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

#46    rajeev shagun

rajeev shagun

    Astral Projection

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

Posted 19 June 2010 - 03:04 PM

hi mrbusdriver-
that i exactly meant if the Eagle and CM were in prallel situation then how come moon's surface
doesn't appear beside of CM ?what i mean that we should see the curved edge of moon even earht
is too big in diameter wise but you see in earth orbit this curve.it appears in this picture
that moon is behind the CM but not under or above though both craft were vertical to the moon
surface.


#47    mrbusdriver

mrbusdriver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,661 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2007

Posted 19 June 2010 - 08:22 PM

In the CM photo, the LM is looking down on the CM, with the Moon behind it. It appears that the shadow to the left is the edge of the window, blocking part of the view. I don't think that's the black of space there.
Part of the sepatation maneuver was to align the two docked ctaft with the direction of travel, to avoid any lateral errors in their course being caused in the separation. (even a foot or two per second introduced laterally could introduce big errors at the landing point). They undocked in the "orbital plane". It's likely this shot was taken some minutes after undocking, when the CM maneuvered under the LM during the visual inspection.

There's nothing odd in this photo...

Edited by mrbusdriver, 19 June 2010 - 08:32 PM.


#48    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 - 09:01 PM

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

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




OK, here we go--

Quote

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.

I think the answer to this question is somewhat obvious, rajeev.

It looks like it was shot in a studio because it looks like it to you.
To my eye, it looks like a perfectly normal sequence of yawing motion taken from Columbia.  There is nothing but the nominal maneuvering, at relatively soft rates, that was prescribed for this particular maneuver.

The fact is, the decent material that you've likely  seen in movies and on television productions is based upon what has been observed in real footage.
It's not the other way around.

I speculate that you saw alot of space oriented reproductions in movies or on TV before you saw this real footage.  A more accurate statement would be that the studio produced stuff looks like Apollo footage!

There's not much more I can say about that one...


Quote

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?


That is an excellent question!
I see that there was an assumption you used to formulate this one, which you wrote in your message to Mr. B...

Quote

that i exactly meant if the Eagle and CM were in prallel situation then how come moon's surface
doesn't appear beside of CM ?

This is going to be a little tricky, maybe.
I think you're implying that the two spacecraft were moving along the same orbital path around the Moon, and that they should be in front of or behind (as the case may be)each other, or perhaps along side each other at the same altitude.  Thus, you assume the lunar surface should be visible along side and below them both.

First of all, I should point out that this photo was not taken when Eagle was beginning its powered descent to the surface.
This image  was shot from Eagle, obviously, shortly after the two spacecraft had separated a but from each other after undocking ( Eagle was quite some ways off, and about 50 miles below Columbia when she began her descent).

At this point in the timeline, both spacecraft were in an approximately 60 NM high orbit together.  The reasons they're in that particular orientation are numerous.

As you can see, Eagle is, in relation to the lunar surface, about 100-150 feet "above" Columbia, and Columbia is pointed nose-up, as-it-were, in relation to the surface.

This represents the undocking attitude of the two spacecraft (attitude means basically...the way you're pointing).
In space...on orbit, or where-ever, you can be in any attitude deemed necessary...pointing up, down, to the side, forwards, or backwards in relation to the direction you're moving.  You can do this because there's no air out there.  

Now, that being understood, particular attitudes are established in the flight plan for certain maneuvers.  These attitudes are all preplanned and have  a purpose.  In this case, the attitude that Eagle and Columbia undocked at was useful for aligning the Abort Guidance System aboard the LM (the backup guidance system), it provided adequate communications and data transmission between both spacecraft and Houston (Mission Control needed to see both spacecraft's data) when they came around from the back side of the Moon (where undocking took place), and it provided a good visual platform for Mike Collins, who was charged with inspecting Eagle visually, and photographing and filming her.

With Eagle "above" Columbia, there was no interference from the lunar surface which would play with photography...just a black background with a sunlit subject.

As to the landing, yes, Eagle was considerably lower than Columbia when the executed PDI (Powered Descent Initiation).  A while after this picture you show was taken, Columbia moved away from Eagle, and Eagle executed a descent orbit burn, which placed her in a lower orbit than Columbia's 60 mile circular orbit.  Eagle's orbit after DOI was about 47 x 9 miles, and she began her descent to the lunar surface at the low point, around 9 miles above the surface.

  

Quote

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 say that it appears that the photograph is real, but it is not of Eagle's interior.

As I previously indicated, there was no camera behind the crew which could make film, or take stills of the crew inside.  The LM was small inside, and the area behind the crew was packed with equipment.  The only camera inside Eagle that was running during descent was the 16mm DAC (Data Aquisition Camera), which was pointed out the right hand window of the LM, and down toward the lower half of her, so as to film the approach and landing...outside shots.

What you're looking at is a picture of the gloved hand of an astronaut on an authentic ACA (Attitude Controller Assembly),  which is substantiated by the 4 on the panel immediately to the right of the ACA.  Panel 4 was the Commanders DSKY (Display and Keyboard), which was his computer controller assembly.

The Throttle (actually called the TTCA (Thrust/Translation Controller Assembly)) was on the left side of the Commander and Pilot.  The ACA controlled the attitude of the LM.


This picture was taken inside this thing:


Posted Image

That is a lunar module simulator.
Go up those steps, go in through the door, and you're essentially inside a duplicate of the LM, with functional controls, film projectors to simulate the view out the windows , and computer interfaces.  This is where the process was simulated and rehearsed countless times.  All switches and controls worked just like in the real thing, and the instruments responded, as well as the views out the windows of the simulator, with reasonable reproductions of what you'd actually see out the windows of the real thing.

These simulations were done in shirtsleeves early on, and in suits later on still...

Here's a picture of Neil in the LM simulator on 19 June 1969:

Posted Image


And, in the latter simulations...the full simulations, with Mission Control, helmets and gloves were worn.


Now, You will note that someone was able to take the picture of Neil in the simulator from the area AFT of the pilot's position.
This is because the whole area is empty of equipment and there's an access-way there for the people to get in and out through the door in the back.  People could go in there and film them, or take photos, which is what you're looking at in the photo you posted.

There's no such area for anyone to be taking photos in the actual LM.


Further, it certainly wasn't the LMP (Lunar Module Pilot).  He was exceedingly busy during the LM operations from his position to the right of the Commander.  He monitored the displays and computer inputs during the descent.  The Commander was paying attention out his windows and was flying the craft.


I hope these explanations answer your questions.


#49    mrbusdriver

mrbusdriver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,661 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2007

Posted 19 June 2010 - 09:40 PM

Thanks MID, well put.

Orbital mechanics are very strange...speed up to slow down, and vice versa...
That Columbia was above or below the LM at that point wasn't really an issue, as they (or one of them) could maneuver to keep the two together for as long as needed. Only after small inputs separated the two did the LM make the initial descent burn to lower the low point of it's orbit in preparation for landing.

This photo was taken a full orbit, maybe a tad more, prior to landing.


#50    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,853 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 19 June 2010 - 10:53 PM

Didn't I answer the question regarding the LM being above the CSM in a previous post? I know someone raised it and I explained why (though not as eloquently as MID) but can't remember if it was on this board or another forum.


#51    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 - 11:16 PM

View Postmrbusdriver, on 19 June 2010 - 09:40 PM, said:

Thanks MID, well put.


You're welcome Mr. B.


Quote

Orbital mechanics are very strange...speed up to slow down, and vice versa...

Somewhat counterintutive, isn't it?
You speed up and you go down...You slow down and you go up...wanna catch something in orbit...don't thrust right at it!

It's fun stuff.  I still get a kick out of rendezvous on Shuttle flights.
  

Quote

That Columbia was above or below the LM at that point wasn't really an issue, as they (or one of them) could maneuver to keep the two together for as long as needed. Only after small inputs separated the two did the LM make the initial descent burn to lower the low point of it's orbit in preparation for landing.

Absolutely correct.  Their separation wasn't significant enough to make any real diference in their orbits, and they could indeed make small tweaks to remain in what was virtually a stationkeeping position.

Quote

This photo was taken a full orbit, maybe a tad more, prior to landing.

Yep...I think you're just about dead on.
I think on that front side pass they separated, and the LM executed DOI on the back side, and PDI when they came around again...

:tu:


#52    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 - 11:17 PM

View PostObviousman, on 19 June 2010 - 10:53 PM, said:

Didn't I answer the question regarding the LM being above the CSM in a previous post? I know someone raised it and I explained why (though not as eloquently as MID) but can't remember if it was on this board or another forum.


You probably did OM.
I think that question has been answered several times.
I'd bet it was on the Moon Hoax thread!


#53    rajeev shagun

rajeev shagun

    Astral Projection

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

Posted 20 June 2010 - 02:12 PM

Hello 5th time-

I have been watching the footage of STS-107’s lift-off from Israeli TV crew’s camera which was positioned right side of shuttle,  I have been comparing it with the footage I saw here in India (most probably from Indian national TV DOORDARSHAN crew’s camera) the footage from the camera which was positioned back of the shuttle as you can see in illustration sketch… I am sure when they showed in India ,the piece of insulation foam coming off from shuttle’s liquid fuel tank…the shuttle not even started to roll from left to right and tilting on 39`angle.

So roughly this piece of foam came off even before then I guessed though you and NASA say it wasn’t harmful for tiles in this stage.

Mr Mid said this angle footage ( the angle which shows in illustration here in attached image) is available every where.
Can you kindly tell me where can I find this angle’s footage on internet or else where ?

The illustration shows here the red longer block this is suppose to be the piece of foam which came off from Columbia’s liquid fuel tank. If this footage is not from STS-107 flight then now you have idea how it should looks like, so will you bother to find which other flight it could be from?

Why I am keep talking about it again and again because when you know somebody is going to be killed but that person doesn’t know and you can’t do any thing in half of the month time,the feelings are very…very bad. This is the pain exactly I have been going through.
I knew there were 7 precious life’s on the board and had their son, daughter and wife and husbands were waiting home for them and I knew totally that if they come back without home work Columbia will explode…I don’t know why I was so sure of disaster like I was never ever sure of any thing till today.

Attached Thumbnails

  • STS-107 big piece of foam illu. comp..jpg


#54    rajeev shagun

rajeev shagun

    Astral Projection

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

Posted 20 June 2010 - 02:32 PM

Hi Mid -
You are right about
Orbital maneuvers you have to speed down if you have to catch another space craft and if you want to increase the distance between you and other spacecraft then you have to speed up.

Thanks for explaining me about CM and loner surface exactly behind cm image though I am not totally satisfied yet


#55    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 20 June 2010 - 04:04 PM

View Postrajeev shagun, on 20 June 2010 - 02:12 PM, said:

Hello 5th time-

I have been watching the footage of STS-107’s lift-off from Israeli TV crew’s camera which was positioned right side of shuttle,  I have been comparing it with the footage I saw here in India (most probably from Indian national TV DOORDARSHAN crew’s camera) the footage from the camera which was positioned back of the shuttle as you can see in illustration sketch… I am sure when they showed in India ,the piece of insulation foam coming off from shuttle’s liquid fuel tank…the shuttle not even started to roll from left to right and tilting on 39`angle.

So roughly this piece of foam came off even before then I guessed though you and NASA say it wasn’t harmful for tiles in this stage.


rajeev--

I know of no TV cameras, and certainly no crews that are permitted to be anywhere within 3 miles of the launch complex at KSC.
The media uses feeds provided by NASA HD cameras, and HDNet cameras and HD audio.  They shoot the launch from numerous angles, and those feeds are supplied to media worldwide for broadcast. Credentialed media are restricted to the media center areas.  

Quote

Mr Mid said this angle footage ( the angle which shows in illustration here in attached image) is available every where.
Can you kindly tell me where can I find this angle’s footage on internet or else where ?

You can go to NASA on the Web, or youtube.  There are many STS-107 launch videos, all of them compilations of various camera angles.
The view you speak of is generally not shown as a continuous shot, because the steam and smoke from the engines blocks that view, and the angle changes to show the vehicle.

I have no idea what you were seeing.  You'll simply have to link us to that video if and when you can find it.  There was nothing apparent going on as you indicate on STS-107 or any other Shuttle flight.

You're describing a massive piece of foam, based on your drawing, shortly after tower clear and measuring somehwere in the vicinity of 45 feet x perhaps 15 feet.   That, if it ever occurred, would've been obvious instantly, and would've been a signal that ET foam application processing and testing had failed miserably.  No such huge chunk has over come off of an ET...and no significant piece has ever released during the first few seconds of a liftoff.

Here's a photo of STS-107, just about the time you say you saw this:

Posted Image

There's no sign of it, nor any sign of something coming loose...

And if it did, that would've produced a huge rent in the orange foam, visible to all cameras, and a very hazardous condition in a matter of seconds as aerodynamic loads would've literally peeled the foam off of the orbiter as the speed increased.   We'd have had a visible, and serious problem within the next 20 seconds, and the Bi-pod ramp issue wouldn't have been a consideration, as I suspect an abort would've been called..


Quote

The illustration shows here the red longer block this is suppose to be the piece of foam which came off from Columbia’s liquid fuel tank. If this footage is not from STS-107 flight then now you have idea how it should looks like, so will you bother to find which other flight it could be from?

As I said, I recall no such launch shedding of huge peieces of foam, and no ET inspection after separation that revealed any such loss.  And as I say, such a huge loss would've led to much more loss in short order, and very likely an aborted mission.

Additionally, there was no huge pieces of charred foam debris at the pad after the launch.  This sort of thing would've been revelaed in post launch pad inspection and cleanup.



Quote

Why I am keep talking about it again and again because when you know somebody is going to be killed but that person doesn’t know and you can’t do any thing in half of the month time,the feelings are very…very bad. This is the pain exactly I have been going through.
I knew there were 7 precious life’s on the board and had their son, daughter and wife and husbands were waiting home for them and I knew totally that if they come back without home work Columbia will explode…I don’t know why I was so sure of disaster like I was never ever sure of any thing till today.

I think you're beating youself up over something that you are misintepreting.

The impact occurred as a result of the left bipod ramp, a small piece of foam, releasing from the ET at 1:21 into the flight, and impacting the orbiter's left wing at over 500 MPH.  No one was aware of the damage it had done, no one could see it from the orbiter windows, and NASA management mis-managed the analysis of the debris strike and the kinetic effect.

No one actually knew there was significant damage to the RCC on the left wing.
And, while there is no doubt that some people at NASA were concerned about possibilities, no one actually knew what was about to occur on re-entry, and even during the re-entry, Mission Control had no idea what was going on aloft...until I think about 9:00 eastern time, when they were receiving no data at all, when there was no radar tracking coming from the Cape, and when Flight Director Leroy Cain was informed that there was news footage already on the air of the vehicle breaking up over Texas.

I think you're the only person I've ever heard who saw what you say you saw.  I don't know that any resolution to this can be made unless we see what you saw.


#56    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 20 June 2010 - 04:15 PM

View Postrajeev shagun, on 20 June 2010 - 02:32 PM, said:

Hi Mid -

Thanks for explaining me about CM and lunar surface exactly behind cm image though I am not totally satisfied yet


You're welcome, and I completely understand your feelings.

Apollo was not, by any means, a simplistic endeavor.  There are complexities in such a mission that would blow your mind.
I made that as simple as I could.

Alot of people have assumptions about space flight that are erroneous, and that leads them into alot of confusion and mis-interpretations about what they may be seeing or hearing.

Perhaps the explanation will give you the impetus to research and learn more about the mechanics of spaceflight and the particulars of Apollo lunar orbital operations.


#57    mrbusdriver

mrbusdriver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,661 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2007

Posted 20 June 2010 - 07:32 PM

View PostMID, on 20 June 2010 - 04:04 PM, said:

Additionally, there was no huge pieces of charred foam debris at the pad after the launch.  This sort of thing would've been revelaed in post launch pad inspection and cleanup.

I think you're beating youself up over something that you are misintepreting.

The impact occurred as a result of the left bipod ramp, a small piece of foam, releasing from the ET at 1:21 into the flight, and impacting the orbiter's left wing at over 500 MPH.  No one was aware of the damage it had done, no one could see it from the orbiter windows, and NASA management mis-managed the analysis of the debris strike and the kinetic effect.

No one actually knew there was significant damage to the RCC on the left wing.
And, while there is no doubt that some people at NASA were concerned about possibilities, no one actually knew what was about to occur on re-entry, and even during the re-entry, Mission Control had no idea what was going on aloft...until I think about 9:00 eastern time, when they were receiving no data at all, when there was no radar tracking coming from the Cape, and when Flight Director Leroy Cain was informed that there was news footage already on the air of the vehicle breaking up over Texas.

I think you're the only person I've ever heard who saw what you say you saw.  I don't know that any resolution to this can be made unless we see what you saw.

Indeed. The post flight analysis revealed the emails between the TPS experts, the speculation, the worst case conjecture...it's horribly painful to read. Then, as the telemetry started showing signs of just those events happening during reentry...and seeing the Flight Director, tears streaming down his face, saying "Lock the doors"....

rajeev, I have no idea what you saw. I know the dropping H2 vent line is on that side on the other side of the SRB, it drops at liftoff. Had there been such a shedding anywhere on the vehicle, it would have certainly been seen on the engineering footage from the very many cameras on and around the pad/FSS. It wasn't.


#58    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 21 June 2010 - 01:05 AM

View Postmrbusdriver, on 20 June 2010 - 07:32 PM, said:

Indeed. The post flight analysis revealed the emails between the TPS experts, the speculation, the worst case conjecture...it's horribly painful to read. Then, as the telemetry started showing signs of just those events happening during reentry...and seeing the Flight Director, tears streaming down his face, saying "Lock the doors"....


In remembering that day...it was apparent that Mission Control didn't realize what was happening for some time.
The tension was there as the minutes grew on.  After the LOS , which concurred with an expected short duration LOS due to satellite switching, which continued on and on, and Leroy Cain asking when they were supposed to expect radar (from the Cape), and that call:

"A minute ago."


That's when it became apparent.  I think everyone in the room knew it at that moment.

But yes...that moment when he called the contingency was, well...
It's one of the reasons I have a tendency to get testy about conspiracy nonsense being tossed about regarding this thing...or Challenger.


#59    rajeev shagun

rajeev shagun

    Astral Projection

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

Posted 21 June 2010 - 02:10 PM

Hi again 6th time-
                            Mr Mid and Mrbusdriver what ever you explained me about the footage where you see the Apollo command module and in the back ground the moon surface, it is exactly contrary to   facts I founded now.(thanks any way for that much of efforts) there was no way to see moon behind the CM because CM was top of the Eagle (check the trajectory plans image) in this case we should had been seeing black space behind the CM or in other case if they were in same altitude in same orbit from lunar surface then it should appear like the image I attached about Soyuz in earth orbit which was taken from Apollo.
Command module always had nose down to the moon surface until Eagle returned from lunar surface and docked again but once you docked you can not take this picture. This is the another evidence of that the Moon landing was a great hoax.
When you watch this footage it looks so unreal that any body with little mind can catch the staging of this footage.

Attached Thumbnails

  • Lunar trojectory plan compr..jpg
  • soyuz seen by apollo in earth orbit compr..jpg
  • CM in the position where moon should not be behind com..JPG


#60    rajeev shagun

rajeev shagun

    Astral Projection

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

Posted 21 June 2010 - 02:48 PM

hi
Yahh mid No matter did the big piece of foam harm the Columbia’s left wing tiles or it happened by the small piece of foam which came off after 82 sec. after lift-off, the result during reentry was the same what I was totally afraid of for.
The scene of window view of reentry 2000~2400 f Heat, plasma, orange and bright flames on wings and shuttle’s airframe it is always scary to me…I think it is a very critical moment for shuttle or any space craft may be we have to be 100% sure of total external safety of shuttle. This is the scene exactly played back front of my eyes when I saw that big piece of foam.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users