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 6
Death Star III

moon landing

moon landing   232 members have voted

  1. 1. do you believe that people landed on the moon.

    • yes
      158
    • no
      74

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

4,060 posts in this topic

do you believe humans landed on the moon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you believe humans landed on the moon?

No, I do not "believe" humans landed on the Moon.

I know they did.

There's a difference between the two terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I do not "believe" humans landed on the Moon.

I know they did.

There's a difference between the two terms.

:yes:

I don't think there's much reason to believe that the moon landing didn't happen, all of the conspiracy theorists keep throwing out the same arguments time after time even though they keep getting debunked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I do not "believe" humans landed on the Moon.

I know they did.

There's a difference between the two terms.

This is so funny...

Okay MID, I'll bite. How do you KNOW they did? Were you there? Did you see it on TV. Because I see alot of things on TV and most of it is smoke and mirrors.

Way older people get very miffed when told that the moon landings were orchestrated to relieve the American public of the fear that Russia was going to Nuke us from space. To put confidence back into the hysterical and fearful mass.

Well, I believed we went to the moon too...

That was all before a very interesting episode of NOVA which alleviated me immediately of the illusion that we went to the moon. It was an episode dealing with the magnetic field that surrounds our planet keeping us from frying like a bunch of fish on a frying pan.

How were our Astronots able to survive Solar radiation. They weren't flying in a lead box. Even if they were, they went out of the LEM into a Sun lit moon and are still living to tell about it, without any skin cancer.

And, if we supposedly went to the moon. Why, thirty years later, are we not going there again? WHY? Because we can't!

Get over it people, you were fooled into believing a pack of lies. Nobody likes being a fool. So, use your mind, get over it, we all got PUNKED!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Why aren't we going back to the moon again? Apart from the fact that we are going back to the moon and that the mission was announced months ago you mean?

About the radiation, I'm sure that Dr. Van Allen (pretty much the authority on the subject) himself has denied the fact that the radiation belt would have any serious effect on the astronauts. Yes, the astronauts had sustained radiation but the amount was miniscule, they didn't stay within the radiation belt long enough.

If we didn't go to the moon how do you explain the mirrors which were placed on the surface of the moon? We know that there are mirrors there because scientists have used them for calculating measurements (using lasers).

Just because someone has a different opinion to you, that doesn't mean that they are a fool nor does it mean they aren't using their mind.

Also, your sig is way too big.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get over it people, you were fooled into believing a pack of lies. Nobody likes being a fool. So, use your mind, get over it, we all got PUNKED!

I gather you don't like "being a fool" either? I suggest that you set aside a block of time and go here to Jay Windley's "Clavius" website. You need to read it all. When you have finished then you might want to go and ask MID any questions you have. You see, MID was involved in Apollo (ie, it was his job). Sometimes "way older people" have had some life experiences that you haven't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Why aren't we going back to the moon again? Apart from the fact that we are going back to the moon and that the mission was announced months ago you mean?

And the Russians, Europeans and Chinese are all going too. Not bad for something that's impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Really? I didn't know that. I'm gonna be an astronaut! ^_^

Thanks for the link, Lilly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I 'believe' humans went to the moon because my father helped design the launch vehicles for the Apollo missions. And my Daddy don't lie. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Really? I didn't know that. I'm gonna be an astronaut! ^_^

Sadly Raptor you'll probably have to change nationality (I'm assuming that, as your country is set to UK you are a British Citizen).

The UK currently opts out of the European Space Agency manned spaceflight programme. As a result the UK is not entitled to have any astronauts in the ESA corps. Unless the government reverse this decision the only British astronauts we will be seeing are those like Mike Foale and Peter Sellers (who will make a space walk during the next shuttle mission) that become American citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is so funny...

Okay MID, I'll bite. How do you KNOW they did? Were you there? Did you see it on TV. Because I see alot of things on TV and most of it is smoke and mirrors.

Way older people get very miffed when told that the moon landings were orchestrated to relieve the American public of the fear that Russia was going to Nuke us from space. To put confidence back into the hysterical and fearful mass.

Well, I believed we went to the moon too...

That was all before a very interesting episode of NOVA which alleviated me immediately of the illusion that we went to the moon. It was an episode dealing with the magnetic field that surrounds our planet keeping us from frying like a bunch of fish on a frying pan.

How were our Astronots able to survive Solar radiation. They weren't flying in a lead box. Even if they were, they went out of the LEM into a Sun lit moon and are still living to tell about it, without any skin cancer.

And, if we supposedly went to the moon. Why, thirty years later, are we not going there again? WHY? Because we can't!

Get over it people, you were fooled into believing a pack of lies. Nobody likes being a fool. So, use your mind, get over it, we all got PUNKED!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not going back to the moon for a couple of reasons. One, we been there more than once and there is not much to explore that will benefit us. Second, funds for space explorations is now being use to go beyond the moon.

