I have seen the interview many many times because it is trotted out with tedious regularity by people who know nothing about the subject. When he says "the space between the Earth and the moon" he is explaining what he means by cislunar space. He is specifically asked about the view from the moon. He specifically refers to not seeing planets "from the surface". He does not say he could not see stars or planets from cislunar space. You might also want to think about the implications of his statement about "The glare from the sun on the helmet visor" in terms of being able to see stars in bright sunlight (including from cislunar space when they are in the sun's direct light).
Then maybe you have watched the interview without an open mind. I don't care what anyone says or explains about the interview because it is simply as straight forward as can be for the neutral observer.
Armstrong :
The sky is deep black when viewed from the moon, AS IT is when viewed from cislunar space, the space between the earth and the moon....the earth is the only visible object other than the sun that can be seen, althaugh etc.''AS IT IS'' cannot be explained in any other way.
Neil clearly states that on the moon surface the sky is deep black, AS IT IS when viewed from cislunar space....with only the earth and sun to see....and maybe some planets.
It boggles me why i can hear him say that while English is only my third language and you deliberately ignore this very important part.
I don't care about later explanations, or who or what took his words out of context. It is simply Neil stating the obvious, if you don't want to hear that, i cannot convince you either.
It entirely proves nothing. The Collins quote to which you are referring is specifically in response (again to a question from Patrick Moore) about seeing stars in the Solar Corona in lunar orbit. Collins has also said this in his autobiography:
Of course any Apollo autobiography is carefully crafted to avoid glaring mistakes as shown in real inerviews. Collins tried to repair an upcoming mistake from Armstrong, while doing so he himself made a mistake.
And your ''aftermath'' shows exactly how easy mindcontrol is. Collins wasn't on the moon surface, not photographing anything, but he answers as if he was at the scene.....a repair job that was done out of fear that Armstrong would draw the wrong conclusions.
It doesn't matter what the astronauts testify, it will always receives the proper ''upgrade'' as you just shown in your reply.
There is no inconsistency. Go out on a moonlit night and see how many stars you can see in the vicinity of the moon. You will see none. Neil makes no reference in that interview with Patrick Moore about being unable to see stars in cislunar space, only from the lunar surface. This is entirely correct. You would no more expect to see a sky full of stars on the lunar surface in daylight than you would on Earth.
Hearsay don't you see ? I don't care less what you say about EARTH's night sky, because i can check for myself with simple tests.
In the vacuum of space and the lunar surface we have an unknown environment and therefor any resemblence with the night sky on earth ends there.
Good for you that you trust those few men with contradicting statements,.....i don't.
The lack of stars visible around a bright moon has nothing to do with the Earth's atmosphere and everything to do with the bright moon blocking out much dimmer, smaller objects. If it was to do with the atmosphere then why can we see stars at all?
So you have been to space yourself ?
I don't know, i only observe the night sky in earth's atmosphere and have to rely on goofy images from NASA to have an idea about ''up there''.
Point is you can not use two extremely different realms (earth vs space) to proof a ''thing or two'', because the latter is only hearsay for you and me.
It entirely depends on where they were. Astronaut's describe stars being at their most vivid from behind the moon when no sun is visible. Did you bother to look at the quotes on the page I linked to?
Aftermath !!!!....NASA did update their views, comments and pictures during the last decades. Those things that could form a real threat (original blueprints and original tapes) were errased from history.
Therefor it is the most important thing to view what is left with an open mind and it smells con job all over the place.
Nazis were bad people. This does not mean no-one went to the moon.
It means the rulers of our world and their scientific propaganda machine will tell you whatever they think suits their agenda.
In Germany it was focussed on scientifically and morally justifying exterminating the Jews based on ''facts'' about their wickedness and trivial place in arian society
See the link I supplied earlier and the photo above.
I do not consider photo's from space as proof or the absense of proof whatsoever. Footage from earth is hard enough to research.
Buzz Aldrin made no-one believe any such thing. The crew identified something in the distance that was part of the Saturn V rocket. It did not follow them all the way there or back.
In his 2005 interview Aldrin said, “There was something out there that, uh, was close enough to be observed and what could it be?… Mike (Collins) decided he thought he could see it in the telescope, and he was able to do that and when it was in one position, that had a series of ellipses, but when you made it real sharp, it was sort of L shaped. That didn’t tell us very much.”
Later in time he said this.....
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Buzz Aldrin: I saw this illumination, that was moving with respect to the stars, we were smart enough to not say.....Houston there's a light out there that's following us.
So techniclly it becomes an unidentified flying object......
It this was his latest rendering in fooling the audience.....
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">And here Buzz says about that event......
We saw one of the four panels 99.999 % (sure?)
Ed Mitchell did indeed speak very often about UFOs and aliens. He never once claimed he had seen a UFO or met an alien.
No, but ''Roswell'' was one of his favourite subjects and stated it was a cover up to prevent the public about knowing aliens have visited us....so the ''oldtimers'' said, who were hushed up Ed claimed, but were around at Roswell at that specific event.....
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Alien agenda is played down soon......
Convicted violent thug Bart Sibrel dishonestly edited an interview piece about Bean's time on Skylab to make it appear he was discussing Apollo.
Wow that is an extremely poor excuse......
The equipment was thoroughly and repeatedly tested. There are no errors to find, just people not understanding what they are looking at.
So they went into their near vacuum chambers for hours and hours to test their goofy spacesuits ?
The contrary is fact, but i can post another video if you like from an astronaut who describes a few minutes in a vacuum chamber.......
Nothing will expose it because it's true. Absolutely every single piece of evidence is entirely consistent with documented history. Every. Single. Piece. Have another picture. This one is from Apollo 17 taken in lunar orbit. The brightest object is Jupiter.
Nice, but again what do you want to proof with a picture from a supposed place you can never ever check and only 0.00.....1 percentage of humanity has a say in this ?
I can test whatever i like, but when it comes to space i am entirely dependent on proven frauds and tax money crooks.