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

[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This topic has been archived.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

#1471 turbonium

turbonium

Government Agent

• Member
• 4,343 posts
• Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 26 December 2012 - 08:02 AM

flyingswan, on 23 December 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

My, if you can press a button on your chest without your arm extending that far, your thumb to elbow distance must be less than 24 cm.  Are you by any chance a hobbit?

Your analysis is the problem, because no hobbits are needed here.

The point of origin for this light source was determined to be ~24-36 cm to the right side of the camera.

So why would you measure that as 'thumb-tip' to 'elbow-tip' ?

No. They are measuring the distance between two specific points - the camera's centre point,and the light source's centre point.

The elbow-tip is not the center point - it's the outermost fringe.

#1472 turbonium

turbonium

Government Agent

• Member
• 4,343 posts
• Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 26 December 2012 - 08:55 AM

postbaguk, on 24 December 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

Thank you! All that remains is to do the measurement. Or, we can look at some photos or video stills of Apollo astronauts with cameras, and decide whether part of the arm would stick out past 23.6 cm when taking a photograph. For the old school among us, that's slightly under 9.5 inches.

A handy photograph. Are you really saying that no part of Armstrong's right arm extends past the 23.6 cm mark?

http://www.hq.nasa.g...S69-32240HR.jpg

The light source is 23.6 cm minimum distance from the camera. But the spacesuit is adjacent to the camera, so that rules it out.

#1473 skyeagle409

skyeagle409

Forum Divinity

• Member
• 31,121 posts
• Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 26 December 2012 - 09:40 AM

turbonium, on 26 December 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

Your analysis is the problem,...

Take this little hint that you have no case.

Quote

SELENE photographs

In 2008, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1474 flyingswan

flyingswan

Government Agent

• Member
• 3,887 posts
• Joined:13 Sep 2006

Posted 26 December 2012 - 09:48 AM

turbonium, on 26 December 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

Your analysis is the problem, because no hobbits are needed here.

The point of origin for this light source was determined to be ~24-36 cm to the right side of the camera.

So why would you measure that as 'thumb-tip' to 'elbow-tip' ?

No. They are measuring the distance between two specific points - the camera's centre point,and the light source's centre point.

The elbow-tip is not the center point - it's the outermost fringe.
Look at that picture postie gave you of Armstrong operating the camera.  His elbow is the part of his body most to the right of the camera, and hand (touching camera) is where you are measuring from.  Now measure yourself and see how far that distance is.  If it's less than 24 cm as you claimed, you're hobbit size.  Now picture Armstrong partially in shadow, with the inner edge of the brightly lit part of the spacesuit not too close to the camera as sunlight on the camera would cause the usual effects which are not seen in the picture.  What you're left with is a good match to Grove's "spotlight" position.

Edited by flyingswan, 26 December 2012 - 09:49 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- )

#1475 turbonium

turbonium

Government Agent

• Member
• 4,343 posts
• Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 26 December 2012 - 10:55 AM

flyingswan, on 26 December 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

Look at that picture postie gave you of Armstrong operating the camera.  His elbow is the part of his body most to the right of the camera, and hand (touching camera) is where you are measuring from.  Now measure yourself and see how far that distance is.  If it's less than 24 cm as you claimed, you're hobbit size.  Now picture Armstrong partially in shadow, with the inner edge of the brightly lit part of the spacesuit not too close to the camera as sunlight on the camera would cause the usual effects which are not seen in the picture.  What you're left with is a good match to Grove's "spotlight" position.

His entire spacesuit is in sunlight, but only his arm is the light source! Nothing else can fit the minimum 24 cm measurement, so you have to ignore it altogether..

Is that about it..?

#1476 DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

Forum Divinity

• Member
• 17,778 posts
• Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 26 December 2012 - 11:29 PM

This is the Yankee Clipper calling Mid ! Come in Mid ! I need a vector to Get this B.B.Q to you ! Happy Holidays Mate !
I have Dick Gordon in here and He`s  looking a bit weathered !

This is a Work in Progress!

#1477 postbaguk

postbaguk

Conspiracy Theorist

• Member
• 995 posts
• Joined:17 Aug 2006

Posted 27 December 2012 - 03:19 AM

turbonium, on 26 December 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

His entire spacesuit is in sunlight, but only his arm is the light source! Nothing else can fit the minimum 24 cm measurement, so you have to ignore it altogether..

Is that about it..?

No. The heel is only reflecting a certain 'zone of light' back into the camera lens, given the geometry of the scene (position of sun, angle that Armstrong is stood at,  position of boot, direction camera is facing.

That said, it makes sense that since Armstrong is angled slightly with respect to the Sun, his right arm is going to be more illuminated than, say, the front of his suit. Compare with this photo of Aldrin for example.

http://www.hq.nasa.g...S11-40-5902.jpg

We're also looking at a centre-point for the illumination source, since at no point in his analysis does Groves say how wide the light source is. So, in order for you to prove that the light source can not possibly have been sunlight reflected in Armstrong's suit, you need to prove the following:-

1. The suit can't reflect enough light to reflect in the boot (going to be difficult when you look at the ISS spacewalk video I linked to previously).

2. That no part of Armstrong's right arm can be 23.6 - 34.0 cm away from the centre of the lens (going to be difficult unless you are claiming Armstrong was a hobbit).

An interesting point to ponder while you're trying to prove those 2. (This is just a Christmas freebie for you). If Armstrong's arm isn't the reflector, where exactly is the light source? If it's behind the photographer, his body would block the light from hitting the reflector. If it was in front of him, it would show up in the photo. For you and Groves to be right, he would have to be practically on top of this light source, with his right arm virtually pressing against it, or certainly very close. Despite all this, the director, the crew, the continuity people, the "actornauts", the men-in-black with machine guns, no one, not a single person thought, "Why are we shooting this scene in the most ridiculous way imaginable?"

The other scenario, though quite mundane and dull and unexciting by comparison, is that Armstrong's suit reflected sunlight onto Aldrin's heel protector, and that's what we see in the photo and is backed up by Grove's analysis. It doesn't even invalidate the hoax claim, since you can just claim, ah it's not the sun, it's a very bright arc-light that's providing the illumination for the scene. At least that would have some semblance of credibility for someone who believes in a hoax, rather than a futile desperation to believe every bit of hoax 'evidence' you come across.

#1478 turbonium

turbonium

Government Agent

• Member
• 4,343 posts
• Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 29 December 2012 - 08:00 AM

postbaguk, on 27 December 2012 - 03:19 AM, said:

No. The heel is only reflecting a certain 'zone of light' back into the camera lens, given the geometry of the scene (position of sun, angle that Armstrong is stood at,  position of boot, direction camera is facing.

That said, it makes sense that since Armstrong is angled slightly with respect to the Sun, his right arm is going to be more illuminated than, say, the front of his suit. Compare with this photo of Aldrin for example.

http://www.hq.nasa.g...S11-40-5902.jpg

We're also looking at a centre-point for the illumination source, since at no point in his analysis does Groves say how wide the light source is. So, in order for you to prove that the light source can not possibly have been sunlight reflected in Armstrong's suit, you need to prove the following:-

1. The suit can't reflect enough light to reflect in the boot (going to be difficult when you look at the ISS spacewalk video I linked to previously).

The ISS suit is just a few inches away from the surface - such close proximity allows it to reflect some light.

But you are claiming a spacesuit is reflecting light onto a subject 15+ feet away. And that is quite a different thing.

That's what you need to show. So how about it?....

postbaguk, on 27 December 2012 - 03:19 AM, said:

2. That no part of Armstrong's right arm can be 23.6 - 34.0 cm away from the centre of the lens (going to be difficult unless you are claiming Armstrong was a hobbit).

You first need to prove a spacesuit reflection of 15-20 feet. If you can't prove it, then your case fails,  the arm is moot.

But let's say it is indeed possible, for argument's sake.

His right arm could indeed extend 23.6 - 34.0 cm from the centre of his camera lens. And you know the arm must be such a distance at the time he took the photo - at least the 23.6 cm minimum, anyway.

The right arm would be at a right angle in such a position, so any reflections veer off to right. Away from the LM. You'll think up some untenable excuse for that problem, I'm sure.

postbaguk, on 27 December 2012 - 03:19 AM, said:

An interesting point to ponder while you're trying to prove those 2. (This is just a Christmas freebie for you). If Armstrong's arm isn't the reflector, where exactly is the light source? If it's behind the photographer, his body would block the light from hitting the reflector. If it was in front of him, it would show up in the photo. For you and Groves to be right, he would have to be practically on top of this light source, with his right arm virtually pressing against it, or certainly very close.

The light is not directly behind the photographer, it's to his right, as close to him as possible. The ideal position for it, as Groves noted.

postbaguk, on 27 December 2012 - 03:19 AM, said:

Despite all this, the director, the crew, the continuity people, the "actornauts", the men-in-black with machine guns, no one, not a single person thought, "Why are we shooting this scene in the most ridiculous way imaginable?"

Why is it ridiculous?

#1479 skyeagle409

skyeagle409

Forum Divinity

• Member
• 31,121 posts
• Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 29 December 2012 - 08:20 AM

Sternwarte Bochum Observatory Tracked Apollo 16

Sternwarte Bochum Observatory in Germany tracked the astronauts and intercepted the television signals from Apollo 16. The image was re-recorded in black and white in the 625 lines, 25 frames/s television standard onto 2-inch videotape using their sole quad machine. The transmissions are only of the astronauts and do not contain any voice from Houston, as the signal received came from the Moon only. The videotapes are held in storage at the observatory.

http://en.wikipedia....hum_Observatory

Apollo 13

"Rachel, Chabot Observatory's 20-inch refracting telescope, helps bring Apollo 13 and its crew home. One last burn of the lunar lander engines was needed before the crippled spacecraft's re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere. In order to compute that last burn, NASA needed a precise position of the spacecraft, obtainable only by telescopic observation.

All the observatories that could have done this were clouded over, except Oakland's Chabot Observatory, where members of the Eastbay Astronomical Society had been tracking the Moon flights. EAS members received an urgent call from NASA Ames Research Station, which had ties with Chabot's educational program since the 60's, and they put the Observatory's historic 20-inch refractor to work. They were able to send the needed data to Ames, and the Apollo crew was able to make the needed correction and to return safely to Earth on this date in 1970."

The Bochum Radio Observatory, Germany

During the later Apollo missions, the observatory received and recorded some of the Field Sequential Color TV transmissions from the Lunar Rovers on the Moon, as well as biomedical data and voice.

http://www.honeysuck...chum/index.html

Edited by skyeagle409, 29 December 2012 - 08:55 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1480 flyingswan

flyingswan

Government Agent

• Member
• 3,887 posts
• Joined:13 Sep 2006

Posted 29 December 2012 - 02:41 PM

For anyone who appreciates a really good display of idiocy, the self-professed engineer Anders Bjorkman, who more normally spends his time winning awards for daft posts on JREF, has just joined the Apollo Hoax forum (as Heiwa) and is demonstrating a truly impressive lack of knowledge of both Apollo and the basics of rocketry.

http://www.apollohoa...php?topic=269.0

"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- )

#1481 Eluus

Eluus

Alien Embryo

• Member
• 69 posts
• Joined:01 Aug 2012

Posted 29 December 2012 - 05:44 PM

flyingswan, on 29 December 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

For anyone who appreciates a really good display of idiocy, the self-professed engineer Anders Bjorkman, who more normally spends his time winning awards for daft posts on JREF, has just joined the Apollo Hoax forum (as Heiwa) and is demonstrating a truly impressive lack of knowledge of both Apollo and the basics of rocketry.

http://www.apollohoa...php?topic=269.0

I think its more like a good display of incompetent trolling. I am surprised he is getting that much attention.

Edited by Eluus, 29 December 2012 - 05:44 PM.

#1482 trodas

trodas

Alien Embryo

• Member
• 19 posts
• Joined:16 Sep 2012

Posted 29 December 2012 - 06:02 PM

Take a picture from Great Images in NASA page:
http://grin.hq.nasa....2000-001137.jpg
(backed up on not-NASA owned sources for example here: http://farm9.staticf...e64c3c4af_z.jpg )
...and apply a high contrast on it Too lazy? Okay, I done it for you already:

So, if you ask Alan Ben (Apollo 12) astroNOT, then he probably claim that the "crature behind" is an alien. However IMHO it is just a relikt from photo manipulation that is likely to add the flag an "Earth" on the image. This is not the only one problem with this image. Another is, that at the time of the picture, the Earth must be MUCH lower on the horizon.
Also that other NASA versions of this AS17-134-20384 image are different (fixed the background):
http://spaceflight.n...7-134-20384.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.g...134-20384HR.jpg

But that is another story

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire
...just keep folding, just keep folding... my config - my caps

#1483 trodas

trodas

Alien Embryo

• Member
• 19 posts
• Joined:16 Sep 2012

Posted 29 December 2012 - 06:09 PM

Experiment to test, if you can in the simulator of lunar regolith that NASA selling in it's latest version as JSC-1A leave so distinct and deep prints (even with the aid of moisture, that on Moon is obviously absent on the Sun sude at leasti) from boots. The aim was to create as nice imprints, as astroNOTs allegedly leaved on the surface of the Moon:

http://nssdc.gsfc.na..._h_40_5878.html

LOL! Can't be done. Where comrades from NASA failed there?

Originals of pictures from Jarrah White: http://i923.photobuc...cz/DSC_1736.jpg http://i923.photobuc...cz/DSC_1737.jpg
video from the experiment:
)

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire
...just keep folding, just keep folding... my config - my caps

#1484 Czero 101

Czero 101

Earthshattering Kaboom

• Member
• 5,259 posts
• Joined:24 Dec 2007

Posted 29 December 2012 - 06:21 PM

I'm sorry, but anyone who uses the word "astronot" and uses Jarrah White as a source for anything other than sad comic relief is just a willfully ignorant HB troll with zero credibility and zero research skills.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 29 December 2012 - 06:23 PM.

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#1485 trodas

trodas

Alien Embryo

• Member
• 19 posts
• Joined:16 Sep 2012

Posted 29 December 2012 - 06:22 PM

Apollo oversized reflections to be from Sun in videos:

(proof of studio light)

Ed White, Gemini4, reasonable size reflection from real mission

Apollo - obvious and even contracting and expending reflection from studio light in visors
Ed White Gemini 4 spacewalk - real mission, real reflection

(longer look as the Ed Wahite 16MB gif - too big to be shown directly there: http://depositfiles....files/p0rmp30nz - http://rapidshare.co.....ewalk2 G4.gif - http://www.sendspace.com/file/p678bb )

Reflections on real astronauts visors:

...and astroNOTs:

http://astroengine.f...onaut-visor.jpg
http://www.jsc.nasa..../s115e05753.jpg
http://www.tt5.com/f...lk-photos-3.jpg

End of story

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong." - Voltaire
...just keep folding, just keep folding... my config - my caps