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This topic has been archived.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

#1411    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,777 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006

Posted 11 December 2012 - 11:15 AM

View PostGaden, on 10 December 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

Of course there is a distinct line. That is the edge of the disturbed soil from the thruster blast. If there were no distinct line, then the hoax beleivers would then be saying "if they had landed, there would be a distinct line of soil disturbance".
Again, I would suggest reading some sites that don't spread these ridiculous claims.
I don't think that's what he means.  What he is talking about is that common phenomenon in uneven terrain, a ridge line or local horizon.  Anyone who doesn't recognise these in the Apollo pictures needs to get outdoors more often.
http://www.bbc.co.uk...dge_470x252.jpg

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#1412    Gaden

Gaden

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 910 posts
  • Joined:17 Sep 2010

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:20 AM

View Postflyingswan, on 11 December 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:

I don't think that's what he means.  What he is talking about is that common phenomenon in uneven terrain, a ridge line or local horizon.  Anyone who doesn't recognise these in the Apollo pictures needs to get outdoors more often.
http://www.bbc.co.uk...dge_470x252.jpg

No, he's talking about the dark to light transition immediately behind the astronaut. Go back and read it again.

I'm trying to see things from your point of view, I just can't get my head that far up my butt

#1413    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,125 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:09 AM

View PostGaden, on 12 December 2012 - 02:20 AM, said:

No, he's talking about the dark to light transition immediately behind the astronaut. Go back and read it again.

In his post he's actually ignorantly babbling about discussing both your point and Swanny's...





Cz

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien
"Enquiring and doubting the "official story" are also good things .... However when these doubts require you to ignore the evidence, to dishonestly cherry pick evidence and claim it supports your case when it doesn't, when you operate a double standard; demanding proof of that which is already proven whilst making unsupported statements and personal opinions to back your own case and when you deny the truth simply because it IS the official story then you are no longer acting in a rational way. This is not the behaviour of a "different thinker", this is the behaviour of a "believer" who chooses not to rationally think about the evidence at all." - Waspie Dwarf

#1414    Codeblind

Codeblind

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 92 posts
  • Joined:03 Jul 2012

Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:30 AM

I think the only definitive answer that satisfies CTs, will be when/if we develop a telescope we can see any of the landing sites from the earth...is that even possible ?
I personally think Apollo 11 was hoaxed but some of the others wasn't..
Isn't there a reflector on the Moon that we use to calculate the distance from the earth

I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered.

#1415    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,690 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 12 December 2012 - 06:40 AM

View PostCodeblind, on 12 December 2012 - 05:30 AM, said:

I think the only definitive answer that satisfies CTs, will be when/if we develop a telescope we can see any of the landing sites from the earth...is that even possible ?

There are Apollo landing sites that have been photographed. Go back and review the photos.

Quote

I personally think Apollo 11 was hoaxed but some of the others wasn't..

The former Soviet Union has confirmed the Apollo !! mission.

Quote

...Isn't there a reflector on the Moon that we use to calculate the distance from the earth

Yes!

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1416    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 12 December 2012 - 06:48 AM

View PostCodeblind, on 12 December 2012 - 05:30 AM, said:

I think the only definitive answer that satisfies CTs, will be when/if we develop a telescope we can see any of the landing sites from the earth...is that even possible ?

I read somewhere that it would require a mirror so massive that producing it would crush in on itself.  We can, go by what China, Japan, India, and other countries launching lunar probes such as China's Chang'e 2 probe that was launched earlier this year taking lunar surface photos.  China has also stated the probe took photos of the apollo landing sites and confirmed their exsistance.

View PostCodeblind, on 12 December 2012 - 05:30 AM, said:

I personally think Apollo 11 was hoaxed but some of the others wasn't..

We were there, whether you believe it or not.  Again, China earlier this year confirmed the exsistance of the landing sites.  There would be no reason for any country to continue covering up a faked moon landing after 30+ years.

View PostCodeblind, on 12 December 2012 - 05:30 AM, said:

Isn't there a reflector on the Moon that we use to calculate the distance from the earth

Yes, actually I believe there are several.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#1417    Pinguin

Pinguin

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 30 posts
  • Joined:14 Nov 2012

Posted 12 December 2012 - 07:11 AM

I wonder when the next mission to the moon will be? Have the astronauts traveled to the side that does not face us?


#1418    Codeblind

Codeblind

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 92 posts
  • Joined:03 Jul 2012

Posted 12 December 2012 - 07:34 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 12 December 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

There are Apollo landing sites that have been photographed. Go back and review the photos.
Seeing as its the Moon Landing pics that are the main body of the CTs I would assume people deny these landing site pics also or at least question them, I'm indifferent, its not that important to me whether we did or didn't, I haven't stepped foot on the moon so I really have to believe what I'm told to a certain degree, and at the very least think its stupid to not question. I'm just asking about methods to prove it beyond any doubt, the only method I could imagine would be to enable people from earth to see the landing sites thru somekind of optical telescope, if that's at least for the time being not an option then I cant really see anything that will persuade the die hards

I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered.

#1419    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 12 December 2012 - 07:42 AM

View PostCodeblind, on 12 December 2012 - 07:34 AM, said:

Seeing as its the Moon Landing pics that are the main body of the CTs I would assume people deny these landing site pics also or at least question them, I'm indifferent, its not that important to me whether we did or didn't, I haven't stepped foot on the moon so I really have to believe what I'm told to a certain degree, and at the very least think its stupid to not question.

Questioning something that is way beyond your understanding is always a good thing.  I mean, we all learn something new all the time and a little curiosity and willingness to learn is always healthy.

View PostCodeblind, on 12 December 2012 - 07:34 AM, said:

I'm just asking about methods to prove it beyond any doubt, the only method I could imagine would be to enable people from earth to see the landing sites thru somekind of optical telescope, if that's at least for the time being not an option then I cant really see anything that will persuade the die hards

While true, any educated person worth their salt can take and research the technicalities of the moon landings and see that based on the evidence presented by NASA, the moon landings were possible.

Having a telescope to show the lunar surface wouldn't stop the moon landing hoaxers.  I once posted on a youtube (i know..big mistake) video and pointed out the reflectors left by the astronauts.

Someone commented and said "The moon's surface is reflective anyways, the regolith naturally reflects the sun.  So any lazer beam shot at the moon will most definately be reflected, no mirrors needed".

And another one left stated "those mirrors could have been left by a secret NASA moon rover."

Regardless of what evidence is presented, there will always be Hoax Believers.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#1420    Hazzard

Hazzard

    Stellar Black Hole

  • Member
  • 11,757 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2005

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:34 PM

View PostPinguin, on 12 December 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:

Have the astronauts traveled to the side that does not face us?


The far side of the moon has been seen by all crew members of the Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 through Apollo 17 missions since that time, and photographed by multiple lunar probes. Geologist-astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who became the second to last to step onto the Moon, had aggressively lobbied for his landing site to be on the far side of the Moon,... NASA administrators rejected these plans based on added risk and lack of funding.


http://en.wikipedia....ide_of_the_Moon

Edited by Hazzard, 12 December 2012 - 01:35 PM.

I still await the compelling Exhibit A.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -Edmund Burke

#1421    rambaldi

rambaldi

    Apparition

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

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:53 PM

View PostCodeblind, on 12 December 2012 - 05:30 AM, said:

I think the only definitive answer that satisfies CTs, will be when/if we develop a telescope we can see any of the landing sites from the earth.. ?

Think again.

Even if such a telescope existed, which would require a mirror larger than 100m, the calculation can probably found in this or the old thread, or at
http://blogs.discove...s/#.UMiWfoY2F2I
it's probably safe to say it wouldn't have an eyepiece for the Hoaxers to look through - any pictures will be just as cavalierly called fake as the pictures from the  LRO.

Even if a Hoaxer like Bart Sibrel could have a "real" look through the telescope, do you really belief it someone like Jarrah White (or our resident Hoaxers) would belief them? Or would they just claim he was finally bought or threatended by NASA?

Even if ALL Hoaxers could look for themselves it still wouldn't prove that the LM, the Rover etc was brought there by the "official" missions. I expect our hoaxers to invent some secret mission (if necessary with the equally secret Alientechnology from Roswell)  that planted the evidence after 1972, probably just in time before the Hoaxers could have their look.

To amend a joke about JFK...

Two conspiracy theorists die and go to Heaven. As they stand before God, one of them asks, "Lord, please tell us, did we fake the Moonlanding?"

God looks at them sternly and says, "I want you to listen carefully. NASA spent a whole lot of brains and money to build Rockets that could go to the moon and those brave astronauts just flew there. Got it?"

One of the conspiracists turns to the other and says, "This is even bigger than we thought.

Edited by rambaldi, 12 December 2012 - 02:54 PM.


#1422    Codeblind

Codeblind

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 92 posts
  • Joined:03 Jul 2012

Posted 12 December 2012 - 05:57 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 12 December 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:


View Postrambaldi, on 12 December 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:


Thanks


I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered.

#1423    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 12 December 2012 - 06:05 PM

View Postrambaldi, on 12 December 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

To amend a joke about JFK...

Two conspiracy theorists die and go to Heaven. As they stand before God, one of them asks, "Lord, please tell us, did we fake the Moonlanding?"

God looks at them sternly and says, "I want you to listen carefully. NASA spent a whole lot of brains and money to build Rockets that could go to the moon and those brave astronauts just flew there. Got it?"

One of the conspiracists turns to the other and says, "This is even bigger than we thought.

I laughed so hard my coffee is all over my desk now.

Thanks

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#1424    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,690 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 12 December 2012 - 07:44 PM

View PostCodeblind, on 12 December 2012 - 07:34 AM, said:

Seeing as its the Moon Landing pics that are the main body of the CTs I would assume people deny these landing site pics also or at least question them, I'm indifferent, its not that important to me whether we did or didn't, I haven't stepped foot on the moon so I really have to believe what I'm told to a certain degree, and at the very least think its stupid to not question. I'm just asking about methods to prove it beyond any doubt, the only method I could imagine would be to enable people from earth to see the landing sites thru somekind of optical telescope, if that's at least for the time being not an option then I cant really see anything that will persuade the die hards

Since the former Soviet Union had the capability to track the Apollo moon flights and would have greatly benefited from exposing hoaxed Apollo moon missions, I find it very compelling the Soviet Union confirmed the reality of the Apollo 11 moon mission to its own citizens, especially during the Cold War. The prestige of the Soviet Union took a serious tumble when it admitted the United States landed men on the moon.

We have the Apollo landing site photos and some of the moon photos were provided by other nations.

Quote

Posted Image

Apollo 15 Landing site


SELENE photographs


In 2008, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings

http://www.jaxa.jp/p...0_kaguya_e.html


Chang'e 2

China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2, which was launched in 2010 is capable of capturing lunar surface images with a resolution of up to 1.3 metres (4.3 ft). It spotted traces of the Apollo landings

http://news.xinhuane...c_131393210.htm


Chandrayaan-1

As with SELENE, the Terrain Mapping Camera of India's Chandrayaan-1 probe did not have enough resolution to record Apollo hardware. Nevertheless, as with SELENE, Chandrayaan-1 independently recorded evidence of lighter, disturbed soil around the Apollo 15 site

http://depletedcrani...ed-times-three/

We also have the moon rocks.

Quote

Moon Rocks

A total of 382 kilograms (842 lb) of Moon rocks and dust were collected during the Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 missions. Some 10 kg (22 lb) of the Moon rocks have been destroyed during hundreds of experiments performed by both NASA researchers and planetary scientists at research institutions unaffiliated with NASA. These experiments have confirmed the age and origin of the rocks as lunar, and were used to identify lunar meteorites collected later from Antarctica

The oldest Moon rocks are up to 4.5 billion years old, making them 200 million years older than the oldest Earth rocks, which are from the Hadean eon and dated 3.8 to 4.3 billion years ago. The rocks returned by Apollo are very close in composition to the samples returned by the independent Soviet Luna programme. A rock brought back by Apollo 17 was accurately dated to be 4.417 billion years old, with a margin of error of plus or minus 6 million years. The test was done by a group of researchers headed by Alexander Nemchin at Curtin University of Technology in Bentley, Australia.

Pendick, Daniel (June 2009). "Apollo sample pinpoints lunar crust's age". Astronomy Magazine 37 (6): 16.


KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1425    Codeblind

Codeblind

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 92 posts
  • Joined:03 Jul 2012

Posted 13 December 2012 - 03:19 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 12 December 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Like others have stated it really doesn't matter what evidence is put forward the die hards will still find some explanation that fits the Conspiracy......I'm not one of them.
I believe we went to the moon and have actually been to Kennedy in Homage and have some kind of meteorite somewhere I bought from the space centre..well I'm led to believe it is anyway, but I appreciate your post.
Its the doubt that the committed CTers have conjured by perhaps clever and believable explanations that leads to threads like this, it would be great though to have a device we could look thru and see the sites even if it doesn't satisfy the sceptics.

I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered.