Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
Followers 15

# [Merged] Did we land on the moon?

## 2,594 posts in this topic

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 !

##### Share on other sites

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..

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.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5902.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.

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

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?....

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.

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.

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?

##### Share on other sites

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."

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.

Edited by skyeagle409

##### Share on other sites

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.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0

##### Share on other sites

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

##### Share on other sites

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

##### Share on other sites

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:

[media=]

[/media] )

##### Share on other sites

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
5 people like this

##### Share on other sites

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

##### Share on other sites

Allow me to check the moon...

3 people like this

##### Share on other sites

This is, what NASA calls "live video feed":

Original video (Spacecraft Films, leč NASA videa jsou Public Domain) there:

So, from when "live video" contains cuts to another, differently set, camera? On the Moon should be a) only one TV cam on the Rover and not two, b) in live video is impossible to have cuts!

Of course, there can be people that close their eyes and claim they did not see a thing Of course, this video is not for them, these don't see start in night, much less on the Moon

Of course I doubt that these sheeple see, that the flag is waving without being touched by anyone and what is worser, it first move away from astroNOT... and that hardly can be explained differently that by the air pressure and we all know that air is not on the Moon:

Another longer look at the flag is there:

http://www.pictureshack.ru/images/16775_Apollo_15_EVA2_flag_movement2.gif

Original video here:

http://ulozto.cz/xpGYLaX/apollo-15-eva2-flag-movement-wmv

Of course, there are already a 6 (!) suggested (laughable at least) attempts to explain such movement, but all failed when tested, as here is well shown:

Czero 101 - if you did not only start name calling and actually bother to elaborate on evidence presented, then your reply had some meaning. Without arguments in your posts it is only you, who is trolling

##### Share on other sites

Allow me to check the moon...

There are countries that have done it for us.

SELENE photographs

In 2008, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings.[23] On the left are two photos taken on the lunar surface by Apollo 15 astronauts in July or August 1971. On the right is a 2008 reconstruction from images taken by the SELENE terrain camera and 3-D projected to the same vantage point as the surface photos. The terrain is a close match within the SELENE camera resolution of 10 meters

Chandrayaan-1

As with SELENE, the Terrain Mapping Camera of India's Chandrayaan-1 probe did not have enough resolution to record Apollo hardware. Nevertheless, as with SELENE, Chandrayaan-1 independently recorded evidence of lighter, disturbed soil around the Apollo 15 site.

Observers of all missions

The Soviet Union monitored the missions at their Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment". Vasily Mishin ("The Moon Programme That Faltered."), in Spaceflight. 33 (March 1991), pages 2–3 describes how the Soviet Moon programme lost energy after the Apollo landing.The missions were tracked by radar from several countries on the way to the Moon and back.

The NASA Manned Space Flight Network (MSFN) was a world-wide network of stations that tracked the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Skylab missions. Most MSFN stations were only needed during the launch, Earth orbit and landing phases of the lunar missions, but three "deep space" sites with larger antennas provided continuous coverage during the trans-lunar, trans-earth and lunar mission phases. Today, these three sites form the NASA Deep Space Network: the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex near Goldstone, California; the Madrid Deep Space Communication Complex near Madrid, Spain; and the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex, in Tidbinbilla, near Canberra, Australia.

Although most MSFN stations were NASA-owned, they employed many local citizens. NASA also contracted the Parkes Observatory in New South Wales, Australia, to supplement the three deep space sites, most famously during the Apollo 11 EVA as documented in Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia and portrayed (humorously and not quite accurately) in the movie The Dish. The Parkes Observatory is not NASA-owned; it is, and always has been, owned and operated by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), a research agency of the Australian government.

Apollo 11

• The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies.
• A compilation of sightings appeared in "Observations of Apollo 11" in Sky and Telescope magazine, November 1969, pp. 358–359.
• The Madrid Apollo Station, part of the Deep Space Network, built in Fresnedillas, near Madrid, Spain tracked Apollo 11.
• Goldstone Tracking Station in California tracked Apollo 11.
• At Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, the telescope was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik. At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the unmanned Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to land on the Moon. In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings they made.
• Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and in the command module.Recordings made by Baysinger share certain characteristics with recordings made at Bochum Observatory by Heinz Kaminski (see above), in that both Kaminski's and Baysinger's recordings do not include the capsule communicator in Houston and the associated Quindar tones heard in NASA audio and seen on NASA Apollo 11 transcripts. Kaminski and Baysinger could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from the earth.

Apollo 12

Surveyor 3 camera brought back from the Moon by Apollo 12, on display at the National Air and Space Museum

Paul Maley reports several sightings of the Apollo 12 Command Module. Parts of Surveyor 3, which landed on the Moon in April 1967, were brought back to Earth by Apollo 12 in November 1969. These samples were shown to have been exposed to lunar conditions.

##### Share on other sites

Czero 101 - if you did not only start name calling and actually bother to elaborate on evidence presented, then your reply had some meaning. Without arguments in your posts it is only you, who is trolling

There's an entire thread devoted to just this topic.

##### Share on other sites
Edited by Iron_Lotus

##### Share on other sites

There are countries that have done it for us.

Then I can't make 'PCHOO' noises though D:

##### Share on other sites

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-146-22293HR.jpg - first picture

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-146-22294HR.jpg - second picture

Guys! Somebody stolen our rock from the scene! Damn you, one did not even have time to turn and... rock is gone! WTF!

[media=]

[/media]

##### Share on other sites

It is laugable that Apollo hoax people presented nothing that proves an Apollo moon hoax when there are countries that have tracked and photographed the Apollo landing sites.

Edited by skyeagle409

##### Share on other sites

Hasina - yep, but that one I find was locked and this one should be more FUN Because - basically - this is laughable

Magicaly durable PVC bag and picture in it

Temperature at the Moon in daylight near equator: 134°C - http://lro.gsfc.nasa.../moonfacts.html

Places, where Apollo supposedly landed (AS16 near equator) - http://latenightastr...nding-sites.jpg

Original image - http://www.hq.nasa.g...117-18841HR.jpg

##### Share on other sites
Czero 101 - if you did not only start name calling and actually bother to elaborate on evidence presented, then your reply had some meaning. Without arguments in your posts it is only you, who is trolling

Well, the mere fact that you started this brand new thread without even noticing the other thread discussing this topic - and I know it was so cleverly hidden by being called "Did we land on the Moon" - and started posting this willfully ignorant, intellectually lazy and factually incorrect garbage, you announced to us your trolling nature and intent and showed us all just how complete your lack of subject matter knowledge, research skills, critical thinking skills and logic you are.

Any further response to this garbage would be pointless.

Have a good day / week / life / whatever.

Cz

EDITED to add the link to the CURENTLY ACTIVE AND UNLOCKED thread discussing the Moon landing hoax...

Edited by Czero 101

##### Share on other sites

Hasina - yep, but that one I find was locked and this one should be more FUN Because - basically - this is laughable

Magicaly durable PVC bag and picture in it

Temperature at the Moon in daylight near equator: 134°C - http://lro.gsfc.nasa.../moonfacts.html

Places, where Apollo supposedly landed (AS16 near equator) - http://latenightastr...nding-sites.jpg

Original image - http://www.hq.nasa.g...117-18841HR.jpg

What do you think we have used to vacuum bag and cook aircraft honeycomb repairs at over 250 degrees? Speaking of Apollo 16.

Apollo 16

Jewett Observatory at Washington State University reported sightings of Apollo 16.

Honeysuckle Creek tracked Apollo 16 and recorded the audio of the landing.

At least two different radio amateurs, W4HHK and K2RIW, reported reception of Apollo 16 signals with home-built equipment.

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

Edited by skyeagle409

##### Share on other sites

Hasina - yep, but that one I find was locked and this one should be more FUN Because - basically - this is laughable

Too true! What's that saying Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over and expecting the same results? But did you read the entire thing to make sure you're not just rehashing old points?

##### Share on other sites

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:

[media=]

[/media] )

The Apollo Moon Footprint Experiment

##### Share on other sites

skyeagle409 - you mean the tracks, that are allegedly photographed by the very same NASA that claim it can got to the Moon back in 1969 and now it can't get Man even to LEO orbit of Earth? ROFL!

I mean - these tracks aren't here in the first place and are actually missing in many of the LRO photos (Photoshopping is hard work...), but this is nothing new

Rover ride on the Moon w/o leaving tracks - damn, it can fly!