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This topic has been archived.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

#1816    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,691 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 06 April 2013 - 08:59 AM

View Postredsquare, on 03 April 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

aww cool :tsu: I have a lot of respect for your friend. And on a side note who or what is donteatus ?

Donteatus is a friend of mine who lives in Texas. I invited him to meet with the Colonel during my Tuskegee Airmen exhibition on the USS Lexington in Corpus Christi, which was televised by the local news channels and in the newspaper. The Colonel has photos of the Apollo 14 astronauts in his hangar and is proud to have been a member on the Apollo 14 recovery crew.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1817    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 06 April 2013 - 09:00 AM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 01 April 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

If something is accepted as true it is because it has passed the tests set of it. It has no burden of proof as it has already been accepted as true. To the vast majority of the population of the planet and to the official ratifying body Apollo is true. NASA do not need to prove anything to them as it is "accepted" that they have already proven their case.

It was also accepted as true that the Earth was the center of our solar sytem. It "passed the tests set of it", as well.

Now do you understand the flaw in your argument?

Accepting something as 'true' doesn't necessarily mean it IS true.

This is why it has the burden of proof. Like Apollo does.

Apollo didn't meet the burden of proof whatsoever. It was seen on TV, and people just accepted it as 'true'.... !

So...


#1818    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,691 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 06 April 2013 - 09:02 AM

China publishes high-resolution full moon map

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.

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


Edited by skyeagle409, 06 April 2013 - 09:49 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1819    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,691 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 06 April 2013 - 09:17 AM

View Postturbonium, on 06 April 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

It was also accepted as true that the Earth was the center of our solar sytem. It "passed the tests set of it", as well.

And, there were those who have said the earth was flat. In both cases, they were wrong, which placed them in the same boat as the Apollo moon hoax folks.

Quote

Accepting something as 'true' doesn't necessarily mean it IS true.

Are you accusing a number of countries around the world of lying because they have confirmed the reality of the Apollo moon missions?

Quote

The Bochum Radio Observatory, Germany


In the 1957 – 1975 period, the 20 metre parabolic antenna of the Bochum Observatory in (the then) West Germany was often in the news as it received transmissions from Russian and American space vehicles. The Director at the time, Professor Heinz Kaminski, was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and US space agencies.


During the later Apollo missions, the observatory received and recorded some of the Field Sequential Color TV transmissions from the Lunar Rovers on the Moon, as well as biomedical data and voice.


http://www.honeysuck...chum/index.html

With tracking stations around the world, there was no way the United States could have pulled off hoaxed Apollo moon missions and get away with it.

Edited by skyeagle409, 06 April 2013 - 09:34 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1820    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 06 April 2013 - 09:34 AM

It may come as a shock to you, but governments have been known to lie at times!!

A bit sad, isn't it?


#1821    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,691 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 06 April 2013 - 09:37 AM

View Postturbonium, on 06 April 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

It may come as a shock to you, but governments have been known to lie at times!!

The Apollo moon missions have been proven beyond any doubt and Apollo landing sites have been photographed.

Quote

Apollo 14

Apollo 14 was the eighth manned mission in the United States Apollo program, and the third to land on the Moon. It was the last of the "H missions", targeted landings with two-day stays on the Moon with two lunar EVAs, or moonwalks.

Commander Alan Shepard, Command Module Pilot Stuart Roosa, and Lunar Module Pilot Edgar Mitchell launched on their nine-day mission on January 31, 1971 at 4:04:02 pm local time after a 40 minute, 2 second delay due to launch site weather restrictions, the first such delay in the Apollo program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_14


My flying buddy was on the Apollo 14 recovery crew, which originated from my base in California.

Attached Files


Edited by skyeagle409, 06 April 2013 - 09:46 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1822    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 06 April 2013 - 09:58 AM

Do you think those are the best images we're able to get of the (supposed) Apollo landing sites?

Think again.

Satellites can image a car on Earth, through our atmosphere, so the moon is actually easier.


#1823    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 06 April 2013 - 10:45 AM

Before the Apollo program, Van Allen said the Belts were a serious hazard for humans, and a spaceship would need a shield so thick it would be too heavy to lift off.

The Apollo program started, and the Belts were not a problem anymore.

Over 40 years later, we spend a fortune to study the Belts with two probes.


Before Apollo began, Von Braun said we'd need to put a fueling station in Earth orbit, in order to get a spaceship to the moon. It would take two or more rockets for it to work.

