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This topic has been archived.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

#1666    monk 56

monk 56

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2012

Posted 17 February 2013 - 02:12 AM

Hi Skyeagle 409,

Hell i can't believe this stupid thread still exists!

Okay i look for pagan stuff throughout history and do a good job at it, but it is confusing so i don't make a judgement, who can with religion? I may be a sucker for my Greek Myths but i'm a serious astronomer, all this moon stuff winds me up, i and other astronomers have for 40 years been bouncing off a reflector by lazer that the very early astronauts left there, this thread is crazy!!!

http://www.guardian....e-laser-funding


#1667    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,685 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006

Posted 17 February 2013 - 03:01 AM

It's funny but I don't consider the LRRRs to be proof. Yes, they prove that we have sent machines to the Moon but they don't prove - in isolation - that we sent men to the Moon; they could have been placed there roboticly. they certainly support that we have walked on the Moon when it is teamed up with all the other evidence but by itself, no.


#1668    monk 56

monk 56

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2012

Posted 17 February 2013 - 03:33 AM

Hi Obviousman,

Have you any idea how puny our robotics were to land on the Moon compared to today? Obviously you know about now, because you are using it, be real Asimo and artificial intelligence was science fiction 40 years ago....but i still think Asimo is cute don't you?



I like him as long as he doesn't get Arnold red eyes Ha Ha!  I'll be back!


#1669    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,259 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007

Posted 17 February 2013 - 05:41 AM

View Postmonk 56, on 17 February 2013 - 03:33 AM, said:

Hi Obviousman,

Have you any idea how puny our robotics were to land on the Moon compared to today? Obviously you know about now, because you are using it, be real Asimo and artificial intelligence was science fiction 40 years ago....but i still think Asimo is cute don't you?



I like him as long as he doesn't get Arnold red eyes Ha Ha!  I'll be back!

I don't mean to speak for O-man since he is more than capable of addressing this issue on his own... however, I think you have misconstrued the intent of his post.

The presence of the LRRR's on the Moon by themselves (which is what he means by "in isolation") do not explicitly provide proof that Man was ever on the Moon.

The Russian Lunokhod rovers both had Retro-reflectors on them as well and, even though they can both be "ranged" to this day, they were still robotic rovers and were controlled.from the Earth..

So, from a conspiracy theorist standpoint, that fact means that the mere presence of the LRRR's at the Apollo sites do not by themselves provide absolute proof that Man was ever there.

They do, however, provide supporting evidence for the Apollo missions.






Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 17 February 2013 - 05:42 AM.

"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

"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

#1670    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,782 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 17 February 2013 - 05:42 AM

I hear you MONK ! I too wonder where the I.Q `s  are in this thread ?
It gets quite old to think that anyone even thinks that we didnt Go to the Moon 6 Times ! Even !

This is a Work in Progress!

#1671    postbaguk

postbaguk

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 995 posts
  • Joined:17 Aug 2006

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:45 AM

View Postturbonium, on 09 February 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

The first clip has been discussed - and I'm still waiting for your "easy peasy" demonstration to support your argument.

This whole discussion is about whether Armstrong's suit could reflect bright sunlight onto a reflective surface and back into a camera from a distance of several feet. You haven't offered a shred of evidence to support your claim that this is impossible. Plenty of evidence has been presented that should at least make you think, "Uh, oh, looks like I might have dropped the ball here. I'll just concede the point and move on". Where's your evidence Turbs? Or is your opinion based on blind faith?

Quote

Second clip - are you referring to the white bag's reflection in the ladder's side, at the 1:11 mark? (Sidenote: in video clips, could you please use specific time markers (ie: 1:11), instead of percentages? Thanks.) Anyway - the clip shows a white material reflecting ong class='bbc'>at close rangeong>, like we saw in the ISS clip you posted earlier on. In both cases, it not a reflection from 10-15 ft. distance away...as you claim it has in the 'boot heel' image.

I view the MPGs in a browser taht doesn't display times stamps.

Close range? It's a distance of several feet. Regardless, look at this clip.

http://www.hq.nasa.g...15v.1200031.mpg

The reflection here is being caused by the astronaut who is out of frame! He takes his time to bounce back toward the ladder, and we can see the reflection long before he comes into frame, which is still at a distance of several (5? 6?) feet.

Quote

However, only with an Apollo spacesuit (genuine replica), could we ever settle this issue, so....

It's a non-issue. You can't offer any evidence to support your bare-faced assertion.

Quote

Shall we agree to disagree on this matter, and move onward?

We have little choice but to agree to disagree, since you can't offer up a shred of evidence other than your own faith-based belief, and you refuse to accept evidence that is contrary to your pre-conceived notions.


#1672    ali smack

ali smack

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 839 posts
  • Joined:28 Jul 2010

Posted 17 February 2013 - 11:51 AM

You wonder how and why anyone thinks we didn't go.
Yet loads of people believe in the conspiracy.
I get sick of people calling me an idiot because i don't believe in the conspriacy


#1673    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,343 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 17 February 2013 - 01:14 PM

View PostObviousman, on 16 February 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

Wrong as usual.

Apollo 8


Apollo 9


Apollo 10


Apollo 11


etc, etc, etc. Still, I doubt this will bother Turbs; they have never let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

Seems you missed my point, so I'll try and clarify it for you...

Do you know what a 'modifier' is?

A word, phrase, or clause that functions as an adjective or adverb to limit or qualify the meaning of another word or word group (called the head).

http://grammar.about...o/g/modterm.htm


So when I say things like 'the ong class='bbc'>amazingong> stars', I'm using a modifier to qualify the meaning of 'stars'.

To see the stars in utter amazement and awe. As something you will never forget. That's what I mean.    .

I assumed this was known, so I often said 'stars' without adding the qualifier. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused on this matter.

   .  
Your Apollo quotes...

There's a couple of nice stars out here.

I can see a lot of stars over on this side.

Oh, I'm getting more stars now.

You got a real bright star

Real bright star

I can see the stars now.

Oh, beautiful, beautiful. Look at all those white stars!

Boy, are those stars bright out there.

There's a lot of stars out there right now.

I can see the stars real great out my side window.

Now we're able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars


These Apollo quotes are nothing like the quotes I've cited.

One says "beautiful", and that's about it.  

It should have been an overwhelming experience, but it's clearly not.


Do you get my point now?


#1674    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,124 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 17 February 2013 - 03:48 PM

View Postturbonium, on 17 February 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

Seems you missed my point, so I'll try and clarify it for you...

Do you know what a 'modifier' is?

A word, phrase, or clause that functions as an adjective or adverb to limit or qualify the meaning of another word or word group (called the head).

http://grammar.about...o/g/modterm.htm

Do you get my point now?

Face the facts" you have been proven wrong time and again!

Edited by skyeagle409, 17 February 2013 - 03:49 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1675    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,124 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 17 February 2013 - 03:57 PM

View Postali smack, on 17 February 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

You wonder how and why anyone thinks we didn't go.
Yet loads of people believe in the conspiracy.
I get sick of people calling me an idiot because i don't believe in the conspriacy

There are those who love conspiracist and will pull almost anything out of thin air to create one. Here's another example.

Quote

Meteor Sparks Rumors, conspiracy Theories in Russia

The meteor that tore across the skies over Russia's Chelyabinsk region early Friday led some suspicious Russians to conclude that it was a stealth military attack by either the U.S. or China, while others believed the end of the world was nigh, according to published reports.

http://worldnews.nbc...-in-russia?lite

Claims of the moon hoax folks have been proven incorrect.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1676    monk 56

monk 56

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2012

Posted 17 February 2013 - 04:05 PM

Hi Czoro101,

Lunokhod 1 landed on the Moon 17 Nov 1970 but because USSR or Russia lost it's location, they didn't get anything from it from 1971 to 2010 in regards to a laser reflector, please scroll down link to "Retroreflectors on the Moon":-

http://en.wikipedia..../Retroreflector

However Apollo 11 put the first retroreflector on the Moon on 20th July 1969, although other Apollo missions put others there, the original still works, and worked before Lunokhod 1.

http://news.bbc.co.u...tech/399468.stm

The Space Race was very important to USSR at that time, and lost face by not being the first to have a manned landing on the Moon:-

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Space_Race

I will say they were clever for that time with Moon robots, probably in advance of USA, who were only concentrating on manned trips to the Moon, but most would laugh if you say that USSR and USA worked together, USSR would have loved it if they thought USA didn't have a manned flight to the Moon and would have told everyone!

http://en.wikipedia....ging_experiment

Obviously during this period USA didn't have any plans for robots on the Moon, don't confuse with satallite, it was all manned, indeed your cell phone today has probably a better computer than what Apollo 11 had:-

http://downloadsquad...lo-11-computer/

Edited by monk 56, 17 February 2013 - 04:13 PM.


#1677    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,259 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007

Posted 17 February 2013 - 05:42 PM

View Postmonk 56, on 17 February 2013 - 04:05 PM, said:

Hi Czoro101,

Lunokhod 1 landed on the Moon 17 Nov 1970 but because USSR or Russia lost it's location, they didn't get anything from it from 1971 to 2010 in regards to a laser reflector, please scroll down link to "Retroreflectors on the Moon":-

http://en.wikipedia..../Retroreflector

However Apollo 11 put the first retroreflector on the Moon on 20th July 1969, although other Apollo missions put others there, the original still works, and worked before Lunokhod 1.

http://news.bbc.co.u...tech/399468.stm

The Space Race was very important to USSR at that time, and lost face by not being the first to have a manned landing on the Moon:-

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Space_Race

I will say they were clever for that time with Moon robots, probably in advance of USA, who were only concentrating on manned trips to the Moon, but most would laugh if you say that USSR and USA worked together, USSR would have loved it if they thought USA didn't have a manned flight to the Moon and would have told everyone!

http://en.wikipedia....ging_experiment

Obviously during this period USA didn't have any plans for robots on the Moon, don't confuse with satallite, it was all manned, indeed your cell phone today has probably a better computer than what Apollo 11 had:-

http://downloadsquad...lo-11-computer/

While all the info you have posted is true, you have yet again missed the point we are trying to make here. Perhaps its a language barrier? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, I will just try to be a little more clear.

Neither I or Obviousman are saying that we believe that "robots put the LRRR's at the Apollo sites", nor are we saying that the Moon landings were hoaxed in any way.

All we are saying is that ong class='bbc'>on ITS OWNong>, the fact that there are LRRR's at the Apollo sites ong class='bbc'>BY ITSELFong> does not equate to undeniable proof that Man went to the Moon since it can be proven that Retroreflectors were put on the Moon by Soviet robotic landers.

The fact that there are LRRR's at the Apollo sites does add to the massive body of supporting evidence that proves unquestionably that Man landed there, but as absolute proof on its own, it falls short.





Cz

"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

"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

#1678    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,685 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006

Posted 18 February 2013 - 06:18 AM

I knew Turbo would try to weasel out of admiting they were wrong. they have always exhibited an almost shameless level of intellectual dishonesty in this thread.

*********

Monk,

Czero 101 is precisely right.

Edited by Obviousman, 18 February 2013 - 06:19 AM.


#1679    monk 56

monk 56

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2012

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:58 AM

Hi Obviousman and Czero 101,

For many years i have been interested in how the Moon has gradually been moving away from the the Earth, during this time i was connect to numerous astronomy associations, the last before i was badly disabled is below, the patron was the late Sir Arthur C. Clarke, the president was his brother Frederick W. Clarke, link below:-

http://2012forum.com...=5130&mode=view

Finding Lunokhod 1 was crucial to me getting involved in this debate, link below:-

http://science.nasa....03jun_oldrover/

It was very unlikely that it would be found, almost impossible for it to be found at a location near any landings of Apollo 11, 14 or 15, but now it has been found, and we have five signals by reflector on the Moon, i will explain the experiment on next thread section.

Edited by monk 56, 18 February 2013 - 10:59 AM.


#1680    monk 56

monk 56

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2012

Posted 18 February 2013 - 11:16 AM

Lets look at a moon map to the general location of these retroreflectors, you will note there is a great deal of distance between all of them, A11, A14 and A15 are the positions of Apollo reflectors, that were placed on the lunar surface by astronauts.....L17 and L21 are the position of Soviet robotic machines that had the reflector attached on back, link below:-

http://physics.ucsd....pollo/lrrr.html

Edited by monk 56, 18 February 2013 - 11:26 AM.