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This topic has been archived.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

#1081    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 26 September 2012 - 11:58 PM

View Postturbonium, on 24 September 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

NASA did control the stations.

Who do you think the Australians worked for? The Australian government? No, they worked for NASA. It was NASA's project, it was NASA who hired them. It was NASA's equipment. It was NASA who trained them on operating that equipment. It was NASA who instructed the Australians in managing the facility - for NASA.

You seem to think the personnel are not working for NASA because they are Australians. The reality is they are working for NASA.

NASA decided who manages the Apollo tracking stations. The staff was doing what NASA trained them to do.

The reason NASA hires Australians is because the US and Australian governments had an agreement (treaty) to employ Australians as much as possible. This made it look like a joint US-Australian venture, rather than a wholly foreign (US) intrusion. As this document notes...

  http://ntrs.nasa.gov..._1975002909.pdf .  


NASA controls the Apollo tracking stations,

OK....

Another logical follow up to that statement:

So what?

Is it something you're now understanding for the first time, or,

...does this realization paint for you some sort of CT scenario about the Apollo program?


Edited by MID, 26 September 2012 - 11:59 PM.


#1082    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,831 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 27 September 2012 - 01:47 AM

Nuff said ! We Went We Came back We DId Build it ! :tu:
YOu always rock Mid !

This is a Work in Progress!

#1083    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,689 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006

Posted 27 September 2012 - 08:29 AM

View Postturbonium, on 24 September 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

The reason NASA hires Australians is because the US and Australian governments had an agreement (treaty) to employ Australians as much as possible. This made it look like a joint US-Australian venture, rather than a wholly foreign (US) intrusion. As this document notes...
  http://ntrs.nasa.gov..._1975002909.pdf .  

You didn't sat WHERE in this rather large document you say supports your claim. Could you at least do me the courtesy of naming a page number?

Thank you.


#1084    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,265 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007

Posted 27 September 2012 - 07:13 PM

View PostObviousman, on 27 September 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

You didn't sat WHERE in this rather large document you say supports your claim. Could you at least do me the courtesy of naming a page number?

Thank you.

Fairly safe bet that Turbs is just assuming that this document supports him.

Admittedly I haven't rad through the entire document yet, but so far:

On page 113 (pdf page 119) we have this:

Quote

Buckley proposed that all Mercury stations be divided into four separate groups. Group #1, including the Cape, Grand Canary, etc., should be run by AMR, an Air Force installation; Group #2 should be run by PMR, a Navy installation; Group #3, by White Sands, an Army installation; and Group #4, which included the two Australian stations, by the Australian Weapons Research Establishment (WRE).51 Of course, some single agency would be needed to coordinate these four disparate groups, and this single agency logically should be NASA. A few months later, NASA cited negotiation problems with foreign countries 52 and argued that five stations should be exceptions and run directly by NASA. These five were: Bermuda, Grand Canary I., Kano, Zanzibar, and Guaymas. The reasoning was obvious. Behind it was the fact that NASA felt that it had to have the network operating job if it was going to be charged with total responsibility for the success of Mercury. 53

That is talking about early tracking stations for Mercury, however.

On page 227 (pdf page 233) and continued on page 230 (pdf page 236) after some illustrations we have:

Quote

During the preparations for the Apollo-11 flight, it became apparent that the Goldstone 64-m dish would not be able to see the Lunar Module during the critical walk on the Moon -- and the extra gain of the 64-m antenna was needed for good television coverage of this historic event. The schedule called for the Moon walk to begin when the spacecraft was in view from Australia, but the MSFN had only 26-m paraboloids in Australia. However; west of Sydney, at Parkes, the Australians operated a 64-m antenna as part of their research program in radio astronomy. By tapping this antenna through an existing microwave link, the Moon walk

{two pages of illustrations}

could be televised. NASA negotiated an agreement with the Australian Government whereby the Parkes antenna could be used to augment the MSFN for the television portion of the Moon walk. As it turned out, the Moon walk began early and considerable television coverage was possible with the Goldstone 64-m dish. Later, when the Lunar Module came into view of the Parkes antenna, it was brought into the MSFN.

Now this part is interesting. Why, if it was all faked, anyway, would they have gone to the lengths of negotiating with the Australian Government for the used of the Parkes Dish, only to then have the Moon walk begin early so that Parkes was not required for the whole event? Why not make it so that the entire event took place while the Goldstone dish was viable?

As for Turbs' other claims that all the data have just been a simulation run through the foreign countries' systems, Chapter 5 of that document (starts on page 162 - pdf page 168) goes into a great deal of detail on how the system was conceptualized, designed, set up and tested. While it does show that all aspects of the system could be tested and simulations were used during certain tests, it is also quite apparent by the detailed descriptions of those tests that they could not have simulated an entire mission the way Turbs would have us believe.

So again we have Turbs providing evidence that he thinks supports him, but in actual fact destroys his position yet again.






Cz

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#1085    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,831 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 28 September 2012 - 03:51 AM

:tu: :td: :gun:  Thats my code for Im outta Here !

This is a Work in Progress!

#1086    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,689 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006

Posted 28 September 2012 - 05:14 AM

View PostCzero 101, on 27 September 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

Fairly safe bet that Turbs is just assuming that this document supports him.

That's what I believe. After all, I've looked at Australian government documents, I have quoted from people who worked at Carnarvon and I also know many people who worked at Honeysuckle (John Saxon, etc) via an interest group.

Still, if Turbs really did read through the report and found something they believes supports their position, they have the opportunity to show it.

View PostCzero 101, on 27 September 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

So again we have Turbs providing evidence that he thinks supports him, but in actual fact destroys his position yet again.

I agree; for whatever reason they take a text that says something was white then claims that it supports their position that it was in fact green. That or they waste countless pages arguing that vermillion is not red.

Edited by Obviousman, 28 September 2012 - 05:18 AM.


#1087    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 29 September 2012 - 10:13 AM

View PostMID, on 24 September 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

No, sand is not microfine like regolith.  It is also not structured in any way like the self-adherent lunar soil is.
So, your comment, born again from lack of knowledge, fails... :w00t:

You actually said regolith is  micro-fine dust, and has glass content. Now it's structured, self-adherent, and no mention of glass content.  

The regolith has been compared to very fine sand, according to the sources I've found. The regolith particles are varying in size, very fine to coarse/larger. If you need any sources, I can post them for you.

However, let's assume you are right, that regolith is finer than any sand found on Earth. You still have particles, just smaller than sand. You claim this 'micro-fine' particle, if it's also a structured, self-adherent particle, will create an amazing phenomenon we can't duplicate on Earth!

If you can't repeat this 'phenomenon' on Earth, you must show that it's all based on well-known scientific principles.

Show this particle makes sense given the factors you've mentioned.. Why are micro-size particles a factor? Explain a self-adherent particle as a factor in all this..

Where does one find information on this phenomenon? How about a source?  Anything?


#1088    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 29 September 2012 - 10:37 AM

View PostMID, on 26 September 2012 - 11:58 PM, said:

OK....

Another logical follow up to that statement:

So what?

Is it something you're now understanding for the first time, or,

...does this realization paint for you some sort of CT scenario about the Apollo program?


So NASA holds all the cards.

Who knows if a mission is being faked or not? It's merely assumed to be a real mission because NASA says it is. But they have no idea if it's real, or if it's a sim.


#1089    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,344 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 29 September 2012 - 10:59 AM

View PostCzero 101, on 27 September 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

Now this part is interesting. Why, if it was all faked, anyway, would they have gone to the lengths of negotiating with the Australian Government for the used of the Parkes Dish, only to then have the Moon walk begin early so that Parkes was not required for the whole event? Why not make it so that the entire event took place while the Goldstone dish was viable?

This is all speculation. What if they meant to use Parkes, but later on it seemed too risky, so they dropped Parkes entirely.

It's a moot point.

View PostCzero 101, on 27 September 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:


As for Turbs' other claims that all the data have just been a simulation run through the foreign countries' systems, Chapter 5 of that document (starts on page 162 - pdf page 168) goes into a great deal of detail on how the system was conceptualized, designed, set up and tested. While it does show that all aspects of the system could be tested and simulations were used during certain tests, it is also quite apparent by the detailed descriptions of those tests that they could not have simulated an entire mission the way Turbs would have us believe.


Why not? There is no reason a whole mission couldn't be a sim.


#1090    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,265 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007

Posted 29 September 2012 - 03:03 PM

View Postturbonium, on 29 September 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:


This is all speculation. What if they meant to use Parkes, but later on it seemed too risky, so they dropped Parkes entirely.
No, Turbs... Speculation is all that you have. The actual history of the event is that the plan was to use Parkes for the entire Apollo 11 Moonwalk, but since it started early, they were able to use Goldstone at the start, but then switched to Parkes for the rest.

So they didn't drop Parkes entirely, did they? No, they didn't. And it seems that not only haven't you read the document you provided as evidence (which I'm sure is completely shocking to absolutely no one) you don't even know the history of the event.

Why fake something that relies on using another government's equipment that you do not own or control, when you could just adjust your fake schedule so that the event you want to fake occurs when your own equipment (Goldstone) could be used solely...? This is yet another stumbling point that requires your "theory" to be even more complex and unlikely than it is already.

Quote

It's a moot point.
Actually its not, but if you want to claim it is to avoid the issues because it makes your position even more untenable than it already is, then that is your choice and your failure.

Quote

Why not? There is no reason a whole mission couldn't be a sim.
Thank you for confirming that you have not read this document.






Cz

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe..." - Carl Sagan

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#1091    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,689 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006

Posted 29 September 2012 - 03:11 PM

I'm still waiting for Turbs to quote which section of the document they stated supports their views.


#1092    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 29 September 2012 - 03:24 PM

View Postturbonium, on 29 September 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:

Who knows if a mission is being faked or not?

Since the Apollo moon missions were tracked by countries with no ties to NASA, and since countries have photographed the Apollo landing sites, and since you have failed to provide a shred of evidence of Apollo mission hoaxes, proves beyond any doubt that none of the Apollo moon missions were hoaxed, especially since the Soviet Union also confirmed that it tracked the Apollo moon missions.

Quote


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 landing

BEIJING, Feb. 6 (Xinhua) -- China on Monday published a full coverage map of the moon, as well as several high-resolution images of the celestial body, captured by the country's second moon orbiter, the Chang'e-2.
The map and images, released by the State Administration of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defence (SASTIND), are the highest-resolution photos of the entirety of the moon's surface to be published thus far, said Liu Dongkui, deputy chief commander of China's lunar probe project.

The images were photographed by a charge-coupled device (CCD) stereo camera on the Chang'e-2 from heights of 100 km and 15 km over the lunar surface between October 2010 and May 2011, according to a statement from SASTIND.

The resolution of the images obtained from Chang'e-2 is 17 times greater than those taken by the its predecessor, the Chang'e-1. If there were airports and harbors on the moon, the Chang'e-1 could simply identify them, while the Chang'e-2 would be able to detect planes or ships inside of them, said Tong Qingxi, an academic from the Institute of Remote Sensing Applications under the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

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

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

In other words, you are simply wasting your time trying to convince people of Apollo mission hoaxes when there are countries confirming the realty of the Apollo moon missions with hard evidence and photographs, and the question is: What have you provided as evidence of Apollo mission hoaxes? Absolutely nothing!

Edited by skyeagle409, 29 September 2012 - 03:28 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1093    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 29 September 2012 - 03:38 PM

View Postturbonium, on 29 September 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:

So NASA holds all the cards.

And, NASA sent men to the moon as well.

Quote

Who knows if a mission is being faked or not?


The Soviet Union would have known, and it has confirmed tracking the Apollo moon missions.

Quote

The Soviet Union Monitored Apollo Moon Missions

The Soviet Union monitored the missions at their Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment". Vasily Mishin ("The Moon Programme That Faltered."), in Spaceflight. 33 (March 1991), pages 2–3 describes how the Soviet Moon programme lost energy after the Apollo landing.

http://en.wikipedia....o_Moon_landings


KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1094    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 29 September 2012 - 03:51 PM

.

View Postturbonium, on 29 September 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

You actually said regolith is  micro-fine dust, and has glass content. Now it's structured, self-adherent, and no mention of glass content.  

Whew...what?!

Just kidding.
You are not so stupid as to not remember what you were taught about regolith.  I know this.
You're just being...turb again. :w00t:




Quote

The regolith has been compared to very fine sand, according to the sources I've found. The regolith particles are varying in size, very fine to coarse/larger. If you need any sources, I can post them for you.

The sources you've "found??
What's "very fine" sand?
Do dimensions need to be posted for you?

No...it wouldn't help anyway....





Average Earth sand grain dimension =  about 0.079 in.  (About 2-13 grains across make an inch).
Average lunar dust grain dimension =   about 0.0006 in. (About 1670  grains across make an inch).

This means that a grain of earth sand is on averge 132 times the size of a lunar dust grain.

See...I told you it wouldn't help !






Quote

However, let's assume you are right, that regolith is finer than any sand found on Earth. You still have particles, just smaller than sand. You claim this 'micro-fine' particle, if it's also a structured, self-adherent particle, will create an amazing phenomenon we can't duplicate on Earth!

I am right.  You know it, but won't acknowledge it, just as you won't acknowledge the fact that you been fully presented with all you need to know about the lunar soil.
And the amazing phenomenon we can't duplicate on earth?
You mean the ultra detailed lunar footprints, the lack of dust clouds, or are you speaking of this "halo" effect you don't understand?   I suspect all of the afformentioned, but particularly the last one.



Quote

If you can't repeat this 'phenomenon' on Earth, you must show that it's all based on well-known scientific principles.



They're fairly simple, turb.  I know it's a stretch for me to try again, but--as far as the lunar soil's contribution is concerned...

We couldn't duplicate anything the lunar soil does on the Moon, here on earth because:

We have no such soil here on earth because--
We have an atmosphere that prohibits the mechanics that produced lunar soil over the past several billion years of micro-bombbardment.
We have 6 times the gravity of the lunar field.
It's simple stuff, turb.

No atmosphere allows this sort of microfine dust to form.
However turb, it also has a down side:  No intelligent life can exist there.
And even if we were atmosphereless, like the Moon, lifeless, like the Moon, and we still had 1 g here, it would prohit similar disruptions from occurring, as it would take more energy to move to soil in 6 times the gravity field, and it wouuld take less time for the soil to disperse, and fall back to the ground.  6 times quicker, in fact.  It's certainly possible to have the little whitish halo show up in certain places on Earth, but nothing like you typically see on the Moon, unless we were like the Moon (but WE wouldn't be here to talk about it if this planet was like the Moon, would we?).

Quote

Show this particle makes sense given the factors you've mentioned.. Why are micro-size particles a factor? Explain a self-adherent particle as a factor in all this..

Where does one find information on this phenomenon? How about a source? Anything?

You want me to send you to the source, NASA?
:w00t:
Yea...you won't call them, or even use their site as the port of knowledge it is.  You'll call the NASA reports Government influenced nonsense. W e've already done it!  We know what you think, even if you have no idea what you're talking about!

Micro-fine particles are significant   because they allow thinner lsyers of material to be dispersed out, and to lay in dirsrupted layers, appearing , again (and why, I don't really know)  depending on lighting conditions and angle, as they do in many images we've shown from the surface, and from on orbit altitudes.This basic physical principal. It should be required to explain this to you again...unless, you're simply screwing around playing a game with us turb.



Self adherent particles make a difference in respect to the fact that they allow those crisp footprints to be created, and, they risist low energy disruptive blasts (like a LM DPS from hundreds of feet up ).  This results in a thinner dust sheet being dispursed as the craft descends.

This stuff has all been carefully outlined for you before.
Does this lack of understanding you have about lunar dust have something to do with your burden of proving your contention?


#1095    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 29 September 2012 - 03:51 PM

View Postturbonium, on 29 September 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

You actually said regolith is  micro-fine dust, and has glass content. Now it's structured, self-adherent, and no mention of glass content.  

The regolith has been compared to very fine sand, according to the sources I've found. The regolith particles are varying in size, very fine to coarse/larger. If you need any sources, I can post them for you.

I'll post this video and pay attention beginning at time line 5:40.



KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX