well since your talking about "scaling" and mars atmosphere is around 1 percent of earth then the lander diameter surface aero braking section would have to be substantially increased in size to get it down to the supersonic speeds it supposedly deploys it's chutes at. Also the chutes would have to be substantially scaled up. Practicality is a question here.
For one thing one needs a drogue chute to deploy the much larger main chute and the speeds which they quote would shred a drogue chute if you even managed to get it deployed in this vacuum.
The funniest thing about this guy's conspiracy theories is that they require NASA to have some very prodigious photo fakers. They'd have to have an army of people sitting 24/7 at their computers altering photographs and videos to make the volumes of data they release to the public look just right. And how about those close-up pictures of the outer planets? Are they doctored too, the product of some artist's imagination? What about the pictures of Saturn backlit by the Sun? Are those also fake?
The mars atmosphere is in fact not to be considered a vacuum. With this argument the earths atmosphere over 25 miles high had to be a vacuum as well. But the main heat on reentry of the space shuttle appears over 25 miles. There are a lot of people now letting go helium balloons with a camera up to about 20 miles. When they burst a parachute is deployed. A parachute opens when there is enough air pressure hitting it. Higher up this naturally happens at higher speeds. Check it out! Thanks.
Interesting video and sounds like a plausible argumnet to me ....But im not scientist i wouldent know about psi and atmosphear presurres ......enjoyed that video thumbs up bro .....
I dont get it he dident jump out of space .............i got Questions ?
1Did he jump from space ? because to me he jumped out abouve atmophear im not shure that counts as space.......he dident jump out in Vacume
because china l travle to space station this is not considerd space travle ................there is another name for it i cant rember what they call it .............So if going to the space station is not space travle ...Then i would guase his not jumping out into complete vacume?
Yes I thought about him too. What do you think about Felix Baumgartner and the Red Bull Stratos project? It seems like the launch date keeps getting delayed.
I like how this video brings forth absolutely no evidence for anything. It's essentially 11min of accusations and crap. Mars' atmosphere is nowhere near a vacuum. "A small leak" in a glove of a pressure suit at 103k feet is nothing to worry about. In reality an astronaut with a small leak in their glove in space would most likely be fine if action is taken asap. There is no immediate death in a vacuum, though it is not very pleasant.
The atmosphere of Mars is relatively thin, and the atmospheric pressure on the surface varies from around 30 Pa (0.03 kPa) on Olympus Mons's peak to over 1155 Pa (1.155 kPa) in the depths of Hellas Planitia, with a mean surface level pressure of 600 Pa (0.6 kPa, or about 7-10 millibars, or 0.13 psi), compared to Earth's 101.3 kPa,
No, I don't think so, what I understand they used the chute to break their entrance high up ( I am not sure about the high ) like something 30 miles on Earth, that can't be done in that high on Earth, so it can't be done on Mars, a few miles above ground. It's more or less a vacuum ? even on ground. NASA got to have nerve to claim such, but no body....news....magazinse, says a word ? strange.
@kennjohnsen I think your right too, A interesting video and experiment would be to get a bell jar equipped with a vacuum device like edmunds scientific sells and put a very very small parachute device inside, Attach a very small piece of metal to the top of the chute,place the chute in the bell jar and attach a magnet to the outside of that jar on that piece of metal. Close it all up..evacuate the air and pull away the magnet. We both know what would happen next don't we..?
@stalkervision Depends on the speed of reentry and the area of the chute. What matters is the pressure supporting the chute, which scales with those two quantities. It should also be noted that Phoenix, like other NASA landers, used rockets to slow the craft in the final stage of the landing. Earlier landers, which didn't touch down as softly, were surrounded by airbags. The author of these videos doesn't mention any of these things, though.
@stalkervision The Martian atmosphere is not "near vacuum," and the scaling does indeed work for any density. Dynamic pressure is given by P_dynamic = 1/2 (density)*(velocity)^2. The Martian atmosphere has a surface density of about 15 g/m^3 and a scale height of 11 km. A craft entering the atmosphere at a velocity of 1 km/s would feel 1 atmospheric pressure (atm) at about 50 km altitude, and 10 atm at 22 km. In other words, Phoenix decelerated rapidly, even before the chute was deployed.
@stalkervision By the way, a simple Google search for "Phoenix EDL" results in a number of papers detailing the physics of Phoenix' entry into the Martian atmosphere. The first step was to get a good model of the Martian atmosphere, which the Mars Global Surveyor did. From that, it's easy to calculate the forces felt by a craft entering the atmosphere. WhiteJarrah could have spent the time he took to make these videos by instead informing himself a bit - the physics here isn't that complicated.
"What Apollo fraud? Did Thomas Baron ever mention that Apollo was a fraud? Once? Ever?"
Acutally he did many times, just not in so many words. In his verbal testimony he stated that he believed the Apollo craft being developed by NAA would not get men to the Moon and back alive. He also stated the many saftey problems they were having in his 55 page report. As for his "discarded" 500 page report, WE WILL NEVER KNOW WHAT HE STATED because some yahoo at NASA decided it was better we never know!
What part of don't send anymore Tom Baron disinformation into my inbox do you not understand zak?
"For the millionth time, for something to be MISSING someone actually needs to have wanted it. No one wanted the report, it was useless, so the report was DISCARDED."
So now Baron's 500 page report, condeming Project Apollo, went missing because some yahoo at NASA just threw it in the trash?!
Not before shredding it, buring it, and thanking God the public was never privy to it!
By the way Jarrah, the glove just wasn't pressurizing. The rest of the suit was intact, and it would take a long time to die from your hand being in a low pressure glove.
I'd also like to point out that he couldn't see stars because he was surrounded by sunlight. If the cockpit on spaceship one was facing the sun it would have been impossible to have seen the stars. The entire craft was blocking out the sun.
No. A single leak in any portion of an airtight pressure garment is enough to kill you. In case you don't realize, blood circulates your body. Rene once experimented by exposing his bare arm to his vacuum chamber: within seconds he began to feel light headed and his hand continued to swell. He only had his arm in there for a few seconds, but he still felt light-headed half an hour later. Try this yourself.
As for the stars, turn your back to the sun, visible stars. Simple.
"Rene once experimented by exposing his bare arm to his vacuum chamber: within seconds he began to feel light headed and his hand continued to swell."
Exactly what was he trying to show? What was the pressure of the vacuum chamber when he tried that? Do you realize Kittinger's hand wasn't bare, it had a glove on it, and the glove wasn't completely devoid of atmosphere.
"As for the stars, turn your back to the sun, visible stars. Simple. "
"Exactly what was he trying to show? What was the pressure of the vacuum chamber when he tried that?"
Had you bothered to read his book, you'd have known he was experimenting human exposure to low pressure. And the pressure was considerably higher than what you'll get at 103,000ft. 4.6psi to be exact.
"Do you realize Kittinger's hand wasn't bare, it had a glove on it"
Irrelevant, even a tiny hole leaks a LOT of pressure.
I didn't know there was a reading assignment involved.
"...4.6psi to be exact."
That's interesting, the suit pressure during an Apollo EVA was 3.8psi, I'm fairly certain none of the astronauts became light headed or started swelling. Although you don't believe Apollo was real, so aboard Mercury and Gemini the craft pressure was 5psi. No swelling though...
"Although you don't believe Apollo was real, so aboard Mercury and Gemini the craft pressure was 5psi. No swelling though..."
"People traveling in space experience noticeable swelling of the body with the face "growing" 3-7 millimeters. The eyes also protrude by roughly 5 millimeters in some case."
"People traveling in space experience noticeable swelling of the body with the face "growing" 3-7 millimeters. The eyes also protrude by roughly 5 millimeters in some case."
Wow 5mm, that's a lot of swelling!
Sarcasm aside, Kittinger didn't go from 14.9psi to whatever pressure his glove maintained at 100,000 feet in seconds. Ralph Rene stuck his hand in a vacuum chamber and switched it on, a drastic drop from 14.9 psi to 4 psi would be a bit worse than a gradual change in pressure.
"Ralph Rene stuck his hand in a vacuum chamber and switched it on, a drastic drop from 14.9 psi to 4 psi would be a bit worse than a gradual change in pressure."
Kittinger ascended for 1.5 hours: Dr. Edwin Vail (Hamilton Standard Division, United Aircraft Corperation) states that you can only tolerate exposure to the low-pressure of 70,000ft for no longer than 35minutes. Try 103,000ft.
In the same way that $50,000 is nearly $100,000. Kittinger's hand swelled to over twice it's normal size (That's a bit more than 5mm.)
"Dr. Edwin Vail (Hamilton Standard Division, United Aircraft Corperation) states that you can only tolerate exposure to the low-pressure of 70,000ft for no longer than 35minutes."
That's for your entire body. Plus Kittinger didn't spend the entire 1.5 hours above 70,000 feet.
"Fine, can you post a link to the source material?"
He's quoted on p179 of Lloyd Mallan's book on American spacesuits "Suiting Up For Space: The Evolution Of The Space Suit." You'll probably find a copy in the library or on ebay.
"Although the point still stands, Kittinger still wasn't above 70,000 feet for the entire hour and a half."
No, but he was up there longer than the allowable time limit, which signifies to me that this guy should have been killed.
"He's quoted on p179 of Lloyd Mallan's book on American spacesuits "Suiting Up For Space: The Evolution Of The Space Suit." You'll probably find a copy in the library or on ebay."
Just going to point out Lloyd Mallan also wrote the book "It Is Safe To Smoke" pointing out the "real truth" of smoking. Found that while I was looking for this book, can you just post the relevant quote?
"No, but he was up there longer than the allowable time limit"
"No zak, it's obvious that you're the one who doesn't know much about eyesight, or what would be visible in space. "
At 100,000 feet you'd have the earth and the sun. Turn away from the sun and you still have the earth in view (unless you don't really care about controlling your fall back down to Earth), which would be too bright to allow your eyes to pick up the faint light of the stars.
"At 100,000 feet you'd have the earth and the sun. Turn away from the sun and you still have the earth in view (unless you don't really care about controlling your fall back down to Earth), which would be too bright to allow your eyes to pick up the faint light of the stars."
If you can see stars while standing on the the brightly lit, daylight side of the lunar suface, then you certainly can see them while having the Earth in view from LEO.
"Who said you could see stars with the brightly lit lunar surface in view?"
Astronomer Phil Plaitt and probably every other scientist and astronomer who understands space science.. Plaitt didn't know at the time he made that statement that he would be refuting the Apollo astronot's silly excuses as to why they could never see any stars while on the Moon.. Otherwise, I'm sure he never would have said it.
"Astronomer Phil Plaitt and probably every other scientist and astronomer who understands space science.."
Probably every other scientist and astronomer who understands space science? Well they might think you can see the stars since there's no atmosphere, but an eye doctor or an astronaut would tell you if a large bright surface is in view it'd be difficult to see the stars.
"At 100,000 feet you'd have the earth and the sun. Turn away from the sun and you still have the earth in view... ...which would be too bright to allow your eyes to pick up the faint light of the stars."
To which you replied
"If you can see stars while standing on the the brightly lit, daylight side of the lunar suface, then you certainly can see them while having the Earth in view from LEO."
It doesn't matter that he wasn't in LEO.. He was still at the edge of Earth's atmosphere and had Earth in view, which was your excuse for him not being able to see any stars.
Yet, astronomers all claim that stars can easily be seen from space and even seen while standing the bright lunar surface, while on the daylight side of the Moon.
Go outside under a street light on a clear night, stare into the bulb, then turn your back to the street light and look up to the sky. You might see an afterglow of the bulb, but your eyesight will quickly adjust to the starlight. I've successfully done this countless times.
"Go outside under a street light on a clear night, stare into the bulb, then turn your back to the street light and look up to the sky. You might see an afterglow of the bulb, but your eyesight will quickly adjust to the starlight. I've successfully done this countless times."
Actually you forget that he's facing the brightly lit earth. He can look away from the sun but he'll still have the earth in view affecting his eyesight.
SpaceShipOne blocked the light from the earth and the sun.
"I'd also like to point out that he couldn't see stars because he was surrounded by sunlight."
Yet, according to NASA shill astronomer Phil Plaitt, if one is standing on the daylight side of the Moon in bright sunlight, one can see stars just by looking up.. It seems like only certain people have the ability to see stars while in space, or on the Moon, while others can't .. Maybe the stars gazers are related to Superman.
"Yet, according to NASA shill astronomer Phil Plaitt, if one is standing on the daylight side of the Moon in bright sunlight, one can see stars just by looking up.."
Only if you block the light of the moon from your eyes, which is hard with a giant glass helmet, I think Cernan was the one who leaned back on the ladder and focused his eyes for a bit to see stars from the moons surface, it takes quite a bit of work to see the stars when you're right above a massive brightly lit object.
".... it takes quite a bit of work to see the stars when you're right above a massive brightly lit object."
Not according to astronomer Phil Plaitt, it doesn't.
You NASA shills and patsys need to get your stories straight if you're going to convince people that no Apollo astronots could see any stars from the daylight side of the Moon.. Oh, except for Gene Cernan when he "leaned back on the ladder".. LOL
"Not according to astronomer Phil Plaitt, it doesn't."
So? Phil Plait has never been to space. Astronauts who have been there said it's hard to see stars when the sunlit earth is in view, when you're looking towards the sun, or when the sunlit moon is in view. Plus I'm fairly certain Phil Plait changed his argument.
"Plus I'm fairly certain Phil Plait changed his argument."
Why don't you ask shill Phil and see what he says about seeing stars from the daylight side of the Moon ? .. He will either be a dishonest NASA shill and change his original claim, or he will be an honest astronomer and stick to his original claim .. Give him a shout and let's see which one he is.
"Why don't you ask shill Phil and see what he says about seeing stars from the daylight side of the Moon ?"
How about YOU ask some people who have actually been there (rather than someone who's guessing based on the lack of an atmosphere and not the abilities of the human eye.) Or try an experiment, stand in a brightly lit stadium at night, try to see the stars without blocking the light from your eyes.
"How about YOU ask some people who have actually been there (rather than someone who's guessing based on the lack of an atmosphere and not the abilities of the human eye.)"
That would be a real problem, considering the fact that nobody has ever been there to ask.
"I was referring to space in general. Ask an astronaut who's been to LEO if they can see stars while they're facing the sunlit side of the earth."
If stars can easily be seen from the daylight side of the Moon, then astronauts should be able to see stars from LEO, regardless of what direction they're facing.
And if any of the astronauts ever bothered to set a longer exposure time on any of their cameras, they could also be photographed.
"If stars can easily be seen from the daylight side of the Moon, then astronauts should be able to see stars from LEO, regardless of what direction they're facing."
Yeah you still don't get it. Stars are easily seen from LEO at any time (day time, night time whatever), HOWEVER if you have a bright object in view your eyes will adjust to block out the light, which will in turn block out the light from the stars. That's why you can't see stars at night when you're in a bright stadium.
" ( eye adjust ).. that's why you can't see stars at night when you're in a bright stadium."
Actually YOU don't get it. You can't see stars in a bright stadium at night because of atmospheric light interference from the floodlights along with the supplementary ambient street lighting if it's located in or near a population centre.
If there was a power cut you would be able to see a good number of the brightest stars immediately.
The human eye has a staggering light range sensitivity, zak'.
"Actually YOU don't get it. You can't see stars in a bright stadium at night because of atmospheric light interference from the floodlights along with the supplementary ambient street lighting if it's located in or near a population centre."
You can still see the stars at night in a stadium if you block the light out with a tube. Ralph Rene has tested that. The thing is once you remove the tube and your eyes are exposed to all the light, they'll adjust and you won't be able to see any stars.
Actually we can all test it for ourselves. My idea is; next time you're in a house out in the sticks on a clear night, walk straight out of a brightly lit room into the night and look up immediately.
I think you'll be surprised at how many bright stars you'll still be able to see.
You're being dishonest. Spectators in stadiums aren't gazing into the floodlights and people in brightly lit rooms aren't staring at the 60 watt overhead.
You cited stadiums at night. Don't now cover your tracks by trying to exaggerate your initial claim.
I've done the bright room test myself and saw lots of stars overhead within a second of leaving the room.
"You're being dishonest. Spectators in stadiums aren't gazing into the floodlights and people in brightly lit rooms aren't staring at the 60 watt overhead."
... so? What does that have to do with anything? You still can't see stars inside a bright room or in a stadium?
"I've done the bright room test myself and saw lots of stars overhead within a second of leaving the room. "
Notice the part where you left the room? Yeah, try and see the stars from inside the room (with the lights on.)
The stars would be rather difficult to see through an open window for example, if one was inside the bright room, correct zak'.
That's because of light interference from the light source, in the air in the room. If the room space was a vacuum (and you in a pressure suit!) you'd see the stars through the open window rather clearly, just as you would if you suddenly poked your head out of the window.
"If the room space was a vacuum (and you in a pressure suit!) you'd see the stars through the open window rather clearly, just as you would if you suddenly poked your head out of the window."
No, you wouldn't, even facing away from the light, if it's bright enough on the walls (and it is because that's the point of the experiment) your retinas will constrict to restrict that light, that would make it impossible to pick up the faint light from the stars.
That wouldn't make much difference, it takes the iris about 14 seconds to dark adapt to a large degree.
The change from bright room to dark sky was instantaneous, the skylight was hinged back at almost 180 deg's and I kept my line of sight up through the window space as I stood. There was no transition period - as soon as my eyes passed the level of the skylight frame, many stars were immediately clear.
Do you imagine the human iris opens to sudden dark as fast as it closes to sudden light?
"There was no transition period - as soon as my eyes passed the level of the skylight frame, many stars were immediately clear."
So why couldn't you see the stars when you were below the level of the skylight frame?
Try a different experiment, open the skylight, stay in the room, but look through a tube so that the only light you see would be starlight. Can you see stars? If you can then you just proved that it's impossible to see stars with a bright enough object in view.
Yes zak' - on earth at least. And in both cases I'd have proven the cause to be ambient light diffusion in atmosphere blocking the weaker starlight; not the degree of iris dilation experienced in the bright room rendering the human eye incapable of registering starlight.
"And in both cases I'd have proven the cause to be ambient light diffusion in atmosphere blocking the weaker starlight"
If you can see the stars through the tube, then the light diffusion in the atmosphere is obviously not the problem. The light diffusion would still be visible through the tube and you'd see no stars if that were the case.
Plus, the light from the room still exists above the frame of your open skylight, you just proved that the light diffusion isn't the problem.
Well zakabog, I'm glad you're covering a few angles here, because just to be 100% sure of my facts that night, I had my girlfriend help me out in a final experiment I thought up after the soap box/skylight test.
She stood by the light switch as I stood below the open skylight looking ahead into the bright room.
On the synchronized count of three, she threw both switches off as I looked up ... and there immediately were the old stars through the open skylight. Plenty of 'em.
"On the synchronized count of three, she threw both switches off as I looked up ... and there immediately were the old stars through the open skylight.
Plenty of 'em."
You still haven't answered why you can see the stars in a bright room when looking through a tube. Why is it that a tube (a cardboard tube, or even just your hand placed in a way to block light) can just magically make all of the atmospheric light disappear enough for you to see the stars through it?
"Do you have a link to the "magic tube" test, zak'?"
... There is no link, you're supposed to take a tube to your brightly lit attic and look out the open skylight with it...
I could take photos with my camera and show the tube working but you'd then argue that the camera doesn't have the dynamic range of a human eye. I could also give you links to the transcripts where they talk about their star gazing tube on Apollo but you think they're lying, so you're going to have to do this yourself.
" you're supposed to take a tube to your brightly lit attic and look out the open skylight with it..."
What do you mean "you're supposed to"? You mean you haven't tried something similar yourself and you're just throwing it into the argument as debate deflection chaffTM ?
I made the effort to think up a respectable test, carried it out and proved the human iris remains open enough to register starlight even when exposed to the light level present in a bright room.
"What do you mean "you're supposed to"? You mean you haven't tried something similar yourself and you're just throwing it into the argument as debate deflection chaffTM ?"
I mean I can't record video with my eyeballs, so for you to see this experiment work you're going to have to do it yourself.
"I made the effort to think up a respectable test..."
Your test is flawed, the tube test at least shows that it's not the light in the atmosphere blocking you from seeing the stars.
"The tube test you have "heard from somewhere" shows something, you mean.
I rest my case."
So what you're saying is
"Your test can potentially prove me wrong, but I won't actually try it, instead I'll continue with my 'test' which actually doesn't test anything so I can't possibly prove myself wrong with it."
So either you have no access to cardboard tubes, you're incapable of shielding your eyes with your hand, or you're afraid you'll be proved wrong.
That's my point the lights were off, do the experiment with the lights ON.
"The tube test you've "heard from somewhere", "works"."
Err, no, it actually does work. Ralph Rene did it (with an actual tube), the astronauts in the LM did it, I've done it (while hiking at night, blocked the light from headlamps hitting my eyes with my hand and I was able to see the stars, wasn't a "test" I just wanted to see the stars.)
""zakabog" may always make sure he posts the last comment, but that doesn't make him the winner in the debate - and especially not in this one."
For me to lose this argument you'd have to do the test, come back, and say "I looked through the tube with the light on and saw no stars out the open skylight". Do you understand that I can't just do that for you?
" blocked the light from headlamps hitting my eyes with my hand and I was able to see the stars, "
So let's get your position clear. Are you saying if you blocked the source light in a bright room from hitting your eyes with your hand, you'd be able to see stars through an open window?
"So let's get your position clear. Are you saying if you blocked the source light in a bright room from hitting your eyes with your hand, you'd be able to see stars through an open window?"
Not quite. If you blocked the source light, and any objects brightly lit by the source light. So the walls, floors, ceiling, anything that's lit up (that's why a tube is handy, it only allows you to see out the window while blocking all other sources of light.)
" Not quite. If you blocked the source light, and any objects brightly lit by the source light. ...."
That's a lot more than "not quite". It's a different ball game from the hand to headlights example you gave.
Anyhow, the confusion you're having is that lamp light shining out of a window is just like your headlamp example. If you block it or turn your back on it you'll see some stars, because the light interference then becomes only slight.
So that's maybe why you see stars through the tube.
"That's a lot more than "not quite". It's a different ball game from the hand to headlights example you gave."
Indoors you have walls that will reflect light into your eyes. Outdoors there is not much to reflect the light back into your eyes, so there's less to block out.
"If you block it or turn your back on it you'll see some stars, because the light interference then becomes only slight."
Isn't that what I've been saying? Block bright light from your view and you can see stars?
" Isn't that what I've been saying? Block bright light from your view and you can see stars?"
Not exactly. If you block the source light from view and you block the light from all reflective surfaces from view, then all you have left is atmospheric light diffusion to block your view.
And in the case of the tube out of a window or you in a headlight, that's not much.
But in the case of mega wattage stadium lights or light pollution from street lighting in cities, that's a different matter.
"Not if the light is very bright and blocks the stars from view by the diffused light in the atmosphere surrounding it.
That would seem to be an exception to your golden rule."
Yes, that's what the tube is for, if you can't see stars through the tube the light in the atmosphere is blocking your view.
That's not even relevant, what is relevant is that if a not so bright light can block your view of the stars, than it's entirely possible that floating above the sunlit earth you'd see no stars.
"" Yes, but you're trying to see if you can see the stars with the light source there. "
The lights were off."
I know I replied to this already, but here's a thorough explanation.
You're trying to prove that a human eye can pick up an object as faint as a star with a bright object in view. When you turn off the light, the bright object is no longer in view, so your test is no longer accurate.
The tube is used to show that it's not the atmosphere that's causing you to not see the stars.
"And if any of the astronauts ever bothered to set a longer exposure time on any of their cameras, they could also be photographed."
They had a special instrument for photographing stars, the cameras they had were for photographs of objects on the moon. Like the samples they were taking, and other stuff that can give them scientific data. There would be little or no knowledge gained from an image taken by an astronaut with a Hasselblad camera on the moon.
"Or try an experiment, stand in a brightly lit stadium at night, try to see the stars without blocking the light from your eyes
I know that Jay Windley would like us all to believe that horse manure, but unfortunately for him and all of his Apollo fan boys, that senerio doesn't equate to standing on the Moon, (which has NO ATMOSPHERE), and looking up at the bright and beautiful stars over the daylight side of the lunar surface.
