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This topic has been archived.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

#1291    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 29 October 2012 - 06:13 PM

View Postturbonium, on 28 October 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

You can say it's wrong all you like, but so far it's merely your personal opinion. No more.


If it's wrong, show the evidence. Just saying it's wrong, over and over again, is getting very tiresome

So, do you think they had any sort of 'moon' models, or none at all? Clarify your position on models - if you could.

Have you seen any photos of huge moon models, btw?

This is what happens when you get shot down, huh?
You become an administrator.  You repeat things that fit what you've been chastized for, and then persist in that aspect. :yes:


You can't produce your evidence, and you do not answer questions put directly to you...on purpose. :yes:

A childish tactic, but one you've done over and over again.

I won't waste any real time re-responding to things I long ago did.


#1292    Gaden

Gaden

    Conspiracy Theorist

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

Posted 29 October 2012 - 06:48 PM

I feel quite certain that most, if not all here has read through this site;

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

I did years ago but did a rereading recently, lots of good stuff.

From the page:
My name is Robert A. Braeunig and I earned a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from the University of Cincinnati in 1981. My formal university education includes such subjects as Astronomy, Physics, Statics, Dynamics, Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, Soil Mechanics, Geology, Chemistry, Structural Analysis, and Electrical Networks. I have received training in the basics of Photography with emphasis on exposure control. I have been an avid amateur astronomer since 1989, having served as both president and vice-president of the Birmingham (Alabama) Astronomical Society. In additional to my formal training, I am self-taught in the basic principles of Orbital Mechanics and Rocket Propulsion. I am in no way affiliated with NASA or any of its subcontractors.
Why do people believe this stuff?

I am no psychologist, however I have seen and heard enough over the past years to recognize certain reoccurring personality traits in those professing to be hoax believers. Although there are varying degrees of each, I have come to categorize the hoax believers into two generalized types: the Confused and the Hardcore.

The Confused are average people who have seen or heard the claims of the hoax advocates on TV, the Internet, or from friends and associates. They usually lack the scientific knowledge or experience necessary to dispute the claims, so they begin to doubt the authenticity of the moon landings. Despite their doubts, these people tend to be open-minded and willing to listen to varying points of view. When giving the opportunity to study both sides of the argument, they usually agree the moon landings were real.

The Hardcore, on the other hand, are a completely different type of personality. They almost always exhibit strong paranoid tendencies with an extreme distrust and hatred of the U.S. government. Rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself, they will often begin by assuming a hoax and then search for evidence to support that preconception. When they see something that looks suspicious they immediately accept it as proof of their belief. When someone attempts to offer an alternate explanation they dismiss it as a NASA lie. Any evidence that contradicts their belief is described as an attempt by the government to deceive us. They will say that anyone who believes in the moon landings has been brainwashed or is in denial. They are usually argumentative and often hostile.

The Hardcore also tend to be completely close-minded, refusing to consider alternate possibilities. I have often debated with hardcore individuals over various hoax topics and, to date, I have always been able to completely discredit their claims with arguments that would more than satisfy any open-minded individual. However, they routinely refuse to acknowledge the possibility they could be in error. They will stubbornly cling to their belief in the hoax even when they have no creditable evidence to fall back on. The debate is clearly not just about evidence and physics; there are those who believe in the hoax merely because they want to believe it.

Why do some people choose to believe in the moon-landing hoax? I wish I could provide a definitive answer to that question, however I suspect it is a combination of paranoia and, perhaps more importantly, feelings of inadequacy. The hoax believers create a delusional fantasy in which they are the heroes. Their ability to decipher the subtle clues and uncover the hoax is seen as a demonstration of their intellectual superiority. To the hoax believers the more complex and convoluted the theory, the smarter they feel for having figured it all out. To the rest of us the theory just doesn't make any sense.

Many hoax believers are well meaning people who have been duped into believing the hoax theories by what they perceive to be compelling evidence. Although I may not agree with their views, I mean these people no malice. There are other hoax advocates, often representing themselves as experts, who publicly make claims based on erroneous conclusions resulting from a lack of proper research, scientific ignorance, or extreme prejudice. I find these people to be very dangerous because they possess the power to sway people into accepting their assertions as fact. A third possibility is that there are those who may believe the moon landings were real, but intentionally try to persuade people otherwise for some sort of attention, fame or profit. These people I believe are especially loathsome.

I apologise for such a lengthy post,I just thought these excerpts were particularly relevent and wanted to point to them. (paradraph #4 in particular.)

Edited by Gaden, 29 October 2012 - 06:51 PM.

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

#1293    Gaden

Gaden

    Conspiracy Theorist

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

Posted 29 October 2012 - 07:16 PM

From another site for those who haven't bothered to do any real research;

http://www.uwgb.edu/...GototheMoon.htm

Telemetry

The program seems blissfully unaware that any data other than photographs came out of the Apollo flights. But the Apollo craft would have been continuously transmitting telemetry. If Apollo had merely gone into earth orbit as claimed, how was telemetry faked?

For example, amateur radio enthusiasts were perfectly capable of listening in on Apollo transmissions - and did. If the Apollo spacecraft had merely been in earth orbit, as some conspiracy theorists claim, it would have been below the horizon and its transmissions blocked from any given location most of the time.

As the spacecraft neared the moon, its transmission frequency would have changed due to the Doppler Effect. It would have varied as the Command module orbited the moon, becoming higher as the Command Module approached earth and dropping as it moved away. Then the frequency would have changed again after the ship left lunar orbit - the frequency would have increased because the Command Module was headed toward earth, and would have kept on increasing as the Command Module accelerated in the earth's gravity. Any nation with radio telescope capability would have detected these changes. In particular, the Russians would certainly have monitored Apollo. Are we to believe the Russians would have kept silent about a faked mission? It wouldn't have been an issue of us discounting Soviet propaganda. If the Russians detected fakery they could simply have invited journalists and scientists to listen in on the next mission. It would have been their biggest propaganda strike ever. And then there are the British, the French, the Japanese, the Chinese ....

It's not just frequency shifts. A radio telescope is a precise pointing device. At all times the source of the signal would have to have mimicked the position of a spacecraft en route to, orbiting, or returning from the moon, and it would have to be consistent for radio telescopes anywhere on earth. If we can pull that off, why not send astronauts along for the ride?

The only way this could have worked is for the Russians to be in on it. Wouldn't you love to have eavesdropped on the Soviet end of the hot line when the deal went down?

Zdravstvuyte.
Yo, Tricky Dick! What up, ma man?
You're not going to the moon either? Bummer!
But you're going to fake it? And even though space is our big propaganda thing, and even though it's the only thing we ever beat you at, and even though it will look like capitalist science triumphs over socialist science, you want us to play along?
Hey, we're cool with that. Anything else?
Dismantle the Soviet Union? It'll take a while. How about we pencil it in for, say, 1991?
Da svedaniye.

Mike Dinn, of Canberra, Australia, wrote in to say:

Yours is the first I've seen which mentions that telemetry would have to have been faked in some complicated way, or alternatively radio telescopes would have picked up no signal, or one coming from earth orbit (somehow).

But there is an even stronger and more pertinent argument involving "telemetry". There was a world-wide tracking network providing communications to and from the various Apollo mission elements and although the people involved in doing this were indirectly paid by the project, they were not all US government employees or even citizens. So they would have had to have been part of the conspiracy or taken in by it.

And as I was the Australian citizen employed by the Australian government responsible for running the operations at the prime Australian tracking site here near Canberra I can vouch for the scientific/engineering fact that we pointed our antenna at the trajectory to, at and from the moon and transmitted and received radio signals containing commands, telemetry, television together with navigation info from antenna angles, Doppler frequencies and two way range delays. Impossible to fake. (quoted with permission)
I also suggest going to the site and reading the part "The Rocks". I believe I posted on this site ( couple of years ago?)  a list of geologists (seems like it was over a hundred) from all around the world all agreeing the samples they were given had to be brought from the moon, and that meteorites and manufactured rocks in no uncertain terms could not exhibit the same properties.

Edited by Gaden, 29 October 2012 - 07:18 PM.

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

#1294    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 29 October 2012 - 10:15 PM

View PostGaden, on 29 October 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

I feel quite certain that most, if not all here has read through this site;

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

I did years ago but did a rereading recently, lots of good stuff.

From the page:
My name is Robert A. Braeunig and I earned a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from the University of Cincinnati in 1981. My formal university education includes such subjects as Astronomy, Physics, Statics, Dynamics, Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, Soil Mechanics, Geology, Chemistry, Structural Analysis, and Electrical Networks. I have received training in the basics of Photography with emphasis on exposure control. I have been an avid amateur astronomer since 1989, having served as both president and vice-president of the Birmingham (Alabama) Astronomical Society. In additional to my formal training, I am self-taught in the basic principles of Orbital Mechanics and Rocket Propulsion. I am in no way affiliated with NASA or any of its subcontractors.
Why do people believe this stuff?

I am no psychologist, however I have seen and heard enough over the past years to recognize certain reoccurring personality traits in those professing to be hoax believers. Although there are varying degrees of each, I have come to categorize the hoax believers into two generalized types: the Confused and the Hardcore.

The Confused are average people who have seen or heard the claims of the hoax advocates on TV, the Internet, or from friends and associates. They usually lack the scientific knowledge or experience necessary to dispute the claims, so they begin to doubt the authenticity of the moon landings. Despite their doubts, these people tend to be open-minded and willing to listen to varying points of view. When giving the opportunity to study both sides of the argument, they usually agree the moon landings were real.

The Hardcore, on the other hand, are a completely different type of personality. They almost always exhibit strong paranoid tendencies with an extreme distrust and hatred of the U.S. government. Rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself, they will often begin by assuming a hoax and then search for evidence to support that preconception. When they see something that looks suspicious they immediately accept it as proof of their belief. When someone attempts to offer an alternate explanation they dismiss it as a NASA lie. Any evidence that contradicts their belief is described as an attempt by the government to deceive us. They will say that anyone who believes in the moon landings has been brainwashed or is in denial. They are usually argumentative and often hostile.

The Hardcore also tend to be completely close-minded, refusing to consider alternate possibilities. I have often debated with hardcore individuals over various hoax topics and, to date, I have always been able to completely discredit their claims with arguments that would more than satisfy any open-minded individual. However, they routinely refuse to acknowledge the possibility they could be in error. They will stubbornly cling to their belief in the hoax even when they have no creditable evidence to fall back on. The debate is clearly not just about evidence and physics; there are those who believe in the hoax merely because they want to believe it.

Why do some people choose to believe in the moon-landing hoax? I wish I could provide a definitive answer to that question, however I suspect it is a combination of paranoia and, perhaps more importantly, feelings of inadequacy. The hoax believers create a delusional fantasy in which they are the heroes. Their ability to decipher the subtle clues and uncover the hoax is seen as a demonstration of their intellectual superiority. To the hoax believers the more complex and convoluted the theory, the smarter they feel for having figured it all out. To the rest of us the theory just doesn't make any sense.

Many hoax believers are well meaning people who have been duped into believing the hoax theories by what they perceive to be compelling evidence. Although I may not agree with their views, I mean these people no malice. There are other hoax advocates, often representing themselves as experts, who publicly make claims based on erroneous conclusions resulting from a lack of proper research, scientific ignorance, or extreme prejudice. I find these people to be very dangerous because they possess the power to sway people into accepting their assertions as fact. A third possibility is that there are those who may believe the moon landings were real, but intentionally try to persuade people otherwise for some sort of attention, fame or profit. These people I believe are especially loathsome.

I apologise for such a lengthy post,I just thought these excerpts were particularly relevent and wanted to point to them. (paradraph #4 in particular.)

It's not bad.
Not at all.  In fact, I'd say this person has simply described exactly what we've always seen of these hoax believer type people.  Both types populate this thread.   They're both well described and both deserve to be banished.  Most either leave themselves, or get their threads closed or eventually get banned.

Interesting, and well put! :tu: :yes: :tu:


#1295    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,390 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 03 November 2012 - 02:19 AM

I vote Banning ! :clap:

This is a Work in Progress!

#1296    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 03 November 2012 - 03:15 AM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 28 October 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

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.

You think a moon hoax "doesn't hurt anybody"? Seriously?

It certainly hurts American taxpayers, who are fleeced out of billions of dollars on a hoax.

It hurts more as a betrayal of the public's trust, and 'national pride'.

It hurts all 'humanity', in a way.


#1297    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 03 November 2012 - 03:27 AM

View Postfrenat, on 28 October 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

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

What specific video(s) are you referring to here? Show your sources, please....

I'll gladly address it, after that.


#1298    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,953 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005

Posted 03 November 2012 - 03:38 AM

View Postturbonium, on 03 November 2012 - 03:27 AM, said:

What specific video(s) are you referring to here? Show your sources, please....

I'll gladly address it, after that.

Just pick one.  Nearly all of them have the astronauts responding to mission control.  But address it?  Sure you will. Just like you've addressed all your claims previously?  It is YOUR claim that they used wires, YOU need to prove it.  I won't be holding my breath though.  Keep up the humor Turb!

Edited by frenat, 03 November 2012 - 03:46 AM.

-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

#1299    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,372 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 03 November 2012 - 04:41 AM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 03 November 2012 - 02:19 AM, said:

I vote Banning ! :clap:

Isn't amazing that despite tons of evidence and the fact that countries around the world have confirmed the validity of the Apollo moon missions, there are still those who claim the Apollo moon missions were hoaxed and do so without evidence?

Quote

Tracking Apollo-17 from Florida

http://www.svengrahn...17/APOLLO17.htm


Edited by skyeagle409, 03 November 2012 - 05:15 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1300    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 03 November 2012 - 06:56 AM

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.

The photo was "misidentified" as genuine. It was a "mistake", as in the photo was 'mistaken' as genuine.

Just like I said - the photo fooled them.

You want to avoid the word 'fooled', but it still describes the very same thing.


We don't know exactly how long it managed to fool them, before Harland noticed it.

But we know that 24 years (or more) after the photo was taken, there was one person who wasn't fooled. This much is known.  

That's a period of 24+ years. Maybe it took a few minutes for Harland to notice it was a fake, but so what? Nobody else noticed it during the 24+ years.
  
NASA put the fake photo into the 'genuine' batch, and later on, sent the batch to the ALSJ. Sometime after that, Harland noticed the fake shot. NASA was fooled, since they put it in the batch. It fooled the ALSJ, save for one guy later on.

They are all fakes, and that's why it can fool all the 'experts' into believing it's genuine. It looks exactly like the other fakes do.


#1301    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 03 November 2012 - 07:51 AM

View Postfrenat, on 03 November 2012 - 03:38 AM, said:

Just pick one.  Nearly all of them have the astronauts responding to mission control.  But address it?  Sure you will. Just like you've addressed all your claims previously?  It is YOUR claim that they used wires, YOU need to prove it.  I won't be holding my breath though.  Keep up the humor Turb!

What video(s) indicates "real time" jumping, to be specific, thus making any edits impossible? To show a wire coudn't be edited in 'live' video..

Just tape the wired astronaut in a jump, and edit the wires out. Pretend it's 'live', 'real-time' video. Mention a current event to convince viewers iit is 'live' 'real-time' video!..

All the astronauts are 'faceless' anyway. Who knows if one is an actor with Armstorng's (live/taped) voice-over? It's so simple to fake all of this.


#1302    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 4,419 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010

Posted 03 November 2012 - 08:08 AM

View Postturbonium, on 03 November 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

It's so simple to fake all of this.


View Postturbonium, on 03 November 2012 - 07:51 AM, said:

What video(s) indicates "real time" jumping, to be specific, thus making any edits impossible? To show a wire coudn't be edited in 'live' video..

Just tape the wired astronaut in a jump, and edit the wires out. Pretend it's 'live', 'real-time' video. Mention a current event to convince viewers iit is 'live' 'real-time' video!..

All the astronauts are 'faceless' anyway. Who knows if one is an actor with Armstorng's (live/taped) voice-over? It's so simple to fake all of this.


You still haven't shown ANY evidence of wires.
I know you like to just say things and pretend that they're true, but i think you've show your lack of knowledge of Apollo to be complete at this point, Turbs.

"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


#1303    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,181 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007

Posted 03 November 2012 - 08:30 AM

View PostImaginarynumber1, on 03 November 2012 - 08:08 AM, said:

You still haven't shown ANY evidence of wires.
I know you like to just say things and pretend that they're true, but i think you've show your lack of knowledge of Apollo to be complete at this point, Turbs.

Personally, I'm fairly convinced that Turbs actually knows he's wrong, but is just too obstinate to admit it. He's built himself a huge wall of logical fallacies and hid behind it, wrapped up in this fantasy world he's created for himself and at this point, it is probably less embarrassing to continue on with the fantasy than to admit that he has no way to prove any of the things he's been claiming for so many years now.

Seriously... there's no way that someone could be as impervious to logic, as incapable of learning, as resistant to proven historical fact, as willing to fabricate facts and evidence to try and support his position, as intellectually dishonest and as willfully ignorant as Turbs has shown himself to be year in and year out and yet still be able to function in any meaningful way  modern society, imo...








Cz

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien

"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

#1304    Imaginarynumber1

Imaginarynumber1

    I am not an irrational number

  • Member
  • 4,419 posts
  • Joined:22 Mar 2010

Posted 03 November 2012 - 08:39 AM

View PostCzero 101, on 03 November 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

Personally, I'm fairly convinced that Turbs actually knows he's wrong, but is just too obstinate to admit it. He's built himself a huge wall of logical fallacies and hid behind it, wrapped up in this fantasy world he's created for himself and at this point, it is probably less embarrassing to continue on with the fantasy than to admit that he has no way to prove any of the things he's been claiming for so many years now.

Seriously... there's no way that someone could be as impervious to logic, as incapable of learning, as resistant to proven historical fact, as willing to fabricate facts and evidence to try and support his position, as intellectually dishonest and as willfully ignorant as Turbs has shown himself to be year in and year out and yet still be able to function in any meaningful way  modern society, imo...








Cz

I could not agree more. I've been following this thread since way back on page 600 something of the last thread.
His "logic" is laughable, his "claims" are pathetic, and he never responds to the things that conclusively prove him wrong.
He HAS to know he's wrong and just won't admit it. No one can be that dense.

"A cat has nine lives. For three he plays, for three he strays, and for the last three he stays."


July 17th, 2008 (Full moon the next night)

RAPTORS! http://www.unexplain...pic=233151&st=0


#1305    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,097 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 03 November 2012 - 11:20 AM

View Postturbonium, on 03 November 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

We don't know exactly how long it managed to fool them, before Harland noticed it.

But we know that 24 years (or more) after the photo was taken, there was one person who wasn't fooled. This much is known.  

That's a period of 24+ years. Maybe it took a few minutes for Harland to notice it was a fake, but so what? Nobody else noticed it during the 24+ years.
Illogical nonsense. We don't know when the image was misidentified, you admit that in the first line I have quoted. Given that you can't possibly make the claim you have in the last line I have quoted. All we know is that at sometime unknown an image was misidentified, we don't know when, where or by whom.


Once we strip away your supposition the only facts that are certain are that a photograph that was misidentified as being of the lunar surface when it wasn't was correctly identified when seen by a space historian. The only facts do not support your claim that it would be possible for experts to be fooled by fake photographs. The only known time this happened the photograph did not fool an expert... and it only takes one.

So where are the experts saying that the rest of the Apollo orbital images are fake? Harland has shown that experts wouldn't keep their mouths shut and would be honest.

I have been to a meeting of the Lunar Section of the British Astronomical Association. The room was filled with dozens and dozens of experts on the lunar surface. There are astronomical societies like this all around the world. These are people that know the surface of the moon better than you know your neighbourhood, many thousands of experts NASA would have to fool with every single image for decade after decade. How are all of them being fooled for so long? It makes no sense to a rational mind.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 03 November 2012 - 11:47 AM.
several typos

"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