Maybe, there are those who are getting punked by the conpiracy theories???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are not going back to the moon for a couple of reasons. One, we been there more than once and there is not much to explore that will benefit us. Second, funds for space explorations is now being use to go beyond the moon.

Maybe, there are those who are getting punked by the conpiracy theories???

In 2020 we are :yes:

Okay MID, I'll bite. How do you KNOW they did? Were you there? Did you see it on TV. Because I see alot of things on TV and most of it is smoke and mirrors.

Because he WAS there :yes: Sorry S3th...your wrong.

There are so, so, SO many threads on this topic....USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, it is in the drawing board about a trip back to the moon. But so many things can happen before that. Like budget cuts or something might get us so interested with Mars for we are still exploring much of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gather you don't like "being a fool" either? I suggest that you set aside a block of time and go here to Jay Windley's "Clavius" website. You need to read it all.

Pearls to swine Lilly. :lol: The hoaxbelievers like to keep their fantasy intact.

It seems a lot of people are willing to automatically turn off their critical thinking skills and accept the most ridiculous things as long as it comes tagged with a "government cover up or government conspiracy" label.

Could it be that most of these hoax stories are created by people who have never accomplished anything (that they feel is important) in their lives, and want to comfort themselves by believing that they now, finally,has one up on the, government, scientists, NASA, military,etc.

There has not been a moonhoax claim (waiving flag,missing stars,etc,etc) that hasn`t been debunked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is so funny...

Okay MID, I'll bite. How do you KNOW they did? Were you there? Did you see it on TV. Because I see alot of things on TV and most of it is smoke and mirrors.

Well, I wasn't asking for a bite. I was merely stating a fact of humanity. There is a difference between knowledge and belief.

But to answer your questions: yes, and yes to the last two.

As to the first, knowing is a product of experience, and learning. If anyone has an understanding of the basis of the scienes involved, and one merely observes in detail what happens, one can know. Anyone who was involved in one of the thousands of areas that comprised the Apollo program, has some experience in one facet or another, or is someone who wasn't involved, yet posesses a reasonable, logical, and curious mind, can only conclude that this thing was done.

Examining it in all of its astounding detail shows rather clearly that it is an untenable, and indeed impossible notion that any faking could have gone on.

There were hundreds of thousands of people involved in the early manned space program. None of them know everything about everything that went on.

And just because some people sat in the launch control center and launched the Saturn V...they saw it rise off the pad and disappear into the eastern sky, that doesn't prove we went.

The guys in the MOCR in Houston...they didn't see anything but TV feeds and reams of data. How do they know we did it? Hmmm.

Then of course, there are the astronaut crews who actually flew the vehicles, landed on the moon, walked about, and returned. We certainly can't believe these guys when they tell us all about their missions. After all, there were just those three guys up there. It's just their word.

We need to drop the how do you know stuff, really. These people all did this thing. They all know, and anyone with intelligence knows they did it. Asking the question is really just being intellectually lazy, because the "evidence" for the project's success is incredibly voluminous, tangible, and available to anyone at all anymore. We have the samples, of course, and the film and photographic and video record...that's the tangible stuff. And tens of thousands of scientific / technical reports which show the results down to the most minute and non-descript detail of every aspect of every mission flown. Those things often require a little specialized knowledge to understand, or at least some basic background in mathematics and sciences.

Ask these people who know to prove it and they understandably look at you like you're somewhat out of your mind.

And the strangest things come up as this hoax silliness propogates. We see some upstart like Sibrel interrogating astronauts, asking Gene Cernan, for instance, how did they take those TV pictures of your lunar module leaving the moon.

He looks at him with a confused expression, as if to say, 'What the hell does that have to do with anything...?' and says, 'How did they film it...I dunno...some one controlled the camera from Houston, you know...they pitched the camera up and followed it,' or something like that.

Despite the fact that the crews could've cared less about that detail, and that some of them had no inside skinny on how Ed Fendell was actually doing that in the MOCR, the confusion in the answer immediately seems to somehow translate into "evidence" that the whole thing was faked!

Ludicrous. No one knew everything. Astronauts didn't know the details about what flight controllers were actually doing, and flight controllers had no intimate knowledge of specifics regarding crew activities outside their realm of expertise and training...so? That's just perfectly natural stuff in a project so complex as this one was.

___________________________________________________________________________

The fact is, we all know that Columbus sighted San Salvador in the present-day Bahamas in October of 1492. This is accepted to be the discovery of the America's. But what do we have to back up this event which occurred some 514 years ago?

There are no photos, no films, no video, no artifacts...just the 5 centuries old written records from the ship's logs, and other documentation written to the King of Spain regarding the lands discovered.

We buy this completely, and accept it as a known.

Yet, the "proof" of Columbus' voyages are miniscule compared to the documentation of Apollo, which, as I've said before (although this has been describned as merely "my opinion" by a less-than-erudite poster who has already had two threads shut down because of his silliness) is the most documented occurrance in human history. Yet, we see this idea that the whole thing was faked, despite its incontrovertible documentation, made a mere few decades ago, and despite the fact that there are still a slew of people alive today who actually participated in this adventure...including 9 of the 12 men who actually walked on the moon!

It happened. Lots of people do not understand how it happened, but it did. Lots of people are duped by the less-than knowledgeable who think they see something fishy...only because of their own lack of knowledge, and see an opportunity to inflate their egos by putting out a crafty product deliberately designed to ignore fact and make people "believe" that the whole thing could've somehow been faked.

Unfortunate, but true.

This paradigm produces what you call "smoke and mirrors". That is merely the product of lack of understanding, and very often, creative and deliberate editing, and leaving out the true context of what is being presented.

Threads like this one are supposed to be for asking questions, discussing, and learning. Making blanket conclusions like, 'We aren't going back because we CAN'T' doesn't serve the purpose. Making conclusions about van Allen and solar radiation hazards being un-survivable without any particular knowledge on the subject matter also is rather valueless (since they were survivable and we did survive them, rather easily...since they were well planned for, and rather well understood at the time).

We're more than happy to get questions.

But lets make them questions.

You're also going to have to commit a bit of time and personal energy to research what is said yourself, as an exercise in self-knowledge.

Lilly's already linked to Jay's site over there at Clavius. That's a good place to get some explanations!

But you may note that a few people here are a little testy right now with blanket statements like the one's you assert. There's a very simple reason for that.

Let's ask questions where you have doubts. We'll actually be happy to guide you in a direction that will provide you with knowledge. But...you're effort will be expected and required.

And please...don't go over to ApolloHoax.net and start putting these sorts of posts there. They are chomping at the bit for someone to chew on! :yes:

We may, on the whole, be a little nicer in the overall than they are (trust me, they tire quickly of uncritical thinking skills and obstinance in untenable positions....they'll ban you straight away for being silly and not making an effort to intelligently discuss), but patience may be wearing a little thin here as well with unintelligent banter.

You have an open invitation to ask anything you like.

There will also be an expectation on my part at least that you will read what's written, and research it for yourself.

We would like to keep this thread devoid of mind-boggling ( :D ) obstinance in the face of the facts...

Let's discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Threads like this one are supposed to be for asking questions, discussing, and learning. Making blanket conclusions like, 'We aren't going back because we CAN'T' doesn't serve the purpose. Making conclusions about van Allen and solar radiation hazards being un-survivable without any particular knowledge on the subject matter also is rather valueless (since they were survivable and we did survive them, rather easily...since they were well planned for, and rather well understood at the time).

We're more than happy to get questions.

But lets make them questions.

There really should be someplace where this subject can be discussed in a manner that addresses the scientific facts and explains exactly why the notion of a moon landing hoax is without rational/reasonable support of any type. It's one thing to ascribe conspriacy notions to things we don't have much information about, but it's quite another to do this regarding something that we have literally mountains of evidence for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the radiation, I'm sure that Dr. Van Allen (pretty much the authority on the subject) himself has denied the fact that the radiation belt would have any serious effect on the astronauts. Yes, the astronauts had sustained radiation but the amount was miniscule, they didn't stay within the radiation belt long enough.

Allright...The Van Allen Belt was indeed a highly radiated belt they had to travel through. It's function is to save us from being irradiated by solar radiation. Right? Now use the power of REASONING and ask yourself how anyone could survive Solar radiation without some form of shielding? It's a simple question. They were supposedly outside that belt for what? Seven days or something in that neighborhood. Now ask a scientist, who doens't care about the public ridicule and shame, (the lambasting I just received on a board of opinions being the perfect example) how long they think a human being could survive solar radiation without some sort of shielding. If you find one intelligent and brave enough you'll be surprised at their answer. And it ain't days.

Pearls to swine Lilly. :lol: The hoaxbelievers like to keep their fantasy intact.

It seems a lot of people are willing to automatically turn off their critical thinking skills and accept the most ridiculous things as long as it comes tagged with a "government cover up or government conspiracy" label.

Could it be that most of these hoax stories are created by people who have never accomplished anything (that they feel is important) in their lives, and want to comfort themselves by believing that they now, finally,has one up on the, government, scientists, NASA, military,etc.

There has not been a moonhoax claim (waiving flag,missing stars,etc,etc) that hasn`t been debunked.

Before I begin, I have to point out that flaming those who have investigated this matter isn't helping your side of the argument in my mind. It's just more camoflauge. Statements created to deter from the subject at hand. Nice try though!

Who has turned off their critical thinking skills. THE PUBLIC. Look over the timeline of HISTORY. First of all, it is written by the VICTORS. (To the Victor goes the spoils, including the thoughts of the mass, if properly lied to, and history itself) The majority has been manipulated into doing the will of the Government/Church over several millenia. The Holy Crusades. People killing other people over something as insane as their beleifs. Spanish Inquistion, same deal. How about something a little more current. The GENOCIDE of the Native Americans. In school, movies, and mainstream television programming when I was a child and your parents were children, protrayed the Native Americans as terrible savages. Yes, they did this to ease the minds and consciousness of the American people. Plus it was great PR for those who were in the wrong!

It's funny how those who look into something, see lies, and try to speak out about them, are automatically dubbed conspiracy theorists, and not seekers of truth. It's a great way the government, and anyone who wants to keep their pack of lies a secret, have come up with to have the masses believe the person has to be a flake. Do you still think a lone gunman killed JFK? Most people don't. Are they all a bunch of flaky conspiracy theorists? The goverment and other assorted peeps would like the rest of us to believe it. It's okay though, because APATHY has taken care of that for them.

How many of you believe in the God the Church tells you about? What's their proof? A book. What's NASA's proof? Rocks! Okay, whatever. Oh, and pictures, which have been proven time and again to have serious curiousities raising serious questions about their validity.

BTW, there has been issues that have never been debunked because they never aired of FOX's program. How they were able to get themselves through the LEM hatch being a major one. It swung inward and the distance you would have to negotiate with all the gear on was too small. The psi of their suits and how it would have been impossible to even bend your arms within them. This raises even more questions of validity to the hoaxers claims.

For those who did watch the FOX program, watch it again, and play close attention to the lack of proof provided by the NASA representative. He just keeps saying the same stuff. No proof. No direct discrediting of the theories discussed through opposing theories. No, those all came out after the program by some people who were payed to do it. PAYED. Why do you have to pay someone to debunk what others believe? Let them have their beliefs. Right? Why do they care? Because they commited a crime!!

Also BTW, calling people swine in the flesh, isn't a good idea. It's funny how the anonymity of the Net gives people cayones of steel.

In 2020 we are :yes:

Because he WAS there :yes: Sorry S3th...your wrong.

There are so, so, SO many threads on this topic....USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION!

Hey frogfish! First off, 2020 eh? Wow, more than fifty years later. They must be planning on breakthroughs in shielding technology!!!

Sure there are other threads like this. I would use the search function and pull up old threads, but I'm a new member and this thread was just sitting there waiting for attention. It's funny how if you take an opposing side to an issue, everyone starts giving it some attention. Perhaps the moderators would like to move it to the debate forum?

But to answer your questions: yes, and yes to the last two.

As to the first, knowing is a product of experience, and learning. If anyone has an understanding of the basis of the scienes involved, and one merely observes in detail what happens, one can know. Anyone who was involved in one of the thousands of areas that comprised the Apollo program, has some experience in one facet or another, or is someone who wasn't involved, yet posesses a reasonable, logical, and curious mind, can only conclude that this thing was done.

Okay, it's funny how reasonable, logical and curious is your grounds for concluding the thing was done. It strikes me as quite the opposite. The Hoax people look at the photographic 'evidence' and say, geez, that's curious. Why are things completely in shadow areas illuminated? That rock has a C on it. Or, why are the shadows not parallel? Where are all the stars? Why is that flag waving? And let's not here again how they were screwing it into the ground. It was in place and the astronot was holding it to try and keep the wind from waving it so much. Why are the specs of the LEM and the 'dune buggy' missing, gone, instead of on display at the Smithsonian or some other institute for the preservation of valuable and accurate information? I'll tell you why. A close look at those specs would have even the average joe scratching their heads and saying, "This is impossible!"

Examining it in all of its astounding detail shows rather clearly that it is an untenable, and indeed impossible notion that any faking could have gone on.

WRONG, examining it in all it's astounding detail has been what began the hoax theory in the first place. Pictures with anomolies which seem to strengthen the hoax subscribers position.

The guys in the MOCR in Houston...they didn't see anything but TV feeds and reams of data. How do they know we did it? Hmmm.

Well, how many people do you have to bribe to keep the true location of a feed quiet? Hmmm?

Then of course, there are the astronaut crews who actually flew the vehicles, landed on the moon, walked about, and returned. We certainly can't believe these guys when they tell us all about their missions. After all, there were just those three guys up there. It's just their word.

We need to drop the how do you know stuff, really. These people all did this thing. They all know, and anyone with intelligence knows they did it. Asking the question is really just being intellectually lazy, because the "evidence" for the project's success is incredibly voluminous, tangible, and available to anyone at all anymore. We have the samples, of course, and the film and photographic and video record...that's the tangible stuff. And tens of thousands of scientific / technical reports which show the results down to the most minute and non-descript detail of every aspect of every mission flown. Those things often require a little specialized knowledge to understand, or at least some basic background in mathematics and sciences.

For most of this, see above. You can theorize exactly what it takes, mathematically, to hit a home run. To do it is something else entirely. And, most of us can't do it.

Ask these people who know to prove it and they understandably look at you like you're somewhat out of your mind.

Fine, I'm out of my mind, but at least I attempt to use it as I study this crazy stuff. Did you type moon hoax into your browser after the fox program aired? You couldn't even get onto their site. It locked up your computer when you tried. It happened to me. Now type moon hoax into your browswer. One out of twenty against the hoax theory in the first two pages. ODD?

BTW, I know how to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and so do they. Send an unmanned cract over the landing areas and photograph the moon buggies and LEM base. Will they do that to shut up the hoaxers permanently? NO! Why not? Cause there is nothing there to point at. As far as the reference to the mirrors on the moon. Let's think about it this way shall we. How did they get the Mars Rover to Mars? Same deal. UNMANNED!

And the strangest things come up as this hoax silliness propogates. We see some upstart like Sibrel interrogating astronauts, asking Gene Cernan, for instance, how did they take those TV pictures of your lunar module leaving the moon
.

Your forgetting the important questions that were asked and focusing on an inane one!!!

BTW, calling Sibrel and upstart doesn't do anything for your side of this except show additional tainting of your opinion. Upstart...LOL. Do you realize how much time and effort he put into this 'investigation'? He's had astronots hit him, run away from him, etc. These are the acts of cowards, not heros! To call him an upstart is an attempt to discredit him and his research. Shame on you.

You can run, but you can't hide!

No, the fact that a person who purported to go to the moon, not only wouldn't lay his hand on a Bible and swear to it, but became angry enough to punch a man who is desperately seeking the truth in this matter, or as the one above did, run away. That in itself says volumes, not only in the credibility of the astronauts, but their character as well.

It happened. Lots of people do not understand how it happened, but it did. Lots of people are duped by the less-than knowledgeable who think they see something fishy...only because of their own lack of knowledge, and see an opportunity to inflate their egos by putting out a crafty product deliberately designed to ignore fact and make people "believe" that the whole thing could've somehow been faked.

The fact is the 'FACTS' are full of inconsistencies. Pictures which had to be tampered with. Pictures which have anomolies the hoax debunkers do not answer in any way close to assembling common sense.

This paradigm produces what you call "smoke and mirrors". That is merely the product of lack of understanding, and very often, creative and deliberate editing, and leaving out the true context of what is being presented.

The same can be said of your side of the argument MID. Seriously. Look at it. They never address the meat of the argument from back in the seventies when a man had the audacity to write NASA and ask them about some peculiarities. One of them being how they were able to negotiate gettting through the LEM door. This has never been answered satisfactorily or at all! And as a matter of fact, not one video has them actually coming out of the door, just descending the ladder. WHY?

As a matter of fact, when I went to the NASA site after the FOX program aired there was a FAQ. One of the questions was, "when are we going back to the moon or to Mars." The answer was to the effect that when the technology became available. They added Mars so they could say that they were referring to Mars. Yet, in truth, they were also referring to the moon. That's right! We don't have the technology to do it. SHIELDING TECHNOLOGY!

Threads like this one are supposed to be for asking questions, discussing, and learning. Making blanket conclusions like, 'We aren't going back because we CAN'T' doesn't serve the purpose. Making conclusions about van Allen and solar radiation hazards being un-survivable without any particular knowledge on the subject matter also is rather valueless (since they were survivable and we did survive them, rather easily...since they were well planned for, and rather well understood at the time).

Your response is much like the answers to the Van Allen Belt. Well forget it for now. SOLAR RADIATION. Why don't they provide answers to how they survived that??????????Because they can't? Sorry if that seems like a blanket statement, but even the good people at NOVA understand this irrefutable fact. Solar Radiation KILLS!

You're also going to have to commit a bit of time and personal energy to research what is said yourself, as an exercise in self-knowledge.

But you may note that a few people here are a little testy right now with blanket statements like the one's you assert. There's a very simple reason for that.

Let's ask questions where you have doubts. We'll actually be happy to guide you in a direction that will provide you with knowledge. But...you're effort will be expected and required.

First off, why is everyone so testy? Very simple reasons eh? I don't believe as they do. Most were not even born when the moon shots 'supposedly' occurred. So, why so testy? I question their assumptions. Is that it? Everyone assumes we went to the moon...And we all know what happens when you assume! But seriously. Why would anyone get upset about my blanket statements? Does it anger people that someone doesn't agree with their assumptions? Maybe they can send over some guys with swords and a cross to take care of me!

We may, on the whole, be a little nicer in the overall than they are (trust me, they tire quickly of uncritical thinking skills and obstinance in untenable positions....they'll ban you straight away for being silly and not making an effort to intelligently discuss), but patience may be wearing a little thin here as well with unintelligent banter.

No one is nice on the pro-Apollo side. I have noticed this when you try to engage them in an open conversation. When presented with facts to the contrary they stammer and become angry. WHY? There is a good question for you.

Unintelligent eh? Flaming and banning. It's to be expected from those who are afraid to take an intelligent look at the other side of an argument. Or even forget intelligence. How about a little common sense and reasonable reasoning.

We would like to keep this thread devoid of mind-boggling ( ) obstinance in the face of the facts... Let's discuss.

Did you go to the moon? Were you there? I ask this because of a little statement made ealier in the thread.

Do you personally know any of the Astronauts who supposedly landed on the moon? Have you met them? Have you performed any personal inquiries into the matter? I have!

Things to think about...

Not Proof, just interesting to note.

Why would Neil Armstrong say he doesn't deserve being celebrated for a moon landing? Other convincing arguments for why we didn't go to the moon.

The Upstarts site again.

So, Clinton has recorded for his readers that one month after the Apollo 11 Eagle had been seen on television, sitting on the surface of the moon, an Arkansas acquaintance had expressed his complete disbelief in the claim. Then, his experiences in Washington made him "wonder" whether this acquaintance was correct.

Now, exactly what is a former two-term United States President doing wondering about the authenticity of the greatest technological accomplishment in the history of mankind – an event that had marked the legacy of his own boyhood hero, JFK? Obviously, he had seen something as President that now gives him reason to believe that the moon landings could have been falsified. If a former U.S. President is wondering about the authenticity of the claim, does it not make sense that we should wonder too?

Given that he served as President, one can imagine why he would not want to come right out and blow the whistle by unequivocally stating his true beliefs. However, he did indeed cryptically allude to what can only be understood as the existence of a calculated mass deception, through the use of American television.

Pay close attention to the last three paragraphs

Maybe some answers in 2008

And ask yourself this. How would an unmanned, still mounted camera pan around after no one is left to do so?

"Suddenly, soundlessly, Challenger split in two (movie). The base of the ship, the part with the landing pads, stayed put. The top, the lunar module with Cernan and Jack Schmitt inside, blasted off in a spray of gold foil. It rose, turned, and headed off to rendezvous with the orbiter America, the craft that would take them home again.

Those were the last men on the Moon. After they were gone, the camera panned back and forth. There was no one there, nothing, only the rover, the lander and some equipment scattered around the dusty floor of the Taurus-Littrow valley. Eventually, Rover's battery died and the TV transmissions stopped.

That was our last good look at an Apollo landing site.

Many people find this surprising, even disconcerting. Conspiracy theorists have long insisted that NASA never went to the Moon. It was all a hoax, they say, a way to win the Space Race by trickery. The fact that Apollo landing sites have not been photographed in detail since the early 1970s encourages their claims."

The problem here really my friends, isn't that there isn't enough evidence to prove the hoax theory. There is TOO MUCH!

Ciao!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Oh, yeah, my banner is too big. Maybe they should ban me!

Allright those four who voted on the side of hoaxers. Where are your comments?

Edited by S3th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S3th, I gather you haven't had time to read that website I linked to?

:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey frogfish! First off, 2020 eh? Wow, more than fifty years later. They must be planning on breakthroughs in shielding technology!!!

Sure there are other threads like this. I would use the search function and pull up old threads, but I'm a new member and this thread was just sitting there waiting for attention. It's funny how if you take an opposing side to an issue, everyone starts giving it some attention. Perhaps the moderators would like to move it to the debate forum

No, budgeting and other missions have been deterents to sending humans back to the moon.

Sorry, the debate forum is for formal debates that each side has actual proof.

Conspiracies don't make the cut :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ladies and gentlemen, let's try to keep this civil and to the point. The previous two threads on the subject have had to be closed by the moderators.

S3th, if you do not wish to follow Lilly's link (although I advise you do) you may wish to go to this post: Moon Landing Conspiracies in the Space and Astronomy forum of this site, there you will find links to 9 previous threads on this subject. If you read through these threads you will find that each of your points have been shown to false (over and over again). I suggest you read up on the subject. If there are still not points that you have doubts over or are not convinced by then ask questions here. You will find that there are some extremely knowledge people on this site (and when it comes to Apollo you will be hard pressed to find anyone more knowledgable than MID on any site).

Knowledge and experience are a rare resource and be should used well. MID has these by the shed load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Allright...The Van Allen Belt was indeed a highly radiated belt they had to travel through. It's function is to save us from being irradiated by solar radiation. Right? Now use the power of REASONING and ask yourself how anyone could survive Solar radiation without some form of shielding? It's a simple question. They were supposedly outside that belt for what? Seven days or something in that neighborhood. Now ask a scientist, who doens't care about the public ridicule and shame, (the lambasting I just received on a board of opinions being the perfect example) how long they think a human being could survive solar radiation without some sort of shielding. If you find one intelligent and brave enough you'll be surprised at their answer. And it ain't days.

Produce this scientist then. And while you're at it, explain why scientists in countries hostile to the US also agree that the US landed on the moon. What are they afraid of?

What a scientist will tell you is that the worst, most harmful part of solar radiation comes from solar flares. Solar flares don't occur constantly though. Even when they do occur, they still have to be pointed at the Earth-Moon system to harm us. Space is pretty big and few flares are pointed this way. During Apollo, they had people watching the sun to predict when a flare was about to occur. If one did happen and happened to be pointed this way, they had a plan to lift off from the moon and rejoin with the command module which did have better shielding. They would also point the propulsion end toward the flare to shield more and get into an elongated orbit around the moon to have more time to have the moon between them and the flare. However, there were no significant solar events when they went to the moon.

How much shielding do you think they need anyway?

Who has turned off their critical thinking skills. THE PUBLIC.

Do you still think a lone gunman killed JFK? Most people don't.

So which is it? Did they turn off their critical thinking skills or did they use them to decide it wasn't a lone gunman that killed JFK? You can't have it both ways.

What's NASA's proof? Rocks! Okay, whatever.

Yes rocks that can not have been found on Earth, can not be meteors and can not have been made in a lab. Hundred of geologists around the world have verified their authenticity including some from countries hostile to the US.

Oh, and pictures, which have been proven time and again to have serious curiousities raising serious questions about their validity.

I like how you throw around the word "proven" when not a single "proof" can be shown to have any merit.

Oh and don't forget the reams upon reams of documentation, hardware, astronauts testimonies, technology that came from advancements made during Apollo, and the independent tracking of the crafts done by radio telescopes around the world as well as HAM radio operators. But they're all in on it too aren't they?

BTW, there has been issues that have never been debunked because they never aired of FOX's program. How they were able to get themselves through the LEM hatch being a major one. It swung inward and the distance you would have to negotiate with all the gear on was too small. The psi of their suits and how it would have been impossible to even bend your arms within them. This raises even more questions of validity to the hoaxers claims.

You do realize that there is video available showing the astronauts exiting the LM right? How is it impossible when they can be shown doing it?

As for the suits, they are very similar to the ones used by the shuttle astronauts. Last I checked they could bend their arms. Realize also that the white suit you see is not the pressure garment. The pressure garment is underneath and the white suit is used for insulation and protection.

No direct discrediting of the theories discussed through opposing theories. No, those all came out after the program by some people who were payed to do it. PAYED. Why do you have to pay someone to debunk what others believe? Let them have their beliefs. Right? Why do they care? Because they commited a crime!!

Even assuming that there are some who are payed to "discredit" these theories, what about the many that aren't payed? Those that have put many hours into research instead of swallowing anything Sibrel says.

Hey frogfish! First off, 2020 eh? Wow, more than fifty years later. They must be planning on breakthroughs in shielding technology!!!

There will be some more shielding, but only because they are planning on staying longer this time. The shielding they had was adequate for the time they stayed before. Or do you have some actual documentation showing it was inadequate?

It has taken a long time to go back because public interest waned even while the program was going on. Nixon slashed the budget and 3 missions were cancled. Then the Saturn V was mothballed to avoid competition for the space shuttle. The shuttle turned out to be much more expensive than originally planned which hurts NASAs budget even more. If the public isn't interested in going to the Moon and isn't interested in paying for it, how are you going to do it?

The Hoax people look at the photographic 'evidence' and say, geez, that's curious. Why are things completely in shadow areas illuminated?

There is a large amount of light reflected from the lit lunar surface into the shadowed areas. Plus cameras can be set with longer exposure times making things appear brighter.

That rock has a C on it.

The "C" rock has been shown to most likely be a hair on the scanner when the print was transferred. Earlier and later prints do not show the "C".

From www.clavius.org

Mr. Sibrel is speaking of the infamous C-rock photo (Fig. 2). He has absolutely no evidence that the photo has been recently retouched. That's simply his interpretation of the fact that two different versions of the photo exist: with and without the mark.

The peculiar C-shaped mark on the rock has been conclusively traced to its source: a fiber contaminant on a particular print of this photo. The original transparency does not contain the mark. The masters do not contain the mark. The prints (save one) do not contain the mark. The mark exists on one print, and one print only.

It is unfortunate that this one print was digitized and as a result became the one most widely circulated. But Sibrel's contention that this photo was retouched to remove supposed evidence of prop markings is completely unfounded. Sibrel is trying to make the observation fit his predetermined conclusion. There is plenty of evidence of other fibrous contamination on the prints. You simply cannot handle and store tens of thousands of photographs without getting specks of dust on a few of them. The effort to clean them when dirty is evidence of preserving the record intact, not evidence of falsifying it.

Edited by frenat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or, why are the shadows not parallel?

Perspective and terrain can make shadows appear different when photographed. Good page showing this here

http://www.clavius.org/shad15.html

and here

http://www.clavius.org/shad30.html

and here

http://www.clavius.org/shad45.html

and especially here

http://www.clavius.org/trrnshdow.html

Where are all the stars?

