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This topic has been archived.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

#1681    monk 56

monk 56

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2012

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:40 AM

Now for the casual reader or researcher, you must note one thing, in order for any experiment regarding the Moon to work by retroreflector, you don't just casually wave a laser in the general location of the Moon, you must have precise latitude and longitude, if you don't it doesn't work, which is why USSR lost Lunokhod 1 for so long when it went walkabout, the reflector was attached to it!

So now we know the location of Lunokhod one and two, we can fire lasers to them, the USSR left two reflectors by robots, the USA left three, we can bounce a laser off all five!

The United States have never left robotic Moon Rovers on the Moon, they only left transport rovers for astronauts, please explain?

Edited by monk 56, 18 February 2013 - 11:41 AM.


#1682    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,140 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 18 February 2013 - 12:49 PM

View Postmonk 56, on 18 February 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

The United States have never left robotic Moon Rovers on the Moon, they only left transport rovers for astronauts, please explain?
You are getting totally the wrong end of the stick here and really not listening to what CZero 101 and Obviousman are saying. As a result you are simply wasting your time as you are preaching to the converted.

Please try to understand the following:

  • CZero 101 and Obviousman already know all about the reflectors and how they work.
  • CZero 101 and Obviousman do not believe that Apollo was hoaxed.
  • CZero 101 and Obviousman do not believe that the Apollo reflectors were put there by unmanned rovers.
  • CZero 101 and Obviousman do believe that between 1969 and 1972 12 Americans walked on the surface of the Moon.

What CZero 101 and Obviousman ARE saying is this:

Since it is possible to put reflectors on the moon using robotic vehicles, as proven by the Lunokhods, the existence of the reflectors on the moon are not by themselves proof of manned missions to the Moon, but they are part of a large body of evidence that does prove Apollo.

You've picked the right fight but the wrong opponents.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 18 February 2013 - 12:49 PM.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#1683    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,140 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:04 PM

View Postturbonium, on 17 February 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

Seems you missed my point, so I'll try and clarify it for you...

Do you know what a 'modifier' is?

Do you get my point now?

turbonium you are being dishonest here. You said the following:

View Postturbonium, on 16 February 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

Apollo astronauts didn't mention the stars at all. This is simply impossible - if they had actually flown to the moon it would have been mentioned repeatedly. There were (supposedly) nine flights to the moon, but not even one reported the incredible stars?? Not a chance.

It's a huge red flag - it signals a hoax.

It doesn't matter what modifier they used. You made a claim, that claim has been proven wrong, plain and simple.

Now as for your new claim that they didn't use the correct words to describe the stars, that is really the worst case you have ever put forward.

I know your knowledge is lacking, but I would have thought even you would have realised that astronauts were selected for their flying skills and engineering/scientific capabilities NOT for their poetic abilities.

You are claiming that because not all the astronauts used the same subjective terms that this is somehow evidence. That is total nonsense. A subjective description is precisely that. If an Apollo astronaut had said "the sky is full of those hideous stars I despise so much"  it would be no less a valid description of stars that another man describing them as beautiful.

"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

#1684    monk 56

monk 56

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2012

Posted 18 February 2013 - 02:55 PM

Hi Waspie_Dwarf,

Just because the Russians put two robots on the Moon that had retroreflectors, we know where they are, have pictures of them and have Latitude and Longitude, my dispute is there is no history that any can find that USA put robotic moon rovers on the moon, other than by astronauts, unless any would wish to say that USA and USSR were in a conspiracy together, which is extremely unlikely regarding the SPACE RACE going on at the time.

There are differences between myself and Czero101/Obviousman, you are not reading properly what i'm writing, 3 reflectors are on the Moon, put there by astronauts, and USA NEVER HAVE HAD ROBOTS ON THE MOON, so unless you want to say that the American reflectors were put up there by Russian robots, you don't get any other answer other than they were placed there by astronauts, being a logical answer!


#1685    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,227 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007

Posted 18 February 2013 - 04:22 PM

* facepalm *


I give up...






Cz

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#1686    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,140 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 18 February 2013 - 04:42 PM

View PostCzero 101, on 18 February 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

* facepalm *


I give up...
Cz
I know what you mean, but I'm going to give it one more go.

Read this VERY carefully monk 56.

I do not believe that the Apollo reflectors were placed on the moon by robots.

Hoax believers DO believe that the Apollo reflectors were put there by robots.

Since the technology existed to place reflectors on the moon by robotic lander in the Apollo period it is possible that the US could have done this (I repeat; here I do not believe this. There is no evidence to support this, but hoax believers do believe it).

Now the part you seem to have real difficulty with.

Since it is POSSIBLE for the US to have placed the reflectors on the moon without a manned mission the reflectors ARE NOT PROOF of a manned mission.

I repeat again, I do not believe Apollo was faked, CZero 101 does not believe Apollo was faked and Obviousman does not believe Apollo was faked.

turbonium does believe Apollo was faked.

What CZero 101, Obviousman and myself do understand is what constitutes proof. We know that belief is not enough. The laser reflectors are not proof, however they are evidence in a huge body of proof that shows that beyond any reasonable doubt Apollo landed 12 men on the Moon.

To summarise:
Apollo happened. Apollo placed the reflectors there. Apollo is not the ONLY possible way that the reflectors got there, therefore the reflectors do not constitute irrefutable proof of Apollo.
Have you got it yet? Please say you've got it.

"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

#1687    monk 56

monk 56

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2012

Posted 18 February 2013 - 04:46 PM

Hi Czoro101,

I only dispute you on one thing, the Retroreflectors are proof of a manned Moon landing!

1) Apollo 11 landed on 20th July 1969, within a month it was sending back information by laser that was detected by several observatories, link below:-

http://relativity.li...articlese1.html

2) Lonokhod 1 landed over a year later which was the first robotic moon rover on 17th November 1970 that had a retroreflector fitted on it.

3) U.S.A. never landed a robotic moon rover in history, apart from that the American retroreflector was working more than a year before the Russian rover landed.

4) we know the location of Lonokhod 1 and 2., USSR only left two retroreflectors on the Moon, USA left three.

5) The American retroreflectors are proof of manned Moon landing in itself, and Apollo 11 left one that was working before Lonokhod 1.


#1688    monk 56

monk 56

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2012

Posted 18 February 2013 - 05:02 PM

No one disputes that Lonokhod 1 was the first Moon robotic rover, if any can find evidence that the Americans left one on the Moon, i will take your point, there is no evidence, thus retroreflectors are proof, which you deny.

I'm not looking for maybe, find evidence that isn't an American astronaut passanger rover but a robotic one!


#1689    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,227 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007

Posted 18 February 2013 - 05:03 PM

Monk...

Again, what you are saying is true.

I know it.

Obviousman knows it.

Waspie knows it.

Pretty much everyone here knows it.

The problem is that you are still not getting the idea that the LRRR's at the Apollo sites are not sufficient evidence by themselves to say conclusively that Man was there since it can be proven that other Retroreflectors were put there by means not involving a human presence.

They add to the body of evidence, but by themselves do not prove Man's presence there.

The fact that the US did not have a robotic moon rover program in the works at the time doesn't change the fact that it was still technically possible to land an unmanned spacecraft on the Moon. The Surveyor program proved that the US had the capability to soft-land a spacecraft on the Moon fairly precisely.

Please try to understand the logic behind that.




Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 18 February 2013 - 05:04 PM.

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#1690    monk 56

monk 56

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2012

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:48 PM

This is zany, i'm a conspiracy theorist trying to help the other side, who want to hold on to official reports.   If the other side can not get debate going i have to leave it to you!

1) i was talking about Moon Robotic Rovers, now dispute is about soft landings and Surveyor Program, please find a conspiracy theorist that says any of them had a retroreflector on this forum, i might be wrong but find any evidence, link below:-

http://en.wikipedia....urveyor_Program

2) The official line is that Retroreflectors started in 1969 with Apollo 11, well conspiracy theorists if the other side can not be united regarding official reports, and i am an astronomer/Conspiracy theorist trying to help them, they have no clarity in debate, very worrying!

3) Do they ever update information on this forum, obviously the Apollo 11 Moon Landing Site Was imaged by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbitter in 2012, actually the latitude and longitude of image is 0.67408* North Latitude, 23.47297* East Longitude on the Moon, retroreflectors have to be struck precisely by a laser beam, they then reflect the beam in a parallel path back to the source by laser and it is by this measure that we find that by how much the Moon is moving away from the Earth each year, how scientists are able to calibrate this is knowing exact location of retroreflector on the Moon by Apollo 11....Image location and how we fire lasers for the first retroreflector by Apollo 11 location is the same, please note Moon walk left by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin shown below by 2012 Lunar Reconnaissance Orbitter:-

http://www.space.com...-sites-lro.html

If those that follow official reports have difficulty with me being a conspiracy theorists trying to help them but am an accurate astronomer, well they need help in debate, and have problems!

Hell i have to leave some zany English humour, it wasn't Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin that did the first "Moon Walk" it was Bill Bailey in 1955, please wait for final seconds of video Ha Ha!



Edited by monk 56, 19 February 2013 - 12:31 AM.


#1691    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 31,542 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005

Posted 19 February 2013 - 03:32 AM

View Postturbonium, on 16 February 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

A view of stars () from the lunar surface is not relevant to my point. It has absolutely nothing to do with my comparison. So drop it already.

Again, people can see 'amazing' stars while in space....

