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

booNyzarC

Ever thought why some people have been awarded astronaut wings?

Red Bull?

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MadMike740

People who say the moon landing was fake weren't even alive during that time. The entire world was tuned in on their TV's and it was broadcast over the entire globe. It was not fake, face the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

I've seen documentation that describes the joint flexion of Apollo suits and it destroys your argument. Of course, you'll laugh it off and ignore it as NASA propaganda.

If you've seen documentation which "destroys" my argument, why are you hiding it with such a lame-o excuse?

Either put up or shut up. It's your move...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

If you've seen documentation which "destroys" my argument, why are you hiding it with such a lame-o excuse?

Either put up or shut up. It's your move...

I pointed out the program on the development of the Apollo spacesuit, which also addressed the joints of the spacesuit, which to me, was nothing difficult.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101
Either put up or shut up. It's your move...

Wow... how original... :rolleyes:

Why should we both to provide you with anything...?

You'll just purposely misinterpret it, claim it was all fake anyway, shift your goal posts, shirk your burden of proof responsibilities, then try to slip some fabricated evidence or quotes past us once again while you're madly handwaving away anything that can be shown to prove you completely wrong...

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

Whether the report you're quoting was written in 1971, 1984 or yesterday does not make any difference to that fact that the data being referred to was produced in 1963 from a suit that bears only a superficial semblance to the production model A7L suit that was used on the Moon.

You still don't get it.

What is the purpose of this document? The title - "Development of a Space Activity Suit" - seems to fit nicely...if it was written before the Apollo 11 - 15 missions.

But this document was written in 1971, which was after Apollo 11-15.

They'd already walked on the moon several times. So they ALREADY HAD DEVELOPED a "Space Activity Suit" when the document was written.

The document explains THE CURRENT (Nov 1971) STATUS OF THE SAS.

We know the SAS is still in "Development".

They never mention that a SAS already exists. Nothing about it being an improved version SAS, based on the currently used SAS (that would be your Apollo 11-15 'SAS" ).

Apollo is mentioned in the snippet below...

In the mid-1960ts several groups began the development of hard suits, and they have been used experimentally in laboratories but never in actual space flight. The most recent Apollo suit is in principle similar to the suit that Wiley Post first used back in 1933, with improved mobility due to better joint construction and improved thermoregulation due to the use of water cooled undergarments.[/i

A table notes the 'Apollo state-of-the-art' suit, and the 'Apollo G20-24' suit.]

The Apollo 11-15 spacesuit - A7L - is simply not mentioned at all. It's not in the table, like the Apollo G20-24, and 'Apollo state-of-the-art').

To completely ignore the A7L is hardly an oversight on their part. The very purpose of the document is to....well. to design the A7L.

This isn't all about a 1963 study, clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

Wow... how original... :rolleyes:

Why should we both to provide you with anything...?

You'll just purposely misinterpret it, claim it was all fake anyway, shift your goal posts, shirk your burden of proof responsibilities, then try to slip some fabricated evidence or quotes past us once again while you're madly handwaving away anything that can be shown to prove you completely wrong...

'I have great evidence, which nobody else will see, because evil turbonium would then spoil it'

What next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Belial

The other evening we had a waxing moon before us, i lay there in my garden chair looking up into the sky at all of the stars out there, then i looked across at the moon - what a wonderous little gem it is sitting there looking down on us all.

I then had a small moment and smiled to myself thinking of all the 'haters' on this thread and others around netsville cyber space :ph34r:

To think that men have walked/worked and played on it is nothing short of amazing, and why oh why do so many have to see it as an opportunity to just slag it off and try and pass it all as lies.

I wish i was strong enough to go there i would love it, if i did i would be filmed looking back at earth with my middle finger raised to all the haters :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

The other evening we had a waxing moon before us, i lay there in my garden chair looking up into the sky at all of the stars out there, then i looked across at the moon - what a wonderous little gem it is sitting there looking down on us all.

I then had a small moment and smiled to myself thinking of all the 'haters' on this thread and others around netsville cyber space :ph34r:

To think that men have walked/worked and played on it is nothing short of amazing, and why oh why do so many have to see it as an opportunity to just slag it off and try and pass it all as lies.

I wish i was strong enough to go there i would love it, if i did i would be filmed looking back at earth with my middle finger raised to all the haters :rolleyes:

Nicely put, Belial. I was not quite in my teens when Neil set foot on that Moon, and on that night (and several others afterward) I looked up at the 1/4 full moon *as humans were standing/walking/hopping/driving/sleeping on it* - the thought of that blew me away then, as it does now. Apollo was, imo, mankind's greatest technical/exploratory achievement to date, and (after the tragedy of Apollo 1) was an absolute masterpiece of planning and implementation that will never be bettered.

And it is documented so comprehensively and openly, that even the most shallow investigation quickly shows the puerile nature of the denier's claims.

As it was such an extraordinary achievement, I guess that means it is inevitable that the most ignorant haters of the world focus on it with such uneducated (and uneducatable) venom. The fact that only a few remain is both obvious and good news - nowadays the only fence-sitting lurkers that visit these threads all seem to become Apollo converts..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

1) The USA could not have known that they could have got away with faking the Apollo landings.

2) The consequences of being caught faking the Apollo landings would be far more detrimental to the USA than failing to make the landings.

3) Given 1 and 2 it would be in the USAs interest to admit failure rather than being caught lying.

Point 1 - it's actually a small risk, when compared to the huge benefits. It's a near-perfect event to hoax. A real rocket has to lift-off, and fly beyond our view. The rest of it can be faked. A special event on TV. And only a small group ever knows it's a hoax.

Point 2 - massive benefits of hoaxing it outweigh the small risk of being caught.

But nothing is ever 100% certain. It still has risks to it, no matter how small the chances be.

It explains why NASA's chief resigned, just a few weeks before the Apollo 8 mission. The first manned mission beyond LEO.

He refused to approve the revision to Apollo 8, into being a moon mission. He finally did approve, but then he resigned, just before the mission.

He had motive to resign, if the hoax was exposed his head would be first on the chopping block. And he was a lawyer who could see writing on the wall if caught.

It's my own take on it, anyway.

Now to point 3 - no need to admit failure when a hoax has such a good chance of working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

The other evening we had a waxing moon before us, i lay there in my garden chair looking up into the sky at all of the stars out there, then i looked across at the moon - what a wonderous little gem it is sitting there looking down on us all.

I then had a small moment and smiled to myself thinking of all the 'haters' on this thread and others around netsville cyber space :ph34r:

To think that men have walked/worked and played on it is nothing short of amazing, and why oh why do so many have to see it as an opportunity to just slag it off and try and pass it all as lies.

I wish i was strong enough to go there i would love it, if i did i would be filmed looking back at earth with my middle finger raised to all the haters :rolleyes:

I suggest you review a few posts on this thread, so you'll really see who best fits as 'haters'.

I don't hate the truth. I accept it. I certainly would prefer that it was the real deal, not a hoax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

People who say the moon landing was fake weren't even alive during that time.

So...I'm actually 10 years younger than I've always thought I was?

Well...geez...

Thank you so much!! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk

If you've seen documentation which "destroys" my argument, why are you hiding it with such a lame-o excuse?

Either put up or shut up. It's your move...

To be more accurate, the three suits which are investigated are actually pre-Apollo prototype suits. EACH of them displays knee flexion ranges averaging around 120 degrees. That's 3 pressurised suits, prior to Apollo, with measured knee flexion ranges that you believe to be impossible.

I have the link on my PC at home, I'll post it later.

Of course, you'll find some way of ridiculing the study so that you can safely ignore it, rather than taking the intellectually honest approach of admitting you made an error, and withdrawing your false and unsubstantiated claim. Which is why people keep on accusing you of wilful ignorance Turbs.

Quick question: do you understand the concept of energy cost of a suit? If so, are you aware that the energy cost of an SAS suit is much less than the energy cost of a pressurised suit (such as the A7L)? Do you understand that such a suit has inherently 'greater mobility' due to the reduced energy cost, regardless of the knee flexion? If you can can answer yes to each of these questions, you'll know why you're wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

Indeed it did not even need a manned Soviet success for my argument to remain true. The Soviets developed the unmanned Lunokhod rivers and landed two of them on the moon. These could easily have been used to explore the Apollo landing sites and reveal a fake. Again, the US could not have known that the Soviet Union would not do something like this.

The chances of the USA getting caught faking Apollo were so high that it would have been crazy to try it.

Not again!

Are you aware that propaganda was practically a national pasttime, for both USA and USSR?

Nothing is off-limits. Truth and/or lies, sometimes mixed together. It's a lie if they said it, and it's true if we said it.

If you really think the USSR was some sort of 'lie detector' for USA's honesty, all crimes/hoaxes are exposed to the public, but only if it IS a crime/hoax. Otherwise, nothing is said about it. If it's not a hoax, they won't lie about it as a hoax!

The point should be clear to you now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

To be more accurate, the three suits which are investigated are actually pre-Apollo prototype suits. EACH of them displays knee flexion ranges averaging around 120 degrees. That's 3 pressurised suits, prior to Apollo, with measured knee flexion ranges that you believe to be impossible.

I have the link on my PC at home, I'll post it later.

Of course, you'll find some way of ridiculing the study so that you can safely ignore it, rather than taking the intellectually honest approach of admitting you made an error, and withdrawing your false and unsubstantiated claim. Which is why people keep on accusing you of wilful ignorance Turbs.

You remind me of thise movie critics who protest a movie they haven't seen, but 'know' how it goes vy its title.

Let me see it before another whining about it, ok?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk
Point 1 - it's actually a small risk, when compared to the huge benefits.

You say the risk of being caught is small, I say it's huge. Regardless, the consequences of being caught are catastrophic. The USA would become a laughing stock. The Space Programme, instead of being a national beacon during troubled times, would become an embarrassment.

It's a near-perfect event to hoax. A real rocket has to lift-off, and fly beyond our view.

Beyond our view? Out of LEO then? After all, Apollo 8 was still visible AFTER the TLI burnwhich sent it on its way to the moon.

The rest of it can be faked. A special event on TV.

You say it can, I say it can't. Thousands of high quality photos, hours of EVA TV footage, reels of 16mm film footage, with no continuity errors between them. Photos taken showing the planet Venus, only discovered decades later by someone using modern software techniques not available in the 1960s. 300 kilos of moon rocks, examined by scientists and geologists for over 40 years, none of whom doubt their lunar origin.

And only a small group ever knows it's a hoax.

This is a hoaxer trope that keeps getting rolled out, but when you discuss the alleged hoax in detail, you keep on needing to add more and more people into the hoax for it all to hold together. Look at the claim that mission control didn't need to be 'in on it', as they could be fooled by the simulators. They probably knew when a simulation was being run, as they could just look through the plate glass window into the computer room and see the technicians running the simulations! And what about CAPCOM? He was in constant radio communication with the astronauts. They could ask them questions in real time. They spoke to them during the televised EVAs. It would be impossible to pre-record the televised EVAs, especially when you consider that Ed Fendell was also in mission control, remotely operating the cameras. So the televised EVAs would have to be live, with all the potential for something going catastrophically wrong and giving the game away. Then you have to figure out a way to realistically fake the 1/6th g in real time. Whenever you see an astronaut taking a photo during EVA, you'd need a Hasselblad accurately corresponding to the same scene.

Then you've got to be able to fool the entire world's space-faring nations, not just for a couple of years, but for all eternity. Tale the LROC images of the Apollo sites, which clearly verify the Apollo images and film footage of landings and lift-offs. This requires a whole new generation of people who need to be in on the hoax, both at NASA and ASU. They are faking images, in the full knowledge that any space-faring nation could at some point send a probe to the moon capable of imaging the Apollo sites at a higher resolution than LRO, and blowing the whole thing out of the water. Unless you accept that all the world's space-going agencies, both nationally and privately funded, are also in the pocket of NASA (that 'small team' is expanding exponentially).

There's also the JAXA data on the Apollo 15 site, which fully comports with the Apollo data.

JAXA-LROC-A15.jpg

There's also the three retroreflectors and the UV telescope images from Apollo 16, along with other scientific data returned from the moon.

Point 2 - massive benefits of hoaxing it outweigh the small risk of being caught.

The 'massive benefits' of faking it aren't as massive as actually going there. If you fake it, you get zero scientific knowledge. Your opinion that it's a small risk. There's a huge amount that can go wrong, yet they decide to fake nine missions, including six landings and one near disaster?

But nothing is ever 100% certain. It still has risks to it, no matter how small the chances be.

You have to characterise the risk of failure as being minute, whereas the reality is different. The US President couldn't keep a *spam filter* a secret, and there was only one other person present.

It's my own take on it, anyway.

:rolleyes:

Now to point 3 - no need to admit failure when a hoax has such a good chance of working.

You say it has a good chance of working, the reality is quite different. For starters, not a single whistle-blower in the subsequent 44 years of faked missions? New people being recruited into the hoax 40 years later? No death-bed confessions? All those thousands of Hasselblad images, and not a single continuity error that holds up to scrutiny? Same for the TV and film footage?

And all the time, the moon is there, patiently waiting for new explorers and probes. The alleged landing sites, just as they were 40 years ago, waiting to either confirm or condemn Apollo. Slim chance of being caught? The chance of being caught will never go away. And the national pain and humiliation would be just as strong today as it was 40 years ago, and will be in another 40 years time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk

You remind me of thise movie critics who protest a movie they haven't seen, but 'know' how it goes vy its title.

Let me see it before another whining about it, ok?

I will. Get your excuses in early is my advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

I will. Get your excuses in early is my advice.

f

You can't even show me the ACTYAL data,\ - how come ?

But the older suits has that data ?

How odd..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk

f

You can't even show me the ACTYAL data,\ - how come ?

But the older suits has that data ?

How odd..

Like I said, get your excuses in early!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk

f

You can't even show me the ACTYAL data,\ - how come ?

But the older suits has that data ?

How odd..

You don't believe any other Apollo documents, why would you believe one that confirmed the knee flexion of an A7L?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

'I have great evidence, which nobody else will see, because 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.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

'I have great evidence, which nobody else will see, because evil turbonium would then spoil it'

What next?

The reason why you haven't posted any evidence is because you don't have any evidence to post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

If you've seen documentation which "destroys" my argument, why are you hiding it with such a lame-o excuse?

Well, you are doing a very good job of destroying your own argument without any assistance from us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

You say the risk of being caught is small, I say it's huge. Regardless, the consequences of being caught are catastrophic. The USA would become a laughing stock. The Space Programme, instead of being a national beacon during troubled times, would become an embarrassment.

And, who would face the most severe consequencea? The chief of NASA.

Which explains Webb's resignation

This is a hoaxer trope that keeps getting rolled out, but when you discuss the alleged hoax in detail, you keep on needing to add more and more people into the hoax for it all to hold together. Look at the claim that mission control didn't need to be 'in on it', as they could be fooled by the simulators. They probably knew when a simulation was being run, as they could just look through the plate glass window into the computer room and see the technicians running the simulations!

Nonsebse

They coukd easily run their sims from anywhere. Why do you think it can only be run from that site? That's ridiculous.

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk
And, who would face the most severe consequencea? The chief of NASA.

Which explains Webb's resignation

Fitting the facts to suit your worldview. People resign from their post all the time without being privy to a massive hoax. Perhaps Webb resigned due to the aftermath of the Apollo 1 fire? Regardless, how did the remaining hoaxers know he wouldn't blow the lid off the hoax? Why wasn't he bumped off?

Nonsebse

They coukd easily run their sims from anywhere. Why do you think it can only be run from that site? That's ridiculous.

I can't even be bothered to argue the point with you. It's far more revealing that you chose not to address the main issues I raised, which are salient points regardless of where the missions were allegedly hoaxed from.

And what about CAPCOM? He was in constant radio communication with the astronauts. They could ask them questions in real time. They spoke to them during the televised EVAs. It would be impossible to pre-record the televised EVAs, especially when you consider that Ed Fendell was also in mission control, remotely operating the cameras. So the televised EVAs would have to be live, with all the potential for something going catastrophically wrong and giving the game away. Then you have to figure out a way to realistically fake the 1/6th g in real time. Whenever you see an astronaut taking a photo during EVA, you'd need a Hasselblad accurately corresponding to the same scene.

Then you've got to be able to fool the entire world's space-faring nations, not just for a couple of years, but for all eternity. Tale the LROC images of the Apollo sites, which clearly verify the Apollo images and film footage of landings and lift-offs. This requires a whole new generation of people who need to be in on the hoax, both at NASA and ASU. They are faking images, in the full knowledge that any space-faring nation could at some point send a probe to the moon capable of imaging the Apollo sites at a higher resolution than LRO, and blowing the whole thing out of the water. Unless you accept that all the world's space-going agencies, both nationally and privately funded, are also in the pocket of NASA (that 'small team' is expanding exponentially).

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.