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

MID said..

"Because you can't see it, clearly, in close range photos, because it's not visible in that sort of photo"

Turbonium, CITE your quotes. CITE YOUR QUOTES. Not doing so is intellectual laziness at it's worst, and is the usual methodology of those who would deceive and misinform.

I'm happy to look at what MID said IN CONTEXT but I have no intention of encouraging your disgraceful behavior. BTW, did you happen to miss the qualifier "clearly" in the sentence you are 'quoting'? Why do you think he used that word? I know why he used it - it isn't a difficult concept.

And if you had the intestinal fortitude to actually debate the topic properly, you too would see why it can be difficult to see CLEARLY in close ups.

And I asked you to show where they sourced the 'phenomenon'. How about it?

But you DIDN'T STATE what particular phenomenon or aspect of it you were disputing - ie MORE intellectual laziness. Please DO SO if you expect to be taken seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To review what I said...

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

From pg.24 of the document...

"During the IGY and after, many foreign nationals took the Minitrack course at Blossom Point. In fact, the willingness of NRL and NASA to employ and train foreign nationals at the Minitrack and STADAN stations greatly eased the task of placing U.S. facilities on foreign soil."

On page 258..

The desire to make and keep this country's man-inspace program civilian in character has been instrumental

in helping NASA gain and retain management of the MSFN.

On pg. 84..

...it would be necessary to construct some tracking stations in foreign countries for comprehensive coverage of the flight.

And to some countries, U.S. military installations were out of the question at that time; for these countries suspected

that the proposed tracking radars might also watch missiles and spy satellites. On the other hand, a purely civilian

program with scientific goals that the whole world could embrace would be much more palatable, even desirable. The

fact was that a purely military, worldwide network with frequent astronaut contacts (short deadtime) could not be built.

This consideration was one of many that led Congress to draw up the Space Act specifying a civilian space agency.

So foreign involvement was an important consideration, right from the very inception of NASA itself. NASA was deemed a civilian agency, rather than a military agency, so foreign countries - like Australia - would welcome NASA's presence.

.

They even state how employing and training foreign nationals was used in that way.

So, there's the evidence you requested for my original claim

Amazing! Once more, you have done it: you have taken a statement which disproves your assertions and claim they support your claims!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're referring to the ability to see an area in its entirety. In your anaolgy, the archaeolgical site is going to be much better defined when nearer to it, just like the lunar disturbance would be.

And likewise, the entire shape of the lunar disturbance is not seen from very close-up, while it is seen from lunar orbit.

Do you undestand the distinction here?

I don't think you're getting my point.

In a field, you can see some patches of grass are lighter and others darker, but it takes the aerial view to show that some, but not all, of the darker patches outline a building's foundations.

On the moon, you can see that some parts of the surface are lighter and others darker, but it takes the orbital view to show that some, but not all, of the lighter patches combine to form a halo around the LM.

In both cases, the variation seen close up swamps the overall pattern which can only be seen from above. Your claim that if it's visible from above then it's visible close-up is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To review what I said...

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

What does that have to do with claims of Apollo moon hoaxes? You continue to ignore the fact that other countries have confirmed the reality of the Apollo moon mission and that facts and evidence have already trashed the claim that the Apollo moon missions were hoaxed.

Your arguments have been successfully refuted time after time.

593px-Apollo_11_Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment.jpg

Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment as left on the Moon by Apollo 11

220px-Lroc_apollo11_landing_site_20091109_zoom.jpg

Apollo 11 landing site photographed by LRO

Post-Apollo lunar exploration missions have located and imaged artifacts of the Apollo program remaining on the Moon's surface.

Images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission beginning in July 2009 show the six Apollo Lunar Module descent stages, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP) science experiments, astronaut footpaths, and lunar rover tire tracks. These images are the most effective proof to date to rebut the "landing hoax" theories. Although this probe was indeed launched by NASA, the camera and the interpretation of the images are under the control of an academic group — the LROC Science Operations Center at Arizona State University, along with many other academic groups.

After the images shown here were taken, the LRO mission moved into a lower orbit for higher resolution camera work. All of the sites have since been re-imaged at higher resolution. Further imaging in 2012 shows the shadows cast by the flags planted by the astronauts on all Apollo landing sites. The exception is that of Apollo 11, which matches Buzz Aldrin's account of the flag being blown over by the lander's rocket exhaust on leaving the moon.

  • 190px-LRO_Apollo14_landing_site_369228main_ap14labeled_540.jpg
    Apollo 14 landing site, photograph by LRO

  • 120px-Apollo_12_LRO.jpg
    Apollo 12 landing site

Apollo Moon flags still standing, images show

Images taken by a Nasa spacecraft show that the American flags planted in the Moon's soil by Apollo astronauts are mostly still standing.

The photos from Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter (LRO) show the flags are still casting shadows - except the one planted during the Apollo 11 mission.

This matches Buzz Aldrin's account of the flag being knocked over by engine exhaust as Apollo 11 lifted off.

LRO was designed to produce the most detailed maps yet of the lunar surface.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-19050795

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. I can't wait to see it....

Ok!

Apollo15_map.JPG

Apollo 15 Lunar Module photographed from the Command Module during mission:

Images from the JAXA (Japanese Space Agency) Selene/Kaguya Probe

369238main_lroc_apollo15labeled.jpg

Apollo15_Halo.jpg

Blowup of area showing exhaust plume halo

Images from he Indian Space Agency’s Chandrayaan-1 Spacecraft

Comparison of the various instrument cameras on the probe:

Comparisonview.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gort, TL;DR. Why post such a ridiculous wall of text?

WHY exactly is it interesting?

1. How much?

2. What type?

3. What type of shielding is effective?

In other words, I am calling you out - do you have the knowledge of that which you speak? If so, answer those questions and we'll discuss this fully. If yiou can't, or get them wrong, then your opinion is irrelevant.

As above, please don't handwave. Put some numbers to that alleged 'insurmountability'. After all, the amount and type of radiation was quite well understood at the time of Apollo and is even better understood nowadays. The ISS and many satellites pass through some of the high energy parts of the VA Belts quite regularly. Do you believe the ISS is a hoax too?

Why? How much do you think they would cost, and who would pay?

This is what Gort does. Based on his activity elsewhere, he'll copy/paste a wall of text or two, never respond to questions, and then disappear for a while. Basically he treats any forum like a personal blog. Presumably he thinks he's above answering questions about the stuff he posts, not that they're his anyway. Usually they're just direct copy/pastes from somewhere else that was debunked years ago.

Edited by frenat
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm about to ask a question which may be redundant here.

I am sure though, that you've all noticed that turb tends to ignore me quite alot ( a normal HB reaction when countered with knowledge he can't imagine!). :w00t: This is because I know lots of things he doesn't, and he's afraid to do the work necessary to learn, because when he learns, he'll have to say he was wrong and go away someplace. But--

Have you noticed the blatantly childish and thoroughly un-hidden manner that he employs to divert things from what I've repeatedly (and others have) asked him and reminded him to do here?

He's been re-engaging this ridiculous "halo"** issue for two or more weeks, despite the fact that it completely explained before, and other than "cool", this aspect has nothing to do with Apollo 15, save show it's landing site with a wee bit of detail. LRO photos have done that with a wee bit more precision ( :w00t: ), but it doesn't really matter too much, since we know where Apollo 15 landed, very precisely, and have for decades...without LRO photos :yes:

So, (boring...) I'm going to ask him again:

Turb, how you coming with PROVING your contention?

And if you decide to bore people with such nonsense after another week off to think about it (and call NASA for the information you want (I can't wait for that!)),

then I won't be surprized if someone's frustration with you winds up getting you reamed, as opposed to what you're used to: polite toleration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting to note how NASA is perceived to be a civilian agency.Doesn't matter nowadays.Ionizing radiation in deep space as well as the insurmountable obstacle of the VA Belts/magnetosphere makes that a moot point.But if it were possible for deep space exploration,we'd have military outposts on the moon by now.

I see gort, that you understand as much about space, the orbital, cis-lunar, and solar environment in our space as you do about project Horizon (long obsolete...probably before you were born.), or NASA for that matter.

I should tell you that NASA is well known for what it is: An agency involved in the exploration of space, and in the education of the public in those activities, as well as an agency devoted to research, development, and understanding of the environment and the many off shoots possible and indeed, in work as a result of the agency's activities. NASA was formed with that intent in mind in 1958, and never was the idea of "military" operations involved in the agency officially. NASA has always been a National civilian agency, under the jurisdiction of the Government of the United States. Civilians head it up, and always have.

It woud be interesting to know ionizing radiation in deep space, and "insurmountable" Van Allen radiation , both things which NASA overcame many times to sent unmanned and manned spacecraft to the Moon , all successfully in the 1960s and early 1970s, make NASA a moot point, or are some grounds for establishing military out posts on the Moon...?

:-*

Your post isn't making all too much sense.

And project Horizon, an ill fated concept originated in 1959, was wiped off the boards before feasibility studies could be completed (that meant quickly, as NASA was a we bit busy, as of 1961 with some project called Apollo).

And as far as having military outposts on the Moon, it might be interesting to you to note that as of 27 January 1967, that's been prohibited, as has any military use of space, by the Outer Space Treaty. All nations who could have the technical capability to do such a thing have signed this treaty.

NASA is a civilian organization.

There never has been an insurmountable obstacle in the Van Allen Belts, nor has there even been an active desire, or the legal authority (nor the need) to establish a military base on the Moon.

I don't know where your ideas came from. There's nothing to support them.

Were you going to discuss the Apollo program? Having a problem with it?

It doesn't have anything to do with the military, or illegal military usage of space or the Moon.

:-*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. You just keep making the same unsubstantiated claims. iver and over again.

This could be the most ridiculously humorous thing you've said here! I...keep making unsubstantiated claims here??? :w00t::yes::w00t:

All you do is say how it's been explained to me, and that I should call NASA about it.

This is utterly ridiculous.

Yes, it is. I should fully realize that you won't contact NASA (you know, the source of the fake Moon landings...you'd have a field day with those nice folks!...well, they might have one with you, which is really your problem, I know...). You obviously also don't want to search back here and find the information you need (!). We all remember. You selectively don't, and thus, we are required to do it all over again???

Yea turb. That'll work...

There was a question to you about proving your contention?

I don't know...for the life of me I cannot remember one single reasonable attempt you've ever made at trying that.

Maybe another week off will allow you the time to try that?

Why can't you show me even one single source explaining this 'phenomenon'?

It's been done. I don't waste my time doing your homework. I even told you where to go to find what you're looking for. Marshall Spaceflight Center and NASA Houston.

Apparently, you can't do your own work so you want to waste our time (when it's already been wasted by you) so you can keep yourself aboard here, and feel "important".

I get it. I'm just a little busy these days (technical stuff. I wouldn't want to bore you with that sort of stuff. Gotta run!).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets try another question you'll avoid answering:

If this was a fake scene, turb, how did John Young do this???

On Earth, 1 g, a 180+ pound suit and PLSS strapped to him, and he jumped a foot and a half off the ground! How'd he get that 300 pounds up off the ground like that???

AS16-113-18339HR.jpg

Just curious about your well though out ideas...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter nowadays.Ionizing radiation in deep space as well as the insurmountable obstacle of the VA Belts/magnetosphere makes that a moot point.

Are X-rays dangerous? Have you been zapped by X-rays? Is so, why are you still alive? What do we know about the Van Allen belts?

The Van Allen Belts

Human Impacts.

Humans have been affected by Belt particles, though not as severly as some people might believe. To see how this works, we need to learn a little about how to measure the biological effects of radiation exposure.

Scientists measure radiation exposure by using a unit called the Rad which stands for 'RAdiation-equivalent Dose' not 'radical'. If a piece of biological tissue is exposed to 1 Rad of radiation, this means a specific amount of energy as been delivered to the tissue. This energy can either do nothing, or it can cause damage. The damage it does is worse if it happens to be particles like electrons and protons, than if it is just electromagnetic radiation. So, to take the kind of radiation into account, a new unit is used called the Rem. When your parents visit their doctor and have to take a chest X-ray, this is worth about 0.020 Rem's - a unit we can also write as '20 milli-Rems' or 20 mRem. The place where you live has different kinds of naturally-occuring radiation from the ground and air, and in one year you get about 350 mRem of dosage. There is little you can do about this, but some places are worse to live than others. If you lived in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, your exposure might be 380 mRem. If you lived near the sea coast, it might be only 300 mRem. Some people live in areas of India where the soils are rich in radioactive uranium. Their dosages are over 700 mRem per year!

Space Shuttle and Space Station astronauts inside their crafts receive about 2 mRems of additional dosage each time they pass through the SAA. In one day they can accumulate 30 mRem of dosage. Over the course of a week, this adds up to 7 x 30 = 210 mRems which is just below the dosage you get at ground-level in a single year (about 350mRem).

Apollo astronauts, however, were forced to traverse the most intense regions of the Belts in their journey to the Moon. Fortunately, the travel time was only about 30 minutes so their actual radiation exposures inside the Apollo space capsule were not much more than the total dose received by Space Shuttle astronauts.

This fact counters some popular speculations that the moon landings were a hoax because astronauts would have instantly died as they made the travel through the belts. In reality, they may have experienced minor radiation poisoning if they had been in their spacesuits on a spacewalk, but no spacewalk was ever scheduled for these very reasons. The shielding provided by the Apollo space capsule walls was more than enough to shield the astronauts from all but the most energetic, and rare, particles.

Still, the astronauts reported seeing 'shooting stars'. These were caused by very energetic particles streaking through the fluid in the eye and colliding with retinal cells, leaving behind the appearance of a luminous, but fleeting, trail of light. Similar streaks have been reported by astronauts in the Space Shuttle and other near-earth missions during the most intense solar storms. It is not known what the long-term consequences of these kinds of brief exposures are upon astronauts, but prospective travelers to Mars will no doubt see many more of them!

http://image.gsfc.na...tour/AAvan.html

Think about the Van Allen belts and radiation exposure time period the next time you visit the hospital for an X-ray.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know Sky, but have a feeling this fellow may be a drive by. My gut says he has no intent of responding to questions put to him... :no:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know Sky, but have a feeling this fellow may be a drive by. My gut says he has no intent of responding to questions put to him... :no:

And you'd be right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you'd be right.

I take it you've seen this person before, fre???

:tu:

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it you've seen this person before, fre???

:tu:

He's on the David Icke Forum where he does the exact same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's on the David Icke Forum where he does the exact same thing.

Ahhh. I see!

Also glad I don't go there!

I just looked through his posts here, and that's adventure enough!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know Sky, but have a feeling this fellow may be a drive by. My gut says he has no intent of responding to questions put to him... :no:

I think you are right! One of those fly by nighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are right! One of those fly by nighters.

Yep...just fly in (night or day), say something silly....and run away!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please forgive me as being a new member and I don't have the time or inclination to read this entire topic at this time.

I've had moments of skepticism and questioned whether or not the USA landed men on the moon. When the conspiracy theorists came out of the woodwork and started pointing out anomalies and discrepancies with various facts, photographic evidence etc., it did get me thinking. There did seem to be cause for questions....

However, my beliefs about the moon landings and visits go beyond what we have been conditioned or led to believe. I DO believe that the USA and NASA went to the moon and the astronauts saw things up there.

Again, we have one side that discredits the whole lunar missions as being impossible at that time and for various reasons, then we have the other camp that has factual scientific evidence that it was possible. It comes down to what to believe as fact, sorting out cover-ups, conspiracies and science frauds, versus true science and what knowledge could be kept from the general public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please forgive me as being a new member and I don't have the time or inclination to read this entire topic at this time.

I've had moments of skepticism and questioned whether or not the USA landed men on the moon. When the conspiracy theorists came out of the woodwork and started pointing out anomalies and discrepancies with various facts, photographic evidence etc., it did get me thinking. There did seem to be cause for questions....

However, my beliefs about the moon landings and visits go beyond what we have been conditioned or led to believe. I DO believe that the USA and NASA went to the moon and the astronauts saw things up there.

Again, we have one side that discredits the whole lunar missions as being impossible at that time and for various reasons, then we have the other camp that has factual scientific evidence that it was possible. It comes down to what to believe as fact, sorting out cover-ups, conspiracies and science frauds, versus true science and what knowledge could be kept from the general public.

Wow, I am a little stunned by this post!

Not in a negative way. I rather appreciate it!

I am about to respond to it in detail...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please forgive me as being a new member and I don't have the time or inclination to read this entire topic at this time.

I've had moments of skepticism and questioned whether or not the USA landed men on the moon. When the conspiracy theorists came out of the woodwork and started pointing out anomalies and discrepancies with various facts, photographic evidence etc., it did get me thinking. There did seem to be cause for questions....

Understand this, Bigfoot:

No CT has ever put forth any "anomalies". There haven't been any. What the CT-ists put forth is illusion, and fabricated nonsense . It's all been based upon what they don't understand.

However, my beliefs about the moon landings and visits go beyond what we have been conditioned or led to believe. I DO believe that the USA and NASA went to the moon and the astronauts saw things up there.

And they most assuredly did!

Again, we have one side that discredits the whole lunar missions as being impossible at that time and for various reasons, then we have the other camp that has factual scientific evidence that it was possible. It comes down to what to believe as fact, sorting out cover-ups, conspiracies and science frauds, versus true science and what knowledge could be kept from the general public.

I'll tell you what!

If you want to know something, just let me know...let us know, and I guarantee you you will receive help!

This thread's long been about education, and those of us who know are more than happy to help someone out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you MID for your detailed response. Believe me, you don't have to convince me of anything! I am a believer that NASA went to the moon and even after all the many assertions that those missions never took place. I find that people (unfortunately) cannot believe in things without more definitive proof and rather than listening to pseudo-science, they can't be objective or pragmatic to testimonials and factual information. We live in a world where nothing can be taken as fact or believed unless there is tangible proof in our hands. What many don't seem to realize is that facts are hidden and twisted and the average person won't ever be able to know the difference. I am a person who takes in the information, thinks about the facts logically and with a dash of common sense, much can be sorted out, IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you MID for your detailed response. Believe me, you don't have to convince me of anything! I am a believer that NASA went to the moon and even after all the many assertions that those missions never took place. I find that people (unfortunately) cannot believe in things without more definitive proof and rather than listening to pseudo-science, they can't be objective or pragmatic to testimonials and factual information. We live in a world where nothing can be taken as fact or believed unless there is tangible proof in our hands. What many don't seem to realize is that facts are hidden and twisted and the average person won't ever be able to know the difference. I am a person who takes in the information, thinks about the facts logically and with a dash of common sense, much can be sorted out, IMHO

Very cool, Bigfoot!

I'm impressed, and I think you're right!

you know, interesting stuff sometimes comes out of this thread. For instance, Neil Armstrong, who recently passed away, had a single greatest accomplishment in his life!

Everybody thinks that it was the fact that he was the first man to walk on the Moon! And of course, we all heard that the first man to walk on the Moon had died!

But it was not that distinction for Neil. He rated that a 1-3 on a scale of 10.

But Neil was a pilot, and for him, being the first man to land on the Moon was his life's accomplishment. That was a 10 out of 10!

that's why I have always said that Neil Armstrong was the first man to land a craft on another world! And if anyone asks me, I say, Neil Armstrong was the first man tio land on the Moon!

He would have preferred that, and he did until he passed on.

And when I look at that Moon, I wink at the first man to land on it...a man I shall never forget!

But seriously, Bigfoot, I'm dead serious when I say you are welcome here, and if there's ever a question, just ask!!!

:tsu: :tsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm happy to look at what MID said IN CONTEXT but I have no intention of encouraging your disgraceful behavior. BTW, did you happen to miss the qualifier "clearly" in the sentence you are 'quoting'? Why do you think he used that word? I know why he used it - it isn't a difficult concept.

And if you had the intestinal fortitude to actually debate the topic properly, you too would see why it can be difficult to see CLEARLY in close ups.

Here is MID's quote, again...

"Because you can't see it, clearly, in close range photos, because it's not visible in that sort of photo, and yet, it's often visible given the right lighting in pictures taken from between 60 and 1000 miles,as you've been shown numerous times, then it's just fictional."

Maybe you should take your own advice, and "look at what MID said IN CONTEXT",

Bolding mine... ...

"Because you can't see it, clearly, in close range photos, because it's not visible in that sort of photo, and yet, it's often visible given the right lighting in pictures taken from between 60 and 1000 miles,as you've been shown numerous times, then it's just fictional."

IN CONTEXT, the word "clearly" seems to mean 'obviously'. MID says "it's not visible" in "that sort of photo" (ie:close range photos), but "it's often visible" in photos taken from 60 to 1000 miles away (ie: longer-range photos).

And even if it's meant in the way you suggest, it makes no difference to what I said - that it's not visible in close-range photos. I stand by that claim, regardless of MID's (or anyone ese's) position on it.

But you DIDN'T STATE what particular phenomenon or aspect of it you were disputing - ie MORE intellectual laziness. Please DO SO if you expect to be taken seriously.

I'm obviously referring to the so-called 'halo' phenomenon. How do YOU expect to be taken seriously, if you don't even know what our common talking points are?.Sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing! Once more, you have done it: you have taken a statement which disproves your assertions and claim they support your claims!

Uh oh...looks like someone forgot to show evidence for a claim!! So if it's not too much trouble...

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.