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This topic has been archived.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

#1741    karrde

karrde

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 20 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013

Posted 14 March 2013 - 03:31 PM

Here you can compare AS15-82-11122 with 3D reconstruction of the same area using SELENE data:

Posted Image

Posted Image


#1742    karrde

karrde

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 20 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013

Posted 15 March 2013 - 01:13 PM

Some info for Chang'e-2 moon orbiter: http://news.xinhuane...c_131393210.htm

"The scientists also spotted traces of the previous Apollo mission in the images, said Yan Jun, chief application scientist for China's lunar exploration project."


#1743    karrde

karrde

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 20 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013

Posted 15 March 2013 - 01:21 PM

Oh, I forgot India: http://www.currentsc...0630_0631_0.pdf

"As a matter of fact, for the first time after the end of the Apollo programme, surface disturbance caused by humans have been brought out on such a large scale"

Edited by karrde, 15 March 2013 - 01:42 PM.


#1744    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,342 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 17 March 2013 - 07:08 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 March 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

What was really goofy, among many others, was you claim that astronauts could not bend their knees. That was a mind-boggling statement to say the least, especially in light of the fact that posters had presented photos of people bending their knees in pressurized suits, a feat you'd claimed was impossible.

You need to get your facts straight before you post something foolish.

I never said they couldn't bend their knees, I said they couldn't bend their knees to the extreme degree seen in a few Apollo video clips.Not possible in a properly pressurized Apollo spacesuit. No photos or videos your side has shown have refuted my claim.


#1745    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,342 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 17 March 2013 - 08:47 AM

View Postpostbaguk, on 10 March 2013 - 02:54 AM, 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.

No, on the one hand you misrepresent a legitimate point to suit your own purposes. You know what I actually said - that it's not proof, but it is quite logical. If you can't make a case without twisting my arguments, iit's quite worthless, is it not?


View Postpostbaguk, on 10 March 2013 - 02:54 AM, said:


On the other hand, we have this comparison of a photo that Apollo 16 astronauts took of North Ray crater, compared with what LRO saw recently.

If it wasn't bad enough already, this takes the cake.

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.

And it's not even a valid point. You are comparing NASA material to more NASA material. That is hardly an independent validation, now is it?!?.


View Postpostbaguk, on 10 March 2013 - 02:54 AM, said:


I'll leave it to anyone reading the thread to decide what constitutes the better evidence.


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


#1746    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,789 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:11 AM

View Postturbonium, on 17 March 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

You need to get your facts straight before you post something foolish.

How amusing you would say such a silly thing considering the evidence have proven you wrong time after time after time!

Edited by skyeagle409, 17 March 2013 - 09:12 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1747    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,789 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:13 AM

View Postkarrde, on 14 March 2013 - 03:31 PM, said:

Here you can compare AS15-82-11122 with 3D reconstruction of the same area using SELENE data:

Posted Image

Posted Image

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

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1748    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,789 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:27 AM

View Postturbonium, on 17 March 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

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

Photo, data and tracking evidence from nations around the world that have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Apollo moon missions were a reality. In other words, the overwhelming evidence from nations around the world have proven that you have been overwhelmingly incorrect and wrong,

What better way to prove you wrong than to let you do it for us!


Quote



Apollo 12

Posted Image



Surveyor 3 camera brought back from the Moon by Apollo 12, on display at the National Air and Space Museum


Paul Maley reports several sightings of the Apollo 12 Command Module.Parts of Surveyor 3, which landed on the Moon in April 1967, were brought back to Earth by Apollo 12 in November 1969. These samples were shown to have been exposed to lunar conditions.


Edited by skyeagle409, 17 March 2013 - 09:34 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1749    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,662 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006

Posted 17 March 2013 - 10:25 AM

Turbo said:

Quote

Due to the fact it is impossible to bend one's knee like the astronaut does in a pressurized spacesuit.

See post #13669.

The fact that you have been shown it is possible illustrates your blatant dishonesty in this subject.


#1750    postbaguk

postbaguk

    Conspiracy Theorist

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

Posted 17 March 2013 - 01:28 PM

View Postturbonium, on 17 March 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

No, on the one hand you misrepresent a legitimate point to suit your own purposes. You know what I actually said - that it's not proof, but it is quite logical. If you can't make a case without twisting my arguments, iit's quite worthless, is it not?

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?

Quote

If it wasn't bad enough already, this takes the cake. 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.

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.

Quote

And it's not even a valid point. You are comparing NASA material to more NASA material. That is hardly an independent validation, now is it?!?.

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

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. :rolleyes:

Quote

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

It's yet another of the myriad examples of photographic congruency between Apollo photo and film stock, and photographic evidence from other missions.

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.

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

Posted Image
Posted Image


#1751    karrde

karrde

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 20 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013

Posted 18 March 2013 - 11:09 AM

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???


#1752    Ove

Ove

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 619 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2009

Posted 18 March 2013 - 11:32 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 17 March 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

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


#1753    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,789 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 18 March 2013 - 05:48 PM

View PostOve, on 18 March 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

reality of the unmanned Apollo moon missions

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

Posted Image

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

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 March 2013 - 05:53 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1754    rambaldi

rambaldi

    Apparition

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

Posted 20 March 2013 - 01:38 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 18 March 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

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


#1755    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,342 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 23 March 2013 - 08:08 AM

View Postpostbaguk, on 17 March 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

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?

View Postpostbaguk, on 17 March 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

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.


  

View Postpostbaguk, on 17 March 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

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?

View Postpostbaguk, on 17 March 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

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. :rolleyes:

"Amazing detail"?

Little dots and obscure splotches, wowee!!  

View Postpostbaguk, on 17 March 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

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.   

View Postpostbaguk, on 17 March 2013 - 01:28 PM, said:

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.