Seeing the bright blue sky turning pitch-black and seeing stars appear while it is daytime is absolutely mind-blowing." - Mike Melvill, Spaceship One pilot.

http://www.iol.co.za...e-trip-1.237528


"The coolest thing for me is the experience of floating around, not feeling my weight, and hanging by a window just after sunset and WATCH THE STARS in the big black dome of the sky as the Earth moves underneath. I somehow try to find 10-15 minutes every day to do that. I think most mornings I try to continue to postpone my meals so I can do that. It's kind of fun because I have to watch where the food is going because my eyes are really glued to the outside, It is just absolutely amazing, magical, wonderful feeling to do that." - Kalpana Chawla, (on Columbia's fatal mission).  


Apollo is being compared while in LEO, and while en route to the moon, and during its return to Earth  NOT FROM THE LUNAR SURFACE!!


Apollo astronauts didn't mention the stars at all. This is simply impossible - if they had actually flown to the moon it would have been mentioned repeatedly. There were (supposedly) nine flights to the moon, but not even one reported the incredible stars?? Not a chance.

It's a huge red flag - it signals a hoax.

Well, your point seems to have gone down like a lead balloon.


This is what you are left with is it? Man did not go to the moon because the Astronauts were clearly not descriptive enough during the flight whilst seeing stars in space?

Also, these men were test pilots, and had been through X15, Mercury and Gemini missions. Why do you think Apollo was the first time man had seen that altitude? Why would something they have seen before become remarkable to report to people who were concerned with technical problems?

Seriously, you question the integrity of these heroes based on that bit of crap? Or do you still fall for the waving flag nonsense CT?

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#1692    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,630 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 19 February 2013 - 09:04 PM

It does get really old ! Why one cannot see the Facts,and Actual Proof ? Apollo HAppened,We walked upon the Moon,We will return soon !
Look up a little more at night at our Moon. See Its Real,We Walked on it ! :yes:

This is a Work in Progress!

#1693    Eluus

Eluus

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 69 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2012

Posted 19 February 2013 - 09:50 PM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 19 February 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

It does get really old ! Why one cannot see the Facts,and Actual Proof ? Apollo HAppened,We walked upon the Moon,We will return soon !
Look up a little more at night at our Moon. See Its Real,We Walked on it ! :yes:



I didn't have any significant knowledge about the Apollo missions and I was curious at first about the truth. I read the thread before this one and been following this since it's start.

It took me a dozen pages to see that NASA did land those men on the moon. I kept reading it because it was full of new information for me and I did have a lot of time. The information alone could keep me reading these threads. However after reading a lot of turbonium's posts I kept reading the threads because I couldn't believe the type of arguments turbonium kept coming up with, his tactics and wanted to see how other people would react to them. I must say that I learned a lot from the frequent posters of the thread, especially from M.I.D. Not only the science/facts of Apollo missions but more importantly how to patiently try to deal with people who behave like the CTs in this thread. I can't believe how patient he was. Though even he couldn't manage to help some posters.

In the end, I am still undecided if

1) turbonium knows that he is wrong but still keeps going for some reason

2) His ego is making him blind to the obvious

This has been puzzling me since the moon hoax thread before this one.  :w00t:

Edited by Eluus, 19 February 2013 - 10:04 PM.


#1694    Philthy

Philthy

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 22 posts
  • Joined:27 Oct 2010

Posted 20 February 2013 - 04:01 AM

I propose that the existence of the reflectors ARE proof of men on the moon all by themselves. If they were placed by robotic devices, they would have to get there somehow. The only launches, at the time, were the manned Apollo launches. There is no evidence of any other launches with robots aboard. This means that YES, the Apollo reflectors DO prove that the Apollo landings were are actual fact.

Phil

Edited by Philthy, 20 February 2013 - 04:04 AM.


#1695    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,227 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007

Posted 20 February 2013 - 04:21 AM

View PostPhilthy, on 20 February 2013 - 04:01 AM, said:

I propose that the existence of the reflectors ARE proof of men on the moon all by themselves. If they were placed by robotic devices, they would have to get there somehow. The only launches, at the time, were the manned Apollo launches. There is no evidence of any other launches with robots aboard. This means that YES, the Apollo reflectors DO prove that the Apollo landings were are actual fact.

Phil

How many "covert" launches were there last year?

Its practically an unknowable number.

So unfortunately your "The only launches, at the time, were the manned Apollo launches" is not only factually incorrect since there were other unmanned launches during that time period (link to a page showing all documented launches, globally, during 1969), it is also a bad example to judge by since, if there were "covert missions to put robotic landers on the Moon to help facilitate the Moon landing hoax" the chance of those launches showing up in any historical documentation is fairly slim... practically nil, actually.

Again... the presence of the LRRR's certainly does add to the considerable evidence that proves that Man went to the Moon as history recorded, but on their own do not constitute sufficient evidence to say conclusively that Man was there since it can be shown that the technology to send a robotic mission to the Moon existed at the time.






Cz

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken