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This topic has been archived.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

#1651    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,080 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 10 February 2013 - 08:12 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 09 February 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

Once again, you have ignored facts and evidence related to the star issue, which has been explained to you before and look at you now! Now, what did a shuttle astronaut say he had to do in order to see stars in space?

What did a nameless shuttle astronaut say about stars??  Could you be any more vague? Just get to the point, if you have one..

And these quotes destroy your argument...

"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).  

(Around 1:17 mark of video link..)



Others have made similar comments, btw.

Now, do you recall my comments about seeing stars in the desert?  Much the same, yes? Yes.  


Apollo didn't mention the stars, Which exposes it as a hoax. No other conclusion fits.


#1652    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 10,383 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • I dunno --

Posted 10 February 2013 - 08:29 AM

Do I get this right?  There was no mention of the stars and so it was a hoax?  Does any know what non sequitur means?


#1653    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,080 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 10 February 2013 - 10:17 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 10 February 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

Do I get this right?  There was no mention of the stars and so it was a hoax?  Does any know what non sequitur means?

It's not proof of a hoax, as I said, but there is no other logical, rational explanation for it.  Solid evidence of a hoax exists, which confirms the logic is valid.


#1654    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 16,161 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 10 February 2013 - 03:45 PM

I hear you Frank M. this is such a waist of time trying to help Turboman understand !

This is a Work in Progress!

#1655    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 11 February 2013 - 05:43 AM

View Postturbonium, on 10 February 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

What did a nameless shuttle astronaut say about stars??

Just goes to show that you have not been paying attention. :no:  

Quote

And these quotes destroy your argument...

"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

That doesn't disprove it. Check it out.

Quote

Science fiction shows make people think that once you are in space, stars are bright enough to be seen through a window in a well-lit room. This simply is not true. The astronauts on the lunar surface didn't see stars as it was daylight and the Sun on the lunar surface was simply too bright for their eyes or cameras. In fact, their helmets had "sunglasses-like" darkening, as the Moon gets more sunlight than any desert on Earth.

http://wiki.answers...._stars_in_space

So once again, you have no case. :no:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1656    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 11 February 2013 - 05:44 AM

View Postturbonium, on 10 February 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

It's not proof of a hoax, as I said, but there is no other logical, rational explanation for it.  Solid evidence of a hoax exists, which confirms the logic is valid.

How amusing! Goes to show that you know nothing about science. :no: Especially since a number of countries, facts and evidence have already proven beyond any doubt that men landed on the moon. :yes:


Check it out.

Quote

The astronauts were on the Moon in bright sunlight and the lunar surface itself reflects light. So do things like the astronauts' white suits and the gold foil on the Lunar Module. Therefore, the camera settings were for a brightly-lit area and so the stars were too faint to show up. That's why you see a black sky and no stars in pictures from the Moon landings (there were six, by the way, not just one). If you look at photographs from other space missions showing sunlit objects in space, you won't see stars there either.

http://answers.yahoo...14150355AAhgJm1

So once again, you have been proven wrong. :yes:

Edited by skyeagle409, 11 February 2013 - 05:51 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1657    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,080 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 11 February 2013 - 09:37 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 11 February 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:


Just goes to show that you have not been paying attention. :no:  


That doesn't disprove it. Check it out.



Quote

Science fiction shows make people think that once you are in space, stars are bright enough to be seen through a window in a well-lit room. This simply is not true. The astronauts on the lunar surface didn't see stars as it was daylight and the Sun on the lunar surface was simply too bright for their eyes or cameras. In fact, their helmets had "sunglasses-like" darkening, as the Moon gets more sunlight than any desert on Earth.


View Postskyeagle409, on 11 February 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:


So once again, you have no case. :no:

Umm,,so who is "not..paying attention"??!!  

Your quote refers to viewing from the sunlit lunar surface!! Look at the quotes I cited. Do you think they're referring to the lunar surface ??  No. Do you see why your comparison is nonsense?


#1658    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,080 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 11 February 2013 - 10:00 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 11 February 2013 - 05:44 AM, said:

How amusing! Goes to show that you know nothing about science. :no: Especially since a number of countries, facts and evidence have already proven beyond any doubt that men landed on the moon. :yes:


Check it out.


Quote

The astronauts were on the Moon in bright sunlight and the lunar surface itself reflects light. So do things like the astronauts' white suits and the gold foil on the Lunar Module. Therefore, the camera settings were for a brightly-lit area and so the stars were too faint to show up. That's why you see a black sky and no stars in pictures from the Moon landings (there were six, by the way, not just one). If you look at photographs from other space missions showing sunlit objects in space, you won't see stars there either


View Postskyeagle409, on 11 February 2013 - 05:44 AM, said:

So once again, you have been proven wrong. :yes:

No, only your failure to grasp basic points has been proven once again.

What do photos have to do with my point? Nothing.

Have you grasped anything I've said here?


#1659    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 11 February 2013 - 03:30 PM

View Postturbonium, on 11 February 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:


Umm,,so who is "not..paying attention"??!!  

You are not paying attention. Time and again, you have been proven wrong. :yes:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1660    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 11 February 2013 - 03:32 PM

View Postturbonium, on 11 February 2013 - 10:00 AM, said:


No, only your failure to grasp basic points has been proven once again.

Once again, you have been shown that  you are not in tuned with the facts. :no:

Quote

What do photos have to do with my point? Nothing.

On the contrary, they proved the Apollo moon missions were not hoaxed. :no:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1661    psyche101

psyche101

    Conspiracy Realist

  • Member
  • 28,243 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 13 February 2013 - 03:57 AM

View Postturbonium, on 11 February 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:








Umm,,so who is "not..paying attention"??!!  

Your quote refers to viewing from the sunlit lunar surface!! Look at the quotes I cited. Do you think they're referring to the lunar surface ??  No. Do you see why your comparison is nonsense?


What seems to be nonsense is that you are comparing a sub orbital flight with a view from the moon. I thought you said to Sky that you were talking about the flight to the moon and back, as such, Sky's information seems to be much more relevant to the question at hand. A view from the surface of the moon, daylight or not is more relevant to the subject than the view from just over 100k's up. The comparison seems to favour Sky where seeing stars in space is concerned.

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. - Sir Wearer of Hats.


#1662    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 16,161 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 13 February 2013 - 11:01 PM

ITs really mind bending in here ! At least I have my thoughts of Mid to fall back upon ! He was the Best !

This is a Work in Progress!

#1663    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,080 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 16 February 2013 - 08:26 AM

View Postpsyche101, on 13 February 2013 - 03:57 AM, said:

What seems to be nonsense is that you are comparing a sub orbital flight with a view from the moon. I thought you said to Sky that you were talking about the flight to the moon and back, as such, Sky's information seems to be much more relevant to the question at hand. A view from the surface of the moon, daylight or not is more relevant to the subject than the view from just over 100k's up. The comparison seems to favour Sky where seeing stars in space is concerned.

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.

Edited by turbonium, 16 February 2013 - 08:45 AM.


#1664    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,528 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, NSW, Australia

  • "Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
    Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

Posted 16 February 2013 - 10:28 AM

Wrong as usual.

Apollo 8

Quote

000:47:38 Lovell (onboard): I've got the P52 realign. You might kind of doublecheck me on it; maybe - I'm here and I'm going to turn down the floodlights and get - get my eye adapted here, because I don't see schmatz out there right now.
*
*
*
000:50:14 Lovell (onboard): Well, are we dark or light out there?
000:50:17 Borman (onboard): Well, you ought to be able to get it even in light. It's getting dark now.
000:50:20 Lovell (onboard): Okay. Well, I want to make sure we got a good one.
000:50:22 Lovell (onboard): Okay, Verb 37, Enter; 52, Enter. You want a REFSMMAT option?

[Jim is having a dialogue with the computer. Verb 37 - Change to the following program, then he keys in 52 to begin executing program 52. He then mentions that he wants to use the REFSMMAT option in this program. This extraordinary acronym refers to the simple idea of a reference orientation which can be well defined and used by the crew in their platform alignments. Jim is using the precise orientation of the launch site at Kennedy Space Center at the time of launch as the reference to which the platform is aligned. Jim's realignment will return the slowly drifting platform to the orientation it had at launch. Note that the actual launch site no longer matches this REFSMMAT. The turning Earth has rotated it away from it.]

000:50:32 Lovell (onboard): Verb 22, Enter; 3, Enter...

[Verb 22 lets Jim enter a number into one of the computer's registers; in this case, entering 3 selects option 3, the REFSMMAT option in the program.]

000:50:38 Anders (onboard): There's a couple of nice stars out here.
000:50:40 Lovell (onboard): ...Enter. Okay. All set, gentlemen?
000:50:44 Borman (onboard): Yes.
000:50:46 Anders (onboard): Hey, there's a bunch of stuff flying off this thing.
000:50:47 Lovell (onboard): I know; that's what I was afraid of.
000:50:50 Anders (onboard): Real bright - I wonder why they're so bright?
000:50:52 Borman (onboard): The Sun's shining.
000:50:54 Anders (onboard): Are we - We're boiling?
000:50:55 Borman (onboard): Is the sun shining, really?
000:50:56 Borman (onboard): Yes, look here, I got sun in it.
000:50:58 Anders (onboard): Oh Christ [laughter], I thought it was night time over here!
000:51:01 Anders (onboard): I can see a lot of stars over on this side.
000:51:06 Borman (onboard): What are you doing, Jim?
000:51:07 Lovell (onboard): Well, I'm getting the optics adjusted here.
000:51:09 Borman (onboard): Yes, they make you...
000:51:10 Lovell (onboard): Okay, 06; 06 is what? 06 is Acamar. Worst star in the world for me to look at! Oh, I'm getting more stars now.

[Jim is at the stage where he selects the stars he will use for the realignment. The first he has to use is number 6, Acamar or Theta Eridanus. At about magnitude 3, it's not the brightest star he could be given as his first.]

000:51:22 Lovell (onboard): Okay, here we go, gentlemen.
000:51:24 Anders (onboard): You got a real bright star...
000:51:26 Lovell (onboard): Zero off, right?
000:51:27 Borman (onboard): Yes.
000:51:28 Anders (onboard): Real bright star - star like...
000:51:30 Lovell (onboard): Zero off.
000:51:31 Borman (onboard): CMC; Optic mode should be CMC.
000:51:34 Lovell (onboard): CMC? Oh, to C, huh?
000:51:49 Lovell (onboard): Holy cow!
000:51:50 Borman (onboard): Any luck?
000:51:57 Lovell (onboard): Well, it stopped by a star. The star's out, but I don't know what it is, though.
*
*
*
009:19:09 Lovell: Also, I've been occasionally looking out to see if I could see stars at various Sun angles, and at this particular attitude, it's very difficult. In the scanning telescope the Sun is very bright and the Earth is very bright, And if I looked at the Earth and try to look for stars, I lose my dark adaptation very quickly.
*
*
*
013:32:42 Lovell: In the beginning, the operation with the S-IVB precluded immediate starting up of our sightings as we had scheduled since we had another evasive maneuver. The dumping of [propellant from] the S-IVB caused a tremendous amount of - of pseudo-stars in the area which made an optics calibration practically impossible. The method which we had worked out did not seem to work too well. The method which I finally used was to go into <a href="http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/03day1_green_sep.htm#p23" target="new">P23, go to Sirius, which was our brightest star, get the shaft and trunnion, and then fly the spacecraft up to Sirius to use that for the optics cal, which we did at a later time. With regards to light scatter, it appears that at almost any attitude during our Passive Thermal Control, we are receiving light scattering in the scanning telescope. It takes the form mostly of a wide band of light right across the center of the scope about 10 degrees either direction of zero. It is very difficult to see stars in this area. The realignments have been good. I have been able to pick up the star in the sextant to do the alignment, but I was not able to identify the star which we used in such cases as Regor or Menkent in the scanning telescope. The first star sighting which I took of the Earth showed a very indistinct horizon. But there did appear to be a very - or somewhat sharp line between what appeared to be the Earth's horizon and the atmosphere. The landmark line-of-sight filter appeared to help out this horizon definition. There is a very hazy and indistinct horizon through - between the space and the top of the atmosphere itself, and this is a very difficult one to use. As I said before, at times, looking at the Moon with the Sun in the near vicinity, the area around the Moon, the space around the Moon is not dark, but is a light - appears as a light blue. And this is also the same case as looking into the sextant during alignments with the star - with the Sun in somewhat [the] vicinity of the optics. However, I have no difficulty in finding these stars in the sextant. I also had no difficulty in spotting the stars I used, such as Sirius, Procyon, or Canopus against the Earth during our star-horizon measurements. I can see all three of those stars against the Earth background. I believe it will be very difficult to do a backup GDC alignment using the north set stars, since Navi is not too bright of a star. I was able to spot star constellations in the scanning telescope if they were very bright and well known, such as Cetus and Orion; stars of this nature. I was not able to perceive other constellations. That's about the only comments I have at this time. Over.

Apollo 9

Quote

000:35:37 Schweickart (onboard): Hey, I can see it. I can see the stars now.
000:35:42 Schweickart (onboard): Still daylight, Jim?
004:09:02 Schweickart (onboard): There it is. I'm going to take the pictures.
004:09:11 Schweickart (onboard): Oh, beautiful, beautiful. Look at all those white stars!
004:09:22 Schweickart (onboard): Got it; it's going.
*
*
*
006:57:43 Schweickart (onboard):
Boy, are those stars bright out there.
006:57:58 Schweickart (onboard): We'll look some other night.
007:05:05 Scott (onboard): Yes. Boy, now, it's just - it's really zapping right off of the quadrant. Man, oh man!
007:06:08 Schweickart (onboard): You can still see some, Dave?
007:06:15 Schweickart (onboard): It's 06:15.
007:06:20 Schweickart (onboard): 07:06:15.
007:06:25 Schweickart (onboard): Great.

Apollo 10

Quote

023:32:21 Duke: 10, EECOMM's just corrected me. It looks like we'll have to do the dump once a day. We scheduled it a this time as close to midcourse as possible and yet still allow you, we hope, to clear it away so you can do the P52.
023:32:40 Young: Yes. There's a lot of stars out there right now.
023:32:42 Duke: Yes. I'll bet.
*
*
*
024:53:32 Duke: Say again, John. You were cut out.
024:53:36 Young: It's got to do with the way the sunshine is shining on the Earth, how much light is getting scattered back in the telescope, and how much is coming in off the LM. It's really - It's really blanking out all the stars.
024:53:51 Duke: Roger. Stand by.
*
*
*
026:06:09 Duke: Go ahead, 10.
026:06:12 Stafford: Okay. I can see the stars real great out my side window. I've got Sirius out my, side window, but even out through the rendezvous window - I can look up there - and I've got Orion and Rigel, there.
026:06:23 Duke: Roger. Boy, old Snoop really - when he's - the Sun's on the side. We really must block it all out.
026:06:31 Stafford: Yes. And I've got the Moon right up above the X-axis, now. It's a beautiful sight.
026:06:35 Duke: Roger. We envy you.

Apollo 11

Quote

071:59:20 Armstrong: Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we're able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the night side of Earth. But all the way here, we've only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.
071:59:52 McCandless: I guess it's turned into night up there really, hasn't it?
071:59:58 Armstrong: Really has.

etc, etc, etc. Still, I doubt this will bother Turbs; they have never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.


#1665    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 28,989 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 16 February 2013 - 04:44 PM

View PostObviousman, on 16 February 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

Wrong as usual.

Apollo 8


Apollo 9


Apollo 10


Apollo 11


etc, etc, etc. Still, I doubt this will bother Turbs; they have never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

Turbonium, just don't get it! :no: And, he's broadcasting how wrong he is. His claims have been proven wrong, incorrect, not right, and everything else that is not correct, and he's proving it posting his flawed messages to everybody! He has failed to understand the significance of other nations and individuals confirming the reality of the Apollo moon missions.

Wouldn't it be something if it was later determined that Turbonium is actually an Apollo moon mission believer who is just here to have some fun and nothing else?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX