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

Just pick one. Nearly all of them have the astronauts responding to mission control. But address it? Sure you will. Just like you've addressed all your claims previously? It is YOUR claim that they used wires, YOU need to prove it. I won't be holding my breath though. Keep up the humor Turb!

What video(s) indicates "real time" jumping, to be specific, thus making any edits impossible? To show a wire coudn't be edited in 'live' video..

Just tape the wired astronaut in a jump, and edit the wires out. Pretend it's 'live', 'real-time' video. Mention a current event to convince viewers iit is 'live' 'real-time' video!..

All the astronauts are 'faceless' anyway. Who knows if one is an actor with Armstorng's (live/taped) voice-over? It's so simple to fake all of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's so simple to fake all of this.

What video(s) indicates "real time" jumping, to be specific, thus making any edits impossible? To show a wire coudn't be edited in 'live' video..

Just tape the wired astronaut in a jump, and edit the wires out. Pretend it's 'live', 'real-time' video. Mention a current event to convince viewers iit is 'live' 'real-time' video!..

All the astronauts are 'faceless' anyway. Who knows if one is an actor with Armstorng's (live/taped) voice-over? It's so simple to fake all of this.

You still haven't shown ANY evidence of wires.

I know you like to just say things and pretend that they're true, but i think you've show your lack of knowledge of Apollo to be complete at this point, Turbs.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still haven't shown ANY evidence of wires.

I know you like to just say things and pretend that they're true, but i think you've show your lack of knowledge of Apollo to be complete at this point, Turbs.

Personally, I'm fairly convinced that Turbs actually knows he's wrong, but is just too obstinate to admit it. He's built himself a huge wall of logical fallacies and hid behind it, wrapped up in this fantasy world he's created for himself and at this point, it is probably less embarrassing to continue on with the fantasy than to admit that he has no way to prove any of the things he's been claiming for so many years now.

Seriously... there's no way that someone could be as impervious to logic, as incapable of learning, as resistant to proven historical fact, as willing to fabricate facts and evidence to try and support his position, as intellectually dishonest and as willfully ignorant as Turbs has shown himself to be year in and year out and yet still be able to function in any meaningful way modern society, imo...

Cz

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm fairly convinced that Turbs actually knows he's wrong, but is just too obstinate to admit it. He's built himself a huge wall of logical fallacies and hid behind it, wrapped up in this fantasy world he's created for himself and at this point, it is probably less embarrassing to continue on with the fantasy than to admit that he has no way to prove any of the things he's been claiming for so many years now.

Seriously... there's no way that someone could be as impervious to logic, as incapable of learning, as resistant to proven historical fact, as willing to fabricate facts and evidence to try and support his position, as intellectually dishonest and as willfully ignorant as Turbs has shown himself to be year in and year out and yet still be able to function in any meaningful way modern society, imo...

Cz

I could not agree more. I've been following this thread since way back on page 600 something of the last thread.

His "logic" is laughable, his "claims" are pathetic, and he never responds to the things that conclusively prove him wrong.

He HAS to know he's wrong and just won't admit it. No one can be that dense.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We don't know exactly how long it managed to fool them, before Harland noticed it.

But we know that 24 years (or more) after the photo was taken, there was one person who wasn't fooled. This much is known.

That's a period of 24+ years. Maybe it took a few minutes for Harland to notice it was a fake, but so what? Nobody else noticed it during the 24+ years.

Illogical nonsense. We don't know when the image was misidentified, you admit that in the first line I have quoted. Given that you can't possibly make the claim you have in the last line I have quoted. All we know is that at sometime unknown an image was misidentified, we don't know when, where or by whom.

Once we strip away your supposition the only facts that are certain are that a photograph that was misidentified as being of the lunar surface when it wasn't was correctly identified when seen by a space historian. The only facts do not support your claim that it would be possible for experts to be fooled by fake photographs. The only known time this happened the photograph did not fool an expert... and it only takes one.

So where are the experts saying that the rest of the Apollo orbital images are fake? Harland has shown that experts wouldn't keep their mouths shut and would be honest.

I have been to a meeting of the Lunar Section of the British Astronomical Association. The room was filled with dozens and dozens of experts on the lunar surface. There are astronomical societies like this all around the world. These are people that know the surface of the moon better than you know your neighbourhood, many thousands of experts NASA would have to fool with every single image for decade after decade. How are all of them being fooled for so long? It makes no sense to a rational mind.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
several typos
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What video(s) indicates "real time" jumping, to be specific, thus making any edits impossible? To show a wire coudn't be edited in 'live' video..

Just tape the wired astronaut in a jump, and edit the wires out. Pretend it's 'live', 'real-time' video. Mention a current event to convince viewers iit is 'live' 'real-time' video!..

