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

#31    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 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 18 June 2010 - 09:17 AM

View Postrajeev shagun, on 18 June 2010 - 08:53 AM, said:

[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!

If you will not accept that there was NO footage that day which showed the foam strike, that it was only reviewed and shown AFTER the launch then yes, I'll ;lead the firing squad to rid the world of ignorance. This is not a quickly arrived at decision but one which has been determined after your refusal to accept fact. I sleep well at night knowing my decision.

View Postrajeev shagun, on 18 June 2010 - 08:53 AM, said:

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 believe many of us have answered you many times times.

YES!

View Postrajeev shagun, on 18 June 2010 - 08:53 AM, said:

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.
These were only publicly available after the launch, not during, as they were taken with high speed or specialist cameras. Also, I disagree with what you are claiming happened in the footage. I have seen the post flight footage which shows the foam strike. There was NO audio associated with it - another indication that your are being fed disinformation or are being deceptive. The "glow" might have been the disintegration of the foam strike.

View Postrajeev shagun, on 18 June 2010 - 08:53 AM, said:

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.

I only claim your so called "sources" do not match accepted fact. I think you need to accept that what what you saw was not the footage from that flight.

The only thing clear so far is that you show no evidence for your claims.


#32    rajeev shagun

rajeev shagun

    Astral Projection

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

Posted 18 June 2010 - 09:22 AM

When Mr Mid answered about Lunar module’s nozzles that -why they look new and unused…Infect I was exactly expecting this kind of answer from you ,I know the complexity of  LEM’s engines…I was sure you will counts me so many reasons like how different the radiator was or how different the metal of bell was. What I think that no matter how different the metal is there must be some effect can be seen on the surface after facing extreme heat and exhaust gases from nozzle


#33    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,797 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 18 June 2010 - 09:52 AM

View Postrajeev shagun, on 18 June 2010 - 09:22 AM, said:

When Mr Mid answered about Lunar module’s nozzles that -why they look new and unused…Infect I was exactly expecting this kind of answer from you ,I know the complexity of  LEM’s engines…I was sure you will counts me so many reasons like how different the radiator was or how different the metal of bell was. What I think that no matter how different the metal is there must be some effect can be seen on the surface after facing extreme heat and exhaust gases from nozzle
Check through the Apollo photographic record, eg AS11-40-5921 with shallow crater, discolouration and radial flow traces.  Of course there are visible surface effects.

"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- )

#34    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 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 18 June 2010 - 09:53 AM

View Postrajeev shagun, on 18 June 2010 - 09:22 AM, said:

When Mr Mid answered about Lunar module’s nozzles that -why they look new and unused…Infect I was exactly expecting this kind of answer from you ,I know the complexity of  LEM’s engines…I was sure you will counts me so many reasons like how different the radiator was or how different the metal of bell was. What I think that no matter how different the metal is there must be some effect can be seen on the surface after facing extreme heat and exhaust gases from nozzle

You asked:

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

About Lunar module exhaust nozzles, yes they weren’t made by shiny metal but what I meant that once you run the rocket engine no Metter where it is solid motor or liquid motor the nozzle looks used due to extreme heat of exhaust gases and yes I know bit about rocket engines because I do make solid motor rockets.  

What do you think ?

The replies were:

View PostMID, on 08 June 2010 - 11:37 PM, said:

The LM DPS engine bells were matte finished.  They didn't shine.

My post:

Posted Image

You then changed the subject.

What do engine bells look like? it depend upon the engine. Here is the SSME during launch:

http://mm04.nasaimag...in&profileid=41

http://grin.hq.nasa....2000-000055.jpg

Here are the engines post flight:

http://mm04.nasaimag...in&profileid=21

http://galaxywire.ne...c-wallpaper.jpg

You have to prove there should be a noticeable difference between the LN nozzle pre-flight and post flight.


#35    mrbusdriver

mrbusdriver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,528 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2007

Posted 18 June 2010 - 02:27 PM

rajeev, perhaps you could tell us accurately how long after liftoff you saw/heard this strike on the alleged media coverage. The actual foam strike occurred about 82 seconds after liftoff. Perhaps you saw/heard something else at an earlier time?

There are several things coming off the stack right after liftoff, like the RCS cover papers (designed with aerodynamic scoops to make them pull away within seconds). They won't cause any damage, they're just Tyvek paper.
And, again, the strike occurred miles away from the launch site, and there was no onboard SRB/ET cameras on that flight to film the strike. The only cameras that got any decent views of it were the long range cameras which were NOT transmitting live, and were only reviewed after the launch.

I have no idea what you were watching live...


#36    rajeev shagun

rajeev shagun

    Astral Projection

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

Posted 18 June 2010 - 02:30 PM

Hi-
    Now i am able to sand you the camera which was mounted on the tank facing towards sky,footage's
image which had been taking on 13 seconds after the Columbia's lift-off.

Now you can compare image on 13sec. and image on 15 sec.! do you see the difference
and i know this footage is post flight stuff for public but because i can not see the media ang



Attached File  Columbia 13 sec.after lift-off comp..JPG   192.62K   17 downloadsAttached File  Columbia 13 sec.after lift-off comp..JPG   192.62K   17 downloads

View PostObviousman, on 18 June 2010 - 09:17 AM, said:

If you will not accept that there was NO footage that day which showed the foam strike, that it was only reviewed and shown AFTER the launch then yes, I'll ;lead the firing squad to rid the world of ignorance. This is not a quickly arrived at decision but one which has been determined after your refusal to accept fact. I sleep well at night knowing my decision.


I believe many of us have answered you many times times.

YES!


These were only publicly available after the launch, not during, as they were taken with high speed or specialist cameras. Also, I disagree with what you are claiming happened in the footage. I have seen the post flight footage which shows the foam strike. There was NO audio associated with it - another indication that your are being fed disinformation or are being deceptive. The "glow" might have been the disintegration of the foam strike.



I only claim your so called "sources" do not match accepted fact. I think you need to accept that what what you saw was not the footage from that flight.

The only thing clear so far is that you show no evidence for your claims.



#37    rajeev shagun

rajeev shagun

    Astral Projection

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

Posted 18 June 2010 - 02:39 PM

Hi- There was a technical problem,there are two same images had been sent (on 13 sec.after lift-off
of Columbia)on 15 sec.image i have uploaded today so please do not confuse please compare that
image with one of this image


#38    rajeev shagun

rajeev shagun

    Astral Projection

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

Posted 18 June 2010 - 02:55 PM

hiMrbusdriver-
        i roughly can say it must be between 20 sec. from lift off,and it was media engel view
and i saw it clearly it was long ,soft piece of foam,top of it news here started with this
sentence" there was a problem during the launch...piece of foam came off but launch was okay.
hat
the size was scary to me biggest among all foam i ever seen,thats why i was sure of total doom
on reentry.


#39    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 18 June 2010 - 09:25 PM

View Postrajeev shagun, on 18 June 2010 - 08:53 AM, said:

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.

  


Ok, look...I'm about to show how incorrect you are.

I know what you're talking about.  I also know you say you saw a big chunk of something hit the orbiter, and a sound.
You didn't see, or hear any such thing (those videos have no sound recording capability).  I'm going to tell you what you saw.   As to what you heard, you're imagining something...

First of all, I'm going to tell you that you are indeed looking at film from ANOTHER SHUTTLE FLIGHT.  You're looking at video from the aft right SRM camera of another mission, which was used here to dramatize the launch of Columbia with some more recent views from flights that had them.  It's a typical journalistic device when making documentary films.  I will prove that to you below.  Further, the film shown in the production is not synched to the actual timeline...another journalistic license item...

But for now, I will tell you what you saw in that sequence.

You saw the shock wave come over the orbiter as it broke the sound barrier (the vapor cone enveloping the orbiter's forward fuselage is the hint here).  You did not see any debris.  You saw something typical on many shuttle flight (and many prior to the Shuttle).  This typically occurs between 30 and 40 seconds into the flight, not at 14 to 15 seconds (which is further proof that the video representation shown are not STS-107s).

Now:

The view that you were looking at of the tower clear segment (the right wing) is from an aft looking SRM camera.  You will note that the vehicle enters its roll program (to position the vehicle for pitch onto the propweer inclination for the orbit planned), and you see it rolling left.  Just look at it...closely.

The proof of my contention is this:

COLUMBIA, ON THE STS-107 MISSION...ROLLED RIGHT.


Case closed. It's from another flight.