It is impossible for stars (which would need a very long exposure) to show up in a photograph with bright sunlit objects (which require a very short exposure). Any real photograher will agree.

Why is that flag waving?

The flag only waves when the pole is being touched by an astronaut. First there is a bar across the top holding the flag out. Second there are multiple wrinkles in the flag from being folded up for transport that do not pull out in the weaker gravity.

And let's not here again how they were screwing it into the ground. It was in place and the astronot was holding it to try and keep the wind from waving it so much.

They had to screw it into the ground because the ground was harder than expected. There are hours of video showing the flag completely still when no astronaut was touching it. Again, as above there was also the fabric memory with the wrinkles from transport.

Why are the specs of the LEM and the 'dune buggy' missing, gone, instead of on display at the Smithsonian or some other institute for the preservation of valuable and accurate information? I'll tell you why. A close look at those specs would have even the average joe scratching their heads and saying, "This is impossible!"

Not all of the specs are missing. Much is still available. But I don't think you understand just how much documentation there really was. These didn't use off the shelf parts. Each part was custom made for a specific purpose. Each bolt and fitting would have its own documentation. This showed how to build it to spec and the testing each piece went through. Then there was the documentation for how it all went together. Some of it wasn't even completely documented. The processes used to make certain parts were only used on Apollo. When the craft is not being made anymore, where do you store rooms full of documentation? How do you store a technique that only a few technicians knew how to do and will never use again in their lifetime? Still, there is much documentation left if you know where to look for it.

WRONG, examining it in all it's astounding detail has been what began the hoax theory in the first place. Pictures with anomolies which seem to strengthen the hoax subscribers position.

The only anomalies seen are easily explainable by those who have done research. Not a single claim stands up to scrutiny.

Well, how many people do you have to bribe to keep the true location of a feed quiet? Hmmm?

When the feed is collected by multiple independent radio telescopes around the world and tracked by numerous amateur HAM radio operators you get into hundred or thousands of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, calling Sibrel and upstart doesn't do anything for your side of this except show additional tainting of your opinion. Upstart...LOL. Do you realize how much time and effort he put into this 'investigation'? He's had astronots hit him, run away from him, etc. These are the acts of cowards, not heros! To call him an upstart is an attempt to discredit him and his research. Shame on you.

No, the fact that a person who purported to go to the moon, not only wouldn't lay his hand on a Bible and swear to it, but became angry enough to punch a man who is desperately seeking the truth in this matter, or as the one above did, run away. That in itself says volumes, not only in the credibility of the astronauts, but their character as well.

What says volumes are Sibrel's tactics used in his "interviews". He arranges the interviews under false pretenses lieing about who he is and who he represents. When they arrive, instead of asking them questions, he immediately accuses them of being liars and frauds. Aldrin only punched him after repeatedly trying to leave and physically being blocked while having a Bible shoved in his face. Sibrel tries to be antagonistic because he sells more videos when somebody loses their temper. He is only in it for the money. The astronnauts know who he is. He has been arrested for trespassing on private property trying to get his "interviews" before. They know that if they do swear on the Bible he will call them liars, thiefs and frauds and if they don't they are hiding something. Sibrel admitted in court that he was trying to set Aldrin up in a no win situation. He is no better than a tabloid journalist.

The fact is the 'FACTS' are full of inconsistencies. Pictures which had to be tampered with. Pictures which have anomolies the hoax debunkers do not answer in any way close to assembling common sense.

Again, not a single one of the hoax proponents arguements stands up to scrutiny. Show us one that you think does.

The same can be said of your side of the argument MID. Seriously. Look at it. They never address the meat of the argument from back in the seventies when a man had the audacity to write NASA and ask them about some peculiarities. One of them being how they were able to negotiate gettting through the LEM door. This has never been answered satisfactorily or at all! And as a matter of fact, not one video has them actually coming out of the door, just descending the ladder. WHY?

As mentioned above, there is video showing them coming out the door. There are also still photos of the same event.

Do you personally know any of the Astronauts who supposedly landed on the moon? Have you met them? Have you performed any personal inquiries into the matter? I have!

I have as well. In fact, Ed Mitchell runs his own web forum that he posts on regularly. Have you talked to him?

http://www.edmitchellapollo14.com/phpBB2/index.php

And ask yourself this. How would an unmanned, still mounted camera pan around after no one is left to do so?

Ed Fendell at mission control remotely panned the camera to capture the craft's ascent. The takeoff time was known as well as the time delay to the moon.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...4.alsepoff.html

Look at the italicized remarks after 115:06:45

On the J missions, all that the astronauts had to do was mount the TV camera on the front of the Rover. Thereafter, it was run remotely from Houston by Ed Fendell

I thought said you had done some research.

The problem here really my friends, isn't that there isn't enough evidence to prove the hoax theory. There is TOO MUCH!

So evidence for you is hearsay, shoddy research and strawmen? Yeah, Ok. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

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 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.