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.


- - - - -

Astronauts gone wild !


  • Please log in to reply
167 replies to this topic

#31    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,262 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Female

  • "To thine own self be true" William Shakespeare

Posted 11 April 2006 - 06:40 PM

Keep in mind that Mr. Sibrel had pursued, and blocked the path of Mr. Aldrin (not even to mention shoving a book at him). Mr. Aldrin was at the time a senoir citizen, and a far smaller person than Mr. Sibrel as well. The judge dismissed Mr. Sibrel's claims of assault, and reprimanded Mr. Sibrel for his stalking behavior. My personal opinion, Mr. Sibrel is not a very nice person.

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

Posted Image

#32    Bogeyman

Bogeyman

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,841 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Emerald Isle

Posted 11 April 2006 - 07:42 PM

Quote


The Earth! it is (I believe) 20 times brighter than the moon. That would make a very fine second light source. As I have said before if you want to know the answers to all these myths go to Bad Astronomy.com it is run by a proffesional astronomer and provides answers and links that de-bunk all the myths about the moon landings being faked.




Okay i've gone to bad astronomy and yes they've put forward the alternative hypothesis in a very "knowledegable" way .....It has to be said though that i dont buy their explanation on the crosshairs ,i also read that in some of the reproduced imagery ....it's a  mistake ....... a mistake Ehhhh?

from BA
Good: Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to a mistake. A videotape about Apollo 16 ironically titled ``Nothing So Hidden...'' released by NASA does indeed make that claim, but in this case it looks to me to be a simple error. I asked Eric Jones, who is the editor of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, and he told me those two clips were taken about three minutes apart. Eric's assistant, Ken Glover, uncovered this problem. He sent me this transcript (which I edited a bit to make links to the video clips) of the Fox show with his comments, which I will highlight in red:


Anyhoo in the 2nd video go in about 1hr 43 mins and watch the sequence on the LEM landing area.......why does it look miles from any mountains in the long range shots and then in the close ups it's right against them ?


#33    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,262 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Female

  • "To thine own self be true" William Shakespeare

Posted 11 April 2006 - 08:01 PM

All about cross-hairs. Jay's site really covers just about every "moon landing" question one can think of.

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

Posted Image

#34    Bogeyman

Bogeyman

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,841 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Emerald Isle

Posted 11 April 2006 - 08:16 PM

Okay cover this.......
Objective people ....On the documentary go to exactly here .

2:01:49 ......Now i dunno about you ...but to my eyes the guys danglin on a wire  w00t.gif

And Here 2:02:27 ....He's being pulled off the lunar surface by a wire ....JUST LOOK FFS

Now i DO feel stupid even questioning the Apollo landings.....Honest i do....But c'mon.....THE GUYS DANGLIN ON A WIRE  laugh.gif

Why doesnt the dust from the Buggy's wheels arc up around the buggy and fall slowly instead of falling to the ground exactly as with Earth  gravity ? The moons got 1/6 gravity ....WHY WHY WHY  blink.gif (Couldnt find anything on Bad Astronomy about this ...may have missed it ?)

Oh i wish i hadnt watched this but now that i have,i'd like to know the answers to some of these questions....it's as bad as LOST !!!!

And by the way, any objective people out there ,dont rely on Bad Astronomy to put you right ....LOOK WITH YOUR OWN EYES  thumbsup.gif

Edited by Bogeyman, 11 April 2006 - 08:38 PM.


#35    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 11 April 2006 - 10:27 PM

Quote


...these puzzling questions to be answered.
For example ...they took NO artificial light sources with them ...The refractiveness of the Moon is less than asphalt ...so if you take a picture of an Astronaut with his back to the sun......why would the front of his suit be lit up ?



The effect is called backlighting.   The effectiveness of lunar backlighting was spoken of by Neil Armstrong less than one minute into the first lunar EVA.

Now, I should mention that you're using the term refractiveness when you mean reflectivity.  Atmospheric gasses, and lenses have refractive properties.  When speaking of solid substances like dirt, regolith, rocks, and such, we speak of reflectivivity, or, the amount of light that a given object reflects off of its surface.

We see details of many things on earth which are in fact in shadow during daylight hours because of backlighting...light bouncing off, or, reflecting off of the surroundings and onto the shaded side of things.  All that is necessary is to walk outside, and look.  It's everywhere, all the time.

The same thing happens on the moon.  This bit about the lunar regolith and other lunar materials being about as reflective as asphalt is completely misleading...designed to make people think the moon should be dark and non-reflective.

The problem with this is that asphalt is in fact reflective.  It is easily seen, reflects plenty of light, and provides backlighting.  Go take a look at the stuff.  There's no problem seeing it, and on the moon, there is no atmosphere to mellow images and refract light around  (this is what softens shadows on earth, and causes us to be able to perceive depth and distance when we walk outside and look into the distance.

On the moon, during all Apollo flights, one has to realize that it was always broad daylight, a broader, brighter, harsher daylight than any that's ever been seen on the earth.   There's plenty of light, plenty of backlighting, very effective backlighting at that, and what you are seeing on the shadow side of an astronaut's suit is light reflected from the surface, from the brightly suited astronaut who is taking the picture in front of him, and any equipment that is laying in the area.

Quite frankly, if the front of the astronauts suit was not visible, there would be something radically wrong with the physical properties of light on the moon.  It would be un-natural.  

So you see, this whole lighting idea is a real nothing.  It's simply natural, and in fact had better be happening...otherwise, the photos could be construed as being fake!

One point that needs to be made about people's misunderstandings about things lunar is that when looking at photos and films taken on the moon, you are in fact looking at an alien world.  Visual properties there are different, because there's no atmosphere  The sky is jet black in broad daylight, which is strange; depth perception and distance-judging are difficult, colors perceived by the eye tend to change depending on which angle the sun is in relation to line-of-sight (did you know that the lunar regolith is a different color when viewed on earth, or inside a spacecraft cabin with atmosphere than it is on the surface of the moon?), etc.

Just remember that this is another world we're looking at.  It may seem a little strange looking at times which, when you think about it, is only natural.
  




#36    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 11 April 2006 - 10:47 PM

Quote


Okay cover this.......

Why doesnt the dust from the Buggy's wheels arc up around the buggy and fall slowly instead of falling to the ground exactly as with Earth  gravity ? The moons got 1/6 gravity ....WHY WHY WHY  blink.gif (Couldnt find anything on Bad Astronomy about this ...may have missed it ?)

thumbsup.gif



This is a function of the impetus placed on the dust in an upward direction by the treads of the LRV "tires".  The dust is generally imparted a moment to the rear and upward, and not with a great deal of force.   It moves out, behind, and a bit, as the LRV is moving forward and away from the path of the dust, and it does not fall exactly as it does on earth.  It falls precicely as it should fall to the surface in 1/6 G, or at about 5 FPS/S (feet per second per second).

If the dust travels upward say 2 feet, it will fall back to the surface on the moon at the aforementioned acelleration, and it will take approximately .87 seconds to fall back. On Earth, the time to fall back would in theory be .35 seconds.  

Now, the time difference is about 1/2 second, which you'd need a stopwatch to measure.   It's fairly quick either way.  It might be a little hard to notice a 1/2 second anomaly when watching a film, especially if you're not looking at things analytically.

However, on earth, something happens to dust that is impossible on the moon.  You see, the atmosphere of earth inhibits the fall of the exceedingly light dust particles, and in fact causes dust clouds to form, which tend to linger aloft for a time before slowly dissapating.

The fact that these dust clouds never appear in any lunar picture or film of dust being splashed about by either crewmen or LRV is a clear indication that these films are being made in fact on the surface of the moon (by the way, soon after Apollo 11, the Japanese, industrious and inquisitive people that they are, studied the film and measured the accellerations on the falling dust and materials that may have dropped from the hands of astronauts.  They calculated that the gravity on the moon was precisely what has been stated, 1/6th that of earth).  The films were made in a 1/6 g field, and in a vacuum, as illustrated very clearly by the film.


Faking that would be a little tricky on a sound stage on earth, where strangely, atmosphere is always present.


Again...you are looking at an alien world.  What you are seeing is completely natural.


#37    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 11 April 2006 - 11:07 PM


... i dont buy their explanation on the crosshairs ...



Sometimes, the BAUT folks tend to get a little complicated on certain issues (and I understand that, because some of the things that need to be explained are a bit complex.  I tend to try and make things as understandable as possible to a non-technical questioner).

...this is not intended to offend.  It is merely a fact that a technical person, who may have an understanding of orbital mechanics, spaceflight, astronomy, photography, the lunar environment, or such associated area, wouldn't likely be asking the questions, so I assume that questioners do not have a large foundation in these technical or scientific areas and try to repond as simply as possible.


   The crosshair thing is one of those common and frequently observed effects seen on earth photos that utilize Reseau Plates  (the plates with the microfine hairs shaped like "+" on them that are commonly used for cartographic photography for scaling purposes).

The fact is that Reseau marks tend to be dominated by exceedingly bright objects that may intersect them, or by exceedingly dark areas that intersect their location.  Thus, they tend to "disappear" in darks areas, and also "disappear" in bright areas, their microfine structure being dominated by the intensity of black or bright.

But the cases that are commonly illustrated in this lunar haox business are done using third and forth generation prints, or prints of prints of prints, which mask some of the detail and may make it look like a structure is actually placed in front of a Reseau mark...a rather silly idea, but it has fostered many a hoax idea (as implausible as it would be to take a picture of a landscape and then place equipment on the photo).

The actual first genreration prints of these photos , when examined with a magnifier, show that the marks don't actually disappear.  They are there, just almost wiped out by the brightness of the object they intersect.  


This phenomenon, like many other ones that puzzle people, and which are used by people like Sibrel, et. al. to support a hoax theory, are merely natural, common effects, which can be observed on earth photos.


#38    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 11 April 2006 - 11:31 PM

Quote


Okay cover this.......
Objective people ....On the documentary go to exactly here .

2:01:49 ......Now i dunno about you ...but to my eyes the guys danglin on a wire  w00t.gif

And Here 2:02:27 ....He's being pulled off the lunar surface by a wire ....JUST LOOK FFS






One must note that the "documentary" you refer to is a piecemeal of snippets from various conversations on various missions.  It also must be purchased to hear these things.

Par for the course in this sort of "documentary" is that no references to specific mission timelines are referenced.    This is because, if Sibrel did in fact tell you this was said at 134:24:09 during the Apollo 16 mission (for instance), he would be shot out of the sky by someone like me, who could instantly go through the transcripts and see the statement, and....most importantly, see the real statement in context.  

Many times, I have gone through alleged conversations, or short snippets, to see what was actually said, and found that the conversation or statement was completely taken out of context, or was fabricated from pieces of different conversations hours apart...placed together creatively to give a certain designed impression.

Without any reference to who-said-what-when, it's impossible to comment on these quotes.



#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 11 April 2006 - 11:45 PM

If you'd like to see an entire page of these craftily placed together conversations...try this link:

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicphotos.html

This is a complete load...thoroughly disintegrated in the past, yet still present on this silly website.

The author made the mistake of identifying the missions.  I went through the transcripts and found what was actually said(painstaking, as some of these conversations were made by different people hours apart in different places, but constructed so as to produce a completely different scenario that allegedly took place at one time).

You may note that the page begins with a photo of Neil Armstrong taken on the moon by Buzz Aldrin.

Despite pointing out to the author that there is no such photo in existence, he still has it there...


He wants to believe!




#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 11 April 2006 - 11:47 PM

Quote


Keep in mind that Mr. Sibrel had pursued, and blocked the path of Mr. Aldrin (not even to mention shoving a book at him). Mr. Aldrin was at the time a senoir citizen, and a far smaller person than Mr. Sibrel as well. The judge dismissed Mr. Sibrel's claims of assault, and reprimanded Mr. Sibrel for his stalking behavior. My personal opinion, Mr. Sibrel is not a very nice person.



Hi Lil...

I'd say you were indeed correct    original.gif


#41    sidel

sidel

    Alien Embryo

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 116 posts
  • Joined:17 Mar 2006

Posted 11 April 2006 - 11:58 PM

Quote


The effect is called backlighting.   The effectiveness of lunar backlighting was spoken of by Neil Armstrong less than one minute into the first lunar EVA.

Now, I should mention that you're using the term refractiveness when you mean reflectivity.  Atmospheric gasses, and lenses have refractive properties.  When speaking of solid substances like dirt, regolith, rocks, and such, we speak of reflectivivity, or, the amount of light that a given object reflects off of its surface.

We see details of many things on earth which are in fact in shadow during daylight hours because of backlighting...light bouncing off, or, reflecting off of the surroundings and onto the shaded side of things.  All that is necessary is to walk outside, and look.  It's everywhere, all the time.

The same thing happens on the moon.  This bit about the lunar regolith and other lunar materials being about as reflective as asphalt is completely misleading...designed to make people think the moon should be dark and non-reflective.

The problem with this is that asphalt is in fact reflective.  It is easily seen, reflects plenty of light, and provides backlighting.  Go take a look at the stuff.  There's no problem seeing it, and on the moon, there is no atmosphere to mellow images and refract light around  (this is what softens shadows on earth, and causes us to be able to perceive depth and distance when we walk outside and look into the distance.

On the moon, during all Apollo flights, one has to realize that it was always broad daylight, a broader, brighter, harsher daylight than any that's ever been seen on the earth.   There's plenty of light, plenty of backlighting, very effective backlighting at that, and what you are seeing on the shadow side of an astronaut's suit is light reflected from the surface, from the brightly suited astronaut who is taking the picture in front of him, and any equipment that is laying in the area.

Quite frankly, if the front of the astronauts suit was not visible, there would be something radically wrong with the physical properties of light on the moon.  It would be un-natural.  

So you see, this whole lighting idea is a real nothing.  It's simply natural, and in fact had better be happening...otherwise, the photos could be construed as being fake!

One point that needs to be made about people's misunderstandings about things lunar is that when looking at photos and films taken on the moon, you are in fact looking at an alien world.  Visual properties there are different, because there's no atmosphere  The sky is jet black in broad daylight, which is strange; depth perception and distance-judging are difficult, colors perceived by the eye tend to change depending on which angle the sun is in relation to line-of-sight (did you know that the lunar regolith is a different color when viewed on earth, or inside a spacecraft cabin with atmosphere than it is on the surface of the moon?), etc.

Just remember that this is another world we're looking at.  It may seem a little strange looking at times which, when you think about it, is only natural.




Yea you know from years of first hand experiences right? Or is this what your 7th grade teacher told you?


#42    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,221 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 12 April 2006 - 12:24 AM

MID, I must correct you on one tiny detail in your otherwise excellent posts:

Quote


You may note that the page begins with a photo of Neil Armstrong taken on the moon by Buzz Aldrin.

Despite pointing out to the author that there is no such photo in existence, he still has it there...


There is one such photo, although you are correct that the one on the web site you linked to isn't it (like most of the images this guy calls a photo it looks more like a capture from a video to me).

The picture of Armstrong on the moon was tracked down a few years ago.

From theNASA / GSFC Apollo 30th Aniversary Site:

user posted image

Quote

Armstrong was photographed here at the Modular Equipment Stowage Assembly (MESA) on the lunar module, packing the bulk rock and soil sample he had collected. Aldrin took this picture as part of a series of panoramas of the area around the Tranquility Base landing site. Armstrong is in the shadow of the lunar module, details can only be seen with processing, making the sunlit surface directly behind the LM appear very bright.
(NASA photo ID AS11-40-5886)


Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 12 April 2006 - 12:25 AM.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#43    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,221 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 12 April 2006 - 12:30 AM

We currently have 2 major threads running on the same subject, the other being the "Did we land on the Moon" thread in the Ancient Mysteries & Alternative History forum. I shall request our esteemed Moderators to merge them into one unified thread (if they feel that would be the best course of action obviously).

------------------------

The reply I have is that the 2 threads are sufficiently different not to merge them.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 12 April 2006 - 01:37 AM.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#44    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,262 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Female

  • "To thine own self be true" William Shakespeare

Posted 12 April 2006 - 12:45 AM

Quote


Yea you know from years of first hand experiences right? Or is this what your 7th grade teacher told you?


Well, if that's the case then MID's 7th grade teacher did one heck of a good job!  user posted image

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

Posted Image

#45    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,221 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 12 April 2006 - 12:50 AM

Quote


Well, if that's the case then MID's 7th grade teacher did one heck of a good job!  user posted image


Very true.

When it comes to spaceflight I have a reasonably good knowledge. I don't know who MID is or what he does, but one thing I do know, he really, REALLY knows his stuff. I have disagreed with him on another topic (over a minor matter of opinion rather than fact) but I quickly came to respect his knowledge big time.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users