I already told you, I am too far away from UNL's library (and I work nights), so I don't have access to them. I CAN'T read them right now. Why can't you understand this?
The fact that you cannot access the document does not entitle you to rebut it, nor to say it is trah. ou shold at least refrain from saying that it is wrong given the fact that "you see" not only colors, but a pink shade that is very similar to H-alpha (try to print four red squares of different color on four sheets, go into a dimly lit room and pick one casually, can you say which one it is? Does it look like in full light? NOPE).
PS I can send you the paper (I should not but... exceptionally).
We don't seem to be communicating. I did *not* say the papers were trash! Where did you get that impression? I said that these lab experiments were set up under conditions which may not accurately replicate those in the actual visual observations of bright nebulae. Thus, the results may not represent what happens when some people with large telescopes view M42 at low to moderate powers. This does *not* mean that the papers are necessarily wrong, but as Don has already pointed out, there are definite questions as to how much the results can be directly applied to observations of bright emission nebulae. It looks like Don has read at least some of the papers you mentioned, so his opinion would matter here (and he has raised some valid points about how applicable they are to visual observations of nebulae). If experienced seasoned observers like Don Pensack, Bill Ferris, Dave Mitsky, and others report faint reds or pinks being visible in parts of M42 using large apertures, then I seriously doubt it is illusionary. They are pretty familiar with the little tricks the eye and brain can play on the unwary visual observer. If they say they saw red, then quite frankly, they saw it, and my little two-filter experiment supports their observations. Nothing you have stated so far will change that.