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This topic has been archived.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

#1276    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,838 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 28 October 2012 - 08:26 AM

View Postsynchronomy, on 27 October 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

Yes, I see I mixed up the terms.  I was very tired and worked a long day and I think my brain was on fizz mode.
Sorry for getting you guys ticked here.  My sincere apologies.

If I may ask, for my own clarification;
Conspiracy theorists are the ones who are promoting "bunk" that the Apollo Moon landings were somehow faked?
Debunkers here are discrediting the CT's claims of fakery by NASA?

For the record I am not a troll.  I believe that when I was 6 years old and sat on my Father's lap watching as they landed on the Moon, I was not watching a Walt Disney production.  The Apollo landings were not faked IMHO, and I've never seen anything that would convince me otherwise.

I thought these silly claims were settled when Buzz punched that twit jamming a camera in his face and screaming at him to swear on the Bible he was on the Moon?

Check this out.

Quote

Apollo 15: Confirmed Times Three

There’s certainly no shortage of independent confirmation of the Apollo missions. From ham radio operators to the Jorell Bank Observatory, plenty of independent observers received the radio communications. Others tracked the missions optically. The missions relied on centers located in Madrid, Australia, California, Guam, Madagascar and elsewhere to track and maintain communications with the spacecraft. Since then, lunar samples, observations and data have been confirmed by independent scientists and other national space programs.

However, one mission stands out as having been confirmed more than any others. Apollo-15, the third to touch down on the lunar surface and the first to use the Lunar Rover, has been imaged by at least three different space agencies. Nasa took images of the area during the mission, and these images were confirmed as accurate by later probes including the DOD’s Clementine probe and probes sent by the European Space Agency, Indian Space Agency, Soviet Union and Japanese Space Agency.


At least three of the probes have had imaging capabilities of sufficient resolution to see traces of the mission activities. The best images come from NASA’s LRO, the only spacecraft able to return images of a high enough resolution to recognize the equipment left behind. However,Japan’s SELENE probe confirmed the profile of the area and imaged the “halo” caused by the engines of the LEM disturbing the lunar dust, which had been undisturbed for millions of years, causing the top most layer to have different reflectivity due to the time spent exposed to the solar winds and intense sun light. SELENE also saw the outlines and shadows of equipment, but without high enough resolution to definitively tell they were man-made.


More recently, the Indian Chandrayaan-1 probe provided slightly better images than SELENE, providing additional detail and confirming the observations already made by the two previous imaging missions.This was announced in early September, but the images were not immediately avaliable.

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



Edited by skyeagle409, 28 October 2012 - 08:28 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1277    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 28 October 2012 - 09:35 AM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 27 October 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

Turbonium, how can you possibly claim that a model fooled all the experts when the very quote you provide is thanking the expert that noticed it wasn't a genuine Apollo image?


The reason I can claim a model fooled all the experts is because it did fool them, for many years.

If we assume this photo was taken around the same time as Apollo 15 (in 1971). The ALSJ began in 1995, according to the copyright on their site.

We don't know when Harland noticed that photo was a fake, but it was not until 1995, at the very least.

So all the experts looked at a fake moon photo for 24+ years, and every one of them thought it was 100% genuine moonscape.

If that's not a prime case of being 'fooled', then I'd sure like to know what is!!

What if this guy hadn't noticed it was a fake? All these 'experts' would still say it's 100% genuine moonscape, probably. In other words, they'd still be fooled by it.


#1278    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 3,208 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009

Posted 28 October 2012 - 09:58 AM

BTW, nice signature, beale - perfectly applicable, and is why I no longer engage with Turbonium.  He is very clearly not debating in good faith.

The Apollo denial is effectively finished. Every single former doubter/denier that has even the vaguest intelligence and honesty has now realised and acknowledged that Apollo happened exactly as historically recorded.  The only ones left, like Turbonium and Patrick Tekeli (aka Patrick1000/fattydash/dastardly) have nothing left to put on the table, except embarrassing ignorance and deceitful claims.

___
All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.

#1279    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 28 October 2012 - 10:14 AM

View Postbeale947, on 28 October 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

Do you not see the irony in these posts?

It is not up to us to disprove the moon landing was a hoax. It is up to you to prove there was one. That is how debating works, you made the claim, you have to back it up. Not only have you failed to do that more times than wile-e-coyote failed to catch Roadrunner, you are now simply going "Its my opinion, I don't need proof!!" That isn't debating.

Now for the wires thing, you say its an opinion, and it is wrong none the less. We can barely edit stuff out of live feeds today. Even if the film was delayed and even had the best camera angels to reduce the exposure back then, it was pretty much impossible. Why do you think they've gone back over the years to stuff like Thunderbirds to remaster and remove the strings you can see in the episodes. There was simply not the technology back then to scrub stuff like wires out of pre-recorded stuff, let alone a live feed, which is still bloody difficult today with Photoshop and other programs.

Wires have been used in movies since 1950. IThat's with just 60-year-old technology

Do we really need to discuss if we had the technology to edit wires 20 years later during Apollo?

No. It's quite silly to do so.

As for claims that have no proof, I suggest you look at the 'halo' phenomenon. It's a perfect example of an unfounded claim.


#1280    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,838 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 28 October 2012 - 10:21 AM

View PostMID, on 27 October 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

OK!   Well, turb would be a fool to engage again, I think.   It has been rather obvious that he really has no sense of what evidence is about, nor how to use it.
I will look forward to his typical attempts with a forensic scientist.

:tu:   :w00t: :clap: :-*

Men have walked on the moon since 1969 and the Apollo moon missions were amazing feats, which underlines why the conspiracist have been unable to produce a shred of evidence to backup their claims.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1281    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,838 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 28 October 2012 - 10:28 AM

View PostChrlzs, on 28 October 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

BTW, nice signature, beale - perfectly applicable, and is why I no longer engage with Turbonium.  He is very clearly not debating in good faith.

The Apollo denial is effectively finished. Every single former doubter/denier that has even the vaguest intelligence and honesty has now realised and acknowledged that Apollo happened exactly as historically recorded.  The only ones left, like Turbonium and Patrick Tekeli (aka Patrick1000/fattydash/dastardly) have nothing left to put on the table, except embarrassing ignorance and deceitful claims.

DITTO!!!  :clap:

Their claims have been shot down with facts, and  evidence.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1282    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 28 October 2012 - 10:34 AM

View PostChrlzs, on 28 October 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

BTW, nice signature, beale - perfectly applicable, and is why I no longer engage with Turbonium.  He is very clearly not debating in good faith.

The Apollo denial is effectively finished. Every single former doubter/denier that has even the vaguest intelligence and honesty has now realised and acknowledged that Apollo happened exactly as historically recorded.  The only ones left, like Turbonium and Patrick Tekeli (aka Patrick1000/fattydash/dastardly) have nothing left to put on the table, except embarrassing ignorance and deceitful claims.

Thanks for presenting your invisible evidence.

And here's my invisible reply...  









Back to you...


#1283    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,838 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 28 October 2012 - 10:45 AM

Another example of many of why the moon hoax folks have been unable to provide evidence of Apollo moon mission hoaxes.



KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1284    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004

Posted 28 October 2012 - 11:17 AM

I believe we landed on the moon, but even if it was proved a hoax? who freaking cares?? I would totally support this kind of 'conspiracy' because we needed the credibility in the space race.  And it doesn't hurt anybody IMO so it's no big deal to me.


#1285    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,999 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005

Posted 28 October 2012 - 11:51 AM

View Postturbonium, on 28 October 2012 - 06:10 AM, said:

No. MID asked me how it could be faked. I said it could be faked with wires. And I do think wires were used to fake it.

And I said it was my opinion. I just said it again, now.

Get it?

Then show how it was done in real time on demonstrably live video.  Get it?  Support your opinion.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#1286    beale947

beale947

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 266 posts
  • Joined:18 Feb 2007

Posted 28 October 2012 - 12:10 PM

View Postturbonium, on 28 October 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

Wires have been used in movies since 1950. IThat's with just 60-year-old technology

Do we really need to discuss if we had the technology to edit wires 20 years later during Apollo?

No. It's quite silly to do so.

As for claims that have no proof, I suggest you look at the 'halo' phenomenon. It's a perfect example of an unfounded claim.

You obviously didn't read my post well enough because I said it was hard enough back then to do it in Pre-Recorded Shows. I never said they never used them, in fact I mentioned things that did. Live feeds are a completely different matter though.

Turb you can't weasel your way around this with me. Evidence and Facts are my job. And I do this in court.

Please prove they used wires, and prove they could edit them out on a live feed 40 years ago.

Edited by beale947, 28 October 2012 - 12:11 PM.

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

#1287    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 28 October 2012 - 02:58 PM

:yes: :w00t: :yes: :tu:

It's that proof thing again, Turb.

Try not to be nasty (you've already dug yourself a deep hole with your great attitude), just attempt, briefly, to address your responsibility here.
As I've asked (but fully know now that I'm not going to get an attempt from you...and why), prove your case...or at least offer up something that might even hint at a proof.


#1288    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 28 October 2012 - 04:29 PM

View Postturbonium, on 28 October 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

Wires have been used in movies since 1950. IThat's with just 60-year-old technology
Do we really need to discuss if we had the technology to edit wires 20 years later during Apollo?

No. It's quite silly to do so.

You're right.
It's silly.  And you don't have to discuss anything.  You do have to respond to direct queries put to you.  Especially when you're asccusing the United States of faking Apollo!

... :w00t: ..I know folks, it seems like a wierd dream now, but he has made the accusation, repeatedly.  And each time he's violated the standard protocol for making such a declaration:

Now Turb, not that I'm particularly interested in you, but it's just normal and required that when you accuse, you should be prepared to prove your accusation, or, be prepared to lose your case and be dismissed.

You failed to do so so many times, directly and simply, that you were dismissed.
Now you sit here and attempt again?


One more time:

Prove your case.  At least attempt to, or good bye...








Quote

As for claims that have no proof, I suggest you look at the 'halo' phenomenon. It's a perfect example of an unfounded claim.


Oh, and none of this disjointed banter, designed to divert people, including yourself  from the real issue, your ability to prove your contention...which is non-existent at the moment...as if it ever really existed.


#1289    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,140 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 28 October 2012 - 07:27 PM

View Postturbonium, on 28 October 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

The reason I can claim a model fooled all the experts is because it did fool them, for many years.

If we assume this photo was taken around the same time as Apollo 15 (in 1971). The ALSJ began in 1995, according to the copyright on their site.

We don't know when Harland noticed that photo was a fake, but it was not until 1995, at the very least.

So all the experts looked at a fake moon photo for 24+ years, and every one of them thought it was 100% genuine moonscape.

If that's not a prime case of being 'fooled', then I'd sure like to know what is!!

What if this guy hadn't noticed it was a fake? All these 'experts' would still say it's 100% genuine moonscape, probably. In other words, they'd still be fooled by it.
Once again we have a turbonium claim that is 1% fact and 99% invention. You can't just make up claims turbonium (oh sorry, you got caught doing exactly that didn't you).

Let's have a look at what that quote says in full shall we?

Quote

[The accompanying NASA photo, shows a portion of the plaster-of-paris landing site model used during training simulations. The area shown is centered on the landing target and shows Cone Crater at the lower right. My thanks to Journal Contributor David Harland who noticed that this is not a photo taken from lunar orbit. Compare with the corresponding mosaic of Lunar Orbiter strips.]


Source: http://www.hq.nasa.g...14.landing.html

Now you admit that we don't know when Harland noticed this was not a photograph of the lunar surface... but by the same token we don't know when the mistake happened. There is nothing in that quote that says that this picture was misidentified by any other NASA or non-NASA sources. The only thing we do know is that at some stage it was misidentified and then an expert correctly identified it.

Your claims of it fooling "all the NASA experts for 24 years" have no supporting evidence at all. It could just as easily been spotted within ten minutes by the first expert to view it.

It is difficult to know with you whether you genuinely do not know the difference between wild speculation and evidence or if your tactics are a result of deliberate intellectual dishonesty, but unless you can produce ACTUAL evidence to support what you are claiming here this will just have to go in the ever expanding file of turbonium epic fails.

"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

#1290    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,838 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 28 October 2012 - 07:52 PM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 28 October 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

Once again we have a turbonium claim that is 1% fact and 99% invention. You can't just make up claims turbonium (oh sorry, you got caught doing exactly that didn't you).

Let's have a look at what that quote says in full shall we?

[/i]

Source: http://www.hq.nasa.g...14.landing.html

Now you admit that we don't know when Harland noticed this was not a photograph of the lunar surface... but by the same token we don't know when the mistake happened. There is nothing in that quote that says that this picture was misidentified by any other NASA or non-NASA sources. The only thing we do know is that at some stage it was misidentified and then an expert correctly identified it.

Your claims of it fooling "all the NASA experts for 24 years" have no supporting evidence at all. It could just as easily been spotted within ten minutes by the first expert to view it.

It is difficult to know with you whether you genuinely do not know the difference between wild speculation and evidence or if your tactics are a result of deliberate intellectual dishonesty, but unless you can produce ACTUAL evidence to support what you are claiming here this will just have to go in the ever expanding file of turbonium epic fails.

Thank you! :tu:

.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX