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This topic has been archived.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

#1696    Philthy

Philthy

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 23 posts
  • Joined:27 Oct 2010

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:14 AM

I still say the US reflectors prove the manned landings. The only launches that had them on board was Apollo 11.'

I do understand what you are saying, and I agree, somewhat.

In the end, it doesn't matter. The landings happened, it's a recorded, documented, historical fact.

Nitlpicking about the reflectors isn't accomplishing anything.

Phil


#1697    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,222 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:32 AM

View PostPhilthy, on 22 February 2013 - 01:14 AM, said:

I still say the US reflectors prove the manned landings.
You can say what you like, it doesn't make you right.

View PostPhilthy, on 22 February 2013 - 01:14 AM, said:

The only launches that had them on board was Apollo 11.'
And Apollo 14 and Apollo 15, but that is immaterial.
You claim that the reflectors are proof of Apollo because only Apollo had reflectors. You are resorting to a logical fallacy here as you are using a circular argument.

View PostPhilthy, on 22 February 2013 - 01:14 AM, said:

Nitlpicking about the reflectors isn't accomplishing anything.

On the contrary, the way to defeat illogical, false and deceptive claims such as the Apollo hoax nonsense is with evidence, logic and, above all, honesty. If that involves pointing out the flaws in the arguments of those who agree with you then so be it. Honesty involves openness. You may think that is nitpicking but I don't. It isn't those that believe in Apollo that have to hide their mistakes.

"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

#1698    Philthy

Philthy

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 23 posts
  • Joined:27 Oct 2010

Posted 22 February 2013 - 05:46 AM

WOW!!
I know for an actual fact that Apollo landed on the moon.

Are we really quibbliy about this?

Really?

Phil


#1699    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

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

Posted 22 February 2013 - 07:08 AM

View PostPhilthy, on 22 February 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

WOW!!
I know for an actual fact that Apollo landed on the moon.

Are we really quibbliy about this?

Really?

Phil

Well, to be precise, we're not "quibbling" over whether or not they landed on the Moon. We do know this to be a fact.

What we are discussing is what constitutes proof that Man landed on the Moon.

In the case of the LRRR's, their presence at the Apollo sites certainly add to the mountain of evidence that proves undeniably that Man was there, but on their own they do not constitute undeniable proof since it can be shown that there are other ways to put a retro-reflector at those locations.

Whether or not those methods were used is another issue entirely and there is far more than sufficient evidence to show that those other methods were not used in the case of the Apollo 11, 14 & 15 LRRR's.

If there were no other facts, no other evidence, just the presence of the LRRR's, that would not be enough to undeniably say that Man was there, just as if the only evidence found at a crime scene was one single human hair, that is not enough proof to undeniably say that the person who shed that hair was the person who committed the crime.





Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 22 February 2013 - 07:13 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
"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

#1700    postbaguk

postbaguk

    Conspiracy Theorist

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

Posted 23 February 2013 - 12:49 PM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 22 February 2013 - 01:32 AM, said:

On the contrary, the way to defeat illogical, false and deceptive claims such as the Apollo hoax nonsense is with evidence, logic and, above all, honesty. If that involves pointing out the flaws in the arguments of those who agree with you then so be it. Honesty involves openness. You may think that is nitpicking but I don't. It isn't those that believe in Apollo that have to hide their mistakes.

I totally agree. If we are holding conspiracy theorists to a certain standard with regards to logically sound arguments and evidence, we must also hold ourselves to the same standards. Yes, we know the facts back up our case, so why give give CTs ammunition against the truth by using logically unsound arguments? Best to keep our own arguments sound, and allow them to fall on their swords.

In regards to the retroreflectors, I agree that they aren't in and of themselves proof that men landed on the moon. As pointed out, they are part of the overall body of evidence that we went to the moon. When you look at that body of evidence, it makes a pretty much unimpeachable case in favour of Apollo.

The anti-Apollo case, on the other hand, is laughably inconsistent. On the one hand, you've got the necessity to have a secret programme of robotic landers that returned 300 kg off moon rocks. No evidence for this programme has been unearthed by CTs in 40 years. This programme must have bene in operation for several years prior to Armstrong first setting foot on the moon, yet there is absolutely no mention of it whatsoever. Why would they keep this technology secret? Why not use it to further humiliate the Russians in terms of lunar achievement? In order for the CT case to hold water, you must believe that a decision was made, sometime in the early-mid 1960's, that not only was a manned landing deemed to be impossible, but they had to carry "pretending" to land a man on the moon, at the same time as developing a whole new mission programme, in complete secret, with no details leaking out from either NASA employees or 3rd party contractors, so that in a few years time they'd be able to send the robots to the moon, in total secrecy, with the sole purpose of retrieving 300 kg of rocks, soil samples and core samples, with the sole purpose of lending credence to a manned mission. Why not just say, "OK, we've discovered that it's impossible for men to go to the moon due to the radiation, so instead we're going to send state of the art robots to the moon before the Russians." They wouldn't lose face, because there would be no possibility of the Russians putting a man on the moon first, since it's clearly impossible (in reality of course, the Russians were still developing their manned lunar programme until the early/mid 70s, and Russian scientists produced a paper in 1965 proving that the Van Allen belts weren't a problem in terms of a manned moon shot). They could have refocussed all the energy being put into the LM and the CSM and the spacesuit into the robotic landers.

Instead, they mortgaged their credibility for decades to come by not only faking six moon landings with varying degrees of success (they didn't really fake Apollo 12, they just faked the TV camera breaking in order to save money), and one near disaster Apollo 13). Ever since, successive generations of NASA employees and contractors have agreed to go along with the scam, putting their own reputations and careers on the line by helping to fake images from the LRO mission that comport with the faked Apollo photos and film of the landings and lift-offs. No-one has ever seen fit to blow the whistle on this tremendous scam in over 40 years. Yet this far-fetched and far-reaching conspiracy, effected with amazing efficiency over the last 50 years, all came tumbling down because they decided it would be a really good idea to have a man with a beard hiding inside some contraption that was meant to be the LM, while broadcasting live at the start of Apollo 12, who was startled by a roller-blind suddenly springing open and quickly pulled it back down. Not only did this embarrassing gaff happen (although not a single person out of the millions of TV viewers actually mentioned seeing it at the time), but a red-faced NASA decided in their infinite wisdom, to give the footage out to any Tom, Dick or Harry who asked for it. Not only that, but years later, they decided to put it all online for the whole world to see. A truly spectacular own-goal given the incredible lengths they'd gone to both previously and subsequently to preserve secrecy.

Edited by postbaguk, 23 February 2013 - 12:50 PM.


#1701    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,222 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 23 February 2013 - 01:33 PM

View Postpostbaguk, on 23 February 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

The anti-Apollo case, on the other hand, is laughably inconsistent.
Yep.

View Postpostbaguk, on 23 February 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

On the one hand, you've got the necessity to have a secret programme of robotic landers that returned 300 kg off moon rocks.
Laughably inconsistent indeed when you consider that one of the major arguments used by hoax believers is that '60s technology wasn't sufficiently advance for Apollo.

Their view would make sense if we lived in a world where piloted planes were just beginning to take over from unmanned drones, where automotive technology was researching cars with drivers to take over from all those driver-less cars on the roads, and where the London Underground was seriously considering their next generation of trains having human drivers to replace the unmanned trains they currently use.

The reality is, of course, the exact opposite.

"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

#1702    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 19,033 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 23 February 2013 - 09:04 PM

Reality is indeed sometimes stranger than Fiction.Like the People that Believe we Hoaxed the Moon Landings pure Fiction !

This is a Work in Progress!

#1703    Cryptid_Control

Cryptid_Control

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 617 posts
  • Joined:18 Apr 2009

Posted 24 February 2013 - 06:58 AM

So you guys know how Neil Armstrong messed up his speech and said "one small step for man" instead of "one small step for a man"? Well if the moon landing was fake, that would mean that audio was pre recorded, so why wouldn't they have just re done that part? The fact that there are mistakes like that means that it was live and there's no way they would have risked live broadcasting something like a fake moon landing in case something went wrong. So to me that proves we really were on the moon at that time.

Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

#1704    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 24 February 2013 - 12:01 PM

View PostWaspie_Dwarf, on 18 February 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

turbonium you are being dishonest here. You said the following:



Apollo astronauts didn't mention the stars at all. This is simply impossible - if they had actually flown to the moon it would have been mentioned repeatedly. There were (supposedly) nine flights to the moon, but not even one reported the incredible stars?? Not a chance.

It's a huge red flag - it signals a hoax.



It doesn't matter what modifier they used. You made a claim, that claim has been proven wrong, plain and simple.

Now as for your new claim that they didn't use the correct words to describe the stars, that is really the worst case you have ever put forward.

I know your knowledge is lacking, but I would have thought even you would have realised that astronauts were selected for their flying skills and engineering/scientific capabilities NOT for their poetic abilities.

You are claiming that because not all the astronauts used the same subjective terms that this is somehow evidence. That is total nonsense. A subjective description is precisely that. If an Apollo astronaut had said "the sky is full of those hideous stars I despise so much"  it would be no less a valid description of stars that another man describing them as beautiful.

You choose to emphasize  "didn't mention the stars at all"

However, you don't emphasize  "not even one reported the incredible stars"

So who is actually being dishonest here?

Once again, it seems I have to clarify my position for you, post by post.



My first post on it... ..

View Postturbonium, on 02 February 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

Stars would be the most amazing spectacle to see beyond our atmosphere, and beyond LEO. Billions of stars would virtually 'blanket the skies', so to speak. So to not even mention stars they are really exposing the fact that they were not there!.  It's utterly ridiculous to not mention the stars.

I've been in the Nevada deserts at night, and it was one of the most magnificent, utterly beautiful moments of my entire life. I will never forget it.

Anyone who's seen it knows exactly what I'm talking about here. It's stunning.

And - this point is very important  - I TOLD EVERYONE I KNEW ABOUT IT!!

Nobody could see this and not speak about it  

I can only imagine just how much more incredible, how much more beautiful, the stars must appear from space.

So when I hear all of those Apollo astronauts babble on about going to the moon, without a word about the amazing stars they'd see....then I know for sure that they're lying.  


My second post...

View Postturbonium, on 09 February 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

No - I'm specifically talking about the amazing stars they'd be able to see during their flight(s) to the moon and back . No sunlight, no glaring reflections to obscure one's sight. The view would be absolutely stunning.....even through a small window.  That's what I compared to my experience of the countless stars in a desert sky, Or at least try to compare to.  

Not mentioning the stars isn't proof of a hoax, but it reveals it as a hoax - it is that damaging to the Apollo story. And it's not like three absent-minded guys had gone on a moon mission, and somehow just forgot to mention all the stars they'd seen. Apollo had nine moon missions, (supposedly).


My third post...

View Postturbonium, on 10 February 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:

What did a nameless shuttle astronaut say about stars??  Could you be any more vague? Just get to the point, if you have one..

And these quotes destroy your argument...

"Seeing the bright blue sky turning pitch-black and seeing stars appear while it is daytime is absolutely mind-blowing." - Mike Melvill, Spaceship One pilot.

http://www.iol.co.za...e-trip-1.237528


"The coolest thing for me is the experience of floating around, not feeling my weight, and hanging by a window just after sunset and WATCH THE STARS in the big black dome of the sky as the Earth moves underneath. I somehow try to find 10-15 minutes every day to do that. I think most mornings I try to continue to postpone my meals so I can do that. It's kind of fun because I have to watch where the food is going because my eyes are really glued to the outside, It is just absolutely amazing, magical, wonderful feeling to do that." - Kalpana Chawla, (on Columbia's fatal mission).  

Others have made similar comments, btw.

Now, do you recall my comments about seeing stars in the desert?  Much the same, yes? Yes.  


Apollo didn't mention the stars, Which exposes it as a hoax. No other conclusion fits.



And my fourth post...

View Postturbonium, on 16 February 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

A view of stars () from the lunar surface is not relevant to my point. It has absolutely nothing to do with my comparison. So drop it already.

Again, people can see 'amazing' stars while in space....

Seeing the bright blue sky turning pitch-black and seeing stars appear while it is daytime is absolutely mind-blowing." - Mike Melvill, Spaceship One pilot.

http://www.iol.co.za...e-trip-1.237528


"The coolest thing for me is the experience of floating around, not feeling my weight, and hanging by a window just after sunset and WATCH THE STARS in the big black dome of the sky as the Earth moves underneath. I somehow try to find 10-15 minutes every day to do that. I think most mornings I try to continue to postpone my meals so I can do that. It's kind of fun because I have to watch where the food is going because my eyes are really glued to the outside, It is just absolutely amazing, magical, wonderful feeling to do that." - Kalpana Chawla, (on Columbia's fatal mission).  


Apollo is being compared while in LEO, and while en route to the moon, and during its return to Earth  NOT FROM THE LUNAR SURFACE!!


Apollo astronauts didn't mention the stars at all. This is simply impossible - if they had actually flown to the moon it would have been mentioned repeatedly. There were (supposedly) nine flights to the moon, but not even one reported the incredible stars?? Not a chance.

It's a huge red flag - it signals a hoax.

MY FIRST SENTENCE: "Stars would be the most amazing spectacle to see"  

Amazing spectacle.  

I
"There's a couple of nice stars out here" - not amazing

"There's a lot of stars out there right now" - not amazing

"Oh, beautiful, beautiful. Look at all those white stars" - so far, it's the only one even close to amazing,




As for being subjective,

I like to see a beautiful sunset. But perhaps a sunset is feared, or considered to be ugly ..say, in Pygmy culture, It is a subjective matter.

Same as your Apollo guy seeing billions of stars as grotesque, ugly. It's one's personal view.

But nobody would ignore or shrug off seeing the countless stars.

Apollo fails a reality check, as usual.


#1705    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 24 February 2013 - 02:18 PM

View Postturbonium, on 24 February 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

Apollo fails a reality check, as usual.

Like your claim that no one can bend their knees in a pressurized spacesuit. :lol: Reality is, you have been proven wrong time after time after time and to sum that up, you have no case. :no:

Edited by skyeagle409, 24 February 2013 - 03:06 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1706    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 24 February 2013 - 02:21 PM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 23 February 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

Reality is indeed sometimes stranger than Fiction.Like the People that Believe we Hoaxed the Moon Landings pure Fiction !

The claims of the moon hoax folks are based on pure fiction.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1707    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,853 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006

Posted 24 February 2013 - 07:43 PM

Hoaxers use what I call "heads I win / tails you lose" logic:

No errors - "It's too perfect! It's faked!"

Errors - "They put them in to fool everyone. It's faked!"


#1708    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 34,222 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 24 February 2013 - 07:58 PM

View Postturbonium, on 24 February 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:



You choose to emphasize  "didn't mention the stars at all"

However, you don't emphasize  "not even one reported the incredible stars"
I didn't need. You have made two different claims here. There is no ambiguity in "no stars at all". You have been proven wrong on that claim, your failure to acknowledge that is dishonest.

Given that the stars WERE mentioned then HOW they were described remains purely subjective. They saw stars, they described stars but they didn't describe them the way you think they should have done. It's a non-argument. The only thing failing the reality test is you.

"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

#1709    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 19,033 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 24 February 2013 - 09:48 PM

Whats that old saying ?" Those that know need not explain to Those that Think they Know everything" ITs Always those that THink they know that never really know. So much for thinking too much !

This is a Work in Progress!

#1710    Noldi400

Noldi400

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Joined:29 Jun 2012

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:59 PM

View Postturbonium, on 10 February 2013 - 08:12 AM, said:


And these quotes destroy your argument...

"The coolest thing for me is the experience of floating around, not feeling my weight, and hanging by a window just after sunset and WATCH THE STARS in the big black dome of the sky as the Earth moves underneath. I somehow try to find 10-15 minutes every day to do that. I think most mornings I try to continue to postpone my meals so I can do that. It's kind of fun because I have to watch where the food is going because my eyes are really glued to the outside, It is just absolutely amazing, magical, wonderful feeling to do that." - Kalpana Chawla, (on Columbia's fatal mission).  

(Around 1:17 mark of video link..)

"Just after sunset", huh?  So he couldn't see them except in the shadow of the Earth?  I think that proves our point that stars couldn't be readily seen on the dayside or during the translunar coast.