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

Lets apply the samelogic turbonium has just used to another situation.

A duck has two legs and contains carbon.

turbonium has two legs and contains carbon.

Therefore a duck and turbonium are the same thing.

This statement is obviously false.

Now that in a Duck egg is the best physicis If seen in here in a long time ! Great one Waspie ! The Vogon`s are going to ask you to be a Leader amoungst Leaders !

Keep-em-comming !

As for the thread Its hard not to enjoy them when there so Funny ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, sand is not microfine like regolith. It is also not structured in any way like the self-adherent lunar soil is.

So, your comment, born again from lack of knowledge, fails... :w00t:

Mid turboman has never been to the Moon to even See the Buggie races ! We kicked up a lot of moon dust and ground it to a fine,fine microfine dust,you member?

Dont you remember?LoL! :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mid turboman has never been to the Moon to even See the Buggie races ! We kicked up a lot of moon dust and ground it to a fine,fine microfine dust,you member?

Dont you remember?LoL! :whistle:

:yes::tsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets apply the samelogic turbonium has just used to another situation.

A duck has two legs and contains carbon.

turbonium has two legs and contains carbon.

Therefore a duck and turbonium are the same thing.

This statement is obviously false.

I spit out my coffee all over my desk Waspie.

Congratz

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spit out my coffee all over my desk Waspie.

Congratz

:w00t::tu::clap::w00t::tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NASA did control the stations.

Who do you think the Australians worked for? The Australian government? No, they worked for NASA. It was NASA's project, it was NASA who hired them. It was NASA's equipment. It was NASA who trained them on operating that equipment. It was NASA who instructed the Australians in managing the facility - for NASA.

You seem to think the personnel are not working for NASA because they are Australians. The reality is they are working for NASA.

NASA decided who manages the Apollo tracking stations. The staff was doing what NASA trained them to do.

The reason NASA hires Australians is because the US and Australian governments had an agreement (treaty) to employ Australians as much as possible. This made it look like a joint US-Australian venture, rather than a wholly foreign (US) intrusion. As this document notes...

http://ntrs.nasa.gov..._1975002909.pdf .

NASA controls the Apollo tracking stations,

OK....

Another logical follow up to that statement:

So what?

Is it something you're now understanding for the first time, or,

...does this realization paint for you some sort of CT scenario about the Apollo program?

Edited by MID
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nuff said ! We Went We Came back We DId Build it ! :tu:

YOu always rock Mid !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason NASA hires Australians is because the US and Australian governments had an agreement (treaty) to employ Australians as much as possible. This made it look like a joint US-Australian venture, rather than a wholly foreign (US) intrusion. As this document notes...

http://ntrs.nasa.gov..._1975002909.pdf .

You didn't sat WHERE in this rather large document you say supports your claim. Could you at least do me the courtesy of naming a page number?

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't sat WHERE in this rather large document you say supports your claim. Could you at least do me the courtesy of naming a page number?

Thank you.

Fairly safe bet that Turbs is just assuming that this document supports him.

Admittedly I haven't rad through the entire document yet, but so far:

On page 113 (pdf page 119) we have this:

Buckley proposed that all Mercury stations be divided into four separate groups. Group #1, including the Cape, Grand Canary, etc., should be run by AMR, an Air Force installation; Group #2 should be run by PMR, a Navy installation; Group #3, by White Sands, an Army installation; and Group #4, which included the two Australian stations, by the Australian Weapons Research Establishment (WRE).51 Of course, some single agency would be needed to coordinate these four disparate groups, and this single agency logically should be NASA. A few months later, NASA cited negotiation problems with foreign countries 52 and argued that five stations should be exceptions and run directly by NASA. These five were: Bermuda, Grand Canary I., Kano, Zanzibar, and Guaymas. The reasoning was obvious. Behind it was the fact that NASA felt that it had to have the network operating job if it was going to be charged with total responsibility for the success of Mercury. 53

That is talking about early tracking stations for Mercury, however.

On page 227 (pdf page 233) and continued on page 230 (pdf page 236) after some illustrations we have:

During the preparations for the Apollo-11 flight, it became apparent that the Goldstone 64-m dish would not be able to see the Lunar Module during the critical walk on the Moon -- and the extra gain of the 64-m antenna was needed for good television coverage of this historic event. The schedule called for the Moon walk to begin when the spacecraft was in view from Australia, but the MSFN had only 26-m paraboloids in Australia. However; west of Sydney, at Parkes, the Australians operated a 64-m antenna as part of their research program in radio astronomy. By tapping this antenna through an existing microwave link, the Moon walk

{two pages of illustrations}

could be televised. NASA negotiated an agreement with the Australian Government whereby the Parkes antenna could be used to augment the MSFN for the television portion of the Moon walk. As it turned out, the Moon walk began early and considerable television coverage was possible with the Goldstone 64-m dish. Later, when the Lunar Module came into view of the Parkes antenna, it was brought into the MSFN.

Now this part is interesting. Why, if it was all faked, anyway, would they have gone to the lengths of negotiating with the Australian Government for the used of the Parkes Dish, only to then have the Moon walk begin early so that Parkes was not required for the whole event? Why not make it so that the entire event took place while the Goldstone dish was viable?

As for Turbs' other claims that all the data have just been a simulation run through the foreign countries' systems, Chapter 5 of that document (starts on page 162 - pdf page 168) goes into a great deal of detail on how the system was conceptualized, designed, set up and tested. While it does show that all aspects of the system could be tested and simulations were used during certain tests, it is also quite apparent by the detailed descriptions of those tests that they could not have simulated an entire mission the way Turbs would have us believe.

So again we have Turbs providing evidence that he thinks supports him, but in actual fact destroys his position yet again.

Cz

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:tu::td::gun: Thats my code for Im outta Here !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fairly safe bet that Turbs is just assuming that this document supports him.

That's what I believe. After all, I've looked at Australian government documents, I have quoted from people who worked at Carnarvon and I also know many people who worked at Honeysuckle (John Saxon, etc) via an interest group.

Still, if Turbs really did read through the report and found something they believes supports their position, they have the opportunity to show it.

So again we have Turbs providing evidence that he thinks supports him, but in actual fact destroys his position yet again.

I agree; for whatever reason they take a text that says something was white then claims that it supports their position that it was in fact green. That or they waste countless pages arguing that vermillion is not red.

Edited by Obviousman
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, sand is not microfine like regolith. It is also not structured in any way like the self-adherent lunar soil is.

So, your comment, born again from lack of knowledge, fails... :w00t:

You actually said regolith is micro-fine dust, and has glass content. Now it's structured, self-adherent, and no mention of glass content.

The regolith has been compared to very fine sand, according to the sources I've found. The regolith particles are varying in size, very fine to coarse/larger. If you need any sources, I can post them for you.

However, let's assume you are right, that regolith is finer than any sand found on Earth. You still have particles, just smaller than sand. You claim this 'micro-fine' particle, if it's also a structured, self-adherent particle, will create an amazing phenomenon we can't duplicate on Earth!

If you can't repeat this 'phenomenon' on Earth, you must show that it's all based on well-known scientific principles.

Show this particle makes sense given the factors you've mentioned.. Why are micro-size particles a factor? Explain a self-adherent particle as a factor in all this..

Where does one find information on this phenomenon? How about a source? Anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK....

Another logical follow up to that statement:

So what?

Is it something you're now understanding for the first time, or,

...does this realization paint for you some sort of CT scenario about the Apollo program?

So NASA holds all the cards.

Who knows if a mission is being faked or not? It's merely assumed to be a real mission because NASA says it is. But they have no idea if it's real, or if it's a sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now this part is interesting. Why, if it was all faked, anyway, would they have gone to the lengths of negotiating with the Australian Government for the used of the Parkes Dish, only to then have the Moon walk begin early so that Parkes was not required for the whole event? Why not make it so that the entire event took place while the Goldstone dish was viable?

This is all speculation. What if they meant to use Parkes, but later on it seemed too risky, so they dropped Parkes entirely.

It's a moot point.

As for Turbs' other claims that all the data have just been a simulation run through the foreign countries' systems, Chapter 5 of that document (starts on page 162 - pdf page 168) goes into a great deal of detail on how the system was conceptualized, designed, set up and tested. While it does show that all aspects of the system could be tested and simulations were used during certain tests, it is also quite apparent by the detailed descriptions of those tests that they could not have simulated an entire mission the way Turbs would have us believe.

Why not? There is no reason a whole mission couldn't be a sim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all speculation. What if they meant to use Parkes, but later on it seemed too risky, so they dropped Parkes entirely.

No, Turbs... Speculation is all that you have. The actual history of the event is that the plan was to use Parkes for the entire Apollo 11 Moonwalk, but since it started early, they were able to use Goldstone at the start, but then switched to Parkes for the rest.

So they didn't drop Parkes entirely, did they? No, they didn't. And it seems that not only haven't you read the document you provided as evidence (which I'm sure is completely shocking to absolutely no one) you don't even know the history of the event.

Why fake something that relies on using another government's equipment that you do not own or control, when you could just adjust your fake schedule so that the event you want to fake occurs when your own equipment (Goldstone) could be used solely...? This is yet another stumbling point that requires your "theory" to be even more complex and unlikely than it is already.

It's a moot point.

Actually its not, but if you want to claim it is to avoid the issues because it makes your position even more untenable than it already is, then that is your choice and your failure.

Why not? There is no reason a whole mission couldn't be a sim.

Thank you for confirming that you have not read this document.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still waiting for Turbs to quote which section of the document they stated supports their views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows if a mission is being faked or not?

Since the Apollo moon missions were tracked by countries with no ties to NASA, and since countries have photographed the Apollo landing sites, and since you have failed to provide a shred of evidence of Apollo mission hoaxes, proves beyond any doubt that none of the Apollo moon missions were hoaxed, especially since the Soviet Union also confirmed that it tracked the Apollo moon missions.

Chang'e 2

China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2, which was launched in 2010 is capable of capturing lunar surface images with a resolution of up to 1.3 metres (4.3 ft). It spotted traces of the Apollo landing

BEIJING, Feb. 6 (Xinhua) -- China on Monday published a full coverage map of the moon, as well as several high-resolution images of the celestial body, captured by the country's second moon orbiter, the Chang'e-2.

The map and images, released by the State Administration of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defence (SASTIND), are the highest-resolution photos of the entirety of the moon's surface to be published thus far, said Liu Dongkui, deputy chief commander of China's lunar probe project.

The images were photographed by a charge-coupled device (CCD) stereo camera on the Chang'e-2 from heights of 100 km and 15 km over the lunar surface between October 2010 and May 2011, according to a statement from SASTIND.

The resolution of the images obtained from Chang'e-2 is 17 times greater than those taken by the its predecessor, the Chang'e-1. If there were airports and harbors on the moon, the Chang'e-1 could simply identify them, while the Chang'e-2 would be able to detect planes or ships inside of them, said Tong Qingxi, an academic from the Institute of Remote Sensing Applications under the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

The scientists also spotted traces of the previous Apollo mission in the images, said Yan Jun, chief application scientist for China's lunar exploration project

http://news.xinhuane...c_131393210.htm

In other words, you are simply wasting your time trying to convince people of Apollo mission hoaxes when there are countries confirming the realty of the Apollo moon missions with hard evidence and photographs, and the question is: What have you provided as evidence of Apollo mission hoaxes? Absolutely nothing!

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So NASA holds all the cards.

And, NASA sent men to the moon as well.

Who knows if a mission is being faked or not?

The Soviet Union would have known, and it has confirmed tracking the Apollo moon missions.

The Soviet Union Monitored Apollo Moon Missions

The Soviet Union monitored the missions at their Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment". Vasily Mishin ("The Moon Programme That Faltered."), in Spaceflight. 33 (March 1991), pages 2–3 describes how the Soviet Moon programme lost energy after the Apollo landing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

You actually said regolith is micro-fine dust, and has glass content. Now it's structured, self-adherent, and no mention of glass content.

Whew...what?!

Just kidding.

You are not so stupid as to not remember what you were taught about regolith. I know this.

You're just being...turb again. :w00t:

The regolith has been compared to very fine sand, according to the sources I've found. The regolith particles are varying in size, very fine to coarse/larger. If you need any sources, I can post them for you.

The sources you've "found??

What's "very fine" sand?

Do dimensions need to be posted for you?

No...it wouldn't help anyway....

Average Earth sand grain dimension = about 0.079 in. (About 2-13 grains across make an inch).

