PDA

View Full Version : Bill Kaysing's failed lawsuit against Jim Lovell



AstroMike
2002-Mar-27, 04:59 PM
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/01.23.97/polis-rpt-9704.html

I like what the writer of this article says at the bottom: "One hopes Kaysing consults someone other than his attorney, who happens to be himself."

Ad Hominid
2002-Mar-27, 05:30 PM
Kaysing's finances have undoubtedly improved quite a bit since this was written, thanks to Fox TV. I liked the part about Lovell having a better case for libel than Kaysing does. I am not an attorney, but I have been party to a couple of libel actions, once each as defendant and plaintiff. I won them both. I have always maintained that individuals who were involved in Project Apollo, especially the astronauts themselves, have a good case for libel. This didn't matter as long as the top HBs were impoverished cranks, they weren't worth suing. Things have changed now, though. Fox has a lot of money, so do some of the top HBs.

Karamoon
2002-Mar-27, 06:37 PM
Even Ralph Rene is critical of the way Bill Kaysing went about this. Rene wanted to get a few proponents together and combine their efforts. Kaysing initially agreed but later he decided to go it alone and submitted, according to Rene, a load of drivel.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Mar-27, 06:51 PM
I doubt Fox payed Kaysing much for his interview. Such things go for cheap, like hundreds of bucks. However, it has no doubt boosted his book sales. I notices someone bought a copy of Kaysing's book on Amazon through my own bookstore! Irony.

Karamoon
2002-Mar-27, 07:26 PM
To be fair, I have not once seen Kaysing go out of his way to plug his book. On the contrary, I have seen you plug your own book twice on Tech TV and numerous times on the web.

I was reading about the Coriolis effect the other day. Very interesting, that.

Your point about the stars (pg 173) is misleading, by the way. The claim is not that they forgot about them, it is that they deliberately stonewalled them and the subject matter.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Mar-27, 07:28 PM
On 2002-03-27 14:26, Karamoon wrote:
To be fair, I have not once seen Kaysing go out of his way to plug his book. On the contrary, I have seen you plug your own book twice on Tech TV and numerous times on the web.


Your point being...? I have no problems with people plugging their books, mine being no exception. I merely stated that Kaysing was probably not payed all that well for the Fox show. Some people think that appearance made him some cash; it did, but not a lot is my guess.

Karamoon
2002-Mar-27, 07:37 PM
My point is that I don't think Kaysing is pushing the hoax theory just to support sales of his book, I think he is promoting the hoax theory because he truly believes in it.

Folks here like to suggest that this is all just an elaborate way to make lots of money. If these go uncorrected then you yourself could find yourself open to the same charge.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Mar-27, 08:44 PM
People can accuse me of whatever they want; money or no, the Apollo landings did in fact occur. I could make a lot more money claiming that NASA really did hoax the landings! I would't be surprised if I could make several hundred thousand dollars by backing the HB claims. Yet I don't. What does that tell you? And no, I'm not an idiot.

Tomblvd
2002-Mar-27, 09:03 PM
Your point about the stars (pg 173) is misleading, by the way. The claim is not that they forgot about them, it is that they deliberately stonewalled them and the subject matter.



So NASA spends hundreds of millions of dollars setting up a fake apollo mission, accurately reproducing everything down to the finest detail, yet when they get to making visible stars, which would be comparatively easy to fake, they just say "screw it, we'll just stonewall them"?

Donnie B.
2002-Mar-27, 09:14 PM
On 2002-03-27 14:26, Karamoon wrote:
Your point about the stars (pg 173) is misleading, by the way. The claim is not that they forgot about them, it is that they deliberately stonewalled them and the subject matter.

I don't understand this. What does stonewalling have to do with anything?

In the passage you cite, the BA is discussing the HBs claim that stars should be visible in the lunar surface photos. If this were true (it isn't), then NASA must have faked the pictures and forgotten to include the stars. I think the BA's statement is entirely valid.

Stonewalling means refusing to answer legitimate questions. Which questions, and who's refusing to answer them?

Karamoon
2002-Mar-28, 12:31 AM
TBA: People can accuse me of whatever they want; money or no, the Apollo landings did in fact occur.

And I am sure Bart Sibrel and Bill Kaysing will echo the exact opposite of your conclusion. These people, like yourself, are expressing an honest belief, and the book is as a consequent of that belief. Whether that belief is valid or not -- for the moment -- is secondary to the point I am trying to make. And the point is this: let us not turn this into a "they're just trying to sell copies of their book" saga, otherwise mud will sling in both directions.

TBA: I would't be surprised if I could make several hundred thousand dollars by backing the HB claims. Yet I don't. What does that tell you? And no, I'm not an idiot.