Knowledgeable people have told tou there were no such views on STS-107.  
I know you asked not to be told this footage was from a different flight.
Unfortunately, it's obvious that it was...for reasons explained.

You also keep asking if we saw the launch on TV.

I already told you I saw the launch.  I saw it from every camera angle NASA has.
There was no huge piece of debris that struck her at liftoff...or any time until 81.6 seconds into the flight, and no one could see that when it happened.






Quote

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.

No, as you saw above, the camera views are from a different mission.  STS-107 had no such views.  
And even if it did...those views are never seen live.  They are only processed days after launch when the SRMs get back to the Cape.

And, we would have known long before de-orbit that we had a serious crisis and everything would have changed in a heartbeat.  No one knew the extent of the damage, because there were no such views to be seen.




Quote

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

No.  It means you.
And you can't do that, because you are mistaken in this matter.

Quote

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

No, you may not ask.
I meant WHAT IS YOUR POINT HERE IN BRINGING UP ALL THESE LITTLE THINGS ABOUT APOLLO?
We already can clearly see that you're mistaken about STS-107.
What's Apollo have to do with it?  


That's what I clearly meant.

Care to answer?



Quote

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

Well, OK.

I, and others did provide you with the facts.
You should have found them by now.
They've been provided to you repeatedly.
Above, you have clear proof that you are mistaken about what you contend...


#40    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 18 June 2010 - 09:38 PM

View Postrajeev shagun, on 18 June 2010 - 02:30 PM, said:

Hi-
    Now i am able to sand you the camera which was mounted on the tank facing towards sky,footage's
image which had been taking on 13 seconds after the Columbia's lift-off.



rajeev...

There was and is no ET camera that faces the sky.  The ET camera faces AFT.
We have that one, two views from each SRM, and two views from the ET intertank area which are pointed at the SRMs.

STS-107 had none of these devices.


#41    rajeev shagun

rajeev shagun

    Astral Projection

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

Posted 19 June 2010 - 01:59 PM

Hello Dear Members-

Now I am developing serious doubts about NASA…

As dear Mid conformed that the footage from ET camera facing towards sky, showed in NASA series WHEN WE LEFT THE EARTH in between Columbia’s lift-off footage is not even from STS-107… great !

Please keep your mind open (if none of you affiliated with NASA) Why they had to bother to find different flight footage from different time and dramatized this launch footage. Wasn’t it is easy for them to put original STS-107’s lift-off footage stead? Why?

When I talk about huge piece of insulation foam I and thousand of other people saw(Indian national TV DOORDARSHAN was telecasting it on national news for 1 billion people) during the launch of Columbia STS-107, I am honest in this matter…I repeat…what I saw was-the huge piece of foam coming off from shuttle’s tank and second or two seconds later shuttle’s left wing passed over it …I did  not see the strike…
Yahh I could see that when it was passing under the wing it vibrated like it touched the surface of wing…so I did not see or heard the strike(as you keep reminding me) but because the size was extremely big that’s scared me of damaging some tiles.

The foam was as tall as that (if my memory is not bad) even it was passing behind the wing you might be able to see both ends top and bottom same time.
If you think DOORDARSHAN has started to act like NASA…like switching footages then I do have a request-
Can you find out which flight this footage was from? hope we will reach on some conclusions.

When you said that there is no footage available of LEM’s in side cabin activities…
I was watching over and over this part of documentary “Days that shook the world”
(I had doubt on it earlier as well) they shows real interior of LEM with all switches and controls ,real suit ,just arm of the astronaut most of time some time face but may be dramatization but the fact is how do you difference between real and dramatization when half of Apollo footage looks like dramatization

1.Rolling of Eagle in moon’s orbit after separating from CM look s like it was shot in studio. The still image is attached here.

2.Can you kindly explain me when Eagle is starting it’s power descent to the moon surface and CM is should be higher altitude wise then in the attached image how can you see the entire moon surface in background of CM it looks like that Eagle is higher then CM?

3. the Third image is from Eagle’s interior you see the hand of Neil on throttle control…Is it real or it is a dramatization ?(these all three images are from documentary
“DAYS THAT SHOOK THE WORLD"

Attached Files



#42    rajeev shagun

rajeev shagun

    Astral Projection

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

Posted 19 June 2010 - 02:17 PM

Hi mid-
   I forgot to reply, about what is my point to bring all small things about apollos...
because i am soon going to write an article about it and i do not want to make mistake there
so better clarified before here.


#43    mrbusdriver

mrbusdriver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,528 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2007

Posted 19 June 2010 - 02:18 PM

These sort of documentaries usually use film footage that involve actors in spacesuits, inside spacecraft mockups, to demonstrate different parts of the flight. There's nothing dishonest about it, as it is very easy to tell such "simulation" from real footage. Same thing with launch footage, where they may take short clips from different launches (that don't show a different shuttle name). It's just to add detail to the sequence, that's all.
The pics of the CM below the LM...this was taken shortly after undocking. Not long after the picture was taken, there was a separation maneuver, which took the LM some distance away from the CM before it made it's final descent burn. Still, the LM was at roughly the same altitude as the CM when it started it's descent. Whether it was above or below the CM when it thrusted makes little difference, so long as they know their altitude.


#44    mrbusdriver

mrbusdriver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,528 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2007

Posted 19 June 2010 - 02:31 PM

View Postrajeev shagun, on 19 June 2010 - 02:17 PM, said:

Hi mid-
   I forgot to reply, about what is my point to bring all small things about apollos...
because i am soon going to write an article about it and i do not want to make mistake there
so better clarified before here.

I certainly hope your article doesn't include statements similar to "it looks like it was shot in a studio"...such statements are meaningless, and simply expose a certain mindset of the author.


#45    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 19 June 2010 - 02:59 PM

View Postrajeev shagun, on 19 June 2010 - 01:59 PM, said:

Hello Dear Members-

Now I am developing serious doubts about NASA…

As dear Mid conformed that the footage from ET camera facing towards sky, showed in NASA series WHEN WE LEFT THE EARTH in between Columbia’s lift-off footage is not even from STS-107… great !

Please keep your mind open (if none of you affiliated with NASA) Why they had to bother to find different flight footage from different time and dramatized this launch footage. Wasn’t it is easy for them to put original STS-107’s lift-off footage stead? Why?

OK, I'm glad we got that cleared up.

I explained that using other more detailed footage is a typical artistic license thing that film makers use all the time.  The footage was chosen because it shows detail that was unavailable on the 107 launch, and it serves to visually drmatize the situation by providing dynamic, interesting film.

You responded to me in a subsequent post:


Quote

Hi mid-
I forgot to reply, about what is my point to bring all small things about apollos...
because i am soon going to write an article about it and i do not want to make mistake there
so better clarified before here.

Ok, so you want to be a journalist and write an article.
It is best to realize that journalism uses dramatic device to draw readers in and hook them.  Tag lines that often have little to do with the substance of an article, headlines that are questions designed to make the reader think there's an answer to it in the article (which there never really is),  etc...in much the same way as visual journalists dramatize events like spaceflight with footage, and radio communication that is not from the flight being portrayed and/or is out of synch with events.  It's all for dramatic effect.

The educated eye clearly sees these things, and fully realized what he or she is looking at or reading.
That's what was involved, and has been involved in virtually every single documentary regarding spaceflight.

That's why the device was used by the Discovery Channel in the Columbia disaster dramatization, and why it is also used in the documentary you speak to in the "Days That Shook The World" documentary.

It's common journalistic license.
Unfortunately, it misleads many people.   But it does garner viewership...



Quote

When you said that there is no footage available of LEM’s in side cabin activities…
I was watching over and over this part of documentary “Days that shook the world”
(I had doubt on it earlier as well) they shows real interior of LEM with all switches and controls ,real suit ,just arm of the astronaut most of time some time face but may be dramatization but the fact is how do you difference between real and dramatization when half of Apollo footage looks like dramatization

1.Rolling of Eagle in moon’s orbit after separating from CM look s like it was shot in studio. The still image is attached here.

2.Can you kindly explain me when Eagle is starting it’s power descent to the moon surface and CM is should be higher altitude wise then in the attached image how can you see the entire moon surface in background of CM it looks like that Eagle is higher then CM?

3. the Third image is from Eagle’s interior you see the hand of Neil on throttle control…Is it real or it is a dramatization ?(these all three images are from documentary
“DAYS THAT SHOOK THE WORLD"


I will answer all of your question above a little later.
Right now I am a little pressed for time.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users