Average lunar dust grain dimension = about 0.0006 in. (About 1670 grains across make an inch).

This means that a grain of earth sand is on averge 132 times the size of a lunar dust grain.

See...I told you it wouldn't help !

However, let's assume you are right, that regolith is finer than any sand found on Earth. You still have particles, just smaller than sand. You claim this 'micro-fine' particle, if it's also a structured, self-adherent particle, will create an amazing phenomenon we can't duplicate on Earth!

I am right. You know it, but won't acknowledge it, just as you won't acknowledge the fact that you been fully presented with all you need to know about the lunar soil.

And the amazing phenomenon we can't duplicate on earth?

You mean the ultra detailed lunar footprints, the lack of dust clouds, or are you speaking of this "halo" effect you don't understand? I suspect all of the afformentioned, but particularly the last one.

If you can't repeat this 'phenomenon' on Earth, you must show that it's all based on well-known scientific principles.

They're fairly simple, turb. I know it's a stretch for me to try again, but--as far as the lunar soil's contribution is concerned...

We couldn't duplicate anything the lunar soil does on the Moon, here on earth because:

We have no such soil here on earth because--

We have an atmosphere that prohibits the mechanics that produced lunar soil over the past several billion years of micro-bombbardment.

We have 6 times the gravity of the lunar field.

It's simple stuff, turb.

No atmosphere allows this sort of microfine dust to form.

However turb, it also has a down side: No intelligent life can exist there.

And even if we were atmosphereless, like the Moon, lifeless, like the Moon, and we still had 1 g here, it would prohit similar disruptions from occurring, as it would take more energy to move to soil in 6 times the gravity field, and it wouuld take less time for the soil to disperse, and fall back to the ground. 6 times quicker, in fact. It's certainly possible to have the little whitish halo show up in certain places on Earth, but nothing like you typically see on the Moon, unless we were like the Moon (but WE wouldn't be here to talk about it if this planet was like the Moon, would we?).

Show this particle makes sense given the factors you've mentioned.. Why are micro-size particles a factor? Explain a self-adherent particle as a factor in all this..

Where does one find information on this phenomenon? How about a source? Anything?

You want me to send you to the source, NASA?

:w00t:

Yea...you won't call them, or even use their site as the port of knowledge it is. You'll call the NASA reports Government influenced nonsense. W e've already done it! We know what you think, even if you have no idea what you're talking about!

Micro-fine particles are significant because they allow thinner lsyers of material to be dispersed out, and to lay in dirsrupted layers, appearing , again (and why, I don't really know) depending on lighting conditions and angle, as they do in many images we've shown from the surface, and from on orbit altitudes.This basic physical principal. It should be required to explain this to you again...unless, you're simply screwing around playing a game with us turb.

Self adherent particles make a difference in respect to the fact that they allow those crisp footprints to be created, and, they risist low energy disruptive blasts (like a LM DPS from hundreds of feet up ). This results in a thinner dust sheet being dispursed as the craft descends.

This stuff has all been carefully outlined for you before.

Does this lack of understanding you have about lunar dust have something to do with your burden of proving your contention?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You actually said regolith is micro-fine dust, and has glass content. Now it's structured, self-adherent, and no mention of glass content.

The regolith has been compared to very fine sand, according to the sources I've found. The regolith particles are varying in size, very fine to coarse/larger. If you need any sources, I can post them for you.

I'll post this video and pay attention beginning at time line 5:40.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sand is also micro-fine and has glass content. So your claim fails.

As you've been taught, Sand is on average 132 times larger than regolith dust

And..again--

I don't have a claim. You do.

Prove it! :tsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So NASA holds all the cards.

Who knows if a mission is being faked or not? It's merely assumed to be a real mission because NASA says it is. But they have no idea if it's real, or if it's a sim.

Jeez. I was kinda hoping NASA held all the cards! But I had no idea that we ever said that any of the missions were real. We just did 'em.

But I can tell ya I knew what a SIM was, and the difference between that and a real mission.

You see, flight crews, controllers, support folks, et. all, knew they were doing a SIM on any given day (or...maybe 7 or 8 of them!). The public had no idea about them. There was nothing on TV and no advertised stuff for people to watch.

Real mission days, like for instance, launch day, was alot different. You woke up perhaps a little tense, maybe nervous, most certainly excited. The TV had coverage scheduled all day...for the next 8 to maybe 13 days (people actually had something to see on their TVs, turb. I know you weren't around for it, but it was alot of fun!).

Everyone involved, from the MOCR janitors, to the controllers, the managers, and everyone at the launch control center and the flight crew, really knew it wasn't a SIM.

We never had to say it was real, and we never announced it at all. We just did our work. And a SIM was a SIM, and no one ever knew we were doing one...except those involved. I can't imagine the public giving a damn about a SIM! Maybe wives, girlfriends, etc...but beyond that???

You were just trying to to establish the revolutionary idea that NASA was in charge of Apollo?

You succeeded! NASA was in charge --of the whole thing! iT'S A MAJOR REASON WHY THE WHOLE THING WORKED!

But, the remaninder of your point makes no sense, as no one was ever told by NASA that a real mission was a real mission (NASA did not assume that the general public was stupid, turb. They figured that everyone knew that on July 16, 1969, we were actually launching the first manned lunar landing mission. The odd part is, we did that on that day.

I can tell you this: for those who worked missions, who built spacecraft, who ran missions, and all the people who'd put the best part of a decade of their lives into the program, they knew when it was a sim and when it was real.

Well, OK, that message accross the 10 x 20 in the MOCR,

REAL MISSION TODAY BOYS. WAKE UP!

...kinda helped, some days! :w00t::yes::tsu::clap::tu:

The funny thing is, NASA never had to tell them anything! They knew it!

We just never really needed to tell 'em it wasn't a SIM.

I've probably told you this before, figuring comically that it took, but I cannot imagine the person who might have thought that we should make such an announcement..you know, so that people wouldn't think that this stuff was a SIM. I can't imagine him not being sent for medical treatment, immediately, before his termination...

Thanks for clarifying what you meant there, turb!

:yes::unsure2:

Edited by MID
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too much time behind the puter screen me thinks ! :clap:

Hope your doing well Mid !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too much time behind the puter screen me thinks ! :clap:

Hope your doing well Mid !

I am well, D!

Thanks!

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Turbs... Speculation is all that you have. The actual history of the event is that the plan was to use Parkes for the entire Apollo 11 Moonwalk, but since it started early, they were able to use Goldstone at the start, but then switched to Parkes for the rest.

You obviously don't know why it's speculation, because it's certainly not based on the above. Don't worry, I'll point it out for you further along...

So they didn't drop Parkes entirely, did they? No, they didn't. And it seems that not only haven't you read the document you provided as evidence (which I'm sure is completely shocking to absolutely no one) you don't even know the history of the event.

'Dropped entirely' was meant as 'dropped for the entire event'. I guess I was too tired to even notice. But of course, you take a massive leap of logic to make your own conclusions.

Why fake something that relies on using another government's equipment that you do not own or control, when you could just adjust your fake schedule so that the event you want to fake occurs when your own equipment (Goldstone) could be used solely...? This is yet another stumbling point that requires your "theory" to be even more complex and unlikely than it is already.

Hey! Guess where we are here? Of course - this is where it all becomes speculation!!

This is much like the belief in the 'USSR whistleblower' story - it assumes the USSR would certainly know if Apollo was faked (unproven), and it assumes the USSR would tell the world it was a fake (also unfounded), since nothing could be better than to shame those capitalist American pigs (except the massive ransom they could extort to stay silent!). It's speculation upon more speculation.

As for Parkes, perhaps you haven't read this part....

" Keith Aldworth – who was a part of the team at Tidbinbilla – writes,

“When the Apollo missions began, Tidbinbilla’s 64 metre antenna had not been built and as we all know, Parkes Radio Telescope was seconded to NASA for periods of about six weeks around the Apollo missions. At the Parkes site, the equipment necessary for these missions was installed and remained there throughout"

http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/other_stations/parkes/index.html

So now you know - it was NASA's equipment used at Parkes during Apollo, which was (of course) installed by NASA

You have any other excuses?

Actually its not, but if you want to claim it is to avoid the issues because it makes your position even more untenable than it already is, then that is your choice and your failure.

Well, it is a moot point. It was NASA equipment, as we know.

Thank you for confirming that you have not read this document.

I have. But thank you for confirming you have no evidence in the document to support your claim

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.