All the astronauts are 'faceless' anyway. Who knows if one is an actor with Armstorng's (live/taped) voice-over? It's so simple to fake all of this.

Prove it then.

I didn't say current events. I said responding to mission control. So please try to prove that the hours long, uncut, videos where you CAN occasionally see their faces and they do respond to live direction was all just edited so none of the supposed wires are ever visible. I doubt you will though. You've had your chance and all we've seen is more handwaving.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there such a thing as an Net-sick bag? I need one really bad right now ! :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reality Check!

Apollo 15

Mission Objective

Apollo 15 was the first of the Apollo "J" missions capable of a longer stay time on the moon and greater surface mobility. There were four primary objectives falling in the general categories of lunar surface science, lunar orbital science and engineering-operational. The mission objectives were to explore the Hadley-Apennine region, set up and activate lunar surface scientific experiments, make engineering evaluations of new Apollo equipment, and conduct lunar orbital experiments and photographic tasks.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/apollo15.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there such a thing as an Net-sick bag? I need one really bad right now ! :cry:

Perhaps, this video might make you feel better.

Reality Check!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still haven't shown ANY evidence of wires.

I might as well be talking to a brick wall, because it gets the same result.

I'll go over it one more time -

No evidence of wires can be seen in the Apollo videos. Just like no evidence of wires can be seen in many sci-fi films, either. They edit the wires out of the video frames. I can't prove wires were used in Apollo videos, or in the sci-fi films, since they're not visible in either case.

I mentioned wires as to how it could be done, which is correct.

I never claimed to have evidence to prove it, so don't keep asking for it.

We've moved past it. We are debating your side's claim that the videos were shown to us 'live, in 'real-time', so they had no time to edit out any wires.

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any claim of wire usage has been debunked by Mythbusters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prove it then.

I didn't say current events. I said responding to mission control. So please try to prove that the hours long, uncut, videos where you CAN occasionally see their faces and they do respond to live direction was all just edited so none of the supposed wires are ever visible. I doubt you will though. You've had your chance and all we've seen is more handwaving.

Who brought up that it was all done 'live' and in 'real-time'? Not me. YOUR SIDE DID.

You made the claim, your burden to prove it.

Again, I'm asking you to show me examples of the 'live', 'real-time' video where wires could not have been edited out.

To be specific, I'd like you to show me a video(s) of an astronaut's massive 1/6 g jump, which must have been done 'live', in 'real-time'.

These videos were not shown 'live', or in 'real-time' to us, from all the evidence I've found.

Just because it says "Live from the Moon" ot the bottom of the video, does not make it true. That's nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mythbusters? They show the opposite, actually helping to prove my case.

A jump is done with wires, which differs from the Apollo jump. Then, they show slow-motion jumping - without wires!!.

If you take the wires jump, and slow it down to about 67% speed, it's comparable to an Apollo jump!!

So it only proves my case, not yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prove it then.

He can't prove his claim because all of his claims have been successfully debunked. Even Mythbusters has successfully trashed his claim of wires. Post #1309 spells it out how the Apollo moon conspiracy folks are a dying breed. There are probably more people interested in the breeding habits of bees than there are people who are interested in pushing tales of moon mission hoaxes..

On another note:

Apollo 16

At least two different radio amateurs, W4HHK and K2RIW, reported reception of Apollo 16 signals with home-built equipment.

Sternwarte Bochum Observatory in Germany tracked the astronauts and intercepted the television signals from Apollo 16. The image was re-recorded in black and white in the 625 lines, 25 frames/s television standard onto 2-inch videotape using their sole quad machine. The transmissions are only of the astronauts and do not contain any voice from Houston, as the signal received came from the Moon only. The videotapes are held in storage at the observatory

http://www.classicbr...arte_bochum.pdf

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might as well be talking to a brick wall, because it gets the same result.

I'm sure that many in this thread feel the exact same way.

I'll go over it one more time -

No evidence of wires can be seen in the Apollo videos. Just like no evidence of wires can be seen in many sci-fi films, either. They edit the wires out of the video frames. I can't prove wires were used in Apollo videos, or in the sci-fi films, since they're not visible in either case.

Because they are not there.

I mentioned wires as to how it could be done, which is correct.

I never claimed to have evidence to prove it, so don't keep asking for it.

Why make a claim you can't back up? That's all you seem to do. I'm sur eI could produce enough youtube videos of 80's scifi movies where wires are readily visable. I'm not going to bother, however. If you don't want to show any evidence, why should I?

We've moved past it. We are debating your side's claim that the videos were shown to us 'live, in 'real-time', so they had no time to edit out any wires.

You've moved past it, just like you've "moved past" every claim you have made up that you cannot support.

Have you ever taken as astronomy course or gone to a observatory? I've done both. I know it has been mentioned here before, but there's this really neat thing you can do with reflectors that were left on the moon by Apollo astronauts. You can bounce a laser off of them. I have done this. Multiple times. You can do it yourself, too, though I'm sure any result will just be lies, right?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of getting through the Van Allen Belts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who brought up that it was all done 'live' and in 'real-time'? Not me. YOUR SIDE DID.

You made the claim, your burden to prove it.

Your claim of wires. You prove it. All I added was something your claim must account for if you ever decide to actually prove it (which we know you won't). We all know this is just another way for you to avoid proving something. We'll just add it to your long list of abandoned claims shall we?

Again, I'm asking you to show me examples of the 'live', 'real-time' video where wires could not have been edited out.

To be specific, I'd like you to show me a video(s) of an astronaut's massive 1/6 g jump, which must have been done 'live', in 'real-time'.

These videos were not shown 'live', or in 'real-time' to us, from all the evidence I've found.

Translation: I haven't really looked and I want you to spoonfeed me but I'll still ignore it then anyway.

Just because it says "Live from the Moon" ot the bottom of the video, does not make it true. That's nonsense.

translation: and I'll throw in a strawman for good measure.

Edited by frenat
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case anyone else here has missed it in one of the current 9/11 threads, Turbs has shown his true colours and the depths of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty he has chosen to sink to.

Here's a few choice quotes, and it will become obvious why I'm dealing with this here rather than in the original thread

The solution is to actually address what I posted - that fires were taken into account when the towers were designed. I cited quotes on it. You just ignored it with pure drivel, which I termed as an 'Anti-Post'. So what about making a proper reply to this issue, for once?

I'm sorry, Turbs, but when you finally put on your Big Boy pants and have caught up on ALL the threads and lines of discussion you have abandoned, questions you have left unanswered and addressed ALL of the facts / evidence you have ignored (and I'm not just talking about the myriad examples of that behaviour here on this board) then... THEN maybe you can be indignant and call someone else out on their behaviour here...

Until that time, though, there are several places that I could suggest for you to stick your hypocrisy.

That's the same excuse you use whenever you are caught making unfounded claims. If you can't support your own claims, be a mature adut and own up to it. Using silly excuses is infantile. I have addressed the questions I've been asked, and if you think I've missed so many, then simply cite the specific cases and I'll gladly address them.

But don't keep using this garbage excuse to weasel your way out of answering for YOUR claims.

So one more time - address the evidence which shows fires WERE taken into account during the towers' design, or just admit you were wrong.

I've had enough of your avoidance tactics, acting like a troll who runs and hides from his claims.

I don't just think you've missed any, I KNOW - just as anyone who has followed this topic for any significant amount of time knows - that you've missed a great many, too many, in fact, to address in one single post, since you history of avoidance spans multiple years, several topics and different message boards.

So... here is one of the more recent cases where you

  1. IGNORED facts that disprove your assertion, presented to you from a source YOU provided in support of your case
  2. left the questions asked of you UNANSWERED
  3. ABANDONED the topic, specifically that NASA could have simulated a Moon shot through the DSN in general, and the Parkes Observatory specifically, completely

However, since you now claim to have read the document, please show us with actual quotes from the document including page numbers, how you think it would be possible to simulate an entire mission without the controllers knowing it was a simulation.

Let's review this point...

"Parkes Radio Telescope was seconded to NASA for periods of about six weeks around the Apollo missions"

Hmm...what do you think that means? You think NASA is controlling Parkes during Apollo, or is under control of Aussies who worked there? It's pretty clear who is running the show, and who is following their orders and instructions.

Apollo was a NASA project. It was not a joint NASA-Australian project. It was not a joint NASA-Grumman/Honeywell/et al project. It was a NASA project, period. And like most large-scale projects, this included external contributors. Like Grumman, Honeywell, etc. and like the Australians, Africans, etc. employed by NASA for their Apollo project.

You have this bizarro notion that NASA just let the Australians control the show, or something like that.

I have shown you facts from the link that you provided.

I have shown you where it says in the Honeysuckle link you provided that NASA gave money to Parkes.

I have shown you where it says in the Honeysuckle link you provided that Parkes - not NASA - used that money to upgrade its facility.

I have shown you where it says in the Honeysuckle link you provided that a team of Aussies from Tidbinbilla - not NASA employees - were assigned to man the Parkes site.

I have shown you where it says in the Honeysuckle link you provided that that same team of Aussies from Tidbinbilla - not NASA employees - was sent to Parkes to prepare and install the upgraded equipment.

You have nothing but your now admitted-by-you unsupported speculation.

So... please show us where it says that NASA installed, manned and controlled the Parkes site in that one sentence you have cherry-picked from that entire page of evidence against you.

You brought up the document, right?

Sure you did.

No Turbs... You brought it into the discussion here:

Or are you going to say that it is only good as a source when you choose it to be and at no time other...?

Time to stop with the crack and start keeping up with your own story.

Do you remember any possible reason you would have brought up the document?

If you can answer that, you'll realize who has the original claim about the document, and who has the burden of proving it, too!!

Yes, I can and did answer it.

YOU brought the document to the discussion as evidence to support your position.

YOU claim you have read it and that you know that the documents shows how the equipment was tested.

YOU claim that it was possible to simulate an entire mission without any of the controllers knowing it.

If you have read the document as you have claimed to have done, then you should know the section that goes into great detail of the procedures and methods used to test the system, including the simulations they did use.

It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to back up your claim with the evidence YOU HAVE BROUGHT TO THE DISCUSSION that you are correct.

IT IS ALWAYS YOUR BURDEN TO PROVE YOU ARE CORRECT, Turbs.

You can dance around that fact, evade it, ignore it and try to reverse it all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof has been and continues to be yours.

Hint: It's not me.

Fact: you're wrong.

So... one more time - provide the evidence from your own source (with page numbers and specific quotes) which shows simulations COULD have been used to fool controllers into believing that an actual mission was on going, and address the evidence provided to you - again from your own source - that shows that NASA funded Parkes, but DID NOT run the installation as you have claimed, or just admit you were wrong,

I and everyone else here have had enough of your avoidance tactics, acting like a troll who runs and hides from his claims, your hypocrisy, your intellectual dishonesty and your straight up lies.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... one more time - provide the evidence from your own source (with page numbers and specific quotes) which shows simulations COULD have been used to fool controllers into believing that an actual mission was on going, and address the evidence provided to you - again from your own source - that shows that NASA funded Parkes, but DID NOT run the installation as you have claimed, or just admit you were wrong,

I and everyone else here have had enough of your avoidance tactics, acting like a troll who runs and hides from his claims, your hypocrisy, your intellectual dishonesty and your straight up lies.

Cz

In that vein I might suggest a rereading of my post #1293

An excerpt:

But there is an even stronger and more pertinent argument involving "telemetry". There was a world-wide tracking network providing communications to and from the various Apollo mission elements and although the people involved in doing this were indirectly paid by the project, they were not all US government employees or even citizens. So they would have had to have been part of the conspiracy or taken in by it.

And as I was the Australian citizen employed by the Australian government responsible for running the operations at the prime Australian tracking site here near Canberra I can vouch for the scientific/engineering fact that we pointed our antenna at the trajectory to, at and from the moon and transmitted and received radio signals containing commands, telemetry, television together with navigation info from antenna angles, Doppler frequencies and two way range delays. Impossible to fake.

Edited by Gaden
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can it bee any clearer ? :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mythbusters? They show the opposite, actually helping to prove my case.

A jump is done with wires, which differs from the Apollo jump. Then, they show slow-motion jumping - without wires!!.

If you take the wires jump, and slow it down to about 67% speed, it's comparable to an Apollo jump!!

So it only proves my case, not yours.

:w00t: :w00t: :w00t: :w00t: ...The more you decide to speak, the stupider everything you say sounds. Seriously. You actually are claiming that slowing down a film to about 2/3 normal speed proves your case?

What was that again, anyway??? :cry::whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian O’Leary NASA astronaut during 1960s and Science Adviser during Apollo mission him self wasn’t sure that men walked on the moon …

He was science adviser during Apollo mission I have seen him on TV saying “ Regarding to the Apollo mission I can’t say of 100% for sure whether these men walked on the moon”

So for HP group he must be nut ?

post-102833-0-09343000-1352266745_thumb.

post-102833-0-56486400-1352266831_thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian O’Leary NASA astronaut during 1960s and Science Adviser during Apollo mission him self wasn’t sure that men walked on the moon …

He was science adviser during Apollo mission I have seen him on TV saying “ Regarding to the Apollo mission I can’t say of 100% for sure whether these men walked on the moon”

So for HP group he must be nut ?

You mean the same Dr O'Leary who was a proponent of the face on mars controversy?

RIP Dr. O'Leary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean the same Dr O'Leary who was a proponent of the face on mars controversy?

RIP Dr. O'Leary

What do you really think of him ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you really think of him ?

As far as his legacy regarding his work on free energy, I salute the guy for his efforts. As far as his professional career, I salute the late Dr, in his achievements.

As far as his independent research of UFO's and exsistence of aliens living on earth, I find very laughable.

As far as his opinions regarding Apollo 11 hoax, I couldn't find anything regarding that.

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.