It tells me that you believe in what you are preaching. I'm not disputing that. Quite the opposite in fact. I am saying that, in both camps, this is not a money thing.

Tomblvd: So NASA spends hundreds of millions of dollars setting up a fake apollo mission, accurately reproducing everything down to the finest detail, yet when they get to making visible stars, which would be comparatively easy to fake, they just say "screw it, we'll just stonewall them"?

But would they be comparatively easy to fake? Their argument is that they would be most difficult to falsify because all of the astronomy buffs would come out of the woodwork and start analysing them in great detail. I concur with them.

Donnie B: In the passage you cite, the BA is discussing the HBs claim that stars should be visible in the lunar surface photos. If this were true (it isn't), then NASA must have faked the pictures and forgotten to include the stars. I think the BA's statement is entirely valid.

No, it is not. Firstly, the BA has a habit of typecasting us. For example, Bart Sibrel accepts that the stars would be near impossible to capture from the lunar surface, but he objects to the crew members claims that they themselves didn't see any at any other time. Phil ignores this point. It is Bill Kaysing who believes the stars should be visible, yet in addition he too has noted that they very rarely talked about them. He says "it would be like going to Niagara Falls and talking about the hamburger you just ate". But regardless, Bill Kaysings initial claim isn't that they forgot about the stars, it is that he believes this element was too hard to incorporate, so in turn they stonewalled them and the subject matter.

The BA is making out that the main thrust of this claim is that it was an oversight. Call me Mr. Cynical, but I can't help and feel that he did it on purpose just to make the argument appear senseless.

Peter B
2002-Mar-28, 01:18 AM
Karamoon

Just a little thought experiment here, so if you can find any problems, please let me know.

If I walk outside at night when there are no clouds and no Moon, I can see a great number of stars. The Milky Way makes a spectacular and magnificent band across the sky.

If I walk outside at night when there are no clouds, but the Moon is in the sky, I can't see as many stars.

If I walk outside at night when there are no clouds, and there's a full Moon, I can see very few stars.

In each case, the number of stars I can see is diminished as the brightness of a particular light source increases (the Moon).

Now let's replace the Moon with the Sun. The Sun is much brighter than the Moon, so it's going to wash out the light from the stars even more.

At least, that's how it seems to me...

And as for the comment about going to Niagara, well, the astronauts were going to the Moon to study the Moon, conduct experiments, pick up rocks, and so on. They weren't sent there to rubberneck at the stars in the sky, visible or not. Kaysing's comment to me seems back to front: if NASA sent astronauts to the Moon to study the Moon, and all they did was rave on about the stars they could see in the sky, then that's what _I_ would consider going to Niagara and only talking about the hamburgers.

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-28, 01:43 AM
Could the astronaus see stars while they were on the moon?

Firefox
2002-Mar-28, 02:06 AM
SeekingKnowledge, if I understand correctly, they *may* have been able to see a few of the brightest stars, but for the majority of it, there was nothing to see. It's no different than a day on Earth. The atmosphere has next to no bearing on star visibility.

Karamoon
2002-Mar-28, 02:23 AM
Peter B: In each case, the number of stars I can see is diminished as the brightness of a particular light source increases (the Moon).

Now let's replace the Moon with the Sun. The Sun is much brighter than the Moon, so it's going to wash out the light from the stars even more.

At least, that's how it seems to me...

And I largely agree with that myself. Some of it has to do with your position, or how you position yourself. Replying to a question in the post flight press conference, Michael Collins said he couldn't recall seeing any stars. But this is very odd, as Collins had the opportunity to blank out any light contamination entering the spacecraft -- as shown when they apparently filmed their distance from the Earth. This means he would have had a spectacular view of all the stars -- the very same stars Yuri Gagarin said were amazingly bright.

What is even weirder is that later, in his book, Collins changed his mind! Bart Sibrel makes the case that you can't posibly forget something like that. It's like the World Trade Towers, it's something that burns into your memory.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Mar-28, 03:15 AM
On 2002-03-27 19:31, Karamoon wrote:
TBA: People can accuse me of whatever they want; money or no, the Apollo landings did in fact occur.

And I am sure Bart Sibrel and Bill Kaysing will echo the exact opposite of your conclusion. These people, like yourself, are expressing an honest belief, and the book is as a consequent of that belief.


Actually, you don't know that. They could be lying to make money. I am not saying they are; I am saying it's a possibility. On the other hand, what I am saying is not making me as much money as I could earn by lying.



Whether that belief is valid or not -- for the moment -- is secondary to the point I am trying to make. And the point is this: let us not turn this into a "they're just trying to sell copies of their book" saga, otherwise mud will sling in both directions.


