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.


- - - - -

the moon landing hoax and Columbia cover up


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
123 replies to this topic

#16    rajeev shagun

rajeev shagun

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 16 June 2010 - 10:08 AM

hi- There is no way i and other people could had seen that long piece of foam on that height.i have been checking the Footage (from series When we left the earth)though they used to show(or hide)camera footage which was mounted under the right wing probably to avoid showing us direct huge strike of foam BUT right after shuttle's lifting off 14-15 later you see a big jerk and you even hear the sound of strong strike to the one of the wing.i guess that was the time when that happened.it is as well possible that there were more then one piece of foam came off.because the piece of foam showed here in India was much bigger then the piece of foam they show by their high speed cameras. And this is developing misunderstanding among us.Do you have The footage of NASA series WHEN WE LEFT THE EARTH ?

View PostObviousman, on 16 June 2010 - 08:40 AM, said:

Then I'll be glad to help.


This is why I doubt you. The strike occurred at 82 seconds after launch, when COLUMBIA was about 66,000 feet in altitude and traveling at about Mach 2+.

There was no way you could have seen it.


Thomas Baron made his statement on record to the Review Board. His report was submitted. It was considered and although there were some valid claims, it was generally found to be baseless with respect to deliberate coverups.


Then we have shown your source to be wrong. What does that say about your conclusions based on it?



#17    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,685 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, NSW, Australia

  • "Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
    Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

Posted 16 June 2010 - 10:21 AM

View Postrajeev shagun, on 16 June 2010 - 10:08 AM, said:

hi- There is no way i and other people could had seen that long piece of foam on that height.

But you said:

View Postrajeev shagun, on 08 June 2010 - 06:09 AM, said:

I am personally effected by NASA What happened on day of 16 Jan 2003 when I was watching tv news they showed Columbia launch (by normal front of launch tower camera) in Hindi news and I saw a huge piece of insulation foam  (may be 5 by 12 feet) felling off from liquid fuel tank and did hit the left wing but in news they said “There was a  problem of felling off piece of  foam but launch was okay” but straight away I thought about ceramic tiles damage and scared about re-entry disaster but I thought may be there is a misunderstanding in news room so I waited for English journal but same sentence ,So I thought they are only paying attention on ascent of shuttle BUT this foam must damaged few tiles and you will need tiles during reentry and I was 100% sure of total explosion of shuttle if they come back with out home-work.                                                      
(My bolding)

I am sorry but I doubt what you say is true. So far everything either points to ignorance or fabrication.


#18    mrbusdriver

mrbusdriver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,588 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2007

Posted 16 June 2010 - 02:03 PM

View Postrajeev shagun, on 16 June 2010 - 10:08 AM, said:

hi- There is no way i and other people could had seen that long piece of foam on that height.i have been checking the Footage (from series When we left the earth)though they used to show(or hide)camera footage which was mounted under the right wing probably to avoid showing us direct huge strike of foam BUT right after shuttle's lifting off 14-15 later you see a big jerk and you even hear the sound of strong strike to the one of the wing.i guess that was the time when that happened.it is as well possible that there were more then one piece of foam came off.because the piece of foam showed here in India was much bigger then the piece of foam they show by their high speed cameras. And this is developing misunderstanding among us.Do you have The footage of NASA series WHEN WE LEFT THE EARTH ?

If I'm not mistaken, the footage you speak of is from cameras mounted on the ET and the SRBs, and these cameras were not used until after the Columbia accident. (specifically, they were mounted to watch the foam shedding for later analysis and focused inspection using the new OBSS, also introduced after Columbia.)

So any external mounted camera views you see are post-Columbia...


#19    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,888 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 16 June 2010 - 02:33 PM

View Postmrbusdriver, on 16 June 2010 - 02:03 PM, said:

If I'm not mistaken, the footage you speak of is from cameras mounted on the ET and the SRBs, and these cameras were not used until after the Columbia accident. (specifically, they were mounted to watch the foam shedding for later analysis and focused inspection using the new OBSS, also introduced after Columbia.)

So any external mounted camera views you see are post-Columbia...
Afraid you are mistaken, the external cameras first flew on STS-112 in October 2002, a few months before Columbia.

"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- )

#20    Agent X

Agent X

    Illustrious Potentate Of All Time Space And Matter

  • Member
  • 5,086 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male

  • Invent nonsense computer jargon in conversations, and see if people play along to avoid the appearance of ignorance.

Posted 16 June 2010 - 05:05 PM

They too need to prove their claims with hard evidence.

Posted Image

#21    Hazzard

Hazzard

    Stellar Black Hole

  • Member
  • 11,757 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Inside Voyager 1.

  • Being skeptical of the paranormal is a good thing.

Posted 16 June 2010 - 06:59 PM

I know that debating some of these claims can be tedious and annoying. But please do continue. If not for the concpiracy believers, then do it for the rest of us that are truly interested in this type of thing.

Thanks again for telling us the way it is.  :)

I still await the compelling Exhibit A.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -Edmund Burke

#22    digitalartist

digitalartist

    Psychic Spy

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,941 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York State

  • I'm Done

Posted 16 June 2010 - 07:03 PM

View Postrajeev shagun, on 14 June 2010 - 07:38 AM, said:

Hi again-
              It is very painful to know that some time people don’t even believe honest man’s truth. The whole story of Columbia from the day of launch and 16 days later re-entry explosion runs front of my eyes like it happened yesterday.

It is sad that some times people don't accept factual information because it conflicts with their carefully sustained belief.


#23    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 16 June 2010 - 10:54 PM

View Postrajeev shagun, on 16 June 2010 - 07:33 AM, said:


               Without high speed cameras how could I ascertained this piece of foam because
Please don’t forget that like all other liquid propulsion (though there were 2 solid boosters mounted on the tank of shuttle and give a big part of thrust) system Columbia or other shuttles are very slow in the beginning of lift off and roughly next 10-20 seconds, I guess that was the reason why me or anybody else could see it very clearly.

Actually, a Shuttle is the most rapid ascent of any manned rocket we've ever launched.  It's going over 100 MPH in a matter of a few seconds, and within 20 seconds they are at a significant fraction of 1 Mach.  The thing hauls the mail...
  

Quote

I really surprise that you haven’t seen that footage may be that day of launch or afterwards.

I have seen every piece of launch footage of STS-107. A dozen or more camera views, repeatedly, in excruciating detail.
None of it shows a massive slab of something striking the orbiter at any time...let alone in the seconds after launch.



Quote

You said they did not hide anything in that series WHEN WE LEFT THE EARTH to me they hide most important footage which I was expecting to watch third time, footage
In which you see Columbia ascending upright and you can see booth solid boosters and belly of shuttle is invisible all you see shuttles back.


That is a standard KSC camera view, which is used by most media outlets, and which is available anywhere today to look at over and over.  There's nothing there.

Quote

It is as well possible that may be that footage was shot by media’s camera or even Indian national TV DOORDARSHAN sends their on reporters with really heavy cameras with good resolution and very high power zooms and on important event like they did on the occasion of sending first Indian man to the orbit by USSR by help of SOYUZ-t space craft from Bikanour some time in 1985.
But even this footage can be from DOORDARSHAN’s camera still the TV crew I can not see them making them self this comment”there was a bit problem of coming off the insulation foam from shuttle’s tank but Columbia’s ascend was okay”.

The media is known for spouing off innanities concerning spaceflight.
If you heard that, you heard something unfortunately typical.


Quote

The report of Apollo-1 fire called AS204 does it has to do something with Baron’s missing report?

No.
Baron's report is not missing.
What does this have to do with anything?


Quote

When some people say that foam shedding was a no problem in lift off zone that’s exactly NASA thought and you see the result in the form of Columbia disaster We all have to be more practical then just theorist who just relied on data and static.  

Engineers are not theorists.
They are pragmatic realists, and they are the "some people" whose field of expertise qualifies them to speak to these matters.
The disaster's root cause was a 1.7 lb piece of foam impacting the left wing's leading edge during the danger zone of ascent, at a relative velocity of ~ 800 FPS.  No one saw it happen, and no one saw it at all until engineering analysis of long range imaging picked it up...and even then, it wasn't fully understood what damage the thing did.
  

Quote

I never meant that Nickel burns it self with oxygen what I said that oxygen can be flammable if there is Nickel metal in contact.

Oxygen cannot be flammable.  Nickel can, paper can, almost anything can in the presence of high pressure O2.

Quote

About STS-107 had a rendezvous with International S.S. or this flight docked with ISS or not ,I read in the news paper the day or two days before the launch of STS-107 that as Indians only talk about Calpna chavla ,she is going to the space again and then their Columbia will dock with ISS and they will spend next 16 days on ISS…this gave me the impression that “they have to sort it out the problem in next 16 days on ISS…I have been checking all cuttings of news paper (almost entire week after disaster) they talked about Columbia and ISS and one American and 2 Russian astronauts on the ISS all together in same news.
I checked the video of series WHEN WE LEFT THE EARTH and same thing –they showed an ISSs American astronaut Can is coming out of the docking tunnel and keep showing Columbia and ISS astronauts one after other…so until I am not sure I won’t debate about it.

OK, you're getting your information from media outlets. I think I understand where you're coming from.

They're wrong.  I think this whole thing about STS-107 is based upon your media outlets and the impressions they give you.  
The media is largely ignorant regarding the technical matters of spaceflight, and they often make egregious mistakes in reporting things  before understanding them fully.

That appears to be your problem here.



Quote

Yes you can not really compare solid motor and liquid motor rocket.

Who did that?  And, what's the relevance?

Quote

Yes i have read that Columbia Crash investigation report in the news paper.

No you didn't.  Nor did anyone else.



Quote

Yehh…There is certainly footage available of Eagle’s in-side cabin activities during its power descent to so called moon surface and it was shot on celluloid film may be 16m.m.and this film was the part of documentary dvd which was released on 40th anniversary of moon landing by BBC and there is another documentary of the first man flight on the air 1903 write brothers story as well in to this same DVD. I have got that DVD.

Again...you trust too much media and understand too little.
There was NO FOOTAGE TAKEN INSIDE EAGLE, nor any LM during powered descent.  There was 16mm film taken of the outside during landing approach by a small DAC mounted inside the starboard window looking down toward the base of the LM.

Quote

What about The set of push-jet thruster those control the pitch and roll of Eagle and other lunar modules, if you watch carefully in side nozzles do you see any sign of exhaust gases and heat ?please watch carefully the downward thruster there is a spatial strip or plate attached to the eagle’s airframe or rod in order to avoid harming the eagle’s(I have attached the picture) airframe from thrusters nozzles exhaust-do you see any sign of flame or heat on it ?

They're called RCS jets and plume deflectors, which, like the engine bells, are designed not to be affected by thermal energy, and to deflect the largely invisible plume away from LM structures.  Engines operating in vacuum leave little or no visible plume when they operate.  That doesn't mean they're not there, and they can't damage delicate, unprotected structures.

Is there a reason for your going all over the place and bringing up all these little picayune details?

What are you getting at here...?


#24    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 16 June 2010 - 10:56 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 16 June 2010 - 02:33 PM, said:

Afraid you are mistaken, the external cameras first flew on STS-112 in October 2002, a few months before Columbia.


You're right Swanny.  112 debuted the ET camera.
However, I don't think it was aboard another Shuttle until return to flight on 114.


#25    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 16 June 2010 - 11:15 PM

View Postrajeev shagun, on 16 June 2010 - 10:08 AM, said:

hi- There is no way i and other people could had seen that long piece of foam on that height.


You're right, and no one did.

Quote

i have been checking the Footage (from series When we left the earth)though they used to show(or hide)camera footage which was mounted under the right wing probably to avoid showing us direct huge strike of foam BUT right after shuttle's lifting off 14-15 later you see a big jerk and you even hear the sound of strong strike to the one of the wing.i guess that was the time when that happened.it is as well possible that there were more then one piece of foam came off.because the piece of foam showed here in India was much bigger then the piece of foam they show by their high speed cameras. And this is developing misunderstanding among us.Do you have The footage of NASA series WHEN WE LEFT THE EARTH ?

I think you're referring to a dramatization...

There was no under the wing camera on 107 (and there still isn't...you'd be referring to the forward looking SRM camera which views the underside of the wing, but that camera wasn't around for 107).

Further, no one ever heard this strike either.  That would have been impossible, even through structural transmission. There was alot of cabin vibration going on with the two SRMs still belching a couple million pounds of thrust out, and the crew was on COMM caps, inside a sealed suit.  Nothing recorded any sound of the impact that occurred on 107...

When We Left The Earth was a Discovery Channel presentation, not a NASA series.
The series is good...but as is typcial, they dramatize that which has no visuals with associated visuals, pieces of film from other times and places, dramatizations, etc...

I think you're not aware of that, and you're assuming that everything you see therin is a real film of the events being portrayed...


#26    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 17 June 2010 - 02:35 AM

View Postrajeev shagun, on 16 June 2010 - 10:07 AM, said:

Do you have The footage of NASA series WHEN WE LEFT THE EARTH ?


OK, Look, I do have this series...and I actually entertained you and watched the segment you refer to (damn it...).

It clearly illustrates the foam strike, as I've seen it a thousand times.

There is absolutely no evidence of a FOAM STRIKE AT LIFTOFF OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER.  None.  No NASA camera showed anything but the real foam strike, the one that occurred in the danger zone and which caused the damage which doomed Columbia.

No foam strike immediately following liftoff was likely, nor would it have been a problem.  

Story Musgrave's comments referred to an RTLS abort, IF someone had seen it at recognized it for what it was.  No one did.  No one could've.  After the foam strike, there was nothing...whatsoever, that could be done for the Columbia crew.  Further, no one understood that until the investigation after the fact.

Now, I am sick and tired of saying something like that, as it hurts to an extent you can't understand, but it is TRUE.




You post here claiming there was some extraordinary event at liftoff on STS-107, when there wasn't.  You claim it.  You produce it. Show us the TV footage. You, by virtue of your thread title, are implying a cover up by NASA, based upon your alleged viewing of something that was portrayed in an Indian TV broadcast.   You are also implying something similar in the case of Apollo.


You do so by producing tiny little statements that belie your lack of understanding about that which you speak, and I am still puzzled, based on your statements and your context, what your real purpose is here.  I suspect that you have this feeling because one of the people aboard STS-107 was an American citizen born in India...which is no reason at all to conceive of such nonsense.

There was one foreign astronaut aboard, Ilan Ramon, an Israeli.
The rest were Americans.

I've heard nothing from an Israeli about a conspiracy.


In fact, the idea of a conspiracy or cover up concerning STS-107 is ludicrous to me...

If you want to argue that, produce something ...like that TV broadcast you say you saw.  We don't need your letters to NASA.  I'm sure mission management, who had been looking at more angles of the 107 launch than you could imagine, had already seen that nothing untoward occurred at liftoff, and weren't about to answer a frantic letter from someone about a danger they couldn't have seen.



There is nothing about Apollo and STS-107 (or 51L) that is not completely understood and verified scientifically.


#27    rajeev shagun

rajeev shagun

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 17 June 2010 - 07:15 AM

Hi respective members-
                                    When i joined this forum on 8th of June 2010 I thought this is very strict here, nobody can use such a world like ”I am sick of” or “you don’t understand anything” or “I am tired” etc. BUT I was wrong we can use any word here…can we? when I address you I am always respective to all of you,I know how to attack personally on people but I don’t do it here and won’t do it here.
I am here to debate, share, learn and let other people learn but if some member will keep using this kind of words, I afraid it will stop me debating here.


#28    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,685 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, NSW, Australia

  • "Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
    Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

Posted 17 June 2010 - 07:22 AM

You could start learning by making sure you read the responses made to you. If you think there are problems, please say what they are. So far, the majority of what you have said has been wrong. Is it because of your source?


#29    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 17 June 2010 - 09:33 PM

View Postrajeev shagun, on 17 June 2010 - 07:15 AM, said:

Hi respective members-
                                    When i joined this forum on 8th of June 2010 I thought this is very strict here, nobody can use such a world like ”I am sick of” or “you don’t understand anything” or “I am tired” etc. BUT I was wrong we can use any word here…can we?

You can use any word you want here.  
You may find yourself in trouble for doing so in certain cases, however.

Now to address "You dont understand," I would say that the content of your posts clearly indicate that this is a fact.
That is not attacking you; it is pointing out the truth.

To address "I'm sick of, etc..." let's look at the statement where that was used again:

Quote

After the foam strike, there was nothing...whatsoever, that could be done for the Columbia crew. Further, no one understood that until the investigation after the fact.

Now, I am sick and tired of saying something like that, as it hurts to an extent you can't understand, but it is TRUE.

Do you understand what that means?

What I am sick of is having to repeat things about one of the most painful events in my life.

That is not an attack against you.  It is a truth.


Quote

when I address you I am always respective to all of you,I know how to attack personally on people but I don’t do it here and won’t do it here.
I am here to debate, share, learn and let other people learn but if some member will keep using this kind of words, I afraid it will stop me debating here.

