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 15
Waspie_Dwarf

[Merged] Did we land on the moon?

2,594 posts in this topic

Why did you just quote my post and ignore it???

No, I addressed it, and you've even replied to it in the next section below!

But you still haven't addressed my point, which you quoted in your post, Nor have you explained to me the reason you put it in your post. No reason?

Ah. You're waiting for me to supply evidence that supports your assertion! Strange, I was under the impression that someone shouting "Fake! They couldn't bend their knees that much in a pressurised suit!" would actually have their own evidence supporting the claim!

No, I'm waiting for you to show me any valid, relevant evidence on this issue, since there is currently none whatsoever. It is you, the Apollo supporter, who claims there is a virtual mountain of evidence to support Apollo. So where is it? It's not up to me to provide your own documentation. That is clearly your responsibility. What we've seen so far only supports my argument, not yours.

I did find this interesting photo of a pressurised spacesuit that isn't even designed for EVA use though.

4790915693_29a1e81290_z.jpg

Wow, look at those knees bend! And for TWO HOURS!!! How DID those Apollo suits manage similar bends, if only for a few seconds? I'm struggling with this one, but I'm sure you'll have an answer that explains it fully. Perhaps the Russians are in on the great "Apollo knee bend" scam? Perhaps there is no such thing as a constant volume joint? Perhaps all the engineers at ILC were also a part of the hoax?

First of all, how about providing sources for your photos, if you intend to support your argument with them....then I'll add my comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I addressed it, and you've even replied to it in the next section below!

But you still haven't addressed my point, which you quoted in your post, Nor have you explained to me the reason you put it in your post. No reason?

Wow, this is getting REALLY tiresome. I'm asking you to provide evidence supporting your assertion. All this tap-dancing around the issue proves one thing: you don't have any. If you did, you'd have presented it weeks ago. You're simply trying to bog the discussion down in a mire of obfuscation, red herrings, goal-post shifting and burden-of-proof avoidance.

Which is why I cut to the chase in my earlier post, so that we could rationally and objectively examine your evidence. Well, where is it? I keep asking, and you keep avoiding.

Why? Is it because you have no evidence? If so, just admit it. Is it because the evidence is very poor and doesn't stand up to scrutiny? Nothing you've presented on this issue has so far. All you have is a tenuous argument where you conflate "knee flexion" with overall suit mobility. Apart from that, tumbleweed.

No, I'm waiting for you to show me any valid, relevant evidence on this issue, since there is currently none whatsoever.

You are the one making the ourageous claim! So, fess up your supporting evidence or proof. I'm assuming it's pretty unimpeachable, as it has you so convinced that you're correct despite the tsunami of evidence that suggests otherwise?

(Oh, I think it's a bit rich suggesting that a pre-Apollo document showing a measured knee flexion-extension of 145 degrees for the prototype Apollo suit is not evidence, when you can't supply any evidence to support your claim!)

It is you, the Apollo supporter, who claims there is a virtual mountain of evidence to support Apollo. So where is it? It's not up to me to provide your own documentation. That is clearly your responsibility. What we've seen so far only supports my argument, not yours.

Already provided documentation. Not that the burden of proof lies with me anyway. Oh, the data in the document does NOT support your argument! 145 degree knee flexion-extension. Think about it.

First of all, how about providing sources for your photos, if you intend to support your argument with them....then I'll add my comments.

I'm not using those pictures of the Sokol suit to support my argument. I posted them weeks ago to help you realise you were up against a nut flush. You dismissed it as irrelevant. Yep, a photograph of a pressurised, non-EVA suit, showing a large degree of knee flexion. Thought it might get you thinking. It didn't.

All of this is just froth and bubble around the main point. The point that you keep avoiding. Your evidence please. Can you present it now, if you have any? If not just say so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, MID - if you can't act like a mature adult, and discuss the actual issues, then please respect the forum, and the forum rules, and don't even post on this thread. Fair enough?

The last time I checked turbonium you were not a moderator. I suggest that until you are you stop trying to act like one, take your own advice and follow the forum rules:

5i. Rule quoting: Do not quote the site rules to other members, if you believe the rules have been broken please hit the 'report' button.

YOU do not get to say who can and who can't post in a topic. Fair enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As promised, here is a list of previous "Apollo hoax" topics. I can't guarantee that it is complete, but it is as comprehensive as possible. Please note that this list is not in chronological order. The list was originally grouped firstly by whether the topic was closed or still open and then by which forum the topic was in. I have also included so threads I missed in my original list, plus some that started after I made it.

I have not included those threads, which whilst about lunar discoveries, are not about the conspiracy theory. I have also not included those threads from the UFO forum which claim that NASA are covering up ET discoveries/contact during Apollo.

If anyone finds a topic I have missed please feel free to PM with the link and I will edit this post to include it.

Also feel free to contact me if you find a broken link. I believe I have tested them all, but with so many I may have missed one or two.

  1. Astronauts Gone Wild
  2. Was the moon landing faked?
  3. Hey whats that on the moon ?
  4. my moon landing theory and evidence
  5. why havent we been back?
  6. NASA Edits Proof Of Apollo Moon Hoax!
  7. Was the moon landing faked?
  8. moon landing, did humans land on the moon
  9. Apollo - Video Anomalies?
  10. US Govt. planned to fake Moon Landing Images?
  11. Apollo Astronaut Was Murdered
  12. We Never Went to the Moon
  13. Exactly who is Charles T. Hawkins?
  14. Moon landing was fake
  15. First-hand experience of Apollo
  16. THE MOON LANDING IS FAKE!
  17. Poll: Was the moon landing faked?
  18. Was the moon landing faked?
  19. Uncomprehensible Apollo photographs
  20. NASA find missing moon telemetry tapes
  21. Stars in the Apollo photographs
  22. Apollo Moon Rocks: NASA's Dirty Little Secrets
  23. Apollo show-stoppers
  24. Unexplained reflection in astronauts visor
  25. Apollo 17 Photo Anomalies, Proof of a Hoax ?
  26. New DISCOVERY, Charles T Hawkins
  27. 'Moon Base' at Apollo 11 Landing Site
  28. no stars
  29. Ersatz Lunar Landings
  30. the apollo 11 landing fake?
  31. Did we really land on the moon in 1969?
  32. Moon Hoax with a twist
  33. AS11 Astronauts give fake moon rock to dutch
  34. Stunning Secrets Of Kubrick's 'The Shining' (More relevant than the title would suggest).
  35. the moon landing hoax and Columbia cover up
  36. Apollo 11 post-flight press conference
  37. Weidner on NASA
  38. NASA's Apollo 17 "Hand Job"
  39. the moon
  40. And of course last (but most definitely not least) part 1 of this topic Did we land on the moon?

Hmmm... Cat is suspicious.

Did we REALLY launch all 40 of those threads, or is this just a gigantic hoax to attract attention to the Forum ?

I mean... look at the background in the quoted article above. It is a lighter shade than the normal forum background. CLEARLY this has been subject to photomanipulation.

And can it be co-incidence that "waspie dwarf moderation" is an anagram of "Sir, I warped (a) few moon data" ??

The truth must out !

meow purr :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... Cat is suspicious.

Did we REALLY launch all 40 of those threads, or is this just a gigantic hoax to attract attention to the Forum ?

I mean... look at the background in the quoted article above. It is a lighter shade than the normal forum background. CLEARLY this has been subject to photomanipulation.

And can it be co-incidence that "waspie dwarf moderation" is an anagram of "Sir, I warped (a) few moon data" ??

The truth must out !

meow purr :)

:lol:

Gotta love creativity! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that all of these conspriacy threads devolve into multi-page arguments about little pieces of minutia. Of the hundreds of arguments that the hoaxers have put forth over the decades, we're now having a debate about a knee joint. The same thing goes on in the 9/11 threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And can it be co-incidence that "waspie dwarf moderation" is an anagram of "Sir, I warped (a) few moon data" ??

You've got me convinced! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this video has been posted before. Check out the knee bend in the pressurised suit at 5:59.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering how long it would take before the new moon hoax thread took a dive into the gutter.

Look, MID - if you can't act like a mature adult, and discuss the actual issues, then please respect the forum, and the forum rules, and don't even post on this thread. Fair enough?

I see you've been told about this stuff, but, in response:

How about putting forth an actual issue?

The suits? No. It's been long established that you're absolutely incorrect about the suits, and your "argument" about them is meritless, and doesn't get to the real issue here, which I've mentiooned and discussed repeatedly, and always to no avail;

Your proof that Apollo was faked again was??? :td:

That's the only actual issue on this thread.

And I've discussed it, not only now, but many times in the past

You ignore that. i certainly understand why.

You have no proof, and you know that I cannot be swayed by nonsensical "arguments". :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this video has been posted before. Check out the knee bend in the pressurised suit at 5:59.

Don't know if it has been, Posty, but it pretty much settles the argument, I should think (???).

You wonder how long arguing against the obvious design and manucturing excellence of this very functional, million dollar suit, can actually go on.

As you can see, I've ben pressing Turb for the real issue, which he avoids.

But this film puts the suit argument to rest...

...we can only hope! :tsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if it has been, Posty, but it pretty much settles the argument, I should think (???).

You wonder how long arguing against the obvious design and manucturing excellence of this very functional, million dollar suit, can actually go on.

As you can see, I've ben pressing Turb for the real issue, which he avoids.

But this film puts the suit argument to rest...

...we can only hope! :tsu:

Your faith is greater than mine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... Cat is suspicious.

Did we REALLY launch all 40 of those threads, or is this just a gigantic hoax to attract attention to the Forum ?

Open the threads and you'll see who started each one, and what they were about.

I mean... look at the background in the quoted article above. It is a lighter shade than the normal forum background. CLEARLY this has been subject to photomanipulation.

It's been configured that way in order to highlight the quote. The board's always been that way. It's a bit new and improved of recent date.

Do you smell a conspiracy?

:innocent:

And can it be co-incidence that "waspie dwarf moderation" is an anagram of "Sir, I warped (a) few moon data" ??

The truth must out !

meow purr :)

Cute... :yes:

Was there a question or a comment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last time I checked turbonium you were not a moderator. I suggest that until you are you stop trying to act like one, take your own advice and follow the forum rules:

5i. Rule quoting: Do not quote the site rules to other members, if you believe the rules have been broken please hit the 'report' button

Actually, I have been reporting on posts similar to the one by MID, and did not reply to them. So I've hardly been "trying to act like" a moderator. In fact, I almost did report MID's post. But I thought we could settle the matter by ourselves, as reasonable adults, and go back into discussing the issues. So that's why I replied with....

"Look, MID - if you can't act like a mature adult, and discuss the actual issues, then please respect the forum, and the forum rules, and don't even post on this thread. Fair enough?"

So I didn't quote forum rules, I asked him to respect those rules.

YOU do not get to say who can and who can't post in a topic. Fair enough?

Well obviously, I " do not get to say" who can or cannot post. I politely asked hin to show some respect and not post trash.

So, I will simply report it from now on. Now, back to the issues.. .

. . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you've been told about this stuff, but, in response:

How about putting forth an actual issue?

The suits? No. It's been long established that you're absolutely incorrect about the suits, and your "argument" about them is meritless, and doesn't get to the real issue here, which I've mentiooned and discussed repeatedly, and always to no avail;

Your proof that Apollo was faked again was??? :td:

That's the only actual issue on this thread.

And I've discussed it, not only now, but many times in the past

You ignore that. i certainly understand why.

You have no proof, and you know that I cannot be swayed by nonsensical "arguments". :tu:

The suits are the only issue - so far - in the new moon hoax thread, which I picked up from in the previous thread. If you have a specific point(s) I missed, then please post them for me. ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Already provided documentation. Not that the burden of proof lies with me anyway. Oh, the data in the document does NOT support your argument! 145 degree knee flexion-extension.

You said the knee flexion measured 93 and 87 deg/ in sitting position (on a couch). But that is false, A couch is used for the visual range test, but not in the knee flexion tests. Nothing was said about a couch being used for that test.

If you can't answer for that, then you have no claim for a 145 deg, knee flexion..

I'm not using those pictures of the Sokol suit to support my argument. I posted them weeks ago to help you realise you were up against a nut flush. You dismissed it as irrelevant. Yep, a photograph of a pressurised, non-EVA suit, showing a large degree of knee flexion. Thought it might get you thinking. It didn't.

No, it means you have no point showing me these images over and over again. They are not relevant..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Avoiding a simple, direct question again Turbs? Here's a summary of the recent requests for you to provide evidence that you've ignored.

1. For the umpteenth time, did you have any evidence supporting your assertion that the suit couldn't bend at the knee as witnessed, or not?

2. I'm asking you to provide evidence supporting your assertion. All this tap-dancing around the issue proves one thing: you don't have any. If you did, you'd have presented it weeks ago. You're simply trying to bog the discussion down in a mire of obfuscation, red herrings, goal-post shifting and burden-of-proof avoidance.

Which is why I cut to the chase in my earlier post, so that we could rationally and objectively examine your evidence. Well, where is it? I keep asking, and you keep avoiding.

Why? Is it because you have no evidence? If so, just admit it. Is it because the evidence is very poor and doesn't stand up to scrutiny? Nothing you've presented on this issue has so far. All you have is a tenuous argument where you conflate "knee flexion" with overall suit mobility. Apart from that, tumbleweed.

3. All of this is just froth and bubble around the main point. The point that you keep avoiding. Your evidence please. Can you present it now, if you have any? If not just say so.

4. I suspect no-one really cares any more Turbs. You were given ample opportunity and encouragement to take the intellectually honest route (either providing evidence, or withdrawing the claim), and chose to do neither. Actions speak louder than words. Hey ho.

I'll ask again. The unimpeachable evidence you have supporting your claim re the Apollo spacesuit. Does it exist? If so, where is it?

You know, the evidence that proves this is impossible?

Spacesuit-knee-01.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The suits are the only issue - so far - in the new moon hoax thread, which I picked up from in the previous thread. If you have a specific point(s) I missed, then please post them for me. ...

You want the actual issue...AGAIN?

What you missed (while refusing to understand that the Apollo suits performed exactly as they were designed, and apparently seeking to get me in grief for being bad (i.e, trying to keep you on the real track here--- ( what you're supposed to be doing) and whining about me supposedly treating you badly, and arguing with mods)--- is what everyone here knows (to the point of boredom I suspect):

You missed SHOWING ANY PROOF OF YOUR CONTENTION(S):

A.) That the Apollo Program was faked( the only thing you need to do here).

B.) Most recently, that the AL7 didn't function as it did, (and I don't know why you're on that nonsense. It's already been handled nicely).

You pick things that can't be argued successfully, and belabor them to death.

Let me re-state: The suits worked (very well), we went to the Moon and landed there six times.

Prove we didn't (and you want me to go elsewhere???)

:yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The suits are the only issue - so far - in the new moon hoax thread, which I picked up from in the previous thread. If you have a specific point(s) I missed, then please post them for me. ...

But, it has already been shown, and proven, that the Apollo spacesuit was capable of performing positions under pressurized conditions that you have claimed was not possible. In other words, the spacesuit issue was settled a long time ago with facts and evidence.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

But, it has already been shown, and proven, that the Apollo spacesuit was capable of performing positions under pressurized conditions that you have claimed was not possible. In other words (Jesus help us!), the spacesuit issue was settled a long time ago with facts and evidence.

It Sure was, Sky.

Just as all of the "arguments" Turb has put forth were so settled; Swiftly and definitively.

But I suppose if you can obstinately argue-- in the face of the obvious facts to the contrary--that the LM couldn't have landed on the Moon because it was never tested , you certainly have no qualms about continuing to argue against the obvious effectiveness and mobility of the Apollo suit!

After a certain point you just have to smile, if not outright laugh. :yes:

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It Sure was, Sky.

Just as all of the "arguments" Turb has put forth were so settled; Swiftly and definitively.

But I suppose if you can obstinately argue-- in the face of the obvious facts to the contrary--that the LM couldn't have landed on the Moon because it was never tested , you certainly have no qualms about continuing to argue against the obvious effectiveness and mobility of the Apollo suit!