"...that senerio doesn't equate to standing on the Moon, (which has NO ATMOSPHERE), and looking up at the bright and beautiful stars over the daylight side of the lunar surface."
Yes, it's a very similar experiment, if you stand in the brightly lit stadium and look up with your bare eyes you'll see no stars. If you look through a tube to narrow your view and block the light from hitting your eyes you'll see stars. Ralph Rene even tried that experiment.
"Yes, it's a very similar experiment, if you stand in the brightly lit stadium and look up with your bare eyes you'll see no stars."
That little experiment doesn't apply because it's done in an atmosphere at night.. What we're discussing is the ability to see stars while in a vacuum, during the day.
"That little experiment doesn't apply because it's done in an atmosphere at night.. What we're discussing is the ability to see stars while in a vacuum, during the day."
There isn't enough light in the atmosphere to block you from seeing stars at night. In a stadium that still applies. You can see stars through a tube that blocks out all sources of light, but not with your bare eyes with the bright lights in view.
"There isn't enough light in the atmosphere to block you from seeing stars at night."
Ever heard of atmospheric haze? .. How about atmospheric cloud cover?..Even on a clear night, you can't compare the many conditions of an atmosphere, with the conditions of the vacuum of space.
That's just one of shill Windley's ploys to get his little flock of Apollo fan boys to swallow all the bullshit he constantly spews in defending NASA's lies.
"Ever heard of atmospheric haze? .. How about atmospheric cloud cover?..Even on a clear night, you can't compare the many conditions of an atmosphere, with the conditions of the vacuum of space."
Yes, but if you can see the stars through a tube, then the issues of an atmosphere aren't the problem (since you can obviously see the stars if you only focus on one section of the sky.) At that point the problem is your pupils are too constricted to see the stars.
The bottom line is you can't compare the conditions in an atmosphere (stadium) with the conditions in a vacuum (space).
Astronomer Phil Plaitt, along with other scientists and astronomers very clearly state that stars can be seen from the daylight side of the Moon .. They never mention any need to use "optics" to see them, or needing to "look through a tube".
The Apollo 11 crew got BUSTED lying about not being able to see stars while on the surface.. and everyone knows it, including them.
"The bottom line is you can't compare the conditions in an atmosphere (stadium) with the conditions in a vacuum (space)."
No, the bottom line is you know you're losing the argument. The stadium test would prove you wrong, and you have to come up with excuses. The atmosphere isn't a problem in the stadium test since you can clearly see the stars if you block the light from hitting your eyes.
"No, the bottom line is you know you're losing the argument."
LOL .. I'm not losing anything, except for maybe my mind, arguing with an Apollo fan boy who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about anything .. I never lost any argument with you and I certainly won't lose this one either.. even if you do spend your entire life on YouTube defending the faked Apollo Program.
Some of us have lives outside of debating Apollo.. Maybe you should consider doing the same.
"I never lost any argument with you and I certainly won't lose this one either"
Just because you're wont admit defeat, doesn't mean you've never been defeated.
"Some of us have lives outside of debating Apollo.. Maybe you should consider doing the same."
I'm at work, I work on a computer and most of your arguments take about 4 seconds to form a reply to. This isn't taking up too much time, outside of work I continue with the rest of my life and ignore youtube.
"When I'm wrong about something I admit it, unlike you and your Apollo defending pals. "
Actually I distinctly remember you pointing out a point on which I was wrong, and I admitted my mistake.
"As for you ever defeating any of the hoax evidence, I haven't seen that happen yet."
Yes, but like any other hoax believer, you move the goal posts when I reach the goal. At the very least the picture evidence (no stars in photos) was defeated, you can look at similar photos from LEO to see that.
"Yes, but like any other hoax believer, you move the goal posts when I reach the goal."
I don't remember you ever reaching your goal, nor do I need to move any "goal posts" in refuting your nonsense here.
And please stop using the very predictable and overly used NASA shill terms of "moving goal posts", etc. I know you learned that silliness from Jay Windley, but do try to be a bit original once in awhile, okay?
"I don't remember you ever reaching your goal, nor do I need to move any "goal posts" in refuting your nonsense here."
When you claimed NASA killed Thomas Baron for his report that blamed NASA, I went and found his testimony and showed it wasn't critical of NASA. I showed his negative comments were all directed at NAA. So was his short report. You then decided "well NASA is to blame because they hired NAA!" Which is ridiculous because as far as NASA knew NAA could do the job.
"I don't remember you ever reaching your goal, nor do I need to move any "goal posts" in refuting your nonsense here."
Another thing related to Thomas Baron, you asked how many people kill themselves and their whole families with a train. I found various articles that described such a familicide and your only response was "Well they didn't just testify against NASA!" which is completely irrelevant and just meant as a distraction.
"I don't remember you ever reaching your goal, nor do I need to move any "goal posts" in refuting your nonsense here."
continued...
Then when you asked why he would kill himself I pointed out that he was a middle aged man on his second marriage, unemployed, stressed out, uneducated, can't find another job in his field cause of what he did at NAA.
You then accused me of character assassination for pointing out the reasons he was suicidal.
So I showed that Thomas Baron was critical of only NAA and not NASA, you moved the goal post to say that criticizing NAA is just as bad
You asked who actually kill themselves and their whole families via train. I pointed out numerous cases and you just erased the goal posts and dismissed the whole thing
You asked why Thomas Baron would kill himself, I explained why and you erased the goal post by saying "That's character assassination."
"So I showed that Thomas Baron was critical of only NAA and not NASA, you moved the goal post to say that criticizing NAA is just as bad."
It was just as bad, if not worse!.. It showed that NASA trusted in a company that was building an inferior product for the most important manned mission in history!.. It seems like NASA didn't really give a rip how inferior NAA's junk was though, especially since it was not really being built to fly to the Moon and back, but only to be used in simulation.
"Of course NASA trusted in the company, they were successful in the past. NASA had every reason to trust the company."
Obviously not.
"Have you ever flown in a Boeing? If you have you must be suicidal, Boeing owns NAA!
Have you ever driven in a Ford? You must be suicidal! They built the exploding Pinto!"
Hey, GOAL POST MOVER .. This is NOT about Boeings and Pintos.. It's about the CRAP that NAA built for NASA .. The CRAP that TOM BARON BLEW THE WHISTLE ON AND WAS MURDERED FOR.
"The CRAP that TOM BARON BLEW THE WHISTLE ON AND WAS MURDERED FOR. "
If you want to argue about Thomas Baron you can message me.
I'll explain to you how things work in reality. Where you hire an experienced contractor, if they screw up, and an employee comes forward, you don't kill them. You fire the contractor.
Oh, I forgot in conspiracy world when someone helps your case, you kill that person in the most elaborate, easiest to detect, and unreasonable manner possible.
"If you want to argue about Thomas Baron you can message me."
Thanks, but no thanks for your disinformation version of the Tom Baron story, that you sent to my inbox zak.. but I prefer the truth.. Maybe one day you will too, once you take off your rose tinted NASA glasses.
I might have bought your little pro NASA/Apollo senerio except for one little problem.. A "MISSING" 500 PAGE REPORT!
'THOMAS BARON AND ASTRONAUTS KILLED TO KEEP APOLLO PROGRAM'
"Thanks, but no thanks for your disinformation version of the Tom Baron story, that you sent to my inbox zak.."
So do you want to try an experiment with viewing stars? I messaged you so the topic would remain the same here, being able to view stars from space with the sunlit earth in view.
"So do you want to try an experiment with viewing stars?"
No, and I don't want you sending anymore NASA propaganda/disinformation about the late Tom Baron into my inbox either.
We've been through all of this before and I don't have the time or the interest in arguing with fools who are incapable (for whatever reason) of seeing the truth about Baron's death, or the deaths of the three Apollo 1 astronauts.
"Yes I know, but remember your comment that you never lost an argument? I was pointing out that you haven't won an argument either."
That's strictly a matter of opinion, now isn't it?.. And when it comes to your ability to be impartial about the subject of Apollo, you've proven that your very one sided propagandist opinions hardly matter.
"And when it comes to your ability to be impartial about the subject of Apollo, you've proven that your very one sided propagandist opinions hardly matter."
As if your opinions aren't one sided? This argument is pointless, return to the first argument do you still suggest that stars would be visible if you had a bright object in view? If so, how do you explain that stars aren't visible if you have even a small light (like a headlamp) in view at night?
"...what is relevant is that if a not so bright light can block your view of the stars, than it's entirely possible that floating above the sunlit earth you'd see no stars."
Except that in your former, at least by your tube test, atmospheric diffusion might the cause of not being able to see them, whilst in your latter.... ?
This compare attempt makes your argument appear incongruous.
"Except that in your former, at least by your tube test, atmospheric diffusion might the cause of not being able to see them"
It's like you're not at all capable of understanding this.
The atmospheric diffusion is obviously not the problem if you can view the stars through the tube. That's the point of the tube in the test. That can only leave the possibility that your eyes don't have the dynamic range to view both stars and a bright object at the same time.
" That can only leave the possibility that your eyes don't have the dynamic range to view both stars and a bright object at the same time."
But I proved that's not always the case in the light switch test. Iris's were dilated in the very bright room and had no time to open up because the light switch-off and looking up through the skylight were virtually simultaneous.
You seem to consistently underestimate the dynamic light range sensitivity of the healthy human eye.
"Iris's were dilated in the very bright room and had no time to open up because the light switch-off and looking up through the skylight were virtually simultaneous."
Have you ever watched your eyes dilate in a bathroom with no windows? Leave the lights off for a few seconds while you're an inch away from the mirrors, flip the switch on and watch your eye shrink in a fraction of a second.
Your test didn't prove that atmospheric diffusion was causing you to not see stars with the lights on.
" Leave the lights off for a few seconds while you're an inch away from the mirrors, flip the switch on and watch your eye shrink in a fraction of a second."
I posted a comment here in reply to you recently, where I made the point that dark adapt opening of the iris is very slow compared to the speed it shrinks with sudden light from dark ( around 14 seconds for any substantial opening ), and probably for evolutionary reasons.
But I can understand you wanting to exaggerate the point zak'
My irises would have had no time to open to any significant degree in the switch test. They were already open wide enough with the lights on to be perfectly able to resister starlight.
"But I can understand you wanting to exaggerate the point zak'"
It doesn't exactly matter much anyway, you still don't acknowledge that if the tube test works (or you can try the other test with a light on one eye) then you know it's not atmospheric light diffusion that's causing your to not be able to view the stars with a bright object in view.
"Zakabog". I note you have a bad habit of countering with stuff like " It doesn't exactly matter much anyway" and "its not relevant anyway" when valid inconsistencies are exposed in your previous points.
Its not good enough to throw up debate chaffTM to try to flick off valid challenges to your previous assertions, in order to swiftly move on to other ground to repeat the process.
""Zakabog". I note you have a bad habit of countering with stuff like " It doesn't exactly matter much anyway" and "its not relevant anyway" when valid inconsistencies are exposed in your previous points."
It really wasn't relevant, your eyes might allow you to see the stars immediately after you shut off the lights but the dynamic range isn't wide enough to be able to see them both at the same time. That's what the tube test shows you since the atmospheric light in the room remains the same.
.".your eyes might allow you to see the stars immediately after you shut off the lights but the dynamic range isn't wide enough to be able to see them both at the same time."
It amounts to the same thing in my relevant switch test. My irises were virtually as open a split second after the lights went off as they were in the bright room beforehand.
And your attempt to equate speed of iris dilation at sudden bright light with speed of opening at sudden removal of light was disingenuous.
"It amounts to the same thing in my relevant switch test."
No it doesn't because in your light switch test the ability to see both at the same time isn't factored in. Ever see an object in front of a bright light? Notice how it casts a silhouette? That's because your eye capable of picking up both the bright light and the light reflected off the object at the same time. Just like you can't hear a whisper in a noisy room, you can't see a dim light while looking at a much brighter one.
"It is factored in because it amounts to the same thing."
