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.


* * - - - 14 votes

Nostradamus predicted the moon landing hoax


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
1508 replies to this topic

#1156    Abaddonire

Abaddonire

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 370 posts
  • Joined:27 Nov 2011

Posted 03 August 2014 - 12:05 AM

View Postturbonium, on 02 August 2014 - 08:43 AM, said:

So far, I'm only aware of these 4 quatrains, denoting this specific event.

And that's the issue I'm trying to discuss here. Nothing else is relevant.
Correct. Nothing Nostradamus wrote is relevant. The random verses you quote are not relevant. Relevancy is not something Nostradamus does.


Well unless you're willing to lie for Nostradamus. I which case anything goes, I guess.


#1157    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 03 August 2014 - 11:06 AM

View Postpostbaguk, on 02 August 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

Which part of the LM didn't work? What proof have you got apart from... well, looking at it, you don't have any proof. Just innuendo.

If the LM could not possibly have worked, then all the engineers at Grumman who worked on it and were convinced it could wrok were clearly "in on it". So much for the grand conspiracy being comparmentalized and limited to just a handful of NASA top brass.

There's no way to prove the LM didn't work, and no way to prove it DID work.

The people at Grumman have no idea if it worked. They saw it on TV, like everyone else did. So what?


View Postpostbaguk, on 02 August 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

But we do want one now )supersonic plane). Barely a year goes by without another company coming up with an idea for a supersonic craft. Different ideas have been proposed for years, none come to fruition. If they wanted one now, they could build a replica of Concorde, according to Turbologic.

Are you claiming that we can NOT build a replica of the Concorde today, if we wanted to build it, and the budget to build it?

Why do you think it would be impossible to build one now, or ever?

View Postpostbaguk, on 02 August 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

The reality was, Nixon pulled the plug on the last 3 Apollo missions. No more money, no continued development. That's the real answer to your original question.

They spent heaps of money on the Shuttle over the next 30 years. "No more money", my ass!

The fact is, they did get money. Yes, they got less money than in most of the Apollo years. But it was not less money than they got in all the years before Apollo, or the first couple of years OF Apollo.

They had money. That is a proven fact.

Well, then, you'll say - sure, but they didn't have enough money to continue the Apollo program.

That's so much crap.

Let's say they got half the annual budget of an Apollo year. Okay, so what does that mean?

Do you really believe that Apollo had to come to a complete stop? I'm sure you do.

Sorry, but that is nonsense.

NASA's annual budget changes every year. Some years it is small, some years it is large, as we know.

The main plans / priority projects, will not suddenly drop dead, and buried for all time, just because some years they have a smaller budget than other years. The plans / projects are revised to fit the budget, adjusting and tweaking this sub-project, or delay specific tests etc, going forward.

Half the money just means it takes twice as long to accomplish the goals

Let's assume NASA got half the money Apollo , in 1973, and in 1974. If we say Apollo 18 had been planned to go in 1973, they can change it to go in 1974, instead. Or in 1975, or 1976, etc.

It does NOT just stop dead, and buried away for eternity.

The plans were to continue with the Apollo project, going forward. Surely, you must realize that, right?

Think about it...


View Postpostbaguk, on 02 August 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

What's this Turbs? You've totally ignored the glove comparison? Mr Mythbusters versus Ralph 'Wiggum'?

I don't blame you, it makes Rene look utterly incompetent.

I've already made my point on Rene, that he requested an Apollo glove, or exact replica, and NASA refused to give him one. That makes it impossible for him to prove his theory. Whatever he did to prove his case beyond that is a moot point. It's not relevant.


#1158    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,539 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 03 August 2014 - 11:07 AM

View Postturbonium, on 03 August 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:



There's no way to prove the LM didn't work, and no way to prove it DID work.

The people at Grumman have no idea if it worked. They saw it on TV, like everyone else did. So what?




Are you claiming that we can NOT build a replica of the Concorde today, if we wanted to build it, and the budget to build it?

Why do you think it would be impossible to build one now, or ever?



They spent heaps of money on the Shuttle over the next 30 years. "No more money", my ass!

The fact is, they did get money. Yes, they got less money than in most of the Apollo years. But it was not less money than they got in all the years before Apollo, or the first couple of years OF Apollo.

They had money. That is a proven fact.

Well, then, you'll say - sure, but they didn't have enough money to continue the Apollo program.

That's so much crap.

Let's say they got half the annual budget of an Apollo year. Okay, so what does that mean?

Do you really believe that Apollo had to come to a complete stop? I'm sure you do.

Sorry, but that is nonsense.

NASA's annual budget changes every year. Some years it is small, some years it is large, as we know.

The main plans / priority projects, will not suddenly drop dead, and buried for all time, just because some years they have a smaller budget than other years. The plans / projects are revised to fit the budget, adjusting and tweaking this sub-project, or delay specific tests etc, going forward.

Half the money just means it takes twice as long to accomplish the goals

Let's assume NASA got half the money Apollo , in 1973, and in 1974. If we say Apollo 18 had been planned to go in 1973, they can change it to go in 1974, instead. Or in 1975, or 1976, etc.

It does NOT just stop dead, and buried away for eternity.

The plans were to continue with the Apollo project, going forward. Surely, you must realize that, right?

Think about it...




I've already made my point on Rene, that he requested an Apollo glove, or exact replica, and NASA refused to give him one. That makes it impossible for him to prove his theory. Whatever he did to prove his case beyond that is a moot point. It's not relevant.

Still no evidence from you.

Edited by skyeagle409, 03 August 2014 - 11:55 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1159    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 03 August 2014 - 11:10 AM

View PostAbaddonire, on 03 August 2014 - 12:05 AM, said:

Correct. Nothing Nostradamus wrote is relevant. The random verses you quote are not relevant. Relevancy is not something Nostradamus does.


I think it is relevant, and you don't.

That's fine with me. Anything else?


#1160    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,539 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 03 August 2014 - 11:11 AM

To sum it up, You have failed to provide evidence of hoaxed manned moon missions. Who was it who said that a sucker is born every minute? It is very clear that you were taken to the cleaners.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1161    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,539 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 03 August 2014 - 11:52 AM

View Postturbonium, on 03 August 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:



I think it is relevant, and you don't.

That's fine with me. Anything else?

It is clear that it is not relevant. Calling upon Nostradamus shows that you are aware that your claims have successfully refuted with facts and evidence. In other words, you have hit rock bottom by calling upon a person who has been dead for hundreds of years.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1162    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,090 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 03 August 2014 - 12:23 PM

View Postturbonium, on 03 August 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

There's no way to prove the LM didn't work, and no way to prove it DID work.

The people at Grumman have no idea if it worked. They saw it on TV, like everyone else did. So what?
Engineers are not as stupid as you think they are.


View Postturbonium, on 03 August 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

They spent heaps of money on the Shuttle over the next 30 years. "No more money", my ass!

The fact is, they did get money. Yes, they got less money than in most of the Apollo years. But it was not less money than they got in all the years before Apollo, or the first couple of years OF Apollo.

They had money. That is a proven fact.

Well, then, you'll say - sure, but they didn't have enough money to continue the Apollo program.

That's so much crap.

Let's say they got half the annual budget of an Apollo year. Okay, so what does that mean?

Do you really believe that Apollo had to come to a complete stop? I'm sure you do.

Sorry, but that is nonsense.

NASA's annual budget changes every year. Some years it is small, some years it is large, as we know.

The main plans / priority projects, will not suddenly drop dead, and buried for all time, just because some years they have a smaller budget than other years. The plans / projects are revised to fit the budget, adjusting and tweaking this sub-project, or delay specific tests etc, going forward.

Half the money just means it takes twice as long to accomplish the goals

Let's assume NASA got half the money Apollo , in 1973, and in 1974. If we say Apollo 18 had been planned to go in 1973, they can change it to go in 1974, instead. Or in 1975, or 1976, etc.

It does NOT just stop dead, and buried away for eternity.

The plans were to continue with the Apollo project, going forward. Surely, you must realize that, right?

Think about it...

Seems you don't understand how their budget works.  They don't get a large chunk of money and get to do whatever they want with it.  They get many smaller chunks of money that are designated for individual projects.  In short, if the budget for Apollo is killed, it stays killed.

View Postturbonium, on 03 August 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

I've already made my point on Rene, that he requested an Apollo glove, or exact replica, and NASA refused to give him one. That makes it impossible for him to prove his theory. Whatever he did to prove his case beyond that is a moot point. It's not relevant.
You assume he actually asked.  Any proof of that?  It IS relevant what he did beyond that as he proved only that his methods were sloppy and he didn't bother to research anything about the materials making up a glove or the actual pressure difference it would be under.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#1163    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 5,895 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 03 August 2014 - 01:58 PM

One of the most useless endeavors possible is arguing with a fool. Why feed this troll?

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

#1164    postbaguk

postbaguk

    Conspiracy Theorist

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

Posted 03 August 2014 - 02:52 PM

View Postturbonium, on 03 August 2014 - 11:06 AM, said:

There's no way to prove the LM didn't work

NOW we're getting somewhere.

Quote

, and no way to prove it DID work.

Apart from all the evidence that the Apollo programme achieved its aims. Let alone the 16mm footage from before pitchover to landing for each mission. Let's not mention that TV footage of it taking off on Apollo 15, 16 and 17. Whatever you do, don't bother talking about the 16mm film footage taken from inside the LM cabin during takeoff. Never, ever talk about the fact that the individual craters visible on the surface at the end of each landing film footage perfectly matches the photographs taken on the surface.  Never, ever comment on the images of the LM descent stages taken from orbit. Don't even try to think about the astronaut and rover tracks matching up with the photography during the LM liftoff footage (you know, the footage where you can see the LM shadow surrounded by heiligenschein, an opposition effect that demonstrates the retroreflectivity of the lunar surface.

For example.

Apollo 12 landing at Fra Mauro, starting 14,000 feet above the lunar surface, ending on the surface.

http://www.hq.nasa.g...d24fps_DivX.avi

Here is an image of Al Shephard taken from inside the LM.

Posted Image

Higher resolution version here.

Overlap the 2 and what do you get?

Posted Image

Quote

The people at Grumman have no idea if it worked. They saw it on TV, like everyone else did. So what?

And the people who designed the Mariner landers have no idea, and the people who designed the Viking landers, and the people who designed Pioneer, and Voyager... yeah, unless they were actually on those craft, they have absolutely no idea if they worked.

Quote

Are you claiming that we can NOT build a replica of the Concorde today, if we wanted to build it, and the budget to build it?

Why do you think it would be impossible to build one now, or ever?

I'm not making that claim. I'm demonstrating to you why Turbologic is flawed by applying it to a non-Apollo scenario.

One thing I would say is, if someone wanted a new surpersonic passenger plane, they would NOT build another Concorde. They might utilise the lessons learned from Concorde while designing a new craft. Same with future manned moon landings. They'll learn the lessons form Apollo: they won't just rebuild Apollo hardware.

Quote

They spent heaps of money on the Shuttle over the next 30 years. "No more money", my ass!

The fact is, they did get money. Yes, they got less money than in most of the Apollo years. But it was not less money than they got in all the years before Apollo, or the first couple of years OF Apollo.

They had money. That is a proven fact.

Ah, the old switcheroo. Yes Turbs. They had money. For the SHUTTLE programme. NOT for Apollo. NASA doesn't get given a huge budget to spend on what it wants to: it applies for funding for individual projects. Politicians decide which programmes get funded, and which get dropped. Your argument is dead in the water: there was NO money to continue development of the LM once Apollo ended. There WAS money to develop the Shuttle.

Keep up Turbs. This is Junior School stuff.

Quote

Well, then, you'll say - sure, but they didn't have enough money to continue the Apollo program.

That's so much crap.

Let's say they got half the annual budget of an Apollo year. Okay, so what does that mean?

Do you really believe that Apollo had to come to a complete stop? I'm sure you do.

Sorry, but that is nonsense.

NASA's annual budget changes every year. Some years it is small, some years it is large, as we know.

The main plans / priority projects, will not suddenly drop dead, and buried for all time, just because some years they have a smaller budget than other years. The plans / projects are revised to fit the budget, adjusting and tweaking this sub-project, or delay specific tests etc, going forward.

Half the money just means it takes twice as long to accomplish the goals

Let's assume NASA got half the money Apollo , in 1973, and in 1974. If we say Apollo 18 had been planned to go in 1973, they can change it to go in 1974, instead. Or in 1975, or 1976, etc.

It does NOT just stop dead, and buried away for eternity.

The plans were to continue with the Apollo project, going forward. Surely, you must realize that, right?

Since Apollo 20 was cancelled in 1969 and Apollos 19 and 18 soon followed, I'm going to have to say you're in a minority of one. (For the sake of accuracy, there was some funding for the Apollo Application Programme after the landings were cancelled i.e. Skylab, but most of that didn't come to fruition either.)

As to your claim about development of the LM, it was in development DURING the Apollo programme. The Apollo 17 LM was different to the Apollo 11 LM. Once the Apollo programme was cancelled (yes Turbs, it was cancelled, not just put into a slow-burn mode), LM development stopped.

Oh, and please feel free to apply Turbologic to the Concorde. Concorde was withdrawn from service in 2003. Why didn't BAe carry on spending millions developing it after that? Apollo landings ended in 1972. Why didn't NASA carry on spending billions developing it?

Quote

Think about it...

Thinking doesn't appear to be your strong-point.

You haven't got a clue about what actually happened have you? You're a revisionist who will simply rewrite history to make it fit your worldview. Reality means nothing to you. You're so desperate to hold on to your moon-hoax religion that you're starting to make stuff up.

Quote

I've already made my point on Rene, that he requested an Apollo glove, or exact replica, and NASA refused to give him one. That makes it impossible for him to prove his theory. Whatever he did to prove his case beyond that is a moot point. It's not relevant.

Ah, so you don't actually care about whether Rene's claims are true or false? You only care about whether NASA should give him a replica glove to play with? And if they don't do that, you can weave whatever narrative suits your purposes. Let's completely forget that Mr Mythbuster managed to trash Rene's claims by constructing his own, usable facsimile. Evidence and the truth have no place in Turboland. No, the killer piece of evidence you have is that NASA wouldn't give some rambling buffoon some of their equipment to play with. Well sheesh, we could use premise to prove NASA have never launched any mission. Guess what? I asked them to send me a J1 engine and they didn't even respond! Clearly the Saturn V rocket never existed.


#1165    willowdreams

willowdreams

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 979 posts
  • Joined:12 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

  • Never let the facts get in the way of the truth- heard during an episode of 'Lie to Me' by Dr. Cal Lightman

Posted 04 August 2014 - 02:15 AM

this looks like a fun read


http://www.popsci.co...-is-in-the-dust

http://en.m.wikipedi...o_Moon_landings

Edited by willowdreams, 04 August 2014 - 02:21 AM.

Posted Image


#1166    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 18,192 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 06 August 2014 - 02:00 PM

Best tag ever ! "Turbologic"  in which the deffinition is No Logic at all in this word or statements ! :tu:
Good one postbaguk !
p.s. is that "Turbologic 4.0 or 2.0 " ?

Edited by DONTEATUS, 06 August 2014 - 02:01 PM.

This is a Work in Progress!

#1167    Merc14

Merc14

    anti-woo magician

  • Member
  • 5,895 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 06 August 2014 - 02:42 PM

View Postpostbaguk, on 03 August 2014 - 02:52 PM, said:


Ah, the old switcheroo. Yes Turbs. They had money. For the SHUTTLE programme. NOT for Apollo. NASA doesn't get given a huge budget to spend on what it wants to: it applies for funding for individual projects. Politicians decide which programmes get funded, and which get dropped. Your argument is dead in the water: there was NO money to continue development of the LM once Apollo ended. There WAS money to develop the Shuttle.

Keep up Turbs. This is Junior School stuff.


Right in-line with Turbs p*** poor research, or lack thereof, into Apollo is his lack of knowledge regarding NASA's funding and who decides how it is spent, and on what.  Hopefully he is representative of today's crop of moon landing hoaxers as that would make me feel better about the intellect of the gen pop.

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

#1168    postbaguk

postbaguk

    Conspiracy Theorist

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

Posted 06 August 2014 - 05:25 PM

View PostDONTEATUS, on 06 August 2014 - 02:00 PM, said:

Best tag ever ! "Turbologic"  in which the deffinition is No Logic at all in this word or statements ! :tu:
Good one postbaguk !
p.s. is that "Turbologic 4.0 or 2.0 " ?

Ah, I don't know if I can lay claim to that one. It may have been CZero, way back in 2008 when Turbo was arguing that the Trieste dive to the bottom of Challenger Deep never happened (using tried and trusted logic such as, if they could do it in 1960, they could do it now, but no-one's ever been back!)

I only mentioned the Trieste back then as an analogy to Apollo: straight away Turbs was all over it, shouting "Fake!"


#1169    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

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

Posted 09 August 2014 - 04:42 AM

View Postfrenat, on 03 August 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

Seems you don't understand how their budget works.  They don't get a large chunk of money and get to do whatever they want with it.  They get many smaller chunks of money that are designated for individual projects.  In short, if the budget for Apollo is killed, it stays killed.

Your first story was that they had no money to continue the Apollo program.

I've shown you they had enough money to keep Apollo going.

So now, it's not about money?...

It was....... a choice!

NASA's choice was to fly LEO missions, so that's where all the money went!

If NASA had really landed a craft on the moon, and astronauts walked on the lunar surface, as they had planned, they'd go on ....      
No way they'd stay 40 years in LEO. Not a chance.





View Postfrenat, on 03 August 2014 - 12:23 PM, said:

You assume he actually asked.  Any proof of that?  It IS relevant what he did beyond that as he proved only that his methods were sloppy and he didn't bother to research anything about the materials making up a glove or the actual pressure difference it would be under.


He said NASA refused to give him a glove. We can't verify his claim, either way.

It's not relevant to prove his claim, either true or false, since we know he didn't have/use a genuine Apollo glove in his tests.

We simply need to test the genuine Apollo glove, or an exact replica. Nothing else matters.


#1170    Abaddonire

Abaddonire

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 370 posts
  • Joined:27 Nov 2011

Posted 09 August 2014 - 05:00 AM

View Postturbonium, on 09 August 2014 - 04:42 AM, said:


Your first story was that they had no money to continue the Apollo program.

I've shown you they had enough money to keep Apollo going.

So now, it's not about money?...

It was....... a choice!

NASA's choice was to fly LEO missions, so that's where all the money went!

If NASA had really landed a craft on the moon, and astronauts walked on the lunar surface, as they had planned, they'd go on ....   
No way they'd stay 40 years in LEO. Not a chance.







He said NASA refused to give him a glove. We can't verify his claim, either way.

It's not relevant to prove his claim, either true or false, since we know he didn't have/use a genuine Apollo glove in his tests.

We simply need to test the genuine Apollo glove, or an exact replica. Nothing else matters.
So why have you not purchased one?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users