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

Eventually everyone with first hand knowledge of Apollo is going to be gone. I'm wondering how this is going to affect the notion of hoaxing?

Whilst we will lose the first hand knowledge of Apollo we will gain the first hand knowledge of Orion.

The third flight of Orion is due to be the first manned mission. Known as Exploration Mission 2 (EM-2) it will take 4 astronauts on a mission to lunar orbit. They will spend 3-4 days orbiting the moon before returning home. This mission is due sometime between 2019-21

Whilst not a landing mission, the fact that it will return humans to the vicinity of the moon should demonstrate the lie that is favoured by the hoax believers, that it is impossible for humans to venture beyond the Van Allen belts.

The "true believers" of the Apollo Hoax theory will, of course, not accept this as any kind of evidence that Apollo wasn't hoaxed but will simply wheel out the excuses. I expect some of them to ignore the evidence in front of them and claim that Orion is faked too (despite this contradicting their own case that the Apollo hoax was successful because the number of people that knew was kept to a minimum). Another claim that I expect to see is, "well of course it proves nothing, they couldn't have done it in 1969 but now they have secret anti-radiation technology. Of course I can't prove this anti-radiation technology exists because it is secret". I'm sure they'll come up with other excuse too.

The fact is that nothing will convince the true-believers they are wrong, but Orion will make them look ridiculous to even more people.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this little gem. Right to the point.

Horrible video, actually.

He assumes there was lengthy continuous footage to support his case.

Why? Because NASA's report says so.

What a crock....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Horrible video, actually.

That video was right on the mark!! :yes: It was easier to fly a man to the moon than to hoax a moon landing in 1969.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is where he would need to be in order to reflect light off the rung and into the camera, since the rung by definition is roughly parallel to the ground!

But the failure of your argument goes even deeper, and it's due to the cylindrical nature of the rung. While you may be technically correct to state that not all of the astronaut is 'below' the rung (and I've shown above that it wouldn't even matter if you were right), you are talking about a plane that runs through the rung, parallel to the surface. But in terms of what is reflected into the camera, you need to consider the optical axis of the camera itself! And it's immediately obvious that the optical axis is nowhere near parallel. The reflecting rung is above the optical axis, the brightly lit astronaut is below it. Hence, the whole of the astronaut can be reflected off the cylindrical rung. Simple optical principles again. Draw a raytrace diagramme or do some experimenting if you're unsure.

Would you really believe an experiment I did if you can't understand the simple principles I've outlined?

I understand it's your excuse to not conduct this experiment.

So if you could...have a go at it, please..

Also, do you have any other examples of this happening? There should be many, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand it's your excuse to not conduct this experiment.

That won't work because you have proven to us that you are not interested in facts and evidence. Your previous claims have been shot down by people using facts, evidence and the laws of physics.

Here is real evidence.

LRO_Apollo14_landing_site_369228main_ap14labeled_540.jpg

And, my current flying buddy flew the Apollo 14 astronauts back to Houston after their moon flight. On another note, my flying buddy received a special invitation to Washington D.C. recently and met with President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden this past Monday.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That video was right on the mark!! :yes: It was easier to fly a man to the moon than to hoax a moon landing in 1969.

We could fake a moon landing years before 1969 - movies proved this, beyond any doubt.

With a much bigger budget, Apollo would be simple to fake, in comparison to the smaller budget flicks.

A genuine moon landing is much much harder - it's still beyond our reach.

Over 40 years of excuses show it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could fake a moon landing years before 1969 - movies proved this, beyond any doubt.

You have been watching too many Hollywood movies because scientific means could have detected a hoax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A genuine moon landing is much much harder - it's still beyond our reach.

Over 40 years of excuses show it.

Well, let's take a look at what has occurred since 1969.

China publishes high-resolution full moon map

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 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

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That won't work because you have proven to us that you are not interested in facts and evidence. Your previous claims have been shot down by people using facts, evidence and the laws of physics.

Here is real evidence.

LRO_Apollo14_landing_site_369228main_ap14labeled_540.jpg

And, my current flying buddy flew the Apollo 14 astronauts back to Houston after their moon flight. On another note, my flying buddy received a special invitation to Washington D.C. recently and met with President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden this past Monday.

Nice little dots....so, where's the "real evidence" you told me about??

So this must be another thing that's harder to do than a real moon landing? Just like the fake landing is harder?

Now I get it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let's take a look at what has occurred since 1969.

So another country has discovered little dots, too?

It must be harder to photograph the landing sites than to do a real moon landing!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So another country has discovered little dots, too?

A lot more than dots; Proof-positive of Apollo moon landings.

600px-Apollo_12_LRO.jpg

The "halo" area around Apollo 15 landing site observed by Terrain Camera on SELENE(KAGUYA)

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) reported on the "halo" generated by the Apollo 15* lunar module engine exhaust plume that was detected in the data from Terrain Camera (TC) image.

This was an image processed by the SELENE mission instrument team from the observation data of the Apollo 15 landing site on the moon (the foot of the Apennine Mountains encircling the Mare Imbrium close to Hadley Rille). This is the world's first report on the detection of the "halo" through observations after the end of the Apollo program.

Through the produced three-dimensional image of the same landscape as that of the picture taken by the Apollo 15 crew, the spatial accuracy of the TC observation was verified. The three dimensional view of the TC clearly shows the layers of lava flows that erupted approximately about 3.2 billion years ago in the upper part of the Hadley Rille.

20080520_kaguya_01s.jpg

600px-Challenger_4x.png

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot more than dots; Proof-positive of Apollo moon landings.

The "halo" area around Apollo 15 landing site observed by Terrain Camera on SELENE(KAGUYA)

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) reported on the "halo" generated by the Apollo 15* lunar module engine exhaust plume that was detected in the data from Terrain Camera (TC) image.

This was an image processed by the SELENE mission instrument team from the observation data of the Apollo 15 landing site on the moon (the foot of the Apennine Mountains encircling the Mare Imbrium close to Hadley Rille). This is the world's first report on the detection of the "halo" through observations after the end of the Apollo program.

Through the produced three-dimensional image of the same landscape as that of the picture taken by the Apollo 15 crew, the spatial accuracy of the TC observation was verified. The three dimensional view of the TC clearly shows the layers of lava flows that erupted approximately about 3.2 billion years ago in the upper part of the Hadley Rille.

I see little blobs and specks - nothing more.

To call this evidence is just laughable.

Anything can be interpreted from it - how about aliens?...

It's also very easy to fake dots and blobs.

No go...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see little blobs and specks - nothing more.

Of course you do because you are not knowledgeable enough to know the difference. :lol:

It was determined the landing site was that of Apollo 15, which goes to show that you are not interested in facts and evidence. So once again, you have been proven incorrect with evidence. Are you implying that Russia, China, India, Japan, Australia, and the rest of the world are lying for confirming the reality of the Apollo moon missions?

Remember, you are the minority with no evidence to backup what you say.

On another note:

300px-Apollo12ConradSurveyor.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To call this evidence is just laughable.

What is truly laughable lies in the fact that it was the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency that reported the landing site as that of Apollo 15, and look what you posted.

Once again, you have failed to override reality, so the question is; are you going to accuse the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency of lying?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand it's your excuse to not conduct this experiment.

So if you could...have a go at it, please..

I've shown you how you can prove something to yourself. You've made it perfectly clear over the years that you don't agree with anything I have to say on Apollo, so why would you believe me now? You wouldn't. I was hoping you might believe your own eyes by doing your own experimentation. I was wrong. Meh.

Also, do you have any other examples of this happening? There should be many, no?

You asked for another example, you were shown it. Now you want many other examples, even though you refuse to believe the data that's been spoonfed to you? You can keep on pulling, Turbs, but it ain't gonna ring...

Simple scientific principles, and the available data, prove that sunlight can indeed reflect off a bright white spacesuit (fancy that!), and reflect off another surface several feet away. What you choose to believe is entirely your own prerogative, but facts are facts. Groves analysis is flawed because he didn't even address the possibility of the side of Armstrong's suit closest to the light-source being responsible for the highlight in Aldrin's boot, despite all the effort he put in to accurately determining where the light-source was. There is ample evidence to support the fact that spacesuits do reflect enough light to illuminate another surface at a distance of several feet.

Join the dots, follow the evidence, see where it leads you. What you shouldn't do, is push the evidence in the direction you would like it to go. You are coming from the angle of "I must prove at all cost that a spacesuit cannot cause the reflection seen in Aldrin's boot". Hence, you come out with woolly statements such as "It could be a slip-up in the stage lighting", or "it's a glitch", which is a poor excuse.

Yet again, this is absolutely nothing to do with discussing the evidence in a rational, objective way. It's purely to do with not losing the argument, at all costs. In other words, it boils down to ego. Your ego won't allow you to admit that Armstrong's suit could indeed reflect sunlight onto Aldrin's boot. I find that quite strange, since it would sign of strength of character to admit you were wrong. Further, admitting you were wrong does not mean you need to admit that Armstrong was indeed the first man on the moon. You could simply shift your position to say, OK, the highlight in Aldrin's boot could indeed be caused by bright light reflected off Armstrong's suit, but whose to say it isn't the bright superlight that Percy alluded to, rather than the sun? That would be the intellectually honest way out for you, which has been offered up to you on a plate, and which you refused to accept.

As I said, you're not following the evidence.

