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.


- - - - -

Apollo - Video Anomalies?


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

#196    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 14 October 2006 - 09:56 PM

Quote


Let me clairfy it then ..... NASA claims that hundreds of pounds of moon rocks are in their possesion ... but they also claim that only a few pounds of those rocks were picked up by the Apollo astronauts .... So that leaves the other "hundreds of pounds"of rocks  being picked up by unmanned robotic missions because there was no room on board any of the LM's to carry back hundreds of pounds of heavy moon rocks ....


Unfortunately, they do not claim any such thing.  What they document is that Apollo crews collected a bit over 800 pounds of lunar samples.  All of it collected by the 6 crews whose job it was to do so.

There was plenty of room to carry the samples back in the LM.  We designed them to house the SRCs that would be required to hold the material.

Quote

Speaking of anomalies in Apollo videos ( which is what this thread is suppossed to be about ) ... remember the video clip where one of the astronauts struggles to pick up one little 20 lb. " football rock" ? .... But why would he be panting and struggling to pick up one 20 lb. rock in 1/6 of Earth's gravity, where it would only really feel like a little over 3 lbs ?


The "anamoly" is in your lack of understanding what you're looking at.    Did you happen to notice that Charlie (Duke) had to get in a very awkward position to get that rock off the ground (Which takes some effort in a suit with 183 pounds of mass).   Did you notice that because he couldn't easily get down on the ground that he had to roll this thing up his leg in order to get a hold on it?   Do you understand anything about what it is to operate in 1/6 g, and the difference between mass and weight?

Quote

...why would we assume that it would have been possible for the six alleged manned missions to return 100's of pounds of moon rocks to Earth via these LM's ? .... So I believe that leaves either unmanned missions scooping them up or possibly field trips to the Antarctic .


We would not assume.  We would know that the LM was designed to carry the samples we collected.  We would, were we to investigate the matter, know that each LM actually did carry a specific amount of lunar samples back with them.

You may "believe" that unmanned spacecraft recovered hundreds of pounds of lunar material, but knowledge would show you that we've never had any unmanned craft that had such capacity.   You may also "believe" that the rocks were recovered in Antarctica, but knowledge would show you that Antarctica, despite having a small amount of lunar meteorites, has nothing resembling the lunar material collected by Apollo crews.

In fact, knowledge would show you that it is impossible for the material from Antarctica, as miniscule as it has been, to be  anything like the lunar samples returned from Apollo missions.    

The Apollo lunar samples are singular, and unlike anything else on the Earth.   They are indeed from the Moon.   This has been previously established.

Now, what "proof" do you have that NASA claims that only "a few" pounds of lunar material were actually collected by Apollo astronauts?

What "proof" do you have the the LM could not have held the SRCs that were designed to be carried in it?




#197    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,100 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 14 October 2006 - 10:01 PM

straydog, you have clearly shown the difference in the quality of arguments for and against the Apollo landings being genuine in your posts. Let me explain:

Quote


And what does NASA have to offer as proof that the moon missions were real ? .... LASER REFLECTORS
= evidence

Quote


which could easily have been placed on the moon using unmanned missions , just as Russia did ....
= supposition

Quote


Hundreds of pounds of MOON ROCKS
= evidence.

Quote


which could have been picked up by unmanned missions
= supposition

Quote


( NASA even admits to only a few pounds of rocks being allegedly picked up by the Apollo astronauts ,
= unsupported claim

QUOTE(straydog @ Oct 14 2006, 05:46 PM) View Post

and some rocks have even been discovered recently in the Antarctic which are identical in every respect to NASA's moon rocks )
= factually incorrect - geologist can easily differentiate between those rocks which have been exposed to re-entry, weathering by earths atmosphere and water and those which have spent millions of years exposed to a vacuum cosmic radiation

QUOTE(straydog @ Oct 14 2006, 05:46 PM) View Post

..... and then of course ( as NASA likes to say )  "COMMON SENSE" , which is just their way of slinging ad homs at those who can see right through their show biz smoke and mirrors routine of pretending to land men on the moon .
=  personal opinion.

Not one single fact in your reply to Lilly supports your belief, just opinion and supposition. There are a lot of "could haves" and "might haves" but nothing to show this is what actually happened. This is exactly the point Lilly was making and is the reason that there are no experts in the relevant fields which agree with your view.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 14 October 2006 - 10:11 PM.

"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

#198    hplasm

hplasm

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 116 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2006

Posted 14 October 2006 - 10:06 PM

Quote


Let me clairfy it then ..... NASA claims that hundreds of pounds of moon rocks are in their possesion ... but they also claim that only a few pounds of those rocks were picked up by the Apollo astronauts .... So that leaves the other "hundreds of pounds"of rocks  being picked up by unmanned robotic missions because there was no room on board any of the LM's to carry back hundreds of pounds of heavy moon rocks ....

Thanks for clearing that up.

But if NASA claims that only a few pounds, of the hundreds of pounds of moon rock they posess, were actually brought back by the Apollo missions, surely this would have been commented on quite quickly? And very loudly...?

dontgetit.gif


#199    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,379 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 October 2006 - 12:09 AM

If the discussion concerning video anomalies is over, we can pretty much close this thread.  Last chance to get back on topic, people.


#200    hplasm

hplasm

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 116 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2006

Posted 15 October 2006 - 01:02 AM

Quote


If the discussion concerning video anomalies is over, we can pretty much close this thread.  Last chance to get back on topic, people.


I think the topic left. It's coat is gone...

happy.gif



#201    crystal sage

crystal sage

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,369 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

Posted 15 October 2006 - 01:20 AM

Quote


That's fine.  I have no problem with stil photos as long as they are relevent to the discussion.



innocent.gif  You wouldn't know Clive Tester would you...a moderater from another forum...?

http://www.google.com.au/search?sourceid=n...;q=clive+tester


#202    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,379 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 October 2006 - 01:30 AM

Quote


innocent.gif  You wouldn't know Clive Tester would you...a moderater from another forum...?


Never heard of him.  I'm not really into astronomy.


#203    DogsHead

DogsHead

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 408 posts
  • Joined:04 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:'straya

Posted 15 October 2006 - 01:36 AM

Hi straydog

Quote

Perhaps you failed to take notice of Aquatus warning us all to stay on topic here ... and I highly doubt that more insults coming from you , directed towards me would equate to staying on topic .

Thanks for the friendly reminder, I thought I was on topic in my questioning you about the veracity of your "beliefs" about film making. And further to the subject of the so-called anomalies, can I expect an answer as to why they didn't just "airbrush out" these anomalies? Or perhaps that should be phrased this way; all of your so called anomalies are nothing more than shapes in the clouds. My reasoning runs like this: given my experience in film making, and given the sort of budget that must be assumed for a project like this, and given the planning required, not one suspicious object would have been allowed in shot. It's called continuity, and there is generally a team of people on any given shoot who must be satisfied before the camera rolls. No film is released without various departments going over the rushes (that would be the 2nd level of QC) and finally, everything gets edited, unless it is broadcast live (which would have been impossible in this situation) which constitutes a 3rd level of QC. I believe my argument is sound, polite, and on topic.
What say you?


#204    straydog

straydog

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 580 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2006

Posted 15 October 2006 - 04:08 AM

MID and Waspie_dwarf ....  Unfortunately the only "proof" either one of you have for any of your claims about the Apollo missions ( whether it be about how the moon rocks were obtained or about how the laser reflectors were placed on the moon ) is only what NASA tells you to believe ... And considering their record of deliberate deception , that hardly qualifys as proof of anything .

So if all you have to go by is NASA's word and their version of these alleged events and accomplishments , then you don't have much at all ... There is no more proof that the reflectors were placed on the moon by Apollo astronauts , than there is by any of the unmanned missions that NASA sent there .... Nor is there any proof that the Apollo astronauts picked up any of the moon rocks either ... Russia used unmanned missions to accomplish both of these amazing feats because their rocket scientists and physicists were technically intelligent enough  not to risk the lives of their cosmonauts , by sending them into the unknown dangers of the intense radiation of deep space .... A problem which NASA continues to underplay to this day ... to the extreme dis-service of the scientific community.


