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.


* * * - - 20 votes

Did we land on the moon?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
14134 replies to this topic

#13906    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,620 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007

Posted 08 April 2012 - 02:45 PM

View Postturbonium, on 08 April 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

The document was written in Nov. 1971.


And once again, Turbs, if you had been paying attention to what has been presented to you, or if you had actually been doing the necessary research and following the references, you would find that the information comes from this 1966 report

NASA - Bioenergetics of Space Suits for Lunar Exploration.

Which itself references a 1963 series of tests done on the pre-prototype Apollo suit:

Quote

METABOLIC COST OF WALKING IN SPACE SUITS

Let us now return to the actual metabolic cost of locomotion in current space-suit assemblies. In the spring of 1963 the AiResearch Manufacturing Division of the Garrett Corporation compared the effects of unpressurized and pressurized suits on metabolic requirements of walking. The pre-prototype suit being developed by the International Latex Corporation for the Apollo mission was used. The data to be presented were communicated by Wortz of the AiResearch Manufacturing Division.

Is it sinking in yet, Turbs...?

Quote

That is, written AFTER Apollo 11 - 15.

The Apollo spacesuits already existed in final version, and had been used on several Apollo missions.

Apollo prototype suits make no sense, if they already had an improved version, a 'proven' success...

Those tests were done in 1963, BEFORE THE FIRST UNMANNED GEMINI MISSION WAS LAUNCHED.

Whether the report you're quoting was written in 1971, 1984 or yesterday does not make any difference to that fact that the data being referred to was produced in 1963 from a suit that bears only a superficial semblance to the production model A7L suit that was used on the Moon.

This is why your document does not support your argument.

This is why you have failed once again to prove anything but your general incompetence at doing even the simplest research.

Quote

Simple logic, yes?
Yes, it is quite simple. Unfortunately you have still failed to grasp it.




Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 08 April 2012 - 02:56 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

#13907    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 08 April 2012 - 08:36 PM

View Postturbonium, on 08 April 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

You assume it's pressurized. It is a personal opinion

Where did you get that idea? Another misconception on your part.

Quote

You have no evidence.

Folks here have presented tons of evidence, which you have been ignoring.

Quote

Therefore, you are the one who is wasting people's time.

On the contrary, your claim of an Apollo moon hoax and no evidence to back it up proves beyond any doubt that it is you who is wasting people's time and you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence of an Apollo moon hoax. Did you really think that we would spend billions of dollars to fly all of those Saturn rockets in a program that involved thousands of people just for show when it would have been far easier and cheaper to simply say we couldn't do it? As hstory has shown, we sent men to the moon.


Quote

Observers of all missionsThe Soviet Union monitored the missions at the Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment". Vasily Mishin ("The Moon Programme That Faltered."), in Spaceflight. 33 (March 1991), pages 23 describes how the Soviet Moon programme lost energy after the Apollo landing.

The Soviet Union would have had the most to gain from exposing the hoax. With   their involvement in the space race, they would be the best qualified to spot   any cheating going on. Why then, with more motivation than anyone to expose   a hoax, did they remain silent? The truth is that the USSR tracked the Americans   all the way to the Moon and back. They had no doubt that the mission was successful.

My link

The missions were tracked by radar from several countries on the way to the Moon and back.


New lunar missions

Posted ImageApollo 11 landing site photographed by LROPost-Apollo lunar exploration missions have located and imaged artifacts of the Apollo program remaining on the Moon's surface.

Images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission beginning in July 2009 show the six Apollo Lunar Module descent stages, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP) science experiments, astronaut footpaths, and lunar rover tire tracks. These images are the most effective proof to date to rebut the "landing hoax" theories

Posted Image

Posted Image


Posted Image

Apollo 15 ascent photo



Posted Image     Posted Image     Posted Image


The light-coloured area of blown lunar surface dust created by the lunar module engine blast at the Apollo 15 landing site was photographed and confirmed by comparative analysis of photographs in May 2008. They correspond well to photographs taken from the Apollo 15 Command Module showing a change in surface reflectivity due to the plume. This was the first visible trace of manned landings on the Moon seen from space since the close of the Apollo Program.

My link


Just goes to show that your moon hoax claim crashed and burned.




KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#13908    Wandering

Wandering

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2010

Posted 09 April 2012 - 11:59 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 April 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:


On the contrary, your claim of an Apollo moon hoax and no evidence to back it up proves beyond any doubt that it is you who is wasting people's time and you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence of an Apollo moon hoax. Did you really think that we would spend billions of dollars to fly all of those Saturn rockets in a program that involved thousands of people just for show when it would have been far easier and cheaper to simply say we couldn't do it? As hstory has shown, we sent men to the moon.




Hey Moon crazies, I really have nothing new to add to this that has not been discussed several times already. I did feel when I read this I had to say something though...

Sky, you know what I think of you...It doesn't help your case when you say things like what I have highlighted in bold.


No country wants to admit they "couldn't do it" and that is reason enough for some to attempt fakery...



Now believe me, I'm not arguing against the moon landings being real as I'm of the opinion they are... It just doesn't help your case in this thread, or others when you say things like that....Things that fly in the face of what history has shown. Is there any examples where a country has been in competition/race and just come straight out with a 'oh well we can't do it you guys win!'....


=/


I hope you take this as a friendly reminder in the spirit it was intended and not a go at you. I'm sure if you think about it you will understand what I mean.

Edited by Wandering, 09 April 2012 - 12:09 PM.


#13909    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 09 April 2012 - 05:24 PM

View PostWandering, on 09 April 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:


No country wants to admit they "couldn't do it" and that is reason enough for some to attempt fakery...

I expected men to walk on Mars by the end of the 1980s, but we didn't spend billions of dollars to hoax Mars missions. If NASA was unable to send the moon by 1969, then all they had to do was to explain why and then explain that there will be a delay in sending a man to the moon until the problem is worked out. Instead to spending billions of dollars to hoax moon missions, use the money to solve the problem.

It is inconceivable to think that we would have spent billions of dollars to launch Saturn rockets in order to hoax Apollo moon missions when it would have been very easy to expose a moon hoax and if exposed, how would that make us look in the eyes of the world? The Soviet Union had the means to expose a hoaxed moon mission and considering our relations during the Cold War, they would have instantly exposed a moon hoax to the whole world.

How would the U.S. government explain to American citizens that one of the reasons they paid billions of dollars in taxes is because we used some of their hard-earned tax dollars to hoax Apollo moon missions? That would not be good for government officials seeking reelection in Washington D.C. The best thing elected officials could have done at that point would be to seek asylum in another country because they would be considered dead meat here.




KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#13910    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,222 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 09 April 2012 - 10:42 PM

View PostWandering, on 09 April 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

I'm sure if you think about it you will understand what I mean.
Actually, if YOU thought about it I'm sure you would understand why your argument is nonsense.

At the time of Apollo the USA and the Soviet Union were in a genuine race to the moon. The USA had pulled ahead but the USSR had a manned lunar problem of its own. The Soviets did not make their programme public and later denied it had ever existed, but it was well known about in the West. This Soviet manned lunar programme was not abandoned until 1974, two years after the Apollo lunar missions ended.

The USA and NASA could not have known that the Soviet programme would end without a hammer & sickle flag been planted on the moon. Had the Soviets persisted they would eventually have succeeded. They would have had the ability to show that Apollo was a fake.

The main reason for the race to the moon was propaganda, to show that capitalism was better than communism or vice versa. If the USA had been caught lying it would have destroyed their credibility. The risk of being uncovered simply outweighs any benefits that faking Apollo would have gained by such a huge margin that it simply makes no sense.

Indeed it did not even need a manned Soviet success for my argument to remain true. The Soviets developed the unmanned Lunokhod rivers and landed two of them on the moon. These could easily have been used to explore the Apollo landing sites and reveal a fake. Again, the US could not have known that the Soviet Union would not do something like this.

The chances of the USA getting caught faking Apollo were so high that it would have been crazy to try it.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 09 April 2012 - 10:43 PM.
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

#13911    Gaden

Gaden

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,125 posts
  • Joined:17 Sep 2010

Posted 09 April 2012 - 11:28 PM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 09 April 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

...At the time of Apollo the USA and the Soviet Union were in a genuine race to the moon. ...The chances of the USA getting caught faking Apollo were so high that it would have been crazy to try it.

Well put, Waspie_Dwarf, the entire post is full of logical thinking, and reasons there was no hoax. I don't believe any more can be said.

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

#13912    Wandering

Wandering

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Joined:19 Jun 2010

Posted 09 April 2012 - 11:35 PM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 09 April 2012 - 10:42 PM, said:

Actually, if YOU thought about it I'm sure you would understand why your argument is nonsense.

At the time of Apollo the USA and the Soviet Union were in a genuine race to the moon. The USA had pulled ahead but the USSR had a manned lunar problem of its own. The Soviets did not make their programme public and later denied it had ever existed, but it was well known about in the West. This Soviet manned lunar programme was not abandoned until 1974, two years after the Apollo lunar missions ended.

The USA and NASA could not have known that the Soviet programme would end without a hammer & sickle flag been planted on the moon. Had the Soviets persisted they would eventually have succeeded. They would have had the ability to show that Apollo was a fake.

The main reason for the race to the moon was propaganda, to show that capitalism was better than communism or vice versa. If the USA had been caught lying it would have destroyed their credibility. The risk of being uncovered simply outweighs any benefits that faking Apollo would have gained by such a huge margin that it simply makes no sense.

Indeed it did not even need a manned Soviet success for my argument to remain true. The Soviets developed the unmanned Lunokhod rivers and landed two of them on the moon. These could easily have been used to explore the Apollo landing sites and reveal a fake. Again, the US could not have known that the Soviet Union would not do something like this.

The chances of the USA getting caught faking Apollo were so high that it would have been crazy to try it.


That's nice but I didn't suggest they faked it. I quite clearly said I thought they were real.

I suggested that there was no way the US of A was going to openly admit they "couldn't do it".



Do you think they would openly come out and tell the world "we can't do it"?


#13913    mrbusdriver

mrbusdriver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,661 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2007

Posted 10 April 2012 - 01:25 AM

What sort of completely insurrmountable problem would have demanded such an "it's impossible" determination, announced or otherwise? What issue, given appropriate funding and brainpower, could not be solved and overcome?

They had determined that it was "possible" before Kennedy made his Rice University speech. They just needed to solve the problems and make it all happen, which became a significant national priority.


#13914    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,222 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 10 April 2012 - 01:39 AM

View PostWandering, on 09 April 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

That's nice but I didn't suggest they faked it. I quite clearly said I thought they were real.

I suggested that there was no way the US of A was going to openly admit they "couldn't do

I fully understood the point you were making, which is why I fully understand why it is nonsense.

I thought my point was simple enough, but clearly not, so I'll simplify it for you.

1) The USA could not have known that they could have got away with faking the Apollo landings.

2) The consequences of being caught faking the Apollo landings would be far more detrimental to the USA than failing to make the landings.

3) Given 1 and 2 it would be in the USAs interest to admit failure rather than being caught lying.

View PostWandering, on 09 April 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

Do you think they would openly come out and tell the world "we can't do it"?
If you have managed to understand the simplified version of my argument my answer should be self evident.

Given the facts, the real question is do you still believe that the US government would lie about something that (despite what the hoax believers would claim) they could not possibly cover up.

If you knew much about the history of the space race you would understand that your hypothetical situation simply does not come into play anyway. Kennedy chose to go to the moon precisely BECAUSE the scientists and engineers at NASA already knew they could achieve it. The only real question was whether they could do it before the Soviet Union.

"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

#13915    Conspiracy_Fogle

Conspiracy_Fogle

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 13 posts
  • Joined:12 Mar 2010

Posted 10 April 2012 - 02:50 PM

As of today, mankind still cannot leave the Earths outer atmosphere. The subatomic particles and solar radiation in space is lethal.

"It is well enough that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." "The one aim of these financiers is world control by the creation of inextinguishable debts." - Henry Ford

#13916    mrbusdriver

mrbusdriver

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,661 posts
  • Joined:19 Dec 2007

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:33 PM

View PostConspiracy_Fogle, on 10 April 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

As of today, mankind still cannot leave the Earths outer atmosphere. The subatomic particles and solar radiation in space is lethal.

...unless you're protected...

There are plenty of "lethal" things we routinely deal with on a daily basis, and they don't automatically mean our demise.


#13917    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 10 April 2012 - 09:43 PM

View PostConspiracy_Fogle, on 10 April 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

As of today, mankind still cannot leave the Earths outer atmosphere. The subatomic particles and solar radiation in space is lethal.


Solar, Van Allen, and other particle radiation has never been lethal to a human in cis-lunar space, and shall not be in the future.
The misunderstood dangers of radiation neither prevented us from traveling to the Moon in 1968 (and from 69 through 72, nor shall it prevent a man from doing so again.


A well shielded spacecraft will be required...kind of like the one we had back then!


#13918    rambaldi

rambaldi

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 316 posts
  • Joined:20 Dec 2007

Posted 11 April 2012 - 01:54 PM

View PostConspiracy_Fogle, on 10 April 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

The subatomic particles and solar radiation in space is lethal.

Wow, thanks for telling us. We would have never thought about that.

Seriously, you Moonhoaxers need at least to try to act like you are interested in a debate.


#13919    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 11 April 2012 - 05:59 PM

View PostConspiracy_Fogle, on 10 April 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

As of today, mankind still cannot leave the Earths outer atmosphere.

Ever thought why some people have been awarded astronaut wings?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#13920    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010

Posted 12 April 2012 - 03:08 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 11 April 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

Ever thought why some people have been awarded astronaut wings?
Red Bull?

:P