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.


* * * * - 9 votes

moon landing


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
4059 replies to this topic

Poll: moon landing (231 member(s) have cast votes)

do you believe that people landed on the moon.

  1. yes (157 votes [67.97%])

    Percentage of vote: 67.97%

  2. no (74 votes [32.03%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.03%

Vote

#16    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 18 June 2006 - 05:48 PM

Quote


This is so funny...

Okay MID, I'll bite.  How do you KNOW they did?  Were you there?  Did you see it on TV.  Because I see alot of things on TV and most of it is smoke and mirrors.



Well, I wasn't asking for a bite.   I was merely stating a fact of humanity.   There is a difference between knowledge and belief.

But to answer your questions: yes, and yes to the last two.
As to the first, knowing is a product of experience, and learning.  If anyone has an understanding of the basis of the scienes involved, and one merely observes in detail what happens, one can know.  Anyone who was involved in one of the thousands of areas that comprised the Apollo program,  has some experience in one facet or another, or is someone who wasn't involved, yet posesses a reasonable, logical, and curious mind, can only conclude that this thing was done.

Examining it in all of its astounding detail shows rather clearly that it is an untenable, and indeed impossible notion that any faking could have gone on.

There were hundreds of thousands of people involved in the early manned space program.   None of them know everything about everything that went on.

And just because some people sat in the launch control center and launched the Saturn V...they saw it rise off the pad and disappear into the eastern sky, that doesn't prove we went.

The guys in the MOCR in Houston...they didn't see anything but TV feeds and reams of data.  How do they know we did it?  Hmmm.

Then of course, there are the astronaut crews who actually flew the vehicles, landed on the moon, walked about, and returned.  We certainly can't believe these guys when they tell us all about their missions.   After all, there were just those three guys up there.  It's just their word.

We need to drop the how do you know stuff, really.   These people all did this thing.  They all know, and anyone with intelligence knows they did it.   Asking the question is really just being intellectually lazy, because the "evidence" for the project's success is incredibly voluminous, tangible, and available to anyone at all anymore.   We have the samples, of course, and the film and photographic and video record...that's the tangible stuff.  And tens of thousands of scientific / technical reports which show the results down to the most minute and non-descript detail of every aspect of every mission flown.   Those things often require a little specialized knowledge to understand, or at least some basic background in mathematics and sciences.

Ask these people who know to prove it and they understandably look at you like you're somewhat out of your mind.  

And the strangest things come up as this hoax silliness propogates.  We see some upstart like Sibrel interrogating astronauts, asking Gene Cernan, for instance, how did they take those TV pictures of your lunar module leaving the moon.

He looks at him with a confused expression, as if to say, 'What the hell does that have to do with anything...?' and says, 'How did they film it...I dunno...some one controlled the camera from Houston, you know...they pitched the camera up and followed it,'  or something like that.

Despite the fact that the crews could've cared less about that detail, and that some of them had no inside skinny on how Ed Fendell was actually doing that in the MOCR, the confusion in the answer immediately seems to somehow translate into "evidence" that the whole thing was faked!  

Ludicrous.   No one knew everything.  Astronauts didn't know the details about what flight controllers were actually doing, and flight controllers had no intimate knowledge of specifics regarding crew activities outside their realm of expertise and training...so?  That's just perfectly natural stuff in a project so complex as this one was.
___________________________________________________________________________

The fact is, we all know that Columbus sighted San Salvador in the present-day Bahamas in October of 1492.  This is accepted to be the discovery of the America's.  But what do we have to back up this event which occurred some 514 years ago?

There are no photos, no films, no video, no artifacts...just the 5 centuries old written records from the ship's logs, and other documentation written to the King of Spain regarding the lands discovered.

We buy this completely, and accept it as a known.  

Yet, the "proof" of Columbus' voyages are miniscule compared to the documentation of Apollo, which, as I've said before (although this has been describned as merely "my opinion" by a less-than-erudite poster who has already had two threads shut down because of his silliness) is the most documented occurrance in human history.  Yet, we see this idea that the whole thing was faked, despite its incontrovertible documentation, made a mere few decades ago, and despite the fact that there are still a slew of people alive today who actually participated in this adventure...including 9 of the 12 men who actually walked on the moon!

It happened.   Lots of people do not understand how it happened, but it did.  Lots of people are duped by the less-than knowledgeable who think they see something fishy...only because of their own lack of knowledge, and see an opportunity to inflate their egos by putting out a crafty product deliberately designed to ignore fact and make people "believe" that the whole thing could've somehow been faked.

Unfortunate, but true.

This paradigm produces what you call "smoke and mirrors".  That is merely the product of lack of understanding, and very often, creative and deliberate editing, and leaving out the true context of what is being presented.


Threads like this one are supposed to be for asking questions, discussing, and learning.   Making blanket conclusions like, 'We aren't going back because we CAN'T' doesn't serve the purpose.   Making conclusions about van Allen and solar radiation hazards being un-survivable without any particular knowledge on the subject matter also is rather valueless (since they were survivable and we did survive them, rather easily...since they were well planned for, and rather well understood at the time).  

We're more than happy to get questions.

But lets make them questions.  

You're also going to have to commit a bit of time and personal energy to research what is said yourself, as an exercise in self-knowledge.

Lilly's already linked to Jay's site over there at Clavius.   That's a good place to get some explanations!

But you may note that a few people here are a little testy right now with blanket statements like the one's you assert.   There's a very simple reason for that.

Let's ask questions where you have doubts.  We'll actually be happy to guide you in a direction that will provide you with knowledge.   But...you're effort will be expected and required.

And please...don't go over to ApolloHoax.net and start putting these sorts of posts there.  They are chomping at the bit for someone to chew on!  yes.gif

We may, on the whole,  be a little nicer in the overall than they are (trust me, they tire quickly of uncritical thinking skills and obstinance in untenable positions....they'll ban you straight away for being silly and not making an effort to intelligently discuss), but patience may be wearing a little thin here as well with unintelligent banter.


You have an open invitation to ask anything you like.
There will also be an expectation on my part at least that you will read what's written, and research it for yourself.


We would like to keep this thread devoid of mind-boggling ( grin2.gif ) obstinance in the face of the facts...

Let's discuss.









#17    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 16,406 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004

Posted 18 June 2006 - 07:55 PM

Quote



Threads like this one are supposed to be for asking questions, discussing, and learning.   Making blanket conclusions like, 'We aren't going back because we CAN'T' doesn't serve the purpose.   Making conclusions about van Allen and solar radiation hazards being un-survivable without any particular knowledge on the subject matter also is rather valueless (since they were survivable and we did survive them, rather easily...since they were well planned for, and rather well understood at the time).  

We're more than happy to get questions.

But lets make them questions.  


There really should be someplace where this subject can be discussed in a manner that addresses the scientific facts and explains exactly why the notion of a moon landing hoax is without rational/reasonable support of any type. It's one thing to ascribe conspriacy notions to things we don't have much information about, but it's quite another to do this regarding something that we have literally mountains of evidence for!


"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

Posted Image

#18    S3th

S3th

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 250 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2006

Posted 18 June 2006 - 09:17 PM

Quote


About the radiation, I'm sure that Dr. Van Allen (pretty much the authority on the subject) himself has denied the fact that the radiation belt would have any serious effect on the astronauts. Yes, the astronauts had sustained radiation but the amount was miniscule, they didn't stay within the radiation belt long enough.


Allright...The Van Allen Belt was indeed a highly radiated belt they had to travel through. It's function is to save us from being irradiated by solar radiation.  Right?  Now use the power of REASONING and ask yourself how anyone could survive Solar radiation without some form of shielding?  It's a simple question.  They were supposedly outside that belt for what?  Seven days or something in that neighborhood.  Now ask a scientist, who doens't care about the public ridicule and shame, (the lambasting I just received on a board of opinions being the perfect example) how long they think a human being could survive solar radiation without some sort of shielding.  If you find one intelligent and brave enough you'll be surprised at their answer.  And it ain't days.  

Quote


Pearls to swine Lilly. laugh.gif The hoaxbelievers like to keep their fantasy intact.

It seems a lot of people are willing to automatically turn off their critical thinking skills and accept the most ridiculous things as long as it comes tagged with a "government cover up or government conspiracy" label.

Could it be that most of these hoax stories are created by people who have never accomplished anything (that they feel is important) in their lives, and want to comfort themselves by believing that they now, finally,has one up on the, government, scientists, NASA, military,etc.

There has not been a moonhoax claim (waiving flag,missing stars,etc,etc) that hasn`t been debunked.


Before I begin, I have to point out that flaming those who have investigated this matter isn't helping your side of the argument in my mind.  It's just more camoflauge. Statements created to deter from the subject at hand.  Nice try though!

Who has turned off their critical thinking skills.  THE PUBLIC.  Look over the timeline of HISTORY.  First of all, it is written by the VICTORS. (To the Victor goes the spoils, including the thoughts of the mass, if properly lied to, and history itself)  The majority has been manipulated into doing the will of the Government/Church over several millenia.  The Holy Crusades.  People killing other people over something as insane as their beleifs.  Spanish Inquistion, same deal.  How about something a little more current.  The GENOCIDE of the Native Americans.  In school, movies, and mainstream television programming when I was a child and your parents were children, protrayed the Native Americans as terrible savages.  Yes, they did this to ease the minds and consciousness of the American people.  Plus it was great PR for those who were in the wrong!

It's funny how those who look into something, see lies, and try to speak out about them,  are automatically dubbed conspiracy theorists, and not seekers of truth.  It's a great way the government, and anyone who wants to keep their pack of lies a secret, have come up with to have the masses believe the person has to be a flake.  Do you still think a lone gunman killed JFK?  Most people don't.  Are they all a bunch of flaky conspiracy theorists? The goverment and other assorted peeps would like the rest of us to believe it.  It's okay though, because APATHY has taken care of that for them.

How many of you believe in the God the Church tells you about?  What's their proof?  A book.  What's NASA's proof?  Rocks!  Okay, whatever.  Oh, and pictures, which have been proven time and again to have serious curiousities raising serious questions about their validity.

BTW, there has been issues that have never been debunked because they never aired of FOX's program.  How they were able to get themselves through the LEM hatch being a major one.  It swung inward and the distance you would have to negotiate with all the gear on was too small.  The psi of their suits and how it would have been impossible to even bend your arms within them.  This raises even more questions of validity to the hoaxers claims.


For those who did watch the FOX program, watch it again, and play close attention to the lack of proof provided by the NASA representative.  He just keeps saying the same stuff.  No proof.  No direct discrediting of the theories discussed through opposing theories.  No, those all came out after the program by some people who were payed to do it.  PAYED.  Why do you have to pay someone to debunk what others believe?  Let them have their beliefs.  Right?  Why do they care?  Because they commited a crime!!

Also BTW, calling people swine in the flesh, isn't a good idea.  It's funny how the anonymity of the Net gives people cayones of steel.  

Quote


In 2020 we are yes.gif
Because he WAS there yes.gif Sorry S3th...your wrong.

There are so, so, SO many threads on this topic....USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION!


Hey frogfish!  First off, 2020 eh?  Wow, more than fifty years later.  They must be planning on breakthroughs in shielding technology!!!

Sure there are other threads like this.  I would use the search function and pull up old threads, but I'm a new member and this thread was just sitting there waiting for attention.  It's funny how if you take an opposing side to an issue, everyone starts giving it some attention. Perhaps the moderators would like to move it to the debate forum?



Quote



But to answer your questions: yes, and yes to the last two.
As to the first, knowing is a product of experience, and learning. If anyone has an understanding of the basis of the scienes involved, and one merely observes in detail what happens, one can know. Anyone who was involved in one of the thousands of areas that comprised the Apollo program, has some experience in one facet or another, or is someone who wasn't involved, yet posesses a reasonable, logical, and curious mind, can only conclude that this thing was done.


Okay, it's funny how reasonable, logical and curious is your grounds for concluding the thing was done.  It strikes me as quite the opposite.  The Hoax people look at the photographic 'evidence' and say, geez, that's curious.  Why are things completely in shadow areas illuminated? That rock has a C on it.  Or, why are the shadows not parallel?  Where are all the stars?  Why is that flag waving?  And let's not here again how they were screwing it into the ground.  It was in place and the astronot was holding it to try and keep the wind from waving it so much.  Why are the specs of the LEM and the 'dune buggy' missing, gone, instead of on display at the Smithsonian or some other institute for the preservation of valuable and accurate information?  I'll tell you why.  A close look at those specs would have even the average joe scratching their heads and saying, "This is impossible!"

Quote

Examining it in all of its astounding detail shows rather clearly that it is an untenable, and indeed impossible notion that any faking could have gone on.


WRONG, examining it in all it's astounding detail has been what began the hoax theory in the first place.  Pictures with anomolies which seem to strengthen the hoax subscribers position.

QUOTE
The guys in the MOCR in Houston...they didn't see anything but TV feeds and reams of data. How do they know we did it? Hmmm.
  

Well, how many people do you have to bribe to keep the true location of a feed quiet?  Hmmm?

QUOTE
Then of course, there are the astronaut crews who actually flew the vehicles, landed on the moon, walked about, and returned. We certainly can't believe these guys when they tell us all about their missions. After all, there were just those three guys up there. It's just their word.

We need to drop the how do you know stuff, really. These people all did this thing. They all know, and anyone with intelligence knows they did it. Asking the question is really just being intellectually lazy, because the "evidence" for the project's success is incredibly voluminous, tangible, and available to anyone at all anymore. We have the samples, of course, and the film and photographic and video record...that's the tangible stuff. And tens of thousands of scientific / technical reports which show the results down to the most minute and non-descript detail of every aspect of every mission flown. Those things often require a little specialized knowledge to understand, or at least some basic background in mathematics and sciences.


For most of this, see above.  You can theorize exactly what it takes, mathematically, to hit a home run.  To do it is something else entirely.  And, most of us can't do it.

QUOTE
Ask these people who know to prove it and they understandably look at you like you're somewhat out of your mind.


Fine, I'm out of my mind, but at least I attempt to use it as I study this crazy stuff.  Did you type moon hoax into your browser after the fox program aired?  You couldn't even get onto their site.  It locked up your computer when you tried.  It happened to me.  Now type moon hoax into your browswer.  One out of twenty against the hoax theory in the first two pages.  ODD?  

BTW, I know how to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and so do they.  Send an unmanned cract over the landing areas and photograph the moon buggies and LEM base.  Will they do that to shut up the hoaxers permanently?  NO!  Why not?  Cause there is nothing there to point at.  As far as the reference to the mirrors on the moon.  Let's think about it this way shall we.  How did they get the Mars Rover to Mars?  Same deal.  UNMANNED!

QUOTE
And the strangest things come up as this hoax silliness propogates. We see some upstart like Sibrel interrogating astronauts, asking Gene Cernan, for instance, how did they take those TV pictures of your lunar module leaving the moon
.

Your forgetting the important questions that were asked and focusing on an inane one!!!

BTW, calling Sibrel and upstart doesn't do anything for your side of this except show additional tainting of your opinion.  Upstart...LOL.  Do you realize how much time and effort he put into this 'investigation'?  He's had astronots hit him, run away from him, etc.  These are the acts of cowards, not heros!  To call him an upstart is an attempt to discredit him and his research.  Shame on you.

You can run, but you can't hide!

No, the fact that a person who purported to go to the moon, not only wouldn't lay his hand on a Bible and swear to it, but became angry enough to punch a man who is desperately seeking the truth in this matter, or as the one above did, run away.  That in itself says volumes, not only in the credibility of the astronauts, but their character as well.

QUOTE
It happened. Lots of people do not understand how it happened, but it did. Lots of people are duped by the less-than knowledgeable who think they see something fishy...only because of their own lack of knowledge, and see an opportunity to inflate their egos by putting out a crafty product deliberately designed to ignore fact and make people "believe" that the whole thing could've somehow been faked.


The fact is the 'FACTS' are full of inconsistencies.  Pictures which had to be tampered with.  Pictures which have anomolies the hoax debunkers do not answer in any way close to assembling common sense.

QUOTE
This paradigm produces what you call "smoke and mirrors". That is merely the product of lack of understanding, and very often, creative and deliberate editing, and leaving out the true context of what is being presented.


The same can be said of your side of the argument MID.  Seriously.  Look at it.  They never address the meat of the argument from back in the seventies when a man had the audacity to write NASA and ask them about some peculiarities.  One of them being how they were able to negotiate gettting through the LEM door.  This has never been answered satisfactorily or at all!  And as a matter of fact, not one video has them actually coming out of the door, just descending the ladder.  WHY?

As a matter of fact, when I went to the NASA site after the FOX program aired there was a FAQ.  One of the questions was, "when are we going back to the moon or to Mars."  The answer was to the effect that when the technology became available.  They added Mars so they could say that they were referring to Mars.  Yet, in truth, they were also referring to the moon.  That's right!  We don't have the technology to do it.  SHIELDING TECHNOLOGY!

QUOTE
Threads like this one are supposed to be for asking questions, discussing, and learning. Making blanket conclusions like, 'We aren't going back because we CAN'T' doesn't serve the purpose. Making conclusions about van Allen and solar radiation hazards being un-survivable without any particular knowledge on the subject matter also is rather valueless (since they were survivable and we did survive them, rather easily...since they were well planned for, and rather well understood at the time).


Your response is much like the answers to the Van Allen Belt.  Well forget it for now.  SOLAR RADIATION.  Why don't they provide answers to how they survived that??????????Because they can't?  Sorry if that seems like a blanket statement, but even the good people at NOVA understand this irrefutable fact.  Solar Radiation KILLS!

QUOTE
You're also going to have to commit a bit of time and personal energy to research what is said yourself, as an exercise in self-knowledge.

But you may note that a few people here are a little testy right now with blanket statements like the one's you assert. There's a very simple reason for that.

Let's ask questions where you have doubts. We'll actually be happy to guide you in a direction that will provide you with knowledge. But...you're effort will be expected and required.


First off, why is everyone so testy?  Very simple reasons eh?  I don't believe as they do.  Most were not even born when the moon shots 'supposedly' occurred.  So, why so testy?  I question their assumptions.  Is that it?  Everyone assumes we went to the moon...And we all know what happens when you assume!  But seriously.  Why would anyone get upset about my blanket statements?  Does it anger people that someone doesn't agree with their assumptions?  Maybe they can send over some guys with swords and a cross to take care of me!

QUOTE
We may, on the whole, be a little nicer in the overall than they are (trust me, they tire quickly of uncritical thinking skills and obstinance in untenable positions....they'll ban you straight away for being silly and not making an effort to intelligently discuss), but patience may be wearing a little thin here as well with unintelligent banter.


No one is nice on the pro-Apollo side.  I have noticed this when you try to engage them in an open conversation.  When presented with facts to the contrary they stammer and become angry.  WHY?  There is a good question for you.

Unintelligent eh?  Flaming and banning.  It's to be expected from those who are afraid to take an intelligent look at the other side of an argument.  Or even forget intelligence.  How about a little common sense and reasonable reasoning.

QUOTE
We would like to keep this thread devoid of mind-boggling (  ) obstinance in the face of the facts...  Let's discuss.


Did you go to the moon?  Were you there?  I ask this because of a little statement made ealier in the thread.

Do you personally know any of the Astronauts who supposedly landed on the moon?  Have you met them?  Have you performed any personal inquiries into the matter?  I have!

Things to think about...

Not Proof, just interesting to note.

Why would Neil Armstrong say he doesn't deserve being celebrated for a moon landing?  Other convincing arguments for why we didn't go to the moon.

The Upstarts site again.

So, Clinton has recorded for his readers that one month after the Apollo 11 Eagle had been seen on television, sitting on the surface of the moon, an Arkansas acquaintance had expressed his complete disbelief in the claim.  Then, his experiences in Washington made him "wonder" whether this acquaintance was correct.  

            Now, exactly what is a former two-term United States President doing wondering about the authenticity of the greatest technological accomplishment in the history of mankind – an event that had marked the legacy of his own boyhood hero, JFK?  Obviously, he had seen something as President that now gives him reason to believe that the moon landings could have been falsified. If a former U.S. President is wondering about the authenticity of the claim, does it not make sense that we should wonder too?

Given that he served as President, one can imagine why he would not want to come right out and blow the whistle by unequivocally stating his true beliefs.  However, he did indeed cryptically allude to what can only be understood as the existence of a calculated mass deception, through the use of American television.


Pay close attention to the last three paragraphs

Maybe some answers in 2008

And ask yourself this.  How would an unmanned, still mounted camera pan around after no one is left to do so?

"Suddenly, soundlessly, Challenger split in two (movie). The base of the ship, the part with the landing pads, stayed put. The top, the lunar module with Cernan and Jack Schmitt inside, blasted off in a spray of gold foil. It rose, turned, and headed off to rendezvous with the orbiter America, the craft that would take them home again.

Those were the last men on the Moon. After they were gone, the camera panned back and forth. There was no one there, nothing, only the rover, the lander and some equipment scattered around the dusty floor of the Taurus-Littrow valley. Eventually, Rover's battery died and the TV transmissions stopped.

That was our last good look at an Apollo landing site.

Many people find this surprising, even disconcerting. Conspiracy theorists have long insisted that NASA never went to the Moon. It was all a hoax, they say, a way to win the Space Race by trickery. The fact that Apollo landing sites have not been photographed in detail since the early 1970s encourages their claims."


The problem here really my friends, isn't that there isn't enough evidence to prove the hoax theory.  There is TOO MUCH!


Ciao!



#19    S3th

S3th

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 250 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2006

Posted 18 June 2006 - 09:18 PM

Oh, yeah, my banner is too big.  Maybe they should ban me!

Allright those four who voted on the side of hoaxers.   Where are your comments?

Edited by S3th, 18 June 2006 - 09:20 PM.


#20    Lilly

Lilly

    Forum Divinity

  • 16,406 posts
  • Joined:16 Apr 2004

Posted 18 June 2006 - 09:38 PM

S3th, I gather you haven't had time to read that website I linked to?

sad.gif

"Ignorance is ignorance. It is a state of mind, not an opinion." ~MID~

Posted Image

#21    frogfish

frogfish

    ஆங்கிலத்த&

  • Member
  • 11,142 posts
  • Joined:19 Sep 2005

Posted 18 June 2006 - 09:38 PM

Quote

Hey frogfish! First off, 2020 eh? Wow, more than fifty years later. They must be planning on breakthroughs in shielding technology!!!

Sure there are other threads like this. I would use the search function and pull up old threads, but I'm a new member and this thread was just sitting there waiting for attention. It's funny how if you take an opposing side to an issue, everyone starts giving it some attention. Perhaps the moderators would like to move it to the debate forum

No, budgeting and other missions have been deterents to sending humans back to the moon.

Sorry, the debate forum is for formal debates that each side has actual proof.

Conspiracies don't make the cut original.gif

-Frogfish-
Posted Image
Researcher-Prostate Cancer Oncogene Research
University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center

The National Center for Biotech Information
My Photo Gallery: Capturing India

Fishing is a Way of Life!


#22    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,169 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 18 June 2006 - 10:11 PM

Ladies and gentlemen, let's try to keep this civil and to the point. The previous two threads on the subject have had to be closed by the moderators.

S3th, if you do not wish to follow Lilly's link (although I advise you do) you may wish to go to this post: Moon Landing Conspiracies in the Space and Astronomy forum of this site, there you will find links to 9 previous threads on this subject. If you read through these threads you will find that each of your points have been shown to false (over and over again). I suggest you read up on the subject. If there are still not points that you have doubts over or are not convinced by then ask questions here. You will find that there are some extremely knowledge people on this site (and when it comes to Apollo you will be hard pressed to find anyone more knowledgable than MID on any site).

Knowledge and experience are a rare resource and be should used well. MID has these by the shed load.

"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

#23    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,042 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005

Posted 18 June 2006 - 11:26 PM

Quote

Allright...The Van Allen Belt was indeed a highly radiated belt they had to travel through. It's function is to save us from being irradiated by solar radiation. Right? Now use the power of REASONING and ask yourself how anyone could survive Solar radiation without some form of shielding? It's a simple question. They were supposedly outside that belt for what? Seven days or something in that neighborhood. Now ask a scientist, who doens't care about the public ridicule and shame, (the lambasting I just received on a board of opinions being the perfect example) how long they think a human being could survive solar radiation without some sort of shielding. If you find one intelligent and brave enough you'll be surprised at their answer. And it ain't days.

Produce this scientist then.  And while you're at it, explain why scientists in countries hostile to the US also agree that the US landed on the moon.  What are they afraid of?

What a scientist will tell you is that the worst, most harmful part of solar radiation comes from solar flares.  Solar flares don't occur constantly though.  Even when they do occur, they still have to be pointed at the Earth-Moon system to harm us.  Space is pretty big and few flares are pointed this way.  During Apollo, they had people watching the sun to predict when a flare was about to occur.  If one did happen and happened to be pointed this way, they had a plan to lift off from the moon and rejoin with the command module which did have better shielding.  They would also point the propulsion end toward the flare to shield more and get into an elongated orbit around the moon to have more time to have the moon between them and the flare.  However, there were no significant solar events when they went to the moon.

How much shielding do you think they need anyway?

Quote

Who has turned off their critical thinking skills. THE PUBLIC.

Quote

Do you still think a lone gunman killed JFK? Most people don't.


So which is it? Did they turn off their critical thinking skills or did they use them to decide it wasn't a lone gunman that killed JFK? You can't have it both ways.

Quote

What's NASA's proof? Rocks! Okay, whatever.


Yes rocks that can not have been found on Earth, can not be meteors and can not have been made in a lab. Hundred of geologists around the world have verified their authenticity including some from countries hostile to the US.

Quote

Oh, and pictures, which have been proven time and again to have serious curiousities raising serious questions about their validity.


I like how you throw around the word "proven" when not a single "proof" can be shown to have any merit.
Oh and don't forget the reams upon reams of documentation, hardware, astronauts testimonies, technology that came from advancements made during Apollo, and the independent tracking of the crafts done by radio telescopes around the world as well as HAM radio operators. But they're all in on it too aren't they?  

QUOTE
BTW, there has been issues that have never been debunked because they never aired of FOX's program. How they were able to get themselves through the LEM hatch being a major one. It swung inward and the distance you would have to negotiate with all the gear on was too small. The psi of their suits and how it would have been impossible to even bend your arms within them. This raises even more questions of validity to the hoaxers claims.


You do realize that there is video available showing the astronauts exiting the LM right? How is it impossible when they can be shown doing it?

As for the suits, they are very similar to the ones used by the shuttle astronauts. Last I checked they could bend their arms. Realize also that the white suit you see is not the pressure garment. The pressure garment is underneath and the white suit is used for insulation and protection.

QUOTE
No direct discrediting of the theories discussed through opposing theories. No, those all came out after the program by some people who were payed to do it. PAYED. Why do you have to pay someone to debunk what others believe? Let them have their beliefs. Right? Why do they care? Because they commited a crime!!


Even assuming that there are some who are payed to "discredit" these theories, what about the many that aren't payed? Those that have put many hours into research instead of swallowing anything Sibrel says.

QUOTE
Hey frogfish! First off, 2020 eh? Wow, more than fifty years later. They must be planning on breakthroughs in shielding technology!!!


There will be some more shielding, but only because they are planning on staying longer this time. The shielding they had was adequate for the time they stayed before. Or do you have some actual documentation showing it was inadequate?

It has taken a long time to go back because public interest waned even while the program was going on. Nixon slashed the budget and 3 missions were cancled. Then the Saturn V was mothballed to avoid competition for the space shuttle. The shuttle turned out to be much more expensive than originally planned which hurts NASAs budget even more. If the public isn't interested in going to the Moon and isn't interested in paying for it, how are you going to do it?

QUOTE
The Hoax people look at the photographic 'evidence' and say, geez, that's curious. Why are things completely in shadow areas illuminated?


There is a large amount of light reflected from the lit lunar surface into the shadowed areas. Plus cameras can be set with longer exposure times making things appear brighter.

QUOTE
That rock has a C on it.


The "C" rock has been shown to most likely be a hair on the scanner when the print was transferred. Earlier and later prints do not show the "C".
From www.clavius.org
QUOTE
Mr. Sibrel is speaking of the infamous C-rock photo (Fig. 2). He has absolutely no evidence that the photo has been recently retouched. That's simply his interpretation of the fact that two different versions of the photo exist: with and without the mark.
The peculiar C-shaped mark on the rock has been conclusively traced to its source: a fiber contaminant on a particular print of this photo. The original transparency does not contain the mark. The masters do not contain the mark. The prints (save one) do not contain the mark. The mark exists on one print, and one print only.

It is unfortunate that this one print was digitized and as a result became the one most widely circulated. But Sibrel's contention that this photo was retouched to remove supposed evidence of prop markings is completely unfounded. Sibrel is trying to make the observation fit his predetermined conclusion. There is plenty of evidence of other fibrous contamination on the prints. You simply cannot handle and store tens of thousands of photographs without getting specks of dust on a few of them. The effort to clean them when dirty is evidence of preserving the record intact, not evidence of falsifying it.




Edited by frenat, 18 June 2006 - 11:36 PM.

-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

#24    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,042 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005

Posted 18 June 2006 - 11:37 PM

Quote

Or, why are the shadows not parallel?

Perspective and terrain can make shadows appear different when photographed. Good page showing this here
http://www.clavius.org/shad15.html
and here
http://www.clavius.org/shad30.html
and here
http://www.clavius.org/shad45.html
and especially here
http://www.clavius.org/trrnshdow.html

Quote

Where are all the stars?

It is impossible for stars (which would need a very long exposure) to show up in a photograph with bright sunlit objects (which require a very short exposure). Any real photograher will agree.

Quote

Why is that flag waving?

The flag only waves when the pole is being touched by an astronaut. First there is a bar across the top holding the flag out. Second there are multiple wrinkles in the flag from being folded up for transport that do not pull out in the weaker gravity.

Quote

And let's not here again how they were screwing it into the ground. It was in place and the astronot was holding it to try and keep the wind from waving it so much.

They had to screw it into the ground because the ground was harder than expected. There are hours of video showing the flag completely still when no astronaut was touching it. Again, as above there was also the fabric memory with the wrinkles from transport.

Quote

Why are the specs of the LEM and the 'dune buggy' missing, gone, instead of on display at the Smithsonian or some other institute for the preservation of valuable and accurate information? I'll tell you why. A close look at those specs would have even the average joe scratching their heads and saying, "This is impossible!"

Not all of the specs are missing. Much is still available. But I don't think you understand just how much documentation there really was. These didn't use off the shelf parts. Each part was custom made for a specific purpose. Each bolt and fitting would have its own documentation. This showed how to build it to spec and the testing each piece went through. Then there was the documentation for how it all went together. Some of it wasn't even completely documented. The processes used to make certain parts were only used on Apollo. When the craft is not being made anymore, where do you store rooms full of documentation? How do you store a technique that only a few technicians knew how to do and will never use again in their lifetime? Still, there is much documentation left if you know where to look for it.

QUOTE
WRONG, examining it in all it's astounding detail has been what began the hoax theory in the first place. Pictures with anomolies which seem to strengthen the hoax subscribers position.

The only anomalies seen are easily explainable by those who have done research. Not a single claim stands up to scrutiny.

QUOTE
Well, how many people do you have to bribe to keep the true location of a feed quiet? Hmmm?

When the feed is collected by multiple independent radio telescopes around the world and tracked by numerous amateur HAM radio operators you get into hundred or thousands of people.



-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

#25    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,042 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005

Posted 18 June 2006 - 11:38 PM

Quote

BTW, calling Sibrel and upstart doesn't do anything for your side of this except show additional tainting of your opinion. Upstart...LOL. Do you realize how much time and effort he put into this 'investigation'? He's had astronots hit him, run away from him, etc. These are the acts of cowards, not heros! To call him an upstart is an attempt to discredit him and his research. Shame on you.
No, the fact that a person who purported to go to the moon, not only wouldn't lay his hand on a Bible and swear to it, but became angry enough to punch a man who is desperately seeking the truth in this matter, or as the one above did, run away. That in itself says volumes, not only in the credibility of the astronauts, but their character as well.

What says volumes are Sibrel's tactics used in his "interviews". He arranges the interviews under false pretenses lieing about who he is and who he represents. When they arrive, instead of asking them questions, he immediately accuses them of being liars and frauds. Aldrin only punched him after repeatedly trying to leave and physically being blocked while having a Bible shoved in his face. Sibrel tries to be antagonistic because he sells more videos when somebody loses their temper. He is only in it for the money. The astronnauts know who he is. He has been arrested for trespassing on private property trying to get his "interviews" before. They know that if they do swear on the Bible he will call them liars, thiefs and frauds and if they don't they are hiding something. Sibrel admitted in court that he was trying to set Aldrin up in a no win situation. He is no better than a tabloid journalist.

Quote

The fact is the 'FACTS' are full of inconsistencies. Pictures which had to be tampered with. Pictures which have anomolies the hoax debunkers do not answer in any way close to assembling common sense.

Again, not a single one of the hoax proponents arguements stands up to scrutiny. Show us one that you think does.

Quote

The same can be said of your side of the argument MID. Seriously. Look at it. They never address the meat of the argument from back in the seventies when a man had the audacity to write NASA and ask them about some peculiarities. One of them being how they were able to negotiate gettting through the LEM door. This has never been answered satisfactorily or at all! And as a matter of fact, not one video has them actually coming out of the door, just descending the ladder. WHY?

As mentioned above, there is video showing them coming out the door. There are also still photos of the same event.

Quote

Do you personally know any of the Astronauts who supposedly landed on the moon? Have you met them? Have you performed any personal inquiries into the matter? I have!

I have as well. In fact, Ed Mitchell runs his own web forum that he posts on regularly. Have you talked to him?
http://www.edmitchellapollo14.com/phpBB2/index.php

Quote

And ask yourself this. How would an unmanned, still mounted camera pan around after no one is left to do so?

Ed Fendell at mission control remotely panned the camera to capture the craft's ascent. The takeoff time was known as well as the time delay to the moon.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...4.alsepoff.html
Look at the italicized remarks after 115:06:45
QUOTE
On the J missions, all that the astronauts had to do was mount the TV camera on the front of the Rover. Thereafter, it was run remotely from Houston by Ed Fendell

I thought said you had done some research.

QUOTE
The problem here really my friends, isn't that there isn't enough evidence to prove the hoax theory. There is TOO MUCH!

So evidence for you is hearsay, shoddy research and strawmen? Yeah, Ok.    rolleyes.gif  rolleyes.gif


-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

#26    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,169 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 19 June 2006 - 02:06 AM

Let us dissesct some S3th logic here shall we? In his first post he tells us that you can't trust what you see on TV:

Quote



Did you see it on TV.  Because I see alot of things on TV and most of it is smoke and mirrors.


He tells us that he used to believe in the moon landings:

Quote



Well, I believed we went to the moon too...


So it must have taken something major to change his mind. What was it?

Quote


That was all before a very interesting episode of NOVA which alleviated me immediately of the illusion that we went to the moon.  It was an episode dealing with the magnetic field that surrounds our planet keeping us from frying like a bunch of fish on a frying pan.  


So he saw it on TV.

But hang on a minute:

Quote



Because I see alot of things on TV and most of it is smoke and mirrors.


Am I the only one that can see a huge hole in this logic?


"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

#27    S3th

S3th

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 250 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2006

Posted 19 June 2006 - 06:18 AM

Quote

S3th, I gather you haven't had time to read that website I linked to?


Yes, I made the time!  Thank you for asking Lilly.

Quote


Let us dissesct some S3th logic here shall we? In his first post he tells us that you can't trust what you see on TV:
He tells us that he used to believe in the moon landings:
So it must have taken something major to change his mind. What was it?
So he saw it on TV.

But hang on a minute:
Am I the only one that can see a huge hole in this logic?


The NOVA programmed only served as the final straw in a mountain of evidence that was supplied before I saw the FOX or NOVA programs.  BTW, NOVA producers could care less about debunking NASA or hoaxers.  They show what they know.  So, there is the hole.  I believe the information supplied by a NOVA program.  Wow, what is my problem.  I must be crazy.

Quote


What says volumes are Sibrel's tactics used in his "interviews". He arranges the interviews under false pretenses lieing about who he is and who he represents. When they arrive, instead of asking them questions, he immediately accuses them of being liars and frauds. Aldrin only punched him after repeatedly trying to leave and physically being blocked while having a Bible shoved in his face. Sibrel tries to be antagonistic because he sells more videos when somebody loses their temper. He is only in it for the money. The astronnauts know who he is. He has been arrested for trespassing on private property trying to get his "interviews" before. They know that if they do swear on the Bible he will call them liars, thiefs and frauds and if they don't they are hiding something. Sibrel admitted in court that he was trying to set Aldrin up in a no win situation. He is no better than a tabloid journalist.
Again, not a single one of the hoax proponents arguements stands up to scrutiny. Show us one that you think does.


Ask and you shall receive.  Below, you'll find a link to "Was it only a Paper Moon".  Check it out for yourself.  And as Mr. Collier claims, no footage of any astronaut actually exiting the door to the LEM.  I too have been unable to find it.  Perhaps you could provide a link to this supposed video footage?


Quote

I thought said you had done some research.
So evidence for you is hearsay, shoddy research and strawmen? Yeah, Ok.    rolleyes.gif  rolleyes.gif


How much research have you done?  And don't just quote me a bunch of Clavius clap trap either.  You have to research both sides to come up with a rounded view.

Perhaps some proof is on the horizon.  I await it with bated breath.  I do not wish to be right in this matter.  I can only hope that I am wrong, that Sibrel is wrong.  And all the other people in the world, who after looking at the oddities, thinking is wrong as well.  Why you ask?

Because, if NASA really did pull a fast one on us, then the repurcussions will hurt our chances at 'real' manned missions to the moon in the future.  Shielding being the main subject on which the entire success of future missions depend.


"On his website (moonmovie.com), Sibrel lists the grounds on which he has taken issue with what has generally been regarded as established fact, and claims to have found a credible source who worked for the space program during the 1960s to back these up.

"He asserted, most confidently, that the Apollo moon landings were, first, impossible and, second, falsified as a Cold War tactic to bluff the Soviet Union into thinking the United States had greater capability than it really did," states Sibrel.

"I discovered that the highest ranking official at NASA resigned, without explanation, just days before the first Apollo mission. All three crewmembers of the first historic flight also resigned shortly thereafter.

"Neil Armstrong, the most famous astronaut because of supposedly being the first man on the Moon, refused to even appear in a single still picture on the Moon! Aside from the initial press conference immediately following the event, in which he seems very disgruntled, he has not given a single interview on the subject, in print or on camera, to anyone ever!"

History notes that Sibrel is indeed correct in these claims. However, is it rational to argue, with absolute certainty, that a solitary testimony from a retired NASA employee and a handful of resignations are anything other than coincidence?

Well, Sibrel asserts that there is more evidence to back up his allegations and on his website he lists his ‘Top Ten’ reasons why the landings were a hoax and why Man has never set foot on the Moon."

You asked me to go to Clavius and so I did.  

After reading Clavius, I find both his assertations on dangers of the Van Allen Belt to be void of consequences.  Such as, how did the astronauts have no damage what-so-ever, after two trips through the belt and days being exposed to Solar Radiation?  Surely some sort of damage.  We find skin cancer from the deadly rays of the sun here on Earth.  For God's sake, we put on UV protection on EARTH and still find ourselves screwed.  So, what's up with all that.  No layers of protection from the Earth and they are all fine.  Whatever?


In a book he released last year, amateur French astronomer and photographer Philippe Lheureux made international headlines when he made similar claims about NASA faking photographic footage.

But Lheureux puts a different spin on the hoax theory. In ‘Lumieres sur la Lune’ (Lights on the Moon) he suggests astronauts did get to the Moon but in order to prevent competitors from using sensitive scientific information in the genuine photos, NASA released bogus images.

The BBC quoted Lheuruex from French television: "In order not to give out scientific information they released photos taken during the training stages.

"That satisfied the American taxpayer and that left no real possibility for other countries to make scientific use of them."

Lheureux presents evidence from a photo of a lunar landing craft’s ‘foot’ because it is totally dust-free. The problem here, he says, is that according to Neil Armstrong large clouds of dust were displaced on landing.

Need more proof? How about props in space? According to the BBC report, Lheureux says that when one of the photos purportedly taken on the Moon is enlarged a letter ‘C’ can clearly be seen scribed on a rock "exactly like some cinema props".
Sibrel alleges that NASA continues to doctor their film footage to clean up obvious errors like those that Lheureux claims to have exposed.

"Newly retouched photographs correct errors from previously released versions. Why would they be updating 30-year-old pictures if they really went to the Moon?" asks Sibrel.

In the face of this barrage, NASA’s persisting silence does not seem to have helped quell any of the doubts either.

In response to Lheureux’s claims, the agency was reported to acknowledge that about 20 pictures of the thousands that were taken do take some explaining but on close examination they have a scientific explanation. NASA left its response at that.

In the past NASA has either relied on information sheets originally issued in 1977, or private citizens, concerned enough to mount their own campaigns to address some of the concerns in circulation.

But in late 2002 it seemed that the US space agency had finally got fed up with all the dissent. They commissioned James Oberg, a 22-year Mission Control veteran and prominent space-travel author, to work on a 30,000-word book to debunk the faked landing hypothesis and also examine how such theories become popular and spread.

The former chief historian at NASA, Roger Launius, conceived the idea to give schoolteachers a tool to help answer classroom queries because half the world’s population was not yet born the last time an astronaut reached the Moon.

"As time progresses, this gets less and less real to everybody. At some level, I think that may be what’s happening here," Launius told Washington’s Daily News.

However, days after they announced the funding for the book, NASA added fuel to the fire by pulling its financial backing. According to the worldwide news service, AFP, a NASA spokesman said the project had lost its focus because it was "being portrayed by the media as a PR campaign to debunk the hoaxers and that was never the intent".

Oberg has lost his promised US$15,000 contract for the work, but despite this setback he informs Investigate that he is forging ahead with the book, writing it "commercially".

Compelling evidence in support of hoaxers provided by NASA itself...

No engine noise

Did you hear an engine stop?  Did you?  Why not?  Explain this oddity, please?

Not much bounce in their steps

This is another unusual and obviously suspect point of contention some have continued to ignore.  It has been said that the moons gravity is one sixth that of the Earths.  These guys should be bouncing up much higher.  As a matter-of-fact, I can bounce that high, right here on good ole Earth.

Walking on the moon?

Again, appearing to walk along just as if on Earth.


Walking on the moon?

I don't know if someone speeded this up a bit to show the standard earth walk look to their movement or what, but it does make a point.  You see, if you slow it down, it seems more convincing that they are on the moon!  

About a year before the FOX program aired a friend of mine handed me a tape and said watch it.  It was called, Was It Only a Paper Moon, by James Collier.


Check it out

Fun with the Rover

If they would have done this in a larger format, you could see, that the 'rooster tails' are not rising any higher than they would on Earth.  And, when slowed down and watched closely, as Mr. Collier did, you would see that the rooster tails meet with a resistance we like to call on Earth, ATMOSPHERE.  On the moon, the 'rooster tails' would have been a perfect arc.  Not so, as you can see on the slowed down version on Was It Only a Paper Moon.


Can you tell me the many oddities, both audio and video?

ODD

More lack of some sort of thruster/engine noise

Ignition and then no change in the sound.  Wouldn't we hear something?  

This is from the Clavius site...And in contradiction to the claim of no solar flares during any Apollo mission.


"Only one mission, Apollo 16, suffered a solar flare, and it was a mild one. Solar weather is not a big secret; most observatories around the world record solar flares."

After spending hours of my Sunday, reading through Clavius, I am not impressed.  Especially since all arguments seem pointed at the FOX program assertions and none deal with arguments made early on by Collier.  These were the arguments that began to convince me of the hoax.  NASA never answered any of his questions to a reasonable conclusion.  I guess it didn't matter that much since his program never aired on Network television.

If you would like to see it click on the link below.  It takes some time to download.  If you are on a land line you may want to go play while you wait.  It's the entire two hour program.
  

Was it Only a Paper Moon

Clavius on high quality pictures and anomolies within them.  Two different aspects of suspect photography.  Somehow Clavius decided to use this inane reference to assert his readers not trust Percy and Bennett.  It's odd isn't it?  Don't trust them, they want to tell you something that is peculiar and might shed light on doctored pictures.  Don't trust them!  Trust me, I'm smarter than

But every photograph in the Apollo record still contains numerous anomalies. [Bennett and Percy]

But that's changing horses. The original argument was that they were all (or in large part) of suspiciously high quality. Anyone who examines the full extent of the record for himself finds that not to be the case. The authors have made an assertion and supported it with selective evidence. Now confronted with the true character of that evidence, the authors change the direction of their argument without closure on the original issue..

The authors have been caught with their homework undone, and raising different suspicions does not excuse that. Either they have not extensively examined the record, as they claimed, or they have deliberately mischaracterized the record to their readers. Either way, we cannot trust these authors.

Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strings me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life.

At this point Ralph Rene the self-taught engineer becomes Ralph Rene the self-taught psychologist. We can postulate any number of reasons why Aldrin may have been upset at that particular time, many of which have nothing to do with his occupation as an astronaut. Rene, predisposed to interpret everything in the context of his conspiracy theory, simply makes up a reason and assumes that was Aldrin's reason.
As long as we're postulating reasons, try this one. Aldrin was very sensitive to the fact that he would be the second man on the moon. He had made a very strong case to his superiors that he should be the first. He was persistent enough to have been told bluntly that Armstrong would be the first on the moon and that he should stop lobbying for the historical honor. It's often very difficult to be forever relegated to second place. (How many U.S. vice presidents can you name?) Aldrin had deep feelings on having not been first, and we might explain this outburst in that light instead.

He was asked what it was like to step on the lunar surface, not what it felt like to be the second man to step on the lunar surface.  You would think a huge smile and it felt great would be the response, not uncontrollable crying.  What Clavius refuses to mention is that the banquet at an Air Force base with pilots.  It's just difficult for me to believe any pilot/astronaut would break down and cry in front of his peers.  Unless something very serious upset him.  Like, perhaps, lying to his peers.

BTW, this is my last post on this.  If after watching 'Was it Only a Paper Moon, you are not convinced of the hoax, then perhaps you should join the Clavius fansite and bow before his Lordship Clavius.  It's so much easier than thinking for yourself.

I'm not here to claim superior knowledge to anyone of you.  I can tell you, however, that I have spent many hours researching this.  I just made some statements I felt would add life and comments from the opposite view.  It seems life isn't all it invoked.  LOL

Ultimately it doesn't really matter which side of this issue you believe is the Truth.  The truth stands alone, oblivious to belief.



#28    boggle

boggle

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Joined:23 May 2006

Posted 19 June 2006 - 02:47 PM

S3th-

i wasnt aware that .. yet another thread regarding the well wishing moon landing was brought here as well, otherwise i would have submitted info here as well.  i admit, your posts regarding this subject S3th are more indepth than mine heheh. For example i noticed is that you stated something in regards to James Oberg.  Here is the excerpt i used:

He was approached by NASA to write a rebuttal of Apollo moon landing hoax accusations, but it is not clear that the manuscript was ever started, and NASA promptly announced their intention not to publish the book soon after their announcement that they had commissioned it.--excerpt taken from wikipedia.


#29    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 19 June 2006 - 11:58 PM

You're sounding a little irate, and that's not going to get you too far.

I asked for questions.   Not twenty.  One at a time.   The answers will be lengthy, if you really want them, and , as I said, will require some actual investigation on your part as well.  You really can't just believe us.  Knowledge requires self-discovery.

If you are seeking the truth, here is where you will find the path.

Your post has far too many issues in it to respond to all at once (although it appears that people are coming through with some answers to many of them!).      

Note:  You were not lambasted by me.  I simply laid out a pattern which would result in the most economical means of answering your questions, and as a result, providing knowledge in these matters.   Your links and references are all to places that have thoroughly been debunked.  I understand how you could be swayed to believe these places are telling you some inside information, but we will, if you allow us, show you that these places make grave mistakes, based upon a lack of knowledge.

How about we take things one at a time?  Despite the fact that you seem to hold to opinions that are deeply imbedded in your psyche, I think you actually do have a curiosity about these things.



You made mention of solar radiation, and seem to think that there was no "shielding" against it.

The function of the van Allen belts is still the matter of some debate. The idea that it may protect us from solar radiation is certainly a possible idea, but that doesn't explain why similar radiation belts exist around all bodies that generate a magnetic field, life or no life.   Their origins are relatively well understood...as an interaction between the solar wind and the magnetic field.  

Actually, our atmosphere has the lion's share of protection duties against solar radiation.   This is why our planet is relatively temperate, and why we don't get sunburned to death (although, depending on the person, that could still happen in some places on Earth!).  

Of course, on the Moon, no atmosphere exists, so we compensated for that by producing the Apollo spacecraft, and the Apollo suit, which were specifically designed to protect against the effects of nominal solar radiation.

The fact is, we did have shielding against the unprotected rays of the sun.

The Apollo suit, for instance, was a 1.5 million dollar piece of engineeering which made an astronaut almost impervious to the harsh environment of space.  Over the cooling garment and pressure suit itself was a garment consisting of 14 layers of silver-mylar and kapton, covered with completely fire-proof beta cloth which was specifically designed and tested to provide protection against solar radiation and heat, and micrometeorioids as well.  It was mighty heavy, and mighty uncomfortable over time (it looked alot softer than it was, owing to the appearance of the external beta-cloth covering).  The helmets had double visors on them to protect against glare, and of course, the PLSS and OPS provided a complete environmental regulation system which kept the men cool, and provided something for them to breathe, as well as removed the toxins they exhaled.

This suit, and the spacecraft, provided all the protection necessary to protect them from  the nominal solar radiation, and the nominal amount of van Allen radiation they would encounter.   Missions were also planned outside of solar max cycles, and of course, no STE ever occurred during an Apollo mission.   This of course, could be construed as luck.   It was, to a degree.  The missions were planned precisely to avoid any such event, but the possibility existed, of course.   That was deemed acceptible by crews and planners.

Additionally, van Allen transit was planned for as well, utilizing specific transfer orbits to transit the smallest or thinnest parts of the van Allen belts on the outbound and inbound parts of the missions.   The planners did a really good job at this, as the multiple source dosimeter readings indicated for all of the Apollo flights.  
___________________________________________________________________________


If you are in fact a seeker of truth, then I'd suggest using integrity to do so, rather than buying into the prattlings of the less-than informed. The JFK matter has absoluetly no relation to Apollo.  All you need to know regarding Apollo exists in depth.  All you need to know about Kennedy's death will likely never be revealed.    There is a massive difference.   Just because one thing seems to point to conspiracy does not mean all things that one doesn't understand do.
___________________________________________________________________________

You make statements of fact that simply aren't true.

You say that the LM hatch opened inward and that there wasn't enough room to get out because of that.

This is ridiculous.   There was room to get out, and the procedure was practiced and mastered many times before crews actually landed on the moon.  We had a large group of engineeers who spent a long time planning the vehicle to allow it to execute this purpose, and there are in fact film records available in the NASA archives that show this being done many times.  There were several feet of space available aft of an astronauts flight station that would allow one to move back and away from the egress/ingress hatch while the other exited the spacecraft.   Plenty of room to do this thing.  That's the way it was planned.  I know that may sound ridiculous, but that's the way the project worked.  We planned for things, and designed for them to happen.



You see, spitting out alot of common HB stuff, in volume, isn't going to help you.  One, because it's all been answered before, and two because it helps to limit your questions to one at a time, so a more clear understanding can be had.  


Your posts sound very un-discussion like, and illustrate a profound acceptance of silliness.  You do however, seem intelligent enough to ask a question, and learn.  


But it's not looking too promising when you make a statement like , "And ask yourself this.  How would an unmanned, still mounted (?) camera pan around after no one is left to do so?"

...and then go on illustrating what many of us already know about Apollo 17's liftoff, and the subsequent video that was made....for a couple days.

"There was no one there.  Nothing, only the rover, the lander, and some equipment scattered around the dusty floor of the Taurus-Littrow valley."

Well, this is silly...because, we know this.  Further, if one payed attention to the missions, one would've noticed that there was no one panning that LRV camera ever.  It was done by a flight controller in Houston.  He controlled that camera the entire time it was active.   It didn't require anyone to move it around.  

Unbeknownst to most people, we sat around watching later, after the LM ascent stage was jettisoned, hoping to see the LM impact on the surface in the distant mountains...long after the crew left.   A crazy thing to have documented, since no one in the public cared about such things.   They'd never see this stuff live, nor care about it.   Kind of a dumb thing to bother doing in support of a hoax, don't you think?

But the bottom line is, if you intend to lay out a bunch of stuff like this (which was not rocket science, mind you), and think that it points to a hoax, you're painting yourself into a corner .

A hundred different hoax theories or pieces of "evidence" doesn't lend itself to serious consideration, especially when suffixed by statements like, "...there isn't enough evidence to prove the hoax theory.   There is TOO MUCH!"


Because in reality, and as some of your statements show, there isn't any.

I am not here to shatter your illusions.  I am here to guide you to an understanding of that which you do not understand.

Open your mind, and allow something in.

One thing at a time.  It's much easier that way.


#30    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 20 June 2006 - 12:28 AM

Quote


BTW, calling Sibrel and upstart doesn't do anything for your side of this except show additional tainting of your opinion.  Upstart...LOL.  Do you realize how much time and effort he put into this 'investigation'?  He's had astronots hit him, run away from him, etc.  These are the acts of cowards, not heros!  To call him an upstart is an attempt to discredit him and his research.  Shame on you.

You can run, but you can't hide!

No, the fact that a person who purported to go to the moon, not only wouldn't lay his hand on a Bible and swear to it, but became angry enough to punch a man who is desperately seeking the truth in this matter, or as the one above did, run away.  



I am well aware of how much time and effort he put into his "documentary".  But you make a mistake in thinking that he is passionate about uncovering a truth.

He is passionate about playing upon people's ignorance in order to make a dollar...which he's apparently done in your case.

He had an astronaut hit him because he mercilessly harassed the man.  You might also note that no charges were ever brought against Mr. Aldrin, because the documented evidence would've proved Sibrel's childish harrassment of an American hero, and any self-respecting jurist would've thrown the case out due to lack of merit, as they did in the case of the idiotic Bill Kaysing suing Jim Lovell for slander when Jim called Mr. Kaysing
"kookie" after reading a copy of Kaysing's book (sent to him by the genius Kaysing himself!).

Did you know that Sibrel forcibly entered the home of Neil Armstrong, scaring the hell out of his wife a few years ago, and was arrested for tresspassing and illegal entry?   Did you know that this jerk is facing multiple law suits regarding his harrasment and behavior in his stupid investigation?

No, I didn't think so.

Sibrel is a child, and a fool, and a sorry excuse for a human being.  


Asking people who did this thing to lay their hand on a Bible and swear that they went to the moon?  Pressing them like some pubescent 7th grader?

His tactics, although certainly not rising to quite the same heinous level of contempt, come from the same lunatic mindset that makes groups of crazed religious lunatics parade outside of the funerals of young men killed in the middle east, holding up signs supporting their deaths, in full view of the agrieved families.

...only in America



You accept his behavior as a reasonable and intellectually sound thing to do?

If that's the case, then you're likely not worth talking to about this either.  That's an elementary and childish stupididity on the part of someone who claims to be an adult.  


Let's get real, and get back to questions here, OK?

Forget Sibrel.  I will show you, as I have him, that he's all wet (he of course, doesn't respond, which is typical of a guy who really has no vested interest in supporting his position.   His interest is, as I said, playing on the ignorance of a large majority of an entire generation...in order to make a buck).