You're trying to force the evidence where you want it to go, which is something akin to herding cats: amusing for the rest of us to watch for a while, but ultimately an exercise in futility.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have been watching too many Hollywood movies because scientific means could have detected a hoax.

So true...and the Apollo movies are superb examples of that!! .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've shown you how you can prove something to yourself. You've made it perfectly clear over the years that you don't agree with anything I have to say on Apollo, so why would you believe me now? You wouldn't.

Yes, it's the perfect excuse for all occasions!

Making claims was never so easy.

Thank you, 'ExcuseTool 3.0' !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So true...and the Apollo movies are superb examples of that!! .

Apollo 13 was a great movie based on a true event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making claims was never so easy.

And since scientific facts and evidence have successfully debunked your claims, you have shown and proven to us that you are not interested in facts and evidence.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I would advise against trying to enagage Turbs in a rational debate. They have shown themselves to be intellectually dishonest in this area, dismissing or refusing to acknowledge clear evidence presented to them when asked for, as well as demonstrating a number of logical fallacies (argument from ignorance, argument from silence, shifting the burden of proof, equivocation, kettle logic, etc).

I, for one, don't waste my time on them anymore.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I would advise against trying to enagage Turbs in a rational debate. They have shown themselves to be intellectually dishonest in this area, dismissing or refusing to acknowledge clear evidence presented to them when asked for, as well as demonstrating a number of logical fallacies (argument from ignorance, argument from silence, shifting the burden of proof, equivocation, kettle logic, etc).

I, for one, don't waste my time on them anymore.

It does get old the same old #$% from TURD`s but ITs like this without people that dont know anything thats factual we would not have so much fun reading there dribble ! Cheer`s Obviousman !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does get old the same old #$% from TURD`s but ITs like this without people that dont know anything thats factual we would not have so much fun reading there dribble ! Cheer`s Obviousman !

It is silly for those to claim the Apollo moon missions were hoaxed when overwhelming evidence proved otherwise, not to mention there are countries that have confirmed the reality of the Apollo missions and some have photographed the Apollo landing sites.

To sum it up, the moon hoax folks are accustom to pulling things out of thin air and make up stories, and to prove my case, they are unable to provide evidence to back up their false claims. In addition, it was not likely the United States would have spent billions of dollars to hoax Apollo moon missions when such missions could have easily been revealed, and in light of the fact the United States was engaged in the Vietnam war and spending billions on that war and experiencing high inflation. The government would have simply said that we couldn't do it and leave it at that instead of spending billions of dollars on a hoax, but as it is, facts and evidence have proved the reality of the Apollo moon missions.

The Apollo moon hoax folks don't think of little things like that. I can remember the dream of man setting foot on Mars by the end of the 20th century, but NASA didn't hoax missions to Mars by the end of that century.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've shown you how you can prove something to yourself. You've made it perfectly clear over the years that you don't agree with anything I have to say on Apollo, so why would you believe me now? You wouldn't.

This isn't about belief, it's about proof. It's your burden to prove. You can't make excuses for that.

You asked for another example, you were shown it. Now you want many other examples, even though you refuse to believe the data that's been spoonfed to you?

You've spoonfed mush, that's about it so far.

I'd like to see just one example that actually holds up without excuses,

Simple scientific principles, and the available data, prove that sunlight can indeed reflect off a bright white spacesuit (fancy that!), and reflect off another surface several feet away. What you choose to believe is entirely your own prerogative, but facts are facts. Groves analysis is flawed because he didn't even address the possibility of the side of Armstrong's suit closest to the light-source being responsible for the highlight in Aldrin's boot, despite all the effort he put in to accurately determining where the light-source was. There is ample evidence to support the fact that spacesuits do reflect enough light to illuminate another surface at a distance of several feet.

So now there's "ample evidence"?

Wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To sum it up, the moon hoax folks are accustom to pulling things out of thin air and make up stories, .

Who could make up stories any better than Apollo astronauts?

Michael Collins couldn't recall seeing any stars from the lunar surface, He obviously made up another version of the story. In that version, he lands on the moon.

Such mistakes can happen with a made up story - one can actually forget the basic script!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The cheese stands alone,

The cheese stands alone,

Hi-ho, the derry-o,

The cheese stands alone."

I've read this thread from beginning to end since I joined.

Turbonium, let me get this right... everyone else in this forum and almost everyone else in the world is wrong, but you alone are right? For God's sake, even the USSR acknowledged the landings and they had the most to win by discrediting it!

And here we are now, over 1600 replies later with people providing the evidence, page after page, that it did happen and you sit there and still demand more evidence.

You said, "It's your burden to prove." It's like a flat earther demanding proof that the world is round. It isn't going to happen because the flat earther simply can't wrap their head around the concept.

Perhaps it's time to give this one a rest. :)

1 person likes this

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.