Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Illiniblue35

Did we land on the moon?

14,130 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ChrLzs

Let me just address the new, relevant points that turbs just made.

..

..

..

Oh, wait.. all of that wasted bandwidth was just his opinion about someone resigning, 4 missions before the moon landing. There is only one mind that would consider that the smokin' gun...

Turbonium - bringing new meaning to expired equine flagellation.

(Or is it

..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk

Let me just address the new, relevant points that turbs just made.

..

..

..

Oh, wait.. all of that wasted bandwidth was just his opinion about someone resigning, 4 missions before the moon landing. There is only one mind that would consider that the smokin' gun...

Turbonium - bringing new meaning to expired equine flagellation.

(Or is it

..)

Well, he side-stepped the relevant points that made toast out of his space-suit claims. I still have suspicions that he doesn't even believe his own arguments any more, but just enjoys yanking people's chains. What draws me to this possibility? Just joining the dots folks, just joining the dots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Well, he side-stepped the relevant points that made toast out of his space-suit claims. I still have suspicions that he doesn't even believe his own arguments any more, but just enjoys yanking people's chains. What draws me to this possibility? Just joining the dots folks, just joining the dots.

Called it a week ago.... ;)

'I have great evidence, which nobody else will see, but evil willfully ignorant, intellectually dishonest and hopelessly deluded turbonium would then spoil will ignore it and / or hand-wave away evidence that contradicts his position, cherry-pick quotes that he thinks support his position, fabricate more evidence when he can't find anything to support his position, shift his goal posts further and further apart, shirk, or rather, completely ignore his burden of proof, then eventually drop the topic and start with a new set of willfully ignorant misunderstanding and misinterpretations or dig up some previously debunked idea of his and try to bring it forward as a new idea again it'

Fixed that for you Turbs... now it is actually representative of reality.

Mind you... predicting that Turbs will sidestep evidence that proves him wrong, drop a topic like its made of burning hot lava, then dredge up some other long dead issue is kind of like predicting that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west....

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

As I said, this makes no sense.

What really doesn't make any sense are your claims, which have been proved wrong with facts and evidence time after time after time.

Oher space-faring nations - like Russia - may indeed know it was hoaxed, and decided it's much better as a bargaining chip to keep it silent, rather than trying to expose it to the world. It makes sense, when you don't even know if the world will believe your claim of a hoax anyway.

There you go again pulling fantasy out of thin air with the expectation of thinking that people with common sense will believe you. I grew up during the Cold War and considering the mindset of the former Soviet Union during the Apollo moon flights, there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY they would have allowed us to get away with a moon hoax and yet, they confirmed the United States sent men to the moon. The reaction of the Soviet Union exposing hoaxed Apollo moon flights to the whole world would have been like throwing a pound of meat in the middle of a shark feeding frenzy and yet, they confirmed that we landed men on the moon..

The Soviet Union tracked the Apollo missions at the Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment".] Vasily Mishin, in an interview for the article "The Moon Programme That Faltered" (Spaceflight, March 1991, vol. 33, 2-3), describes how the Soviet Moon program dwindled after the Apollo landings.

On Eagle's Wings: The Parkes Observatory's Support of the Apollo 11 Mission

At 12:56 p.m., on Monday 21 July 1969 (AEST), six hundred million people witnessed Neil Armstrong’s historic first steps on the Moon through television pictures transmitted to Earth from the lunar module, Eagle. Three tracking stations were receiving the signals simultaneously. They were the CSIRO’s Parkes Radio Telescope, the Honeysuckle Creek tracking station near Canberra, and NASA’s Goldstone station in California. During the first nine minutes of the broadcast, NASA alternated between the signals being received by the three stations. When they switched to the Parkes pictures, they were of such superior quality that NASA remained with them for the rest of the 2-hour moonwalk. The television pictures from Parkes were received under extremely trying and dangerous conditions.

My link

And:

Apollo 11

The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski ) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies.

A compilation of sightings appeared in "Observations of Apollo 11" in Sky and Telescope magazine, November 1969, pp. 358–359.

The Madrid Apollo Station, part of the Deep Space Network, built in Fresnedillas , near Madrid , Spain tracked Apollo 11.

Goldstone Tracking Station in California tracked Apollo 11.

At Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, the telescope was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik . At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the unmanned Soviet spacecraft Luna 15 , which was trying to land on the Moon. In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings they made.

Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and in the command module. Recordings made by Baysinger share certain characteristics with recordings made at Bochum Observatory by Heinz Kaminski (see above), in that both Kaminski's and Baysinger's recordings do not include the capsule communicator in Houston and the associated Quindar tones heard in NASA audio and seen on NASA Apollo 11 transcripts. Kaminski and Baysinger could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from the earth.

My link

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flyingswan

This has scnadal written all over it.

Gibberish in any language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

I believe the 'Scnadals' are the alien race that live on the Moon and drove the astronauts away, causing the need to fake much of the footage and of course resulted in the need for the undocumented 18th mission..

You can see some secret, never/ever-released NASA footage here (don't tell anyone you saw it, as word will get out...)

One day, the Scnadals will reveal their evil plan to us - Turbonium, are you perhaps their chosen spokesperson? Was it a Starburst wrapper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

Webb resigned just 3 days before Apollo 7, the most important mission NASA had ever about to conduct (to that point). It's also just a couple months before NASA attempts to make history with the first-ever manned flight to the moon (Apollo 8).

That was 4 days prior to Apollo 7's launch.

The most important mission? Theres no need to add "to that point..."

...There were no unimportant Apollo missions, or Gemini or Mercury missions. The one you were flying was the most important.

I'm sure you can't grasp such a concept, but that's the reality. Your melodramatic comment is designed to make what you're about to say sound like you know something about what you're saying.

In other words, Webb resigns during the most important period in the history of manned spaceflight. The Apollo 7 and 8 missions he signed off - he approved these plans .

Apollo 7 and 8 constituted the most important period in manned spaceflight history?

How so?

Apollo 9 was pretty important, as was 10 trough 17.

So he decides to resign just 3 days before NASA's most important mission? What's his excuse again? Oh, right - to leave it open for the next President, and whomever he wants to appoint.

You're repeating yourself again. And yes, he did resign, and Nixon's apointee led the remainder of the ill-fated Apollo program to its conclusion.

Which is still nearly one month away from actualy occurring. What is so urgent that he can't even wait a couple of weeks to resign? That is, why can't he wait until after Apollo 7 to resign? Johnson is still the President during Apollo 7.

So?

Why didn't Griffin stay on until he was replaced by Bolden, rather than scoot quickly?

You're asking silly quetions without any point.

OH...and you're woefully failing to prove your point (but I think you realize that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

Gibberish in any language.

I believe the 'Scnadals' are the alien race that live on the Moon and drove the astronauts away, causing the need to fake much of the footage and of course resulted in the need for the undocumented 18th mission..

You can see some secret, never/ever-released NASA footage here (don't tell anyone you saw it, as word will get out...)

One day, the Scnadals will reveal their evil plan to us - Turbonium, are you perhaps their chosen spokesperson? Was it a Starburst wrapper?

Gentlemen, I have to say that I am disappointed with these posts, both in my role as a moderator and as a participant in this thread.

I'll start with the moderating bit first. Picking on spelling mistakes and grammatical errors has been frequently used as a method of flame-baiting, that is why this site chose to have a rule banning it:

5b. Spelling and grammar: Do not point out mistakes or criticise other members on their spelling, grammar or punctuation.

I'm also disappointed from the point of view of a fellow supporter of the reality of Apollo. turbonium's arguments and logic has holes you could fly a Saturn V through.. sideways and you chose to pick on an obvious typo. I realise your posts are probably intended to be amusing but that is not necessarily the impression they will give.

I don't post to show turbs the error of his ways, that is a battle that will never be won. I post to show others the error of turbs ways, and that is a battle worth fighting. An accusation made by the more trollish hoax believers is that the pro-Apollo side are nasty and petty. I think it best if any post that can be twisted to make that look true is avoided, no matter how well humorous it is intended to be. No doubt I have fallen short of that ideal myself, but please keep it in mind.

Sorry for the preaching, let's get back to facts and logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackdaw

HOORAH!!!

Well said mister WD.

But alas too late!

This thread has been merged so many times now because of endless ticcle taccle and ridiculing of those members who DARE to oppose the moon landings and express their concerns and disbelief.

Turbo may never win his argument as you say?

However. . . . the question DID WE LAND ON THE MOON will never be answered truly. . . . its debate come argument will never be WON . . . . And its realitity, if it indeed happened, will NEVER be proven.

Edited by Jackdaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101
the question DID WE LAND ON THE MOON will never be answered truly

Apparently this question will never be answered truly, or at all:

When are you going to actually post the evidence regarding this:

And please explain why there is a pic on the net or web of a footprint that does not match the so called landing on the moon and the giant step for mankind?

A picture or a link to back up your assertion that this "evidence" exists is all we're asking for.

:rolleyes:

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackdaw

Apparently this question will never be answered truly, or at all:

:rolleyes:

Cz

Seek and thee shall find.

Its at the tip of your fingers as you sit at mission control . . . . soz . . . your keyboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

Jackdaw, as you seem to appreciate my moderating you will no doubt appreciate the following warning; you will contribute to this debate with more than flame-baiting and trolling or you will not be contributing at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Seek and thee shall find.

Its at the tip of your fingers as you sit at mission control . . . . soz . . . your keyboard.

No sir...

You made this claim:

And please explain why there is a pic on the net or web of a footprint that does not match the so called landing on the moon and the giant step for mankind?

You have the burden to prove this claim.

You have been asked to provide a source for this claim SEVERAL TIMES, either the picture itself or a link to the picture.

So far you have completely avoided fulfilling your burden to prove your claim and with your latest post are now falling upon one of the most common Conspiracy Theorist / Hoax Believer tactics - shifting the burden of proof.

Whether you like it or not, or believe it or not, NASA landing Man on the Moon 6 times between 1969 and 1972 is accepted the world over as FACT.

Your claim calls that fact into question.

YOU have the burden to prove your claim.

It is NOT MY JOB to prove what you assert is correct.

It is NOT MY JOB to do your homework for you.

You have two options:

1. Provide the requested image or a link to it to back up your claim.

2. Admit that you have no proof for your claim and withdraw it from the debate.

Actually, you also have a third option:

3. Do nothing and have any credibility you may have reduced to zero, which typically results in you and your claims being ignored.

Your move, Jackdaw.... Choose carefully...

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackdaw

Thanks for your options.

However I will not be posting the link or the pic.

Such actions on this thread maybe deemed as flame - baiting? or trolling?

I feel certain that both you and the viewers can find the image of the footprint on the net or web.

I resolutely stand by claim.

My credibility . . . and freedom to post remains intact me thinks :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Thanks for your options.

However I will not be posting the link or the pic.

Such actions on this thread maybe deemed as flame - baiting? or trolling?

I feel certain that both you and the viewers can find the image of the footprint on the net or web.

I resolutely stand by claim.

My credibility . . . and freedom to post remains intact me thinks :-D

So in other words, you stand by your claim so much and believe in its veracity so completely, but you actively refuse to do anything to prove it.

What you are doing by this post above is trolling.

What you would be doing by posting the pic or a link to it would be actively participating in this debate and providing a source for your claim.

Thanks for letting us know what you prefer to do here... we can now ignore anything further you have to say.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackdaw

Believe what you will . . . or must?

But having been banned from posting on UM once already for flame - baiting or trolling upon this thread???

I now tread carefully - as if I am walking on glass in fact! . . . Please don't confuse the aforementioned with the moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Believe what you will . . . or must?

But having been banned from posting on UM once already for flame - baiting or trolling upon this thread???

I now tread carefully - as if I am walking on glass in fact! . . . Please don't confuse the aforementioned with the moon.

Apparently you didn't learn much or anything from your previous banning, since you now seem to think that making a claim, insisting its is true / fact and then actively, purposely refusing to provide any form of support for it is something other than trolling.

Good luck with that assumption.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackdaw

NAH!

I kinda realised a while back as to who has the " CON " on this thread come debate?

Do you remember that line from the Apollo?

Those who visit UM or the net will decide for themselves re the dubious space pics and transmissions; the buggy with no tyre tracks; the fake moon rocks; the corrupt Nixon administration that could not even fund the space programme and the Kennedy legacy etc etc etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden

NAH!

I kinda realised a while back as to who has the " CON " on this thread come debate?

Do you remember that line from the Apollo?

Those who visit UM or the net will decide for themselves re the dubious space pics and transmissions; the buggy with no tyre tracks; the fake moon rocks; the corrupt Nixon administration that could not even fund the space programme and the Kennedy legacy etc etc etc

If you are thinking that simply using numerous question marks in a post constitutes a debate, I really think you should refamiliarize yourself with the term. If, however, you would simply provide the picture or link to it, then we could use that term. Credibility is a lot like respect, it must be earned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

NAH!

I kinda realised a while back as to who has the " CON " on this thread come debate?

Do you remember that line from the Apollo?

Those who visit UM or the net will decide for themselves re the dubious space pics and transmissions; the buggy with no tyre tracks; the fake moon rocks; the corrupt Nixon administration that could not even fund the space programme and the Kennedy legacy etc etc etc

You're introducing more arguments into the debate... arguments we all now know you will not back up or provide any support for. That kind of behaviour is typically looked upon as trolling.

With your admitted history of being banned in the past for similar behaviour, you may wish to limit the amount of trolling you do here.

Suffice it to say, however, that since you are not willing or even able to defend your hoax beliefs (and beliefs are all they are without facts or evidence to support them) it is fairly safe to say that not many people will be jumping on your particular bandwagon.

Seriously, why would someone wish to follow another person who puts so little faith in the veracity of their claims that they will purposely refuse to do anything to prove their point...?

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frenat

Thanks for your options.

However I will not be posting the link or the pic.

Such actions on this thread maybe deemed as flame - baiting? or trolling?

I feel certain that both you and the viewers can find the image of the footprint on the net or web.

I resolutely stand by claim.

My credibility . . . and freedom to post remains intact me thinks :-D

In other words, you won't post the link or pic because it doesn't exist. Your credibility does remain intact because most of here already knew you were a troll. Zero credibility can't go any further down.

Believe what you will . . . or must?

But having been banned from posting on UM once already for flame - baiting or trolling upon this thread???

I now tread carefully - as if I am walking on glass in fact! . . . Please don't confuse the aforementioned with the moon.

Admitting to a previous banning and current sock-puppeting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frenat

Those who visit UM or the net will decide for themselves re the dubious space pics and transmissions;

What dubious pics and transmissions? Haven't seen any yet and since you refuse to back up your claim I doubt I ever will.

the buggy with no tyre tracks;

already well explained. Not our fault you don't understand the explanation.

the fake moon rocks;

There are none. I'd ask you to back up your claim but we all know how much credibility you have already.

the corrupt Nixon administration that could not even fund the space programme and the Kennedy legacy etc etc etc

Irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

. . . the question DID WE LAND ON THE MOON will never be answered truly. . . . its debate come argument will never be WON.

I don't know if you knew it or not, but Mr. Reality has already said that the moon hoax folks have lost the war.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
Gentlemen, I have to say that I am disappointed with these posts, both in my role as a moderator and as a participant in this thread.

I apologise unreservedly.

My only excuse is that indeed, the post was intended as humour. I shall try to refrain...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Jackdaw, just to clarify.. You made these claims:

And not with fluttering flags or fake moon rocks or touched up photos or a moon buggy that has no tracks or footprints around it?... as to how it got there or was built etc etc etc

...

And please explain why there is a pic on the net or web of a footprint that does not match the so called landing on the moon and the giant step for mankind?

i.e. differing tread pattern to the so called astronauts?

But now, you are withdrawing those claims as you have no evidence you are willing to produce here, on the grounds that the images are "flame-baiting or trolling"? How could they be, if genuine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.