Oh, I agree. But I never said they were lying to make money. I have brought it up as a valid possibility, but they are innocent until proven guilty.



I am saying that, in both camps, this is not a money thing.


Again, you don't know that, except in my case. If it were a money thing for me, I would be saying NASA is lying.



<about no stars in the images>

But would they be comparatively easy to fake? Their argument is that they would be most difficult to falsify because all of the astronomy buffs would come out of the woodwork and start analysing them in great detail. I concur with them.


But you areentirely missing the point. I have shown simply and easily why there should be no stars in the images. It's really that simple. There is no case for having to fake them. If there had been stars, we'd know they were faked!



<about stars>
I think the BA's statement is entirely valid.

No, it is not. Firstly, the BA has a habit of typecasting us.


Again, not true. I have said before that you don't have to be an idiot to believe NASA faked the Moon landings. These people-- Sibrel and Kaysing-- talk a slick talk, and can sway people. But upon further reflection, they are shown to be wrong every time. I have talked with reasonable, intelligent people who believed what the Fox show was telling them. After I talked to them, in many cases, they realized they had been swindled, for lack of a better word.



For example, Bart Sibrel accepts that the stars would be near impossible to capture from the lunar surface, but he objects to the crew members claims that they themselves didn't see any at any other time. Phil ignores this point.


I ignore this? Where? In my book, where I had only 5000-6000 words to debunk the entire hoax? Or on my web page, where I only talk about Fox? I am not ignoring it, I am simply not going to debunk every single silly point raised by Sibrel and Kasying, Percy and Rene. It would take 100,000 words, and who would read that much? Better simply to show why the major points are wrong.



It is Bill Kaysing who believes the stars should be visible, yet in addition he too has noted that they very rarely talked about them. He says "it would be like going to Niagara Falls and talking about the hamburger you just ate".


He can be as pithy as he wants, but he's still grossly and utterly wrong. If stars were hard to see from the surface (and they are), then the astronauts wouldn't be talking about them.

Incidentally, Sibrel is wrong too. He wonders why the astronauts didn't do astronomy from the surface of the Moon in his video. In reality, they did do some. The did some ultraviolet photography, which is impossible from the surface of the Earth. The reason not much astronomy was done was because the majority of science done from the Moon was geological, unsurprisingly. Astronomy can be done from orbit much more cheaply, and weight/money was a huge concern. Clearly, Sibrel hasn't done a whole lot of research, depsite his claims.



The BA is making out that the main thrust of this claim is that it was an oversight. Call me Mr. Cynical, but I can't help and feel that he did it on purpose just to make the argument appear senseless.


Fer criminy's sake, it doesn't matter. It only matters that the HB claims are wrong. I do make the case that HBs say NASA forgot to put it stars, but that's because I have seen them make that case. But it doesn't matter if they claim that NASA forgot, or knew it wouldn't work, or that little green men told them not to include stars. The important point is that cold stone fact, pictures taken of astronauts in full sunlight will show no stars in the sky.

Honestly, your arguments are almost entirely missing the basic point here.

Jim
2002-Mar-28, 03:27 AM
Peter B. wrote:
In each case, the number of stars I can see is diminished as the brightness of a particular light source increases (the Moon).

Now let's replace the Moon with the Sun. ...


Perhaps a better example would be downtown New York at night. The light pollution is so great that many New Yorkers haven't seen the stars for years. Much the same happens here in Houston, even in the 'burbs. But in each case, the sky is definitely black.

The highly reflective lunar surface is a tremendous source of light pollution.



Karamoon wrote:
... Replying to a question in the post flight press conference, Michael Collins said he couldn't recall seeing any stars. But this is very odd...

What is even weirder is that later, in his book, Collins changed his mind! Bart Sibrel makes the case that you can't posibly forget something like that. ...


Not odd at all. Collins had quite a few tasks to perform, and star gazing wasn't one of them. After thinking about it some, he realized, by gosh, he had noticed the stars, but his attention was focused elsewhere. (Probably looking at the moon. Which goes to the WTC comment. If you go to NY to shop the Garment District, you might remember after you get back home that you did catch a glimpse of them, but didn't pay much attention as that wasn't the purpose of your trip.)

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Mar-28, 03:53 AM
Terrestrial light pollution is a bit of a flawed analogy here. LP here lights up the sky, which then becomes bright, drowning out stars. On the Moon, with no air, it's different. Basically, glare from the Moon itself would close down your pupils. You could probably see stars if you faced away from the bright Earth and Sun (which would be nearly opposite each other in the sky at new Moon) and then you would have to block the lunar landscape as well. Not easy to do in a spacesuit! Even then, there would be a lot of internal reflection from the helmet.

