Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 6 votes

[Merged] Did we land on the moon?

nasa apollo hoax

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
2593 replies to this topic

#1576    rajeev shagun

rajeev shagun

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2010

Posted 09 January 2013 - 04:41 AM

Good wishes for new year 2013 for all HP and HB friends
Rajeev


#1577    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 12 January 2013 - 07:09 AM

View Postpostbaguk, on 06 January 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

4. He crosses the LM shadow boundary, and is in full sun. Look at the reflected highlight on the LM ladder. Compare how bright it is now, to how bright it was in the first frame. It is noticeably brighter. The only change in the scene is the addition of the astronaut. The increase in the brightness of the reflection is only explained by the reflected sunlight off the astronaut's suit. Agree or disagree?


Disagree.

A reflection on the ladder rung. Fine.

You argue it's a 'lunar surface' reflection. I'll go with it, for now..

But then...   

...you think there's another source of reflection (sometimes, anyway). And - it reflects at precisely the same spot, no less!  

I refer to the spacesuit, of course.  

This spot appears to be brighter at the very same time as the spacesuit appears to become much brighter. Ergo, spacesuit is secondary source of reflection on the same specific spot. So it looks brighter!   


The reflection is on the inside edge of the ladder's rung - ie: inwards facing the LM.

So where would a source(s) be located to be capable of that reflection?  

At least ground/surface  has a valid location.

The spacesuit does not. It's on the other side of the reflection.


Your case fails to hold up.


It could be a slip-up in the stage lighting, or some other glitch.

Just think outside the Apollo box...

Edited by turbonium, 12 January 2013 - 07:31 AM.


#1578    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 16,418 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004

Posted 12 January 2013 - 10:52 AM

Please stick to the subject at hand, no more degeneration into ad hom remarks.

"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

Posted Image

#1579    Belial

Belial

    Devilish chappy.

  • Member
  • 4,417 posts
  • Joined:28 Jan 2007

Posted 12 January 2013 - 11:09 AM

I think the moon landings happened but they was only used as a way to hide 'other' goings on.

Where it states "For official use only" - gently rub a white wax candle over the area indicated.

Kick a habit - i never did like Tolkien...

#1580    postbaguk

postbaguk

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 995 posts
  • Joined:17 Aug 2006

Posted 12 January 2013 - 02:39 PM

View Postturbonium, on 12 January 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

Disagree.

A reflection on the ladder rung. Fine.

You argue it's a 'lunar surface' reflection. I'll go with it, for now..

If not, then what else?

Quote

But then...          

...you think there's another source of reflection (sometimes, anyway). And - it reflects at precisely the same spot, no less!  

I refer to the spacesuit, of course.  

Simple optical principle. Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. It's perfectly logical that it would reflect at precisely the same spot once the astronaut is in alignment with the surface that is being reflected, the rung, and the camera.

Quote

This spot appears to be brighter at the very same time as the spacesuit appears to become much brighter. Ergo, spacesuit is secondary source of reflection on the same specific spot. So it looks brighter!

Correct! You've got it! Finally, you agree that a spacesuit can be reflected off another surface at a distance of several feet! This is a break-through.      

Quote

The reflection is on the inside edge of the ladder's rung - ie: inwards facing the LM.

So where would a source(s) be located to be capable of that reflection?  

At least ground/surface  has a valid location.

The spacesuit does not. It's on the other side of the reflection.

The rungs are cylindrical, so the reflecting surface is curved! Both the astronaut and the camera are below the level of the reflecting rung. There is bound to be part of the curved surface of the rung that is acting as a reflector from the astronaut to the camera. Again, a simple optical principle. You can easily prove this concept to yourself with a torch, a cylindrical reflector (door handle off kitchen cupboard for example). You don't even need a camera. Arrange the metal rung at the same angle as seen in the video wrt an observer. From the opposite side (at a distance of several feet), point to torch toward the underside of the rung. Verify that the torchlight is reflected toward the observer. So, no need to defy logic just because you disagree with me, you can actually prove this simple concept to yourself. Easy peasy.

Quote

Your case fails to hold up.

It's based on reality and well-known optical principles.

Quote

It could be a slip-up in the stage lighting, or some other glitch.

A slip-up that just happens to perfectly change with the relative location of the astronuat! When he's in sunshine, it gets brighter. When he's in the shadow of the LM, it reduces. When he moves very closely to the ladder, it disappears completely. You are arguing that it could be some random glitch that just so happens to coincide with all these things happening, rather than what it obviously is: a simple reflection, that would even happen were the scene filmed in a studio!

