[Merged] Did we land on the moon?

[DONTEATUS]

Thank You! I will pass on your salute to him at his home, which will brighten his day! And, I salute those of NASA who have brought us great pride and people must understand that NASA is responsible for many of the technological marvels of today. Check this out.

http://www.youtube.c...CIzZHpFtY?rel=0

Tell the Col. that the Texan Rolls ROyce guy says Hi! And the book was a great read ! Go Red Tails !

[turbonium]

(Bolding mine) Absolutely false. Not only do the people who worked there say otherwise but the records themeselves indicate this was not correct. Another example of ignoring reality to suit your own desires.

We'll let the evidence decide which of us is "ignoring reality to suit" their "own desires"...

You cited two Australian tracking stations - Honeysuckle Creek and Carnarvon...

So here's what NASA said about those sites...

Honeysuckle Creek - Australian Capital Territory

The Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station was built for the Apollo manned missions to the Moon. It played an integral role in the Apollo 11 mission, providing the first historic pictures of man walking on the Moon, Monday, 21st July 1969. Apart from the telecast for television, Honeysuckle Creek had voice and telemetry contact with the lunar module. In 1974 at the conclusion of the Skylab and Manned Space Flight activities, Honeysuckle Creek joined the DSN as Deep Space Station 44. When the site closed in December 1981, the 26-metre antenna was relocated to Tidbinbilla and renamed Deep Space Station 46 where it is used for spacecraft positioned close to the Earth.

Carnarvon - Western Australia

Carnarvon was built in 1963 for the Gemini Program. Replacing Muchea, the much larger complex used some of the equipment utilised for Project Mercury. The station was closed in 1974.

http://www.cdscc.nas...es/history.html

Here's an Australian source...

Australia became involved with the United States of America's Space Program in 1957 with the signing of an agreement between the Weapons Research Establishment and the American National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The first joint tracking station was completed at Woomera in South Australia in March 1958 and played a key role in tracking the Vanguard 1 experimental satellite during the International Geophysical Year in 1958. NASA's first deep-space tracking station outside the United States was established at Island Lagoon, about 56 km from the rangehead of the Woomera Rocket Range in September 1960. It was specifically designed for very long-range communication and supported NASA's Mariner 2 project in 1962 and continued in operation until December 1972. Tracking stations were also built at Carnarvon in Western Australia in 1964, Cooby Creek in Queensland in 1966, and in the Australian Capital Territory at Tidbinbilla and the Orroral Valley in 1965, and Honeysuckle Creek in 1967.

The Orroral Valley, south-west of Canberra, was an ideal site for a tracking station as its high surrounding ridges shielded the antennae from man-made radio interference. Construction on the 40-acre site started in November 1964 and was completed in July 1965, at a cost of over $2 million. NASA installed equipment valued at $1.5 million. The Orroral Valley Tracking Station was part of NASA's worldwide Space Tracking and Data Acquisition Network that was established to track, communicate with, and control, scientific earth satellites

http://www.nma.gov.a...=tlf&irn=108351

As NASA itself states...

"The Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station was built for the Apollo manned missions to the Moon."

So it's built specifically for NASA's Apollo program, all the equipment is NASA property, NASA hires the people who work there. And yet, you claim NASA is not in control of the tracking station?!

That's just nonsense.

Edited September 23, 2012 by turbonium

[skyeagle409]

Tell the Col. that the Texan Rolls ROyce guy says Hi! And the book was a great read ! Go Red Tails !

Tell the Col. that the Texan Rolls ROyce guy says Hi! And the book was a great read ! Go Red Tails !

I will pass on your greeting and I am glad you were able to come down and meet with him. I want to fly him to the Houston Flight Center next year so he can reminisce his experience on the Apollo 14 recovery team because whenever I bring up his experience, his eyes brighten up enough to where he can light up the state of Texas!!

. After all of these years, I am still in amazement at the Saturn rockets that boosted the Apollo astronauts to the moon and the technology involved and yet, there are those who can't believe we went to the moon despite the overwhelming evidence, but then again, there are those who still believe the earth is flat despite the overwhelming evidence.

Where would this world be right now if it wasn't for NASA?

[skyeagle409]

We'll let the evidence decide which of us is "ignoring reality to suit" their "own desires"...

You cited two Australian tracking stations - Honeysuckle Creek and Carnarvon...

So here's what NASA said about those sites...

Honeysuckle Creek - Australian Capital Territory

The Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station was built for the Apollo manned missions to the Moon. It played an integral role in the Apollo 11 mission, providing the first historic pictures of man walking on the Moon, Monday, 21st July 1969. Apart from the telecast for television, Honeysuckle Creek had voice and telemetry contact with the lunar module. In 1974 at the conclusion of the Skylab and Manned Space Flight activities, Honeysuckle Creek joined the DSN as Deep Space Station 44. When the site closed in December 1981, the 26-metre antenna was relocated to Tidbinbilla and renamed Deep Space Station 46 where it is used for spacecraft positioned close to the Earth.

Carnarvon - Western Australia

Carnarvon was built in 1963 for the Gemini Program. Replacing Muchea, the much larger complex used some of the equipment utilised for Project Mercury. The station was closed in 1974.

http://www.cdscc.nas...es/history.html

Here's an Australian source...

Australia became involved with the United States of America's Space Program in 1957 with the signing of an agreement between the Weapons Research Establishment and the American National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The first joint tracking station was completed at Woomera in South Australia in March 1958 and played a key role in tracking the Vanguard 1 experimental satellite during the International Geophysical Year in 1958. NASA's first deep-space tracking station outside the United States was established at Island Lagoon, about 56 km from the rangehead of the Woomera Rocket Range in September 1960. It was specifically designed for very long-range communication and supported NASA's Mariner 2 project in 1962 and continued in operation until December 1972. Tracking stations were also built at Carnarvon in Western Australia in 1964, Cooby Creek in Queensland in 1966, and in the Australian Capital Territory at Tidbinbilla and the Orroral Valley in 1965, and Honeysuckle Creek in 1967.

The Orroral Valley, south-west of Canberra, was an ideal site for a tracking station as its high surrounding ridges shielded the antennae from man-made radio interference. Construction on the 40-acre site started in November 1964 and was completed in July 1965, at a cost of over $2 million. NASA installed equipment valued at $1.5 million. The Orroral Valley Tracking Station was part of NASA's worldwide Space Tracking and Data Acquisition Network that was established to track, communicate with, and control, scientific earth satellites

http://www.nma.gov.a...=tlf&irn=108351

As NASA itself states...

"The Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station was built for the Apollo manned missions to the Moon."

So it's built specifically for NASA's Apollo program, all the equipment is NASA property, NASA hires the people who work there. And yet, you claim NASA is not in control of the tracking station?!

That's just nonsense.

That won't work at all. Do you seriously think that you can rewrite factual history from the comfort of your keyboard???

I also noticed that you ignored other countries with no ties to NASA confirming the reality of the Apollo moon missions, so once again, you have failed to provide a single shred of evidence supporting your case.

Let me refresh your mind.

China publishes high-resolution full moon map

BEIJING, Feb. 6 (Xinhua) -- China on Monday published a full coverage map of the moon, as well as several high-resolution images of the celestial body, captured by the country's second moon orbiter, the Chang'e-2.

The map and images, released by the State Administration of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defence (SASTIND), are the highest-resolution photos of the entirety of the moon's surface to be published thus far, said Liu Dongkui, deputy chief commander of China's lunar probe project.

India: 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

Soviet Union: Observers of all missions.

Soviet Union

The Soviet Union monitored the missions at their Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment".[28] 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.

Japan

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

The Bochum Observatory director: Verified Apollo 11 Mission

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.

Spain

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.

The UK

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.

That's just nonsense.

Nonsense is your inability to provide evidence supporting your claim of Apollo moon mission hoaxes. It has been 43 years since Apollo 11 landed on the moon and after all of those years, you have not provided a shred of evidence to the contrary. What you have presented was not evidence by any means and has been shut down by historical facts and real evidence, which are available to anyone.

Edited September 23, 2012 by skyeagle409

[turbonium]

Turbo,

You seem under the impression that NASA engineered and assembled everything that went into the Saturn launces of Apollo, including the spacecraft. That's not how it worked.

NASA bid out contracts for the design and construction of each part...the S1C. the SM, the LM, the various propulsion systems etc. NASA may have overseen the projects, as in the SII situation, but it was the companies themselves that had it make the hardware. NASA had an assembly of experts that could focus on problem areas for solutions, but again, the contractors did the main design and construction. And NASA didn't "own" them...they had other, non-NASA projects going on as well.

Does your employer "own" you? Can he make you do anything he says, no matter how unethical or immoral? Are NASA contractors somehow different from you?

You really like to insult people you don't know...

Where did I ever say NASA "owned" its employees?

I said NASA controlled the entire Apollo project. It's far different than "owning" the people who worked on the project! I'm not even sure how you could come up with such a bizarre misinterpretation!!

As for NASA's contractors, etc. - that issue has already been dealt with. NASA gives designs/specs to its contractors, who build to spec, and ship it off to NASA. I compared it to building a 'Time Machine'. I can give designs/specs for my 'Time Machine' to contractors, who build it to spec and ship it to me. Months later, I show them a film of the 'Time Machine' going back to the 16th century. All the contractors cheer when they see the footage on CNN, so proud they played a part in this amazing achievement.

[skyeagle409]

I said NASA controlled the entire Apollo project. It's far different than "owning" the people who worked on the project! I'm not even sure how you could come up with such a bizarre misinterpretation!!

As for NASA's contractors, etc. - that issue has already been dealt with. NASA gives designs/specs to its contractors, who build to spec, and ship it off to NASA. I compared it to building a 'Time Machine'. I can give designs/specs for my 'Time Machine' to contractors, who build it to spec and ship it to me. Months later, I show them a film of the 'Time Machine' going back to the 16th century. All the contractors cheer when they see the footage on CNN, so proud they played a part in this amazing achievement.

I am also proud to have worked on NASA's Kuiper Airborne Observatory in ISO dock 841, from time to time at Travis AFB, CA., and I can safely say that you have presented no evidence to backup your claim of Apollo moon mission hoaxes..

Edited September 23, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Obviousman]

Wrong again, Turbs.

Although the stations were built to support the Apollo programme, the facilities were managed by the Australian government (specifically the then Department of Supply) and the majority of people who manned it worked for the Australian government or private industry (e.g. Collins Radio, AWA, etc). Only a few of people there were NASA employees. NASA owned the movable equipment, the Australian Government owned the sites and operated them.

Perhaps you'd like to read the bottom right corner:

Also this:

Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station (abbreviated as HSK) was built by the Australian Government between February 1965 and December 1966 for the Manned Space Flight Network. It cost around $A2,000,000 (in 1966 money) to build and had an annual running budget of $1,250,000.

(Source: http://www.honeysuck...nstruction.html)

And Carnarvon? I quote from "Carnarvon and Apollo - One giant leap for a small town" (2010, Rosenberg Publishing NSW, ISBN 9781877058974):

DoS would operate the future Australian stations with Australian contractors under the oversight of a DoS Station Director similar to non-Australian stations that had American contractors under a NASA Station Director. Thus, Australia became unique amongst the co-operating nations in not having a NASA officer overseeing the station."

(Chapter 3, page 46)

Edited September 23, 2012 by Obviousman

[turbonium]

I'm guessing that you have deliberately ignored the nature of this subtle surface disruption, and the nature of the lunar dust, and the fact that dust "blasted" out in thin, linear sheets, and that the DPS engine pushed it out at differeing angles, and in different sheets, and disrupted it to different thicknesses, dependednt upon the distance from the DPS bell, the angle it struck the surface, the velocity, which would be based on altitude, and upon throttle setting and exhaust gas velocity.

One of the reasons I asked you for the descent data was so you could see these factors and how the dirt wasn't disrupted in a symmetrical path.

Suppose they had come into the landing area and yawed left 15 degrees, then rolled 10 degrees right at an altitude of 120 feet, and their throttle was at 18% with an exhaust gas velocity of 300 FPS.. Suppose you understood that and realized that the ground disruption below them wouldn't have been symettrical, but would've saw a lengthening and leserdisruption to their left?

Quite right, it would not be symettrical, just like the 'halo' is not symettrical,

And you say that this shadow extends into the darker area beyond the swath area?

Yes.

Do you think that "swath area of 300 x 600 feet (according to your estimate from orbital pictures) is a symmetrical disturbance?

No, as I just said above.

But we all do understand that these many swaths or haloes that are typical on the Moon aren't real features, because they're just not always visible on the ground, since they're very subtle, and we jknow that since you've taught us, if you cn't see it clearly on the ground, but you can from orbit--it can't be real!

The greater the distance from a feature, the harder it is to see/identify/distinguish the feature. And the more "subtle" the feature is, it's going to be even harder to see/identify/distinguish from a distance. A "very subtle" feature is more resolved when nearer to it.

Do you know how magnification works in a telescope? How the human eye will see an object/feature the closer to the object/feature'?

What about a crater? You'll see it better at close range, right? Of course.

How come? Because a crater is not "very subtle"?

Come on, now.

I'm still waiting for ANY examples of a "very subtle" feature seen at great distance that cannot be seen at closer range.

And I don't expect any examples from your side. Ask yourself why not...

[turbonium]

Another point -

We see the LM is about in the middle of the 'swath', along its horizontal axis, or mid-point of the swath's length.

That means the LM is above the surface, throwing up surface dust, goes in one direction about 100m, stops, goes back in the opposite direction, reaches its starting point, keeps on going for about 100m, stops, goes the other direction to its starting pont, and then lands to the surface!

And I guess that makes sense to you?

[turbonium]

I'm wrong? You are aware that I'm quoting NASA on this?

And so, you're really claiming that NASA is wrong?

Perhaps you should tell them about it, since they've obviously been under the impression that the station was buit for Apollo missions, the past 40 years!!

Edited September 23, 2012 by turbonium

[skyeagle409]

I'm wrong? You are aware that I'm quoting NASA on this?

Are you aware that other countries around the world and organizations not tied to NASA have confirmed tracking Apollo moon missions and photographing Apollo landing sites?

[skyeagle409]

And I don't expect any examples from your side.

You have been shown to be on the wrong side. For an example, your side has claimed the American flag was still waving after it was handled by the astronaut, but "Mythbusters" had shown that such a flag would have been expected to wave even more so in a vacuum than within an atmosphere and they proved it inside a vacuum chamber where the flag continued to wave exactly as the flag on the moon had done.

Each claim presented by your side has been explained using the laws of physics and available data and other evidence.

Ask yourself why not...

Why, after more than 40 years, has your side failed to present a single shred of evidence proving that the Apollo moon missions were hoaxed?

Edited September 23, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Gaden]

I'm suddenly reminded of Lee J. Cobb's character in 12 angry men.

[MID]

Quite right, it would not be symettrical, just like the 'halo' is not symettrical,

Yes.

No, as I just said above.

The greater the distance from a feature, the harder it is to see/identify/distinguish the feature. And the more "subtle" the feature is, it's going to be even harder to see/identify/distinguish from a distance. A "very subtle" feature is more resolved when nearer to it.

Do you know how magnification works in a telescope? How the human eye will see an object/feature the closer to the object/feature'?

What about a crater? You'll see it better at close range, right? Of course.

How come? Because a crater is not "very subtle"?

That's true. However, it's also irrelevant (as are most of your responses you give to information supplied to you that defeats your arguments)

You'll not be able to see the ...uh...."haloing" visible around all the craters, as you were shown above...because it's often difficult to perceive the subtle, micro laer shifting that occurs in the unusal soil of the Moon, which of course is micro-fine dust and has glass content and can cause long distance disturbance to be seen, dependent on lighting.

This has all been explained to you before, but I'll try to keep this as simple as possible:

Regolith is ALIEN SOIL, which is located in an ALIEN ENVIRONMENT, and is produced by ALIEN EFFECTS.

I know that's difficult. But it's true, and you refuse to learn anything about it. For the life of me, I don't understand why, as you're so obviously interested in Apollo...

I'm still waiting for ANY examples of a "very subtle" feature seen at great distance that cannot be seen at closer range.

Why?

You've already seen a few.....thousand, on the Moon.

Edited September 23, 2012 by MID

[MID]

I'm wrong? You are aware that I'm quoting NASA on this?

And so, you're really claiming that NASA is wrong?

Perhaps you should tell them about it, since they've obviously been under the impression that the station was buit for Apollo missions, the past 40 years!!

I'm thinking this statement was put here under some aberrant influence (I mean, other than the normal aberrant influence of your mind)...

You didn't quote anyone.

You mentioned a "station" allegedly built for Apollo missions, the past 40 years."

Maybe try again with that one, turb. It's worthless as it exists...

Edited September 23, 2012 by MID

[DONTEATUS]

I will pass on your greeting and I am glad you were able to come down and meet with him. I want to fly him to the Houston Flight Center next year so he can reminisce his experience on the Apollo 14 recovery team because whenever I bring up his experience, his eyes brighten up enough to where he can light up the state of Texas!!

. After all of these years, I am still in amazement at the Saturn rockets that boosted the Apollo astronauts to the moon and the technology involved and yet, there are those who can't believe we went to the moon despite the overwhelming evidence, but then again, there are those who still believe the earth is flat despite the overwhelming evidence.

Where would this world be right now if it wasn't for NASA?

Thats a Fact ! Sky ! And we need to do that Every time Ive walked along that SatV laying on its side its make your head spin ! What a Monster !

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

Thats a Fact ! Sky ! And we need to do that Every time Ive walked along that SatV laying on its side its make your head spin ! What a Monster !

Awesome engineering,13 Saturn V's launched from Kennedy with no loss of payload or lives and still the only space vehicle to carry Astronauts beyond low Earth orbit...

[Obviousman]

I'm wrong? You are aware that I'm quoting NASA on this?

And so, you're really claiming that NASA is wrong?

Perhaps you should tell them about it, since they've obviously been under the impression that the station was buit for Apollo missions, the past 40 years!!

I'm now sure you must have learning or comprehension difficulties. I said:

"Although the stations were built to support the Apollo programme, the facilities were managed by the Australian government (specifically the then Department of Supply) and the majority of people who manned it worked for the Australian government or private industry (e.g. Collins Radio, AWA, etc)."

What I have said in no way contradicts the NASA source you quoted. What it contradicts is your interpretation of what it said (as usual). It says one thing and you claim it says another.

You claim NASA controlled the stations; you have been proven wrong. Accept it and move on.

[turbonium]

I'm now sure you must have learning or comprehension difficulties. I said:

"Although the stations were built to support the Apollo programme, the facilities were managed by the Australian government (specifically the then Department of Supply) and the majority of people who manned it worked for the Australian government or private industry (e.g. Collins Radio, AWA, etc)."

What I have said in no way contradicts the NASA source you quoted. What it contradicts is your interpretation of what it said (as usual). It says one thing and you claim it says another.

You claim NASA controlled the stations; you have been proven wrong. Accept it and move on.

NASA did control the stations.

Who do you think the Australians worked for? The Australian government? No, they worked for NASA. It was NASA's project, it was NASA who hired them. It was NASA's equipment. It was NASA who trained them on operating that equipment. It was NASA who instructed the Australians in managing the facility - for NASA.

You seem to think the personnel are not working for NASA because they are Australians. The reality is they are working for NASA.

NASA decided who manages the Apollo tracking stations. The staff was doing what NASA trained them to do.

The reason NASA hires Australians is because the US and Australian governments had an agreement (treaty) to employ Australians as much as possible. This made it look like a joint US-Australian venture, rather than a wholly foreign (US) intrusion. As this document notes...

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750002909_1975002909.pdf .

NASA controls the Apollo tracking stations,

Edited September 24, 2012 by turbonium

[Obviousman]

NASA did control the stations.

Who do you think the Australians worked for? The Australian government? No, they worked for NASA. It was NASA's project, it was NASA who hired them. It was NASA's equipment. It was NASA who trained them on operating that equipment. It was NASA who instructed the Australians in managing the facility - for NASA.

You seem to think the personnel are not working for NASA because they are Australians. The reality is they are working for NASA.

NASA decides who manages the Apollo tracking stations. The staff is doing what NASA trains them to do.

NASA controls the Apollo tracking stations,

It's that comprehension problem again. You must have totally misunderstood it when I posted:

"DoS would operate the future Australian stations with Australian contractors under the oversight of a DoS Station Director similar to non-Australian stations that had American contractors under a NASA Station Director. Thus, Australia became unique amongst the co-operating nations in not having a NASA officer overseeing the station."

You must have also missed where I posted that the majority of the people did NOT work for NASA.

For instance, AWA did a big recruiting drive - including the UK - to get the necessary skilled personnel to man and operate Carnarvon.

Indeed, prior to Carnavon even being built NASA briefed the Australian government that "...it envisaged the continuation of the existing with DoS, as the co-operating agency, but expressed a strong preference that the proposed new stations should be manned and operated by Australian industry. In NASA's view the new space projects would require a flexibility and quick response to short-term staffing arrangements not always easy to achieve under Australian Public Service arrangements...".

(Also from 'Cararvon and Apollo')

Try reading posts slower, look up big words if you don't understand them.

[turbonium]

You'll not be able to see the ...uh...."haloing" visible around all the craters, as you were shown above...because it's often difficult to perceive the subtle, micro laer shifting that occurs in the unusal soil of the Moon, which of course is micro-fine dust and has glass content and can cause long distance disturbance to be seen, dependent on lighting.

This has all been explained to you before, but I'll try to keep this as simple as possible:

Regolith is ALIEN SOIL, which is located in an ALIEN ENVIRONMENT, and is produced by ALIEN EFFECTS.

Sand is also micro-fine and has glass content. So your claim fails.

[skyeagle409]

Sand is also micro-fine and has glass content. So your claim fails.

MID is correct, and you continue to ignore the facts he has placed before you. In fact, you have shown a desire to ignore facts and evidence that others have placed before you as well.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Lets apply the samelogic turbonium has just used to another situation.

A duck has two legs and contains carbon.

turbonium has two legs and contains carbon.

Therefore a duck and turbonium are the same thing.

This statement is obviously false.

[MID]

Sand is also micro-fine and has glass content. So your claim fails.

No, sand is not microfine like regolith. It is also not structured in any way like the self-adherent lunar soil is.

So, your comment, born again from lack of knowledge, fails...

[DONTEATUS]

Lets apply the samelogic turbonium has just used to another situation.

A duck has two legs and contains carbon.

turbonium has two legs and contains carbon.

Therefore a duck and turbonium are the same thing.

This statement is obviously false.

Now that in a Duck egg is the best physicis If seen in here in a long time ! Great one Waspie ! The Vogon`s are going to ask you to be a Leader amoungst Leaders !

Keep-em-comming !

As for the thread Its hard not to enjoy them when there so Funny !