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This topic has been archived.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

#1261    synchronomy

synchronomy

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,124 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2009

Posted 27 October 2012 - 02:24 PM

View PostMID, on 26 October 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

I think that you've proven yourself rather worthless in this discussion.

"...debunk the dedbunkers theories that the Moon landings were faked.?"

Uh...we'll make it as simple as possible--debunkers have no such theories.  Debunkers typically, as they have on this thread, shredded the claims of the HB folks, the CT minds, who do say that the Moon missions and landings and all associated with them were faked.

They have nonsensical, and completely disproven claims.  Debunkers debunk them, they don't assault other debunkers.
Mthbusters are debunkers.

Maybe that makes it clearer for you?

Of course, Chrlzs above said something very similar.   Maybe seeing both of us together will fortify the message??
Yes, I see I mixed up the terms.  I was very tired and worked a long day and I think my brain was on fizz mode.
Sorry for getting you guys ticked here.  My sincere apologies.

If I may ask, for my own clarification;
Conspiracy theorists are the ones who are promoting "bunk" that the Apollo Moon landings were somehow faked?
Debunkers here are discrediting the CT's claims of fakery by NASA?

For the record I am not a troll.  I believe that when I was 6 years old and sat on my Father's lap watching as they landed on the Moon, I was not watching a Walt Disney production.  The Apollo landings were not faked IMHO, and I've never seen anything that would convince me otherwise.

I thought these silly claims were settled when Buzz punched that twit jamming a camera in his face and screaming at him to swear on the Bible he was on the Moon?

At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes--an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new.
This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep nonsense. -- Carl Sagan

#1262    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 27 October 2012 - 03:56 PM

View Postsynchronomy, on 27 October 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

Yes, I see I mixed up the terms.  I was very tired and worked a long day and I think my brain was on fizz mode.
Sorry for getting you guys ticked here.  My sincere apologies.


It's OK Synch, I got ya!
The brain in fizz mode is understood by many people.   I wasn't ticked and all is well...




Quote

If I may ask, for my own clarification;

You may!


Quote

Conspiracy theorists are the ones who are promoting "bunk" that the Apollo Moon landings were somehow faked?
Debunkers here are discrediting the CT's claims of fakery by NASA?

I think that basically summarizes the situation well, using appropriate terminology, yes.



Quote

For the record I am not a troll. I believe that when I was 6 years old and sat on my Father's lap watching as they landed on the Moon, I was not watching a Walt Disney production. The Apollo landings were not faked IMHO, and I've never seen anything that would convince me otherwise.




For the record, I believe ya!
The fact is, all of the people who were actually working on Apollo itself never saw anything that would even suggest otherwise.


Quote

I thought these silly claims were settled when Buzz punched that twit jamming a camera in his face and screaming at him to swear on the Bible he was on the Moon?

Well, one could logically think so, most certainly, and, they'd be absolutely right.  The man questioning Buzz Aldrin that day was a complete fool and a moron.  I believe, since we've not heard from him at all since his disappearance into prison, that he too has learned of his idiocy???

However, it's still surprizing to see the new people appearing who make claims to the contrary of the facts!


But still, one has to wonder, when we landed there in July and November of 1969, in February, 1971, April, 1972, and December, 1972, and it was all seen live from the Moon  on color television, where are these people's brains, and what have they been smoking or snorting for the past 43 years??? :yes:

Edited by MID, 27 October 2012 - 04:11 PM.


#1263    beale947

beale947

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 266 posts
  • Joined:18 Feb 2007

Posted 27 October 2012 - 05:34 PM

View Postturbonium, on 27 October 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

Thanks for your filler post, but I'd prefer you contribute somerhing to the actual issue next time.

Coming from you, who has never contributed anything to anyone aside from a little CO2. I don't need to join in the gang of people proving your fantasies wrong, because it already feels like a baby seal being clubbed.

You have had all of your 'proofs' disproved countless times. Just because you don't understand politics and physics, doesn't mean you can inflict that on the rest of us.

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

#1264    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 27 October 2012 - 05:41 PM

View Postbeale947, on 27 October 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

Coming from you, who has never contributed anything to anyone aside from a little CO2. I don't need to join in the gang of people proving your fantasies wrong, because it already feels like a baby seal being clubbed.

You have had all of your 'proofs' disproved countless times. Just because you don't understand politics and physics, doesn't mean you can inflict that on the rest of us.

Bravo, beale !


#1265    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,724 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 27 October 2012 - 05:52 PM

Turbonium, how can you possibly claim that a model fooled all the experts when the very quote you provide is thanking the expert that noticed it wasn't a genuine Apollo image?

Once again you destroy your own argument but are so blind to reality that you can't see it.

"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

#1266    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 27 October 2012 - 05:54 PM

:tu: :yes: :tu:


#1267    beale947

beale947

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 266 posts
  • Joined:18 Feb 2007

Posted 27 October 2012 - 06:03 PM

View PostMID, on 27 October 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

Bravo, beale !

Thanks. However if he really wants me to join in, I will. I mean I am a forensic scientist, so really it is my job this evidence thing :P

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

#1268    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 27 October 2012 - 06:12 PM

View Postbeale947, on 27 October 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

Thanks. However if he really wants me to join in, I will. I mean I am a forensic scientist, so really it is my job this evidence thing :P

OK!   Well, turb would be a fool to engage again, I think.   It has been rather obvious that he really has no sense of what evidence is about, nor how to use it.
I will look forward to his typical attempts with a forensic scientist.

:tu:   :w00t: :clap: :-*

Edited by MID, 27 October 2012 - 07:04 PM.


#1269    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 3,723 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009

Posted 27 October 2012 - 09:44 PM

Thanks for clarifying, Synchronomy - kudos to you.  I apologise if I was a little terse in my reply - I'm far too jaded by the continual ignorance (and deceit) of the dwindling few remaining Apollo deniers..

My garden is already magical and beyond beautiful - I do not need to invent fairies... - ChrLzs

The truth ONLY hurts when it slaps you in the face after you haven't done proper homework and made silly claims... - ChrLzs

#1270    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,745 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006

Posted 27 October 2012 - 10:14 PM

View PostChrlzs, on 27 October 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

Thanks for clarifying, Synchronomy - kudos to you.  I apologise if I was a little terse in my reply - I'm far too jaded by the continual ignorance (and deceit) of the dwindling few remaining Apollo deniers..

I think we all get that way every now and again.


#1271    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 28 October 2012 - 06:10 AM

View Postfrenat, on 27 October 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

What does it have to do with wires?  Are you just trolling now?  YOU claimed they did everything with wires.  YOU claimed they were edited out just like any other movie.  YOU need to show how they did that in real time on a demonstrably live video.  Support YOUR claim.

No. MID asked me how it could be faked. I said it could be faked with wires. And I do think wires were used to fake it.

And I said it was my opinion. I just said it again, now.

Get it?


#1272    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 28 October 2012 - 06:48 AM

View PostMID, on 27 October 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

IOh, and uh...again, I, nor anyone else knows what "models" you're talking about :whistle: , but there were lots of sites, and thousands of photos taken.  

But what I was really getting at with my question was whether you could explain how Hadley Rille was ophotographed, like all the other landing sites were, by men, prior to them actually landing at the places.

You said models, but that doesn't really answer the question.  Wrong answer.


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?


#1273    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 28 October 2012 - 07:23 AM

View Postbeale947, on 27 October 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

Coming from you, who has never contributed anything to anyone aside from a little CO2. I don't need to join in the gang of people proving your fantasies wrong, because it already feels like a baby seal being clubbed.

You have had all of your 'proofs' disproved countless times. Just because you don't understand politics and physics, doesn't mean you can inflict that on the rest of us.

If you don't want to address the issues, then you are just a troll to be ignored. Period/

Edited by turbonium, 28 October 2012 - 07:45 AM.


#1274    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,456 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 28 October 2012 - 07:38 AM

Some of the following reasons why conspiracist have been unable to produce evidence of hoaxed Apollo moon missions.

Quote


Ultraviolet photographs

Long-exposure photos were taken with a special far-ultraviolet camera by Apollo 16 on 21 April 1972 from the surface of the Moon. Some of these photos show the Earth with stars from the Capricornus andAquarius constellations in the background. The joint Belgian/British/Dutch satellite TD-1 later scanned the sky for stars that are bright in UV light. The TD-1 data obtained with the shortest passband is a close match for the Apollo 16 photographs

http://en.wikipedia....o_Moon_landings

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

Exploring the Apollo 17 landings site

http://lroc.sese.asu...o-17-Site.html/

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

Apollo Moon flags still standing, images show

Images taken by a Nasa spacecraft show that the American flags planted in the Moon's soil by Apollo astronauts are mostly still standing. The photos from Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter (LRO) show the flags are still casting shadows - except the one planted during the Apollo 11 mission.This matches Buzz Aldrin's account of the flag being knocked over by engine exhaust as Apollo 11 lifted off.
LRO was designed to produce the most detailed maps yet of the lunar surface.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-19050795


Edited by skyeagle409, 28 October 2012 - 08:04 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1275    beale947

beale947

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 266 posts
  • Joined:18 Feb 2007

Posted 28 October 2012 - 07:59 AM

View Postturbonium, on 28 October 2012 - 06:10 AM, said:

No. MID asked me how it could be faked. I said it could be faked with wires. And I do think wires were used to fake it.

And I said it was my opinion. I just said it again, now.

Get it?

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?

Do you not see the irony in these posts?

It is not up to us to disprove the moon landing was a hoax. It is up to you to prove there was one. That is how debating works, you made the claim, you have to back it up. Not only have you failed to do that more times than wile-e-coyote failed to catch Roadrunner, you are now simply going "Its my opinion, I don't need proof!!" That isn't debating.

Now for the wires thing, you say its an opinion, and it is wrong none the less. We can barely edit stuff out of live feeds today. Even if the film was delayed and even had the best camera angels to reduce the exposure back then, it was pretty much impossible. Why do you think they've gone back over the years to stuff like Thunderbirds to remaster and remove the strings you can see in the episodes. There was simply not the technology back then to scrub stuff like wires out of pre-recorded stuff, let alone a live feed, which is still bloody difficult today with Photoshop and other programs.

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.