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

Oh just you wait... it goes in cycles with him. He's discussed this before, and will discuss it again after he figures enough time has passed that people have forgotten when he posted these ludicrous ideas this time around.

Cz

Is he Ralph Rene` by any chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's happened to Jarrah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is he Ralph Rene` by any chance?

Probably not, but most of his claims are countered, dead and buried even longer than RR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, had to catch up on this one while I was away on a mission for the Army.

I mean really, were the stars the actual reason why we went to the moon and not the moon itself? The astronauts were experts at their particular job, not expert astronomers. Their mission was the moon for heavens sakes. I don't blame them for not being able to describe how the stars look in space, as it is not a priority.

So?? Stars were not a priority for the missions I cited, either!!

You know Apollo mentioned stars?

Stars, which had nothing to do with their 'priority'?.

Such a nonsensical excuse..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And actually, to be clear, the most ignorant topic turbs has brought up in the past was the "I can see the director's chair, guy with a beard, and crew person's shirt sleeve peeking out from behind a curtain in the video clip of the side of Apollo 12 LEM"... at least I think it was Apollo 12. It hurts my head to think down to the level needed to actually believe that tripe of his, so I try not to do it very often, or at all...

Regardless, that one is, to my knowledge, quite rightly the single most ignorant thing he's brought up, at least on this board....

Your head hurts to think about it. So you bring it up.

It's a worthless, goofy argument. So you bring it up.

It was discussed at length several years ago. So you bring it up.

Nothing bizarro about that, of course...... :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a nonsensical excuse..

You have been proven wrong time after time after time and it seems you have been unable to catch the hints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a worthless, goofy argument. So you bring it up.

What was really goofy, among many others, was you claim that astronauts could not bend their knees. That was a mind-boggling statement to say the least, especially in light of the fact that posters had presented photos of people bending their knees in pressurized suits, a feat you'd claimed was impossible.

It all goes to prove that you are not tuned to the right channel.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did report stars, you feel the descriptions were not flamboyant enough.

Apollo crews describe the stars just like anyone on Earth commonly would.

The others (I've cited) experience the stars. No superlatives can do it justice.

Apollo didn't experience the stars, which means they didn't fly to the moon.

Perhaps it's not proof, but it is sound logic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apollo didn't experience the stars, which means they didn't fly to the moon.

On the contrary, countries have confirmed tracking Apollo moon missions and photographic Apollo landing sites, which once again, proves you wrong.

600px-Apollo_12_LRO.jpg

Observers of all 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. The missions were tracked by radar from several countries on the way to the Moon and back.

The NASA Manned Space Flight Network (MSFN) was a world-wide network of stations that tracked the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Skylab missions. Most MSFN stations were only needed during the launch, Earth orbit and landing phases of the lunar missions, but three "deep space" sites with larger antennas provided continuous coverage during the trans-lunar, trans-earth and lunar mission phases. Today, these three sites form the NASA Deep Space Network: the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex near Goldstone, California; the Madrid Deep Space Communication Complex near Madrid, Spain; and the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex, in Tidbinbilla, near Canberra, Australia.

Although most MSFN stations were NASA-owned, they employed many local citizens. NASA also contracted the Parkes Observatory in New South Wales, Australia, to supplement the three deep space sites, most famously during the Apollo 11 EVA as documented in Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia[30][31] and portrayed (humorously and not quite accurately) in the movie The Dish. The Parkes Observatory is not NASA-owned; it is, and always has been, owned and operated by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), a research agency of the Australian government.

Several other Australian sites which are no longer part of the Deep Space Network were also involved in relaying Apollo lunar transmissions. The deep space (lunar) tracking station was originally Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station. Carnarvon Tracking Station was one of the smaller and more numerous MSFN sites used primarily to support the near-earth segments of Apollo missions, though it also relayed data from the ALSEP lunar surface experiments. Due to its location on Australia's west coast, Carnarvon played a special role in the Apollo trans lunar injection and atmospheric reentry phases. Deakin Switching Centre routed the Apollo television broadcasts.

It would have been relatively easy for NASA to avoid using the Parkes Observatory to receive the Apollo 11 EVA television signals by scheduling the EVA at an earlier time when the Goldstone station could provide complete coverage.

http://en.wikipedia....o_Moon_landings

Telescopic Tracking of the Apollo Lunar Missions

Apollo 14

This image of Apollo 14 during a water dump (including SLA panels) is provided in an archival image courtesy of current director Elaine Halbedel, from the Corralitos Observatory files. This was done with a TV system on the 24-inch reflector. The motion of the objects brings out not only the spacecraft and S-IVB booster stage, but the four SLA panels.

http://www.astr.ua.e...ace/apollo.html

I might add that my flying buddy was on the flight crew that flew the Apollo 14 astronauts from Pago Pago to Texas. His mission originated from Travis AFB, CA. which was my base. In fact, I have attached the newspaper article as he prepared to board his aircraft to pick up the Apollo 14 astronauts after their returned trip from the moon. I might also add that he met with President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden recently in Washington D.C.

post-32948-0-97585400-1362735416_thumb.j

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apollo crews describe the stars just like anyone on Earth commonly would.

The others (I've cited) experience the stars. No superlatives can do it justice.

Apollo didn't experience the stars, which means they didn't fly to the moon.

Perhaps it's not proof, but it is sound logic

I've been dipping into this argument on a daily basis since the beginning, watched countless arguments being brought up and then ditched, and I have to say this is the weakest one yet, by a good couple of light years.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weak? It's so weak it's homeopathic!

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been dipping into this argument on a daily basis since the beginning, watched countless arguments being brought up and then ditched, and I have to say this is the weakest one yet, by a good couple of light years.

It's much weaker to have no support for your argument!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weak? It's so weak it's homeopathic!

It's so weak that it is an archaic, highly disputed system of medicine?

Err..you go right ahead with that, now... :unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's much weaker to have no support for your argument!

standard turb posts, flaps his gums then someone comes along and and shows you to be wrong so ignores the post completely and responds to someone else... sad

Edited by Iron_Lotus
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so on the one hand, we have the unimpeachable evidence of astronauts failing to use the word "amazing" in relation to stars as being cast-iron proof that an entire moon landing programme was hoaxed.

On the other hand, we have this comparison of a photo that Apollo 16 astronauts took of North Ray crater, compared with what LRO saw recently.

LROC image - North Crater is the large, bright crater at the top of the image.

Apollo image - taken from Station 11 to the south of the crater rim.

NorthCrater2_zps358cd0bc.jpg

Here are just some of the interesting features that match up between the two images.

NorthCrater1_zpsfdea408d.jpg

I'll leave it to anyone reading the thread to decide what constitutes the better evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you can compare AS15-82-11122 with 3D reconstruction of the same area using SELENE data:

20080520_kaguya_07l.jpg

20080520_kaguya_06l.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I forgot India: http://www.currentsc...0630_0631_0.pdf

"As a matter of fact, for the first time after the end of the Apollo programme, surface disturbance caused by humans have been brought out on such a large scale"

Edited by karrde

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was really goofy, among many others, was you claim that astronauts could not bend their knees. That was a mind-boggling statement to say the least, especially in light of the fact that posters had presented photos of people bending their knees in pressurized suits, a feat you'd claimed was impossible.

You need to get your facts straight before you post something foolish.

I never said they couldn't bend their knees, I said they couldn't bend their knees to the extreme degree seen in a few Apollo video clips.Not possible in a properly pressurized Apollo spacesuit. No photos or videos your side has shown have refuted my claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so on the one hand, we have the unimpeachable evidence of astronauts failing to use the word "amazing" in relation to stars as being cast-iron proof that an entire moon landing programme was hoaxed.

No, on the one hand you misrepresent a legitimate point to suit your own purposes. You know what I actually said - that it's not proof, but it is quite logical. If you can't make a case without twisting my arguments, iit's quite worthless, is it not?

On the other hand, we have this comparison of a photo that Apollo 16 astronauts took of North Ray crater, compared with what LRO saw recently.

If it wasn't bad enough already, this takes the cake.

A specific point has to stand or fall - based on its own merits. You bring up a completely irrelevant, separate issue, instead of properly debating the specific issue. This is ridiculous.

And it's not even a valid point. You are comparing NASA material to more NASA material. That is hardly an independent validation, now is it?!?.

I'll leave it to anyone reading the thread to decide what constitutes the better evidence.

What could possibly be better evidence than your NASA photos, which match up perfectly with your other NASA photos?!? :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to get your facts straight before you post something foolish.

How amusing you would say such a silly thing considering the evidence have proven you wrong time after time after time!

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you can compare AS15-82-11122 with 3D reconstruction of the same area using SELENE data:

20080520_kaguya_07l.jpg

20080520_kaguya_06l.jpg

Yes indeed, India and China are among countries around the world confirming the reality of the Apollo moon missions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What could possibly be better evidence than your NASA photos, which match up perfectly with your other NASA photos?!?

Photo, data and tracking evidence from nations around the world that have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Apollo moon missions were a reality. In other words, the overwhelming evidence from nations around the world have proven that you have been overwhelmingly incorrect and wrong,

What better way to prove you wrong than to let you do it for us!

Apollo 12

300px-Surveyor3camera.jpg

Surveyor 3 camera brought back from the Moon by Apollo 12, on display at the National Air and Space Museum

Paul Maley reports several sightings of the Apollo 12 Command Module.Parts of Surveyor 3, which landed on the Moon in April 1967, were brought back to Earth by Apollo 12 in November 1969. These samples were shown to have been exposed to lunar conditions.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbo said:

Due to the fact it is impossible to bend one's knee like the astronaut does in a pressurized spacesuit.

See post #13669.

The fact that you have been shown it is possible illustrates your blatant dishonesty in this subject.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, on the one hand you misrepresent a legitimate point to suit your own purposes. You know what I actually said - that it's not proof, but it is quite logical. If you can't make a case without twisting my arguments, iit's quite worthless, is it not?

And I never said you said it was proof. If you can't make a case without twisting my arguments, it's quite worthless, is it not?

If it wasn't bad enough already, this takes the cake. A specific point has to stand or fall - based on its own merits. You bring up a completely irrelevant, separate issue, instead of properly debating the specific issue. This is ridiculous.

The use or non-use of the word "amazing" has been done to death. I'd like to isay it's one of your weaker arguments, but that would imply you have better ones. I didn't address my post at you. It was aimed anyone reading the thread to decide what constitutes better evidence: not using the word "amazing" to describe stars, or an orbital photo taken 40 years later matching the rocks seen at the far side of a crater during a rover traverse back to the LM from a geology station several kilometres away.

And it's not even a valid point. You are comparing NASA material to more NASA material. That is hardly an independent validation, now is it?!?.

Please point out where I said it was an independent validation, I never made such a claim.

However, it must at least raise questions in the mind of anyone but the most dyed-in-the-wool hoax believers, surely? How exactly did they fake 20 square kilometres of the lunar surface in such amazing detail? And that's just Apollo 16, Apollo 17 was more than double that! Maybe it's easy for some people to gloss over such details when they have "amazing" stars to cling to, or video footage of stage-hands with such clarity that you can actually see their guilt-blackened fingernails. :rolleyes:

What could possibly be better evidence than your NASA photos, which match up perfectly with your other NASA photos?!? :clap:

It's yet another of the myriad examples of photographic congruency between Apollo photo and film stock, and photographic evidence from other missions.

Of course, if you want evidence from NASA photos that matches up with evidence from other nations, that has already been presented to you on this thread in recent posts. Look at the Selene radar data from Apollo 15 near Hadley Rille for example.

Or you could just rely on the FACT! that pressurised suits can't bend more than 90 degrees at the knees.

soyuz-seat-fitting.jpg

Spacesuit-knee-01.jpg

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.