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?

14,116 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Moondoggy
I was wondering, if Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon, then who was video taping him when he came out of the lunar module?

Stanley Kubrick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov
Be nice. Ask a question. You'll probably find out something you didn't know. That's always a good thing.

After all, you yourself said..."There are many unanswered questions..."

Here is the place to get them answered.

Indeed so, MID! I think most people here would be more than happy to answer some questions :)

Best,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov
radiation behaving like condensation? I spose it could get trapped in the magnetic fields produced by electrical equipment in the capsule, but those fields would be weak and I dont think theyd trap enough to damage anything.

Ive tried to google it myself but none of the key words brought up any promising lines of inquiry so I thought Id better come back to you!:)

maybe the radiation missed....

ramboIII: care to enlighten us knowlessmen?

Sorry for stepping into the middle of the discussion, but I figured I'd drop my two cents here ;) Radiation is not like condensation and it will not get trapped in magnetics fields! The Van Allen belts are just belts of high energy electrons and protons and they don't get stuck....

Best,

Badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill Hill

Did we land on the moon? Of course we landed on the moon; there's a mountain of evidence out there- you've just got to research and understand it. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
Stanley Kubrick

The whole thing was shot on a Hollywood lot. Stanly Kubrick did around the time he shot 2001 a Space Odyssey

I can see there's a reason why you've chosen that particular avatar...

Kubrick lived in England from 1962 until his death in 1999. He hadn't made a "Hollywood" film since Spartacus in 1961.

...p.s.

He shot 2001 in England too. He was no where near Hollywood during the Apollo Program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
MID excels at disinformation on any board..........

And yet...

Im gonna agree with MID for once...

...you agreed with me on this thread!

Go figure!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jimmyphelps
And yet...

...you agreed with me on this thread!

Go figure!!!

Thats Because GOOD disinformation specialists

only use information thats TRUE ...so in most cases its

easy to "agree" with a GOOD disinformation specialist.

as its not so much the material they post but the

context in which it is used

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
Just want to pull the otherwise very reliable MID up on an issue with the Von Braun Antarctic excursion. I have in my possession an article from the May 1967 issue of Popular Science entitled "A Spaceman's Look at Antarctica". It details where Von Braun went, why he went, and what he got up to. When I get time I'll scan it, upload it somewhere and post a link to it.

Von Braun wasn't there specifically on holiday, he went with Dr Robert R Gilruth (Director of the Manned Spacecraft Centre in Houston), Dr Maxime Faget (Director of Engineering and Development), and Ernst Stuhlinger (head of the Research Project Lab at the Marshall Spaceflight Centre).

Posty:

I'll have to defer to your research in this matter. There's certainly no reason to doubt it!

I always heard Dr. Von Braun went on vacation in 1968 to Antarctica (of course, for him, working might have been considered a vacation!).

He was somewhat of a Rennaisance man, as well as a man possessed of incredible energy. He did all kinds of things like that in his day...out to sea, under the sea, Antarctica, in the air (an avid pilot as well as rocket designer), etc., etc. I can also see Max Faget doing something like that as well.

However, I never actually knew this (I didn't pay attention to everything everyone did :) ). Interesting, certainly.

And of course

the fact that the meteorites have various important differences to rocks found in situ on the moon has to somehow be explained away.
...is a rather good point. And, it hasn't been explained away by HBs. There is an explanation, of course, which is rarely accepted, for obvious reasons.

Yet again, it's another "hoax myth" that unravels itself the closer it's inspected.

Agreed!

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
Thats Because GOOD disinformation specialists

only use information thats TRUE ...so in most cases its

easy to "agree" with a GOOD disinformation specialist.

as its not so much the material they post but the

context in which it is used

Hmmm...

If "good disinformation specialists use only information that's TRUE" , then logically, they would be considered "information specialists" rather than DISinformation specialists, I should think.

And by extension, one would have to thus agree that it should be easy to agree with them, if their information is actually true.

You seem to be implying that the information posted regarding Apollo's obvious success and veracity is somehow presented in a context which is painting a picture of a falsehood. In other words, we Apollo people put forth information and explanations of the science and mechanics involved in man's most documented scientific and technical accomplishment, so as to show the HBs the actual facts concerning their mis-interpretations and erroneous assumptions about that which they have little if any understanding of, and you imply that although we're presenting factual or true information, somehow, it is presented in such a context thatit is perhaps covering up a hoax...maybe???

If so, I'd love to hear how we have ever done that here on this board as pertains to the subject matter at hand.

That is to say, how has this true information regarding the Apollo program been presented in a context that is painting any picture other than that which is documented, verified, and understood by the scientific community worldwide to have occurred--that we landed men on the Moon from 1969 to 1972, precisely as it has been described?

A clarification would be helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Skeptic Eric Raven
Thats Because GOOD disinformation specialists

only use information thats TRUE ...so in most cases its

easy to "agree" with a GOOD disinformation specialist.

as its not so much the material they post but the

context in which it is used

So do you believe in all the CT's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jimmyphelps
So do you believe in all the CT's?

ummmmm where exactly are you deriving this from?

I never said i believe all Ct's? im thinking you completly

missed my point apprently? No i dont believe in all Ct's

thanks for posting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cynical1
Educate yourself on the subject??? :)

He actually said that, didn't he???

Perhaps, Cynical1, you would like to educate me on "the subject"...where did you get your education?

It's sounding suspiciously like it was at the Bart Sibrel school of lunar exploratory fallacy?

Let me give you a clue in this matter.

You seem to be adhereing to an accusation: that being that we did not in fact do what is documented and substantiated more than any single scientific accomplishment in history--land on the Moon.

Thus, you must show us proof that we didn't. Not the other way around.

Since that is going to be mighty difficult (trust me, it will), it would be best if you simply aired your doubts in question form here. Some of the more knowledgable people will be more than happy to explain various things that you may not know about, and erase your doubts through the onlky thing that really can do such a thing: knowledge.

That's what we're about.

So how about we get away from the "dumbass" stuff and approach this from the desire to learn something?

Alot of "dumbasses" have come here intent on causing a stir in the past. None of them are here today...because, they were, as you say, "dumbasses".

It's alot more fun to learn about things. There are several people here who will be more than happy to lend their scientific knowledge and practical experience to that goal.

Be nice. Ask a question. You'll probably find out something you didn't know. That's always a good thing.

After all, you yourself said..."There are many unanswered questions..."

Here is the place to get them answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

Quoting me is much appreciated, but that post is already on this thread.

Was there something you missed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk
Posty:

I'll have to defer to your research in this matter. There's certainly no reason to doubt it!

I always heard Dr. Von Braun went on vacation in 1968 to Antarctica (of course, for him, working might have been considered a vacation!).

He was somewhat of a Rennaisance man, as well as a man possessed of incredible energy. He did all kinds of things like that in his day...out to sea, under the sea, Antarctica, in the air (an avid pilot as well as rocket designer), etc., etc. I can also see Max Faget doing something like that as well.

However, I never actually knew this (I didn't pay attention to everything everyone did :) ). Interesting, certainly.

And of course ...is a rather good point. And, it hasn't been explained away by HBs. There is an explanation, of course, which is rarely accepted, for obvious reasons.

Agreed!

:tu:

No problem - I shall try and get the full article posted somewhere sometime this week. Incidentally, the article dates from May 1967, and Von Braun refers to his trip as being "last January" - whether he means Jan 1966 or Jan 1967 I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
No problem - I shall try and get the full article posted somewhere sometime this week. Incidentally, the article dates from May 1967, and Von Braun refers to his trip as being "last January" - whether he means Jan 1966 or Jan 1967 I'm not sure.

I always thought he went down there in '68.

Well, I'll look it all up sometime, and look forward to your article.

...sounds like a conspiracy brewing here!

:w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAMS
It wasn't a remote control actually, it was activated by Neil Armstrong pulling a lanyard which opened the MESA. The camera had already been pre positioned to point that the ladder, it's in the Press Briefing pack I have if anyone wants to see it.

Correct.

RAMS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gtars
There is a little known invention called remote control.

I take it that most of you on this subject were not alive during the landings, or if you were you weren't paying attention?

As for the Van Allen Belts, there is radiation in them, but fatal doses would require a long time exposure. Believe this or

not, they actually had people with brains back then that dealt with the radiation for the entire mission! They used a

magical thing called "Gold Foil" and "Gold Veritran" to shield the electronics and the astronauts from radiation. This

magical foil is not quite as protective as lead, but almost! The helmets worn on the moon had a flip down visor made

of gold veritran (a thin layer of gold impregnated onto it) which protected them from radiation to their heads when

walking on the moon. The suits had a gold foil layer impregnated into their construction as well. So, these guys

back in the sixties actually thought these things through and lined their equipment with radiation limiting gold foil

and gold veritran glass.

Back when the landings were taking place, I watched every minute of every single mission while they were on the

moon (less bathroom breaks and eating food). All I can say is to reproduce days of coverage of multiple missions

in 1/6th gravity conditions would have been monumental to create in any studio. One key element to watch for

IF you ever see them show footage from the moon, is that when the astronauts fall down, their arms are whipping

about at a normal speed to correct their fall. If you sped their arms up to compensate for "slowing film down"

to simulate 1/6th gravity, then their arms would go at a speed that no human could do easily in a bulky space suit.

Another point is the hours and hours of footage of the lunar rover missions that I watched. If done in a studio,

it would have been quite a large studio as I watched them bounce on the vehicle in 1/6th gravity until they were

miles away from the camera! Now that would be the biggest set ever constructed huh? A studio miles deep

with 9,000 foot mountains in it, that you see your astronauts drive up to? Also even the foothills that they drove

around would require more sand than you could put in a studio let alone fit the foothill itself into the studio as

they were quite high.

A final point that would be very hard to fake is when the ascent stage of the lunar module lifted off of it's base,

the debris flew off of it and scattered in a manner that showed no wind resistance for the type of material it

was. The lunar module was practically made out of heavy duty aluminum foil.. The bottom descent stage was

covered with foil (gold).. And when it blasted off, it shot out pieces of foil in vast distances that if there was

any atmosphere present, it could not have flown that far outward. The atmospheric drag would have stopped

it from going as far as it did.

I don't know why people want to believe we had never gone to the moon. The mission was done at a time

when we had great people and engineers from all walks of life working on the project. The entire nation

at that time was challenged by President Kennedy to achieve this task. The entire nation rounded up it's

best and brightest minds to meet the challenge put forth. It wasn't as though there was only NASA working

on it.. There were hundreds of thousands of Americans, and foreign people as well trying to get the mission

to work. Even my Father helped in manufacturing a trailer to help move rocket parts about! So, it was

an entire nation putting it's best and brightest scientists, engineers, and every other vocation that you

could dream of, together to make a major step for mankind. It was accomplished. Then some bright

guy who wasn't even alive during the missions see's some funny shadows out of place in the moon

pictures and decides that these are done in a studio. He presents some interesting points, but then

on a National Geo special, they reproduced the conditions to show that all of his assertions are all wet.

With a bright surface as the moon was, the camera is not able to pick up stars shining above. Anyone

who has owned a film camera such as myself (photographer) knows that to capture stars you must

open the lens for several seconds at a time in order to catch stars on film.. With a bright surface and

a shutter click of a split second, you are not going to get stars in the picture at all. The contrasts are

too great for even sensitive film to pick up with a shutter setting set to compensate for a bright surface.

So, even though the guy(s) that started the conspiracy were all wet, there are still millions that have

bought into this new hoax.. The hoax theory is the hoax!

One thing you may want to consider, is that the astronauts left several mirrors on the moon and

pointed them at the earth. To this day astronomers in major universities, and at the major

telecopes still bounce laser beams off of these mirrors! They judge the distance between the

earth and moon by using this laser and the mirrors. So there is another thing to show that

we went to the moon. Also, the technicians that packed the lunar modules into the Saturn V

rockets would ask, if they aren't now on the moon, then where are they? They crashed them

back onto the moon, when they were done using them. That is how we got the seismic data

from the sensors left on the moon! Where would that data have come from at the exact

moment of impact, had we not gone to the moon? We went there and I watched the whole

thing on television on all of the missions. I just want to ask how they could put a whole

series of mountains into a studio and drive around them in 1/6th gravity? (And if you watched

closely, the astronauts arms and legs all move at correct human speed, even though the

gravity was shown at 1/6th of the earths gravity.. That would be a real trick, as we had

no computer graphics back in those days to re-create what we have now. Entire mountains

on a set? Sand flying up from the wheels on the rovers way high up into the lunar sky in a way

not possible had it been on earth? (They even had to make fenders to put on it, as they

hadn't planned for the sand to fly up at them like that, so they made some out of file folders

or something they had on board). If it was faked, I would have to say that it was a more

monumental job doing the fake (as an earlier poster said) than it would have been to go

to the moon itself..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAMS

Excellent dissertation, balanced and accurate as well.

Kudos.

RAMS

Edited by Magikman
quoting the entire context of the post that sits directly above yours is redundant and highly irritating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
I take it that most of you on this subject were not alive during the landings, or if you were you weren't paying attention?

gtars,

You make some good points in your post.

Something I think you will find, regarding people who have a "problem" with Apollo and the lunar landings, is that the vast majority of them are younger.

I have estimated that the majority of these people range from virtually children to people perhaps in their 40s. Anyone much older than that would have necessarily come out of a different generation, one in which education had more emphasis on science and mathematics than it generally does today, and one in which the Apollo program was happening.

As for the Van Allen Belts, there is radiation in them, but fatal doses would require a long time exposure. Believe this or

not, they actually had people with brains back then that dealt with the radiation for the entire mission!

Ah, the van Allen radiation issue....you're right, of course, we did have people with brains back then! This is essentially the entire worn out issue in a nutshell. You'd be amazed at the hoops we had to jump through on the radiation issue.

...to reproduce days of coverage of multiple missions

in 1/6th gravity conditions would have been monumental to create in any studio.

This rather reasonable logic was also something that escaped many people.

A final point that would be very hard to fake is when the ascent stage of the lunar module lifted off of it's base,

the debris flew off of it and scattered in a manner that showed no wind resistance for the type of material it

was.

That too!

If it was faked, I would have to say that it was a more

monumental job doing the fake (as an earlier poster said) than it would have been to go

to the moon itself..

You would be right.

Neil Armstrong would also agree with you.

You might be interested to read through the original and massive Moon Hoax thread, which today is buried on page 25 of this Conspiracies section of the board. Over 4000 posts, which probably covered every aspect of the Moon hoax...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rusich

Why after the debarkation of astronauts is stopped Moon study? The Moon the whole have studied, it not interesting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Magikman

It would be interesting to get your perspective, Rusich. What is/was the opinion of people in your country as to whether the moon landing was faked? I hope I'm not being too forward, you needn't mention where you are from if you don't want to make it known.

MM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phunk
Why after the debarkation of astronauts is stopped Moon study? The Moon the whole have studied, it not interesting?

Study of the moon never stopped, only manned missions. Those stopped because they were incredibly expensive and the budget was taken and given to the shuttle program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chris0871
Study of the moon never stopped, only manned missions. Those stopped because they were incredibly expensive and the budget was taken and given to the shuttle program.

how about a new modern probe orbiting the moon taking high res pictures of the nine or so landing sites on the surface of the moon so we can end this ***SNIP*** debate . see it's very simple why dont we have a satalite like that ? maybe japan will get there probe up there soon or China or maybe India...seems there is a lot still we can learn from the moon and our wonderful government.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
the language filters are there for a reason. Do not try to get round them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman
how about a new modern probe orbiting the moon taking high res pictures of the nine or so landing sites on the surface of the moon so we can end this ***SNIP*** debate . see it's very simple why dont we have a satalite like that ? maybe japan will get there probe up there soon or China or maybe India...seems there is a lot still we can learn from the moon and our wonderful government.

As people have remarked, a lunar mission is expensive and so one that is going to carry a hi-res imaging system has to be justified. There have been mapping satellites using IR, UV, radar, etc. There have been polar missions to look for evidence of water. There have been missions to study the gravity / magnetic fields. Other missions looked for commercial exploration possibilities.

As you say, perhaps future missions might give us images - the Japanese SELENE, planned for AUG 07, is carrying a terrain camera with a 10m resolution and a High Definition TV camera. You are not going to be able to see footprints in the soil but the images should be able to show something of the Apollo artifacts.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
removed bad language from quote.

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.