Look through the whole film in its entirety. The only time there is a noticeable dimming of the reflection is if the astronaut is behind the ladder, and in the LM shadow. Look at what happens as he descends the ladder near the start of the clip. As his right boot moves from the 3rd rung to the 2nd, the reflection dims noticeably during the transition (you can pause the video and step forward a frame at a time using the cursor keys). Once his boot is on the 2nd rung, the reflection is visible again (remember, this is the reflection coming from part of the sunlit lunar surface).

Now, go through the entire video frame by frame. You'll notice that the highlight dims noticeably whenever the astronaut passes close to the rung, in a certain part of the frame. In other words, he needs to be in a certain area in order to block the reflection from a particular part of the surface into the camera. Once he is actually on the 2nd rung, the reflection returns: he is no longer blocking the light path traced from camera, to underside of rung, to lunar surface.

Once you've gone through the entire video, you'll get to the easter egg at the end. The astronaut has just moved out of frame to the RHS. Guess what we see reflected in the thermal protection on the LM? The astronaut. You also see that side of the ladder itself noticeably brighten. Do you still claim this is some kind of lighting aberration or glitch, or is it caused by a reflection from the astronauts suit. You know, the reflections you are claiming are impossible?  

Quote

Just think outside the Apollo box...

I'm thinking inside the science and logic box. My advice to you is, think outside the hoax box.


#1581    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 13 January 2013 - 07:54 AM

View Postpostbaguk, on 12 January 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

If not, then what else?

Stage lighting.

View Postpostbaguk, on 12 January 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

Simple optical principle. Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. It's perfectly logical that it would reflect at precisely the same spot once the astronaut is in alignment with the surface that is being reflected, the rung, and the camera.

No. Again, he is on the opposite side of the reflection. There is another problem with your reflection - the entire rung is not being reflected - just that specific region is. And the other rungs - they have no reflection whatsoever.

Now, maybe you can excuse every other rung being at a different angle than the one with the reflection. But not for the rung with the reflection. The rung doesn't have some sort of 'non-reflective' material at this segment! It's the same material throughout (except for two small strips, which can also be ruled out).
  

View Postpostbaguk, on 12 January 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

Correct! You've got it! Finally, you agree that a spacesuit can be reflected off another surface at a distance of several feet! This is a break-through.  
  
Some people here don't understand subtle humor (like sarcasm), and will take it at face level unless you add a few 'smiley-faces' in the post...

I found that out a long time ago. So be careful!


View Postpostbaguk, on 12 January 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

The rungs are cylindrical, so the reflecting surface is curved! Both the astronaut and the camera are below the level of the reflecting rung. There is bound to be part of the curved surface of the rung that is acting as a reflector from the astronaut to the camera. Again, a simple optical principle.

Again, the astronaut is still on the opposite side of the reflection. Or if you prefer, he is positioned on the other side of the cylinder.

And even though the astronaut's body is (at least partially) below the level of the reflecting rung, he is not actually below the reflecting rung! He is not under the rung. Only the ground surface is.
below the rung. Do you know how this relates to a simple optical principle?


View Postpostbaguk, on 12 January 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:


You can easily prove this concept to yourself with a torch, a cylindrical reflector (door handle off kitchen cupboard for example). You don't even need a camera. Arrange the metal rung at the same angle as seen in the video wrt an observer. From the opposite side (at a distance of several feet), point to torch toward the underside of the rung. Verify that the torchlight is reflected toward the observer. So, no need to defy logic just because you disagree with me, you can actually prove this simple concept to yourself. Easy peasy.

Once again - the astronaut is NOT BELOW THE RUNG!  He is not positioned to the underside the rung! If your torch experiment is "easy peasy", then please post images of it showing how it duplicates the relative position of the astronaut to the ladder (rung). Can you do this, or not?


View Postpostbaguk, on 12 January 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

A slip-up that just happens to perfectly change with the relative location of the astronuat! When he's in sunshine, it gets brighter. When he's in the shadow of the LM, it reduces. When he moves very closely to the ladder, it disappears completely. You are arguing that it could be some random glitch that just so happens to coincide with all these things happening, rather than what it obviously is: a simple reflection, that would even happen were the scene filmed in a studio!


You must be aware that stage lights are movable? Sure you do. A stage light may be aimed at a certain person (like the astronaut, for example). It's known as a 'spotlight', which follows a person as he moves about the stage. Other stage lights may be moved as well, if desired. Easy peasy.