Information has been provided to you.
Questions have been asked of you.
You failed to ackowledge or address any of it.  

You have not been attacked.
Your ideas have.
That is perfectly legitimate.  If you cannot handle that, and you say you're here to debate, then I think you have a skewed idea regarding the term's definition.

You also said you're here to learn.
That is something that can certainly happen here, but again;  you've ignored information provided you.

To wit:  I told you you were mistaken when you referred to film taken inside the LM during the Apollo lunar landing approaches.
You responded:

Quote

Yehh…There is certainly footage available of Eagle’s in-side cabin activities during its power descent to so called moon surface and it was shot on celluloid film may be 16m.m

There was not any such film made...ever, on any Apollo mission.
I pointed out to you that you're mistaken.

You've failed to research the matter, and simply argued with me.

That's not healthy.  I know more about this than you do, and I know for a fact that you're mistaken.



I asked you what your position really is.
You haven't responded.

You simply come up with these accusations of being attacked.


Your ideas are being assaulted, because they're wrong.
Here, you can learn why.

But you don't seem to want to.
Stop crying about things.

You want to learn something?
This is the place.


#30    rajeev shagun

rajeev shagun

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 18 June 2010 - 08:53 AM

[Hello 4th time-
                    First we talk about the big piece of foam- The longer piece of  insulation foam which came off from shuttle’s liquid fuel tank during lift-off ,Yes I have seen it on that day of launch 16 Jan 2003 (and I am sure thousands of other people must had seen it that day on Indian national TV “DOORDARSHAN” in the news that day)
I am 100%-100%-100% sure I saw it and heard the comment on it two times, if you don’t believe me then take me to lie detector machine and see what do you find or you can take me to front of firing-squad and aim the guns on my head, my answer will be the same!

I ask you again HAVE YOU SEEN THE LAUNCH OF COLUMBIA THAT DAY ON TV ? but none of you respond for this question, why do you avoid to answering this question ,please answer me!

I am not referring to the dramatization part of NASA’s series WHEN WE LEFT THE EARTH what I am talking about when they show Rick husband and his crew are taking their seats on cockpit and then they show the shuttle from media angel the angel of camera I have been talking about,then they show shuttle’s engines bells and then further solid booster’s explosive bolts explosion and final lift off now if you watch it after 14-15 seconds when they show footage from camera which was mounted under right wing may be on tank, facing towards sky- now you see a big jerk which shock whole wings and you do hear clearly the sound of strike or bang .i attached the pictures of thease video frames…one picture before the jerk and one during the jerk you see strange glow or light around the left wing’s area and hear the loud sound of some thing.

Please don’t say this footage is from different flight,If you say so then why they need to replace the original flight lift-off footage and use other flight’s lift-off footage stead??? Think about it with open mind please.

  As Mr flyingSwan said “The external camera first flew on STS-112  in November 2002 few months before Columbia yahh…you are right Columbia flew 16 Jan 2003 and on this series WHEN WE LEFT THE EARTH they show these camera’s footage in Columbia’s lift-off.

As Mr Hazzard ask me to continue,Its give me the feelings that there are people who can stay cool during any debate and discussions.

Mr Agent said “they too need to prove their claim with hard evidence”…Does They mean NASA here ?

Mr Mid asked me what my position is, do you mean my profession and occupation?! Can I kindly ask yours before ?

I am again here to find out facts no matter you dig and find them or I dig and find them.

quote name='MID' date='15 June 2010 - 01:09 AM' timestamp='1276564185' post='3452969']
I'm not really sure what your point is in this thread.

You make a huge emphasis on STS-107, which is a well understood situation that has been fixed.
You also make a few references to Apollo technology that you don't understand...and I get the feeling you're claiming that somehow, there was a conspiracy and cover-up in the STS-107 case, and in the Apollo case.

There wasn't any such thing in either case.
You simply do not understand what happened to STS-107, and I have the feeling your understanding of Apollo is just as rudimentary.

Perhaps you should think about the fact that Dr. Chawla (PhD, Eng (Aerospace, U. of Co., 1988)) would be frowning on you for even suggesting such a thing...because she was fully aware that Apollo happened as advertised, and she wanted to be a part of that, God bless her...


:hmm:
[/quote]

Attached Files






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users