Apollo came along, no fueling station was needed, and one rocket worked out just dandy

Over 40 years later, we do need a fueling station, and at least two rockets.


See a pattern?


#1824    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,691 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 06 April 2013 - 06:26 PM

View Postturbonium, on 06 April 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

Do you think those are the best images we're able to get of the (supposed) Apollo landing sites?

Yes indeed, and once again, you have been proven wrong.

Quote

Before Apollo began, Von Braun said we'd need to put a fueling station in Earth orbit, in order to get a spaceship to the moon. It would take two or more rockets for it to work.

How many refueling stops between Earth and Mars were required to send the Viking spacecraft to Mars?

Edited by skyeagle409, 06 April 2013 - 06:52 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1825    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,691 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 06 April 2013 - 06:46 PM

View Postturbonium, on 06 April 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

Before the Apollo program, Van Allen said the Belts were a serious hazard for humans and a spaceship would need a shield so thick it would be too heavy to lift off.

Don't forget to wear your lead jacket during my next chest X-ray at the hospital.

Quote

The Apollo program started, and the Belts were not a problem anymore.

Quote

Doug Millard

"You can pass through quite safely as long as you don't linger too long,"

Doug Millard at the Science Museum in London.

---------------------------------------------

Apollo Moon Missions Through the Van Allen Belts

The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners. The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. The command module's inner structure was an aluminum "sandwich" consisting of a welded aluminium inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminium "face sheet". The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were thermally bonded to the inner skin.


Radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 through 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. One small event was detected by a radiation sensor outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose to the crewmen inside the spacecraft was detected. Solar-particle releases are random events, and it is possible that flares, with the accompanying energetic nuclear particles, might hinder future flights beyond the magnetosphere of the Earth.

Radiation protection for the Apollo Program was focused on both the peculiarities of the natural space radiation environment and the increased prevalence of manmade radiation sources on the ground and onboard the spacecraft. Radiation-exposure risks to crewmen were assessed and balanced against mission gain to determine mission constraints. Operational radiation evaluation required specially designed radiation-detection systems onboard the spacecraft in addition to the use of satellite data, solar observatory support, and other liaison. Control and management of radioactive sources and radiation-generating equipment was important in minimizing radiation exposure of ground-support personnel, researchers, and the Apollo flight and backup crewmen.  

http://lsda.jsc.nasa...pollo/S2ch3.htm


----------------------------------------------------------------------

!



Van Allen Belts

The figure below, produced by scientists from the NASA, CRRES satellite, shows the radiation dosages at various locations within the belts.

Posted Image


1. The speed of the spacecraft will be about 25,000 km/hour. If the spacecraft travels along the indicated path, how long, in minutes, will it spend in the Blue, Green, Yellow, Orange and Red regions?

Note: transit estimates may vary depending on how accurately students measure figure.
Blue: 1.8 Re x (6378 km/Re) x (1 hour/25,000 km) x (60 minutes/1 hour) = 27.6 minutes
Yellow: (1.4 x 6378) /25,000 x 60 = 6.1 minutes
Orange: (1.0 x 6378) / 25,000 x 60 = 15.3 minutes
Green: (0.25 x 6378)/25,000 x 60 = 3.8 minutes
Red: 0 minutes
Total transit time……………………… 52.8 minutes


2. Given the indicated radiation dosages in Rads/sec for each zone, what will be the dosages that the astronauts receive in each zone?
Blue: = 27.6 minutes x ( 60 sec/ 1 minute) x (0.0001 Rads/sec) = 0.17 Rads
Yellow = 6.1 minutes x 60 sec/minute x 0.005 rads/sec = 1.83 Rads
Orange = 15.3 minutes x (60 sec/minute) x 0.01 rads/sec = 9.18 Rads
Green = 3.8 minutes x (60 sec/minute) x 0.001 rads/sec = 0.23 Rads

3. What will be the total radiation dosage in Rads for the transit through the belts?
0.17 + 1.83 + 9.18 + 0.23 = 11.4 Rads

4. According to radiation dosimeters carried by Apollo astronauts, their total dosage for the entire trip to the moon and return was not more than 2 Rads over 6 days.
The total dosage for the trip is only 11.4 Rads in 52.8 minutes. Because 52.8 minutes is equal to 0.88 hours, his is equal to a dosage of 11.4 Rads / 0.88 hours = 13


http://www.braeunig....pollo11-TLI.htm



It is apparent that you were unaware of the rest of the story regarding how astronauts transverse the Van Allen belts and remember that the next time  you take your next chest X-ray.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1826    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,691 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 06 April 2013 - 06:56 PM

View Postturbonium, on 06 April 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

Satellites can image a car on Earth, through our atmosphere, so the moon is actually easier.

Okay, so here you go.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1827    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,090 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005

Posted 06 April 2013 - 09:07 PM

View Postturbonium, on 06 April 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

Before the Apollo program, Van Allen said the Belts were a serious hazard for humans, and a spaceship would need a shield so thick it would be too heavy to lift off.
Citation please

View Postturbonium, on 06 April 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

The Apollo program started, and the Belts were not a problem anymore.
They went around the majority of them through the thinnest outer edges.  They are BELTS and not spheres after all.

View Postturbonium, on 06 April 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

Over 40 years later, we spend a fortune to study the Belts with two probes.
How DARE we try to understand them more!  The nerve!  Gee, you think if they want to travel back and forth more often that a better understanding might be nice to more trajectories could be plotted?  Or they could go deeper into the thick parts?  The trajectories used for Apollo won't work every day of the month.

View Postturbonium, on 06 April 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

Before Apollo began, Von Braun said we'd need to put a fueling station in Earth orbit, in order to get a spaceship to the moon. It would take two or more rockets for it to work.
Von Braun was assuming the direct ascent method which requires a bigger rocket.  We used the lunar orbit rendezvous method instead.

View Postturbonium, on 06 April 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

Apollo came along, no fueling station was needed, and one rocket worked out just dandy
And every engineer that actually understands it agrees.  The math works.

View Postturbonium, on 06 April 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

Over 40 years later, we do need a fueling station, and at least two rockets.
We want to stay longer with more people.  Gee, maybe we need to bring more stuff with us, you think?

View Postturbonium, on 06 April 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

See a pattern?
Yes, you have failed yet again.

-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

#1828    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,352 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007

Posted 06 April 2013 - 09:49 PM

View Postfrenat, on 06 April 2013 - 09:07 PM, said:

View Postturbonium, on 06 April 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

Before Apollo began, Von Braun said we'd need to put a fueling station in Earth orbit, in order to get a spaceship to the moon. It would take two or more rockets for it to work.

Von Braun was assuming the direct ascent method which requires a bigger rocket.  We used the lunar orbit rendezvous method instead.

View Postturbonium, on 06 April 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

Apollo came along, no fueling station was needed, and one rocket worked out just dandy

And every engineer that actually understands it agrees.  The math works.


Lets not forget that the Saturn V, launch vehicle, while a single vehicle, was still made up of 3 separate rockets... they just called them stages.

1 rocket / stage to get them off the ground and part of the way to orbit
1 rocket / stage to get the rest of the way into orbit
1 rocket / stage to get them in to parking orbit then to put them on a course for the Moon.

How does that set up contradict what Von Braun originally theorized? Even if Direct Ascent was not used, they still needed multiple rockets to get them to the Moon.


So once again, Turbs proves he has virtually no understanding of this topic and is dead set and determined to stay ignorant, no matter how foolish he makes himself look in the process...






Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 06 April 2013 - 09:51 PM.

"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
"I'm tired of ignorance held up as inspiration, where vicious anti-intellectualism is considered a positive trait, and where uninformed opinion is displayed as fact." - Phil Plait
"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

#1829    Halcyon Dayz

Halcyon Dayz

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 53 posts
  • Joined:28 Apr 2010

Posted 06 April 2013 - 10:53 PM

View Postturbonium, on 06 April 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

It may come as a shock to you, but governments have been known to lie at times!!
This is a fallacious ad hominem argument.

You have accused them of lying about this.
You have failed to present valid evidence in support of your accusation.
You should retract your accusation.

An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. - Don Marquis

#1830    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,457 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 06 April 2013 - 11:16 PM

View Postturbonium, on 06 April 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

It was also accepted as true that the Earth was the center of our solar sytem. It "passed the tests set of it", as well.

Now do you understand the flaw in your argument?
No but I can see see the flaw in yours. That you can't is amazing to me, how can anyone have something explained to them that many times and still not get it? I find it hard to believe that anyone can really be THAT stupid, in which case your failure to accept the burden of proof is deliberate. I repeat what I said earlier, the only reason for not accepting the burden of proof is that you know you can't meet it.


Read this VERY slowly.
When the geocentric view of the universe was the ACCEPTED truth it had NO burden of proof, it was considered proven (that it was wrong is irrelevant, that it was accepted as true IS relevant). The new hypothesis, the heliocentric view DID have the burden of proof (again that it was true is irrelevant, that it was not, at that point, accepted as true IS relevant).

Since the evidence supported the heliocentric view it replaced the geocentric as the ACCEPTED truth. As such the heliocentric view no longer has the burden of proof. Anyone that NOW claims that the Earth is the centre of the solar system WOULD have the entire burden of proof.

It's really not difficult. Read it again and again, it might sink in eventually. When it does progress to this next part.

Apollo IS the ACCEPTED truth so, just like the heliocentric view of the solar system, or the world being spherical, or the sky being blue it has NO BURDEN OF PROOF (as with the geo/heliocentric models of the solar system whether it is ACTUALLY true is not relevant, that it is accepted as true is).

The Apollo Hoax theory IS NOT the ACCEPTED truth therefore it HAS the entire burden of proof.

See how it works:
Accepted = no burden
Not accepted = all the burden.

The world is a sphere = no burden
The world is flat = all the burden

The sky is blue = no burden
The sky is green = all the burden

Apollo was real = no burden
Apollo was faked = all the burden.


View Postturbonium, on 06 April 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

Accepting something as 'true' doesn't necessarily mean it IS true.
Yes, you already said that:

View Postturbonium, on 29 March 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

It doesn't prove Apollo - just because it's accepted as 'truth', (or mostly is), does not make it the truth.
This was my answer:

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 01 April 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

And he's back. I wondered how long before you resorted to dishonest tactics. Here we have a straw man argument. I didn't say that because it was the accepted truth it must be the truth? Why do you think I used the word accepted?
If you'd like to point out which part of that you didn't understand I'll rephrase it in simpler form for you.

Your own example (which like so much of what you post proves you wrong if only you could understand it) shows that the accepted truth is changeable. We humans are not gods. We don't know everything absolutely. Science accepts this. It doesn't claim to know absolutely what is true, only what has the most supporting evidence. That which is best supported by the evidence is accepted as true unless or until evidence comes along that overturns the accepted view.

You have failed spectacularly to provide any such evidence. I challenge you again, if you genuinely believe the evidence supports your case then send it to the FIA in Paris. You and I both know you wont be doing that.

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 01 April 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

This is why it has the burden of proof. Like Apollo does.
Wrong as usual. The geocentric view has a burden of proof because it is not accepted. Apollo is accepted. Can you grasp the difference between "not accepted" and "accepted"? In this respect Apollo has the same burden of proof as the heliocentric view, NONE.

If science worked the way YOU think it should (it is logical, rational and evidence based so it most certainly doesn't) then EVERYTHING would have the burden of proof all of the time. If just one person claimed that the sky was green then science would have to prove it wasn't. More over it would have to do this again and again every time another nutter came along. This is (to any rational person) clearly a nonsense. This is why the ACCEPTED truth does not and should not have the burden of proof. There would be no progress, nothing would ever be considered true and superstitious nonsense would reign supreme.

There can be NO exceptions to this. It applies to all circumstances equally. Now that proves inconvenient to those with a belief and bugger all evidence (like those that believe the world to be flat, the sky to be green or that Apollo was faked) but that is how it is.

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 01 April 2013 - 04:39 PM, said:

Apollo didn't meet the burden of proof whatsoever. It was seen on TV, and people just accepted it as 'true'.... !
If you would just turn your ego down and your IQ up you would see this is just your opinion. Your opinion counts for nothing. You don't get to decide for everyone else whether Apollo was true or not (unless you are a member of the FAI). My opinion counts for nothing either. The opinion of the FAI DOES count. They do get to say whether Apollo passed it's burden of proof, and in 1969 they accepted it. Apollo will remain officially accepted unless enough evidence is produced to overturn their decision. So it's not just a mater of formal logic, but it is a reality that the burden of proof lies with you.

Keep reading this until you understand it. Try looking up burden of proof on other sites, read those until you understand it. Alternatively keep posting nonsense and looking ignorant and foolish. Your choice.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 07 April 2013 - 01:22 AM.
several typos corrected and additions made.

"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