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This topic has been archived.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

#1216    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,574 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006

Posted 20 October 2012 - 06:45 AM

View PostChrlzs, on 20 October 2012 - 05:55 AM, said:

The less feeding he gets, the better, I think.

I agree, and that is why I stopped responding to them when they displayed their dishonesty regarding the ground tracking stations. Evidence was provided and they completely - and I believe deliberately - misinterpret documents and claim they are right. At that stage I saw no point in trying to debate an issue with someone who will simply ignore any inconvenient facts and distort reality.


#1217    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,698 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 20 October 2012 - 06:59 AM

View Postturbonium, on 20 October 2012 - 06:36 AM, said:

The issue is about the supposed 'halo' phenomenon. You didn't even know what phenomenon I was talking about. And then you thought I came up with the term 'halo', which is false.

On the contrary, evidence has already proven you wrong. Speaking of "halo," I guess you missed this before.

Quote

Japanese SELENE (Kaguya) Lunar Mission Spots Apollo 15 Landing Site

The Japanese lunar mission SELENE (Selenological and Engineering Explorer), also known as “Kaguya” has imaged the “halo” left behind in the lunar surface from Apollo 15′s lunar module engine exhaust plume.

Read more: http://www.universet.../#ixzz29ouCaOyg
:

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 October 2012 - 07:00 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1218    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 2,834 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009

Posted 20 October 2012 - 07:44 AM

BTW, if there are any Turb supporters out there, or indeed anyone who is interested, who is willing to engage in sensible and informed debate, and to support their claims with actual KNOWLEDGE, please feel free.

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

#1219    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,265 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 20 October 2012 - 07:48 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 October 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:

On the contrary, evidence has already proven you wrong. Speaking of "halo," I guess you missed this before.


:

I'm referring to the 'halo' phenomenon. We're not disputing whether or not the 'halo' is in images from orbit. It is. The issue is how the 'halo' is not seen in the close-up Apollo images, and even the claims it is seen do not hold. They do not match up with the 'halo' feature seen in the orbit images.

And I still wait for any source which explains this phenomenon actually exists. So?


#1220    Karlis

Karlis

  • Member
  • 8,614 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2007

Posted 20 October 2012 - 08:14 AM

I have not been keeping up with the ins and outs of the discussion as to who was in control of the Relay Stations in Australia, but I hope that the following official information will help to clear up the question:


In late 1966, NASA put forward a proposal to include the Parkes 64 metre dish permanently into its worldwide tracking network. Until then, the network of 26 metre dishes had met most of NASA's requirements. Plans to send probes to more distant planets as well as the upcoming manned Apollo missions to the Moon demanded a network of larger dishes. NASA was near to completing the construction of its 64 metre dish at Goldstone, California, but budget cutbacks meant that the second and third stages of its 64 metre network, in Australia and Spain respectively, had to be postponed until the early 1970s. The dishes were all modelled on the Parkes Telescope. These developments made Parkes' inclusion an attractive alternative, at least until the other two 64 metre dishes were constructed. This proposal was, however, turned down owing to the fact that a growing number of observing requests from Australian astronomers meant that many would have missed out on getting precious observing time on the telescope (Robertson 1992).

In October 1968 the Director of Parkes Observatory, John Bolton, and his wife Letty, while on a trip to the USA attended a dinner party at the home of Bob Leighton. Bob was a brilliant Caltech engineer who was a colleague of John's when John was a professor of astronomy at Caltech in the 1950s. Also present at the party was the Head of the Goldstone Project, Eb Rechtin of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). During the course of the evening, John was asked if he could make available the observatory's 64 metre telescope for reception of signals from the Apollo 11 spacecraft, particularly during the most critical phases of the mission when the LM, Eagle, was on the lunar surface. The historic nature of the mission, combined with the fact that human lives were at risk in space, convinced both Edward 'Taffy' Bowen, the Chief of CSIRO's Radiophysics Division, and John Bolton to support the mission (Goddard & Milne 1994).

Following high level representations, Cabinet level meetings approved the Parkes Observatory's involvement in the upcoming Apollo 11 mission. In February 1969 a meeting was convened with the Australian Department of Supply to arrange contract details. John Bolton had spent the previous evening with Robert Taylor, the American engineer who was to manage the NASA operations at Parkes. They had discussed their respective roles extensively, and the problems to be overcome. John Bolton ended the meeting by insisting that he could work with Taylor, and that he would only accept a one-line contract: 'The Radiophysics Division would agree to support the Apollo 11 mission'. Financial return was to be $3,500 per day to cover costs at Parkes, plus $15,000 to cover additional work on the telescope.

For the tracking operations at Parkes, NASA provided the S-Band front-end receiving equipment. Also provided were tape recorders and 'translating' equipment for converting the incoming signals into a TV picture so that the operators could check that everything was functioning correctly.

The Observatory provided the feeds, cabling, power, weatherproofing of the aerial platform, and facilities for the OTC link equipment. In addition, the PMG established a network of microwave links and voice communication channels to relay both the Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek signals to Houston (Goddard & Milne 1994).
Source


#1221    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

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

Posted 20 October 2012 - 08:31 AM

View PostKarlis, on 20 October 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

I have not been keeping up with the ins and outs of the discussion as to who was in control of the Relay Stations in Australia, but I hope that the following official information will help to clear up the question:


In late 1966, NASA put forward a proposal to include the Parkes 64 metre dish permanently into its worldwide tracking network. Until then, the network of 26 metre dishes had met most of NASA's requirements. Plans to send probes to more distant planets as well as the upcoming manned Apollo missions to the Moon demanded a network of larger dishes. NASA was near to completing the construction of its 64 metre dish at Goldstone, California, but budget cutbacks meant that the second and third stages of its 64 metre network, in Australia and Spain respectively, had to be postponed until the early 1970s. The dishes were all modelled on the Parkes Telescope. These developments made Parkes' inclusion an attractive alternative, at least until the other two 64 metre dishes were constructed. This proposal was, however, turned down owing to the fact that a growing number of observing requests from Australian astronomers meant that many would have missed out on getting precious observing time on the telescope (Robertson 1992).

In October 1968 the Director of Parkes Observatory, John Bolton, and his wife Letty, while on a trip to the USA attended a dinner party at the home of Bob Leighton. Bob was a brilliant Caltech engineer who was a colleague of John's when John was a professor of astronomy at Caltech in the 1950s. Also present at the party was the Head of the Goldstone Project, Eb Rechtin of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). During the course of the evening, John was asked if he could make available the observatory's 64 metre telescope for reception of signals from the Apollo 11 spacecraft, particularly during the most critical phases of the mission when the LM, Eagle, was on the lunar surface. The historic nature of the mission, combined with the fact that human lives were at risk in space, convinced both Edward 'Taffy' Bowen, the Chief of CSIRO's Radiophysics Division, and John Bolton to support the mission (Goddard & Milne 1994).

Following high level representations, Cabinet level meetings approved the Parkes Observatory's involvement in the upcoming Apollo 11 mission. In February 1969 a meeting was convened with the Australian Department of Supply to arrange contract details. John Bolton had spent the previous evening with Robert Taylor, the American engineer who was to manage the NASA operations at Parkes. They had discussed their respective roles extensively, and the problems to be overcome. John Bolton ended the meeting by insisting that he could work with Taylor, and that he would only accept a one-line contract: 'The Radiophysics Division would agree to support the Apollo 11 mission'. Financial return was to be $3,500 per day to cover costs at Parkes, plus $15,000 to cover additional work on the telescope.

For the tracking operations at Parkes, NASA provided the S-Band front-end receiving equipment. Also provided were tape recorders and 'translating' equipment for converting the incoming signals into a TV picture so that the operators could check that everything was functioning correctly.

The Observatory provided the feeds, cabling, power, weatherproofing of the aerial platform, and facilities for the OTC link equipment. In addition, the PMG established a network of microwave links and voice communication channels to relay both the Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek signals to Houston (Goddard & Milne 1994).
Source

If you are able to find the time to get caught up on the thread you will undoubtedly find that Turbs has been given much of the information you provide here several times from several different sources including sources he himself has provided, but has handwaved it away in all instances and has done nothing but made every attempt to divert his burden of proof away from himself.





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

#1222    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,698 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 20 October 2012 - 08:49 AM

View Postturbonium, on 20 October 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:

I'm referring to the 'halo' phenomenon. We're not disputing whether or not the 'halo' is in images from orbit. It is. The issue is how the 'halo' is not seen in the close-up Apollo images, and even the claims it is seen do not hold. They do not match up with the 'halo' feature seen in the orbit images.

And I still wait for any source which explains this phenomenon actually exists. So?

Things look different from above than on the ground. What is visible from the sky, is not always recognizable on the ground.



KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1223    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,574 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006

Posted 20 October 2012 - 08:49 AM

Thank you, Karlis.


#1224    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,265 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 20 October 2012 - 09:28 AM

I agree with you here - at close-range, the larger shape isn't seen. It is seen only from high above.

But you DO see it from close-range, one part of it, and that's the point I'm making. Maybe you see a line or two, going off at an angle. But it's still a part of the feature, and it's seen.

Just like a physical feature would be seen on the moon from close-range.


#1225    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 2,834 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009

Posted 20 October 2012 - 09:36 AM

A few more Parkes FACTS:
  • The Parkes radio telescope was first proposed by Australia's CSIRO in the early 50's, and the design contract was developed from 1956 - 1959.
  • Britain's Barnes Wallis (of 'DamBusters' fame) was responsible for a significant part of the telescope's design, including some quite radical engineering concepts.
  • The company that built it was the same company that built the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
  • It was completed in 1961.
  • Its development was not owned or funded in any way by NASA.
  • Because of its remarkable success, NASA used the same design for its own Deep Space Network of radio-telescopes.
  • NASA paid the CSIRO/Parkes a fee of $3500 per day, plus a one off fee of $15000 for equipment required for receiving the Apollo signals, in order to use the Parkes telescope when it became clear that their own network wasn't going to be ready in time.
  • Parkes is still using the same dish and mechanism, even though much of the electrics and electronics have been replaced/upgraded multiple times.
  • It still welcomes visitors, and is an awesome sight when approaching it - it really is pretty much in the middle of a sheep paddock...
  • Despite the fact that officially, the CSIRO denies it ever happens, I have it on very good authority that both cricket and tennis were played on The Dish in the 60's (taps nose knowingly).
Sources:
Building the Parkes Telescope (CSIRO)
Parkes Observatory Fact Sheet (PDF)
My own knowledge..

BTW, I visit this remarkable place periodically when I 'commute' from Brisbane to Adelaide.  May I thoroughly recommend the excellent film "The Dish" to those interested - it is not exactly historically correct in a number of ways (there was no power failure and they didn't 'lose' the Moon or fake the Neil Armstrong conversation!), but is a wonderfully quirky comedy that captures the feel of Australian country towns in the late 60's.  It's a heartwarming film that gives an idea of just what those historic times were like and how proud the Aussies were to be involved.

Edited by Chrlzs, 20 October 2012 - 09:48 AM.

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

#1226    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,698 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 20 October 2012 - 09:41 AM

View PostObviousman, on 20 October 2012 - 06:45 AM, said:

I agree, and that is why I stopped responding to them when they displayed their dishonesty regarding the ground tracking stations. Evidence was provided and they completely - and I believe deliberately - misinterpret documents and claim they are right. At that stage I saw no point in trying to debate an issue with someone who will simply ignore any inconvenient facts and distort reality.

I agree. He has ignored evidence and dismissed facts and evidence and from this point on, I see no reason to respond to him at all.

View PostChrlzs, on 20 October 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

A few more Parkes FACTS:
  • The Parkes radio telescope was first proposed by Australia's CSIRO in the early 50's, and the design contract was developed from 1956 - 1959.
  • Britain's Barnes Wallis (of 'DamBusters' fame) was responsible for a significant part of the telescope's design, including some quite radical engineering concepts.
  • The company that built it was the same company that built the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
  • It was completed in 1961.
  • Its development was not owned or funded in any way by NASA.
  • Because of its remarkable success, NASA used the same design for its own Deep Space Network of radio-telescopes.
  • NASA paid the CSIRO/Parkes a fee of $3500 per day, plus a one off fee of $15000 for equipment required for receiving the Apollo signals, in order to use the Parkes telescope when it became clear that their own network wasn't going to be ready in time.
  • Parkes is still using the same dish and mechanism, even though much of the electrics and electronics have been replaced/upgraded multiple times.
  • It still welcomes visitors, and is an awesome sight when approaching it - it really is pretty much in the middle of a sheep paddock...
  • Despite the fact that officially, the CSIRO denies it ever happens, I have it on very good authority that both cricket and tennis were played on The Dish in the 60's (taps nose knowingly).
Sources:
Building the Parkes Telescope (CSIRO)
Parkes Observatory Fact Sheet (PDF)
My own knowledge..

