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This topic has been archived.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

#1321    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 06 November 2012 - 02:00 AM

View Postturbonium, on 04 November 2012 - 05:55 AM, said:

Mythbusters? They show the opposite, actually helping to prove my case.

A jump is done with wires, which differs from the Apollo jump. Then, they show slow-motion jumping - without wires!!.

If you take the wires jump, and slow it down to about 67% speed, it's comparable to an Apollo jump!!

So it only proves my case, not yours.


:w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: ...The more you decide to speak, the stupider everything you say sounds.  Seriously.  You actually are claiming that slowing down a film to about 2/3 normal speed proves your case?

What was that again, anyway??? :cry: :whistle:


#1322    rajeev shagun

rajeev shagun

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2010

Posted 07 November 2012 - 05:44 AM

Brian O’Leary NASA astronaut during 1960s and Science Adviser during Apollo mission him self wasn’t sure that men walked on the moon …
He was science adviser during Apollo mission I have seen him on TV saying “ Regarding to the Apollo mission I can’t say of 100% for sure whether these men walked on the moon”
So for HP group he must be nut ?

Attached Files



#1323    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 07 November 2012 - 05:52 AM

View Postrajeev shagun, on 07 November 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

Brian O’Leary NASA astronaut during 1960s and Science Adviser during Apollo mission him self wasn’t sure that men walked on the moon …
He was science adviser during Apollo mission I have seen him on TV saying “ Regarding to the Apollo mission I can’t say of 100% for sure whether these men walked on the moon”
So for HP group he must be nut ?

You mean the same Dr O'Leary who was a proponent of the face on mars controversy?

RIP Dr. O'Leary

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#1324    rajeev shagun

rajeev shagun

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 649 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2010

Posted 07 November 2012 - 06:09 AM

View PostRaptorBites, on 07 November 2012 - 05:52 AM, said:

You mean the same Dr O'Leary who was a proponent of the face on mars controversy?

RIP Dr. O'Leary
What do you really think of him ?


#1325    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 07 November 2012 - 06:15 AM

View Postrajeev shagun, on 07 November 2012 - 06:09 AM, said:

What do you really think of him ?

As far as his legacy regarding his work on free energy, I salute the guy for his efforts.  As far as his professional career, I salute the late Dr, in his achievements.

As far as his independent research of UFO's and exsistence of aliens living on earth, I find very laughable.

As far as his opinions regarding Apollo 11 hoax, I couldn't find anything regarding that.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#1326    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,872 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006

Posted 07 November 2012 - 02:19 PM

View Postrajeev shagun, on 07 November 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

Brian O’Leary NASA astronaut during 1960s and Science Adviser during Apollo mission him self wasn’t sure that men walked on the moon …
He was science adviser during Apollo mission I have seen him on TV saying “ Regarding to the Apollo mission I can’t say of 100% for sure whether these men walked on the moon”
So for HP group he must be nut ?
Since he disowned the way that the hoax proponents took his remark out of context, no.
http://www.clavius.org/oleary.html

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#1327    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,139 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 07 November 2012 - 11:03 PM

I'd like to return to the claim by turbonium that the fact that an expert identified an incorrectly labelled image as not being a real image of the moon as supporting his view that experts would not be able to tell the difference between a fake image and the real thing.

It is noticable that turbonium has produced absolutely no evidence to support his claim and has simply passed of his fabricated back story as if it was more than pure speculation on his part. turbonium NEVER supports his nonsense with genuine evidence for the simple reason he can't.

I have decided to spend several minutes doing his research for him. There are two people that should know the reality of the situation, Eric Jones who wrote the words turbonium wrote, and David M. Harland, who noticed that the image was misidentified. I sent an email to them both. Both kindly took the time to reply.

The only editing I have done to the following email messages is to remove my full name and address:

Email to Eric Jones:

Quote

Dear Mr Jones,
I am writing to you in the hope that you can provide me with a little information about one of the images linked to in the "Landing at Fra Mauro" article on ALSJ. The image in question is the one described as showing "a portion of the plaster-of-paris landing site model used during training simulations."

My interest in this image is the result of my participation on a web site called unexplained-mysteries.com where I post as Waspie_Dwarf. I have, for several years now, been involved in the long and on going debate with hoax-believers about the genuine nature of Apollo. Recently on of the hoax-believers, who goes by the name of turbonium, used the image I have mentioned and the following quote from ALSJ and claimed it supported his case: "My thanks to Journal Contributor David Harland who noticed that this is not a photo taken from lunar orbit."

From this single sentence quote he has made the following claim: "The reason I can claim a model fooled all the experts is because it did fool them, for many years.

If we assume this photo was taken around the same time as Apollo 15 (in 1971). The ALSJ began in 1995, according to the copyright on their site.

We don't know when Harland noticed that photo was a fake, but it was not until 1995, at the very least.

So all the experts looked at a fake moon photo for 24+ years, and every one of them thought it was 100% genuine moonscape.

If that's not a prime case of being 'fooled', then I'd sure like to know what is!!

What if this guy hadn't noticed it was a fake? All these 'experts' would still say it's 100% genuine moonscape, probably. In other words, they'd still be fooled by it."


I would be grateful if you could provide in information as to the history of this image and the circumstances which lead to Mr. Harland's identification of this image not being taken from Lunar orbit. I also ask permission to post your reply on the unexplained-mysteries web site.

I intend to email Mr. Harland and ask him for his recollections of this image.

Thank you in advance for any help you can give me.

Yours sincerely,
Martin

His reply to me:

Quote

Hi Martin,

Thank you for your note.

I have no interest in getting involved in the "debate".  To do so would be a complete waste on my time.

What you can say is that I added the image to the Apollo 14 folder on my Mac on the 23 of December 1998 but I don't have a record of who provided it.  It could have been Harland.
I just looked at the ALSJ CD set, which shows the Journal as it was in late May 1999:the image is there along with the credit to Harland.  Looking at the image, it's obvious to me now that it is a photo of the model.  Perhaps I thought otherwise in 1998.  At that time, I was still getting familiar with the photographic record and was, by no means, an "expert".  On the other hand, nobody on the technical side of NASA ever would have thought it was an orbital photo.

I have no doubt that the image was taken during preparation for use of the plaster-of-paris landing-site model during training for either Apollo 13 or 14.  After the Apollo 13 accident and the safe return of the crew, NASA decided to send the Apollo 14 to the Fra Mauro landing site intended for Apollo 13.  The landing site model would have been completed sometime before the end of Apollo 13 training and, therefore, before the Apollo 13 launch on 11 April 1970.  It is certainly possible that the US Geological Survey updated the model before the end of Apollo 14 training in January 1971.  Unfortunately, the only model that has survived is the one for Apollo 15.

Sorry I can't be more specific.  Perhaps David Harland's memory or records are better than mine.

All the best,

Eric

My email to David Harland was identical to that sent to Eric Jones, except that the names were (obviously) changed. I accidentally got Mr. Harlands email address wrong and so it was a further 24 hours before I contacted him. In the meantime Mr. Jones had copied his reply to me to Mr. Harland. It was to that copy, which included my email and Eric Jone's reply, which David Harland replied to (I post this seemingly irrelevant detail this so that there is absolute transparency and so that turbonium can not claim that details were kept from him).

Here is David M. Harland's reply:

Quote

Martin

As Eric says, he added the picture to the alsj in good faith. He would have been posting lots of stuff over a short period of time to get that part of the journal up. The whole point of the plaster model was that it should accurately depict the landing site and it was illuminated in a manner designed to show the shadows as they would be at the time of landing. So at first glance it looks like an orbital shot. But when I was writing my book "Exploring the Moon - The Apollo Expeditions" in 1998 (published in 1999; first edition) I had more time to study each image that I wanted to use. I realised it was a shot of the plaster model and told Eric. He changed the caption. End of story.

dmh

I have thanked the two gentlemen for taking the time to reply.

In conclusion, Eric Jones takes responsibility for the mistake, it was his and his alone. It happened in 1998 and was discovered in 1999. So much for turbonium's 24+ years claim.

"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

#1328    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,224 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007

Posted 08 November 2012 - 02:27 AM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 07 November 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

In conclusion, Eric Jones takes responsibility for the mistake, it was his and his alone. It happened in 1998 and was discovered in 1999. So much for turbonium's 24+ years claim.


Posted Image

Well done, Waspie... :)


I've got $5 say Turbs tries to claim that both those emails actually support his claim.... Any takers...? B)






Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 08 November 2012 - 02:28 AM.

"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

#1329    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,612 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 08 November 2012 - 04:13 AM

I`ll throw in A Million bucks,from THe Trump master Himself ! THis guys a real case for the Eons !

This is a Work in Progress!

#1330    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 10 November 2012 - 04:29 AM

View PostImaginarynumber1, on 04 November 2012 - 06:04 AM, said:

I'm sur eI could produce enough youtube videos of 80's scifi movies where wires are readily visable. I'm not going to bother, however. If you don't want to show any evidence, why should I?

You don't get it.

This is the point

1. Wires ARE used in sci-fi movies,

2. These wires ARE EASILY REMOVED BY EDITING.

3. Wires CANNOT be seen at all, in most cases.

That doesn't mean every single sci-fi movie done since 1950 iwas absolutely perfect in that respect. Hardly so. But the fact remains that some of these sci-fi movies DID remove all visible evidence of wires, and you surely know that!

If you could prove that wires are visible in  every single sci-fi movie made before1969 (prior to Apollo 11), at least one wire visible, a case could be made. If wires can be seen in a few (most likely) low-budget sci-fi flicks is quite meaningless.   

View PostImaginarynumber1, on 04 November 2012 - 06:04 AM, said:

You've moved past it, just like you've "moved past" every claim you have made up that you cannot support.

Much irony on display here. You don't see it?  ....

You make a claim - that I don't support my claims.  

But you don't even support your OWN claim!!!   

See the hypocrisy, yes?  

View PostImaginarynumber1, on 04 November 2012 - 06:04 AM, said:

Have you ever taken as astronomy course or gone to a observatory? I've done both. I know it has been mentioned here before, but there's this really neat thing you can do with reflectors that were left on the moon by Apollo astronauts. You can bounce a laser off of them. I have done this. Multiple times. You can do it yourself, too, though I'm sure any result will just be lies, right?

Are you aware that it's been done without using any reflectors at all, before Apollo? And that Russians used probes to place reflectors there, too?

Dead issue..


#1331    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,759 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 10 November 2012 - 04:37 AM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 07 November 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

I'd like to return to the claim by turbonium that the fact that an expert identified an incorrectly labelled image as not being a real image of the moon as supporting his view that experts would not be able to tell the difference between a fake image and the real thing.

It is noticable that turbonium has produced absolutely no evidence to support his claim and has simply passed of his fabricated back story as if it was more than pure speculation on his part. turbonium NEVER supports his nonsense with genuine evidence for the simple reason he can't.

I have decided to spend several minutes doing his research for him. There are two people that should know the reality of the situation, Eric Jones who wrote the words turbonium wrote, and David M. Harland, who noticed that the image was misidentified. I sent an email to them both. Both kindly took the time to reply.

The only editing I have done to the following email messages is to remove my full name and address:

Email to Eric Jones:


His reply to me:


My email to David Harland was identical to that sent to Eric Jones, except that the names were (obviously) changed. I accidentally got Mr. Harlands email address wrong and so it was a further 24 hours before I contacted him. In the meantime Mr. Jones had copied his reply to me to Mr. Harland. It was to that copy, which included my email and Eric Jone's reply, which David Harland replied to (I post this seemingly irrelevant detail this so that there is absolute transparency and so that turbonium can not claim that details were kept from him).

Here is David M. Harland's reply:


I have thanked the two gentlemen for taking the time to reply.

In conclusion, Eric Jones takes responsibility for the mistake, it was his and his alone. It happened in 1998 and was discovered in 1999. So much for turbonium's 24+ years claim.

I am not surprised! Good work!! :tu:

Edited by skyeagle409, 10 November 2012 - 04:43 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1332    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,759 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 10 November 2012 - 04:41 AM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 08 November 2012 - 04:13 AM, said:

I`ll throw in A Million bucks,from THe Trump master Himself ! THis guys a real case for the Eons !

There are those who have said that the Apollo moon missions were faked, but reality does not agree with them. Check it out.

Quote


The Apollo Program

Apollo 16 Facts

http://airandspace.s...16/a16facts.htm


KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1333    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 10 November 2012 - 06:28 AM

View Postfrenat, on 04 November 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:

Your claim of wires.  You prove it.  

A "claim of wires"? I claimed wires could have been used, to simulate the 'big jumps' seen in Apollo clips. I can't prove it, as I've told you many times now. I do think wires were used, imo.

  

View Postfrenat, on 04 November 2012 - 01:05 PM, said:


All I added was something your claim must account for if you ever decide to actually prove it (which we know you won't). We all know this is just another way for you to avoid proving something.  We'll just add it to your long list of abandoned claims shall we?

You "added" something, alright. It is "something" called A CLAIM. You "added" a claim - that the Apollo videos were shown to us 'live', in 'real-time'. And you must account for that claim in the first place!

It is your claim, and it is you must prove that claim.

So do you understand why I've asked you for specific examplles to support the claim? As it's your claim. Not mine - yours.

Any example of 'live' video must have similar sort of 'jumps', to be relevant to the debate about wires.

Edited by turbonium, 10 November 2012 - 06:42 AM.


#1334    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,759 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 10 November 2012 - 07:36 AM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 04 November 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

Can it bee any clearer ? :no:

Apparently, there are those who are too blind to see the facts and evidence for what they are as far as the Apollo moon missions are concerned. They claim wires were used to support the astronauts, yet cannot provide a shred of evidence to backup what they say. :no:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1335    Hazzard

Hazzard

    Stellar Black Hole

  • Member
  • 11,757 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2005

Posted 10 November 2012 - 08:27 AM

Thank you, Waspie, that was a job well done.

I still await the compelling Exhibit A.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. -Edmund Burke