DogsHead ..... It looks as if you enjoy pretending to be a film maker as much as MID likes to pretend that he worked for the Apollo Program .... If the anomalies in the faked Apollo photographs and videos were only "shapes in the clouds" , then why do millions of people see them ? ... And why do millions of people realize that the Apollo photos are studio fakes ?

If you're asking me why NASA didn't airbrush out these anomalies in their videos and still photos , it would obviously be because they didn't catch them all .... Or it's even possible ( as some people have suggested )  that 'whistle blowers ' left them in on purpose to be discovered later , to blow the phony moon missions right out of the water , so to speak .

Not even film makers , catch all of their mistakes ... Movies are full of them ... Scenes where one minute someone has fallen into the water and are soaking wet , but in the next scene they are completely dry .... or scenes where someone picks something up but it's not in their hand in the same scene from a different angle ... and of course even scenes where a stagehand gets into the shot in a mirror reflection .... or a piece of the sound equipment , like the boom mic , appears momentarily over the actors heads ...

So for you to say that anomalous mistakes don't occur in the making of films , is an absolutely ridiculous statement that leads me to believe that you don't know as much about film making as you pretend to know .

The continuity you mention was achieved in most of the faked Apollo footage .... and considering just how much of it they faked , I think they did a pretty good job of keeping most of the anomalous objects out of their videos and their still photos .


Aquatus ... Once again I apologize for going off topic on this thread , but I felt these accusations and questions to me needed to be addressed .

Edited by straydog, 15 October 2006 - 04:10 AM.

I would rather be in the minority and know the truth , than to be in the majority and be in denial of the truth .

#205    crystal sage

crystal sage

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,369 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

Posted 15 October 2006 - 04:47 AM

Quote


crystal sage .... Thanks for posting the links to articles about  NASA "losing" the telemetry tapes from all of their six Apollo missions ...

Did you know that these "lost" tapes equate to 700 boxes weighing ONE TON ??.... Yet , we are suppossed to believe that NASA just can't find them anywhere !!   blink.gif

But how could ONE TON of telemerty tapes be missing without someone bringing in a big truck to deliberately haul them away ?

Here is a link to a Bart Sibrel interview that I think you will find very interesting ....He discusses the missing telemetry tapes and brings forth information not many people know about concerning these very important " lost" tapes .

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6...V+-+Episode+231
Aquatus .... I just saw your post warning ... I am answering crystal sage's post about the missing telemetry VIDEO TAPES ..... Sorry for getting sidetracked with the still photos but since we are discussing the Apollo 12 video tape anomalies , I thought they would apply to what turbonium is trying to explain here concerning the possible bank of stage lights in the video clip .... The correlation being that they show up the still photo also .



Thank you!!!

In a published article in April 1995, former NASA Director of Communications Maurice Chatelain dropped the bombshell revelation that the Apollo Moon Mission found "several mysterious geometric structures of unnatural origin" on the Moon.


Donna Tietze, a former photo technician at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston during the Apollo Moon missions, revealed during a 6th May 1995 radio interview on WOL-AM in Washington, DC, that the job of a co-worker in a restricted area was to airbrush out UFOs from photos from the Moon before NASA sold those photos to the public.

http://www.mufor.org/donnat.html
http://www.wanttoknow.info/ufocover-up10pg
http://www.greatdreams.com/retrieved.htm

Rene's arguement is interesting.....

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#apollo

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/jump.jpg

Edited by crystal sage, 15 October 2006 - 04:49 AM.


#206    crystal sage

crystal sage

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,369 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

Posted 15 October 2006 - 05:15 AM

The one thing that stands out is the lack of stars in the photos.....



3. There are no stars in any of the photos, and astronauts never report
seeing any stars from the capsule windows. Yuri Gagarin commented that
the stars were astonishingly brilliant (see the external link below),
and some NASA photos do show stars. Hoax proponents claim that the
stars in the photos were removed, because professional astronomers
would be able to use them to prove that the photos were not taken from
the moon. (See, for instance, the photos above.)
No stars visible observing The Moon and Mir from the Space Shuttle
Discovery
Enlarge
No stars visible observing The Moon and Mir from the Space Shuttle
Discovery
Space Shuttle Atlantis docked with Mir, no stars visible from the Soyuz
spacecraft
Enlarge
Space Shuttle Atlantis docked with Mir, no stars visible from the Soyuz
spacecraft
Zarya from the Space Shuttle, no stars visible.
Enlarge
Zarya from the Space Shuttle, no stars visible.

* Stars are also never seen in Space Shuttle, Mir,
International Space Station Earth observation photos, or even sporting
events that take place at night. The sun in the Earth/Moon area shines
as brightly as on a clear noon day on Earth, so cameras used for
imaging these things are set for daylight exposure, with quick shutter
speeds in order to prevent overexposing the film. The dim light of the
stars simply does not have a chance to expose the film. (This effect
can be demonstrated on Earth by attempting to view stars from a
brightly lit parking lot. You can only see them if you somehow block
out all illuminated objects from your field of view, and then let your
eyes adjust for night vision. Otherwise, it is like taking a picture of
the night sky with exposure settings for a bright sunny day. Science
fiction movies and television shows do confuse this issue by depicting
stars as visible in space under all lighting conditions.) Stars were
seen by every Apollo mission crew except for the unfortunate Apollo 13
(they couldn't see the stars due to the fact that oxygen and water
vapor created a haze around the spacecraft). Stars were used for
navigation purposes and were occasionally also seen through cabin
windows when the conditions allowed. To see stars, nothing lit by
sunlight could be in the viewers field of view.(Plait 2002:158-60).

* Stars are not dramatically brighter in space (above the
Earth's atmosphere). Professional astronomer and two-time space shuttle
astronaut Ronald A. Parise stated that he could barely see stars at all
from space. He had to turn out all of the lights in the shuttle to even
glimpse the stars (Plait 2002:160).

* Believers in the hoax theory contend that the stars were
removed from the photographs because they would have looked identical
to the stars as seen from the Earth, i.e. no parallax view. However,
the distance from the Earth to the Moon is very small compared to the
distance to the stars, so no parallax would have been visible anyway.
(The nearest star is over 100,000,000 times farther away than the Moon,
and most stars are much farther away than that.)

http://www.gatago.com/sci/physics/16851657.html
http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/News/2001/News-MoonLanding.asp


Edited by crystal sage, 15 October 2006 - 05:31 AM.


#207    crystal sage

crystal sage

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,369 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

Posted 15 October 2006 - 05:27 AM

http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/intro.html


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

Edited by crystal sage, 15 October 2006 - 06:53 AM.


#208    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,342 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 15 October 2006 - 06:09 AM

Quote


turbonium ,

I don't know if you saw my post to you buried in all of the ridiculous insulting posts that followed mine , but I thanked you for posting the part of the video clip that I had mentioned .... My question was ,  if the camera was still upside down in this part of the video , where the flesh colored arm anomaly appears for the first time  , would that in any way rule out the possibility of it being an arm ? ....  Any thoughts or opinions on this would be much appreciated .


Hi straydog

You're very welcome.

Just to refresh the video segment in question....

user posted image

user posted image

To answer your question - no, the camera being upside down would not rule out the possibility of it being an arm.

I'm not sure what to make of it so far. Do you see actual movement of this (possible) arm in the video?



#209    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,342 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 15 October 2006 - 07:14 AM

Quote


Why not? Certainly looks like it to me, and they were deploying the antenna at the time.


This was in reference to the argument that the arm is actually the S-band antenna cover.

Here is the segment from the video.....

user posted image

Here are the arm and antenna cover side-by-side....

user posted image

Look at the arm in the video clip and in the still on the left side in the above comparison.

- the arm has a distinct flesh tone, unlike the yellow antenna cover.

- the arm has a completely smooth surface, while the bunched-up antenna cover has several deep grooves or lines along its entire length.

- the arm has an obvious joint - the elbow is seen at the bottom, and the arm extends to the left out of view. The antenna cover is very straight.
___________________________________________________________________________

Another segment from the video confirms that there is indeed a bare arm present....

user posted image

user posted image

Still 1 above shows a hand tugging at some material. This is no spacesuited astronaut with huge gloves on.



#210    boggle

boggle

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Joined:23 May 2006

Posted 15 October 2006 - 08:11 AM

The segment you provided sure does looks like an elbow underneath the antenna, I dont recall seeing this footage before but then again ive never really tried to search for an arm or elbow.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users