PDA

View Full Version : Could Neil Armstrong See Stars When He Delivered the Famous "ONE SMALL STEP LINES"



DoctorTea
2011-May-09, 09:24 PM
I was engaged in a discussion as to whether or not Neil Armstrong could or could not see stars from the lunar surface within a thread featured in a non CT BAAUT forum. That thread has been closed and this closed thread with its BAAUT member exchanges can be found now over on this CT side of the forum. For details, I refer the interested to those threads started/posted originally by BAAUT newbie DoctorTea.

While I was composing a post, a response to a fellow member, the thread was closed. Here is the substance of my last post intended for that earlier non CT thread. I have modified the original response so that I can now submit it as a new question/thread here under the CT section/forum where the moderators view the subject's discussion as more appropriate.

Over on the non CT side, the question was raised as to whether or not Neil Armstrong was dark adapted, whether his vision was accommodated for seeing in the dark at the time when he stood at the foot of the LM ladder after descending that ladder. And more specifically, for the sake of this new thread, was Armstrong dark vision adapted when he uttered his famous "ONE SMALL STEP..." lines.

Per this thread author, DoctorTea, based on support/reference as below, this issue is very much NOT in question. Armstrong was indeed dark adapted visually.

For support of my assertion, one may wish to start with David Harland's book, "The First Men on the Moon". In my opinion, that is the best first popular reference to use in orienting oneself to the issue, especially the chronology, the sequence of relevant events.

Read the corresponding relevant passages carefully from Harland's book. One need not do anything more than pay attention to the facts as stated, the description of events/conditions and the chronology. They are; Armstrong comes off the ladder, he says his famous words, he moves away from the ladder, moves away from the LM and in so doing engages visually the bright lunar surface and at that time loses his dark adaptation. It is at that time, after having already given the soliloquy and then stepping away from the LM, that his physiology changes, his adaptation status changes.

He moves away from the LM most decidedly AFTER he has delivered the landing soliloquy. He is most decidedly very much dark adapted while looking up toward the camera and delivering the famous landing soliloquy. Harland's fairly detailed account is quite clear. I'll quote it for everyone here, those interested anyway, since I can bring it up on an electronic book thing I have. From David Harland's, "The First Men on the Moon";

"NOW THAT HE HAD STEPPED AWAY FROM THE LM, THE ILLUMINATED TERRAIN RUINED HIS DARK ADAPTATION.(Armstrong is now quoted)"IT'S QUITE DARK HERE IN THE SHADOW, AND A LITTLE HARD FOR ME TO VERIFY THAT I HAVE GOOD FOOTING". HE POINTED OUT.( Armstrong quoted again) "I'LL WORK MY WAY OVER TO THE SUNLIGHT HERE WITHOUT DIRECTLY LOOKING INTO THE SUN". HE DID NOT WANT TO ENTER FULL SUNLIGHT BECAUSE HE DID NOT YET DESIRE TO LOWER HIS GOLD VISOR."

As one can easily verify. This activity here, the activity where he stepped away from the terrain thereby ruining his dark adaptation, this occurs AFTER he has climbed down, stepped off the ladder and delivered his famous words. This passage, the one quoted, occurs in the book after the famous lines/ONE SMALL STEP stuff and it is clear from Harland's writing that the actual events occurred similarly, Armstrong descends the ladder and his famous lines are delivered before he loses his status of dark adapted vision, a status which he enjoyed while at the ladder delivering the famous words. The chronologically of events is; descend the ladder, deliver the eloquent lines(ONE SMALL...), when he delivers the famous lines his head is up, he is looking toward us with head up, then Armstrong steps away from the ladder/LM and as a consequence of this stepping away loses dark adaptation because with the act of stepping away from the LM, the bright lunar surface is first visually engaged, then after stepping away now in shadow but without dark adaptation he keeps the visor very much up.

I would presume Armstrong wants to keep the visor up because it is dark under foot but bright out there in the lunar netherworld. However, I do not know as a fact if this is or is not Armstrong's rationale for keeping the visor up.

Harland's account is clear. The famous words are spoke in the shadow, with visor up, head neutral as we can see, and we know he is dark adapted in this time of delivering the words because in Harland's book, it is emphasized dark adaptation is lost only after Armstrong steps away from the LM, and indeed, he steps away after delivering the famous lines.

For other newcomers like myself, people with a general interest in the space program and more curious now about Apollo for whatever reason, Harland's book is not great, but good. It is a good way to orient oneself quickly to a fairly detailed chronology. I would recommend it.

Thanks for the responses to my posts to the question/the original thread on the non CT side.

For the sake of starting a new thread here on the more appropriate CT side per the moderator, my formal question is;

WHY CAN'T ARMSTRONG SEE STARS WITH HIS VISOR UP, HEAD NEUTRAL AND EYES DARK ADAPTED AS HE DELIVERS HIS FAMOUS "ONE SMALL STEP" SOLILOQUY.

Thanks, DoctorTea

Strange
2011-May-09, 09:38 PM
(Armstrong is now quoted)"IT'S QUITE DARK HERE IN THE SHADOW, AND A LITTLE HARD FOR ME TO VERIFY THAT I HAVE GOOD FOOTING".
...
I would presume Armstrong wants to keep the visor up because it is dark under foot but bright out there in the lunar netherworld.
...
WHY CAN'T ARMSTRONG SEE STARS WITH HIS VISOR UP, HEAD NEUTRAL AND EYES DARK ADAPTED AS HE DELIVERS HIS FAMOUS "ONE SMALL STEP" SOLILOQUY.

It seems to me that you have answered your own question. Maybe he could have seen them but he wasn't looking because he had to be careful about his footing. Maybe he did see them but didn't pay any attention (he had seen stars before but not been on the moon before). Maybe his eyes had adjusted enough that he couldn't see them. Maybe I don't really care about the questions as much as you do :)

R.A.F.
2011-May-09, 09:43 PM
Why is it so important to you, Tea, that Armstrong see stars? Can you not understand the reasons why he likely couldn't?

Garrison
2011-May-09, 09:44 PM
For the sake of starting a new thread here on the more appropriate CT side per the moderator, my formal question is;

WHY CAN'T ARMSTRONG SEE STARS WITH HIS VISOR UP, HEAD NEUTRAL AND EYES DARK ADAPTED AS HE DELIVERS HIS FAMOUS "ONE SMALL STEP" SOLILOQUY.

Thanks, DoctorTea
Assuming you mean why didn't he look:

Have you looked at the pictures of Armstrong on the ladder? He has his gaze forward and down, watching his footing, not to mention that if he did look up all he's going to see is the side of the LM. Thereafter he's standing on the brightly lit surface and even if his eyes are dark adapted he's not going to be seeing much of anything until they adjust or he lowers his visor, either of which make it impossible to see the stars anyway. And why would he be looking at the stars at that moment even if he could? He's just stepped onto the MOON, he's going to be looking at the sight no one has ever seen before, not at stars that even under ideal conditions would look no different than they do on Earth. Frankly I would find it strange if he did look up at the stars at that moment.

If you literally mean there is something wrong with the description of events, implying fraud/hoax because he doesn't report seeing stars then I'm afraid it's up to you to make a case for that proposition.

R.A.F.
2011-May-09, 09:52 PM
He is most decidedly very much dark adapted while looking up toward the camera and delivering the famous landing soliloquy.

Can you prove that, or are we supposed to "take your word" that someone completely unfamiliar with the Apollo program can make such a determnination based on what...a "feeling"??

No...if you intend to persue this, you need to provide evidence, not uninformed opinions.

slang
2011-May-09, 09:52 PM
(First off, please don't use all capital letters, it's considered shouting. If you want to emphasize a word or sentence, it's better to (sparingly!) use italics or bold.)

The key to your answer is finding out how much he was dark adapted. Remember it's daytime on the moon at that time, and just look directly at a nightly full moon (after being dark adapted in a really really dark place) to find out how much light is reflected from the lunar surface. A "dark shadow" there isn't as dark as a moonless Earth night.

Another thing: if your key question is "WHY CAN'T ARMSTRONG SEE STARS ...", you really should establish first that such was claimed somewhere (either by Armstrong himself, a third party, or by yourself). Maybe it is, maybe it's not, but the reader shouldn't have to go and search to find out if the question isn't a straw man argument to begin with.

DoctorTea
2011-May-09, 09:55 PM
No strange, Armstrong has been clear whether speaking directly such as at the Apollo 11 post journey press conference or in the setting of the Patrick Moore BBC interview of 1970, or as his account was reported to authors of books about Apollo such as Andrew Chaiken. He did not see stars. His statement for whatever reason is an unqualified no, no stars.

I have a cool book of pictures, "Apollo Through the Eyes of the Astronauts". Aldrin is quoted, page 63, "The sky was utter blackness, void of any stars". The thread is about Armstrong, but Armstrong's account is corroborated by his partner and that is relevant.

DoctorTea

Strange
2011-May-09, 09:57 PM
No strange, Armstrong has been clear whether speaking directly such as at the Apollo 11 post journey press conference or in the setting of the Patrick Moore BBC interview of 1970, or as his account was reported to authors of books about Apollo such as Andrew Chaiken. He did not see stars. His statement for whatever reason is an unqualified no, no stars.

There is your answer then. End of story.

R.A.F.
2011-May-09, 10:05 PM
No strange, Armstrong has been clear whether speaking directly such as at the Apollo 11 post journey press conference or in the setting of the Patrick Moore BBC interview of 1970, or as his account was reported to authors of books about Apollo such as Andrew Chaiken. He did not see stars. His statement for whatever reason is an unqualified no, no stars.

I have a cool book of pictures, "Apollo Through the Eyes of the Astronauts". Aldrin is quoted, page 63, "The sky was utter blackness, void of any stars". The thread is about Armstrong, but Armstrong's account is corroborated by his partner and that is relevant.

DoctorTea

So??...what "problem" do you have with Armstrongs account? If he says he couldn't see stars, do you think he was lying??

Not trying to "put words" in your mouth....just want to know what you are claiming...

DoctorTea
2011-May-09, 10:24 PM
R.A.F., my point on the non CT side was that this issue of stars could and should be discussed outside the context of hoax considerations, not always necessarily as some would bring it up for that very reason. But it was not how I was introduced to the question. I never thought of hoax once when I first got a whiff of this.

Trying to answer your question directly, I found it interesting that professional astronomers discussed the issue with me for the most part outside of any hoax reference, but a few did not, they changed their answer when hoax came up in their own minds. I never suggested it and when I started in with all this I always assumed Armstrong was correct. He was there, on the moon. For the most part, I still favor Armstrong's views if one could call them that.

But this has been eye opening for me. Again, to emphasize, I see everyone here pretty much as honorable, and I have learned a lot, and I freely acknowledge that any misunderstandings and the tensions experienced between myself and other BAAUT members were 99% my fault, my bad. I was out of line especially when I flipped out on Hornblower.

Since you asked, R.A.F., the question was originally important to me because when my swimming club friends and I stumbled across it, being utterly uninitiated, we found it interesting, we were fascinated. Could one or could one not see stars??? We tried to have our question answered. We are curious, my swimming friends and I. When we realized that perhaps we got a different answer, or an answer might be changed depending on the context(hoax vs no hoax) in which it was asked, we found that in and of itself interesting and we wanted to learn why. Since I am the only one of the 3 of us with a science background, it has sort of fallen to me to do this, go to the web and engage other similarly interested and learn more. I report back to my friends about what I learn from you guys. Finally, it has become important to me because interestingly, surprisingly, astonishingly, this newbie, DoctorTea can sort of discuss the issue himself with some competency and I have found to be honest in sort of pushing the issue, playing devil's advocate here, I have learned more about Apollo in three days than in my previous years of casual exposure, and I have some.

So 3 reasons it is interesting;

1) 3 swimming club members were puzzled when they learned even though it kind of made intuitive sense and even though NASA had on it's own web site that you could see stars on the lunar surface, even more so than on the earth per some accounts, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin said something we thought was different.
2) When we asked professional astronomers on forums intended for these very questions, the astronomers gave us props for the question, some loved the question,
and when some astronomers, who we respected nonetheless just as much, changed their answers when they themselves brought up moon hoax implications, we found that interesting sociologically. That is, the question had interest for us completely outside the world of science per se. Sociologically, we were fascinated.
3) Pushing the issue myself here on this forum has lead to my learning a great deal about the Apollo program, optics. The physiology stuff I have down cold pretty much to begin with.

Thanks for asking, I mean that sincerely, I got some feedback that it was hard to figure me out, so there it is. Hope that is helpful R.A.F. best, DoctorTea

Garrison
2011-May-09, 10:29 PM
No strange, Armstrong has been clear whether speaking directly such as at the Apollo 11 post journey press conference or in the setting of the Patrick Moore BBC interview of 1970, or as his account was reported to authors of books about Apollo such as Andrew Chaiken. He did not see stars. His statement for whatever reason is an unqualified no, no stars.

I have a cool book of pictures, "Apollo Through the Eyes of the Astronauts". Aldrin is quoted, page 63, "The sky was utter blackness, void of any stars". The thread is about Armstrong, but Armstrong's account is corroborated by his partner and that is relevant.

DoctorTea

Relevant to what? Armstrong says he didn't see stars, you've had a number of explanations as to why that would be the case and you've yet to explain why you seem to have a problem with both Armstrong's account and those statements. Consider the following rule 13 questions(and if you don't know what that means you need to read the rules):

Do you accept Armstrong's statement that he didn't see stars?
If you do not accept it what is your basis for rejecting it?
If you do accept it then what is your issue with the fact that he did not see stars?

DoctorTea
2011-May-09, 10:32 PM
Garrison, the question as stated makes reference to the conditions at the time of Armstrong's famous "ONE STEP" statement, very much not when he is descending the ladder. He is at the foot of the ladder, feet on the ground, looking toward us at roughly the place where the camera is. Head not dwn, his head is neutral. His visor is up. His eyes are dark adapted. He says the words. Did he see stars then as he was speaking, as he was standing at the foot of the ladder, before he walked away and lost his night/dark adaptation. Read David Harland's book, review the film.

Respectfully, DoctorTea.

DoctorTea
2011-May-09, 10:35 PM
R.A.F. David Harland explicitly states it was when Armstrong stepped away from the LM that he lost his dark adaptation. It is crystal clear. He would not have said Armstrong lost something he did not possess it to begin with. That makes no sense.

Best, DoctorTea

Garrison
2011-May-09, 10:38 PM
Garrison, the question as stated makes reference to the conditions at the time of Armstrong's famous "ONE STEP" statement, very much not when he is descending the ladder. He is at the foot of the ladder, feet on the ground, looking toward us at roughly the place where the camera is. Head not dwn, his head is neutral. His visor is up. His eyes are dark adapted. He says the words. Did he see stars then as he was speaking, as he was standing at the foot of the ladder, before he walked away and lost his night/dark adaptation. Read David Harland's book, review the film.

Respectfully, DoctorTea.

DoctorTea he has said he did not, and now you have added a series of assertions about the viewing conditions without offering supporting evidence. Please do so, preferably in your own words, and answer this question I have already put to you:

Do you accept Armstrong's statement that he didn't see stars?

DoctorTea
2011-May-09, 10:39 PM
Also R.A.F. , to emphasize, I was not completely unfamiliar with Apollo. I had read and seen this and that. No American of my age, especially a scientist is completely unfamiliar with Apollo. One does not exist. At least I do not believe so. I am becoming more so everyday. With regard to basic science, I am a life science person, but my background in mathematics and physical sciences if very strong. I have good analytic ability because of a strong basic science background.

Thanks for your post, DoctorTea

Strange
2011-May-09, 10:40 PM
Did he see stars then as he was speaking, as he was standing at the foot of the ladder, before he walked away and lost his night/dark adaptation.

Apparently not.


Read David Harland's book, review the film.

Why?

I still don't understand what the point is. He said he couldn't see stars (for whatever reason). So?

R.A.F.
2011-May-09, 10:40 PM
Since you asked, R.A.F., the question was originally important to me because when my swimming club friends and I stumbled across it, being utterly uninitiated, we found it interesting, we were fascinated. Could one or could one not see stars???

Well, the answer is no...the Astronauts COULD NOT see stars...end of story, unless you have contrary evidence tto present, this thread is just about done.

DoctorTea
2011-May-09, 10:43 PM
Slang, Armstrong's and Aldrin's claims are that they do not see stars. On the non CT side of the forum another BAAUT member proposed a simple hypothetical "observatory" that would allow one to see stars for the moon's surface. My point is that the criteria for that observatory is met here in this moment when Armstrong says, "ONE SMALL...". Look for my original thread and follow it through. This new thread is a modified post/response to the inventor of the hypothetical observatory.

Thanks, DoctorTea

Noclevername
2011-May-09, 10:45 PM
DoctorTea, if you start a thread in the Conspiracy Theory section it should either be to promote a Conspiracy Theory or to refute a Conspiracy Theory. Which are you trying to do here?

R.A.F.
2011-May-09, 10:45 PM
R.A.F. , to emphasize, I was not completely unfamiliar with Apollo.

Then why present yourself as someone unfamiliar with the Apollo Moon missions??

do I really need to qoute where you posted that??

DoctorTea
2011-May-09, 10:47 PM
Strange, appreciate your post. Again, I should have made this more clear in my thread's introduction, in the original non CT thread, a member proposed an "observatory" where one could see stars from the surface of the moon. See the old thread for the graphic. My point is the criteria presented by the BAAUT member who"invented" the observatory are met by the conditions at the time Armstrong uttered his famous words. Thanks, DoctorTea

Garrison
2011-May-09, 10:49 PM
Strange, appreciate your post. Again, I should have made this more clear in my thread's introduction, in the original non CT thread, a member proposed an "observatory" where one could see stars from the surface of the moon. See the old thread for the graphic. My point is the criteria presented by the BAAUT member who"invented" the observatory are met by the conditions at the time Armstrong uttered his famous words. Thanks, DoctorTea

Which you have not remotely proven, nor have you answered my question to you.

Noclevername
2011-May-09, 10:51 PM
See the old thread for the graphic.

Can you provide a link to this thread?


My point is the criteria presented by the BAUT member who "invented" the observatory are met by the conditions at the time Armstrong uttered his famous words. Thanks, DoctorTea (spelling corrected)

And what are those criteria, and what evidence do you present that those conditions were met?

R.A.F.
2011-May-09, 10:53 PM
Strange, appreciate your post. Again, I should have made this more clear in my thread's introduction, in the original non CT thread, a member proposed an "observatory" where one could see stars from the surface of the moon. See the old thread for the graphic. My point is the criteria presented by the BAAUT member who"invented" the observatory are met by the conditions at the time Armstrong uttered his famous words. Thanks, DoctorTea

Observatory?? What does that have to do with Armstrong??

This is getting old...if you have any evidence that Armstrong "should" have seen stars, you need to present it NOW.

slang
2011-May-09, 10:54 PM
Slang, Armstrong's and Aldrin's claims are that they do not see stars. On the non CT side of the forum another BAAUT member proposed a simple hypothetical "observatory" that would allow one to see stars for the moon's surface. My point is that the criteria for that observatory is met here in this moment when Armstrong says, "ONE SMALL...". Look for my original thread and follow it through. This new thread is a modified post/response to the inventor of the hypothetical observatory.

Thanks, DoctorTea

You shouldn't require someone to have to look up the claim or force him/her to read other threads. Post it in the thread where you question it. It's just a matter of clear and unambiguous writing, and common courtesy to your readers. How much work is it to add one line saying "Armstrong said in press conference X at date Y that he was unable to see stars"?

Also, you completely ignore my suggestion of finding out what exactly "dark adapted" means in the context it was used. Surely you can see that it is not a quantitative statement?

Cobra1597
2011-May-09, 10:55 PM
Slang, Armstrong's and Aldrin's claims are that they do not see stars. On the non CT side of the forum another BAAUT member proposed a simple hypothetical "observatory" that would allow one to see stars for the moon's surface. My point is that the criteria for that observatory is met here in this moment when Armstrong says, "ONE SMALL...". Look for my original thread and follow it through. This new thread is a modified post/response to the inventor of the hypothetical observatory.

Thanks, DoctorTea

No they aren't. I saw a diagram of that "observatory," and unless the LM entirely and completely blocked out the sun as well as any reflection of the sun on the surrounding terrain, then the conditions of that proposed observatory have not been met.

DoctorTea
2011-May-09, 10:56 PM
R.A.F. Let's be nice, seriously. I am 53 years old, I was an undergraduate at CAL. I studied medicine at Vanderbilt. I indicated I had a strong science background when I said I was a physician with a special interest and expertise in the physiology of thermoregulation. I was 11 when Apollo 8 went round the moon, at least I think I was. I have never misrepresented myself. If I wanted to do that, why would I say any of this. I do not have to disclose anything. I had no prior interest in Apollo apart from that of the average person and there are many of us that grew up with this stuff and went on to study in the sciences. I think it is unfair if you are suggesting that I misrepresented my background. But I can only offer you these facts of my life if you are interested. So we are all clear, I respect the keen intelligence of your posts. I appreciate your points. I view you as a colleague. Best, DoctorTea

Strange
2011-May-09, 10:58 PM
Slang, Armstrong's and Aldrin's claims are that they do not see stars. On the non CT side of the forum another BAAUT member proposed a simple hypothetical "observatory" that would allow one to see stars for the moon's surface. My point is that the criteria for that observatory is met here in this moment when Armstrong says ...

No because that hypothetical "observatory" was constructed to prevent any view of the surface. Which obviously wasn't the case here.

But... so what? They say they couldn't see stars. Therefore, I assume they either couldn't see stars or just didn't notice them. So what?

Edit:

And in case that wasn't clear:
What is your point?
What do you want to know?
Why do you care?
Why should I care?

R.A.F.
2011-May-09, 11:01 PM
R.A.F. Let's be nice, seriously. I am 53 years old, I was an undergraduate at CAL. I studied medicine at Vanderbilt. I indicated I had a strong science background when I said I was a physician with a special interest and expertise in the physiology of thermoregulation. I was 11 when Apollo 8 went round the moon, at least I think I was. I have never misrepresented myself. If I wanted to do that, why would I say any of this. I do not have to disclose anything. I had no prior interest in Apollo apart from that of the average person and there are many of us that grew up with this stuff and went on to study in the sciences. I think it is unfair if you are suggesting that I misrepresented my background. But I can only offer you these facts of my life if you are interested. So we are all clear, I respect the keen intelligence of your posts. I appreciate your points. I view you as a colleague. Best, DoctorTea

That is all very nice...when will you be addressing the "no stars" question?

slang
2011-May-09, 11:04 PM
R.A.F. Let's be nice, seriously.

That is R.A.F. being seriously nice. :D :razz:

fosborn
2011-May-09, 11:05 PM
This might be a duplicate, I may have deleted the first post. So if it is sorry.
But I think Dr. Tea is all about misdirection. I think he really is a follower of Bahram Katirai,"revolution in astronomy". Pretty much Solon's wingman, you might say. IMO.
They like to establish that the stars are to dim to see in space, and are really planets. Also that the milkyway is really our Oort cloud. And other galaxy's are Oort Clouds too with a star at the center. This is their classic MO of introducing their subject. IMO.

R.A.F.
2011-May-09, 11:07 PM
That is R.A.F. being seriously nice. :D :razz:

Given my 'history" here, this really cracks me up...thanks for the laugh,slang :)

captain swoop
2011-May-09, 11:10 PM
Doctor Tea This has gone on long enough, a direct repeat of Garrisons question, I expect a short direct answer in your next post (Yes or No). Failure to give a short direct answer will result in action against you.
I also refer you to the rules for posting to the board and the advice for posters linked at the bottom of this post.

Do you accept Armstrong's statement that he didn't see stars?

DoctorTea
2011-May-09, 11:46 PM
strange, pleas see the note I addressed to R.A.F.. I explained there why I care. Best , DoctorTea

PetersCreek
2011-May-10, 12:08 AM
This might be a duplicate, I may have deleted the first post. So if it is sorry.
But I think Dr. Tea is all about misdirection.

fosborn,

Any number of beliefs can be presented in a similar fashion but that provides no justification for dragging them into this thread. At best, your post is a premature, unwarranted accusation and those will not do here. If you haven't done so, please read our rules, linked in my signature line below.

Noclevername
2011-May-10, 12:33 AM
.

pzkpfw
2011-May-10, 12:42 AM
That's enough, please. The last two posts add nothing to the thread, and clutter it.

Jeff Root
2011-May-10, 12:43 AM
Observatory?? What does that have to do with Armstrong??
That was introduced by eburacum45. Ask him.



This is getting old...if you have any evidence that Armstrong "should"
have seen stars, you need to present it NOW.
The evidence is, as he has said numerous times, that lots of people
including professional astronomers have told him that the astronauts
should have been able to see stars while on the Moon. The fact that
the astronauts should have been able to see stars while on the Moon
can be considered mainstream.

Yet that doesn't mean any particular astronaut or any astronaut at all
saw stars while on the Moon.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

R.A.F.
2011-May-10, 12:51 AM
The evidence is, as he has said numerous times, that lots of people including professional astronomers have told him that the astronauts
should have been able to see stars while on the Moon.

Name ONE...

Gillianren
2011-May-10, 12:51 AM
This board is the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today Forum. That's BAUT.

R.A.F.
2011-May-10, 01:01 AM
Name ONE...

Of course this is directed to DoctorTea.

Cobra1597
2011-May-10, 01:01 AM
That was introduced by eburacum45. Ask him.


The evidence is, as he has said numerous times, that lots of people
including professional astronomers have told him that the astronauts
should have been able to see stars while on the Moon. The fact that
the astronauts should have been able to see stars while on the Moon
can be considered mainstream.

Yet that doesn't mean any particular astronaut or any astronaut at all
saw stars while on the Moon.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

I don't consider something "mainstream" because someone else, operating under anonymity no less, claims to have been told something by "professionals."

DoctorTea
2011-May-10, 01:20 AM
Of course I believe Armstrong, 100%. He did not see stars. Aldrin did not see stars. Absolutely. This point is not in doubt. The question was/is, why is that the case? Per my previous posts; it had nothing to do with the visor being down because Armstrong's visor was in fact up, it had nothing to do with dark vision adaptation because we know Armstrong was dark vision adapted from Harland's book which I did quote. Armstrong lost dark adaptation only when he stepped away. It is not because one cannot absolutely positively not see stars from the lunar surface altogether because as Gene Cernan states in his Apollo 17 debriefing record, " "It was also generally true that, when you were on the surface in the LM's shadow, there were too many bright things in your field-of-view for the stars to be visible. But I remember that I wanted to see whether I could see stars, and there were times out on the surface when I found that, if you allowed yourself to just focus and maybe even just shielded your eyes to some degree, even outside the LM shadow you could see stars in the sky. And, quite frankly, under the right conditions here on Earth on a bright sunlit day, you can do the same thing. I could see stars through my helmet visor; not easily, but it can be done." Again, the question posed is not whether Armstrong saw stars or not, or whether Gene Cernan saw stars or not, which he did, and Cernan as quoted above is saying one could see stars even with his visor down and even outside the shadow of the LM with a concerted effort it was(and this from an Apollo 17 debriefing record), but rather, why Armstrong did not see stars at that time, giving his little ONE SMALL STEP talk, under what are the most favorable of circumstances, certainly more favorable than what Cernan is describing outside the shadow of the LM with his visor down.

Please review my original post for my question as stated. Thanks, DoctorTea.

Noclevername
2011-May-10, 01:36 AM
The question was/is, why is that the case? ...but rather, why Armstrong did not see stars at that time, giving his little ONE SMALL STEP talk, under what are the most favorable of circumstances, certainly more favorable than what Cernan is describing outside the shadow of the LM with his visor down.

Please review my original post for my question as stated. Thanks, DoctorTea.

So, you are asking us to speculate? Instead of playing guessing games, why not just come out and tell us why you think he could not see the stars? The place to ask questions and have them answered is the "Questions and Answers (http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php/8-Space-Astronomy-Questions-and-Answers)" section, not the Conspiracy Theory section.

R.A.F.
2011-May-10, 01:46 AM
Of course I believe Armstrong, 100%. He did not see stars. Aldrin did not see stars. Absolutely. This point is not in doubt. The question was/is, why is that the case?

Because it was DAYTIME...how many stars can you see in the daytime??????

Swift
2011-May-10, 01:47 AM
So, you are asking us to speculate? Instead of playing guessing games, why not just come out and tell us why you think he could not see the stars? The place to ask questions and have them answered is the "Questions and Answers (http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php/8-Space-Astronomy-Questions-and-Answers)" section, not the Conspiracy Theory section.
Actually, I moved DoctorTea's original thread on this topic from Q&A, because it seemed apparent he was not looking for simple answers, but at a minimum wanted an extended debate, and was possibly advocating non-mainstream ideas. That is still my opinion and I do not wish this discussion moved back to Q&A.

R.A.F.
2011-May-10, 01:49 AM
...why not just come out and tell us why you think he could not see the stars?

Because he has no answer.

DoctorTea
2011-May-10, 01:52 AM
R.A.F. , if you go to the NASA web site "Lunar Science for Kids" the site's author states one is able to see more stars on the moon than from the earth. They have this posted to a section entitled, "can you see more stars from the moon". A lot of kids ask this question I imagine for NASA to have the as a featured screen on their web site. this is from the NASA site, I copied and pasted(lifted directly from the site) so it is word for word. As a part of this page there is a photo of earth rise not lifted by me.


Can you see more stars from the Moon?
Earthrise seen from the Moon

On the Moon, there is no atmosphere and no clouds to blur or block our view of the stars. The sky on the Moon is always black, even during the daytime. From the Moon, you would be able to see many more stars than you could see from Earth. You would also see the Earth in the sky, and it would appear much larger and brighter than the Moon appears to us. Earth would also go through phases, like we see the Moon do from Earth. Many astonomers think that the Moon would be a great place to have an observatory. In the image to the right, you can see the Earth rising as seen from the Moon. There are no stars visible in the image because the camera exposure used was not sensitive enough to show the stars against the bright lunar surface.

Well regarded/respected astronomer and educator David Kornreich then of Cornell(1999), now a professor of astronomy at Humbolt answered a school teacher's qestion on the Cornell University forum; Why can't you see stars during the day? Here's the exchange word for word.

I'm a teacher in a daycare. Each week we have a theme for are program. Last week it was the stars in the sky. This little boy asked me "why do stars glow at night and not during the day?" I didn't know what to answer so maybe you can help me answer this question for the little boy.

Stars do glow during the day, but we can't see them because of the glare of sunlight. When the sun is up, the blue color in sunlight gets scattered all over the atmosphere, turning the sky the familiar bright blue color. This blue light is much brighter than the faint light coming from the stars, so it prevents us from seeing them.

If you were standing on the Moon, for instance, where there is no atmosphere, you would see the stars both day and night.

March 1999, Dave Kornreich.


NASA super scientist/astronomer/CA tech grad Eric Christian is based at the Goddard Space Flight Center last I checked. Eric answered a question on NASA's public forum. Here it is word for word;

Why Can't We See Stars During the Day?
Why can't we see the stars during the daytime?

You can see one star during the day -- the Sun! But because the sky is so bright (due to the Sun being bright), other stars are not visible. On the Moon, if you shield the Sun with your hand and let your eyes dark-adjust, you can see stars during the "day".

Dr. Eric Christian
(August 2000)

So here are 3 example of professional astronomers who say yes one can see stars from the surface of the moon. Cruise the net, they are all over the place, and I would encourage people to engage the astronomers themselves with regard to this issue as I did and continue to do. The point being, again for emphasis, is that when I first got into this, trying to satisfy my curiosity, there never was any hint of moon hoax relevance. Even now when i discuss the issue with them it is not mentioned and as stated by me previously, I personally do not believe seeing stars or not seeing stars equates to hoax. The moderators felt this subject should be discussed here on the CT side, though clearly the astronomers that manage "Lunar Science for Kids, David Kornreich then of Cornell now of Humbolt and NASA super scientist Eric Christian of the Goddard Center, non of these folks have any problems discussing this. They do not see it as CT stuff, not have the majority of astronomers with whom i have communicated viewed this issue as having hoax relevance.

Thanks for your question asking for specifics R.A.F. Best, DoctorTea.

Gillianren
2011-May-10, 01:52 AM
. . . It had nothing to do with dark vision adaptation because we know Armstrong was dark vision adapted from Harland's book which I did quote. Armstrong lost dark adaptation only when he stepped away.

How do you know? How does Harland know? Does the assumption make sense with what we know of the relevant lighting conditions and how eyes respond to them?

Noclevername
2011-May-10, 02:00 AM
Is it likely that as Armstrong exited the Lander he could have caught a glimpse of reflected Moonlight on the Lander's surface that would have compromised his eye's full adaptation to the dark? Is it equally likely that, as everyone's eyesight is slightly different, his night vision may not have been as sensitive as Cernan's?

DoctorTea
2011-May-10, 02:00 AM
I said I believed Armstrong, absolutely.

I believe Cernan did see stars as quoted above, absolutely.

I believe the astronomer's quoted above would be puzzled by the astronauts response.

I do not suggest anyone is lying or intentionally deceiving.

My question as stated at the beginning of this thread stands, all considered, why didn't Armstrong see stars. It is not he is lying about it, the question is he did not see stars contrary to what one might expect given the conditions as stated with relevant supporting references and the views of highly regarded professional astronomers, 3 sited above.

Thanks for the post, DoctorTea

DoctorTea
2011-May-10, 02:03 AM
Harland is not an astronaut Noclevername. He is an author of a book who wrote an account of the events in questions including materials written/given by the astronauts themselves such as debriefing materials.

Thanks for your post, DoctorTea

Noclevername
2011-May-10, 02:04 AM
So I will ask again; What do you believe is the reason for this discrepancy? Keep in mind that the rules of the board state that "I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer.

Ed.: Corrected previous post.

R.A.F.
2011-May-10, 02:05 AM
...all considered, why didn't Armstrong see stars.

What is it about "it was daytime, how many stars can you see in the daytime?" that you don't understand?

DoctorTea
2011-May-10, 02:06 AM
How does Harland know Gillianren, you would have to read his entire book , or a good part of it as one would do with any author to make a determination with regard to his credibility or lack thereof. i find him very credible. Note the quotes he uses, Armstrong's own words, relevant to this very issue. One find those same quotes, same words in NASA's own materials. I believe him to be credible. You may read his book and decide for yourself. Best, DoctorTea

DoctorTea
2011-May-10, 02:08 AM
I do not know the answer. That is why i engaged the astronomers and you guys. i do not know. DoctorTea

Cobra1597
2011-May-10, 02:12 AM
"It was also generally true that, when you were on the surface in the LM's shadow, there were too many bright things in your field-of-view for the stars to be visible. But I remember that I wanted to see whether I could see stars, and there were times out on the surface when I found that, if you allowed yourself to just focus and maybe even just shielded your eyes to some degree, even outside the LM shadow you could see stars in the sky. And, quite frankly, under the right conditions here on Earth on a bright sunlit day, you can do the same thing. I could see stars through my helmet visor; not easily, but it can be done."

I call baloney. If the only thing being effected by the visor, as you state, is how adjusted the eyes are to bright light conditions, you are not going to see the stars in the middle of a sunny day. Go ahead and try it for yourself.

In fact, I'm going to suggest a different experiment to you. I want you to sit in the dark, as dark as you can get it, for 15-30 minutes (longer, if possible). Now I want you to turn a bright light onto a wall and stare directly at that wall, and observe details on it.

You won't be able to. Why? Because your eyes that are not adjusted to bright light will become inundated with bright light, and you will involuntarily shut your eyes to protect them. You don't see more, you see nothing. If Armstrong's visor was protecting his eyes from such an problem, then they were blocking bright light from getting in. If that is the case, they would also have blocked in starlight, it wouldn't have been bright enough to get through the visor.



Now this thread is supposed to be for conspiracy theories. You've stated that you are, in fact, not doubting Armstrong's story and statements. What conspiracy are you suggesting or trying to refute?

Noclevername
2011-May-10, 02:13 AM
I have offered you two possible (and non-mutually-exclusive) explanations; R.A.F., in his own special way, has as well. Cobra1597 has also. No doubt more will be forthcoming, all saying basically the same thing: "It was too bright".

R.A.F.
2011-May-10, 02:16 AM
I do not know the answer. That is why i engaged the astronomers and you guys. i do not know. DoctorTea

What astronomers???? Name names, or withdraw the claim that astronomers told you that Armstrong should have seen stars.

DoctorTea
2011-May-10, 02:18 AM
Cobra, I did not want it on CT. The moderators cancelled/terminated/whatever the original thread as the moderator in charge at the time viewed it as CT stuff. As such, i reworded my last response to that then non CT thread as a new CT thread so as i could continue the discussion. In my mind this is not CT, that was part of my original point. The non CT point was a theme of the original thread. But it makes no difference to me where it is discussed. Thanks, DoctorTea

Cobra1597
2011-May-10, 02:24 AM
Cobra, I did not want it on CT. The moderators cancelled/terminated/whatever the original thread as the moderator in charge at the time viewed it as CT stuff. As such, i reworded my last response to that then non CT thread as a new CT thread so as i could continue the discussion. In my mind this is not CT, that was part of my original point. The non CT point was a theme of the original thread. But it makes no difference to me where it is discussed. Thanks, DoctorTea

We have now answered your question ad nauseum. At this point, what remains in question? Is it that our answers differ from either what you say was in the book you read, or that our answers differ from the astronomers you claim to have spoken to, but refuse to name? At some point you'll just have to walk away from the conversation (or we'll all walk away from you) because you are asking the impossible. We cannot reconcile our statements with those you've previously received if we have strong reason and/or evidence that those previous statements are in error.

To put it another way, if you come to us saying a mathematician told you "2 + 2 = 5," and refuse to accept any response from us that differs from "2 + 2 = 5," then you won't get anywhere.

I will ask again, what specific question are you still trying to get answered? I realize you may find it tedious, but I am going to ask you to actually retype the question even if you think you have already done so, rather than simply referring us to your "original post" or any previous statements. Your posts tend to be long and detailed, and I think we all want a specific question at this point.

R.A.F.
2011-May-10, 02:29 AM
In my mind this is not CT, that was part of my original point.

Usually, when conspiracy theorists post here, they are very reluctant to answer direct questions. why is it that you have adopted the "tactics" of those who could be classified as "CT's"???

DoctorTea
2011-May-10, 02:29 AM
The claim is not that Armstrong should have seen stars, the claim is that the proverbial and generic "one", one should be able to see stars. that is what astronomers claim and I cited 3 above. I am not at liberty to disclose the name of people with whom i am communicating. their email exchanges with me are confidential/private and I have confidence that they would not share with anyone anything of a specific nature about me unless they asked for and received my permission.

I have given you 3 terrific resources above R.A.F.. i suggest you write to Lunar Science for Kids, David Kornreich and Eric Christian. their view is in the public domain and i am sure they would not object and probably would welcome you inquiry.

I believe it is clear to all I never at any time said or suggested that an astronomer told me that Neil Armstrong personally should have see stars. The answers I have received were general. Though one might infer, and i did, that the reason some of the astronomers found the question interesting was that they knew about before hand(perhaps reminded by me) or went to view the BBC interview of Armstrong with Patrick Moore. It was obvious in every response i received that Armstrong's statement was viewed as trustworthy and so that is why some of the astronomers viewed my question as most excellent. their intuition, their bascic science background told them one thing and Armstrong another.

Nobody thinks, thought or is suggesting Armstrong is making any of his story up, least of all the astronomers I interacted with and certainly not me. And put youself in my shoes, i am hanging around a swimming pool with some friends and we stumble across all this, of course it was fun and exciting for us from a science point of view. My friends are not science people but they got it, why it was so puzzling.

it is a good question. I still believe it to be so. thanks, DoctorTea

R.A.F.
2011-May-10, 02:30 AM
Cobra, I did not want it on CT.[

Then stop implying that Neil was lying about not seeing stars.

R.A.F.
2011-May-10, 02:36 AM
...that is what astronomers claim and I cited 3 above. I am not at liberty to disclose the name of people with whom i am communicating.

"Secret" astronomers?...who only disclosed to YOU that Armstrong should have seen stars???

How are we supposed to take you seriously when you post nonsense like that??

Cobra1597
2011-May-10, 02:42 AM
The claim is not that Armstrong should have seen stars, the claim is that the proverbial and generic "one", one should be able to see stars. that is what astronomers claim and I cited 3 above. I am not at liberty to disclose the name of people with whom i am communicating. their email exchanges with me are confidential/private and I have confidence that they would not share with anyone anything of a specific nature about me unless they asked for and received my permission

We have reached an impasse, then, and there is nothing further to discuss. You claim to be asking why a generic "person" could or could not, should or should not be able to see stars. We have answered that they should not be able to. You refuse to believe us because you claim to have been told otherwise. This means you aren't actually seeking an answer to your question, you arrived at what you will accept as an answer before you got here.

We have answered your question regarding the ability to see stars while on the surface of the lit side of the moon. You can either choose to accept our answers, or choose not to, but without something specific counter to our statements beyond "people who I won't name disagree with you," without giving us a specific scientific reason WHY they disagree with us, there isn't anything more to discuss. You've chosen to simply disagree.

Van Rijn
2011-May-10, 02:46 AM
What is it about "it was daytime, how many stars can you see in the daytime?" that you don't understand?

Or: How many stars do you see at night when there is bright artificial illumination?

The issue there is not the sky, but the effect the bright light is having on the light adaptation.

DoctorTea
2011-May-10, 02:57 AM
Cobra, with all do respect 2+2=4. The astronomers at Lunar science for kids says yes stars in the lunar sky, more even than on earth. The then Cornell professor David Kornreich said to the school teacher, yes stars in the lunar sky, Eric Christian of the Goddard center is an outrageously talented scientist, he says yes stars in the lunar sky. Perhaps these statements are in error, perhaps these scientists are wrong, but their making the statements is not at all like saying 2+2=5. They have reasons for making the statements and the statements are at odds with the empiric fact that Armstrong and Aldrin saw no stars. they have public web sites. You may engage them if you are so curious and ask them yourself. If you have no such curiosity, that is fine too. But they are available to tell you why they think anyone should be able to see stars from the lunar surface.

I do not insist that we "debate" this point. There is nothing to debate unless someone made the claim Armstrong was lying, or the astronomers at Cornell and at Goddard were lying in the other direction. By that I mean, and this makes my point quite well i believe, it would be equally ridiculous to suggest the Lunar Science for Kids astronomers, David Kornreich and Eric Christian were lying. It would be equally ridiculous to suggest these respected scientists really know there are no stars in the lunar sky but are saying yes one would see stars for whatever crazy reason. No one is suggesting Armstrong lied. No one is suggesting the astronomers are lying. And for that very reason, that is why this is a good question.

There is nothing to debate if everyone is happy here, by all means , close the thread.

I would actually suggest no further progress could be made with regard to this question until men return to the lunar surface. Armstrong saw what he saw, no stars, and for some, it stands to reason he should have. We can suggest explanations as to why Armstrong did not see stars, why Aldrin did not see stars, but Cernan did see stars. No one has private access to their experiences and we won't return to the moon for a long time I would imagine, though i do not know that for a fact.

My point is made. This is a question worthy of discussion. We have all been civil. The only real hoax relevance the discussion has in my mind is that the moderators wanted it to take place in CT. That was their choice not ours. And given how things played out, I respect their decision. It was reasonable.

I submit my question is a good one. It is not readily answerable with information as presently available and the ultimate reason as to why Armstrong did not see stars whereas some astronomers believe Armstrong or any generic moonwalker should be able to see them will almost certainly have nothing to do with anyone intentionally deceiving anyone else.

If you guys want to keep going fine, if you care to stop fine. Best, DoctorTea

Usher
2011-May-10, 03:01 AM
The claim is not that Armstrong should have seen stars, the claim is that the proverbial and generic "one", one should be able to see stars. that is what astronomers claim and I cited 3 above. I am not at liberty to disclose the name of people with whom i am communicating. their email exchanges with me are confidential/private and I have confidence that they would not share with anyone anything of a specific nature about me unless they asked for and received my permission.

I have given you 3 terrific resources above R.A.F.. i suggest you write to Lunar Science for Kids, David Kornreich and Eric Christian. their view is in the public domain and i am sure they would not object and probably would welcome you inquiry.

I believe it is clear to all I never at any time said or suggested that an astronomer told me that Neil Armstrong personally should have see stars. The answers I have received were general. Though one might infer, and i did, that the reason some of the astronomers found the question interesting was that they knew about before hand(perhaps reminded by me) or went to view the BBC interview of Armstrong with Patrick Moore. It was obvious in every response i received that Armstrong's statement was viewed as trustworthy and so that is why some of the astronomers viewed my question as most excellent. their intuition, their bascic science background told them one thing and Armstrong another.

Nobody thinks, thought or is suggesting Armstrong is making any of his story up, least of all the astronomers I interacted with and certainly not me. And put youself in my shoes, i am hanging around a swimming pool with some friends and we stumble across all this, of course it was fun and exciting for us from a science point of view. My friends are not science people but they got it, why it was so puzzling.

it is a good question. I still believe it to be so. thanks, DoctorTea

My own take on this is that the astronomers you consulted were mistaken. The assumption that lack of atmosphere scattering light would allow stars to be seen did not adequately account for ambient light reflecting from the lunar surface, even though that surface is considerably darker that what we experience here. Personally, I do not see why this needs to be more complicated than that. Empirical results are used to refine theory all the time.

Jeff Root
2011-May-10, 03:02 AM
Name ONE...
I see that DoctorTea has already replied.

Here is one more:

******

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

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.

Phil Plait
(February 13, 2001)

******

Of course, that is taken out of context, but the quoted text is
the entire paragraph. See the web page for the context.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

R.A.F.
2011-May-10, 03:10 AM
There is nothing to debate...

That's about the first thing you've gotten right...the record stands no matter what (someone who wasn't there) has to say....


I would actually suggest no further progress could be made with regard to this question until men return to the lunar surface.

Why?? If you don't accept Armstrongs account, why would you accept someone elses account??


Armstrong saw what he saw, no stars, and for some, it stands to reason he should have.

Why??? Why should he have seen stars???

You have no reason, so you simply repeat yourself.

I'm done here....I have no time for people who can't provide evidence for their ideas...

DoctorTea
2011-May-10, 03:15 AM
R.A.F. Eric Christian, David Kornreich and the astronomers that run the Lunar Science for Kids web site are not secret astronomers. their statements are public and i emphasize I lifted their statements and the relevant questions posed and so those are their word for word responses and all believe their should be stars in the lunar sky. They may be wrong, but their views are not secret. There those views lay before your own eyes. You may query them yourself. no one is hiding anything. what more could you ask for R.A.F.. Email Eric Christian, email David Kornreich, email the astronomers at Lunar Science for Kids. Ask them if they are sure, ask them how they know, ask them if they know of Armstrong's experience. 2 of the astronomers with whom I have communicated indicated they would actually be happy to log on with me once and express their views with regard to this issue in this forum providing it was not open ended. One agreed to a half hour. I could arrange it if you like. You might find it fun. You would get zero hoax stuff unless you implied it by the way. Anyway, best, DoctorTea

vonmazur
2011-May-10, 03:16 AM
One cannot use "Argument by Authority" and then dismiss the results that disprove one's pet therory...Dr Tea; If you are going to pick and chose which statements by authority you want, you might want to back up your statements with some evidence of why you agree or disagree with the particular authority...I am with RAF on this one...

Dale

DoctorTea
2011-May-10, 03:18 AM
I agree Usher, more or less, especially about empiric facts leading to the modification of theory. I was actually waiting for one of you to point that out. That is my opinion. I did not offer it given my view that the discussion per se had great merit on many levels. Superlative point Usher, superlative. DoctorTea

Gillianren
2011-May-10, 03:19 AM
My question as stated at the beginning of this thread stands, all considered, why didn't Armstrong see stars. It is not he is lying about it, the question is he did not see stars contrary to what one might expect given the conditions as stated with relevant supporting references and the views of highly regarded professional astronomers, 3 sited above.

Well, given that Armstrong had direct personal experience when it came to seeing stars or not, shouldn't you rather be asking why the people cited are saying that he should have rather than why he didn't?

Cobra1597
2011-May-10, 03:19 AM
R.A.F. Eric Christian, David Kornreich and the astronomers that run the Lunar Science for Kids web site are not secret astronomers. their statements are public and i emphasize I lifted their statements and the relevant questions posed and so those are their word for word responses and all believe their should be stars in the lunar sky. They may be wrong, but their views are not secret. There those views lay before your own eyes. You may query them yourself. no one is hiding anything. what more could you ask for R.A.F.. Email Eric Christian, email David Kornreich, email the astronomers at Lunar Science for Kids. Ask them if they are sure, ask them how they know, ask them if they know of Armstrong's experience. 2 of the astronomers with whom I have communicated indicated they would actually be happy to log on with me once and express their views with regard to this issue in this forum providing it was not open ended. One agreed to a half hour. I could arrange it if you like. You might find it fun. You would get zero hoax stuff unless you implied it by the way. Anyway, best, DoctorTea

If you are only going to accept what these people said, information that you had before creating this thread, what is it you think was so great to discuss? Seriously, what is it you think was so wonderful a question? I'm about ready to give up on you, because quite frankly, you are nothing but a source of aggravation. You have not come here to discuss or question anything, flat out. Before saying again "oh I think it was a good topic for debate," show where you were willing to debate it rather than just parroting what you found from these other people before making the thread.

This hasn't been a debate, it's been a soapbox.

DoctorTea
2011-May-10, 03:19 AM
Again R.A,F. The astronomers do not say Armstrong should have seen stars. did you read the astronomers' quotes above. the astronomers are tell us everyone should see stars. that is their point and of course that does include Armstrong. Best DoctorTea

DoctorTea
2011-May-10, 03:21 AM
Thanks Jeff, at least someone else is checking this stuff out independently. I so appreciate the input. DoctorTea

Cobra1597
2011-May-10, 03:22 AM
Again R.A,F. The astronomers do not say Armstrong should have seen stars.

Yes they do, by your statement. If you are going to claim these astronomers say someone on the surface of the moon should see stars, and Armstrong was on the surface of the moon, and you are unwilling to accept any conditions under which someone on the surface of the moon should not see stars, then you are saying that Armstrong should have seen stars. You are saying that these astronomers say he should have seen stars. That is unless you are claiming that Armstrong was not on the surface of the moon. There are no ways around this. 2 + 2 != 5

DoctorTea
2011-May-10, 03:25 AM
R.A.F. i think i made it very clear that i did accept Armstrong's account. In what sense did i imply I did not accept his account. i believe i said i believed, believed Armstrong, 100%, or something to that effect. i emphasized the fact that i knew he was not lying and that indeed this is what made this a good question. Please review my posts. I clearly emphasized i accepted Armstrong's accounting of the facts. DoctorTea

R.A.F.
2011-May-10, 03:35 AM
R.A.F.....

What is it about "I'm done here" that you don't understand???

Sheesh....

Geo Kaplan
2011-May-10, 03:36 AM
R.A.F. i think i made it very clear that i did accept Armstrong's account. In what sense did i imply I did not accept his account. i believe i said i believed, believed Armstrong, 100%, or something to that effect. i emphasized the fact that i knew he was not lying and that indeed this is what made this a good question. Please review my posts. I clearly emphasized i accepted Armstrong's accounting of the facts. DoctorTea

You can't have it both ways, DoctorTea (btw, it's "due respect," not the homonymous "do respect"). You are citing unnamed "secret" authorities whose statements allegedly conflict with Armstrong's own statements. If you accept Armstrong's word -- as you say you do -- then there's no logical reason to continue this farce. Your original question was answered long ago, and yet you persist.

One wonders why.

Jeff Root
2011-May-10, 03:37 AM
The evidence is, as he has said numerous times, that lots of people
including professional astronomers have told him that the astronauts
should have been able to see stars while on the Moon. The fact that
the astronauts should have been able to see stars while on the Moon
can be considered mainstream.
I don't consider something "mainstream" because someone else,
operating under anonymity no less, claims to have been told
something by "professionals."
Of course not. And it isn't what I did, either. I consider the idea
mainstream because it fits everything that I know, and I have read
and seen enough to be confident that it is correct. I can read the
same sources that DoctorTea read, and I did read at least two of
the sources he quoted before he posted them, plus several others
that I've come across over the years. The same opinion has been
posted by many people here on BAUT. Extensive discussion of
the question has taken place here, and I feel that I have a pretty
good handle on the answer. The answer is not simple. But as a
first-order approximation, astronauts should have been able to
see stars from the surface of the Moon.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Swift
2011-May-10, 03:40 AM
There is nothing to debate if everyone is happy here, by all means , close the thread.
Best suggestion to date.

This thread is going no where very quickly. It is done and I'm closing it.

DoctorTea, The members here have gone above and beyond to try to answer your question. If you have problems with what Lunar Science for Kids or anyone else has to say on the topic, bring it up with them.

If anyone has an extremely compelling reason to reopen this thread, Report this post and explain your reasons. DoctorTea, Do Not start a third thread on this topic or I will infract you.