[Merged] Did we land on the moon?

[Ove]

Yes indeed, India and China are among countries around the world confirming the reality of the Apollo moon missions.

reality of the unmanned Apollo moon missions

[skyeagle409]

reality of the unmanned Apollo moon missions

Considering that footprints of astronauts have also been photographed, simply proves you wrong.

I might add that my flying buddy was on the Apollo 14 recovery team.

Edited March 18, 2013 by skyeagle409

[rambaldi]

I might add that my flying buddy was on the Apollo 14 recovery team.

That just means he is one of the billions upon billions* people that have to be part of the conspiracy :-)

*i'm exaggerating but I always wanted to write like Carl Sagan

[turbonium]

And I never said you said it was proof. If you can't make a case without twisting my arguments, it's quite worthless, is it not?

You said...

"OK, so on the one hand, we have the unimpeachable evidence of astronauts failing to use the word "amazing" in relation to stars as being cast-iron proof that an entire moon landing programme was hoaxed."

So you know I didn't make this claim. You simply made it up, for absolutely no reason?

Care to explain this?

The use or non-use of the word "amazing" has been done to death. I'd like to isay it's one of your weaker arguments, but that would imply you have better ones. I didn't address my post at you. It was aimed anyone reading the thread to decide what constitutes better evidence: not using the word "amazing" to describe stars, or an orbital photo taken 40 years later matching the rocks seen at the far side of a crater during a rover traverse back to the LM from a geology station several kilometres away.

It's a point I've offered up for discussion.

But lame comparisons ?!

You have no valid rebuttal, it seems.

Please point out where I said it was an independent validation, I never made such a claim.

You made the comparison, and I took up the issue of independent validation.

So why did you make that comparison at all?

However, it must at least raise questions in the mind of anyone but the most dyed-in-the-wool hoax believers, surely? How exactly did they fake 20 square kilometres of the lunar surface in such amazing detail? And that's just Apollo 16, Apollo 17 was more than double that! Maybe it's easy for some people to gloss over such details when they have "amazing" stars to cling to, or video footage of stage-hands with such clarity that you can actually see their guilt-blackened fingernails.

"Amazing detail"?

Little dots and obscure splotches, wowee!!

Of course, if you want evidence from NASA photos that matches up with evidence from other nations, that has already been presented to you on this thread in recent posts. Look at the Selene radar data from Apollo 15 near Hadley Rille for example.

Apollo photos do NOT match up!!

A real physical feature exists, but never seen in any Apollo close-up images. Nothing at all. That is a fact.

Did we ever bring up Apollo's video clips, related to this issue? Lots of photos, but no video clips IIRC.

The Apollo videos - this physical feature is never seen.

It also confirms the Apollo close-up images.

You still think a few longer-range Apollo images show the feature.

The shape of this feature does not appear to match up. No matter what angles of light, no matter what perspective - it never matches up. Along one edge, it barely extends beyond the LM! Impossible to match up. And there's several other shapes, and look much alike! So the first thing you must do is exclude them, because they're in the wrong place! Only the one around the LM is an actua physical feature!

Good one.

Or you could just rely on the FACT! that pressurised suits can't bend more than 90 degrees at the knees.

Sure - and it's not properly pressurized in your video.

[turbonium]

turbonioum: What could possibly be better evidence than your NASA photos, which match up perfectly with your other NASA photos?!?

ppl: here you have Japan, China, India

turbonioum: What could possibly be better evidence than your NASA photos, which match up perfectly with your other NASA photos?!?

ppl: look again, here you have Japan, China, India

turbonioum: What could possibly be better evidence than your NASA photos, which match up perfectly with your other NASA photos?!?

ppl: are you idiot? look again at Japan, China, India

turbonioum: this proves nothing, Russia, Japan, India and China are also part of the conspirasy.

ppl: hey, anyone knows a good psychiatrist???

They all show the same feature that Apollo didn't, but you'd have to be an idiot to not grasp what it means...right?

[postbaguk]

You said...

"OK, so on the one hand, we have the unimpeachable evidence of astronauts failing to use the word "amazing" in relation to stars as being cast-iron proof that an entire moon landing programme was hoaxed."

So you know I didn't make this claim. You simply made it up, for absolutely no reason?

Care to explain this?

You said it was "quite logical". Presumably, "quite logical" that if they didn't use the word amazing, then they can't have actually seen any stars. So, it's quite logical to infer that you are putting this forth as evidence: otherwise, why mention it?

So, is it part of your evidence that Apollo was faked, or not? If it is, then quit your whining. If it isn't, stop bleating on about it.

It's a point I've offered up for discussion.

Well, it got discussed. Unless you have any other insights into the non-use of the word "amazing", I guess that particular discussion is over.

You have no valid rebuttal, it seems.

One minute it's a point you offered up for discussion. Next it's something that requires a rebuttal, which infers that you have indeed offered forth something as evidence. Well, which is it?

You made the comparison, and I took up the issue of independent validation.

So why did you make that comparison at all?

I compared the "point for discussion/"might-be-evidence-might-not-be-evidence" that you raised (lack of a particular adjective used in relation to the stars), against the congruence between an Apollo 16 EVA photo, and photos taken from orbit by LRO, and asked viewers of the thread to draw their own conclusions as to which constitutes better evidence. That is all I did. So, which do you think constitutes better evidence? Surely you're capable of looking at the evidence I presented and actually discussing it, rather than running away from it?

Let's start over. Here is the evidence in favour of Apollo that I presented. Let's forget about what constitutes the better evidence for a moment, and just debate this evidence that I've presented in favour of Apollo.

Remembering your own words: A specific point has to stand or fall - based on its own merits. You bring up a completely irrelevant, separate issue, instead of properly debating the specific issue. This is ridiculous.

OK, let's stick to this specific issue. Do the two images show the same scene or not?

"Amazing detail"?

Little dots and obscure splotches, wowee!!

No, we're talking about recognizable features and rocks. Look at the actual images presented. Do they represent the same scene, or not?

[skyeagle409]

But lame comparisons ?!

How amusing that you would say such a thing because they proved beyond any doubt that you are wrong! The images are on the same level at proving you wrong as those photos of people bending their knees in pressurized spacesuits, a feat you've claimed, was impossible.

It proves why no one can take you seriously.

[turbonium]

You said it was "quite logical". Presumably, "quite logical" that if they didn't use the word amazing, then they can't have actually seen any stars. So, it's quite logical to infer that you are putting this forth as evidence: otherwise, why mention it?

I've already told you why I mentioned it - because it is a valid point of discussion, and it is indeed "quite logical".

A point can be valid and logical, yet not regarded as 'proof'. It can simply be a point of discussion.

You seem to think each and every point of discussion must be considered 'proof' of a moon hoax, or it has no validity

That is utterly ludicrous.

So, is it part of your evidence that Apollo was faked, or not? If it is, then quit your whining. If it isn't, stop bleating on about it.

I'm not whining, I'm just trying to explain why a point can be raised without needing to be 'proof'. I'm not sure if you can grasp this concept, so let's go over it again...

Do you understand that a point can be raised, even if it is not 'proof'? It can.

Do you understand the reason I raised the point? Because I consider it a valid, logical point, which makes it worth bringing up

As for being 'evidence', that is a different thing than 'proof'. Do you understand that? If not, look it up.

I consider it circumstantial evidence of a moon hoax. Do you understand what that is? If not, look it up.

That covers it. I hope it's finally clear to you.

Well, it got discussed. Unless you have any other insights into the non-use of the word "amazing", I guess that particular discussion is over.

No, I made my point, Since you don't have anything to add, let's move on

One minute it's a point you offered up for discussion. Next it's something that requires a rebuttal, which infers that you have indeed offered forth something as evidence. Well, which is it?

First - it is a point I offered up for discussion.

Second - you obviously felt it required a rebuttal, since you made one (which failed to hold up).

It's not a case of one or the other. A point of discussion can also require a rebuttal.

I compared the "point for discussion/"might-be-evidence-might-not-be-evidence" that you raised (lack of a particular adjective used in relation to the stars), against the congruence between an Apollo 16 EVA photo, and photos taken from orbit by LRO, and asked viewers of the thread to draw their own conclusions as to which constitutes better evidence. That is all I did. So, which do you think constitutes better evidence? Surely you're capable of looking at the evidence I presented and actually discussing it, rather than running away from it?

I know why you compared the two issues, and I've explained why it doesn't work. They are two distinct, seperate issues. You are comparing apples to oranges here.

I guess I'm running away from apples and oranges..

Let's start over. Here is the evidence in favour of Apollo that I presented. Let's forget about what constitutes the better evidence for a moment, and just debate this evidence that I've presented in favour of Apollo.

Remembering your own words: A specific point has to stand or fall - based on its own merits. You bring up a completely irrelevant, separate issue, instead of properly debating the specific issue. This is ridiculous.

OK, let's stick to this specific issue. Do the two images show the same scene or not?

No, we're talking about recognizable features and rocks. Look at the actual images presented. Do they represent the same scene, or not?

Of course they do. I've never said otherwise. My point was - to compare NASA images to other NASA images is meaningless, since it isn't independent validation.

Can you imagine NASA being stupid enough to show two different images of the same area? Please...

[skyeagle409]

Can you imagine NASA being stupid enough to show two different images of the same area? Please...

Can you imagine how stupid it would have been to spend billions of dollars to hoax moon missions when such hoaxes could have been easily revealed? But as it was, no such hoax occurred and nations around the globe have not only tracked the Apollo moon missions, but photographed the Apollo landing sites as well.

[turbonium]

How amusing that you would say such a thing because they proved beyond any doubt that you are wrong! The images are on the same level at proving you wrong as those photos of people bending their knees in pressurized spacesuits, a feat you've claimed, was impossible.

Once again...

They are NOT pressurized spacesuits shown in those two images!

Not a chance.

The second image was from a video, which showed someone doing deep knee bends.

Link to video...

Now, watch the part right after those knee bends.

Look at his right hand. Notice anything?

His right hand is fully closed in a fist!

You think he can make a fist with a 3.7 psi pressurized glove?

I sure hope you know the correct answer to that.

[postbaguk]

Of course they do. I've never said otherwise. My point was - to compare NASA images to other NASA images is meaningless, since it isn't independent validation.

Can you imagine NASA being stupid enough to show two different images of the same area? Please...

Great! The photos match. Unfortunately, this raises problems for Hoax Believers. Why do they match? As I see it there are only 2 possible scenarios from a hoax point of view.

1. The Apollo sets were deliberately constructed to resemble the lunar surface as accurately as possible, using Lunar Orbiter imagery.

The difficulty of this approach is the gargantuan size of the project, and the size of the sets required.

2. Subsequent photos have been doctored to resemble the Apollo images.

Again, even if this was technically possible (which I doubt), this would be a huge project requiring the silent cooperation of everyone involved in the project.

So which method was used? Why? More importantly, how? How was it possible to do such a thing, without anyone ever finding out about it? It can't have been done using scale models, since we have so much video footage of the astronauts showing them moving long distances away from the rover. We can tie these in with the high-resolution Hasselblad images, and we can tie those in to the orbital imagery.

[frenat]

Once again...

They are NOT pressurized spacesuits shown in those two images!

Not a chance.

The second image was from a video, which showed someone doing deep knee bends.

Link to video...

[media=]

[/media]

Now, watch the part right after those knee bends.

Look at his right hand. Notice anything?

His right hand is fully closed in a fist!

You think he can make a fist with a 3.7 psi pressurized glove?

I sure hope you know the correct answer to that.

So essentially your "argument" is simply argument from incredulence. You have no proof the suit is not pressurized. And on top of that you are somehow smarter than all the engineers that designed it. Let me guess, you're basing your ignorance on the gardening glove experiment? You'd be funny if you didn't look like such a joke.

[skyeagle409]

Once again...

They are NOT pressurized spacesuits shown in those two images!

Not a chance.

Just another example why you cannot be taken seriously.

Take a look at this video and go to time line 31:00. That person is doing what you claimed, was impossible.