No it doesn't. Not in the slightest. You need to factor in the dynamic range, your eyes have a limited range between the brightest object seen in view and the dimmest object seen in view. By turning off the light the brightest object becomes the stars. The tube shows that you should be entirely capable of seeing the stars with the lights on, you have yet to negate that fact and until you do this argument is still in my favor.
"The dynamic range is the same both before and immediately after the switch is flicked, because the iris openings stay the same."
You also ignore the light that is scattered within your eye when the lights are on (basically the glare). It's more noticable at near dusk or dawn when you're driving towards the sun. Look at the traffic light in front of the sun and you can't see much because of the glare from the sun. The glare is noticeable outside too without the windshield in front of you.
"Glare would probably add to iris dilation and reconfirm my already watertight light switch test result. Appreciated zak'. "
The level of light would be the same (as the reflected light inside your eye is less intense than the direct light) but the reflected light would obscure the starlight (since it's much brighter) which could contribute to you not seeing stars.
"Glare would probably add to iris dilation and reconfirm my already watertight light switch test result."
Watertight would mean you explained why you can't see the stars with the light on, and would also rule out the possibility that your eyes are only allowing you to see the starlight because the brighter light is no longer in view. As your argument does neither one of those, I wouldn't consider it watertight by any meaning of the word.
"You seem to consistently underestimate the dynamic light range sensitivity of the healthy human eye."
Another thing you can try, shine a light into one eye while looking for stars in the other (put something to block the light from hitting your exposed eye.) Your pupils should both be equally dilated so it should be a good test to see if your eyes can pick up the light of the stars while they're that constricted.
That one I haven't tested yet, in theory it should work (I can test it later.)
"There are too many unanswered questions for me to believe that Baron was murdered."
There are even more unanswered questions(including his missing 500 page report) to believe that Baron committed suicide and took out his entire family with him.. You better believe his family knew the truth about the Apollo fraud also, and that's why ALL of them needed to be permanately silenced.
A 500 page report, exposing the Apollo fraud just magically disappeared, never to be seen again, right after Baron's "suicide by train".
You once asked me how Baron and his family were murdered by train, but at the time I gave you an incorrect answer.. It took awhile for me to figure it out, but now it's pretty obvious how it was done.. They were all killed elsewhere, then placed in their car, which was parked on the tracks .. The perfect black ops CIA "suicide" murder.
"You asked who actually kill themselves and their whole families via train. I pointed out numerous cases and you just erased the goal posts and dismissed the whole thing."
No, I merely pointed out that suicide can be committed by train, but one week after testifying against NASA's Apollo debacle, it smelled more like murder.. Especially since Baron's whole family was taken out with him .. Dead people can't testify, or write anymore damaging reports against the moonfakers.
"Dead people can't testify, or write anymore damaging reports against the moonfakers. "
During all of your arguments you completely ignore the fact that the report was finished and handed in before he died, his testimony was over (he wasn't going back to court on a later date), and he didn't blame NASA for anything.
I'm not in the mood to discuss Thomas Baron's death on this videos comment section, the idea that NASA murdered him and his family (BY TRAIN!?!) is absurd but you'd never admit it.
"During all of your arguments you completely ignore the fact that the report was finished and handed in before he died, his testimony was over (he wasn't going back to court on a later date), and he didn't blame NASA for anything."
You completely ignore the fact that his 500 page report against the Apollo Program went "missing", never to be seen again, immediately after his and his family's "suicide by train" deaths.
What's absurd is your inability to admit that they were murdered.
"When you claimed NASA killed Thomas Baron for his report that blamed NASA, I went and found his testimony and showed it wasn't critical of NASA. I showed his negative comments were all directed at NAA. So was his short report. You then decided "well NASA is to blame because they hired NAA!" Which is ridiculous because as far as NASA knew NAA could do the job."
Not this crap again?.. NAA was under contract with NASA, so NASA was responsible for the junk they built. Junk that Baron exposed.
"Not this crap again?.. NAA was under contract with NASA, so NASA was responsible for the junk they built. Junk that Baron exposed."
Exactly my point, you won't admit that Thomas Baron was not critical of NASA, he had no qualms with them. He only wanted them to stop using NAA and was trying to expose NAA's lack of quality assurance. Yet for some reason you manage to twist things around so that even though Thomas Baron doesn't speak badly about NASA, somehow he's blaming NASA through NAA?
By the way, you're doing it again. I was pointing out situations where you moved the goal posts, and you move the goal posts again.
If you hire an accomplished contractor and they burn your house down, IT'S THE CONTRACTORS FAULT. You know that but it doesn't help your argument so you fight against it or move the goal post again and say "Thomas Baron criticized NASA in his larger report but you don't know for a fact cause it's gone and he must have criticized NASA cause the reports gone!"
"By the way, you're doing it again. I was pointing out situations where you moved the goal posts, and you move the goal posts again."
By the way, unlike you I do have a life and need to go.. Say, you're not still at "work" are you?.. LMAO!
Speaking of "moving the goal posts", congrats for doing just that!.. Dragging up the old debate about Baron was a great distraction tactic to get away from the stars debate, that you had already LOST.
"Speaking of "moving the goal posts", congrats for doing just that!.. Dragging up the old debate about Baron was a great distraction tactic to get away from the stars debate, that you had already LOST."
... I didn't bring up the debate I brought up examples of you moving the goal post in reply to your comment about how you never move the goal post.
My goal post is for you to try the simple view stars in a brightly lit stadium with your bare eyes, then through a cardboard tube experiment.
"... I didn't bring up the debate I brought up examples of you moving the goal post in reply to your comment about how you never move the goal post."
If this isn't bringing up the Baron debate and using more distraction tactics, I don't know what is!
You never refuted any of the evidence I presented about Baron's suspicious death, or the fact that the Apollo astronots never mentioned seeing any stars from space.
As for my "moving the goal posts", I didn't change the subject.. You did.
"As for my "moving the goal posts", I didn't change the subject.. You did."
You claimed you never moved the goal posts, I pointed out examples to counter your argument, I didn't want a debate on Thomas Baron (I still don't.) Like I said before the goal posts still stand where they were, attempt the stadium experiment, that's it, that's the goal post, it's still where it was, it hasn't moved.
"I'm at work, I work on a computer and most of your arguments take about 4 seconds to form a reply to. This isn't taking up too much time, outside of work I continue with the rest of my life and ignore youtube."
Stop pretending to have any job outside of defending Apollo on YouTube.. It doesn't take just "four seconds" to reply to every single comment you respond to, ALL DAY LONG, TO EVERY CT WHO POSTS HERE.
@8:02 the guy gives him 2 middle fingers. haha. probably for lying.
yourmajezty 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
(w)(w)(w).telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8746306/Nasa-releases-new-high-definition-images-of-Apollo-moon-landings.html
TheFireForEffect 4 months ago
8:03 lol
Quex01 6 months ago
well since your talking about "scaling" and mars atmosphere is around 1 percent of earth then the lander diameter surface aero braking section would have to be substantially increased in size to get it down to the supersonic speeds it supposedly deploys it's chutes at. Also the chutes would have to be substantially scaled up. Practicality is a question here.
stalkervision 6 months ago
For one thing one needs a drogue chute to deploy the much larger main chute and the speeds which they quote would shred a drogue chute if you even managed to get it deployed in this vacuum.
stalkervision 6 months ago
The funniest thing about this guy's conspiracy theories is that they require NASA to have some very prodigious photo fakers. They'd have to have an army of people sitting 24/7 at their computers altering photographs and videos to make the volumes of data they release to the public look just right. And how about those close-up pictures of the outer planets? Are they doctored too, the product of some artist's imagination? What about the pictures of Saturn backlit by the Sun? Are those also fake?
Thucydides411 6 months ago
The mars atmosphere is in fact not to be considered a vacuum. With this argument the earths atmosphere over 25 miles high had to be a vacuum as well. But the main heat on reentry of the space shuttle appears over 25 miles. There are a lot of people now letting go helium balloons with a camera up to about 20 miles. When they burst a parachute is deployed. A parachute opens when there is enough air pressure hitting it. Higher up this naturally happens at higher speeds. Check it out! Thanks.
knowhowtobe44 9 months ago
Your presenting style and maybe even your voice really reminds me of John Safron.
Did you chack the links i sent you?
Have you been getting more hits than normal this week?
NeonGenesisPlatinum 1 year ago
All the parachute does is slowing the probe down from ~1000Mph to subsonic speeds.
meteor4163 1 year ago
Interesting video and sounds like a plausible argumnet to me ....But im not scientist i wouldent know about psi and atmosphear presurres ......enjoyed that video thumbs up bro .....
InkDropFalls 1 year ago
I dont get it he dident jump out of space .............i got Questions ?
1Did he jump from space ? because to me he jumped out abouve atmophear im not shure that counts as space.......he dident jump out in Vacume
because china l travle to space station this is not considerd space travle ................there is another name for it i cant rember what they call it .............So if going to the space station is not space travle ...Then i would guase his not jumping out into complete vacume?
InkDropFalls 1 year ago
Yes I thought about him too. What do you think about Felix Baumgartner and the Red Bull Stratos project? It seems like the launch date keeps getting delayed.
packupngo 1 year ago
I like how this video brings forth absolutely no evidence for anything. It's essentially 11min of accusations and crap. Mars' atmosphere is nowhere near a vacuum. "A small leak" in a glove of a pressure suit at 103k feet is nothing to worry about. In reality an astronaut with a small leak in their glove in space would most likely be fine if action is taken asap. There is no immediate death in a vacuum, though it is not very pleasant.
SPYK3O 2 years ago
stuid . when you be out not always you can see the start . i don't wnt to tell you what stars are original. fined out .
Risperdalman 2 years ago
the only real vacum in space is between Kittinger's ears... yet another Yanky faker
ccc771 2 years ago
uhhhh. what is wrong with the hole in the glove? it wasnt a vacuum... since he went with a balloon up there. in a real vaccum a hole kills you.
Vadios83 2 years ago
The atmosphere of Mars is relatively thin, and the atmospheric pressure on the surface varies from around 30 Pa (0.03 kPa) on Olympus Mons's peak to over 1155 Pa (1.155 kPa) in the depths of Hellas Planitia, with a mean surface level pressure of 600 Pa (0.6 kPa, or about 7-10 millibars, or 0.13 psi), compared to Earth's 101.3 kPa,
stalkervision 2 years ago
Atmospheric pressure 760 torr 101.3 kPa
Low vacuum 760 to 25 torr 100 to 3 kPa
Medium vacuum 25 to 1×10-3 torr 3 kPa to 100 mPa
High vacuum 1×10-3 to 1×10-9 torr 100 mPa to 100 nPa
Ultra high vacuum 1×10-9 to 1×10-12 torr 100 nPa to 100 pPa
Extremely high vacuum <1×10-12 torr <100 pPa
Outer Space 1×10-6 to <3×10-17 torr 100 µPa to <3fPa
Perfect vacuum 0 torr 0 Pa
stalkervision 2 years ago
@stalkervision
So what do you say, do you think you can land on a parachute on Mars in this medium vacuum ?
kennjohnsen 7 months ago
@kennjohnsen well you obviously need a healthy amount of air for a parachute to deploy properly and be of any use whatsoever. what do you think?
stalkervision 6 months ago
@stalkervision
No, I don't think so, what I understand they used the chute to break their entrance high up ( I am not sure about the high ) like something 30 miles on Earth, that can't be done in that high on Earth, so it can't be done on Mars, a few miles above ground. It's more or less a vacuum ? even on ground. NASA got to have nerve to claim such, but no body....news....magazinse, says a word ? strange.
kennjohnsen 6 months ago
@kennjohnsen I think your right too, A interesting video and experiment would be to get a bell jar equipped with a vacuum device like edmunds scientific sells and put a very very small parachute device inside, Attach a very small piece of metal to the top of the chute,place the chute in the bell jar and attach a magnet to the outside of that jar on that piece of metal. Close it all up..evacuate the air and pull away the magnet. We both know what would happen next don't we..?
stalkervision 6 months ago
@stalkervision
Well, you are a video maker, I will watch it. Yes, we know what would happen, actually nothing so to say.
kennjohnsen 6 months ago
@stalkervision Depends on the speed of reentry and the area of the chute. What matters is the pressure supporting the chute, which scales with those two quantities. It should also be noted that Phoenix, like other NASA landers, used rockets to slow the craft in the final stage of the landing. Earlier landers, which didn't touch down as softly, were surrounded by airbags. The author of these videos doesn't mention any of these things, though.
Thucydides411 6 months ago
@Thucydides411 well when your deploying a chute in a near vacuum there are very certain limits to that "scaling" working..
stalkervision 6 months ago
@stalkervision The Martian atmosphere is not "near vacuum," and the scaling does indeed work for any density. Dynamic pressure is given by P_dynamic = 1/2 (density)*(velocity)^2. The Martian atmosphere has a surface density of about 15 g/m^3 and a scale height of 11 km. A craft entering the atmosphere at a velocity of 1 km/s would feel 1 atmospheric pressure (atm) at about 50 km altitude, and 10 atm at 22 km. In other words, Phoenix decelerated rapidly, even before the chute was deployed.
Thucydides411 6 months ago
@Thucydides411
What about the screw, was that not funny.
kennjohnsen 6 months ago
@stalkervision By the way, a simple Google search for "Phoenix EDL" results in a number of papers detailing the physics of Phoenix' entry into the Martian atmosphere. The first step was to get a good model of the Martian atmosphere, which the Mars Global Surveyor did. From that, it's easy to calculate the forces felt by a craft entering the atmosphere. WhiteJarrah could have spent the time he took to make these videos by instead informing himself a bit - the physics here isn't that complicated.
Thucydides411 6 months ago
Thanks for the clip Jarrah. It was interesting.
Although it proves one thing that you're probably not aware of.
You are suffering from Paranoid Delusions. Plucking quotes here and there to fit your Delusions really can't be considered "research" though.
You need help...really.
LindaStevensBZ 3 years ago
Mars' atmosphere is nowhere near a vacuum. Idiot.
DrCraborkian 3 years ago
"What Apollo fraud? Did Thomas Baron ever mention that Apollo was a fraud? Once? Ever?"
Acutally he did many times, just not in so many words. In his verbal testimony he stated that he believed the Apollo craft being developed by NAA would not get men to the Moon and back alive. He also stated the many saftey problems they were having in his 55 page report. As for his "discarded" 500 page report, WE WILL NEVER KNOW WHAT HE STATED because some yahoo at NASA decided it was better we never know!
straydog02 3 years ago
What part of don't send anymore Tom Baron disinformation into my inbox do you not understand zak?
"For the millionth time, for something to be MISSING someone actually needs to have wanted it. No one wanted the report, it was useless, so the report was DISCARDED."
So now Baron's 500 page report, condeming Project Apollo, went missing because some yahoo at NASA just threw it in the trash?!
Not before shredding it, buring it, and thanking God the public was never privy to it!
straydog02 3 years ago
By the way Jarrah, the glove just wasn't pressurizing. The rest of the suit was intact, and it would take a long time to die from your hand being in a low pressure glove.
I'd also like to point out that he couldn't see stars because he was surrounded by sunlight. If the cockpit on spaceship one was facing the sun it would have been impossible to have seen the stars. The entire craft was blocking out the sun.
zakabog 3 years ago
No. A single leak in any portion of an airtight pressure garment is enough to kill you. In case you don't realize, blood circulates your body. Rene once experimented by exposing his bare arm to his vacuum chamber: within seconds he began to feel light headed and his hand continued to swell. He only had his arm in there for a few seconds, but he still felt light-headed half an hour later. Try this yourself.
As for the stars, turn your back to the sun, visible stars. Simple.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"Rene once experimented by exposing his bare arm to his vacuum chamber: within seconds he began to feel light headed and his hand continued to swell."
Exactly what was he trying to show? What was the pressure of the vacuum chamber when he tried that? Do you realize Kittinger's hand wasn't bare, it had a glove on it, and the glove wasn't completely devoid of atmosphere.
"As for the stars, turn your back to the sun, visible stars. Simple. "
You don't seem to know much about eyesight.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Exactly what was he trying to show? What was the pressure of the vacuum chamber when he tried that?"
Had you bothered to read his book, you'd have known he was experimenting human exposure to low pressure. And the pressure was considerably higher than what you'll get at 103,000ft. 4.6psi to be exact.
"Do you realize Kittinger's hand wasn't bare, it had a glove on it"
Irrelevant, even a tiny hole leaks a LOT of pressure.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"Had you bothered to read his book..."
I didn't know there was a reading assignment involved.
"...4.6psi to be exact."
That's interesting, the suit pressure during an Apollo EVA was 3.8psi, I'm fairly certain none of the astronauts became light headed or started swelling. Although you don't believe Apollo was real, so aboard Mercury and Gemini the craft pressure was 5psi. No swelling though...
zakabog 3 years ago
"Although you don't believe Apollo was real, so aboard Mercury and Gemini the craft pressure was 5psi. No swelling though..."
"People traveling in space experience noticeable swelling of the body with the face "growing" 3-7 millimeters. The eyes also protrude by roughly 5 millimeters in some case."
xeithu [dot] notlong [dot] com
You were saying?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"People traveling in space experience noticeable swelling of the body with the face "growing" 3-7 millimeters. The eyes also protrude by roughly 5 millimeters in some case."
Wow 5mm, that's a lot of swelling!
Sarcasm aside, Kittinger didn't go from 14.9psi to whatever pressure his glove maintained at 100,000 feet in seconds. Ralph Rene stuck his hand in a vacuum chamber and switched it on, a drastic drop from 14.9 psi to 4 psi would be a bit worse than a gradual change in pressure.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Wow 5mm, that's a lot of swelling!"
It's nearly a centimeter!
"Ralph Rene stuck his hand in a vacuum chamber and switched it on, a drastic drop from 14.9 psi to 4 psi would be a bit worse than a gradual change in pressure."
Kittinger ascended for 1.5 hours: Dr. Edwin Vail (Hamilton Standard Division, United Aircraft Corperation) states that you can only tolerate exposure to the low-pressure of 70,000ft for no longer than 35minutes. Try 103,000ft.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"It's nearly a centimeter!"
In the same way that $50,000 is nearly $100,000. Kittinger's hand swelled to over twice it's normal size (That's a bit more than 5mm.)
"Dr. Edwin Vail (Hamilton Standard Division, United Aircraft Corperation) states that you can only tolerate exposure to the low-pressure of 70,000ft for no longer than 35minutes."
That's for your entire body. Plus Kittinger didn't spend the entire 1.5 hours above 70,000 feet.
zakabog 3 years ago
"That's for your entire body."
Actually, he's talking about exposing your hand to the near vacuum conditions. It would help matters if you were familiar with the source material.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"Actually, he's talking about exposing your hand to the near vacuum conditions. It would help matters if you were familiar with the source material."
Fine, can you post a link to the source material?
Although the point still stands, Kittinger still wasn't above 70,000 feet for the entire hour and a half.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Fine, can you post a link to the source material?"
He's quoted on p179 of Lloyd Mallan's book on American spacesuits "Suiting Up For Space: The Evolution Of The Space Suit." You'll probably find a copy in the library or on ebay.
"Although the point still stands, Kittinger still wasn't above 70,000 feet for the entire hour and a half."
No, but he was up there longer than the allowable time limit, which signifies to me that this guy should have been killed.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"He's quoted on p179 of Lloyd Mallan's book on American spacesuits "Suiting Up For Space: The Evolution Of The Space Suit." You'll probably find a copy in the library or on ebay."
Just going to point out Lloyd Mallan also wrote the book "It Is Safe To Smoke" pointing out the "real truth" of smoking. Found that while I was looking for this book, can you just post the relevant quote?
"No, but he was up there longer than the allowable time limit"
Exactly how long was he above 70,000'?
zakabog 3 years ago
"As for the stars, turn your back to the sun, visible stars. Simple. "
According to astronomers like Plaitt, that's a correct statement Jarrah.
"You don't seem to know much about eyesight."
No zak, it's obvious that you're the one who doesn't know much about eyesight, or what would be visible in space.
straydog02 3 years ago
"No zak, it's obvious that you're the one who doesn't know much about eyesight, or what would be visible in space. "
At 100,000 feet you'd have the earth and the sun. Turn away from the sun and you still have the earth in view (unless you don't really care about controlling your fall back down to Earth), which would be too bright to allow your eyes to pick up the faint light of the stars.
zakabog 3 years ago
"At 100,000 feet you'd have the earth and the sun. Turn away from the sun and you still have the earth in view (unless you don't really care about controlling your fall back down to Earth), which would be too bright to allow your eyes to pick up the faint light of the stars."
If you can see stars while standing on the the brightly lit, daylight side of the lunar suface, then you certainly can see them while having the Earth in view from LEO.
straydog02 3 years ago
"If you can see stars while standing on the the brightly lit, daylight side of the lunar suface..."
Who said you could see stars with the brightly lit lunar surface in view?
" then you certainly can see them while having the Earth in view from LEO."
Kittinger wasn't in LEO.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Who said you could see stars with the brightly lit lunar surface in view?"
Astronomer Phil Plaitt and probably every other scientist and astronomer who understands space science.. Plaitt didn't know at the time he made that statement that he would be refuting the Apollo astronot's silly excuses as to why they could never see any stars while on the Moon.. Otherwise, I'm sure he never would have said it.
"Kittinger wasn't in LEO."
I never said he was.
straydog02 3 years ago
"Astronomer Phil Plaitt and probably every other scientist and astronomer who understands space science.."
Probably every other scientist and astronomer who understands space science? Well they might think you can see the stars since there's no atmosphere, but an eye doctor or an astronaut would tell you if a large bright surface is in view it'd be difficult to see the stars.
zakabog 3 years ago
"I never said he was."
I said
"At 100,000 feet you'd have the earth and the sun. Turn away from the sun and you still have the earth in view... ...which would be too bright to allow your eyes to pick up the faint light of the stars."
To which you replied
"If you can see stars while standing on the the brightly lit, daylight side of the lunar suface, then you certainly can see them while having the Earth in view from LEO."
100,000 feet (Kittinger's altitude) isn't LEO.
zakabog 3 years ago
"100,000 feet (Kittinger's altitude) isn't LEO."
It doesn't matter that he wasn't in LEO.. He was still at the edge of Earth's atmosphere and had Earth in view, which was your excuse for him not being able to see any stars.
Yet, astronomers all claim that stars can easily be seen from space and even seen while standing the bright lunar surface, while on the daylight side of the Moon.
You can't have it both ways.
straydog02 3 years ago
"You don't seem to know much about eyesight."
Go outside under a street light on a clear night, stare into the bulb, then turn your back to the street light and look up to the sky. You might see an afterglow of the bulb, but your eyesight will quickly adjust to the starlight. I've successfully done this countless times.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"Go outside under a street light on a clear night, stare into the bulb, then turn your back to the street light and look up to the sky. You might see an afterglow of the bulb, but your eyesight will quickly adjust to the starlight. I've successfully done this countless times."
Actually you forget that he's facing the brightly lit earth. He can look away from the sun but he'll still have the earth in view affecting his eyesight.
SpaceShipOne blocked the light from the earth and the sun.
zakabog 3 years ago
"I'd also like to point out that he couldn't see stars because he was surrounded by sunlight."
Yet, according to NASA shill astronomer Phil Plaitt, if one is standing on the daylight side of the Moon in bright sunlight, one can see stars just by looking up.. It seems like only certain people have the ability to see stars while in space, or on the Moon, while others can't .. Maybe the stars gazers are related to Superman.
straydog02 3 years ago
"Yet, according to NASA shill astronomer Phil Plaitt, if one is standing on the daylight side of the Moon in bright sunlight, one can see stars just by looking up.."
Only if you block the light of the moon from your eyes, which is hard with a giant glass helmet, I think Cernan was the one who leaned back on the ladder and focused his eyes for a bit to see stars from the moons surface, it takes quite a bit of work to see the stars when you're right above a massive brightly lit object.
zakabog 3 years ago
".... it takes quite a bit of work to see the stars when you're right above a massive brightly lit object."
Not according to astronomer Phil Plaitt, it doesn't.
You NASA shills and patsys need to get your stories straight if you're going to convince people that no Apollo astronots could see any stars from the daylight side of the Moon.. Oh, except for Gene Cernan when he "leaned back on the ladder".. LOL
straydog02 3 years ago
"Not according to astronomer Phil Plaitt, it doesn't."
So? Phil Plait has never been to space. Astronauts who have been there said it's hard to see stars when the sunlit earth is in view, when you're looking towards the sun, or when the sunlit moon is in view. Plus I'm fairly certain Phil Plait changed his argument.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Plus I'm fairly certain Phil Plait changed his argument."
Why don't you ask shill Phil and see what he says about seeing stars from the daylight side of the Moon ? .. He will either be a dishonest NASA shill and change his original claim, or he will be an honest astronomer and stick to his original claim .. Give him a shout and let's see which one he is.
straydog02 3 years ago
"Why don't you ask shill Phil and see what he says about seeing stars from the daylight side of the Moon ?"
How about YOU ask some people who have actually been there (rather than someone who's guessing based on the lack of an atmosphere and not the abilities of the human eye.) Or try an experiment, stand in a brightly lit stadium at night, try to see the stars without blocking the light from your eyes.
zakabog 3 years ago
"How about YOU ask some people who have actually been there (rather than someone who's guessing based on the lack of an atmosphere and not the abilities of the human eye.)"
That would be a real problem, considering the fact that nobody has ever been there to ask.
straydog02 3 years ago
"That would be a real problem, considering the fact that nobody has ever been there to ask."
I was referring to space in general. Ask an astronaut who's been to LEO if they can see stars while they're facing the sunlit side of the earth.
zakabog 3 years ago
"I was referring to space in general. Ask an astronaut who's been to LEO if they can see stars while they're facing the sunlit side of the earth."
If stars can easily be seen from the daylight side of the Moon, then astronauts should be able to see stars from LEO, regardless of what direction they're facing.
And if any of the astronauts ever bothered to set a longer exposure time on any of their cameras, they could also be photographed.
straydog02 3 years ago
"If stars can easily be seen from the daylight side of the Moon, then astronauts should be able to see stars from LEO, regardless of what direction they're facing."
Yeah you still don't get it. Stars are easily seen from LEO at any time (day time, night time whatever), HOWEVER if you have a bright object in view your eyes will adjust to block out the light, which will in turn block out the light from the stars. That's why you can't see stars at night when you're in a bright stadium.
zakabog 3 years ago
" ( eye adjust ).. that's why you can't see stars at night when you're in a bright stadium."
Actually YOU don't get it. You can't see stars in a bright stadium at night because of atmospheric light interference from the floodlights along with the supplementary ambient street lighting if it's located in or near a population centre.
If there was a power cut you would be able to see a good number of the brightest stars immediately.
The human eye has a staggering light range sensitivity, zak'.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"Actually YOU don't get it. You can't see stars in a bright stadium at night because of atmospheric light interference from the floodlights along with the supplementary ambient street lighting if it's located in or near a population centre."
You can still see the stars at night in a stadium if you block the light out with a tube. Ralph Rene has tested that. The thing is once you remove the tube and your eyes are exposed to all the light, they'll adjust and you won't be able to see any stars.
zakabog 3 years ago
He did the test in a floodlit stadium??
Actually we can all test it for ourselves. My idea is; next time you're in a house out in the sticks on a clear night, walk straight out of a brightly lit room into the night and look up immediately.
I think you'll be surprised at how many bright stars you'll still be able to see.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"I think you'll be surprised at how many bright stars you'll still be able to see."
Yeah, they saw a lot of stars in the shadow of the moon too.
Like I keep saying try looking for stars when there's a light in your face, then block that light and check if you can see stars.
zakabog 3 years ago
You're being dishonest. Spectators in stadiums aren't gazing into the floodlights and people in brightly lit rooms aren't staring at the 60 watt overhead.
You cited stadiums at night. Don't now cover your tracks by trying to exaggerate your initial claim.
I've done the bright room test myself and saw lots of stars overhead within a second of leaving the room.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"You're being dishonest. Spectators in stadiums aren't gazing into the floodlights and people in brightly lit rooms aren't staring at the 60 watt overhead."
... so? What does that have to do with anything? You still can't see stars inside a bright room or in a stadium?
"I've done the bright room test myself and saw lots of stars overhead within a second of leaving the room. "
Notice the part where you left the room? Yeah, try and see the stars from inside the room (with the lights on.)
zakabog 3 years ago
The stars would be rather difficult to see through an open window for example, if one was inside the bright room, correct zak'.
That's because of light interference from the light source, in the air in the room. If the room space was a vacuum (and you in a pressure suit!) you'd see the stars through the open window rather clearly, just as you would if you suddenly poked your head out of the window.
It would be a rather cool effect, actually.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"If the room space was a vacuum (and you in a pressure suit!) you'd see the stars through the open window rather clearly, just as you would if you suddenly poked your head out of the window."
No, you wouldn't, even facing away from the light, if it's bright enough on the walls (and it is because that's the point of the experiment) your retinas will constrict to restrict that light, that would make it impossible to pick up the faint light from the stars.
zakabog 3 years ago
" No, you wouldn't, even facing away from the light, if it's bright enough on the walls "
Well yes it would, actually - because I've tried it with an open skylight in a low- ceilinged attic room.
There was next to no time for my iris to open and the room was brightly lit with X2 unshaded 60watt bulbs.
I stood on a soap box and poked the top of my head out.
There were the stars. Plenty of them.
Try trying it yourself zak'?
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"Well yes it would, actually - because I've tried it with an open skylight in a low- ceilinged attic room.
There was next to no time for my iris to open and the room was brightly lit with X2 unshaded 60watt bulbs.
I stood on a soap box and POKED THE TOP OF MY HEAD OUT."
Try again without that last step.
zakabog 3 years ago
That wouldn't make much difference, it takes the iris about 14 seconds to dark adapt to a large degree.
The change from bright room to dark sky was instantaneous, the skylight was hinged back at almost 180 deg's and I kept my line of sight up through the window space as I stood. There was no transition period - as soon as my eyes passed the level of the skylight frame, many stars were immediately clear.
Do you imagine the human iris opens to sudden dark as fast as it closes to sudden light?
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"There was no transition period - as soon as my eyes passed the level of the skylight frame, many stars were immediately clear."
So why couldn't you see the stars when you were below the level of the skylight frame?
Try a different experiment, open the skylight, stay in the room, but look through a tube so that the only light you see would be starlight. Can you see stars? If you can then you just proved that it's impossible to see stars with a bright enough object in view.
zakabog 3 years ago
Yes zak' - on earth at least. And in both cases I'd have proven the cause to be ambient light diffusion in atmosphere blocking the weaker starlight; not the degree of iris dilation experienced in the bright room rendering the human eye incapable of registering starlight.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"And in both cases I'd have proven the cause to be ambient light diffusion in atmosphere blocking the weaker starlight"
If you can see the stars through the tube, then the light diffusion in the atmosphere is obviously not the problem. The light diffusion would still be visible through the tube and you'd see no stars if that were the case.
Plus, the light from the room still exists above the frame of your open skylight, you just proved that the light diffusion isn't the problem.
zakabog 3 years ago
Well zakabog, I'm glad you're covering a few angles here, because just to be 100% sure of my facts that night, I had my girlfriend help me out in a final experiment I thought up after the soap box/skylight test.
She stood by the light switch as I stood below the open skylight looking ahead into the bright room.
On the synchronized count of three, she threw both switches off as I looked up ... and there immediately were the old stars through the open skylight. Plenty of 'em.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"On the synchronized count of three, she threw both switches off as I looked up ... and there immediately were the old stars through the open skylight.
Plenty of 'em."
You still haven't answered why you can see the stars in a bright room when looking through a tube. Why is it that a tube (a cardboard tube, or even just your hand placed in a way to block light) can just magically make all of the atmospheric light disappear enough for you to see the stars through it?
zakabog 3 years ago
Do you have a link to the "magic tube" test, zak'?
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"Do you have a link to the "magic tube" test, zak'?"
... There is no link, you're supposed to take a tube to your brightly lit attic and look out the open skylight with it...
I could take photos with my camera and show the tube working but you'd then argue that the camera doesn't have the dynamic range of a human eye. I could also give you links to the transcripts where they talk about their star gazing tube on Apollo but you think they're lying, so you're going to have to do this yourself.
zakabog 3 years ago
" you're supposed to take a tube to your brightly lit attic and look out the open skylight with it..."
What do you mean "you're supposed to"? You mean you haven't tried something similar yourself and you're just throwing it into the argument as debate deflection chaffTM ?
I made the effort to think up a respectable test, carried it out and proved the human iris remains open enough to register starlight even when exposed to the light level present in a bright room.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"What do you mean "you're supposed to"? You mean you haven't tried something similar yourself and you're just throwing it into the argument as debate deflection chaffTM ?"
I mean I can't record video with my eyeballs, so for you to see this experiment work you're going to have to do it yourself.
"I made the effort to think up a respectable test..."
Your test is flawed, the tube test at least shows that it's not the light in the atmosphere blocking you from seeing the stars.
zakabog 3 years ago
The tube test you have "heard from somewhere" shows something, you mean.
I rest my case.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"The tube test you have "heard from somewhere" shows something, you mean.
I rest my case."
So what you're saying is
"Your test can potentially prove me wrong, but I won't actually try it, instead I'll continue with my 'test' which actually doesn't test anything so I can't possibly prove myself wrong with it."
So either you have no access to cardboard tubes, you're incapable of shielding your eyes with your hand, or you're afraid you'll be proved wrong.
zakabog 3 years ago
I'm saying you can't accept defeat in any argument. You have a bad habit of dishonestly haranguing on a debate point like a dog lock- jawed on a leg.
Any reasonable person can see the science behind my test was sound.
All the artificial bright light was suddenly removed.... ...and many stars were instantaneously visible overhead.
Get over it zak'.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"Any reasonable person can see the science behind my test was sound.
All the artificial bright light was suddenly removed....
...and many stars were instantaneously visible overhead."
Yes, but you're trying to see if you can see the stars with the light source there. We know you can see stars in space when there's no light around.
The tube test works, you can't see stars when you've got a bright object in view on earth or in space.
zakabog 3 years ago
" Yes, but you're trying to see if you can see the stars with the light source there. "
The lights were off.
" the tube test works "
The tube test you've "heard from somewhere", "works".
You're now descending into your own private fictionworld.
"zakabog" may always make sure he posts the last comment, but that doesn't make him the winner in the debate - and especially not in this one.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"The lights were off."
That's my point the lights were off, do the experiment with the lights ON.
"The tube test you've "heard from somewhere", "works"."
Err, no, it actually does work. Ralph Rene did it (with an actual tube), the astronauts in the LM did it, I've done it (while hiking at night, blocked the light from headlamps hitting my eyes with my hand and I was able to see the stars, wasn't a "test" I just wanted to see the stars.)
zakabog 3 years ago
""zakabog" may always make sure he posts the last comment, but that doesn't make him the winner in the debate - and especially not in this one."
For me to lose this argument you'd have to do the test, come back, and say "I looked through the tube with the light on and saw no stars out the open skylight". Do you understand that I can't just do that for you?
zakabog 3 years ago
" blocked the light from headlamps hitting my eyes with my hand and I was able to see the stars, "
So let's get your position clear. Are you saying if you blocked the source light in a bright room from hitting your eyes with your hand, you'd be able to see stars through an open window?
Is that your inference?
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"So let's get your position clear. Are you saying if you blocked the source light in a bright room from hitting your eyes with your hand, you'd be able to see stars through an open window?"
Not quite. If you blocked the source light, and any objects brightly lit by the source light. So the walls, floors, ceiling, anything that's lit up (that's why a tube is handy, it only allows you to see out the window while blocking all other sources of light.)
zakabog 3 years ago
" Not quite. If you blocked the source light, and any objects brightly lit by the source light. ...."
That's a lot more than "not quite". It's a different ball game from the hand to headlights example you gave.
Anyhow, the confusion you're having is that lamp light shining out of a window is just like your headlamp example. If you block it or turn your back on it you'll see some stars, because the light interference then becomes only slight.
So that's maybe why you see stars through the tube.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"That's a lot more than "not quite". It's a different ball game from the hand to headlights example you gave."
Indoors you have walls that will reflect light into your eyes. Outdoors there is not much to reflect the light back into your eyes, so there's less to block out.
"If you block it or turn your back on it you'll see some stars, because the light interference then becomes only slight."
Isn't that what I've been saying? Block bright light from your view and you can see stars?
zakabog 3 years ago
" Isn't that what I've been saying? Block bright light from your view and you can see stars?"
Not exactly. If you block the source light from view and you block the light from all reflective surfaces from view, then all you have left is atmospheric light diffusion to block your view.
And in the case of the tube out of a window or you in a headlight, that's not much.
But in the case of mega wattage stadium lights or light pollution from street lighting in cities, that's a different matter.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
Zak'. Could you remind me of the specific physical optics point you're trying to make here.... I've kind of lost track of you somewhat. Cheers.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"Zak'. Could you remind me of the specific physical optics point you're trying to make here...."
You can't see a bright object (like the daylit earth, the daylit moon, or the sun) and stars in the same field of view.
zakabog 3 years ago
" Isn't that what I've been saying? Block bright light from your view and you can see stars?"
Not if the light is very bright and blocks the stars from view by the diffused light in the atmosphere surrounding it.
That would seem to be an exception to your golden rule.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"Not if the light is very bright and blocks the stars from view by the diffused light in the atmosphere surrounding it.
That would seem to be an exception to your golden rule."
Yes, that's what the tube is for, if you can't see stars through the tube the light in the atmosphere is blocking your view.
That's not even relevant, what is relevant is that if a not so bright light can block your view of the stars, than it's entirely possible that floating above the sunlit earth you'd see no stars.
zakabog 3 years ago
"" Yes, but you're trying to see if you can see the stars with the light source there. "
The lights were off."
I know I replied to this already, but here's a thorough explanation.
You're trying to prove that a human eye can pick up an object as faint as a star with a bright object in view. When you turn off the light, the bright object is no longer in view, so your test is no longer accurate.
The tube is used to show that it's not the atmosphere that's causing you to not see the stars.
zakabog 3 years ago
"And if any of the astronauts ever bothered to set a longer exposure time on any of their cameras, they could also be photographed."
They had a special instrument for photographing stars, the cameras they had were for photographs of objects on the moon. Like the samples they were taking, and other stuff that can give them scientific data. There would be little or no knowledge gained from an image taken by an astronaut with a Hasselblad camera on the moon.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Or try an experiment, stand in a brightly lit stadium at night, try to see the stars without blocking the light from your eyes
I know that Jay Windley would like us all to believe that horse manure, but unfortunately for him and all of his Apollo fan boys, that senerio doesn't equate to standing on the Moon, (which has NO ATMOSPHERE), and looking up at the bright and beautiful stars over the daylight side of the lunar surface.
straydog02 3 years ago
"...that senerio doesn't equate to standing on the Moon, (which has NO ATMOSPHERE), and looking up at the bright and beautiful stars over the daylight side of the lunar surface."
Yes, it's a very similar experiment, if you stand in the brightly lit stadium and look up with your bare eyes you'll see no stars. If you look through a tube to narrow your view and block the light from hitting your eyes you'll see stars. Ralph Rene even tried that experiment.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Yes, it's a very similar experiment, if you stand in the brightly lit stadium and look up with your bare eyes you'll see no stars."
That little experiment doesn't apply because it's done in an atmosphere at night.. What we're discussing is the ability to see stars while in a vacuum, during the day.
straydog02 3 years ago
"That little experiment doesn't apply because it's done in an atmosphere at night.. What we're discussing is the ability to see stars while in a vacuum, during the day."
There isn't enough light in the atmosphere to block you from seeing stars at night. In a stadium that still applies. You can see stars through a tube that blocks out all sources of light, but not with your bare eyes with the bright lights in view.
zakabog 3 years ago
"There isn't enough light in the atmosphere to block you from seeing stars at night."
Ever heard of atmospheric haze? .. How about atmospheric cloud cover?..Even on a clear night, you can't compare the many conditions of an atmosphere, with the conditions of the vacuum of space.
That's just one of shill Windley's ploys to get his little flock of Apollo fan boys to swallow all the bullshit he constantly spews in defending NASA's lies.
straydog02 3 years ago
"Ever heard of atmospheric haze? .. How about atmospheric cloud cover?..Even on a clear night, you can't compare the many conditions of an atmosphere, with the conditions of the vacuum of space."
Yes, but if you can see the stars through a tube, then the issues of an atmosphere aren't the problem (since you can obviously see the stars if you only focus on one section of the sky.) At that point the problem is your pupils are too constricted to see the stars.
zakabog 3 years ago
The bottom line is you can't compare the conditions in an atmosphere (stadium) with the conditions in a vacuum (space).
Astronomer Phil Plaitt, along with other scientists and astronomers very clearly state that stars can be seen from the daylight side of the Moon .. They never mention any need to use "optics" to see them, or needing to "look through a tube".
The Apollo 11 crew got BUSTED lying about not being able to see stars while on the surface.. and everyone knows it, including them.
straydog02 3 years ago
"The bottom line is you can't compare the conditions in an atmosphere (stadium) with the conditions in a vacuum (space)."
No, the bottom line is you know you're losing the argument. The stadium test would prove you wrong, and you have to come up with excuses. The atmosphere isn't a problem in the stadium test since you can clearly see the stars if you block the light from hitting your eyes.
zakabog 3 years ago
"No, the bottom line is you know you're losing the argument."
LOL .. I'm not losing anything, except for maybe my mind, arguing with an Apollo fan boy who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about anything .. I never lost any argument with you and I certainly won't lose this one either.. even if you do spend your entire life on YouTube defending the faked Apollo Program.
Some of us have lives outside of debating Apollo.. Maybe you should consider doing the same.
straydog02 3 years ago
"I never lost any argument with you and I certainly won't lose this one either"
Just because you're wont admit defeat, doesn't mean you've never been defeated.
"Some of us have lives outside of debating Apollo.. Maybe you should consider doing the same."
I'm at work, I work on a computer and most of your arguments take about 4 seconds to form a reply to. This isn't taking up too much time, outside of work I continue with the rest of my life and ignore youtube.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Just because you're wont admit defeat, doesn't mean you've never been defeated."
When I'm wrong about something I admit it, unlike you and your Apollo defending pals.
As for you ever defeating any of the hoax evidence, I haven't seen that happen yet.
straydog02 3 years ago
"When I'm wrong about something I admit it, unlike you and your Apollo defending pals. "
Actually I distinctly remember you pointing out a point on which I was wrong, and I admitted my mistake.
"As for you ever defeating any of the hoax evidence, I haven't seen that happen yet."
Yes, but like any other hoax believer, you move the goal posts when I reach the goal. At the very least the picture evidence (no stars in photos) was defeated, you can look at similar photos from LEO to see that.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Yes, but like any other hoax believer, you move the goal posts when I reach the goal."
I don't remember you ever reaching your goal, nor do I need to move any "goal posts" in refuting your nonsense here.
And please stop using the very predictable and overly used NASA shill terms of "moving goal posts", etc. I know you learned that silliness from Jay Windley, but do try to be a bit original once in awhile, okay?
straydog02 3 years ago
"I don't remember you ever reaching your goal, nor do I need to move any "goal posts" in refuting your nonsense here."
When you claimed NASA killed Thomas Baron for his report that blamed NASA, I went and found his testimony and showed it wasn't critical of NASA. I showed his negative comments were all directed at NAA. So was his short report. You then decided "well NASA is to blame because they hired NAA!" Which is ridiculous because as far as NASA knew NAA could do the job.
zakabog 3 years ago
"I don't remember you ever reaching your goal, nor do I need to move any "goal posts" in refuting your nonsense here."
Another thing related to Thomas Baron, you asked how many people kill themselves and their whole families with a train. I found various articles that described such a familicide and your only response was "Well they didn't just testify against NASA!" which is completely irrelevant and just meant as a distraction.
continued...
zakabog 3 years ago
"I don't remember you ever reaching your goal, nor do I need to move any "goal posts" in refuting your nonsense here."
continued...
Then when you asked why he would kill himself I pointed out that he was a middle aged man on his second marriage, unemployed, stressed out, uneducated, can't find another job in his field cause of what he did at NAA.
You then accused me of character assassination for pointing out the reasons he was suicidal.
continued...
zakabog 3 years ago
continued... (last one)
So I showed that Thomas Baron was critical of only NAA and not NASA, you moved the goal post to say that criticizing NAA is just as bad
You asked who actually kill themselves and their whole families via train. I pointed out numerous cases and you just erased the goal posts and dismissed the whole thing
You asked why Thomas Baron would kill himself, I explained why and you erased the goal post by saying "That's character assassination."
zakabog 3 years ago
"So I showed that Thomas Baron was critical of only NAA and not NASA, you moved the goal post to say that criticizing NAA is just as bad."
It was just as bad, if not worse!.. It showed that NASA trusted in a company that was building an inferior product for the most important manned mission in history!.. It seems like NASA didn't really give a rip how inferior NAA's junk was though, especially since it was not really being built to fly to the Moon and back, but only to be used in simulation.
straydog02 3 years ago
"It showed that NASA trusted in a company that was building an inferior product for the most important manned mission in history!"
Of course NASA trusted in the company, they were successful in the past. NASA had every reason to trust the company.
Have you ever flown in a Boeing? If you have you must be suicidal, Boeing owns NAA!
Have you ever driven in a Ford? You must be suicidal! They built the exploding Pinto!
Do you see why one incident doesn't negate a companies other works?
zakabog 3 years ago
"Of course NASA trusted in the company, they were successful in the past. NASA had every reason to trust the company."
Obviously not.
"Have you ever flown in a Boeing? If you have you must be suicidal, Boeing owns NAA!
Have you ever driven in a Ford? You must be suicidal! They built the exploding Pinto!"
Hey, GOAL POST MOVER .. This is NOT about Boeings and Pintos.. It's about the CRAP that NAA built for NASA .. The CRAP that TOM BARON BLEW THE WHISTLE ON AND WAS MURDERED FOR.
straydog02 3 years ago
"The CRAP that TOM BARON BLEW THE WHISTLE ON AND WAS MURDERED FOR. "
If you want to argue about Thomas Baron you can message me.
I'll explain to you how things work in reality. Where you hire an experienced contractor, if they screw up, and an employee comes forward, you don't kill them. You fire the contractor.
Oh, I forgot in conspiracy world when someone helps your case, you kill that person in the most elaborate, easiest to detect, and unreasonable manner possible.
zakabog 3 years ago
"If you want to argue about Thomas Baron you can message me."
Thanks, but no thanks for your disinformation version of the Tom Baron story, that you sent to my inbox zak.. but I prefer the truth.. Maybe one day you will too, once you take off your rose tinted NASA glasses.
I might have bought your little pro NASA/Apollo senerio except for one little problem.. A "MISSING" 500 PAGE REPORT!
'THOMAS BARON AND ASTRONAUTS KILLED TO KEEP APOLLO PROGRAM'
watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE&feature=related
straydog02 3 years ago
"Thanks, but no thanks for your disinformation version of the Tom Baron story, that you sent to my inbox zak.."
So do you want to try an experiment with viewing stars? I messaged you so the topic would remain the same here, being able to view stars from space with the sunlit earth in view.
zakabog 3 years ago
"So do you want to try an experiment with viewing stars?"
No, and I don't want you sending anymore NASA propaganda/disinformation about the late Tom Baron into my inbox either.
We've been through all of this before and I don't have the time or the interest in arguing with fools who are incapable (for whatever reason) of seeing the truth about Baron's death, or the deaths of the three Apollo 1 astronauts.
straydog02 3 years ago
"No, and I don't want you sending anymore NASA propaganda/disinformation about the late Tom Baron into my inbox either."
Fine, but realize you didn't win the argument (you didn't even participate.)
"who are incapable (for whatever reason) of seeing the truth about Baron's death"
There are too many unanswered questions for me to believe that Baron was murdered.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Fine, but realize you didn't win the argument (you didn't even participate.)"
WTF is wrong with you? .. This isn't about "winning" arguments on YouTube.. It's about finding out the truth of the Apollo hoax.
straydog02 3 years ago
"WTF is wrong with you? .. This isn't about "winning" arguments on YouTube.. It's about finding out the truth of the Apollo hoax. "
Yes I know, but remember your comment that you never lost an argument? I was pointing out that you haven't won an argument either.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Yes I know, but remember your comment that you never lost an argument? I was pointing out that you haven't won an argument either."
That's strictly a matter of opinion, now isn't it?.. And when it comes to your ability to be impartial about the subject of Apollo, you've proven that your very one sided propagandist opinions hardly matter.
straydog02 3 years ago
"And when it comes to your ability to be impartial about the subject of Apollo, you've proven that your very one sided propagandist opinions hardly matter."
As if your opinions aren't one sided? This argument is pointless, return to the first argument do you still suggest that stars would be visible if you had a bright object in view? If so, how do you explain that stars aren't visible if you have even a small light (like a headlamp) in view at night?
zakabog 3 years ago
"...what is relevant is that if a not so bright light can block your view of the stars, than it's entirely possible that floating above the sunlit earth you'd see no stars."
Except that in your former, at least by your tube test, atmospheric diffusion might the cause of not being able to see them, whilst in your latter.... ?
This compare attempt makes your argument appear incongruous.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"Except that in your former, at least by your tube test, atmospheric diffusion might the cause of not being able to see them"
It's like you're not at all capable of understanding this.
The atmospheric diffusion is obviously not the problem if you can view the stars through the tube. That's the point of the tube in the test. That can only leave the possibility that your eyes don't have the dynamic range to view both stars and a bright object at the same time.
zakabog 3 years ago
" That can only leave the possibility that your eyes don't have the dynamic range to view both stars and a bright object at the same time."
But I proved that's not always the case in the light switch test. Iris's were dilated in the very bright room and had no time to open up because the light switch-off and looking up through the skylight were virtually simultaneous.
You seem to consistently underestimate the dynamic light range sensitivity of the healthy human eye.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"Iris's were dilated in the very bright room and had no time to open up because the light switch-off and looking up through the skylight were virtually simultaneous."
Have you ever watched your eyes dilate in a bathroom with no windows? Leave the lights off for a few seconds while you're an inch away from the mirrors, flip the switch on and watch your eye shrink in a fraction of a second.
Your test didn't prove that atmospheric diffusion was causing you to not see stars with the lights on.
zakabog 3 years ago
" Leave the lights off for a few seconds while you're an inch away from the mirrors, flip the switch on and watch your eye shrink in a fraction of a second."
I posted a comment here in reply to you recently, where I made the point that dark adapt opening of the iris is very slow compared to the speed it shrinks with sudden light from dark ( around 14 seconds for any substantial opening ), and probably for evolutionary reasons.
But I can understand you wanting to exaggerate the point zak'
....
michaelstmark 3 years ago
.....
My irises would have had no time to open to any significant degree in the switch test. They were already open wide enough with the lights on to be perfectly able to resister starlight.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"But I can understand you wanting to exaggerate the point zak'"
It doesn't exactly matter much anyway, you still don't acknowledge that if the tube test works (or you can try the other test with a light on one eye) then you know it's not atmospheric light diffusion that's causing your to not be able to view the stars with a bright object in view.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Zakabog". I note you have a bad habit of countering with stuff like " It doesn't exactly matter much anyway" and "its not relevant anyway" when valid inconsistencies are exposed in your previous points.
Its not good enough to throw up debate chaffTM to try to flick off valid challenges to your previous assertions, in order to swiftly move on to other ground to repeat the process.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
""Zakabog". I note you have a bad habit of countering with stuff like " It doesn't exactly matter much anyway" and "its not relevant anyway" when valid inconsistencies are exposed in your previous points."
It really wasn't relevant, your eyes might allow you to see the stars immediately after you shut off the lights but the dynamic range isn't wide enough to be able to see them both at the same time. That's what the tube test shows you since the atmospheric light in the room remains the same.
zakabog 3 years ago
.".your eyes might allow you to see the stars immediately after you shut off the lights but the dynamic range isn't wide enough to be able to see them both at the same time."
It amounts to the same thing in my relevant switch test. My irises were virtually as open a split second after the lights went off as they were in the bright room beforehand.
And your attempt to equate speed of iris dilation at sudden bright light with speed of opening at sudden removal of light was disingenuous.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"It amounts to the same thing in my relevant switch test."
No it doesn't because in your light switch test the ability to see both at the same time isn't factored in. Ever see an object in front of a bright light? Notice how it casts a silhouette? That's because your eye capable of picking up both the bright light and the light reflected off the object at the same time. Just like you can't hear a whisper in a noisy room, you can't see a dim light while looking at a much brighter one.
zakabog 3 years ago
It is factored in because it amounts to the same thing. And reasonable person reading the light switch test parameters would see that.
But there again you're hardly a reasonable person zakabog, in debate at least.
You waste your time haranguing to the end, even in the face of an obvious contradiction to your claims. How sad is that.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"It is factored in because it amounts to the same thing."
No it doesn't. Not in the slightest. You need to factor in the dynamic range, your eyes have a limited range between the brightest object seen in view and the dimmest object seen in view. By turning off the light the brightest object becomes the stars. The tube shows that you should be entirely capable of seeing the stars with the lights on, you have yet to negate that fact and until you do this argument is still in my favor.
zakabog 3 years ago
The dynamic range is the same both before and immediately after the switch is flicked, because the iris openings stay the same.
I'll check out this "tube test" anyway, if I can find it, and comment later.
....but for the time being I think all reasonable people will see the argument is already settled in my favour.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
Correction. Dynamic light range Sensitivity (of the eye) is the same both before and immediately after ....
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"The dynamic range is the same both before and immediately after the switch is flicked, because the iris openings stay the same."
You also ignore the light that is scattered within your eye when the lights are on (basically the glare). It's more noticable at near dusk or dawn when you're driving towards the sun. Look at the traffic light in front of the sun and you can't see much because of the glare from the sun. The glare is noticeable outside too without the windshield in front of you.
zakabog 3 years ago
Glare would probably add to iris dilation and reconfirm my already watertight light switch test result. Appreciated zak'.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"Glare would probably add to iris dilation and reconfirm my already watertight light switch test result. Appreciated zak'. "
The level of light would be the same (as the reflected light inside your eye is less intense than the direct light) but the reflected light would obscure the starlight (since it's much brighter) which could contribute to you not seeing stars.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Glare would probably add to iris dilation and reconfirm my already watertight light switch test result."
Watertight would mean you explained why you can't see the stars with the light on, and would also rule out the possibility that your eyes are only allowing you to see the starlight because the brighter light is no longer in view. As your argument does neither one of those, I wouldn't consider it watertight by any meaning of the word.
zakabog 3 years ago
"You seem to consistently underestimate the dynamic light range sensitivity of the healthy human eye."
Another thing you can try, shine a light into one eye while looking for stars in the other (put something to block the light from hitting your exposed eye.) Your pupils should both be equally dilated so it should be a good test to see if your eyes can pick up the light of the stars while they're that constricted.
That one I haven't tested yet, in theory it should work (I can test it later.)
zakabog 3 years ago
"There are too many unanswered questions for me to believe that Baron was murdered."
There are even more unanswered questions(including his missing 500 page report) to believe that Baron committed suicide and took out his entire family with him.. You better believe his family knew the truth about the Apollo fraud also, and that's why ALL of them needed to be permanately silenced.
straydog02 3 years ago
A 500 page report, exposing the Apollo fraud just magically disappeared, never to be seen again, right after Baron's "suicide by train".
You once asked me how Baron and his family were murdered by train, but at the time I gave you an incorrect answer.. It took awhile for me to figure it out, but now it's pretty obvious how it was done.. They were all killed elsewhere, then placed in their car, which was parked on the tracks .. The perfect black ops CIA "suicide" murder.
straydog02 3 years ago
"You asked who actually kill themselves and their whole families via train. I pointed out numerous cases and you just erased the goal posts and dismissed the whole thing."
No, I merely pointed out that suicide can be committed by train, but one week after testifying against NASA's Apollo debacle, it smelled more like murder.. Especially since Baron's whole family was taken out with him .. Dead people can't testify, or write anymore damaging reports against the moonfakers.
straydog02 3 years ago
"Dead people can't testify, or write anymore damaging reports against the moonfakers. "
During all of your arguments you completely ignore the fact that the report was finished and handed in before he died, his testimony was over (he wasn't going back to court on a later date), and he didn't blame NASA for anything.
I'm not in the mood to discuss Thomas Baron's death on this videos comment section, the idea that NASA murdered him and his family (BY TRAIN!?!) is absurd but you'd never admit it.
zakabog 3 years ago
"During all of your arguments you completely ignore the fact that the report was finished and handed in before he died, his testimony was over (he wasn't going back to court on a later date), and he didn't blame NASA for anything."
You completely ignore the fact that his 500 page report against the Apollo Program went "missing", never to be seen again, immediately after his and his family's "suicide by train" deaths.
What's absurd is your inability to admit that they were murdered.
straydog02 3 years ago
"When you claimed NASA killed Thomas Baron for his report that blamed NASA, I went and found his testimony and showed it wasn't critical of NASA. I showed his negative comments were all directed at NAA. So was his short report. You then decided "well NASA is to blame because they hired NAA!" Which is ridiculous because as far as NASA knew NAA could do the job."
Not this crap again?.. NAA was under contract with NASA, so NASA was responsible for the junk they built. Junk that Baron exposed.
straydog02 3 years ago
"Not this crap again?.. NAA was under contract with NASA, so NASA was responsible for the junk they built. Junk that Baron exposed."
Exactly my point, you won't admit that Thomas Baron was not critical of NASA, he had no qualms with them. He only wanted them to stop using NAA and was trying to expose NAA's lack of quality assurance. Yet for some reason you manage to twist things around so that even though Thomas Baron doesn't speak badly about NASA, somehow he's blaming NASA through NAA?
zakabog 3 years ago
By the way, you're doing it again. I was pointing out situations where you moved the goal posts, and you move the goal posts again.
If you hire an accomplished contractor and they burn your house down, IT'S THE CONTRACTORS FAULT. You know that but it doesn't help your argument so you fight against it or move the goal post again and say "Thomas Baron criticized NASA in his larger report but you don't know for a fact cause it's gone and he must have criticized NASA cause the reports gone!"
zakabog 3 years ago
"By the way, you're doing it again. I was pointing out situations where you moved the goal posts, and you move the goal posts again."
By the way, unlike you I do have a life and need to go.. Say, you're not still at "work" are you?.. LMAO!
Speaking of "moving the goal posts", congrats for doing just that!.. Dragging up the old debate about Baron was a great distraction tactic to get away from the stars debate, that you had already LOST.
Talk about moving the goal posts.. You're a pro!
straydog02 3 years ago
"Speaking of "moving the goal posts", congrats for doing just that!.. Dragging up the old debate about Baron was a great distraction tactic to get away from the stars debate, that you had already LOST."
... I didn't bring up the debate I brought up examples of you moving the goal post in reply to your comment about how you never move the goal post.
My goal post is for you to try the simple view stars in a brightly lit stadium with your bare eyes, then through a cardboard tube experiment.
zakabog 3 years ago
"... I didn't bring up the debate I brought up examples of you moving the goal post in reply to your comment about how you never move the goal post."
If this isn't bringing up the Baron debate and using more distraction tactics, I don't know what is!
You never refuted any of the evidence I presented about Baron's suspicious death, or the fact that the Apollo astronots never mentioned seeing any stars from space.
As for my "moving the goal posts", I didn't change the subject.. You did.
straydog02 3 years ago
"As for my "moving the goal posts", I didn't change the subject.. You did."
You claimed you never moved the goal posts, I pointed out examples to counter your argument, I didn't want a debate on Thomas Baron (I still don't.) Like I said before the goal posts still stand where they were, attempt the stadium experiment, that's it, that's the goal post, it's still where it was, it hasn't moved.
zakabog 3 years ago
"I'm at work, I work on a computer and most of your arguments take about 4 seconds to form a reply to. This isn't taking up too much time, outside of work I continue with the rest of my life and ignore youtube."
Stop pretending to have any job outside of defending Apollo on YouTube.. It doesn't take just "four seconds" to reply to every single comment you respond to, ALL DAY LONG, TO EVERY CT WHO POSTS HERE.
straydog02 3 years ago
"Stop pretending t