Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

moon landing


Death Star III

moon landing  

232 members have voted

  1. 1. do you believe that people landed on the moon.

    • yes
      158
    • no
      74


Recommended Posts

postbaquk ... Do you perhaps work for nasa too or are you just as blind as the rest of the nasa fans here ?

LOL!!! Was wondering how long that would take.

If I do work fo NASA, I wish they'd hurry up with the cheque!

Oh yes... Ad hominem noted... :no:

How could I possibly accept the fact that is it a smudge on the visor when it is clearly a reflection of nasa's phony sun ?

I think we may be talking about different things here... I was refering to two different photos which clearly show what appears to be a smudge rather than a reflection of some kind of stage light? This thread has discussed so many differnet topics, I'm assuming you're referring here to the reflection of the Sun in the visor?

It's a stage spot light ... I have worked with plenty of them so it's no big mystery what they look like ...

It may vaguely resemble a stage spotlight, but that doesn't mean that's what it is! There's a mountain on Mars that vaguely resembles a face, but that's not what it is. Open your mind to all the possibilities. Don't accept the HBers word as gospel... and don't accept NASAs word as gospel. Do your own research. I did.

What is a mystery though is why you just happened to pop in here to join the crowd of nasa dis-information agents ... Do you really think if all of you pro Apollo bunch post often enough that it is a smear or a smudge on the visor that it might turn into one ?

Ah well, no mystery there. I've been interesteed in this subject for a long time, and found out about this forum and thread a day or so ago. I've tried reading as much as I can, but have to be honest and say I haven't thoroughly read all 130-ish pages!

PS Can you please let me know where I can apply to get NASA to pay me money to post on threads such as this the occasionally? The extra cash would be very useful!

PS No amount of posting will turn the smudge on the visor into a smudge... it already is one! Please open your eyes, and look objectively, and try and interoret all possible answers.

The pictures are posted here for all to see what is reflected in the visor ... All of those who have eyes to see with , that is .... and aren't as blind as you and your friends pretend to be .

I'm not the one who is in denial about nasa's lies and deception , so don't play that game with me ...

Errrr.... yes you are... and I'm not playing a game. You are in COMPLETE denial. your posts in this thread confirm it.

You think as an American that this makes me happy that nasa lied about landing men on the moon during Apollo ? .... I find it tragic .

Well, there's something we nearly agree on! Tragic indeed...

Fortunately for me, I am not an American (no offence intended!)... neither are many of the people who KNOW the Apollo landings really did occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Trinitrotoluene

    499

  • MID

    352

  • straydog

    311

  • Waspie_Dwarf

    294

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Its really confusing but you can see how the different theories are working against eachother to confuse people and cover up what really happened.

I'm kind of missing the part where you look at the available evidence as to which of these theories is supportable with evidence and discard those that are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For instance, Why, if NASA faked the moonlandings all together, would they have the astronauts say that they were seeing ufo's and that "they werent alone up there"? The answer is to make people beleive that we did go, and believe that the real conspiracy is that they encountered alien spaceships and artificial structures on the moon and covered it up, while in reality, they never went at all and never saw anything of the sort.

Hmmm.... Russian Water Tentacle again!

On the reverse side of that, we may have actually gone to the moon and encountered ufo's and artificial structures, and the Apollo Hoax theory is being put out to distract people from that. After all, how can you beleive that the Apollo astronauts saw ufo's and artificial structures if you beleived they never went at all.

How does one believe anything? OK, I finally admit. I AM the Russian Water Tentacle. I don't mind telling you because NOONE will believe you.

Argument being... how does one believe ANYTHING?

Its really confusing but you can see how the different theories are working against eachother to confuse people and cover up what really happened.

No... that will be the HBers. Anyone else can easily verify the truth with some research and an open mind.

Edited by postbaguk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are so much evidence against the moon landing and just as many answers to de-bunk them.basicly every time evidence is presented one cant face the facts that maybe something is happening.with all these things showing up in pictures wouldent u think that maybe some are true.there are thousands of wittnesses that claimed seeing the coke can being kicked across the lunar surface.not just one.you try telling them that what they saw was just there imagination.seems to me if lots of witnesses report seeing the same object as they all refferd to as a coke can then you have to think are all the wittnesses wrong or are u just wrong.

Edited by crawler2000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are so much evidence against the moon landing and just as many answers to de-bunk them.basicly every time evidence is presented one cant face the facts that maybe something is happening.with all these things showing up in pictures wouldent u think that maybe some are true.there are thousands of wittnesses that claimed seeing the coke can being kicked across the lunar surface.not just one.you try telling them that what they saw was just there imagination.seems to me if lots of witnesses report seeing the same object as they all refferd to as a coke can then you have to think are all the wittnesses wrong or are u just wrong.

No, there was only one witness. If you had read the links provided you would have seen that the stories of letters written to newspapers were just stories. Newspaper archives were checked in Australia and no letters were found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are so much evidence against the moon landing and just as many answers to de-bunk them.basicly every time evidence is presented one cant face the facts that maybe something is happening.with all these things showing up in pictures wouldent u think that maybe some are true.there are thousands of wittnesses that claimed seeing the coke can being kicked across the lunar surface.not just one.you try telling them that what they saw was just there imagination.seems to me if lots of witnesses report seeing the same object as they all refferd to as a coke can then you have to think are all the wittnesses wrong or are u just wrong.

A: Where did you get "Thousands" from?

B: If they did see it why did they wait 20 something years to bring it up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A: Where did you get "Thousands" from?

B: If they did see it why did they wait 20 something years to bring it up?

the people in australia had diffrent camers that broadcated it to them.im guesing more than one person saw the moon landing that day.theres millions of people in australia and i choose thousands thats a small number if u think about it.this case was presented when the women reported seeing this coke can immmediatly.and i also think that more than just her saw this coke can if she was a ble to see it so could anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the people in australia had diffrent camers that broadcated it to them.im guesing more than one person saw the moon landing that day.theres millions of people in australia and i choose thousands thats a small number if u think about it.this case was presented when the women reported seeing this coke can immmediatly.and i also think that more than just her saw this coke can if she was a ble to see it so could anyone else.

I was 14 years old when I saw the Apollo moonwalk live. I saw the so-called "Coke Can" and I understood that it was an optical effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was 14 years old when I saw the Apollo moonwalk live. I saw the so-called "Coke Can" and I understood that it was an optical effect.

seems to me that your misplacing ur memory.that was a longtime ago and i doubt u could remember ur childhood especialy a small so called glitch of a reflection from the lens.so y was it edited when they released it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the people in australia had diffrent camers that broadcated it to them.im guesing more than one person saw the moon landing that day.theres millions of people in australia and i choose thousands thats a small number if u think about it.this case was presented when the women reported seeing this coke can immmediatly.and i also think that more than just her saw this coke can if she was a ble to see it so could anyone else.

Well you're right in that thousands say the effect, in fact it was millions because everyone who watched it saw it.

Whom did she report it to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you're right in that thousands say the effect, in fact it was millions because everyone who watched it saw it.

Whom did she report it to?

not sure im guessing the news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

seems to me that your misplacing ur memory.that was a longtime ago and i doubt u could remember ur childhood especialy a small so called glitch of a reflection from the lens.so y was it edited when they released it again.

My first memories of space travel was John Glenn's flight. I followed every Gemini mission faithfully. I was dumbstruck when Grissom, White and Chaffee were killed.

I couldn't get enough of Apollos 8, 9, and 10. By the time Apollo 11 came around, my excitement was at a fever pitch.

I stayed glued to the tv set for every minute of the mission. I flipped around from channel to channel seeing who had the best coverage. I settled on Walter Cronkte.

I sat on a cold living room floor in my pajamas watching those first ghostly steps on the moon. Every minute for those two hours was burned into my brain. It was the most important event of my young life.

I remember Apollo 11 better than I remember my wedding. I will never forget it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa! This thread has ballooned since I was last here. Getting back to the Apollo 11 video, recall the blue light coming in through two separate windows, here...

user posted image

and here....

user posted image

MID and I discussed this earlier. I noted the following points in a post to him....

You agree, as I had noted, that there is blue light coming in through what you've called the #3 window (or center hatch window). You attribute this to diffraction of the sunlight entering the capsule at a tangent.

We discussed earlier the blue light coming in through the #1 window (Earth-view window). You mentioned the f-stop settings and light diffraction as reasons for the blue color.

I don't think the f-stop setting is a cause of the blue lights in this case. The interior lights are on for quite some time, during which the camera settings are adjusted for proper filming, and the blue light coming through the windows is still seen well after this adjustment.

The other reason you give is that the sunlight is diffracted at a tangent through the triple-paned windows, creating the blue lights. I think you may actually be referring to refraction of light....

Refraction occurs when a wave crosses a boundary from one medium to another. A wave entering a medium at an angle will change direction.

Diffraction refers to the "bending of waves around an edge" of an object. Diffraction depends on the size of the object relative to the wavelength of the wave.

So I believe you are (most likely) thinking that the cause of the blue light is due to the sunlight refracting through the capsule windows.

But I believe there is a problem with this explanation: that the refraction of sunlight through these windows would not create blue light. First, we should look at the specs for the CSM windows.....

The windows each consist of inner and outer panes. The inner windows are made of tempered silica glass with 1/4-inch thick double panes, separated by a tenth of an inch. The outer windows are made of amorphous-fused silicon with a single pane of seven-tenths of an inch thick. Each pane has an anti-reflective coating on the external surface and a blue-red reflective coating on the inner surface to filter out most infrared and all ultraviolet rays.

http://www.apollosaturn.com/asnr/module.htm

More details on the windows are found in the link below....

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntr..._1972012257.pdf

Pure sunlight, refracting through these windows in deep space, would not create a pure blue light, from my research. I see no mechanism in these windows that would filter out the entire color spectrum of white sunlight except for blue light.

Light scattering (such as the Rayleigh scattering of sunlight in Earth's atmosphere, which creates our blue sky) is a form of light diffraction. I believe it is the most logical explanation for the blue light coming in both windows (#1 and #3).

MID replied (in part) with...

I think you're right. I am talking about refraction. And the idea of Rayleight scattering certainly seems legitimate as well. Makes sense actually.

But what do I know? I'm not a "light guy". I just know about systems and spacecraft and boring stuff like that. The blues and whites and sometimes other colors appeared in various photos taken on all the Apollo missions. Blue was probably predominant. I feel pretty confident that you're right about the Rayleight phenomenon (seems pretty reasonable to me, after all, we look up in the sky and see blue, when the air is clear and space is black...why not through a spacecraft window?) and I think the complex struture of those windows had something to do with it as well, along with probably some other factors.

frenat recently mentioned something which is relevant to this issue......

The blue glow in the windows at the end is due to scattering of sunlight on the glass. It can be seen in many other videos as well including those from the ISS and the space shuttle.

The ISS and Shuttles never go beyond LEO, so Rayleigh scattering creates the blue color seen coming in through the windows. The Apollo 11 capsule would only have the blue light seen coming in through the two windows if it was in LEO as well.

If Apollo 11 had actually been about 130,000 miles from Earth during the video, the only light coming through any of the windows would be pure white sunlight. Any windows that didn't would have a view of the blackness of space.

The interior light remains white during the times we see the blue-lit windows. That eliminates the camera as the source.

Recalling the window structure....

The windows each consist of inner and outer panes. The inner windows are made of tempered silica glass with 1/4-inch thick double panes, separated by a tenth of an inch. The outer windows are made of amorphous-fused silicon with a single pane of seven-tenths of an inch thick. Each pane has an anti-reflective coating on the external surface and a blue-red reflective coating on the inner surface to filter out most infrared and all ultraviolet rays.

The only coatings on the windows filter out waves that are not components of the visible light spectrum. IR frequencies are below the spectrum, and UV frequencies are above the spectrum. In other words, the entire visible light spectrum comes through these windows. Pure white sunlight would remain white as it shines through the panes. That eliminates the windows as the source.

I've heard two other theories: contamination and/or condensation within the panes. These are inadequate explanations. The blue light is uniform throught the two separate windows, and even if any particles of contaminate or condensation were present, they would not completely cover two separate windows. And neither contaminate particles nor condensation act as "filters" to block out all visible light in the spectrum except for blue.

This post isn't specifically directed your way, MID, but if you have anything else to add from earlier, I'd like to hear your comments, as usual! user posted image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i was surfing the internet for more info on the fake moon landing and i found out that people in australia were watching the mission from there homes and they caught a glimpse of what apperad to be a soda can being thrown across the lunar surface.im not sure if its what that actualy was but theres more than one thousand wittnesses.

Here is a piece from the Cosmic Conspiracies web site. Nonsense from this site is often quoted by hoax believers, so here I reproduce a part of what Cosmic Dave has to say on the "Coke bottle":

In western Australia during the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moon landing, several people saw a very unusual occurrence. One viewer, Una Ronald watched the telecast and was astonished with what she saw.

The residents of Honeysuckle Creek, Australia, actually saw a different broadcast to the rest of the World. Just shortly before Armstrong stepped onto the Moons surface, a change could be seen where the picture goes from a stark black to a brighter picture. Honeysuckle Creek stayed with the picture and although the voice transmissions were broadcast from Goldstone, the actual film footage was broadcast from Australia. As Una watched Armstrong walking on the surface of the Moon she spotted a Coke bottle that was kicked in the right hand side of the picture. This was in the early hours of the morning and she phoned her friends to see if they had seen the same thing, unfortunately they had missed it but were going to watch the rebroadcast the next day. Needless to say, the footage had been edited and the offending Coke bottle had been cut out of the film. But several other viewers had seen the bottle and many articles appeared in The West Australian newspaper.

Now there is a glaring error with this story, which proves it can not be true. This error can be summed up thus:

during the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moon landing

This was in the early hours of the morning

Neil Armstrong stepped on to the moon's surface at 10:56pm 20th July 1969 EDT. The moonwalk finished at 01:28am 21st July 1969 EDT.

Now Western Australia is 12 hours ahead of EDT, which means that the moonwalk occured between 10:56am an 1:28 pm on the 21st July 1969 in Western Australia. So how did Una Ronald manage to watch a live broadcast in the early hours of the morning local time of an event that did not occur until the late morning / early afternoon local time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the heck???

I get the feeling we're "not in Kansas anymore", are we? user posted image

lol!

I was referring to a line out of the film "The Abyss". The point I was trying to make (obviously unsuccessfully!), is that some people believe that everything is a conspiracy, even when confronted with the blindingly obvious.

I shall try to be more lucid and less random in future!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Postbaguk, I haven't welcomed you to the thread, but welcome - glad to see someone else so similar like me here!

Thanks for the welcome Gavsto. This is one monster thread!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the actual audio tapes of Apollo astronauts saying they "were not alone up there", as well as video tapes they took of flying disks, there was a HUGE one hovering in the moons orbit, and there are also several audios of Apollo missions when they were supposedly on the moon, speaking in code, about things that seemed very exciting to them.

Its not paranoia when these things are actually happening.

stephen:

What video tapes were made of huge flying discs hovering in the Moon's orbit?

There are many audio tapes of astronauts "speaking in code" (it was actually talking in the nominal acronyms used all the time in the program) and where they were speaking of things that seemed very exciting to them. There was alot to be excited about in general.

Do any of these puzzle you in particular, or lead you to think that they are referring to some alien artifact or something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lottie

this thread is beginning to slide again due to users 'forgetting' basic forum rules. Two being:

No flaming or flame baiting - Members who are hostile, insulting and rude on a regular basis will be removed from the forum. Being offensive towards other members, making personal attacks or 'baiting' others into arguments are similarly unacceptable ways to behave.

No offensive language - Constant use of crude language is disallowed. Members who continuously use vulgar, offensive language will be removed from the forum.

Warnings will be issued if this continues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11am is pretty early for me.

Early hours of the morning indicate sometime before 6am. How are we meant to even take a source seriously when they can't get something as simple as a time correct? These videos were all over the world and this 'glare' was seen by all. It isn't a coke bottle, fullstop.

Anyone else have anything they'd like to bring up, we seem to be moving away from the evidence ever so slightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa! This thread has ballooned since I was last here. Getting back to the Apollo 11 video, recall the blue light coming in through two separate windows, here...

Edited for readability

I've heard two other theories: contamination and/or condensation within the panes. These are inadequate explanations. The blue light is uniform throught the two separate windows, and even if any particles of contaminate or condensation were present, they would not completely cover two separate windows. And neither contaminate particles nor condensation act as "filters" to block out all visible light in the spectrum except for blue.

This post isn't specifically directed your way, MID, but if you have anything else to add from earlier, I'd like to hear your comments, as usual! user posted image

Turbo

Very thorough research on the window construction of the Apollo Service Module. I don't think my research on this point is anywhere near as thorough, but I have found an article on Wikipedia which could well explain the blue-light.

The full article can be found here

Often, they are composed of transparent thin film structures, with alternating layers of contrasting refractive index. Layer thicknesses are chosen to produce destructive interference in the beams reflected from the many interfaces, and constructive interference in the corresponding transmitted beams. This makes the structure's performance change with wavelength and incident angle (as in diffraction), so that color effects often appear at oblique angles.

I think it could well be the anti-reflective coating itself which caused the blue-light effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how is it that we have so much evidence against the moon landing more evidence then a crime scene.and yet for every evidence it gets turned down.are any of u scared that we might find evidene that cant be explained. :alien:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't enough to merely have evidence. It has to be good evidence. It has to be evidence that can withstand scrutiny. It has to be evidence that isn't easily explainable by a bunch of people with good knowledge of physics and a decent amount of research.

There is no fear that evidence can be found that cannot be explained, quite simply because I do not believe there is anyone here on the pro-Apollo side who would be scared of shrugging their shoulders and saying "Beats me." when they come up to something they have no explantion for. As it is, however, every bit of evidecen that has turned up has been countered, but instead of countering back like one is supposed to, the subject is changed and a different piece of evidence is brought out.

It's almost like the Pro-Hoax believes that there is some sort of evidence out there that is so incontravertible that it's mere presence will be enough to convince anyone. This is nonsense, of course. All evidence is subject to scrutiny. The vast majority has been explained (several times). A few bits we simply do not have enough to go on, but there is not reason to assume they would definitively indicate a hoax. There has, as yet, not been any damning evidence presented to date.

Incidentally, the moment you resort to the playground tactics of calling your opposition "scaredy-cats", you lose a great deal of credibility as a debater.

Edited by aquatus1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This post isn't specifically directed your way, MID, but if you have anything else to add from earlier, I'd like to hear your comments, as usual! user posted image

Hi Turb.

Welcome back. Yes, a whole lot of stuff has been going on around here since you last visited us!

There aren't too many additional comments from my end. I would however just a make a couple of wee ones :) :

Pure sunlight, refracting through these windows in deep space, would not create a pure blue light, from my research. I see no mechanism in these windows that would filter out the entire color spectrum of white sunlight except for blue light.

I don't think the refraction through the CM windows did produce a "pure blue" light. I think you're seeing that predominantly in the video because blue light is the domninant frequency of visible light (ergo, the blue seen in our atmosphere when sunlight is scattered through it), it was most certainly present in the panes of "glass", and the camera picks that up more readily than the other frequencies. Tweaking the exposure on the camera would make it change a bit, I think. Hasselblad images also showed similar effects in the windows when light was entering at a tangent.

But again, when the sun is more direct through a window, as it was in the #5 window during this Apollo 11 transmission, the light is white.

Concerning the Hassselblad and the SO-368 film used, I don't know what the spectral sensitivity of that film was, so I cannot address a possible blue dominance in certain lighting conditions (today all aerial films are generally balanced for daylight photography, but I don't know if in 1969, the films tended to be blue dominant like they were in the earlier days of photography).

I don't think that there are any properties in the CM windows that would allow only blue light to come through. The properties of the windows actually reflected UV and IR light away from them. I thinh the blue is a natural refraction of sunlight coming through the multiple panes at a tangent, since blue is the dominant frequency.

The interior light remains white during the times we see the blue-lit windows. That eliminates the camera as the source.

I have to say that comparing the interior light to the sun's light is not comparing apples to apples. The interior light is in fact over-exposed in the video, and it is a flourescent-type fixture which we are seeing directly in the cabin. It has a different spectral make up than sun light (most artificial light does to one degree or another), and it is not being refracted through a window at a tangent.

Pure white sunlight will remain white only if it is coming through directly, just as the sun is brilliant yellow-white on a clear day on Earth when you're looking directly at it (not the best idea, of course). But at tangents (i.e., everywhere else in the atmosphere), the predominant visual perception is the blue component.

____________________________________

Of course, we could discuss light frequencies for a long time and perhaps arrive at a conclusion regarding blue hues, but the point of this argument is essentially summed up by the following:

The ISS and Shuttles never go beyond LEO, so Rayleigh scattering creates the blue color seen coming in through the windows. The Apollo 11 capsule would only have the blue light seen coming in through the two windows if it was in LEO as well.

If Apollo 11 had actually been about 130,000 miles from Earth during the video, the only light coming through any of the windows would be pure white sunlight. Any windows that didn't would have a view of the blackness of space.

The contention here is that the Apollo spacecraft were all in LEO.

But Rayleight scattering is the scattering of sunlight, which produces the dominant blue colors we see. That can happen anywhere that the sun is shining, in LEO, or 250,000 miles out into space, and of course even farther. The blue light is seen all over Apollo photos, where sunlight is entering the windows at a tangent.

The one thing that is never seen through these windows is the Earth...save in the case where they move the camera to the window and show it hanging there in space.

We also have the G&N data, which told us where they were (told them as well through inquiries on their DSKY), the photos of the Earth made at the same time, which are identical to the views shown out the window, and the Earth itself, which corroborates the time of day when these pictures were made.

This broadcast occurred at approximately 34:00:00 GET until about 34:30:00 GET. That made it 7:32pm-8:02pm EDT. Looking at the pictures of the Earth, one will clearly see that the terminator to the right side of the Earth indicates that the East coast of the United States is maybe an hour from sunset, which, in July, is just about 7:30-8:00pm.

It appears, from all concrete indications, that Apollo 11 is right where we said it was, and when.

I think we have reasonable explanations of blue light. What we do not have is any substantive explanation of how they could've been in LEO when these pictures were made.

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.