Edited by turbonium, 13 January 2013 - 07:57 AM.


#1582    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,146 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 13 January 2013 - 07:58 AM

View Postturbonium, on 13 January 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

Stage lighting.

No stage lighting. :no: Do you know why?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1583    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 13 January 2013 - 09:35 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 13 January 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

No stage lighting. :no: Do you know why?

Well..I do know it was staged, And I do know that stage lights were used,

So to answer your question - no, I don't know why it couldn't be stage lighting.

Why you think it cannot be, then?


#1584    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,146 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 13 January 2013 - 09:54 AM

View Postturbonium, on 13 January 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:


Well..I do know it was staged, And I do know that stage lights were used,

There is in evidence of stage lights. Look at the visor.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1585    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,888 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006

Posted 13 January 2013 - 10:25 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 13 January 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

There is in evidence of stage lights. Look at the visor.

I think you mean "no evidence", not "in evidence".

However, you are quite right, a reflective spherical visor is the last thing a hoaxer would want on set if he was trying to hide things like extra lights.

Turbs, I suggest you get hold of cylindrical and spherical reflectors and see just how much of the surroundings to their sides and rear they reflect.

Edited by flyingswan, 13 January 2013 - 10:26 AM.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#1586    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,146 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 13 January 2013 - 11:02 AM

View Postflyingswan, on 13 January 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

I think you mean "no evidence", not "in evidence".

However, you are quite right, a reflective spherical visor is the last thing a hoaxer would want on set if he was trying to hide things like extra lights.

Turbs, I suggest you get hold of cylindrical and spherical reflectors and see just how much of the surroundings to their sides and rear they reflect.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. :tu: That is what I meant.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1587    postbaguk

postbaguk

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 995 posts
  • Joined:17 Aug 2006

Posted 13 January 2013 - 04:08 PM

View Postturbonium, on 13 January 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

Stage lighting.

Remember: think outside the hoax box!

Quote

No. Again, he is on the opposite side of the reflection.

Which is where he would need to be in order to reflect light off the rung and into the camera, since the rung by definition is roughly parallel to the ground!

Quote

There is another problem with your reflection - the entire rung is not being reflected - just that specific region is. And the other rungs - they have no reflection whatsoever.

Let's get the terminology right to avoid confusion. When you say "the entire rung is not being reflect", I'm assuming you mean "the reflection is not illuminating the entire rung with the same brightness level".

Quote

Now, maybe you can excuse every other rung being at a different angle than the one with the reflection. But not for the rung with the reflection. The rung doesn't have some sort of 'non-reflective' material at this segment! It's the same material throughout (except for two small strips, which can also be ruled out).

Look at the relative angle of the rung with respect to the horizon and the camera axis. They are about 40 degrees apart. Imagine a virtual plane mirror passing through the rung at the same angle to the horizon. The part of the third rung that isn't brightly lit is closer to the camera than the part that is brightly lit. Extend that virtual plane mirror outwards in both directions. Part of the plane mirror extends above the observer (i.e. camera). The rest is angles downward toward the surface. The lower part of it (the virtual mirror) will reflect the surface, and upper part of it will reflect the lunar sky.

Once you understand the geometry, you understand why part of the third rung is brightly lit, and part of it isn't. Again, it's all based in terms of simple optical and geometric principles that you can test in your own garden.

Quote

Some people here don't understand subtle humor (like sarcasm), and will take it at face level unless you add a few 'smiley-faces' in the post...

I found that out a long time ago. So be careful!

Who mentioned sarcasm? ;)

Quote

Again, the astronaut is still on the opposite side of the reflection. Or if you prefer, he is positioned on the other side of the cylinder.

Which is exactly where he would need to be in order to be reflected off the underside of the rung and into the camera lens.

Quote

And even though the astronaut's body is (at least partially) below the level of the reflecting rung, he is not actually below the reflecting rung! He is not under the rung. Only the ground surface is.
below the rung. Do you know how this relates to a simple optical principle?

Sorry Turbs, but this is another one of those epic face-palm moments where you contradict yourself in the same paragraph, and simultaneously demonstrate that you're out of your depth when it comes to simple principles. You agree that the astronaut's body is partially below the level of the reflecting rung, and then claim that only the ground surface is under the rung. Let's roll with that for a moment. It matters not a jot if some of the astronaut is 'above' the rung, since you've already agreed that part of him is below the rung! So, part of him can be reflected in the rung, just like the ground is! For example, let's say he stands on a patch of sunlit ground that was contributing to the bright highlight in the rung. His boots are in the same place, so now they must be reflecting light. Similarly his ankles, his lower leg, his knee, thigh, waist, chest, up until, (possibly) some cut off point. So, even in this scenario, your argument fails.