I make this case in my book, too, after talking to Shuttle astronaut Ron Parise. He says internal reflections makes it nearly impossible to see stars out the Shuttle window.

I am curious about the Gagarin quote. Was his capsule lit from the inside?

JayUtah
2002-Mar-28, 04:34 AM
Folks here like to suggest that this is all just an elaborate way to make lots of money.

Not exactly, in my opinion. I think notoreity is the chief motivation, with money being secondary. Some hoax believers appear mercenary probably because they have laid out considerable sums of cash to produce their books and videos, and if they don't sell them they'll have to eat the cost. It's not that they want to get rich. They want to get out of debt.

JayUtah
2002-Mar-28, 04:48 AM
These people, like yourself, are expressing an honest belief, and the book is as a consequent of that belief.

I disagree. There is ample evidence that the major hoax theorists' cases are anything but honest. They have made contradictory claims and have sidestepped and suppressed contrary evidence. They have passed themselves off as experts while demonstrating almost total ignorance of the topics they discuss.

What about any of that seems honest?

I concur with them.

Not if I understand your argument correctly. You claim Apollos 11-13 were definitely falsified, Apollo 14 may have been falsified, and Apollo 15-17 were probably genuine.

For example, Bart Sibrel accepts that the stars would be near impossible to capture from the lunar surface, but he objects to the crew members claims that they themselves didn't see any at any other time.

The correction of the navigation platform is based on the ability to see stars through the AOT. Whether they remember seeing stars through the window is irrelevant. They weren't expected to try. It is unlikely the conditions inside the spacecraft, even with the cabin lights turned off, would have allowed it.

It is Bill Kaysing who believes the stars should be visible, yet in addition he too has noted that they very rarely talked about them.

That's because all the Apollo 11 astronauts had been in space before, and were engaged in a very difficult mission with a 50/50 chance of success.

He says "it would be like going to Niagara Falls and talking about the hamburger you just ate".

Well, if you lived near Niagara Falls and saw it every day, and you had trained for years to eat that hamburger, I'll bet you'd recall a lot more about the hamburger than about whether the falls were producing lots of spray.

Kaysing's conclusion is based on projecting his anticipation on the astronauts, and of course the incorrect assumption that the stars would be brilliant and hard to ignore.

it is that he believes this element was too hard to incorporate

Refuted. Planetariums of the day did it all the time. They still do. Navigation of the LM in preparation to ascend is based on knowing where specific stars would be in the lunar sky.

The argument that the astronauts would have noticed the stars and been unable to forget them -- regardless of who's making it -- is predicated on a number of false assumptions, among which the notion that the astronauts placed great emphasis on stargazing, and that they would have been bright.

JayUtah
2002-Mar-28, 05:03 AM
Could the astronaus see stars while they were on the moon?

Yes, under the right circumstances. One of the first tasks the astronauts had to perform after landing was to very precisely orient the LM's guidance platform to account for the angle of the terrain. This orientation was used to tune the ascent program.

To orient the platform, a special telescope was used to take star sights. The eyepiece was the typical rubber gasket affair used on some camera viewfinders to block out extra light. The astronauts reported it took about sixty seconds for their eyes to adjust so that they could see the stars they were after.

So in order to guarantee a good liftoff they had to see a few stars, at least through the telescope.

Whether they could see them gallivanting around on the surface is another question. The answer would be, generally no. It may have been possible to see them with the naked eye, giving an intentional and concerted effort to do so. Nothing in the Apollo record indicates any of the astronauts undertook the effort to do so. They were simply too busy.

As you would expect, the way to see stars would be to force your eyes to adjust to the darkness by blocking out anything bright. How could you do that in a space suit?

All around you would be the brilliantly lit lunar surface. Even if you were standing in the LM's shadow, or some other large shadow, you could still see sunlit surface. And since the eye tends to adjust to the brightest object in the field of view, it wouldn't work.

So could you just crane your neck upward so that you couldn't see the surface? You could try, except that the overhelmet would block your view. You can't look straight up in an Apollo space suit, or in any space suit. Besides, there's a headrest inside the internal bubble helmet (and integral to it) that prevents you from tilting your head too far back.

So you could stand in a shadow and try to block the glare from the surface with your hands. And looking up, what would you find in your field of view? Either the earth or the sun, both too bright to allow your irises to open.

So if you managed to block the direct illumination from the earth and sun, and the glare from the surface, and get enough of the sky visible in your faceplate, and do this for a minute or so while your eyes adjust -- then you might be able to see some bright stars.