Edited March 24, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

APOLLO 11: History in the making

[turbonium]

So essentially your "argument" is simply argument from incredulence. You have no proof the suit is not pressurized. And on top of that you are somehow smarter than all the engineers that designed it. Let me guess, you're basing your ignorance on the gardening glove experiment? You'd be funny if you didn't look like such a joke.

You have no proof the suit IS pressurized, specifically as required for that environment! That's the first claim, it's your burden to prove that, first of all!

Why haven't you done that?

So far, you've got a 1960's video which makes no claims about properly pressurized suits being used. I've found several documents which are far more recent, and they point out mobility as a problem.

So what does that tell you about your video?

Edited March 29, 2013 by turbonium

[frenat]

You have no proof the suit IS pressurized! That's the first claim, it's your burden to prove that first of all!

Why haven't you done that?

Not my claim. More fun to watch you make a fool of yourself.

Besides, YOU are the one making a claim that it is impossible to make those movements in a pressurized suit. Any proof of that would be nice any time now.

Edited March 29, 2013 by frenat

[skyeagle409]

You have no proof the suit IS pressurized!

I don't think you realize just how silly that remark is, and it is very clear as to why no one can take you seriously. After all, you are proving it beyond a shadow of a doubt with each post.

[postbaguk]

You have no proof the suit IS pressurized! That's the first claim, it's your burden to prove that first of all!

Why haven't you done that?

Actually, it's you who claims that its impossible for a pressurised suit to perform a deep knee bend. A claim uusupported by mere niceties like facts and evidence. These videos and photos of pressurized suits doing just what you claim to be impossible should set alarm bells going in the mind of someone who is debating in good faith and following evidence rather than trying to shoehorn facts to suit their deeply rooted beliefs. This is just another example that proves you don't care about the truth, or about learning, or about admitting you've made an error. You only care about not being seen to lose the debate. Your reaction to counter evidence presented to you proves this. A genuine, objective, open-minded truth seeker would say "Wow! I didn't know about that. I'll do some more digging and find out about this." Instead, you try reversing the burden of proof, and simply refuse to rationally and objectively re-assess your position.

Reasons? You've emotionally bought in to the hoax theory and lack the moral fibre to admit that any of the"evidence" you've presented is dubious.

Contrast and compare to how most contributors on here refer to the laser reflectors. It is no longer presented as proof, where it may have in the past. It's presented as evidence, since there is the albeit small chance that the reflectors could have been placed remotely. That's a sign of a genuine objectivity in assessing the evidence, rather than an approach hampered by emotional attachment.

Try it. You might like it. Admit you're wrong on the spacesuit issue. Doesnt mean you have to admit Apollo did happen. Do you have the courage to admit when your arguments fail, or are you really here just to pull our collective pud?

Edited March 29, 2013 by postbaguk

[turbonium]

I don't think you realize just how silly that remark is, and it is very clear as to why no one can take you seriously. After all, you are proving it beyond a shadow of a doubt with each post.

You're one to talk about a silly remark! What about some proof?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

More fun to watch you make a fool of yourself.

I don't think you realize just how silly that remark is, and it is very clear as to why no one can take you seriously. After all, you are proving it beyond a shadow of a doubt with each post.

You're one to talk about a silly remark! What about some proof?

Now, now children. If you are quite finished squabbling like a bunch of nursery school kids in the playground can we have some grown up behaviour please?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

You have no proof the suit IS pressurized! That's the first claim, it's your burden to prove that first of all!

Why haven't you done that?

You still haven't got the hang of the burden of proof have you. I'm bored repeating it but here goes.

As the accepted truth there is no burden of proof on Apollo... it is already considered proven. The burden of proof is yours and yours alone. Since Apollo is considered proven it is sufficient say, "Apollo happened, therefore, since the footage is considered to be genuine it must, therefore be possible for the knees of an Apollo suit to bend to that angle when pressurised".

It is up to you to prove that the suit isn't pressurised since yours is not the accepted version of events. If you want to claim that your argument is logical and scientific you must be confined by the conventions of logic and science.