After a certain point you just have to smile, if not outright laugh. :yes:

I think that he has been watching too much of "Capricorn One," the movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering how long it would take before the new moon hoax thread took a dive into the gutter.

Well let's see when the first Moonhoaxer posting an "argument" that to everyone except himself has been long shown to be utterly wrong, appeared: 17 May 2012 - 07:39 AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering how long it would take before the new moon hoax thread took a dive into the gutter.

Well let's see when the first Moonhoaxer posting an "argument" that to everyone except himself has been long shown to be utterly wrong, appeared: 17 May 2012 - 07:39 AM

How about a bit more debating and a little less bickering from both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is..... If you've got a powerful enough telescope, you can actually (or so I've been told/learned) that you can see foot prints left by astronauts on the surface. There is no atmosphere, no wind..... Therefore, it's not going to disappear.

The technical effects needed to fake the moon landing on Earth would of been highly technical and difficult to do, even if the ability was there. Remember, the spacecraft had less power than a mobile phone.... Yet people are saying it was possible for the government to silence both actors, scientists, camera crew, sound crew, caters, cleaners, builders... So on and so forth while they built a film set that could mimic the effect of the Moon... on Earth. Sorry folks, I don't think even the might US of A could of done that back then. Sure they could kill everybody off, but that's a lot of people to kill, which means killing their family.. then their friends, then their family and friends... so on so forth.... Paying them off isn't an option either, you'd need A LOT of money to pay them off..... paying off the entire set of people involved? That'd be an enormous cost, which America did not have, since it already spent a huge amount of their national treasure on building spacecraft, fuelling them and everything else involved... How could they then pay off actors, scientists... camera crews. I also accept they could of been lied to, made out that it was for another reason, but they'd of asked questions or at least, 60 years later, to say "Um, now that I think of it, I was asked to create a vacuum on a moon film set.... They said it was for practising moon walks... but now that I think about it, there was a lot of camera crews about and Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were not actually in space... they were on set being told what to act out!"

Yeah... Sorry, it's more fantastical that America faked it than them landing on the moon.Just like it's mathematically improbable than Humans (and all other animals, plant life and cell life) are the only living beings in the entire universe. During 13.75 Billions years, humans are the pinnacle of evolution (or creation). Bit depressing, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing about this usit flexion xcapability that I don't get (other than arguments against the obvious design genius in volved in that suit) is the fact that the suit easily moved as was evidenced by many films made of it doing so.

And why shouldn't it.)

It's been stated that one might as well be attempting to bend inside an inflated football or something, but the reality is that the suit provided an atmosphere of 100% Oxygen. The pressure required was a nere 3.6 PSI (+/-) in the suit,

The gas pressure in the suit was low, avbout 21% (+/-) of normal atmospheric pressure. The suit was under low pressure, facilitating movement. It wasn't like trying to move inside of a football.

Indeed, a football would be arount 1/4 inflated at that pressure, and would be un-useable.

Just something about this interminable exchange about the alleged impossibility of the Apollo suit that I don't recall having been brought up yet (forgiveness begged if one of you has mentioned the relatively low gas pressure maintained in the suit).

:yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is..... If you've got a powerful enough telescope, you can actually (or so I've been told/learned) that you can see foot prints left by astronauts on the surface. There is no atmosphere, no wind..... Therefore, it's not going to disappear.

Unfortunately, there isn't a telescope on Earth that capable of seeing the Apollo hardware left behind.

"Unfortunately the answer to this question is no. Not even the most powerful telescopes ever made are able to see these objects. The flag on the moon is 125cm (4 feet) long. You would require a telescope around 200 meters in diameter to see it. The largest telescope now is the Keck Telescope in Hawaii at 10meters in diameter. Even the Hubble Space telescope is only 2.4 meters in diameter. Resolving the lunar rover, which is 3.1 meters in length, would require a telescope 75 meters in diameter. So our backyard 6 inch and 8 inch telescopes are not even going to come close!"

http://www.spaceref.com/telescopes/Can-you-see-objects-left-behind-on-the-Moon.html

However, the LRO pictures DO show the Apollo equipment left behind.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-11.html

Phil

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 15

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.