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This topic has been archived.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

#61    postbaguk

postbaguk

    Conspiracy Theorist

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

Posted 19 May 2012 - 02:18 PM

View PostMID, on 19 May 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:

Don't know if it has been, Posty, but it pretty much settles the argument, I should think (???).
You wonder how long arguing against the obvious design and manucturing excellence of this very functional, million dollar suit, can actually go on.
As you can see, I've ben pressing Turb for the real issue, which he avoids.  
But this film puts the suit argument to rest...


...we can only hope! :tsu:

Your faith is greater than mine!


#62    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005

Posted 19 May 2012 - 02:19 PM

View Postships-cat, on 19 May 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

Hmmm... Cat is suspicious.

Did we REALLY launch all 40 of those threads, or is this just a gigantic hoax to attract attention to the Forum ?


Open the threads and you'll see who started each one, and what they were about.


Quote

I mean... look at the background in the quoted article above. It is a lighter shade than the normal forum background. CLEARLY this has been subject to photomanipulation.

It's been configured that way in order to highlight the quote.  The board's always been that way. It's a bit new and improved of recent date.
Do you smell a conspiracy?
:innocent:



Quote

And can it be co-incidence that "waspie dwarf moderation" is an anagram of "Sir, I warped (a) few moon data" ??

The truth must out !

meow purr :)


Cute... :yes:


Was there a question or a comment?


#63    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,301 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 20 May 2012 - 07:06 AM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 19 May 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

The last time I checked turbonium you were not a moderator. I suggest that until you are you stop trying to act like one, take your own advice and follow the forum rules:


5i. Rule quoting: Do not quote the site rules to other members, if you believe the rules have been broken please hit the 'report' button

Actually, I have been reporting on posts similar to the one by MID, and did not reply to them. So I've hardly been "trying to act like" a moderator. In fact, I almost did report MID's post. But I thought we could settle the matter by ourselves, as reasonable adults, and go back into discussing the issues. So that's why I replied with....

"Look, MID - if you can't act like a mature adult, and discuss the actual issues, then please respect the forum, and the forum rules, and don't even post on this thread. Fair enough?"

So I didn't quote forum rules, I asked him to respect those rules.

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 19 May 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:


YOU do not get to say who can and who can't post in a topic. Fair enough?

Well obviously, I " do not get to say"  who can or cannot post. I politely asked hin to show some respect and not post trash.

So, I will simply report it from now on. Now, back to the issues..   .  

. .  . .


#64    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,301 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 20 May 2012 - 08:04 AM

View PostMID, on 19 May 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

I see you've been told about this stuff, but, in response:

How about putting forth an actual issue?
The suits?  No.  It's been long established that you're absolutely incorrect about the suits, and your "argument" about them is meritless, and doesn't get to the real issue here, which I've mentiooned and discussed repeatedly, and always to no avail;


Your proof that Apollo was faked again was??? :td:

That's the only actual issue on this thread.
And I've discussed it, not only now, but many times in the past

You ignore that.  i certainly understand why.
You have no proof, and you know that I cannot be swayed by nonsensical "arguments".  :tu:

The suits are the only issue - so far - in the new moon hoax thread, which I picked up from in the previous thread. If you have a specific point(s) I missed, then please post them for me. ...


#65    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,301 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 20 May 2012 - 09:25 AM

View Postpostbaguk, on 19 May 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:


Already provided documentation. Not that the burden of proof lies with me anyway. Oh, the data in the document does NOT support your argument! 145 degree knee flexion-extension.

You said the knee flexion measured 93 and 87 deg/ in sitting position (on a couch). But that is false, A couch is used for the visual range test, but not in the knee flexion tests. Nothing was said about a couch being used for that test.

If you can't answer for that, then you have no claim for a 145 deg, knee flexion..



View Postpostbaguk, on 19 May 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:



I'm not using those pictures of the Sokol suit to support my argument. I posted them weeks ago to help you realise you were up against a nut flush. You dismissed it as irrelevant. Yep, a photograph of a pressurised, non-EVA suit, showing a large degree of knee flexion. Thought it might get you thinking. It didn't.

No, it means you have no point showing me these images over and over again. They are not relevant..


#66    postbaguk

postbaguk

    Conspiracy Theorist

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

Posted 20 May 2012 - 12:08 PM

Avoiding a simple, direct question again Turbs? Here's a summary of the recent requests for you to provide evidence that you've ignored.

1. For the umpteenth time, did you have any evidence supporting your assertion that the suit couldn't bend at the knee as witnessed, or not?

2. I'm asking you to provide evidence supporting your assertion. All this tap-dancing around the issue proves one thing: you don't have any. If you did, you'd have presented it weeks ago. You're simply trying to bog the discussion down in a mire of obfuscation, red herrings, goal-post shifting and burden-of-proof avoidance.

Which is why I cut to the chase in my earlier post, so that we could rationally and objectively examine your evidence. Well, where is it? I keep asking, and you keep avoiding.

Why? Is it because you have no evidence? If so, just admit it. Is it because the evidence is very poor and doesn't stand up to scrutiny? Nothing you've presented on this issue has so far. All you have is a tenuous argument where you conflate "knee flexion" with overall suit mobility. Apart from that, tumbleweed.


3. All of this is just froth and bubble around the main point. The point that you keep avoiding. Your evidence please. Can you present it now, if you have any? If not just say so.

4. I suspect no-one really cares any more Turbs. You were given ample opportunity and encouragement to take the intellectually honest route (either providing evidence, or withdrawing the claim), and chose to do neither. Actions speak louder than words. Hey ho.

I'll ask again. The unimpeachable evidence you have supporting your claim re the Apollo spacesuit. Does it exist? If so, where is it?

You know, the evidence that proves this is impossible?

Posted Image


#67    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005

Posted 20 May 2012 - 01:48 PM

View Postturbonium, on 20 May 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

The suits are the only issue - so far - in the new moon hoax thread, which I picked up from in the previous thread. If you have a specific point(s) I missed, then please post them for me. ...

You want the actual issue...AGAIN?

What you missed (while refusing to understand that the Apollo suits performed exactly as they were designed, and apparently seeking to get me in grief for being bad (i.e, trying to keep you on the real  track here--- ( what you're supposed to be doing) and whining about me supposedly treating you badly, and arguing with mods)--- is what everyone here knows (to the point of boredom I suspect):


You missed SHOWING ANY PROOF OF YOUR CONTENTION(S):

A.) That the Apollo Program was faked( the only thing you need to do here).
B.) Most recently, that the AL7 didn't function as it did, (and I don't know why you're on that nonsense.  It's already been handled nicely).

You pick things that can't be argued successfully, and belabor them to death.

Let me re-state:   The suits worked (very well), we went to the Moon and landed there six times.

Prove we didn't  (and you want me to go elsewhere???)

:yes:


#68    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,005 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 20 May 2012 - 03:38 PM

View Postturbonium, on 20 May 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

The suits are the only issue - so far - in the new moon hoax thread, which I picked up from in the previous thread. If you have a specific point(s) I missed, then please post them for me. ...

But, it has already been shown, and proven, that the Apollo spacesuit was capable of performing positions under pressurized conditions that you have claimed was not possible. In other words, the spacesuit issue was settled a long time ago with facts and evidence.

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 May 2012 - 03:41 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#69    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005

Posted 20 May 2012 - 05:15 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 May 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

But, it has already been shown, and proven, that the Apollo spacesuit was capable of performing positions under pressurized conditions that you have claimed was not possible. In other words (Jesus help us!), the spacesuit issue was settled a long time ago with facts and evidence.

It Sure was, Sky.
Just as all of the "arguments" Turb has put forth were so settled;  Swiftly and definitively.

But I suppose if you can obstinately argue-- in the face of the obvious facts to the contrary--that the LM couldn't have landed on the Moon because it was never tested  , you certainly have no qualms about continuing  to argue against the obvious effectiveness and mobility of the Apollo suit!

After a certain point you just have to smile, if not outright laugh. :yes:

Edited by MID, 20 May 2012 - 05:52 PM.


#70    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,005 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 21 May 2012 - 05:11 AM

View PostMID, on 20 May 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

It Sure was, Sky.
Just as all of the "arguments" Turb has put forth were so settled;  Swiftly and definitively.

But I suppose if you can obstinately argue-- in the face of the obvious facts to the contrary--that the LM couldn't have landed on the Moon because it was never tested  , you certainly have no qualms about continuing  to argue against the obvious effectiveness and mobility of the Apollo suit!

After a certain point you just have to smile, if not outright laugh. :yes:

I think that he has been watching too much of "Capricorn One," the movie.



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 May 2012 - 05:26 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#71    rambaldi

rambaldi

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 267 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2007

Posted 21 May 2012 - 01:52 PM

View Postturbonium, on 19 May 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

I was wondering how long it would take before the new moon hoax thread took a dive into the gutter.