If you wish to argue from a point of belief then you are not constrained by those conventions, but you can not claim that your argument is logical and scientific.

You have to chose one road or the other, they are mutually exclusive.

Now back to the subject in hand:

The image of the cosmonaut has been offered multiple times to show you that your argument is false. You have always claimed that the image is irrelevant or that the suit is not pressurised. Your argument is false on both accounts.

If the suit is pressurised then it shows that a pressurised space suit can achieve the kind of knee bend you claim is not possible. If a Russian Sokol suit can do it then there is no physical reason why an Apollo suit can't.

The Soyuz Sokol suit most certainly IS pressurised. The image used shows part of the pre-launch leak check (you can't check a space suit for leaks if it isn't pressurised). Why would you have the helmet shut on the ground UNLESS the suit is pressurised.

The position the cosmonaut is in replicates the position he will adopt in the Soyuz capsule for both launch and landing. Do you really think the Russians are so incredibly stupid that they would put their cosmonauts in a position which would be impossible to maintain in a pressurised suit.

But you don't have to take my word for it, here is a passage from the Encyclopedia Astronautica (widely regarded as one of the best on-line sources for information on spaceflight) on the Sokol-KV2 suit:

After manufacture of a individually-tailored flight suit, the crew member occupied the Kazbek seat with the custom-fitted couch liner and sat in the flight posture under positive pressure for two hours. The suit was readjusted as a result of this first fit test. The same procedure was then repeated in a vacuum chamber, with simulation of oxygen supply to the suit helmet. Finally the suit fit was checked again at Baikonur prior to the mission, and the crew member would spend some time in the suit in the reentry capsule of the actual spacecraft that would take them to orbit. On the day of the flight, the final check was accomplished by Zvezda personnel during suiting up for the lift-off, and even then last-minute adjustments could be made.

Source: http://www.astronaut...ft/sokolkv2.htm

I would also point you to THIS PAGE of astronaut Rick Mastracchio's Facebook entry where he has this image:

Unlike most images of the astronaut when in this position this one shows the astronaut's left side and not his right. The oxygen hose can be clearly seen connected to the suit. And what two words does 3 time astronaut Rick Mastracchio use to describe this image? That would "pressure check".

So the ball is in your court turbonium, let's see if you can satisfactorily describe a method of pressure testing a space suit that's not under pressure.

[skyeagle409]

You're one to talk about a silly remark! What about some proof?

The proof has been presented many times.

[turbonium]

Actually, it's you who claims that its impossible for a pressurised suit to perform a deep knee bend. A claim uusupported by mere niceties like facts and evidence. These videos and photos of pressurized suits doing just what you claim to be impossible should set alarm bells going in the mind of someone who is debating in good faith and following evidence rather than trying to shoehorn facts to suit their deeply rooted beliefs. This is just another example that proves you don't care about the truth, or about learning, or about admitting you've made an error. You only care about not being seen to lose the debate. Your reaction to counter evidence presented to you proves this. A genuine, objective, open-minded truth seeker would say "Wow! I didn't know about that. I'll do some more digging and find out about this." Instead, you try reversing the burden of proof, and simply refuse to rationally and objectively re-assess your position.

This video is supposedly proof for your claim?

What was the psi, then? Where is it mentioned in the video?

Can you cite any supporting documents?

Back to you...

[postbaguk]

This video is supposedly proof for your claim?

What was the psi, then? Where is it mentioned in the video?

Can you cite any supporting documents?

Back to you...

I was hoping the video and the photos of the Russian suit might get you thinking. I was wrong. They didnt get you thinking. You're too entrenched to even entertain the thought the you might be wrong. I guess those pesky Russians have been faking their pre flight pressurised suit tests as well.

[ChrLzs]

And again I would point out that this supposedly high-level pressurisation is in the order of much less than 1 ATM (14.7psi) - the Apollo suits ran at about 3-4 psi! It's not like it's a truck tyre, more like a half-flat air mattress...! Anyone suggesting that sort of pressure differential would cause the suit to become significantly less flexible just hasn't thought it through.

And someone who then keeps bringing it up over and over and over, simply isn't debating in good faith.