But you can see how that might be out of place. While you're standing there in a shadow with your hands in a weird position for a minute or so, someone's going to remind you that you have other activities to accomplish, for which you have trained for many months.

The ultraviolet photographs taken with the Schmitt camera (no relation to the astronaut) very clearly show brilliant stars. They were expected to because the exposure was set to do so.

Tomblvd
2002-Mar-28, 06:02 PM
But would they be comparatively easy to fake?
Their argument is that they would be most difficult to falsify because all of the astronomy buffs would come out of the woodwork and start analysing them in great detail. I concur with them.




Yes, VERY easy to fake. As others have pointed out, there are planetariums that do it regularly.



What exactly is your point about the stars? Did NASA forget them or did they purposely leave them out becasue they felt it was impossible to fake? And waht about the last couple missions that were "real"? Why does the real lunar sky look so much like the fake one?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-03-28 13:04 ]</font>

SpacedOut
2002-Mar-28, 07:17 PM
One additional point about the astronauts not mentioning the stars (or lack of) – esp. the Apollo 11 crew – they had each flown into space during Gemini and had already been accustomed to the view of the stars from space long before July 1969. Even those astronauts whose first mission was Apollo – they would have been able to do their initial stargazing prior to reaching the moon.

Remember - they went to the Moon to do a job – they weren’t idle tourists.

As for the WTC reference about being an indelible memory – I went to college in NYC and my memories of the WTC are from a much later time in my life when I’d occasionally drive past southern Manhattan on the NJTpk. I can’t picture them from street level in the city – even though I know I had to have seen them many times. My point is, they were just part of the background of my focus at the time – just as the stars would be if your mission was to explore the moon.

Andrew
2002-Mar-28, 07:31 PM
"it would be like going to Niagara Falls and talking about the hamburger you just ate".

Couldn't agree more. Talking about the stars you saw after having been to the moon would be like talking about the hamburger you ate at Niagra Falls.

Didn't the astronauts have their visors down most of the time too?

I think Karamoon is referring to the 9/11 incident when he mentions the WTC. That you're not likely to forget it.

Ian R
2002-Mar-28, 09:15 PM
Jay - it turns out that at least one of the astronauts did see stars during their EVAs. The following excerpt is taken from the Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Journal:



[Comm Break]


[Buzz is about to do a platform alignment using the Alignment Optical Telescope ( AOT) to do star sightings. Gene Cernan says that, while standing in the shadow of the Apollo 17 LM, he could see some stars while he was outside. I asked the 11 crew if they had made any such experiment.]



[Armstrong - "I don't recall doing it on the surface. We tried a good bit inside."]



[Aldrin - "I guess I wouldn't have given it any hope at all."]



[Armstrong - "There was a thought that, if you could look through a tube, you would probably be able to see stars. I don't remember that we tried anything like that."]



[Aldrin - "You could see them in the AOT, which was sort of like that."]



[Armstrong - "Which was just one power (meaning a telescope with no magnification)."]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ian R on 2002-03-28 16:19 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Mar-28, 09:32 PM
Yes, I made this point earlier. Aldrin is describing the use of the AOT, which is the optical instrument inside the LM used to check the guidance platform alignment. Had Aldrin not been able to see stars through the AOT, they would have had to employ some contingency plan for the ascent.

Aldrin's comment about looking through a tube is one possible solution to the problem I mentioned of having too much unavoidable glare from the surface and bright celestial objects.

Ian R
2002-Mar-28, 11:21 PM
Jay, I was actually referring to Gene Cernan's sighting of stars from the shadow of the LM, but I take your point.



Cernan also claimed that if the LM's navigational systems had failed during the ascent from the surface, he would have been able to fly the craft using the Lunar horizon and stars as a reference. Following quote is again taken from the ALSJ:

["By the same token, I had a lot of personal pride that, if we had lost three quarters of our automatic systems, I still could have landed the vehicle safely. Same thing for leaving the lunar surface. True, you have to believe that you can do it; you would have no other choice. But I knew that if we lost all of our guidance computers, I could have flown that LM into lunar orbit for a rendezvous with Ron Evans. Manually. And by 'manually', I mean (visually guiding) with the stars (and) with the horizon of the Moon. I'd done it enough in the simulators that I knew what my remaining systems were going to tell me; and I had confidence that Jack was going to give me whatever information I need from him... ]



I'm not sure what Cernan is saying here - does he mean he could observe stars through the LM window with the naked eye? Or was he referring to Jack Schmitt's using the telescopic device instead?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ian R on 2002-03-28 18:51 ]</font>

Ian R
2002-Mar-28, 11:37 PM
More comments by the Apollo 17 astronauts regarding spotting stars from the lunar surface:



<font color="#0000FF">[Jack is probably adjusting the window shade to let in a little light for his own activities while keeping the cabin dark enough for Gene to do the star sightings.</font> Jack seems to be saying that he can't get to the light switch, probably because it is covered by his helmet and/or gloves. The shade on Gene's window and on the overhead rendezvous window are denoted in AS17-145-22225 as labelled by Lennie Waugh.]


<font color="#0000FF">[Schmitt - "We couldn't see the stars out the window or when we were out on the surface. It took the collimation of the telescope to eliminate all of the reflected light reaching your eye from your surroundings. Even in the LM shadow, there were too many bright things in your field-of-view for the stars to be visible."]</font>



[A telescope - or any long, straight tube - admits only light rays coming from a small range of directions. The light rays that reach the end of the tube are virtually parallel to each other and to the long axis of the tube and, therefore, have been "collimated".]



<font color="#0000FF">[Cernan - "When you were in the lunar module, looking out the window, you certainly couldn't see stars. Using the telescope was sort of like being in a deep well; it cut out all the reflected light and let you see the stars. </font>(Ian R: As a side note, isn't this actually a fallacy about seeing stars from deep wells?)<font color="#0000FF"> 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."]</font>



(Note to the BA: I would post a link to this material, but it's right in the middle of a very long page over on the ALSJ (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html).)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ian R on 2002-03-28 18:50 ]</font>

Donnie B.
2002-Mar-29, 01:06 AM
On 2002-03-28 18:37, Ian R wrote:
Using the telescope was sort of like being in a deep well; it cut out all the reflected light and let you see the stars. (Ian R: As a side note, isn't this actually a fallacy about seeing stars from deep wells?)


Only if you're talking about seeing the stars in the daytime. Works fine at night, except it does limit your field of view somewhat...

SeekingKnowledge
2002-Mar-29, 01:50 AM
Hypothetically, could they have just laid down in a shadow, so they naturally would be looking straight up, and what if they walked over to the dark side of the moon, and if they could get a 100% crystal clear look, would they be seeing ALOT more stars, than we can see on earth, at the clearest, highest pt, or is it basically the same?

JayUtah
2002-Mar-29, 03:48 AM
Jay, I was actually referring to Gene Cernan's sighting of stars from the shadow of the LM

I'm sorry, I missed that part of your post. I think the LM shadow is probably the best place available to the astronauts to block out direct light. Obviously from there you can look up without seeing the sun.

I'm not sure what Cernan is saying here - does he mean he could observe stars through the LM window with the naked eye? Or was he referring to Jack Schmitt's using the telescopic device instead?

Without reading Cernan's mind, I believe he's talking about the AOT. Assuming Cernan's reference to the horizon is the lighted horizon and not the occluded horizon, the glare would probably be too strong to see all but the brightest stars. But luckily the stars chosen for navigation were bright ones.

Normally you would want the AOT not only because it blocked out the glare but also because it lets you measure angles to stars; it's more accurate than just staring out the window. But then again the windows had markings on them to provide a rudimentary angle measurement without the AOT.

Obviously this sort of navigation is a third or fourth fallback. And so if they had to resort to this, it means that a whole lot has gone wrong. Third or fourth contingencies aren't expected to be foolproof, but it's simply the NASA way not to give up. If there's a way to navigate to orbit using the unaided eyeball -- no matter how inaccurately -- then they'll write it down and practice it.

In this situation the contingency would probably be to get the ascent stage to orbit -- any orbit -- and then steer the CM toward it. Normally the LM is the active spacecraft in lunar orbit rendezvous.

JayUtah
2002-Mar-29, 03:54 AM
I think you'd see a lot more stars than you would from earth.

For the record, the Earth's atmosphere absorbs very little light. Sure, if you live near a city you don't see many stars, but that's a different issue! From space, you would only see stars about a half magnitude fainter than you could from a very dark site on Earth.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Astronomer on 2002-03-30 10:32 ]</font>

The Incubus
2002-Mar-30, 02:54 PM
On 2002-03-28 20:50, SeekingKnowledge wrote:
Hypothetically, could they have just laid down in a shadow, so they naturally would be looking straight up,

Maybe, though they were probably still worried about puncturing something vital for their safety.

Plus, that big backpack of theirs may complicate their ability to lay down and get back up.

But I'm open to correction here /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

The (Is that hole supposed to be in my space suit?) Incubus

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Mar-30, 03:33 PM
D'oh! I hit the wrong button, and edited JayUtah's reply. Sorry about that. Unfortunately, I cannot fix it. Jay, I can delete that message if you want, since it has your name on it! My abject apologies.

JayUtah
2002-Mar-30, 07:47 PM
I've got people lined up around the block to put words in my mouth. What makes you so special? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Seriously, I don't remember what I said, so it must not have been important. I say leave things as they are; it's clear to the reader what's happened.

johnwitts
2002-Mar-30, 10:48 PM
Ok, I suppose you could get into the shadow of the LM, lie on your back, open the tinted part of the visor and wait for your eyes to adjust. But I think if one of the twelve had actually done this, Mission Control would have wanted to know just what they thought they were playing at. I don't think the fifteen minute coffee break rule applied on Lunar EVA's. I suppose the could have taken a football up with them for a kick about too. But they didn't. Must have been a hoax.

The Incubus
2002-Mar-30, 11:02 PM
On 2002-03-30 17:48, johnwitts wrote:
I suppose the could have taken a football up with them for a kick about too. But they didn't. Must have been a hoax.


Well, one of them hit a couple of golf balls up there (I don't remember the astronauts's full name, unfortunately).

The (Miles and miles) Incubus.

odysseus0101
2002-Mar-31, 01:43 PM
On 2002-03-30 17:48, johnwitts wrote:
I suppose the could have taken a football up with them for a kick about too.


This reminds me of a short paper I wrote in a freshman physics course in college. It was a physics course for humanities people - quite fascinating - and the professor began by condescending to us, asking us to write a short paper on how playing football on the Moon would be different from playing on Earth. Like most of the class, I wrote about how one can not officially play football on the Moon at present, because there are no licensed football referees who are also astronauts.

Kaptain K
2002-Mar-31, 04:28 PM
Gives a whole new meaning to going long.

Question: A long pass starts out nose up and ends up nose down. Is this an aerodynamic effect or is it purely precession?

johnwitts
2002-Mar-31, 10:01 PM
Proper football involves very little throwing. The only time throwing is allowed is by the Goalkeeper in his box, or by players throwing a ball back into play from the sides. I believe you are getting confused with that funny American game where they don't actually use their feet, and the ball is not really a ball, hence the almost enirely incorrect labelling of the game.

Foot-The knobbly thing on the bottom of your legs.
Ball-A perfectly spherical object.

Proper footballs have no nose.

While we're at it, why is the World Series called the World Series when only US teams are allowed to play? A bit presumptuous, don't you think?

Donnie B.
2002-Apr-01, 12:20 AM
On 2002-03-31 17:01, johnwitts wrote:
While we're at it, why is the World Series called the World Series when only US teams are allowed to play? A bit presumptuous, don't you think?


Montreal Expos. Toronto Blue Jays. QED.
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

odysseus0101
2002-Apr-01, 12:28 AM
Montreal Expos. Toronto Blue Jays. QED.
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif


Yeah, but that's CANADA! That hardly counts as another country. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Donnie B.
2002-Apr-01, 12:35 AM
Oooh, you better hope no Canadians were listening!
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Kaptain K
2002-Apr-01, 02:45 AM
johnwitts,
Hey! I'm an American. I do not appologise for it. To be truthful, I'm a Texan, which is probably worse. American football is derived from rugby (a fine Brittish sport). Are saying that the object used in rugby is not a ball? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

ToSeek
2002-Apr-01, 12:26 PM
On 2002-03-30 18:02, The Incubus wrote:

Well, one of them hit a couple of golf balls up there (I don't remember the astronauts's full name, unfortunately).


Alan Shepard (also the first American in space).

johnwitts
2002-Apr-01, 08:28 PM
Rugby is just plain stupid. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

DaveC
2002-Apr-01, 09:09 PM
How the heck did we get from Bill Kaysing's lawsuit to rugby/football on the moon?
And a Canadian IS listening. Our Canadian baseball teams are all staffed by Americans and are located in Canada for some reason I haven't fathomed. Anyway, a North American
"football" is called a ball because the term "footellipsoid" was thought to be a marketers' nightmare - sounds too much like a disease of the aging.
I think it is a curiously American trait to have deliberately rejected anything that smacked of "Britishness" after the Revolution. That's why football became soccer, tea was replaced by coffee, rounders became baseball, and the steering wheel was moved to the other side of the car. Hood>roof, bonnet>hood and boot>trunk. They did keep the English system of measure though - pounds, inches, feet, but for some curious reason decided that an Imperial ounce was a bit too small and an imperial gallon a bit too large. Kept the names ounce quart and gallon though, which is a great source of confusion for Canadians who think a quart is 40 ounces and a gallon is therefore 160 ounces - not 128 (bigger) ounces.
My head hurts (Hertz in the U.S.).

David Hall
2002-Apr-01, 10:21 PM
Ok, way off topic, but as for the word Soccer at least, the Brits have only themselves to blame. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

http://www.word-detective.com/121800.html#soccer

Donnie B.
2002-Apr-01, 11:02 PM
Actually, we Americans do play what you Brits call "football"... except, for half the year, the ground is frozen, so we strap knives to our feet to slide around on; and the cold air shrinks the ball down to a fist-sized lozenge; and that makes it so hard on the toes that we use sticks to smack it with.

Otherwise... same game.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2002-04-01 18:03 ]</font>

Peter B
2002-Apr-02, 01:34 AM
Need I mention there are Australians on this list, and their countrymen (and women) play another version of football, with full body contact (no protection except a mouthguard), and leaping high to catch the football is a skill all players have, not just the goalie.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

In any case, to keep this discussion on topic, let's just say that searching for stars while on the Moon's surface was not the astronauts' job. Eugene Cernan did take about four photos of the Earth, but it appears as little more than a large blob.

It's also interesting to read the transcript of the conversation between Cernan and Schmidt as the LM began it's final approach: the Earth was directly ahead of them, and Cernan told Schmidt he could have one look now, but then he had to concentrate on the landing. (It's all in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.)

David Simmons
2002-Apr-02, 05:37 AM
On 2002-03-27 19:31, Karamoon wrote:
[b]
No, it is not. Firstly, the BA has a habit of typecasting us. For example, Bart Sibrel accepts that the stars would be near impossible to capture from the lunar surface, but he objects to the crew members claims that they themselves didn't see any at any other time. Phil ignores this point. It is Bill Kaysing who believes the stars should be visible, yet in addition he too has noted that they very rarely talked about them. He says "it would be like going to Niagara Falls and talking about the hamburger you just ate". But regardless, Bill Kaysings initial claim isn't that they forgot about the stars, it is that he believes this element was too hard to incorporate, so in turn they stonewalled them and the subject matter.


Could you "flow chart" this argument? I'm having trouble following it.

DaveC
2002-Apr-02, 01:46 PM
"it would be like going to Niagara Falls and talking about the hamburger you just ate"

I think Johnno put the best perspective on this. Going to the moon and NOTICING the stars is like going to Niagara Falls and being dazzled by a hamburger. Stars are something everyone has seen from earth many times. Since they'd look pretty much the same from outer space, it's hard to fathom why any astronaut would pay any particular attention to them. Maybe they did see stars and maybe they didn't, but in either case they likely wouldn't have thought much about their observations when they were in the midst of perhaps man's greatest adventure. I've been to Niagara Falls countless times and for the life of me can't say for certain what I ate there. I don't even recall if I saw any attractive women - which I guess Bill Kaysing would say proves that only homely women live in Niagara Falls. That may be true for Niagara Falls New York, but I'm sure isn't the case in Niagara Falls, Canada!

johnwitts
2002-Apr-02, 09:45 PM
Bill Kaysings argument is like saying you'd go to Niagra Falls at night-to look at stars! When Cernan asked Schmitt to look at the Earth while they were on EVA he replied 'Once you've seen one Earth, you've seen them all'.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-03, 03:50 AM
Bill Kaysing's argument is based on his assumption that you would see "trillions" of stars, and they would be so unimaginably numerous and brilliant that you couldn't help but notice them and comment on them. And because Bill Kaysing is a "NASA engineer," (or so it has been claimed) people just accept this bit of fantasy uncritically. In fact, whether Bill Kaysing's analogy of Niagara Falls hamburgers holds depends on how scientifically he can justify his assumption. Since he doesn't give any credible technical justification for his opinion, the whole analogy fails according to the fallacy of the complex question.

David Hall
2002-Apr-03, 04:10 AM
Some of it also centers on the public's romantic image of stars. Kaysing connects to people emotionally here by getting them to remember their experiences with viewing sweeping sky-fields. Once that hook is in place, he draws the conclusion that in space, it must be even more spectacular, and therefore unignorable.

So in essence, this argument bypasses logic by hitting on an emotional level.

JayUtah
2002-Apr-03, 04:34 AM
Kaysing's arguments are generally unsophisticated, consistent with the true nature of his experience with the space program. He does not offer detailed scientific discussion of his allegations. Appeals to emotion would be his style.

He claims the atmosphere severely attenuates starlight, a claim patently rejected by astronomers. But to the layman it seems a very plausible conclusion.

Another distractive Kaysing tactic is to fall back on his employment at Rocketdyne, implying he is speaking from personal expertise on highly technical subjects. This is the tactic he uses to handwave his way through discussions of rocket propulsion and other aspects of Apollo technology.