Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 24
Illiniblue35

Did we land on the moon?

14,135 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Feel free to start a poll then, if you think it will prove something.

BooNy, Jackdaw can't be bnothered to even attempt to back up the willfully ignorant, demonstrably false and almost certainly fabricated claims he makes. What makes you think he'd take the time to start a poll....?

:rolleyes:

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BooNy, Jackdaw can't be bnothered to even attempt to back up the willfully ignorant, demonstrably false and almost certainly fabricated claims he makes. What makes you think he'd take the time to start a poll....?

:rolleyes:

Cz

I'm not expecting him to, but considering that Waspy had already told him to feel free I thought it was kind of stupid for him to complain about it at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

BooNy, Jackdaw can't be bnothered to even attempt to back up the willfully ignorant, demonstrably false and almost certainly fabricated claims he makes. What makes you think he'd take the time to start a poll....?

:rolleyes:

Cz

The pics of the fake moon landings are widely covered on the net for all to see.

Including the oversized footprint come one legged BIG FOOT ON THE MOON and the print of a sneaker come training shoe?

And the same shot of a flag transversed and used on another "so called" lunar landing and the moon buggy that left no tyre tracks and the astro - nots collecting and then bringing home fake moon rocks - from a certain part of earth! etc etc etc.

Roll ya eyes all ya want Cz - but do try to get with the programme. Thanks.

Edited by Jackdaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not expecting him to, but considering that Waspy had already told him to feel free I thought it was kind of stupid for him to complain about it at this point.

I also provided him with the results of those previous polls, that didn't stop him from demanding them again. I've asked him, given that truth is based on evidence NOT on popularity polls, what he thinks he'll achieve, but he hasn't answered that simple question.

I don't think he's here to have a grown up debate, but given my previous warning about trolling I would suggest that he starts VERY soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pics of the fake moon landings are widely covered on the net for all to see.

Including the oversized footprint come one legged BIG FOOT ON THE MOON and the print of a sneaker come training shoe?

And the same shot of a flag transversed and used on another "so called" lunar landing and the moon buggy that left no tyre tracks and the astro - nots collecting and then bringing home fake moon rocks - from a certain part of earth! etc etc etc.

Roll ya eyes all ya want Cz - but do try to get with the programme. Thanks.

Post pictures including soruce.

I do not think it is our job to search the net trying to locate the pictures you claim prove your point the moon landings were faked.

I know I am starting to sound like a broken record seeing as you have been told countless of times to provide evidence. If you have nothing constructive to add to your argument then I suggest you move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'Jackdaw' timestamp='1336433719' post='4287324']

the oversized footprint come one legged BIG FOOT ON THE MOON and the print of a sneaker come training shoe?

Your famed footprint issue was convered already, but here:

Schmitt_Overshoe_NASM2009RK_1.jpg

This is exactly what made the famed footprints on the Moon. An AL7 overshoe, this one in fact being worn on the Moon by Jack Schmitt on Apollo 17 in December 1972.

It was a opretty simple and straight forward answer...just like this one. No mystery about the footprint. Big treads; soft, compressible adherant soil; foot print.

And the same shot of a flag transversed and used on another "so called" lunar landing

What's a "transversed" flag???

Show us.

and the moon buggy that left no tyre tracks

18576.jpg

Where was on of those "buggy" things that left no tire tracks??

Just curious, as titanium chevron treadles left distinctive tracks...all over the place

and the astro - nots collecting and then bringing home fake moon rocks - from a certain part of earth! etc etc etc.

Roll ya eyes all ya want Cz - but do try to get with the programme. Thanks.

Get with the program?

:-*

Yea.

Along those lines, start showing what your being asked to show, and---

--Prove those fake moon rocks..."from a certain part of earth ( :clap: ).

There's too much work for you to do...too much study and homework, for you to be wasting so much time posting silliness... :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot man, I was getting a little worried there.

Ah Seand, there's so much silliness in that film it's utterly dumbfounding.

One thing is easy:

If you see the name Bart Sibrel behind a film, it's definitely a hack job, filled with outright lies, and utter fabrications.

:tu:

Thanks a lot man, I was getting a little worried there.

Ah Seand, there's so much silliness in that film it's utterly dumbfounding.

One thing is easy:

If you see the name Bart Sibrel behind a film, it's definitely a hack job, filled with outright lies, and utter fabrications.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The pics of the fake moon landings are widely covered on the net for all to see.

Including the oversized footprint come one legged BIG FOOT ON THE MOON and the print of a sneaker come training shoe?

And the same shot of a flag transversed and used on another "so called" lunar landing and the moon buggy that left no tyre tracks and the astro - nots collecting and then bringing home fake moon rocks - from a certain part of earth! etc etc etc.

Roll ya eyes all ya want Cz - but do try to get with the programme. Thanks.

Post your evidence.

Until you do that, you are just flapping your fingers and saying nothing at all.

Ball's in your court, Jackdaw, where its always been. Support your claims with actual evidence or retract them.

That is the programme we're currently following.

ETA...

Saru has posted a FAQ regarding providing sources. Here are some relevant excerpts from it:

This FAQ is aimed at providing clarification on a few common questions on the topic of providing sources in posts.

Do I have to post sources when I present information in a post?

We do not have a specific requirement for members to provide source links to relevant data when making a claim or presenting factual statements in their postshowever it is often a very good idea to do so whenever you can. If there are specific facts you are relying on in a discussion to support your argument and the provision of a source is possible then being able to provide one to back up those facts helps you to solidify your position and will go a long way to convincing others that your argument has merit. Obviously there are many cases where it isn't possible or practical to provide a source but where it is and where one is warranted then its a good idea to do so.

Why should I post a source - its up to everyone else to do research and validate what i'm saying

No it isn't, if you are making a claim that requires validation and you are able to provide it then it is generally up to you to do so; you are making the claim and therefore you need to back it up with sources if you want it to be taken seriously. Again while there is no strict enforcement of this if you are looking to convince others that your point is correct but are telling others that they will need to look up the facts themselves or to "do their homework" then you are unlikely to elicit much support.

I've been asked to provide a source, do I have to ?

If you are putting forward an argument, a source has been requested and it is possible to provide one then while not compulsary it will substantially harm your position and likely render your argument void if you deliberately refuse to provide one. If you are unable to provide a source when one has been requested it is good practice to respond by explaining the reason behind that.

Emphasis added, obviously...

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I also provided him with the results of those previous polls, that didn't stop him from demanding them again. I've asked him, given that truth is based on evidence NOT on popularity polls, what he thinks he'll achieve, but he hasn't answered that simple question.

There's also this from last month:

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm? 2006 polls aint now as mr WD said.

Times and mankind have moved on since I think . . . . and so to has the net :-D

Yes, it has. And judging by the dwindling posts at forums such as this, most folks have woken up to the inanity of the Apollo deniers.

Jackdaw, what do you think of this JREF poll?

http://forums.randi....ad.php?t=233454

It might well reflect a bit on the unbelievably ill-informed and poorly presented drivel of 'fatfreddy' (aka davidc, cosmored, David Cosnette) and his cohort Patrick1000 (aka fattydash, DoctorTea, and many others), but the numbers are pretty comprehensive.. Currently 293 to 1 in favour of Apollo being true.

May I ask what you think of David Cosnette? Patrick1000? Jarrah White?

And can you explain why these Apollo deniers need to use so many sockpuppets?

(I already know the answer to this one, so you needn't put too much effort in..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And can you explain why these Apollo deniers need to use so many sockpuppets?

(I already know the answer to this one, so you needn't put too much effort in..)

Oh I think you can rest assured that Jackdaw will put virtually no effort into it whatsoever.... not really his style, you see....

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm? 2006 polls aint now as mr WD said.

Times and mankind have moved on since I think . . . . and so to has the net :-D

Your original comparison were the 60s, 2006 is close enough.

But it's true, mankind has moved on, just look at the remaining Moonhoaxers.

Just look at those who still hang on to the subject:

- Mr Sockpuppet fattydash

- Mr. Obsessed with JayUtah FatFreddy

- turbonium who's spouting the same long debunked nonsense since Bush was President

and a few others who appear to be more interested in being annoying than convincing anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Point taken

However not wishing to be banned - Again! - from posting on UM and being accused of TROLLING which is a phrase I am unfamiliar with?. . . . . I am now more conservative with my replies.

Like I said a few moons ago I quickly realised who has the "CON" on this thread?

By the by Mid - It was Ed Harris in the Apollo film?

More recently Mr WD hints that I need to grow up?

And refers to me as "HE"???

End of debate me thinks.

But it was fun :-D

ps. in my day a troll hid under a bridge

Edited by Jackdaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point taken

However not wishing to be banned - Again! - from posting on UM and being accused of TROLLING which is a phrase I am unfamiliar with?. . . . . I am now more conservative with my replies.

And yet with all your concern over being labeled a "troll" again, you seem to prefer to not provide evidence to back up your claims and prefer to insist that people do the research for you...

In other words, you're being a troll in an effort to not be viewed as a troll... :huh:

I'm trying REAL hard to see the logic behind that.

More recently Mr WD hints that I need to grow up?

And refers to me as "HE"???

In fairness, you haven't indicated your gender in your profile, and while it may not be a fair assumption to make, it is typical to assume that a poster is male first, rather than female, especially when one has a particularly male-sounding handle such as yours.

Now, all that said, and seeing as you have decided not to let us know if you're a "he" or "she", I'm perfectly happy to refer to you as "it". I'm sure others will follow suit...

End of debate me thinks.

But it was fun :-D

"End" of debate?

I wasn't aware that one had actually even started...

Usually a debate on this topic usually begins with those who believe in the Hoax presenting their evidence for their positions.

All you've done is declare your opinion, make some wild claims about evidence that allegedly exists, and then completely, flatly refuse to support your opinion or provide the evidence, thereby invalidating your entire line of discussion.

Not really a debate, more like a seagull pooping randomly on this topic...

ps. in my day a troll hid under a bridge

Yes, well, these days they tend to hang out on Internet forums, make wild claims about something that they then prove they know little to nothing about, ignore requests to support those claims, then declare the debate at an end before leaving, voluntarily or otherwise.

Cz

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said a few moons ago I quickly realised who has the "CON" on this thread?

Who? I wasn't aware that anyonwe had the con here.

]By the by Mid - It was Ed Harris in the Apollo film?

Are you asking me? Ed's not here, last I checked...

More recently Mr WD hints that I need to grow up?

And refers to me as "HE"???

I was wondering if you could slow down and employ a sntax that could be clearly understood.

You could simply state that you're a she rather than be silly about someone referring to you as a "he". I ask, what do you expect with a screen name of JACKDAW ???

End of debate me thinks.

There's never been a debate about this issue. We did it, as we said we did. The world watched, and it's documented more than any event in history. We try to teach how it was done, and many other things that result from the posts of people with no subject matter knowledge. But there's no real debating that can be done concerning the Moon hoax. It's a construct of people with profound lack of knowledge, distrust of authority, and in many cases, a blessedly vivid imagination that has been wastefully employed on this topic rather than something worthy of such a gift.

Many have tried to debate from the weak side (HB side). None have succeeded, and quite a few were forced to take their ignorance elsewhere (behavior sometimes suffers for some folks when they're backed into a corner and realize they've been defeated).

We've asked you for questions. You haven't really 'gotten with the program'. That would be fun. Learning something is alot of fun.

Not much matches the joy of watching someone know something they never knew before.

That's yours right here, if you want it.

But somehow, I rather doubt you're inclined to go for that. Pity. :no:

:td:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt the moon actually exists. It is just an optical illusion, like a desert mirage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

urban myth, pencils were not used because of graphite dust and also they did not want pencil sharpenings floating around, neither did nasa spend millions developing a 'space pen' they simply used a ballpoiint

A little historical information:

Pencils were used originally on manned spaceflights.. The idea of creating a pen that could be used in microgravity conditions wasn't NASA's, and NASA spent no koney on the effort to develop that pen.

The Fisher AG-7 was developed by the Fisher Pen Company and cost the company 2 million dollars to develop the specially formulated ink, the pressurized cartridge, and the pen casing itself.

A very innovative piece of engineering that was eaten up when it was offered to NASA. NASA has issued that pen, or another model of the same ink formulation and construction, to every manned spaceflight astronauts since Apollo 8 in October of 1968.

The pen cost NASA nothing to develop. It was a testimony to what private industry can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MID I think you are seriously over estimating the population of the world if you think that 6.95 billion people are 15%

I think you seriously failed to read what I said. I cited ~ 1 billion as the figure,

The whole thing was shot on a Hollywood lot. Stanly Kubrick did around the time he shot 2001 a Space Odyssey

Stanley Kubrick never got close to Hollywood. He left the United States for England in 1962.

@001 was shot in England between 1964 and 1968.

Kubrick had nothing to do with Hollywood. I often wonder how his name came up associated with this silliness and with Hollywood...?

:td:

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is what you posted:

...meaning that there are about 6.95 billion non-Americans who believe this stuff too!

why did you drag this over into a different thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is what you posted:

why did you drag this over into a different thread?

lol I was soooo wondering that! Mid!! What's going on buddy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The existing data supports the fact that the prototype Apollo suit could bend at the knees up to 145 degrees.

No, you just misinterpreted the data.

No. I'm saying the data for suits B & C isn't relevant to the knee flexion of the Apollo suit.

It's completely relevant because it shows you've misinterpreted the data.

[

For starters, you can't extrapolate data that way as the suits are different and behave differently. Your trying to invent data that isn't there.

Actually, you are the one trying to invent data that isn't there! There is NO data for knee flex on Suit A, but you claim it's in another table, anyway! It's not.

[

Secondly, those measurements were taken while seated.

Where does it mention they were seated for those measurements? On what page?

Oh dear. This is getting excruciating. They are measuring the angle difference between "knee flexion" and "knee extension". If this diagramme doesn't drop the penny, you're beyond help on this one. Or perhaps you can explain exactly what angle the 145 degrees refers to?

faq_stretching.jpg

Knee flexion-extension is the angle measured between the knee being fully flexed, and fully extended.

This table is measuring "Angles of excursion" for "Knee flexion-extension".. Angles}, plural. In Suit B, the measurement is 130 deg. IThat is not the same as having 130 deg. knee flexion!. We know this is not.so. IWe know that knee flexion in Suit B measured 93 deg., in another table.. .

Again, compare Suit B and Suit C, for 'knee flexion' at 3.7 psi. .....

Suit B is either 130 deg. or 93 deg.

Suit C is either 125 deg., or 87 deg..

You still haven't addressed the glaring problem here, you just tried to skip past it. .

We can clearly see that the numbers are entrirely different in the two tables. They obviously cannot be for the same measurement of 'knee flexion'.

You can't avoid the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could tell you that Posty is correct...Any nominal sound or vibration passed through the medium of the cabin atmosphere wouldn't be heard through the microphione, which, set to vox mode, only transmitted when the proximity sound of the voice triggered the mic open. Any other sound outside the sealed helmet wouldn't have triggered the mic.

If a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one there to hear. Does it make a sound?

ANSWER: Yes, it does.

If a rocket engine fires in a vacuum, regardless of whether anyone is there, does it make a sound?

ANSWER: No it doesn't.

You have two claims' on this...

First, you claim no sound is heard because they are in a vacuum. But we know they have air in the capsule, and they can speak and hear each other speak in the capsule, don't we? . A vacuum exists outside the capsule, in space. But not inside the capsule itself.So your 'vacuum' claim is false

Of course, you already knew that, which is why you made a second claim, about their microphones.

You claim the mics were voice-activated, no other sounds could be heard except for their voices at close range...

Onboard voice recorders were supposed to be voice-activated on the LM, but weren't...

Because the automatic voice activation (VOX) keying was not good enough to catch the start of an astronaut’s voice, engineers decided to use the tape in a continuous record mode, which made the 10 hours of available recording time a carefully husbanded resource. In each mission’s flight plan, a table was included which listed for the astronauts, exactly what was to be recorded.

http://www.ehartwell.com/Apollo17/MissionTranscriptCollection.htm

Can you show me sources on the mics being voice-activated?

But it's not relevant, since we can hear them talking during the LM landing, as the descent engine (supposedly) was still firing.

In a tiny capsule, practically sitting on a rocket engine firing 1000 bs + of thrust, and nothing but their voices can be heard!! No vibrations that shake spoken words. Could be in a church, it's so calm and peaceful...

Sorry, we had no such microphones 40 years ago, and we still don't. It's pure fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbo, rocket engine noise on Earth is caused by the exhaust interacting with atmosphere, creating pressure waves. There is no atmosphere on the Moon to transmit the rocket exhaust "noise". The 1000 pounds of thrust they were near was the plume in a vaccuum below them. Any sound they hear would need to be in direct contact with, and effectively transmitted by, the spacecraft structure.

No vibration? Why should there be vibration? Again, they're in a vaccuum, no turbulence, no windshear, no aerodynamic buffeting or anything like that.

You need to think about why jet engines and rocket engines (or even light prop planes) make sound here on Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you just misinterpreted the data.

145 degrees is 145 degrees.

It's completely relevant because it shows you've misinterpreted the data.

Misinterpreted 145 degrees as 145 degrees?

Actually, you are the one trying to invent data that isn't there! There is NO data for knee flex on Suit A, but you claim it's in another table, anyway! It's not.

Are you lying, or just being deliberately obtuse?

Where does it mention they were seated for those measurements? On what page?

YOU first mentioned it in post 14060. I'll remind you of your own words...

Knee flex in the 3 pressurized spacesuits.- Suit C is 93 deg., Suit B is 87 deg, and Suit B has no measurement.

This is about the knee flexion of sitting in a chair.

As I said, it fails to compare with the incredible knee flex of the Apollo videos..

This table is measuring "Angles of excursion" for "Knee flexion-extension".. Angles}, plural. In Suit B, the measurement is 130 deg. IThat is not the same as having 130 deg. knee flexion!. We know this is not.so. IWe know that knee flexion in Suit B measured 93 deg., in another table..

I find it impossible to believe that anyone could use this as a valid argument. Is this what you're reduced to? You're a complete and utter joke. The sad thing is, you're not helping your cause by prostrating yourself. By extension, if you're reduced to this, what does it say about the strength of your arguments? It speaks volumes. You lost the argument a long time ago, but are so intractable you don't have the moral strength to say, "Oops, I goofed". More fool you. You were handed a get-out weeks ago, but decided to persist. This is the result, and it's painful to read.

Again, compare Suit B and Suit C, for 'knee flexion' at 3.7 psi. .....

Suit B is either 130 deg. or 93 deg.

Suit C is either 125 deg., or 87 deg..

You still haven't addressed the glaring problem here, you just tried to skip past it. .

We can clearly see that the numbers are entrirely different in the two tables. They obviously cannot be for the same measurement of 'knee flexion'.

You can't avoid the facts.

The facts are, you're referring to suits B and C, which aren't the Apollo suits! Neither are these measurements from the mobility table data. They were taken in the mock-up of the CM couch.

So, did you have any evidence supporting your original assertion? Or is the best you can come up with arguing over the plurality of the word angle(s)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, you are the one trying to invent data that isn't there! There is NO data for knee flex on Suit A, but you claim it's in another table, anyway! It's not.

Actually, it is you, who is guilty of inventing. The facts were very clear in the photos and in a documentary on the developement of the Apollo spacesuit that the spacesuit was capable of a wide range of motion under pressurized. conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 24

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.