeing stars.


I believe that Cernan and others dide report that you could see stars if you were in the shade of the LM for a while, though they might have had the outer visor up.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

The helmet had multiple layers to the "visor". The "fishbowl" helmet attached at the neck ring and had a double layer of protective polycarbonate that provided a full face, unrestricted view. There was an outer helmet attachment that provided a radiation/brightness filter to allow the crew to see in sunlight. There were also three opaque slides (left, middle, right) to provide further light blocking and thermal control, adjustable by the astronaut.

If one wanted to view stars, stand in the LM shadow, and lift the sun visors.

The coating on their visors was intended to take raw sunlight, fully six times as bright as that which reaches the Earth...

What's your source for the assertion that "raw sunlight" is six times as bright as that which reaches Earth?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Jay! Jay!

Sorry, a bit enthusiastic to see you here. I missed you!

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

The "fishbowl" helmet attached at the neck ring and had a double layer of protective polycarbonate that provided a full face, unrestricted view.

Strictly the fishbowl helmet had only a single layer of polycarbonate. An optional polycarbonate helmet shield could be fitted, but was not commonly used and was not a pressure-bearing member.

The extravehicular visor assembly (LEVA) is an unpressurized assembly that fits over the fishbowl. It provides two retractable see-through visors, one transparent polycarbonate and the other coated to reduce the overall light transmission. It also provided top and side retractable sun shades.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Right now it is 4:20pm in my typical North American town of Plano, Texas. The Sun is just under 19 degrees above the horizon. At midday (12:40pm), it was 41.4 degrees above the horizon. Using a little trig, I find that the Sun is now shining through twice as much air as it was at midday. If, as you say, one thickness of air attenuates 5/6 of the Sun's light, then the sunlight coming at me right now should be only 1/6th of what it was at noon. I don't need calibrated instruments to tell me this is not the case.

Furthermore, if the air blocked sunlight from reaching the Earth's surface by that much, then in photographs of the Earth from space, we should see substantial darkening from the direct down-sun point (someone help me with the terminology) to the terminator. Also, since the air would also be attenuating the light reflected off the surface towards the camera, we should see darkening from the visible center of the disk to the edges. In pictures such as this, I don't see either of these effects.

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery

Or even more simply formulated:

If the opacity of air is presumed to derive from its density, and if the density of air at sea level reduces visible sunlight intensity to only 1/6 of the total, then an airliner flying at 35,000 feet experiencing an air density only 1/4 that at sea level should be lit by four times more sunlight than on the ground. There is a suspicious lack of blind airline passengers.

Heck, between where I snorkel and where I ski there is a 2X difference in air density. Yet strangely enough, the "sunny 16" photo exposure rule works exactly the same in both places. I certainly don't get blinded on the ski slopes, but I do occasionally get run into the ground by Swiss teenagers on snowboards.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

No no no, you're all missing the point. 1/6 the gravity, 6x the sunshine!

__________________
Relight the Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

from the direct down-sun point (someone help me with the terminology)

Subsolar

Thanks, Joe. I'll leave my post unedited as an example (along with your correction) of the learning environment here.

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery

Okay that's moronic. There are no stars in the photos. The astronauts say they couldn't see stars either.

Eureka! It's a hoax!

Will it never end with these people?

Oh boy, a new approach on Unified Field Theory

__________________
Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

This is such a silly argument put forth by the NaNa's (NASA Naysayers). I mean, a starmap created from a photo taken on the Lunar surface would appear identical to one taken on Earth wouldn't it? (except perhaps for the clarity afforded by the obvious lack of an atmosphere).

Our view of the heavens doesn't change when the Earth orbits the SUN. Why would the conspiratards believe the star alignments would change just because the photographer was a mere 240,000 miles away?

What a stupid non-issue.

[CT]There are no stars because all the astronomers would have detected errors and blown the whistle.

No geologists have blown the whistle about the moon rocks because they've all been bought off by the evil NASA.[/CT]

__________________
"The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head" Terry Pratchett