Well let's see when the first Moonhoaxer posting an "argument" that to everyone except himself has been long shown to be utterly wrong, appeared: 17 May 2012 - 07:39 AM


#72    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 31,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 21 May 2012 - 06:57 PM

View Postrambaldi, on 21 May 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

View Postturbonium, on 19 May 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

I was wondering how long it would take before the new moon hoax thread took a dive into the gutter.


Well let's see when the first Moonhoaxer posting an "argument" that to everyone except himself has been long shown to be utterly wrong, appeared: 17 May 2012 - 07:39 AM

How about a bit more debating and a little less bickering from both sides.

"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

#73    Troublehalf

Troublehalf

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 120 posts
  • Joined:08 Feb 2012

Posted 21 May 2012 - 09:16 PM

The thing is..... If you've got a powerful enough telescope, you can actually (or so I've been told/learned) that you can see foot prints left by astronauts on the surface. There is no atmosphere, no wind..... Therefore, it's not going to disappear.

The technical effects needed to fake the moon landing on Earth would of been highly technical and difficult to do, even if the ability was there. Remember, the spacecraft had less power than a mobile phone.... Yet people are saying it was possible for the government to silence both actors, scientists, camera crew, sound crew, caters, cleaners, builders... So on and so forth while they built a film set that could mimic the effect of the Moon... on Earth. Sorry folks, I don't think even the might US of A could of done that back then. Sure they could kill everybody off, but that's a lot of people to kill, which means killing their family.. then their friends, then their family and friends... so on so forth.... Paying them off isn't an option either, you'd need A LOT of money to pay them off..... paying off the entire set of people involved? That'd be  an enormous cost, which America did not have, since it already spent a huge amount of their national treasure on building spacecraft, fuelling them and everything else involved... How could they then pay off actors, scientists... camera crews. I also accept they could of been lied to, made out that it was for another reason, but they'd of asked questions or at least, 60 years later, to say "Um, now that I think of it, I was asked to create a vacuum on a moon film set.... They said it was for practising moon walks... but now that I think about it, there was a lot of camera crews about and Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were not actually in space... they were on set being told what to act out!"

Yeah... Sorry, it's more fantastical that America faked it than them landing on the moon.Just like it's mathematically improbable than Humans (and all other animals, plant life and cell life) are the only living beings in the entire universe. During 13.75 Billions years, humans are the pinnacle of evolution (or creation). Bit depressing, isn't it?


#74    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005

Posted 21 May 2012 - 09:59 PM

Another thing about this usit flexion xcapability that I don't get (other than arguments against the obvious design genius in volved in that suit) is the fact that the suit easily moved as was evidenced by many films made of it doing so.
And why shouldn't it.)


It's been stated that one might as well be attempting to bend inside an inflated football or something, but the reality is that the suit provided an atmosphere of 100% Oxygen.  The pressure required was a nere 3.6 PSI (+/-) in the suit,
The gas pressure in the suit was low, avbout 21% (+/-) of normal atmospheric pressure.  The suit was under low pressure, facilitating movement.  It wasn't like trying to move inside of a football.

Indeed, a football would be arount 1/4 inflated at that pressure, and would be un-useable.

Just something about this interminable exchange about the alleged impossibility of the Apollo suit that I don't recall having been brought up yet (forgiveness begged if one of you has mentioned the relatively low gas pressure maintained in the suit).

:yes:     


#75    Philthy

Philthy

    Alien Embryo

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

Posted 21 May 2012 - 10:52 PM

View PostTroublehalf, on 21 May 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

The thing is..... If you've got a powerful enough telescope, you can actually (or so I've been told/learned) that you can see foot prints left by astronauts on the surface. There is no atmosphere, no wind..... Therefore, it's not going to disappear.

Unfortunately, there isn't a telescope on Earth that capable of seeing the Apollo hardware left behind.

"Unfortunately the answer to this question is no. Not even the most powerful telescopes ever made are able to see these objects. The flag on the moon is 125cm (4 feet) long. You would require a telescope around 200 meters in diameter to see it. The largest telescope now is the Keck Telescope in Hawaii at 10meters in diameter. Even the Hubble Space telescope is only 2.4 meters in diameter. Resolving the lunar rover, which is 3.1 meters in length, would require a telescope 75 meters in diameter. So our backyard 6 inch and 8 inch telescopes are not even going to come close!"

http://www.spaceref....n-the-Moon.html

However, the LRO pictures DO show the Apollo equipment left behind.

http://www.nasa.gov/.../apollo-11.html

Phil