Have you noticed that, in those video clips showing the telescope, the astronaut was in a completely dark shadow? He was not lighted up like all other photos. It was another direct contraction with the photos which use fill-in lights. If he was showing in this video as black as the shadow, why he was seen all white in the others?
Btw, most of Apollo missions arrived at the moon dust or moon dawn. The sun light was not very strong, as seem by the long shadows. Stars should be brighter.
God. Shane Killion annoys me to no end. I feel ashamed to have the same view about Apollo as him... At least I don't scream my head off at the camera.
You imply that there is nothing to gain by putting a telescope on the moon because the stars are not visible by the bare eye?? Well, even I know the follwoing things:
1. A telescope is not a bare eye.
2. The moon has a day and a night side as well! In fact, your video itself reveals that the plan is to use the telescopes mainly when they are on the dark side of the moon. The anstronauts were actually on the bright side
Your videos are an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense!
Regarding the benefits of having telescopes on the Moon:
It all depends on the instruments you have cargo capacity to take there, and the amount of time you have to use the instruments.
With a large array of telescopes on the far side, and a permanent base to work from, you could conduct some VERY significant astronomy.
A small telescope on the moon for one or two days offers scientific results far less valuable than the greater science benefits it would crowd from the mission. Economy!
Once people have seen the evidence, there's nothing shills like Lamson can do to make people think they went to the moon.
video google com/videoplay?docid=-3622009579385499503
video google es/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748
When starting a moon thread I put all the evidence on the first page. That way they can't use the tactic of trying to bury the evidence with their BS and their effect is almost nill.
...."straydog02, I have read your comments in other threads, and you are an acute observer and make valid comments. But read your last comments: you have proved my point. The NASA/CIA/Pentagon miscreants are misdirecting, misleading, distracting confusing, time/resource wasting and obfuscating proper investigation into the REAL issue, which is that NASA's Apollo program never landed a man on the moon. You and I know that we have Class A evidence that NASA's 'evidence' of Apollo is a TOTAL lie."
..But unfortunately in craig lamson's sad and intellectually limited case, he only knows how to use riducule and character assassinations against the conspiracy evidence and those who have exposed it. And as we all know, this old school program of suppressing government lies and conspiracy evidence, has long since been exposed for the bullshit it trully is.
Read #5 of 'The 25 Rules of Disinformation' and you will see what lamson's agenda is here.
In a nutshell you are simply NUTS straydog. Sadly for you and your tubetard friends I bring unimpeachable empricial evidence to the table that simply blows your fantasy out of the water.
I can understand you wanting to run away, like most chickens do, you have been beaten and you want to try and save face. Too bad, the absolute depth the ignorance of you and your friends is availabe for everyone to see.
Intelligent and thinking people know just how nuts you tards really are.
"In a nutshell you are simply NUTS straydog. Sadly for you and your tubetard friends I bring unimpeachable empricial evidence to the table that simply blows your fantasy out of the water."
The only fantasy we have here is the one about NASA landing men on the Moon almost 40 years ago, and of course your fantasy of proving it happened with your pretense of "unimpeachable and empirical evidence".
"I can understand you wanting to run away, like most chickens do, you have been beaten and you want to try and save."
I am not running away from discussing Apollo with intelligent human beings.. There's just no point in discussing it any longer with an illiterate, insulting, game playing, cyber bully, socipath who has shit for brains.
Intelligent and thinking people know just how insane and dishonest some of you Apollo apologists and NASA shills really are.
Of course you are running away. When the heat gets too much you either try and change the subject or say you are going to do something and then don't. Pure chickenshit. Y
ou are AFRAID of the truth, and AFRAID your carefully constructed fantasy world will fall down around your ears.
You can't discuss the isuues because you are simply too stupid to understand the issues. Heck you have proven in this thread you can't even figure out how a mirror works and you are AFRAID to learn.
Hey, thanks again for proving that you're a game playing, sociopathic asshole who ALWAYS has to have the final word.
Human evil is vewy vewy scawy, indeed!
Things like craig lamson are described in the book 'The People of the Lie' by Dr. Scott Peck .. He decribes exactly what human evil is, how prevalent these creeps are in today's society and how to best deal with them.
Oh, sorry .. That link doesn't seem to be working .. Try this in the search engine here..
'Translated) Angry German Kid vs. Bart Sibrel'
The little freak in this video is how I've pictured you ar your computer many times.
Get a life you loser .. Apollo was a hoax and there's nothing that your extremely limited intellectual abilities, your insults, your obvious insanity, and your phony "empirical evidence" can do about it.
Yes it does. You argument was totally based on tortured tubetard logic from the gitgo and it got worse as it went along. We will be happy to accept your concession now.
Whats for Neil to fib about? He did'nt see stars while on the surface? So what? He was on the moon to see the MOON!
Can you show that he tried and failed? Of course not.
Fricking amazing what your warped worldview produces. Enjoy your fantasy land.
magoos.. I see that the battle with that insane maggot lamson has continued.. He has even posted some more bullshit, claiming victory !?!.. LOL
Let it go buddy.. he is not human.. he's a lying sociopath.. he will never back down and he is not worth the bother.
I'm sorry I ever allowed him to continue to play his sick game with me here.. Let him go back to the EF to shit all over everyone there, because all he is doing on U-T is wasting your time with his psycho mind fuck games.
Oh Duane, You lie like a rug and then you claim its others doing the lying! Fricking amazing. Get some help and soon. Perhaps there is a chance you can salvage something from your worhless life.
You and your fantasy has been busted. Oh I know you can't let the truth in as it would spoil your neat little fantasy world. Sadly for you the truth is NOT what you "believe".
You are a delusional and paranoid person duane, quite sick actually. Seek help soon.
Disinformation artist MRphotofraud craig lamson also uses this tactic from 'The 25 Rules of Disinformation.'
"They express complete disdain for "conspiracy theorists". Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a SINGLE TOPIC focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain."
"Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary "attack the messenger" ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy nuts", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues."
...But of course in lamson's pathetic case, he prefers to use even more immature insults such as; "tubetards", "ignorant", "moron", "stupid" etc. Which sadly for him, describe himself instead of those he attacks.
Hes just about to explain the FACTS and why when Phil Plait states at BA that if you were standing on the Moon even during the day you would see the stars, Craig in his deluded mind thinks that means that something else
Like most liars, he ALWAYS has the floor, and of course uses these tactics also, from his disinfo handbook.
"They never actually discuss issues head on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility."
We know from the Aldrin LM egress photos and the Apollo 14 LM specials that quite an amazing amount of light can be reflected back towards the shadow side of the LM so my question is no matter what way Cernan was looking his eyes must have prevented from dark ajusting.
"You don't HAVE any evidence duane...thats the problem.
And you can't refute the empirical evidence that destroys your position so you simply lie your butt off."
And I repeat..
If you can't comprehend the simple fact that Plait's claim about being able to see stars while standing on the daylight side of the Moon, is a COMPLETE CONTRADICTION to Armstrong's claim of needing "optics" to see stars from the daylight side Moon, then you are beyond stupid.. You are completely retarded.
Craig Lamson is a game playing, lying NASA shill, who uses only one of the '25 RULES OF DISINFORMATION', in his pathetic attempt to defend the Apollo lie.
Being the hateful sociopath that he is, he has chosen the method of RIDICULE as his favorite MO, which is NUMBER 5.
Well since you can't understand simple everyday things like how a mirror works, there are simply no options left for someone with a level of ignorance as great as yours.
You live in a fantasy world where you THINK your ideas dispute accepted science.
All thats left for you duane 'dummy' daman is continued ridicule. Enjoy it...you earned it fair and square.
lamson also uses this tactic, which works very well for a sociopath.
"An odd kind of "artificial" emotionalism and an unusually thick skin - an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a propaganda artist is that emotions can seem artificial."
...None of our Apollo 11 "heros" could even answer the question of what it felt like to be the first men to step onto another world.. They were so ashamed by not being able to honestly answer that question, that they couldn't even look up at the person asking it.
"...Maybe yu can convince the other idiots you hang with, but not the educated and FREE THINKING people of the world...."
You actually you believe you're one of the "educated and FREE THINKING people of the world"?!!?
That's one of the funniest lies you have ever posted!.. You are the most closed minded, uneducated, non-thinking, asshole I've ever encountered!.. Most radical conservatives are.
Yep, I'm one of the free thinking and educated and you are not, as your many many posts prove.
You are a sheep, believing ANYTHING as long as it fits your warped worldview. Never mind that your "beliefs" break all the established physical rules of our universe...duane"dummy daman, know best!
"Yep, I'm one of the free thinking and educated and you are not, as your many many posts prove."
You obviously need to read my posts again then MRphotofreak, because my spelling, typing, grammar, and most importantly my vocabulary, prove not only my level of intelligence but also my level of education.
While the mis-spelled, simplistic, insulting garbage you post here, proves that you're an uneducated moron, with the mentality of an obnoxious, ill-mannered grade school bully.
I guess they forgot to teach you about how a mirror, camera, light, shadow, AOI and law of the inverse square worked while you were gaining that 5th grade level of education you flaunt here on the internet.
Freaking amazing duane. Seek professioanl help soon. You are slipping fast.
The only thing that really matters is whether or not the shills from Clavius are able to sway the opinion of the viewers. Lamson has said such lame things here that he has pretty much discredited himself so only the people who are predisposed to believe in Apollo will end up thinking the landings were real.
You can pretend all you want Lamson but you aren't affecting the opinions of any thinking people who are reading this comment section.
"His statement tells us that the lack of an atmoshere like earths on the moon does not obscure the stars in the lunar sky."
Which means all the Apollo astronots had to do was to LOOK UP AT THEM! But I guess they were so busy they forgot the stars where even there. Armstrong was an AVID STAR GAZER. He said that one of the reasons he wanted to go into space was to LOOK AT THE STARS. But when he allegedly walked on the Moon he forgot to look up at them, or even mention ever seeing any!?!..Right.
I'm an avid star gazer and if I was on the moon I would be interested in the moon.
And no, yo uwould NOT be able to ust look up and see stars, they are TOO dim. Remeber the law of the inverse square? Oh wait, you are too stupid...sorry.
Heres a little tibit that destroys your tubetard logic on this. It takes the light of the sun 8 mins to reach us, it takes the light of the nearest star, the 4th brightest, 4.2 YEARS to reach us. You do the math. Just look up? How stupid!
"I'm an avid star gazer and if I was on the moon I would be interested in the moon."
Yeah, but traveling those 239,00 miles on the way to the Moon, with nothing to do but eat and sleep and look out the window, as an "avid star gazer", you would have looked at the stars and seen a sight like you have never seen before in your life ( in your case your miserable life ) and you would have at least mentioned how incredible the stars looked.
Again you claim that the sight of the stars would be something special. Why? Just how much do you think the atmosphere on the earth changes the view? Facts please of tell us h ow wrong you are again.
Phil Plait's statement is a COMPLETE CONTRADICTION to Neil Armstrong's statement about not being able to see stars from the DAYLIGHT SIDE OF THE MOON WITHOUT LOOKING THROUGH THE OPTICS, and everybody knows it's a complete contradiction except for FUCKING RETARDS like you.
Lying again eh duane, you just can't help yourself can you. You need to be in the care of a mental health professional and fast!
One last time for the ignorant like you. No contradiction at all between Plait and Armstrong.
Plait's comments ONLY STATE that there is NO ATMOSPHERE on the moon to mask stars in sunlight and as such they are visable in daylight. He MAKES NO CLAIMS NOR STATEMENTS about the conditions required to see them.
You are using tortured tubetard logic again idiot!
stray if there anything positive that can possibly come from dealing with Lamson it surely must be ones appreciation of how easy it is to operate a camera.
Even inbred redneck throwback monkeys like Craig can take pictures.
"Even inbred redneck throwback monkeys like Craig can take pictures."
Yep, even inbred redneck throwback monkeys with their very own photo studios in Jumpoff Place, Indiana can figure out how take pictures! .. And post disinformation too!
Yes only a dumbass geek monkey would take photos of planes and spaceraft and then publish them in a public forum for his fellow dumbass geek monkeys to slabber over as if they were watching a porno starring Claudia Schiffer.
At least Lamson has the excuse of being a dumbass American who believes everything he is told by the halfwits he votes for.
I'm quite proud to be an American and I don't have to "believe" anything when it comes to Apollo. Solid, empirical and unimpeachable facts tell me Apollo was real.
I do suppose your massive ignorance leaves you no other choice but to 'believe" in the lies of the hoaxers. It the only thing your warped worldview will allow. Quite sad really, but not unexpected for a member of the tubetards.
Translated from mr magoo speak. "I can't even begin to deal with the facts so I'll make yet another failed attempt to spin my way out of the hole I dug for myself by making a lame insult."
You ain't fooling anybody mr. magoo, proof of your ignorance is available for eveyone to see. You, are a tubetard.
Anytime you think you have the brains and the balls to try and impeach my empirical evidence, take yor best shot.
I thought you had found an excuse for a transcriber mixing the drunk alcoholic up with shifty MC.
Not suprised your just attempting another sentence with your favourite big words.
Try buying a dictionary.
You'll find other big words in there and one day you might fool somebody into thinking that you aren't a redneck inbred throwback knuckle dragging chimp.
But there is absolutely no point debating you because you are a moron who cannot even be honest and admit that professional Astronomers who state that you should be able to see the stars above the average albedo of 7% lunar surface completely contradicts the testimony of the first man to allegedy walk there.
So tell us mr magoo who are these professional astronomers who state "that you should be able to see the stars above the average albedo of 7% lunar surface"
The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars.
On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.
Thank you for proving your lie. Plait NEVER says "that you should be able to see the stars above the average albedo of 7% lunar surface" In fact he NEVER says ANYTHING about the conditions required to see stars while standing on the moon.
All Plait says in hhis very clear statement (at least clear to thinking adults and that leaves you out)is that the lack of atmosphere does not mask the stars.
All you offer is more tortured tubetard logic and lies.
And where are the rest of these "professional Astronomers" (note the plural as written by you)?
And finally can you offer ANY evidence that the lihgt from the Nearst star (over 4 LIGHT YEARS AWAY) would be strong enough to overpower even the reflected sunlight from the lunar surface?
I can't wait watch you try and spin your way out of this one.
Or maybe you can just do a daman and show your ignorance....and proclaim yourself smarter than accepted science and inverse square.
Mr. Magoo sez: "Because barring total blindness as long as your own personal recepticles are working you'll see them."
I'll ask again how you know that? Plait never said the things you ascribe to him, you simply lied about that. So now tell us how a star over 4 lihgt years away is bright enough to bee seen by eyes adapted to even the suns REFLECION from the lunar surface.
Great, that amounts to about 3 photographic stops of exposure.
So how does that compare to the dim light of the closest star to earth, a star who's light takes 4.2 YEARS to reach us compared to the 8 mins for the light of our sun? The visual magnitudes are WELL KNOWN as is the law of the inverse square.
You got caught lying about Plaits statement now lets see if you are HONEST enough to understand some simple physics. Despite your attempt at spin you have failed to answer the question.
'So how does that compare to the dim light of the closest star to earth, a star who's light takes 4.2 YEARS to reach us compared to the 8 mins for the light of our sun? The visual magnitudes are WELL KNOWN as is the law of the inverse square.'
Yes thats why the Sun is a big giant yellow ball in the sky and stars are wee tiny point of light not tinkleling on the atmosphereless Moon.
As long as you weren't staring continually at the big giant yellow ball you'd see the millions of stars.
Right well YOU tell us the facts Craig and while your at it explain why when Phil Plait says if you were standing on the Moon even during the day you'd see stars why you take that to mean you wouldn't see stars?
I've told you the facts, you are simply too stupid to understand. The facts are plain and simple. The sun reflected off of the lunar surface in MANY MAGNITUDES brighter than the closest star to the moon. The dynamic range between the two is much larger that the human eye can handle WITHOUT a period of dark adaptation.
The other facts are slso clear. You are a bald faced liar.
My position and Phils are perfectly comsistant. You can see stars on the moon during the daytime.
I do know from personal empirical evidence that it take MY EYES at least 5 mins to dark adapt to see stars after coming outside of a lamp lit interior.
The reflection of the lunar surface is many times brighter that that.
Now its YOUR turn mr magoo. How much dimmer are the stars than the sun reflected form the lunar surface.
'I do know from personal empirical evidence that it take MY EYES at least 5 mins to dark adapt to see stars after coming outside of a lamp lit interior.'
But you are referring to the human eye being exposed to two extremes- light THEN dark.
How do you know the human eye wouldn't be able to adapt to view the surface and the stars simultanousely?
The real question is why you think they should be able to see both? Your position flies in the face of all accepted knowlege. I suggest you do a bit of study about the human eye and then perhaps you would not look so fricking stupid.
But here is a primer. One order of magnitude is a difference of 2.5 times. That a star that has a mag of 3 it 2.5 times brighter that a mag 4 star.
The sun has a magnitude of -27, the brightest star a mag of 1.4
No I'm not necessarily agreeing that dark adaption is required.
I'm asking you to explain how Gene Cernan was able to because he can't lift his helmet directly upwards so he must be looking towards the horizon and the reflected light from the surface will also be entering his iris not allowing his eyes to adjust.
No I'm asking you to explain the princple of dark adjusting particularly Gene Cernans claims that he was able to see the stars in the shadow side of the LM
No you are up a creek without a pqaddle and your endless spin gets you nowhere.
I explained how dark adapting works in general terms as best as this venue allows. You want more you will need to do the work yourseelf.
I've not read Cernans statements so I can't state what he did to see stars nor how many he saw.
But your claim that he must have had the horizon in his view is false. In the shadow of the LM he could have looked TOWARD it without seeing the surface.
No I appreciate you explanation in general terms because believe it not I've also experienced my eyes having to adjust when I've left a cinema for exp.
Hmmmm if he was looking towards the LM and the lighting conditions were anyway close to the Aldrin egress photos I'm fairly sure his eyes would have been prevented from dark adjusting.
So now you have gone from just looking up to see stars, to maybe dark adapting, to must see the lunar surface to the LM shaodow being too bright to dark adapt. WOw!
As I stated I don't know what Cernan did or did not do, not to what level he was able to see stars. And remember the egrees photos had exposure correction at taking and in post processing. In other words they were "dark adapted"
Well get onto Captain Pugwash for the mission time he REALLY tried to look for the stars and we'll check the tv footage to see how EXACTLY he looked for them.
Be my guest. You are the one who attempted to cover your lie by shifting the subject and are the one making the claims about Cernan. So do the research yourself. At least that would make you a USEFUL idiot.
You trying to deflect again mr.magoo? I've not read Cernans statements as I stated. You on the other hand brought him into the discussion because you got caught in a lie.
Now if you want to do the research be my guest. I' really don't care.
Your problem is that your lie about Plaits statement got busted. You were shown to be less than honest. Your tortured tubetard logic was exposed. Deal with it. You lost.
I haven't been caught in a lie at all Mr Lamson and I'd appreciate not being accused of it thanks.
I brought Cernan into it because he is the only one that claimed he could see stars so I was interested how dark adustment would work in the shadow of the LM.
Of course you have. Need I go back AGAIN and prove your lie? Or woudl that be the first lie, the second is the one you just posted saying you were not caught in a lie.
If you don't want to be called out for your lies, then don't tell them.
You brought up Cernan because you got caught telling a lie and you tried to deflect.
No I tried to get you to explain how Cernans eyes could have dark adjusted in the shadow side with that ever so bright lunar surface surrounding it.
Your best attempt at explaining it was that Cernan was standing looking into the LM and he might just have looked above the LM avoiding all those mountains that surrounded the Apollo 17 landing site.
'But your claim that he must have had the horizon in his view is false. In the shadow of the LM he could have looked TOWARD it without seeing the surface.'
I'm afraid that you would still need to move your gaze away from the LM Craig because you wouldn't see the stars in the LM (UNLESS YOU WERE DRUNK BUZZ)
and even if your eyes had adjusted the light from the surface would immediately flood the iris so no doubt Cernan is talking as much drivel as you.
magoo sez: "I'm afraid that you would still need to move your gaze away from the LM Craig because you wouldn't see the stars in the LM"
So now you claim that an astronaut could not look up enough to see over the top of the LM and that they could not use their hands to narrow the field of view?
You still have failed to deal with the light values of the stars and the range of human vision.
DO you still claim Plait says all you need to do is look up?
No, you WERE dealing with Phil Plait and Armstrong, and seeing that you were getting your hat handed to you are now attempting to divert attention from both your lies and your failures. And don't attempt to put words in my mouth. I've made no claims as to what if anything Cernan was actually doing. I've posited differnt ideas to counter your statements.
Try and tell the truth if you can.
The cold hard facts about light and the human eye destroy your claims about Plait and Armstrong.
And why are we all lying again? Oh yea..because of YOUR lie you need to claim everyone else lied. What circular and very tortured tubetard logic. But is the best someone of your limited intellect can muster I guess.
The only liar here is you, and that has been proven in thes very thread.
You need to run along to your rathole now mr. magoo, you rat mommy is calling,
'The eyes MUST dark adapt, the stars as simply too dim to see with some dark adaption. They fall OUTSIDE of non dark adapted human vision.'
Is that so? Well Gene Cernan COULD NOT lift his helmet directly upwards so whatever way he looks the reflected light from the surface will be entering his iris preventing ANY dark adjustment.
BTW what is the mission time that he glimpsed the stars and I'll check the DVD's.
See my last post, your tortured logic is on display once again.
And yes the light values of the stars are WELL KNOWN. They fall OUTSIDE the range of non dark adapted human vison. This is unimpeachable.
And yes the dynamic range of the human eye is also well known. Starlight falls outside of the non dark adapted dynamic range of the human eye. This is unimpeachable.
You are toast. If you were an honest broker you would admit your error. I'm not holding my breath.
Ask Lamson here. Hes an Apollo expert.He can remember what year a transcript of a press conference was released but hasn't heard that Gene Cernan claimed he could see stars in the shadow side of the LM.
Thats just about as believable as swector the deflector claiming he missed the Apollo 15 flag on his collection of Apollo DVD's.
Lamson isn't the one claiming Cernan said he saw stars on the dark side of the LM, I just searched ALL of the Apollo 17 transcripts for the word "star " or "stars" and found nothing. You're the one claiming he said he saw stars, the burden of proof is on you.
I'm sorry it's kind of important to know the context of the quote. I can believe that Cernan said he saw stars (which would just make him wrong, not a liar since he could very well believe he saw them when he didn't), but I wouldn't believe that he said he saw them while on the surface of the moon.
I don't mind it being important to you to know the context of it I'd just prefer not to have the burden of proving it as if I was making it up thanks.
"I don't mind it being important to you to know the context of it I'd just prefer not to have the burden of proving it as if I was making it up thanks."
Okay I found the quote (posted a link in another comment), wasn't from the surface, but he described exactly what I was thinking. He had to try to see the stars. They weren't clearly visible he had to take time to allow his eyes to focus, and shield the light with his hand.
The lunar surface on average only reflects 7% of the light back that hits the surface.
There is no atmosphere to scatter the light.
Therefore any moonwalker only had to shield there eyes from the Sun and the light from the Earth and look towards the sky ANYWHERE on the Moon not just the shade of the LM.
A human eye cannot properly dark adjust on a environment where whatever way he looks light will flood his iris.
magoo sez: "The lunar surface on average only reflects 7% of the light back that hits the surface."
So you now claim that the sunlit lunar surface AND stars in the sky can bee seen at the same time? Oh yea, you claimed that Plait said that. That was your lie.
Proof magoos...proof. Your lying words don't cut it. Show us data that supports the human eye can see the sunlit lunar surfce and the starts at he same time. Good luck with that one.
Go step by step and explain to me how Gene Cernan busying himself away at the LM could have totally shielded his eyes from any reflective source( that includes the LM, the light from the surface, the mountains, space suits) dark adjusted and managed to glimpse the stars without any stray light flooding his irises.
magoo sez: "What was the name of the thread at the EF please?"
Excuse me? You made this claim: "He posts his garbage at a forum where one of his friends at least TWICE in the past couple of months as far as I can remember published the link about Cernan seeing stars.
He would have seen it. TRUST ME."
So whats the deal? Your claim not based in fact? Sheesh!
Your claim said AT LEAST TWICE and PUBLISHED THE LINK.
Where is the second and where is the link?
So, like your claim that plural ASTRONMERS say you can see stars on the moon, you are once again wrong. I guess we just can't believe a thing you say can we?
ALL Professional Astronomers AGREE that if they had wanted to take pics of stars on the Moon they merely had to set the cameras up on a tripod for a 30 sec exposure.
You try and consider for a minute just how much more complex and dynamic the human eye is and transfer that 30 secs.
And if you seriously think that just ONE man out of twelve made the only attempt to look at the stars while they were allegedly on the Moon then there is no helping you.
And BTW you may like to look back over Mr Lamsons rants here and ask yourself why was he denying that he knew anything about Cernans claims.
He posts his garbage at a forum where one of his friends at least TWICE in the past couple of months as far as I can remember published the link about Cernan seeing stars.
Sigh...Oh mr magoo, what a case you are. You are like a shape shifter, moving your argument around when you get cornered. I went back and found a thread on EF where Gavin Hunt posteed Cernans comments. I was posting in the thread but I did'nt comment on the Cernan remarks nor do I remember reading it. Your claim that I "would have seen it TRUST ME" is garbage. You reallydo like oty make up stuff out of thin air don't you. Liars are like that. BTW that thread was from NOV.
You are corrct, I have a client named Gavin Hunt, the pposter was Gavin Stone, my mistake.
My lies? Please detail them.
Now repeat after me...reflected light from the lunar surface is quite bright and the human eye can only see as low as 50% moonlit brightness without dark adaption. Thats 50% ON EARTH. Use the law of the inverse square and see how much brighter that reflected light is ON THE SURFACE OF THE MOON.
This is beyond your ken, magoo. Give it up. You look like an idiot.
"... I can believe that Cernan said he saw stars (which would just make him wrong, not a liar since he could very well believe he saw them when he didn't), but I wouldn't believe that he said he saw them while on the surface of the moon."
I remember where a couple of NASA shills on the Education Forum made the claim that Cernan said he saw stars while standing in a shadow .. They even quoted him.
I will see if I can track those posts down again to post Cernan's quote.
"It was also generally true that, when you were on the surface in the LM's shadow, there were too many bright things in your field-of-view for the stars to be visible."
He goes on to say if you allow your eyes to focus, slightly shielding them from the light with your hand, it's possible to see stars, which makes perfect sense.
The hunmam eye can only see via iris changes a light level as low as moonlight at 50%. This is MUCH brighter that the brightest star.
To see at lower levels the eye must dark adapt. The cones of the eye require 5-7 mins to dark adapt and the rods require 3--45 mins.
The kicker is that once the process of dark adaption stars ANY brihgt light, such as the reflection from the inside of an Apollo helmet kills the process. You need to start all over.
So barring total Astro-not stupidity( that might not include Alan Bean) as long as they weren't continually staring directly at the Sun or each other spacesuits what their eyes were focusing on- the lunar surface reflecting just 7% of the sunlight that hits the surface- wouldn't have been that bright.
Thats why they would have easily seen the stars.
Thats why Plait said it and why you'll just have to accept that Neil Armstrong wasn't there.
Have you noticed that, in those video clips showing the telescope, the astronaut was in a completely dark shadow? He was not lighted up like all other photos. It was another direct contraction with the photos which use fill-in lights. If he was showing in this video as black as the shadow, why he was seen all white in the others?
Btw, most of Apollo missions arrived at the moon dust or moon dawn. The sun light was not very strong, as seem by the long shadows. Stars should be brighter.
philpw99 3 months ago
Comment removed
philpw99 3 months ago
God. Shane Killion annoys me to no end. I feel ashamed to have the same view about Apollo as him... At least I don't scream my head off at the camera.
yesiamawizardjonny 6 months ago
please, no more killian clips. the guys voice grates on my nerves like nothing else.
dudeeful1 8 months ago
@dudeeful1 Yeah. I fully agree with that.
yesiamawizardjonny 6 months ago
NASA = FAKE
fuckutube74 1 year ago
Thousands of photos, not one photograph of the stars...
Simboiss 2 years ago 3
You imply that there is nothing to gain by putting a telescope on the moon because the stars are not visible by the bare eye?? Well, even I know the follwoing things:
1. A telescope is not a bare eye.
2. The moon has a day and a night side as well! In fact, your video itself reveals that the plan is to use the telescopes mainly when they are on the dark side of the moon. The anstronauts were actually on the bright side
Your videos are an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense!
Eisteeskandal 2 years ago
Regarding the benefits of having telescopes on the Moon:
It all depends on the instruments you have cargo capacity to take there, and the amount of time you have to use the instruments.
With a large array of telescopes on the far side, and a permanent base to work from, you could conduct some VERY significant astronomy.
A small telescope on the moon for one or two days offers scientific results far less valuable than the greater science benefits it would crowd from the mission. Economy!
satweavers 3 years ago
Lamson-- you are about as impressive as the Black Knight in this video.
/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno
Notice how he ridicules the people who are "Running away".
Cosmored 3 years ago
Oh look, the coke troll is back. Is your nose running again?
Whats the matter troll, can't get anyone to play with you?
Kiss off.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
Once people have seen the evidence, there's nothing shills like Lamson can do to make people think they went to the moon.
video google com/videoplay?docid=-3622009579385499503
video google es/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748
When starting a moon thread I put all the evidence on the first page. That way they can't use the tactic of trying to bury the evidence with their BS and their effect is almost nill.
s1 zetaboards com/LooseChangeForums/topic/51606/1/?x=0
Cosmored 3 years ago
Cosmo .. sergemck summed up this situation very acurately in one of his recent comments to me ..
and I quote; ( And couldn't have said it better myself) ....
straydog02 3 years ago
...."straydog02, I have read your comments in other threads, and you are an acute observer and make valid comments. But read your last comments: you have proved my point. The NASA/CIA/Pentagon miscreants are misdirecting, misleading, distracting confusing, time/resource wasting and obfuscating proper investigation into the REAL issue, which is that NASA's Apollo program never landed a man on the moon. You and I know that we have Class A evidence that NASA's 'evidence' of Apollo is a TOTAL lie."
straydog02 3 years ago
..But unfortunately in craig lamson's sad and intellectually limited case, he only knows how to use riducule and character assassinations against the conspiracy evidence and those who have exposed it. And as we all know, this old school program of suppressing government lies and conspiracy evidence, has long since been exposed for the bullshit it trully is.
Read #5 of 'The 25 Rules of Disinformation' and you will see what lamson's agenda is here.
In a nutshell, he is not worth the bother.
straydog02 3 years ago
In a nutshell you are simply NUTS straydog. Sadly for you and your tubetard friends I bring unimpeachable empricial evidence to the table that simply blows your fantasy out of the water.
I can understand you wanting to run away, like most chickens do, you have been beaten and you want to try and save face. Too bad, the absolute depth the ignorance of you and your friends is availabe for everyone to see.
Intelligent and thinking people know just how nuts you tards really are.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
"In a nutshell you are simply NUTS straydog. Sadly for you and your tubetard friends I bring unimpeachable empricial evidence to the table that simply blows your fantasy out of the water."
The only fantasy we have here is the one about NASA landing men on the Moon almost 40 years ago, and of course your fantasy of proving it happened with your pretense of "unimpeachable and empirical evidence".
LOL
straydog02 3 years ago
Refute my evidence if you can dummy. Of course the problem is you can't. And why? because by your OWN WORDS the subject matter is beyond you.
All you have left is "belief" in things you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.
That you "believe" without even attempting to see if your "beliefs" are true is a sure sign of being nuts.
oh...doink doink.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
"I can understand you wanting to run away, like most chickens do, you have been beaten and you want to try and save."
I am not running away from discussing Apollo with intelligent human beings.. There's just no point in discussing it any longer with an illiterate, insulting, game playing, cyber bully, socipath who has shit for brains.
Intelligent and thinking people know just how insane and dishonest some of you Apollo apologists and NASA shills really are.
straydog02 3 years ago
Of course you are running away. When the heat gets too much you either try and change the subject or say you are going to do something and then don't. Pure chickenshit. Y
ou are AFRAID of the truth, and AFRAID your carefully constructed fantasy world will fall down around your ears.
You can't discuss the isuues because you are simply too stupid to understand the issues. Heck you have proven in this thread you can't even figure out how a mirror works and you are AFRAID to learn.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
Hey psychotard from hell .. nasascam made a video about a little lunatic Nazi who acts just like you do! .. LOL
watch?v=XjX-BJWa9mg&feature=email
straydog02 3 years ago
Hey, thanks for once again proving my point about you. Here you go AGAIN running away like the little iginorant chickenshit you are.
doink doink, oyu lose again tard.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
Hey, thanks again for proving that you're a game playing, sociopathic asshole who ALWAYS has to have the final word.
Human evil is vewy vewy scawy, indeed!
Things like craig lamson are described in the book 'The People of the Lie' by Dr. Scott Peck .. He decribes exactly what human evil is, how prevalent these creeps are in today's society and how to best deal with them.
RUN AWAY! ... LMAO !!
straydog02 3 years ago
Oh, sorry .. That link doesn't seem to be working .. Try this in the search engine here..
'Translated) Angry German Kid vs. Bart Sibrel'
The little freak in this video is how I've pictured you ar your computer many times.
Get a life you loser .. Apollo was a hoax and there's nothing that your extremely limited intellectual abilities, your insults, your obvious insanity, and your phony "empirical evidence" can do about it.
straydog02 3 years ago
'I bring unimpeachable empricial evidence to the table that simply blows your fantasy out of the water.'
You bring two big words here that you have cut and past from Jay Utah posts, and don't personally understand and a lot of hilarity Lamson.
Cheers
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"...when you were on the surface in the LM's shadow, there were too many
bright things in your field-of-view for the stars to be visible. But I
remember that I wanted to see whether I could see stars, and there were
times out on the surface when I found that, if you allowed yourself to just
focus and maybe even just shielded your eyes to some degree, even outside
the LM shadow you could see stars in the sky. I could see stars through my
helmet visor; not easily, but it can be done."
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Great, your post of Cernans comments finally KILL your entire argument.
We will accept your concession now.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
Does it now?
'We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics'
Seems Neil plus the other ten alleged moonwalkers were too busy galloping and thudding golf balls to notice the stars.
Or Neil's telling fibs.
You would know all about that wouldn't you chimp?
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Yes it does. You argument was totally based on tortured tubetard logic from the gitgo and it got worse as it went along. We will be happy to accept your concession now.
Whats for Neil to fib about? He did'nt see stars while on the surface? So what? He was on the moon to see the MOON!
Can you show that he tried and failed? Of course not.
Fricking amazing what your warped worldview produces. Enjoy your fantasy land.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
magoos.. I see that the battle with that insane maggot lamson has continued.. He has even posted some more bullshit, claiming victory !?!.. LOL
Let it go buddy.. he is not human.. he's a lying sociopath.. he will never back down and he is not worth the bother.
I'm sorry I ever allowed him to continue to play his sick game with me here.. Let him go back to the EF to shit all over everyone there, because all he is doing on U-T is wasting your time with his psycho mind fuck games.
straydog02 3 years ago
....You're wasting your valuable time even trying to reason with this lying sack of shit, because he is incapable of reason or telling the truth.
As a NASA shill, lamson's purpose is to pretend to refute the hoax evidence and stop the CT's by any means necessary.. Don't let him.
Anyone reading this thread can see who the liar is.. The best way to deal with evil assholes like MRphotofraud is to just ignore them.
straydog02 3 years ago
ROFLMAO!
Oh Duane, You lie like a rug and then you claim its others doing the lying! Fricking amazing. Get some help and soon. Perhaps there is a chance you can salvage something from your worhless life.
You and your fantasy has been busted. Oh I know you can't let the truth in as it would spoil your neat little fantasy world. Sadly for you the truth is NOT what you "believe".
You are a delusional and paranoid person duane, quite sick actually. Seek help soon.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
Lamson is like the Black Knight in this Monty Python clip.
/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno
He refuses to recognize the fact that nobody is taking him seriously.
Cosmored 3 years ago
Disinformation artist MRphotofraud craig lamson also uses this tactic from 'The 25 Rules of Disinformation.'
"They express complete disdain for "conspiracy theorists". Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a SINGLE TOPIC focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain."
straydog02 3 years ago
# 5.
"Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary "attack the messenger" ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy nuts", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues."
straydog02 3 years ago
...But of course in lamson's pathetic case, he prefers to use even more immature insults such as; "tubetards", "ignorant", "moron", "stupid" etc. Which sadly for him, describe himself instead of those he attacks.
straydog02 3 years ago
stray let monkey chops have the floor.
Hes just about to explain the FACTS and why when Phil Plait states at BA that if you were standing on the Moon even during the day you would see the stars, Craig in his deluded mind thinks that means that something else
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"stray let monkey chops have the floor."
Like most liars, he ALWAYS has the floor, and of course uses these tactics also, from his disinfo handbook.
"They never actually discuss issues head on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility."
straydog02 3 years ago
See there you go with your tortured logic again. When did you say you were going to graduate from the third grade again?
I agree with Phil that you can see stars in the lunar daytime, just where did I say that you could not? Oh wait...I forgot, you are a liar. Sorry.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
No in case you've forgotten its Mr Armstrong that must disagree with you and Plait.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
What tortureed logic. Armstrong and Plait are not in disagreement at all.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
"What tortureed logic. Armstrong and Plait are not in disagreement at all."
And I repeat ..
"... no matter how condemning the evidence, DENY EVERYTHING, and never become emotionally involved or reactive."
straydog02 3 years ago
You don't HAVE any evidence duane...thats the problem.
And you can't refute the empirical evidence that destroys your position so you simply lie your butt off.
Get professional help soon.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
We know from the Aldrin LM egress photos and the Apollo 14 LM specials that quite an amazing amount of light can be reflected back towards the shadow side of the LM so my question is no matter what way Cernan was looking his eyes must have prevented from dark ajusting.
So how was he able to see the stars?
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"You don't HAVE any evidence duane...thats the problem.
And you can't refute the empirical evidence that destroys your position so you simply lie your butt off."
And I repeat..
If you can't comprehend the simple fact that Plait's claim about being able to see stars while standing on the daylight side of the Moon, is a COMPLETE CONTRADICTION to Armstrong's claim of needing "optics" to see stars from the daylight side Moon, then you are beyond stupid.. You are completely retarded.
straydog02 3 years ago
Try and follow along duane, if your feeble brain will allow it.
This appears to be beyond your ability to understand.
Maybe it would be best if you went back to selling trinkets to tourists.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
"Try and follow along duane, if your feeble brain will allow it.
This appears to be beyond your ability to understand."
Oh I'm following along just fine craig.. It's just that what I'm following has made me even more aware of how far you will go to defend NASA's lies.
Now I see why you were given top billng on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal .. As one of NASA's top Nazi shills, you probably deserve a medal.
straydog02 3 years ago
No you got lost at the very first post in this thread. All of this is beyond your very limited ability to understand.
The best you can do is "believe" whatever horsecrap fits your fantasy worldview. It takes brains to think for yourself, and you don't have any.
You have been trashed by empirical evidence that you can't refute.
You ...are simply a useless idiot.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
NASA Nazi MRphotofreak sez ...
"No you got lost at the very first post in this thread. All of this is beyond your very limited ability to understand.
The best you can do is "believe" whatever horsecrap fits your fantasy worldview. It takes brains to think for yourself, and you don't have any."
The idea for that insulting lie posted above comes from #5 of 'The 25 Rules of Disinformation' handbook.
straydog02 3 years ago
Sorry if the truth about you hurts duane, but the truth it is.
Shall we add up the number of the 25 "rules" you and your tubetard friend mr magoo have used today?
MRphotogod 3 years ago
NASA's Nazi MRphotofraud sez..
"You have been trashed by empirical evidence that you can't refute.
You ...are simply a useless idiot."
Translated that would mean ..."blah blah blah blah IGNORANT blah blah blah blah STUPID blah blah blah blah TUBETARD blah blah blah blah MORON blah blah blah CONSPIRACY NUT blah blah blah."
In other words.. MEANINGLESS BULLSHIT.
straydog02 3 years ago
Only meaningless to a stupid tubetards like you. Heck even a mirror stumps you.
Don't you have a tourist waiting to buy a bird girl knockoff?
MRphotogod 3 years ago
Craig Lamson is a game playing, lying NASA shill, who uses only one of the '25 RULES OF DISINFORMATION', in his pathetic attempt to defend the Apollo lie.
Being the hateful sociopath that he is, he has chosen the method of RIDICULE as his favorite MO, which is NUMBER 5.
straydog02 3 years ago
You and your tubetard friends get ridiculed because of your gross stupidity and your inability to understand even the most simple of things.
You have NO honesty and your are ignorant too boot...yes ridicule suits you perfectly.
Its just amazing to watch you morons spin when you are caught with your pants down. LOL!
MRphotogod 3 years ago
"You and your tubetard friends get ridiculed because of your gross stupidity and your inability to understand even the most simple of things."
Translated that would mean ..."blah blah blah blah ignorant blah blah blah blah stupid blah blah blah blah tubetard blah blah blah blah moron blah blah blah conspiracy nut blah blah blah."
In other words, MEANINGLESS BULLSHIT AND RIDICULE.
Maybe you try a different number besides 5, MRphotofreak.
straydog02 3 years ago
Well since you can't understand simple everyday things like how a mirror works, there are simply no options left for someone with a level of ignorance as great as yours.
You live in a fantasy world where you THINK your ideas dispute accepted science.
All thats left for you duane 'dummy' daman is continued ridicule. Enjoy it...you earned it fair and square.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
lamson also uses this tactic, which works very well for a sociopath.
"An odd kind of "artificial" emotionalism and an unusually thick skin - an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a propaganda artist is that emotions can seem artificial."
straydog02 3 years ago
...None of our Apollo 11 "heros" could even answer the question of what it felt like to be the first men to step onto another world.. They were so ashamed by not being able to honestly answer that question, that they couldn't even look up at the person asking it.
straydog02 3 years ago
And what SHOULD have been your answer duane, and heck why would your opinion even matter, given your gross ignorance?
Its too bad your expectations were not met, but your expectations simply don't matter.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
Because big words like that weren't meant to be understood much less used by inbred neanderthals like yourself Lamson.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"...Maybe yu can convince the other idiots you hang with, but not the educated and FREE THINKING people of the world...."
You actually you believe you're one of the "educated and FREE THINKING people of the world"?!!?
That's one of the funniest lies you have ever posted!.. You are the most closed minded, uneducated, non-thinking, asshole I've ever encountered!.. Most radical conservatives are.
Thanks for the laugh.
straydog02 3 years ago
Yep, I'm one of the free thinking and educated and you are not, as your many many posts prove.
You are a sheep, believing ANYTHING as long as it fits your warped worldview. Never mind that your "beliefs" break all the established physical rules of our universe...duane"dummy daman, know best!
What an moron you are duane.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
"Yep, I'm one of the free thinking and educated and you are not, as your many many posts prove."
You obviously need to read my posts again then MRphotofreak, because my spelling, typing, grammar, and most importantly my vocabulary, prove not only my level of intelligence but also my level of education.
While the mis-spelled, simplistic, insulting garbage you post here, proves that you're an uneducated moron, with the mentality of an obnoxious, ill-mannered grade school bully.
straydog02 3 years ago
Ah yes, dunae is educated and intelligent LOL!
I guess they forgot to teach you about how a mirror, camera, light, shadow, AOI and law of the inverse square worked while you were gaining that 5th grade level of education you flaunt here on the internet.
Freaking amazing duane. Seek professioanl help soon. You are slipping fast.
Oh and learn to read.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
"Freaking amazing duane. Seek professioanl help soon. You are slipping fast.
Oh and learn to read."
Like I said before, your one trick pony routine is beyond BORING now.
zzzzzzzzzzz
straydog02 3 years ago
The only thing that really matters is whether or not the shills from Clavius are able to sway the opinion of the viewers. Lamson has said such lame things here that he has pretty much discredited himself so only the people who are predisposed to believe in Apollo will end up thinking the landings were real.
You can pretend all you want Lamson but you aren't affecting the opinions of any thinking people who are reading this comment section.
You'd get laughed out of the debating hall.
Cosmored 3 years ago
Thinking people? Like you tubetards? Please! you guys don't think...thats your entire problem. You "BELIEVE".
This is not a debating hall, its the comment section of a really lousy video thats full of error and omissions.
I don't deal in opinions, I deal in fact. And fact stands alone regardless of he presenter.
Now if you have the balls and the brains you can try and take apart any of the facts I've presented.
But of course you have neither.
Kiss off tubetard.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
"His statement tells us that the lack of an atmoshere like earths on the moon does not obscure the stars in the lunar sky."
Which means all the Apollo astronots had to do was to LOOK UP AT THEM! But I guess they were so busy they forgot the stars where even there. Armstrong was an AVID STAR GAZER. He said that one of the reasons he wanted to go into space was to LOOK AT THE STARS. But when he allegedly walked on the Moon he forgot to look up at them, or even mention ever seeing any!?!..Right.
straydog02 3 years ago
I'm an avid star gazer and if I was on the moon I would be interested in the moon.
And no, yo uwould NOT be able to ust look up and see stars, they are TOO dim. Remeber the law of the inverse square? Oh wait, you are too stupid...sorry.
Heres a little tibit that destroys your tubetard logic on this. It takes the light of the sun 8 mins to reach us, it takes the light of the nearest star, the 4th brightest, 4.2 YEARS to reach us. You do the math. Just look up? How stupid!
MRphotogod 3 years ago
"I'm an avid star gazer and if I was on the moon I would be interested in the moon."
Yeah, but traveling those 239,00 miles on the way to the Moon, with nothing to do but eat and sleep and look out the window, as an "avid star gazer", you would have looked at the stars and seen a sight like you have never seen before in your life ( in your case your miserable life ) and you would have at least mentioned how incredible the stars looked.
straydog02 3 years ago
Again you claim that the sight of the stars would be something special. Why? Just how much do you think the atmosphere on the earth changes the view? Facts please of tell us h ow wrong you are again.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
Phil Plait's statement is a COMPLETE CONTRADICTION to Neil Armstrong's statement about not being able to see stars from the DAYLIGHT SIDE OF THE MOON WITHOUT LOOKING THROUGH THE OPTICS, and everybody knows it's a complete contradiction except for FUCKING RETARDS like you.
straydog02 3 years ago
Lying again eh duane, you just can't help yourself can you. You need to be in the care of a mental health professional and fast!
One last time for the ignorant like you. No contradiction at all between Plait and Armstrong.
Plait's comments ONLY STATE that there is NO ATMOSPHERE on the moon to mask stars in sunlight and as such they are visable in daylight. He MAKES NO CLAIMS NOR STATEMENTS about the conditions required to see them.
You are using tortured tubetard logic again idiot!
MRphotogod 3 years ago
"One last time for the ignorant like you. No contradiction at all between Plait and Armstrong."
Do you think if you repeat that LIE often enough it might come true?
Like I said before.. you are doing NASA no favors by defending their lies with more of yours.
straydog02 3 years ago
stray if there anything positive that can possibly come from dealing with Lamson it surely must be ones appreciation of how easy it is to operate a camera.
Even inbred redneck throwback monkeys like Craig can take pictures.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"Even inbred redneck throwback monkeys like Craig can take pictures."
Yep, even inbred redneck throwback monkeys with their very own photo studios in Jumpoff Place, Indiana can figure out how take pictures! .. And post disinformation too!
straydog02 3 years ago
He doesn't post disinformation.
Craig actually believes it.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"Craig actually believes it."
Most inbred redneck throwback monkeys do!
LOL
straydog02 3 years ago
And dumbass obviousman Captain Pugwashers.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"And dumbass obviousman Captain Pugwashers."
You mean NASA's most Obviousman shill?
Yep.. That monkey too.
straydog02 3 years ago
Yes only a dumbass geek monkey would take photos of planes and spaceraft and then publish them in a public forum for his fellow dumbass geek monkeys to slabber over as if they were watching a porno starring Claudia Schiffer.
At least Lamson has the excuse of being a dumbass American who believes everything he is told by the halfwits he votes for.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
I'm quite proud to be an American and I don't have to "believe" anything when it comes to Apollo. Solid, empirical and unimpeachable facts tell me Apollo was real.
I do suppose your massive ignorance leaves you no other choice but to 'believe" in the lies of the hoaxers. It the only thing your warped worldview will allow. Quite sad really, but not unexpected for a member of the tubetards.
Your rathole is calling mr. magoo...
MRphotogod 3 years ago
Come on Lamson.
You ain't fooling anybody with the big words empirical and unimpeachable.
When you joined up at apollohoax did you have to look up what the words meant or were you given a guide?
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Translated from mr magoo speak. "I can't even begin to deal with the facts so I'll make yet another failed attempt to spin my way out of the hole I dug for myself by making a lame insult."
You ain't fooling anybody mr. magoo, proof of your ignorance is available for eveyone to see. You, are a tubetard.
Anytime you think you have the brains and the balls to try and impeach my empirical evidence, take yor best shot.
Your rat hole is calling mr. magoo....
MRphotogod 3 years ago
Sorry Craig?
I thought you had found an excuse for a transcriber mixing the drunk alcoholic up with shifty MC.
Not suprised your just attempting another sentence with your favourite big words.
Try buying a dictionary.
You'll find other big words in there and one day you might fool somebody into thinking that you aren't a redneck inbred throwback knuckle dragging chimp.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Sorry mr magoo, I thought you might post something on point for a change rhather than try and shift the discussion away from your abject failures.
Maybe when you admit your errors and finally see that you are foisting a lie upon the masses
MRphotogod 3 years ago
But there is absolutely no point debating you because you are a moron who cannot even be honest and admit that professional Astronomers who state that you should be able to see the stars above the average albedo of 7% lunar surface completely contradicts the testimony of the first man to allegedy walk there.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
So tell us mr magoo who are these professional astronomers who state "that you should be able to see the stars above the average albedo of 7% lunar surface"
and where are their quotes?
Put up or shut up you little rat.
Show us your "honesty"
MRphotogod 3 years ago
The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars.
On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.
Phil Plait.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Thank you for proving your lie. Plait NEVER says "that you should be able to see the stars above the average albedo of 7% lunar surface" In fact he NEVER says ANYTHING about the conditions required to see stars while standing on the moon.
All Plait says in hhis very clear statement (at least clear to thinking adults and that leaves you out)is that the lack of atmosphere does not mask the stars.
All you offer is more tortured tubetard logic and lies.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
'If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.'
You are a total clown Lamson.
Their is plankton on the bottom of the ocean that have never seen sunlight that would outsmart you.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
pt 2.
And where are the rest of these "professional Astronomers" (note the plural as written by you)?
And finally can you offer ANY evidence that the lihgt from the Nearst star (over 4 LIGHT YEARS AWAY) would be strong enough to overpower even the reflected sunlight from the lunar surface?
I can't wait watch you try and spin your way out of this one.
Or maybe you can just do a daman and show your ignorance....and proclaim yourself smarter than accepted science and inverse square.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
'In fact he NEVER says ANYTHING about the conditions required to see stars while standing on the moon.'
EXACTLY.
Because barring total blindness as long as your own personal recepticles are working you'll see them.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Mr. Magoo sez: "Because barring total blindness as long as your own personal recepticles are working you'll see them."
I'll ask again how you know that? Plait never said the things you ascribe to him, you simply lied about that. So now tell us how a star over 4 lihgt years away is bright enough to bee seen by eyes adapted to even the suns REFLECION from the lunar surface.
Bring it on tubetard, show us your honesty.
Oh wait...you have none.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
Because on average 93 per cent of the light that hits the surface isn't reflected back you total moron.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Great, that amounts to about 3 photographic stops of exposure.
So how does that compare to the dim light of the closest star to earth, a star who's light takes 4.2 YEARS to reach us compared to the 8 mins for the light of our sun? The visual magnitudes are WELL KNOWN as is the law of the inverse square.
You got caught lying about Plaits statement now lets see if you are HONEST enough to understand some simple physics. Despite your attempt at spin you have failed to answer the question.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
'So how does that compare to the dim light of the closest star to earth, a star who's light takes 4.2 YEARS to reach us compared to the 8 mins for the light of our sun? The visual magnitudes are WELL KNOWN as is the law of the inverse square.'
Yes thats why the Sun is a big giant yellow ball in the sky and stars are wee tiny point of light not tinkleling on the atmosphereless Moon.
As long as you weren't staring continually at the big giant yellow ball you'd see the millions of stars.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Nice try at spin and uneducated opinion, but how about FACTS?
Ya got any?
Of course not. All you have is lies as you have proven so nicely in this thread.
Scoot on back to your rat hole mr magoo and get back to us when you graduate from the third grade.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
Right well YOU tell us the facts Craig and while your at it explain why when Phil Plait says if you were standing on the Moon even during the day you'd see stars why you take that to mean you wouldn't see stars?
greenmagoos 3 years ago
I've told you the facts, you are simply too stupid to understand. The facts are plain and simple. The sun reflected off of the lunar surface in MANY MAGNITUDES brighter than the closest star to the moon. The dynamic range between the two is much larger that the human eye can handle WITHOUT a period of dark adaptation.
The other facts are slso clear. You are a bald faced liar.
My position and Phils are perfectly comsistant. You can see stars on the moon during the daytime.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
Whats the period of dark adaption?
What test did they run for the Astros?
greenmagoos 3 years ago
What period? Whatever is required.
Did they run a test? Don't have a clue.
I do know from personal empirical evidence that it take MY EYES at least 5 mins to dark adapt to see stars after coming outside of a lamp lit interior.
The reflection of the lunar surface is many times brighter that that.
Now its YOUR turn mr magoo. How much dimmer are the stars than the sun reflected form the lunar surface.
Put up or shut up...
MRphotogod 3 years ago
'I do know from personal empirical evidence that it take MY EYES at least 5 mins to dark adapt to see stars after coming outside of a lamp lit interior.'
But you are referring to the human eye being exposed to two extremes- light THEN dark.
How do you know the human eye wouldn't be able to adapt to view the surface and the stars simultanousely?
greenmagoos 3 years ago
The real question is why you think they should be able to see both? Your position flies in the face of all accepted knowlege. I suggest you do a bit of study about the human eye and then perhaps you would not look so fricking stupid.
But here is a primer. One order of magnitude is a difference of 2.5 times. That a star that has a mag of 3 it 2.5 times brighter that a mag 4 star.
The sun has a magnitude of -27, the brightest star a mag of 1.4
MRphotogod 3 years ago
Why do you think I am asking if you can see both?
According to Gene Cernan when he was standing in the shadow of the LM his eyes sufficiently adjusted to be able to see the stars.
How does that work?
He can't lift his head directly upwards so the light reflecting from the surface must be also entering his iris if hes looking towards the horizon.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
So you agree that a dark adaption IS required?
Great so whats the point of your tortured logic again?
MRphotogod 3 years ago
No I'm not necessarily agreeing that dark adaption is required.
I'm asking you to explain how Gene Cernan was able to because he can't lift his helmet directly upwards so he must be looking towards the horizon and the reflected light from the surface will also be entering his iris not allowing his eyes to adjust.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Cernan had hands..right?
You are still up a creek without a paddle and your stuck with tortured tubetard logic.
The eyes MUST dark adapt, the stars as simply too dim to see with some dark adaption. They fall OUTSIDE of non dark adapted human vision.
You claim that the stars can overcome the reflections form the lunar surface.
Your claim flies in the face of accepted science and unless you can prove science wrong you are busted again.
You are toast.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
No I'm asking you to explain the princple of dark adjusting particularly Gene Cernans claims that he was able to see the stars in the shadow side of the LM
greenmagoos 3 years ago
No you are up a creek without a pqaddle and your endless spin gets you nowhere.
I explained how dark adapting works in general terms as best as this venue allows. You want more you will need to do the work yourseelf.
I've not read Cernans statements so I can't state what he did to see stars nor how many he saw.
But your claim that he must have had the horizon in his view is false. In the shadow of the LM he could have looked TOWARD it without seeing the surface.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
No I appreciate you explanation in general terms because believe it not I've also experienced my eyes having to adjust when I've left a cinema for exp.
Hmmmm if he was looking towards the LM and the lighting conditions were anyway close to the Aldrin egress photos I'm fairly sure his eyes would have been prevented from dark adjusting.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
So now you have gone from just looking up to see stars, to maybe dark adapting, to must see the lunar surface to the LM shaodow being too bright to dark adapt. WOw!
As I stated I don't know what Cernan did or did not do, not to what level he was able to see stars. And remember the egrees photos had exposure correction at taking and in post processing. In other words they were "dark adapted"
Plait is correct. Armstrong is correct.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
"Plait is correct. Armstrong is correct."
WOW.. Talk about tortured logic .. That beaut take the cake!
LOL
straydog02 3 years ago
It takes tortured logic to think otherwise.
Phil Plait: "If stars were hard to see from the surface (and they are), then the astronauts wouldn't be talking about them."
MRphotogod 3 years ago
Phil Plait: "If stars were hard to see from the surface (and they are), then the astronauts wouldn't be talking about them."
Unless of course you were the last man to leave the Moon and also uniquely be the only one to see the stars.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Unless you were the only astronaut to REALLY try and see them that is.
Kinda screws your claims about Plait.....
MRphotogod 3 years ago
Well get onto Captain Pugwash for the mission time he REALLY tried to look for the stars and we'll check the tv footage to see how EXACTLY he looked for them.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Be my guest. You are the one who attempted to cover your lie by shifting the subject and are the one making the claims about Cernan. So do the research yourself. At least that would make you a USEFUL idiot.
Hop along tubetard your rat mommy is calling.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
Thats just about the typical response from an Apollo expert whose pal published Cernan's claims at a thread at the EF.
Oh did you miss that Craig?
You must have been rubbing two sticks together in your neanderthal cave dwelling.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
You trying to deflect again mr.magoo? I've not read Cernans statements as I stated. You on the other hand brought him into the discussion because you got caught in a lie.
Now if you want to do the research be my guest. I' really don't care.
Your problem is that your lie about Plaits statement got busted. You were shown to be less than honest. Your tortured tubetard logic was exposed. Deal with it. You lost.
Get back to me when you grow up liar.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
I haven't been caught in a lie at all Mr Lamson and I'd appreciate not being accused of it thanks.
I brought Cernan into it because he is the only one that claimed he could see stars so I was interested how dark adustment would work in the shadow of the LM.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Of course you have. Need I go back AGAIN and prove your lie? Or woudl that be the first lie, the second is the one you just posted saying you were not caught in a lie.
If you don't want to be called out for your lies, then don't tell them.
You brought up Cernan because you got caught telling a lie and you tried to deflect.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
No I tried to get you to explain how Cernans eyes could have dark adjusted in the shadow side with that ever so bright lunar surface surrounding it.
Your best attempt at explaining it was that Cernan was standing looking into the LM and he might just have looked above the LM avoiding all those mountains that surrounded the Apollo 17 landing site.
Also reflecting light.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Nazi stormtrooper Herr lamson sez to my buddy magoos ..
"Hop along tubetard your rat mommy is calling."
Oh dear.. Lying sociopaths get so insulting when their bogus claims are refuted and exposed for the LIES they really are.
straydog02 3 years ago
Sorry duane but it is the bogus claims of mr magoo and you that have been busted today.
Both of you have been shown to be first class liars.
Heck you have been reduced to the bumbling village idiot...I'm sure your momma is so proud...
MRphotogod 3 years ago
Isn't it a welcoming sight how a representative of the ALSJ behaves on a public forum.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
'But your claim that he must have had the horizon in his view is false. In the shadow of the LM he could have looked TOWARD it without seeing the surface.'
I'm afraid that you would still need to move your gaze away from the LM Craig because you wouldn't see the stars in the LM (UNLESS YOU WERE DRUNK BUZZ)
and even if your eyes had adjusted the light from the surface would immediately flood the iris so no doubt Cernan is talking as much drivel as you.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
magoo sez: "I'm afraid that you would still need to move your gaze away from the LM Craig because you wouldn't see the stars in the LM"
So now you claim that an astronaut could not look up enough to see over the top of the LM and that they could not use their hands to narrow the field of view?
You still have failed to deal with the light values of the stars and the range of human vision.
DO you still claim Plait says all you need to do is look up?
MRphotogod 3 years ago
I'm dealing with the claims of Armstrong and Cernan.
E-mail Captain Pugwash he'll know the mission time Cernan must have blurted out that he was the first man to walk on the Moon and see the stars.
I want to see if Cernan was doing as you've just claimed.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
No, you WERE dealing with Phil Plait and Armstrong, and seeing that you were getting your hat handed to you are now attempting to divert attention from both your lies and your failures. And don't attempt to put words in my mouth. I've made no claims as to what if anything Cernan was actually doing. I've posited differnt ideas to counter your statements.
Try and tell the truth if you can.
The cold hard facts about light and the human eye destroy your claims about Plait and Armstrong.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
'The cold hard facts about light and the human eye destroy your claims about Plait and Armstrong.'
Yes and by my reckoning Cernan wouldn't have been able to dark adjust so somebodys lying.
You, Plait, Armstrong and Cernan.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Your reckoning has been shown to SUCK.
And why are we all lying again? Oh yea..because of YOUR lie you need to claim everyone else lied. What circular and very tortured tubetard logic. But is the best someone of your limited intellect can muster I guess.
The only liar here is you, and that has been proven in thes very thread.
You need to run along to your rathole now mr. magoo, you rat mommy is calling,
MRphotogod 3 years ago
'The eyes MUST dark adapt, the stars as simply too dim to see with some dark adaption. They fall OUTSIDE of non dark adapted human vision.'
Is that so? Well Gene Cernan COULD NOT lift his helmet directly upwards so whatever way he looks the reflected light from the surface will be entering his iris preventing ANY dark adjustment.
BTW what is the mission time that he glimpsed the stars and I'll check the DVD's.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
See my last post, your tortured logic is on display once again.
And yes the light values of the stars are WELL KNOWN. They fall OUTSIDE the range of non dark adapted human vison. This is unimpeachable.
And yes the dynamic range of the human eye is also well known. Starlight falls outside of the non dark adapted dynamic range of the human eye. This is unimpeachable.
You are toast. If you were an honest broker you would admit your error. I'm not holding my breath.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
"According to Gene Cernan when he was standing in the shadow of the LM his eyes sufficiently adjusted to be able to see the stars."
Just a quick question, when did he say that?
zakabog 3 years ago
Its at the ALSJ presumabely Apollo 17.
I can't remember.
Mr Lamson here gets credited at the ALSJ,and his pals post the info at the forum he makes an arse of himself at but that bit has missed him.
So there's no point asking him.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"Its at the ALSJ presumabely Apollo 17.
I can't remember."
Right, so do you mind looking for it or should we take your word that he said he could see the stars?
zakabog 3 years ago
Take my word for it.
Ask Lamson here. Hes an Apollo expert.He can remember what year a transcript of a press conference was released but hasn't heard that Gene Cernan claimed he could see stars in the shadow side of the LM.
Thats just about as believable as swector the deflector claiming he missed the Apollo 15 flag on his collection of Apollo DVD's.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"Ask Lamson here."
Lamson isn't the one claiming Cernan said he saw stars on the dark side of the LM, I just searched ALL of the Apollo 17 transcripts for the word "star " or "stars" and found nothing. You're the one claiming he said he saw stars, the burden of proof is on you.
zakabog 3 years ago
Oh for f*** sake.
Trust me. He said it.
Try ALL the individual mission surface journals.
It might be there at Apollo 16.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"Oh for f*** sake."
I'm sorry it's kind of important to know the context of the quote. I can believe that Cernan said he saw stars (which would just make him wrong, not a liar since he could very well believe he saw them when he didn't), but I wouldn't believe that he said he saw them while on the surface of the moon.
zakabog 3 years ago
I don't mind it being important to you to know the context of it I'd just prefer not to have the burden of proving it as if I was making it up thanks.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
"I don't mind it being important to you to know the context of it I'd just prefer not to have the burden of proving it as if I was making it up thanks."
Okay I found the quote (posted a link in another comment), wasn't from the surface, but he described exactly what I was thinking. He had to try to see the stars. They weren't clearly visible he had to take time to allow his eyes to focus, and shield the light with his hand.
zakabog 3 years ago
But this is the crux of the matter zakabog.
The lunar surface on average only reflects 7% of the light back that hits the surface.
There is no atmosphere to scatter the light.
Therefore any moonwalker only had to shield there eyes from the Sun and the light from the Earth and look towards the sky ANYWHERE on the Moon not just the shade of the LM.
A human eye cannot properly dark adjust on a environment where whatever way he looks light will flood his iris.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
magoo sez: "The lunar surface on average only reflects 7% of the light back that hits the surface."
So you now claim that the sunlit lunar surface AND stars in the sky can bee seen at the same time? Oh yea, you claimed that Plait said that. That was your lie.
Proof magoos...proof. Your lying words don't cut it. Show us data that supports the human eye can see the sunlit lunar surfce and the starts at he same time. Good luck with that one.
Your argument is toast.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
Go step by step and explain to me how Gene Cernan busying himself away at the LM could have totally shielded his eyes from any reflective source( that includes the LM, the light from the surface, the mountains, space suits) dark adjusted and managed to glimpse the stars without any stray light flooding his irises.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
He says with his hands. Works for me. Can you prove he was wrong? Of course not.
Dealing in fact is not in your being.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
Yes I can.
He claimed he was on the moon at the time.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
What was the name of the thread at the EF please?
greenmagoos 3 years ago
magoo sez: "What was the name of the thread at the EF please?"
Excuse me? You made this claim: "He posts his garbage at a forum where one of his friends at least TWICE in the past couple of months as far as I can remember published the link about Cernan seeing stars.
He would have seen it. TRUST ME."
So whats the deal? Your claim not based in fact? Sheesh!
Find it yourself.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
I made the claim because I remember Stone linking the info.
Considering the amount of threads that are started at the EF its little wonder I cannot remeber the EXACT name of the thread.
Hope you weren't up to your ususal tricks on that specific page Lamson or your claims that you missed it will be laughable.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Your claim said AT LEAST TWICE and PUBLISHED THE LINK.
Where is the second and where is the link?
So, like your claim that plural ASTRONMERS say you can see stars on the moon, you are once again wrong. I guess we just can't believe a thing you say can we?
MRphotogod 3 years ago
Well Craigy luckily for you my old son you didn't actually comment when Stone linked Cernan's claim about seeing stars.
Do I believe you when you state that you missed it?
As much as I would believe anything that came out of Buzz Aldrins mouth.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Believe what you want, but we have all seen just how moronic your "beliefs" really are.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
ALL Professional Astronomers AGREE that if they had wanted to take pics of stars on the Moon they merely had to set the cameras up on a tripod for a 30 sec exposure.
You try and consider for a minute just how much more complex and dynamic the human eye is and transfer that 30 secs.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
And if you seriously think that just ONE man out of twelve made the only attempt to look at the stars while they were allegedly on the Moon then there is no helping you.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
And BTW you may like to look back over Mr Lamsons rants here and ask yourself why was he denying that he knew anything about Cernans claims.
He posts his garbage at a forum where one of his friends at least TWICE in the past couple of months as far as I can remember published the link about Cernan seeing stars.
He would have seen it. TRUST ME.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Sigh...Oh mr magoo, what a case you are. You are like a shape shifter, moving your argument around when you get cornered. I went back and found a thread on EF where Gavin Hunt posteed Cernans comments. I was posting in the thread but I did'nt comment on the Cernan remarks nor do I remember reading it. Your claim that I "would have seen it TRUST ME" is garbage. You reallydo like oty make up stuff out of thin air don't you. Liars are like that. BTW that thread was from NOV.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
Gavin Hunt?
Is that not the dude in the New Avengers?
Does he post at the EF. I thought Gavins name was Stone?
You'll need to get yourself up earlier in the morning to catch me out Lamson.
I'm onto your lies.
NOW REPEAT AFTER ME.
The lunar surface with an average albedo of 7per cent is a relatively poor reflector of light.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
You are corrct, I have a client named Gavin Hunt, the pposter was Gavin Stone, my mistake.
My lies? Please detail them.
Now repeat after me...reflected light from the lunar surface is quite bright and the human eye can only see as low as 50% moonlit brightness without dark adaption. Thats 50% ON EARTH. Use the law of the inverse square and see how much brighter that reflected light is ON THE SURFACE OF THE MOON.
This is beyond your ken, magoo. Give it up. You look like an idiot.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
"... I can believe that Cernan said he saw stars (which would just make him wrong, not a liar since he could very well believe he saw them when he didn't), but I wouldn't believe that he said he saw them while on the surface of the moon."
I remember where a couple of NASA shills on the Education Forum made the claim that Cernan said he saw stars while standing in a shadow .. They even quoted him.
I will see if I can track those posts down again to post Cernan's quote.
straydog02 3 years ago
I actually found it on the ALSJ, he didn't say it while on the moon but you can see his quote here -
history[dot]nasa[dot]gov/alsj/a17/a17[dot]postland[dot]html
"It was also generally true that, when you were on the surface in the LM's shadow, there were too many bright things in your field-of-view for the stars to be visible."
He goes on to say if you allow your eyes to focus, slightly shielding them from the light with your hand, it's possible to see stars, which makes perfect sense.
zakabog 3 years ago
pt2.
The hunmam eye can only see via iris changes a light level as low as moonlight at 50%. This is MUCH brighter that the brightest star.
To see at lower levels the eye must dark adapt. The cones of the eye require 5-7 mins to dark adapt and the rods require 3--45 mins.
The kicker is that once the process of dark adaption stars ANY brihgt light, such as the reflection from the inside of an Apollo helmet kills the process. You need to start all over.
MRphotogod 3 years ago
So barring total Astro-not stupidity( that might not include Alan Bean) as long as they weren't continually staring directly at the Sun or each other spacesuits what their eyes were focusing on- the lunar surface reflecting just 7% of the sunlight that hits the surface- wouldn't have been that bright.
Thats why they would have easily seen the stars.
Thats why Plait said it and why you'll just have to accept that Neil Armstrong wasn't there.
greenmagoos 3 years ago