BTW, I visit this remarkable place periodically when I 'commute' from Brisbane to Adelaide.  May I thoroughly recommend the excellent film "The Dish" to those interested - it is not exactly historically correct in a number of ways (there was no power failure and they didn't 'lose' the Moon or fake the Neil Armstrong conversation!), but is a wonderfully quirky comedy that captures the feel of Australian country towns in the late 60's.  It's a heartwarming film that gives an idea of just what those historic times were like and how proud the Aussies were to be involved.

Thanks! :tu:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1227    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 20 October 2012 - 01:40 PM

View Postturbonium, on 20 October 2012 - 03:05 AM, said:

You first asked me...



I told you it was done with wires.

You asked me where the wires are in some Apollo photos and images.

I told you the wires were edited out of them.

Now, if you consider that to be "mystically erased",  you clearly need a reality check.

I've shown you that wires have been edited out of films since 1950. What is so 'mystical' about it??!?  

You can't see wires because they remove them in the editing process . Whether it's a low-budget 1950 sci-fi flick, or it's a big-budget 1968 sci-fi movie,  or it's Apollo-era photos/film clips....the wires are removed by editing.

It would be called sorcery, or 'mystical' - in 17th century England. A primitive tribe may believe it's a gift from the gods.  

But what is your excuse for it?


Oh, me?
I just realized you'd said something.

What's my excuse for "it" (I guess the wires not appearing in the films and photos)?

Well, I don't have an excuse for anything.  I did this stuff, and I know there were no wires in place, ever, anywhere in space flight imaging (so do all the men who took the photos and films, and all the men pictured in those films and photos).
It's been explained to you in detail time and again how gravity works, and how, if your "wires" :w00t: were actually there, how you'd have been able to see their effects.  Those effects oddly never appear in the films made, and, the "wires" don't either, just as they didn't on the original video broadcasts.

Your excuse is nothing:  that they used wires, and of course, hid them....as we've been doing in movies since 1950.

It's almost worthless attempting to teach you anything, and it's worthless talking about your  nonsensical, elementary school mental creations.
I can say this though:  IF you applied yourself to science and mathematics as we all did way back in the couple decades before Apollo, you'd could actually talk about something here and have an ear listen!


#1228    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 20 October 2012 - 01:45 PM

View Postturbonium, on 20 October 2012 - 03:05 AM, said:

You first asked me...



I told you it was done with wires.

You asked me where the wires are in some Apollo photos and images.

I told you the wires were edited out of them.

Yes, and you were utterly wong...


#1229    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 20 October 2012 - 01:49 PM

View Postturbonium, on 20 October 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

I agree with you here - at close-range, the larger shape isn't seen. It is seen only from high above.

But you DO see it from close-range, one part of it, and that's the point I'm making. Maybe you see a line or two, going off at an angle. But it's still a part of the feature, and it's seen.

Just like a physical feature would be seen on the moon from close-range.

:w00t: ...trying to convince people that you actually know something about lunar surface photography is not a really good idea!  :clap:


#1230    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 20 October 2012 - 02:36 PM

View Postturbonium, on 20 October 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:

I'm referring to the 'halo' phenomenon. We're not disputing whether or not the 'halo' is in images from orbit. It is. The issue is how the 'halo' is not seen in the close-up Apollo images, and even the claims it is seen do not hold. They do not match up with the 'halo' feature seen in the orbit images.

And I still wait for any source which explains this phenomenon actually exists. So?


Yes, that was pretty much a big part of that which you've never actually answered:


So what?
Who cares much about halos here, and how is such a naturally occurring thing seen to be significant to your idea on this stread--that the Moon landings were faked !! :cry: :no: :w00t: :td:   (yeeeaaah?!)?

But gee...The halos wouldn't be there if we hadn't landed on the Moon.  Indeed, they're there because we landed on the Moon.

Just wondred if you'd ever considered that rather obvious fact as you make this stuff up, and deliberately igore what you've been given on it.?