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.


* * * - - 6 votes

[Merged] Did we land on the moon?

nasa apollo hoax

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
2593 replies to this topic

#1441    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 22 December 2012 - 06:30 AM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 16 December 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

That could prove difficult as it would include every expert in the world EXCEPT your 2 or 3 as no other experts around the world seem to have an issue with a single Apollo image. That in itself would tell a rational person something.

It tells them something is not rational with that!

You assume that "every expert in the world" agrees with you (that Apollo was genuine) .....because they said nothing???!! Their silence means they all accept it as genuine??  

Amazing...


#1442    Likely Guy

Likely Guy

    Undecided, mostly.

  • Member
  • 7,868 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2012

Posted 22 December 2012 - 06:57 AM

Turbonium, I think that your favourite colour is black, just because it's the least popular colour.

You love the underdog viewpoint in an issue. Just because it's the least agreed on, doesn't mean it's true though.

Proof we went to the Moon = Overwhelming
Proof we didn't go to the Moon = Underwhelming

Edit: ...and yes, I have read this thread from the beginning.

Edited by Likely Guy, 22 December 2012 - 07:04 AM.


#1443    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 22 December 2012 - 07:54 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 22 December 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:

It is a matter of calling upon the laws of physics to determine who is right and who wrong and I might add that the laws of physics have been called upon from time to time to debunk conspiracist claims, especially concerning the Apollo moon missions, which explains why conspiracist have failed to provide evidence the Apollo moon missions were hoaxed.

No such laws are needed in Apollo-land. Just babble about the lunar environment and presto, it's debunked!

View Postskyeagle409, on 22 December 2012 - 05:49 AM, said:


Do you remember the admiral who told President Roosevelt that the A-bomb would never work and that he spoke as an expert on explosives?

I can't recall that one. My point is that one person can be right about something, as thousands of 'experts' are wrong. I'm well aware of vice-versa, like in your example. It's not about majority is always right and minority always wrong.


#1444    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 22 December 2012 - 08:46 AM

View Postpostbaguk, on 16 December 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

Are you saying that the spacesuit cannot reflect sunlight? If not, why do you say it has magical properties? All it does is reflect very bright sunlight, that it reflected again off the heel of Aldrin's boot. That is a simple optical principle, not magic.

What exactly are you proposing? Remember the highlight is visible in the boot both at the top of the ladder and the bottom. Your method suggests someone pointing a spotlight at his boot as he comes down the ladder...?

The spacesuit is in the LM's shadow. No sunlight hits it, so no reflection is possible.

So that leaves only stage lighting to account for it.


#1445    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 4,993 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009

Posted 22 December 2012 - 09:42 AM

A small change..

View PostLikely Guy, on 22 December 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

Proof we went to the Moon = Overwhelming
Proof we didn't go to the Moon = Non-existent

The ludicrous 'evidence' being proffered by Apollo deniers simply reveals their utter ignorance of the equipment and the environment...

If anyone other than turbonium (who clearly wasn't debating in good faith), believes there is something new that might count as evidence, please bring it.

There are answers out there, and they won't be found by people sitting around looking serious and saying 'Isn't life mysterious?' - Tim Minchin ('Storm')
My garden is already magical and beyond beautiful - I do not need to invent fairies... - me
The truth ONLY hurts when it slaps you in the face after you haven't done proper homework and made silly claims... - me

#1446    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 22 December 2012 - 10:23 AM

View PostChrlzs, on 22 December 2012 - 09:42 AM, said:

A small change..


The ludicrous 'evidence' being proffered by Apollo deniers simply reveals their utter ignorance of the equipment and the environment...

If anyone other than turbonium (who clearly wasn't debating in good faith), believes there is something new that might count as evidence, please bring it.

I just did.

You ignored it.

Someone's not debating in good faith, clearly.


#1447    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,032 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006

Posted 22 December 2012 - 10:44 AM

<p>

View Postturbonium, on 22 December 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:


The spacesuit is in the LM's shadow. No sunlight hits it, so no reflection is possible.

So that leaves only stage lighting to account for it.
Are you pretending to forget that Postie found the image in the TV footage of Armstrong taking the photo in question?  It clearly showed him only partially in shadow, with a bright sunlight reflection from his right side, a perfect match with Groves "spotlight".

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#1448    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 33,896 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 22 December 2012 - 11:25 AM

View Postturbonium, on 22 December 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:



It tells a rational person you're still appealing to authority in itself.


You are in no position to accuse others of appealing to authority whilst at the same time presenting an argument which has no evidence apart from "because Groves says so."

Double standards from turbonium, what a surprise. He'll be making up quotes next, oh wait...

"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

#1449    postbaguk

postbaguk

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 996 posts
  • Joined:17 Aug 2006

Posted 22 December 2012 - 02:08 PM

View Postturbonium, on 22 December 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:



The spacesuit is in the LM's shadow. No sunlight hits it, so no reflection is possible.

So that leaves only stage lighting to account for it.

Here is another link to the video that proves you wrong. Please watch it this time.

http://www.hq.nasa.g...11v_1094228.mpg

Posted Image

Still waiting on answers to the questions in this post.

http://www.unexplain...25#entry4582676


#1450    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 23 December 2012 - 04:33 AM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 22 December 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

You are in no position to accuse others of appealing to authority whilst at the same time presenting an argument which has no evidence apart from "because Groves says so."

Double standards from turbonium, what a surprise. He'll be making up quotes next, oh wait...

It seems you need a review of who initiated the appeal to authority here...

View Postflyingswan, on 01 December 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

However, you wont find a single scientist or aerospace engineer who does not accept Apollo.

It suggests that the people who dispute Apollo lack the technical background to understand the strength of the evidence for the landings.

So that's why I mentioned two experts in photography who support my position. Of course, that  prompted your side into making another appeal to authority...

View Postskyeagle409, on 09 December 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

There are hundreds of experts who don't.

A bit later, I noted ..


If you expect me to justify my experts, then you should justify your experts in the very same way, correct? You like to make a sweeping generalization about all these experts who support you, without justifying any of them.

Do you remember this reply?...

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 16 December 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

That could prove difficult as it would include every expert in the world EXCEPT your 2 or 3 as no other experts around the world seem to have an issue with a single Apollo image. That in itself would tell a rational person something.

So I'm obliged to justify my two experts, while you make a lame excuse to avoid justifying even ONE of your experts?!!

Talk about a "double standard", you take the cake...


#1451    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,560 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 23 December 2012 - 04:57 AM

View Postturbonium, on 22 December 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:


The spacesuit is in the LM's shadow. No sunlight hits it, so no reflection is possible.

So that leaves only stage lighting to account for it.

You are consistent with getting the facts all wrong.



KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1452    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,560 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 23 December 2012 - 05:01 AM

View Postturbonium, on 23 December 2012 - 04:33 AM, said:


If you expect me to justify my experts, then you should justify your experts in the very same way, correct? You like to make a sweeping generalization about all these experts who support you, without justifying any of them.

I will make it easy for you. I have already posted undenial evidence that's supported by experts around the globe, so where's your evidence? You have yet to post ANY evidence supporting your case. :no:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1453    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 23 December 2012 - 05:53 AM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 22 December 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

You are in no position to accuse others of appealing to authority whilst at the same time presenting an argument which has no evidence apart from "because Groves says so."

Double standards from turbonium, what a surprise. He'll be making up quotes next, oh wait...

You really need to review this matter...

It began with your side making an appeal to authority (still a popular theme for your group, it seems)...  

View Postflyingswan, on 01 December 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

However, you wont find a single scientist or aerospace engineer who does not accept Apollo.

It suggests that the people who dispute Apollo lack the technical background to understand the strength of the evidence for the landings.


Since I was aware of two experts who supported my position, I mentioned it.

That led to your camp making yet another appeal to authority...

View Postskyeagle409, on 09 December 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

There are hundreds of experts who don't.

(Sidenote: If you aren't sure the quotes I'm citing are genuine, I urge you to verify it for yourself.)

To recap - I was simply pointing out that there are indeed experts who support me. Your side automatically assumed I am required to defend these experts. So I said...


If you expect me to justify my experts, then you should justify your experts in the very same way, correct? You like to make a sweeping generalization about all these experts who support you, without justifying any of them.

Do you remember your reply to that?....

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 16 December 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

That could prove difficult as it would include every expert in the world EXCEPT your 2 or 3 as no other experts around the world seem to have an issue with a single Apollo image. That in itself would tell a rational person something.

In other words - I'm obliged to justify experts who support me, while it would be quite "difficult" to justify all of your experts. so you don't need to justify even one of them??!!

Talk about double standards - you take the cake!!

Oh, btw - I didn't make up your quote, either. You get all the credit for crafting that gem...


#1454    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,560 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 23 December 2012 - 06:00 AM

View Postturbonium, on 23 December 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

You really need to review this matter...

I think you should review this!

Quote

Indian satellite confirmed US moon landing: scientist

India's first lunar mission has captured images of the landing site of the Apollo 15 craft, debunking theories that the US mission was a hoax, the country's state-run space agency said Wednesday.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news171102159.html#jCp


KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1455    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,560 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 23 December 2012 - 06:09 AM

View Postturbonium, on 23 December 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

If you expect me to justify my experts, then you should justify your experts in the very same way, correct?


Mr.  Reality and Mr. Laws of Physics are experts that have consistently debunked claims of Apollo Hoax conspiracist. Check it out.

Quote


Apollo Hoaxer's claim:

Footage of the American flag planted on the Moon shows it flapping, and a flag cannot flap in a vacuum, so it could not have been filmed on the Moon.


Mr Reality and Mr. Laws of Physics say:

A replica of the American flag planted on the Moon into the vacuum chamber. They manipulated the flag in a manner similar to what the astronauts did when they planted the flag on the Moon, then stopped the manipulation. They first tested at normal pressure; the momentum moved the flag around somewhat but quickly dissipated.

In pure vacuum conditions, after the manipulation stopped, the momentum caused the flag to flap wildly as if it were being blown by a breeze. This is because there was no resistance from air to dampen the motion. This proved that in a vacuum, a flag does not need wind to flap for a while after a person sets it in motion.


Edited by skyeagle409, 23 December 2012 - 06:17 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX