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This topic has been archived.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

#4051    kilter

kilter

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 249 posts
  • Joined:09 Sep 2006

Posted 24 September 2006 - 10:22 AM

Quote


I'd like to issue a general warning here, it doesn't seem to matter how many times we intervene and no matter how many warnings we issue, this thread inevitably returns to bickering, insult exchanges and unsociable behaviour from both sides.

What this thread demonstrates is that having a single topic to discuss such a controversial issue in all it's aspects just isn't working, which is a shame because there is a vast amount of extremely interesting content here, despite the inability of many of the participants to discuss it in a civil manner. I do however want to apologise to those who have not been a part of this type of behaviour, your contributions are greatly appreciated and we regret that we haven't been able to provide a better place for you to learn more about and discuss this fascinating subject.

We are offering one last chance for everyone to continue this topic in the manner it was intended, as a place to discuss and debate the Moon landing without insults, bickering, accusations or childish behaviour. If you can do that then we keep the topic open, otherwise it will be closed. This is the final warning on this, and we're not going to ask again.

Whether or not this thread continues is now completely up to you.


Around 99% of the venomous, low life behaviour is coming from one side and always has yet the only people banned and suspended come from the other .

Haven't you heard ? It's a battle of words

#4052    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,289 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 24 September 2006 - 10:24 AM

Please note SaRuMan's warning, UM members! I agree that there are lots of interesting points to discuss, and have been discussed, both pro-hoax and pro-Apollo.

Let's keep this thread civil and we won't have it shut down.

Thanks.


#4053    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,289 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 24 September 2006 - 10:32 AM

Hi kilter.

Just ignore replying to ad hominem posts, and report them to the mods. It may have been the 1% that was seen or mentioned to the mods, thus the banning may feel one-sided to you.

SaRuMan and the mods have always treated my pro-hoax posts fairly, so let's be sure to stick to the issues, report any ad hominem posts to the mods, and we'll have it taken care of.

Cheers.


#4054    LatinJones

LatinJones

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Joined:14 Sep 2006

Posted 24 September 2006 - 12:40 PM

I think everyone should go back and review the last 10 pages of this thread. There were some really good points made in between all of the nonsense bickering and I think it would be nice to get back on track again.......




#4055    straydog

straydog

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 580 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2006

Posted 24 September 2006 - 02:58 PM

Quote


I don't see anything to suggest that the LM was composited into the background image. Why wouldn't they composite over a higher resolution image? The technology wasn't that good at the time right? So why are the edges of the LM so crisp then?

I have seen a several minute long video clip from the spacecraftfilms apollo 11 DVD set of the eagle returning to dock with the CM. In a long duration video clip you would definately see some artifacts in the image due to compositing.

Also, when I look at the background image of the moon at first glance I see your point about it not looking as sharp as the LM itself. But when you look a little closer at the moon you can see crater edges, small ridges in the landscape, also look at the degree of color variation between the dark and light areas. It's not a blurry as you are making it out to be. I think another reason the LM is so sharp is because you are looking at a spaceship designed with sharp inorganic angles vs the rocky organic landscape of the moon. It's going to look a little more dull....

Also, the image was probobly taken when the LM was very close to the CM so they are pretty high up, you're going to lose a lot of detail at that height. When you look at the moon from the earth with a telescope you see a lot of the larger features, much larger than what you see in this picture, yet those features appear on a much smaller scale with more contrast and sharpness.

In relation to this topic:

When my daughter was younger she always liked to watch the teletubies and we had a pretty crappy 19" TV at the time. It wasn't until we upgraded our TV to one with a considerably larger picture that I immediately noticed that the teletubies were composited into the picture in some scenes.

With such a high resolution image you would definately see some artifacts of the compositing...



LatinJones .... I appreciate your detailed non-insulting reply to me ... but I still believe that all of the Apollo photographs , whether taken in 'lunar' orbit or on the the 'lunar' surface , were crudely faked in many ways ... Composit being only one of them .... But how I would go about proving this , I don't know .... When discussing this subject it is difficult to "prove" anything on either side this issue .... and that is why this debate continues 37 years after the fact .

I have always believed that if nasa could prove that they really landed men on the moon or prove that the official Apollo photographs were really taken on the moon , as they have claimed , then this subject would have stopped being discussed a long time ago .

But the truth of the matter is , that the official version of nasa's alleged Apollo moon missions are so full of holes , discrepencies and anomalies , that it is obvious that all was not well with Apollo .... and thus the conspiracy debate continues .


I would rather be in the minority and know the truth , than to be in the majority and be in denial of the truth .

#4056    straydog

straydog

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 580 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2006

Posted 24 September 2006 - 03:07 PM

Quote


**EDIT**how the **EDIT**l are they going to test an UNMANNED lunar module on the moon when the entire LM is built around the fact that humans will be operating it!!!!!!!!!

**Gav, if you cannot post in a civil manner, take a break and chill out.**



Gavsto ....  The LM was never test landed MANNED either .....Therefore nasa had no way of knowing if the LM could land anywhere manned or unmanned .... So there is absolutely NO WAY that nasa would have allowed the extremely high possibility of having our national heros ( the Apollo astronauts ) crash and burn on the lunar surface , live on TV,  as the entire world watched the US military industrial complex lose the space race ..... Think about it .

Edited by straydog, 24 September 2006 - 03:34 PM.

I would rather be in the minority and know the truth , than to be in the majority and be in denial of the truth .

#4057    LatinJones

LatinJones

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Joined:14 Sep 2006

Posted 24 September 2006 - 03:15 PM

Quote


Gavsto ....  The LM was never test landed MANNED either .....Therefore nasa had no way of knowing if the LM could land anywhere manned or unmanned .... So there is absolutely NO WAY that nasa would have allowed the extremely high possibility of having our national heros ( the Apollo astronauts ) crash and burn on the lunar surface , live on TV,  as the entire world watched the the US military industrial complex lose the space race ..... Think about it .



But they did have the LLTV. Check out these awesome video clips. It was really the weirdest looknig flying machine I've ever seen. It demonstrated the 4 legged lander could land in a 1/6th g environment and was based on the design of the lander itself. It used several rockets and a gimballed engine to simulate 1/6th gravity. Check out the videos here...

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Movie/LLR...EM-0019-05.html

Unfortunately for the pilots this was really the only way to test for the landing. There were less detailed ways such as the cable landing system mentioned earlier. Also, just a reminder that apollo 11 WAS a manned test landing on the moon. That was the main goal at the time was to land on the moon. The real science experiments came in later flights were they were the main goal other than to prove pinpoint landings were possible like in apollo 12.


#4058    straydog

straydog

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 580 posts
  • Joined:07 Jun 2006

Posted 24 September 2006 - 03:44 PM

LatinJones ... The video clips you provided by nasa have already been posted and discussed before .

The deceitfully EDITED clips only show the brief part when the LLTV was actually airborne ... It did not show the part where it CRASHED AND BURNED ALMOST KILLING ARMSTRONG !!  

The thing was too unstable to fly properly ....  If this is the only 'PROOF' that nasa has that the LM could really fly , then it is pathetic.

I would rather be in the minority and know the truth , than to be in the majority and be in denial of the truth .

#4059    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 24 September 2006 - 03:45 PM

Quote


I didn't see where anyone answered this.  Again, I urge you to download the FREE spaceflight simulator and actually fly around in space yourself.  You'll learn so much, it's amazing!

http://orbitersim.com



Actually tofu, annointer's questions were answered...yesterday, believe it or not, in two parts.



Hopefully this will serve as a reference for him if he comes back trying to find his answers amidst the din that occurred in the past day:

SEE POSTS 3919 (page 263), and 3941 (page 264).

Also, Rifter posted an excellent question which I gave him some information on in post 3952 (page 264).

I hope they can find them! original.gif


#4060    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,039 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004

Posted 24 September 2006 - 04:00 PM

I have quite honestly gotten tired of this thread.  As a former debate judge in college, I had the unenviable duty of attending a variety of debates on a variety of subjects of which I knew little, and the decisions I made relied solely on the presenter's ability to demonstrate his grasp of the issue and present it in a logical and rational manner.  Had some of the people on this thread attempted their methods in any of these debates, I would have thrown them out before they even finished their opening statements.  Ad hominen attacks, criminally faulty Formal Logic, refusal to stick to a particular topic, all of things are universal signs that the debater is tap-dancing, not debating, trying to win through misdirection, not through presentation.  I have seen more and more of this in this thread, and what was once a passable discussion has turned into nothing more than a free-for-all.

That being said, it is also true that this actual topic is of some interest to some, and therefore I cannot simply close it down without caring about what our members and guests wish to discuss.  Because of that I am going to do the following:  I am going to close this thread down, but I am going to allow the opening of other threads about the moon-landing hoax to open...

HOWEVER...

I will personally be watching over these threads with a level of anality you have likely never before experience outside of a formal debate.  If a thread is going to be created, it will be done in a professional manner, with a clear topic, point of discussion, and support.  If I, and I mean myself personally, do not find the topic meets my standards of a rational, reasoned, and open discussion.  I will close it, and you can PM Saruman about the fairness of my decision.  I will, in short, be treating this topic with the same rigid, hard-handed evaluatory glare that I treated the formal debates I had to preside over.  Threads that I believe were opened for the sole purpose of spamming the board will be closed.  Threads that were opened with no intent to continue the discussion will be closed.  Threads that are nothing more than a repetition of topics that have already been represented will be closed.

Threads that are requests for explanations or information will remain open as long as they remain civil and non-condescending.  Threads that occassionally re-hash old topics for the sake of clarity will remain open.  Threads that contain controversial, but supported topics will remain open, again, as long as they remain civil.  I will not, however, hesitate to close a topic and clearly state what particular fault by which particular member forced the closure.  I will also likely not allow more than three topics open at a time, depending on the level of difficulty it takes to moderate them.

I encourage those who have made possitive contributions to start up their own learning topics, where the purpose is to ask questions and get answers.  I encourage those who are simply here for the argument to watch these threads carefully and learn how a proper debate is carried out.