But the failure of your argument goes even deeper, and it's due to the cylindrical nature of the rung. While you may be technically correct to state that not all of the astronaut is 'below' the rung (and I've shown above that it wouldn't even matter if you were right), you are talking about a plane that runs through the rung, parallel to the surface. But in terms of what is reflected into the camera, you need to consider the optical axis of the camera itself! And it's immediately obvious that the optical axis is nowhere near parallel. The reflecting rung is above the optical axis, the brightly lit astronaut is below it. Hence, the whole of the astronaut can be reflected off the cylindrical rung. Simple optical principles again. Draw a raytrace diagramme or do some experimenting if you're unsure.  

Quote

Once again - the astronaut is NOT BELOW THE RUNG!  He is not positioned to the underside the rung! If your torch experiment is "easy peasy", then please post images of it showing how it duplicates the relative position of the astronaut to the ladder (rung). Can you do this, or not?

See above.

Would you really believe an experiment I did if you can't understand the simple principles I've outlined?

Quote

You must be aware that stage lights are movable? Sure you do. A stage light may be aimed at a certain person (like the astronaut, for example). It's known as a 'spotlight', which follows a person as he moves about the stage. Other stage lights may be moved as well, if desired. Easy peasy.

OK. So they are shining a spotlight on the astronaut as he descends the LM ladder. It must be from behind the astronaut, since his back is brighter than his front, yes? So how is the underside of the rung lit as he descends the ladder, except for the hop from 3rd to 2nd rung (which comports with my explanation)? When he reaches the bottom of the ladder but is still holding on to it, home come his back is more brightly lit than his front, apart from when he moves his arm near the ring in a manner that comports with my explanation? As he rotates round to his left, the highlight disappears, again supporting my position. He moves into the centre of the frame, looking right at the camera, and the highlight returns, again perfectly congruent with what I've said. We could go on all the way through the video, it's all perfectly explained by simple optical properties, the geometry of the scene, and the reflective properties of the reflecting surfaces involved. For you to be right, we need ot have several lights being moved, and being switched on and off, in a way that perfectly mimics what you would expect to be seen anyway, and just so happens to account for every reflection, at the same time lighting the astronaut exactly as you would expect if he was on the moon, without creating and extraneous or incompatible shadows and highlights! Do you really expect anyone to believe your scenario?

Even if the moon landings were faked, my explanation makes far more sense than yours ever could, yet you lack the courage to admit that. Why?

Oh, you missed this bit:-

Once you've gone through the entire video, you'll get to the easter egg at the end. The astronaut has just moved out of frame to the RHS. Guess what we see reflected in the thermal protection on the LM? The astronaut. You also see that side of the ladder itself noticeably brighten. Do you still claim this is some kind of lighting aberration or glitch, or is it caused by a reflection from the astronauts suit. You know, the reflections you are claiming are impossible?


#1588    beale947

beale947

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 266 posts
  • Joined:18 Feb 2007

Posted 13 January 2013 - 07:11 PM

View Postturbonium, on 13 January 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:


Well..I do know it was staged, And I do know that stage lights were used,

So to answer your question - no, I don't know why it couldn't be stage lighting.

Why you think it cannot be, then?

So why are you still here then. You have just admitted that no matter what we say you will just go on believing it is a hoax. Explain your reasoning as to why you are still here wasting everyone's time when you aren't going to look at the evidence properly.

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

#1589    postbaguk

postbaguk

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 995 posts
  • Joined:17 Aug 2006

Posted 14 January 2013 - 09:56 PM

Quote

The lower part of it (the virtual mirror) will reflect the surface, and upper part of it will reflect the lunar sky.

That should read,

Quote

The lower part of it (the virtual mirror) will reflect the surface, and upper part of it will reflect the lunar surface in shadow



#1590    pallidin

pallidin

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,344 posts
  • Joined:09 Dec 2004

Posted 14 January 2013 - 10:42 PM

I wonder if it's possible to ship all the non-believer's to the moon... and leave them there. :w00t:
That'll convince them.

Oh, nevermind, what's the point, They will think that's staged too.