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

MID

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

Which explains Webb's resignation

Your knowledge of history and how things work in politics is as lacking as is your understanding of technical matters and your inability to apply effort or rigor when forming an opinion.

Jim Webb's resignation can be easily explained as being for the same reason that Dr. Mike Griffin resigned his position as NASA Administrator.

Webb had of course been grilled by Congress, almost daily, since th Apollo 1 fire. There's no doubt it took it's toll, despite the fact that Webb's efforts resulted in the the heat being taken off the President, and NASA itself. Rightfully so of course.

But the real issue was that President Jophnson had announced that he wasn't running for re-election in 1968. He knew Tom Paine had been picked by Johnson to succeed him, and, with a new President coming into office in January, 18969, he'd be replaced anyway.

Very much like Griffin resigned because that's SOP when a Democrat comes into office, and you were appointed by a Republican...regardless of what that means for NASA and the U.S space program.

Just as Obama too rid us of the best NASA administrator we'd had since Webb/PPaine, and has made the agency weak as a reult of appointing a puppet who would do his bidding..despite the fact the this bidding destroyed a program and cost thousands of jobs...so Webb knew that he didn't want to hang around in case another President, without the far reaching vision he and his bosses posessed, would be elected in 1968.

Webb was correct. It happened just like that.

Nixon saw to that.

Jim Webb was, in many ways a visionary...unlike Nixon, and unlike Obama today.

That's the real story, conrtrary to the fantasies your imagination will attempt to wrap around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

Nonsebse

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

Really, Doc?

From anywhere?

What's really ridiculous is you making mindless declarations as if you actually know something about that which you speak.

I'd ask you to prove your contention...to tell us all where (as well as why and how. ), but that would be silly of me to ask of you...since you can't prove anything you contend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

The point should be clear to you now...

Several points are clear to me. It is clear to me that when any evidence you don't like is presented you will simply disregard it.

Another point is that the level of hypocrisy and double standards you are prepared to use are truly staggering.

Let's look at your argument logically and with out the double standards shall we?

Your argument appears to go something like this:

The Soviet Union sometimes told the truth and sometimes they lied. The fact that they sometimes lied means that any evidence from them can simply be disregarded as propaganda."

Now if your argument is logical we should be able to apply it to other situations. Let's come up with a hypothetical one shall we?

A moon hoax believer makes many posts on a forum (let's call it Unexploded-Miseries) arguing his case. One day this hypothetical poster (we'll call him tromboneium) is caught out in a blatant lie, say (hypothetically of course) he invents a quote which he claims supports his case. He is (hypothetically) later forced to admit he invented the quote but claims he was only joking.

Now if we apply your logic (without applying your double standards) then tromboneium would simply be a propagandist and all his posts could simply be disregarded.

Your move tromb, sorry, turbonium.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

So glad that you're back, Waspie... :tu:

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackdaw

Turbonium- I applaud your zest and enthusiasm for the truth.

Waspie Dwawf - you are an asset to the hoax believers.

This thread asks DID WE LAND ON THE MOON?

Answer - NO YOU DID NOT at the time you duped the world into believing that did.

End of debate.

If you did . . . . . . then prove it :-D

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

Edited by Jackdaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackdaw

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?

Maybe its print was made by an over excited stage hand?

Edited by Jackdaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Turbonium- I applaud your zest and enthusiasm for the truth.

So you applaud someone who has a proven, documented history of LYING making things up to try and bolster his position...?

This thread asks DID WE LAND ON THE MOON?

Congratulations, you can read.... :rolleyes:

Answer - NO YOU DID NOT

Does typing it in all caps make it more correct of an answer...?

Here, how about this...

NO IT IS NOT...

There... I typed it bigger than your, so my answer is more correct than yours... :P

at the time you duped the world into believing that did.

Prove it.

End of debate.

Uhm... no.

If you did . . . . . . then prove it :-D

NASA has.

Do you know what "Burden of Proof is"...?

I'm guessing that like Turbonium, you don't...

Which would also lead me to believe that you don't know that the Burden of Proof rests upon those who claim that the Moon landings were hoaxed, and on no one else...

You may want to learn exactly how the B urden of Proof works and how it applies to you and your belief in the Moon landing hoax.

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

It would be interesting if you could provide anything that actually backs up your assertions here, but the plain truth of the matter is that neither you nor your new hero Turbonium have anything even vaguely resembling "proof" of a hoax, let alone evidence that might make one think a hoax was even a possibility.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

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?

Please post the image, or provide a link to it.

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

The word is "Astronaut".

Maybe its print was made by an over excited stage hand?

Maybe its a fake produced by someone trying to bolster their claim, kind of like how your hero Turbonium fabricated a quote to try and bolster his claim...

Either way, without the image to examine, your claim isn't worth the electrons your post is made of.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackdaw

This thread and its drivel and childish sticks and stones nature re any hoax believer who dares to post???. . . . past its sell by date a long time ago me thinks?

In fact, many moons ago . . .ha ha!

Maybe UM should do a poll on DID WE LAND ON THE MOON using its over 100, 000 members?

Edited by Jackdaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

This thread and its drivel and childish sticks and stones nature re any hoax believer who dares to post???. . . . past its sell by date a long time ago me thinks? In fact, many moons ago . . .ha ha!

Maybe UM should do a poll on DID WE LAND ON THE MOON using its over 100, 000 members?

Translation: "I don't have any proof to provide, not even a link to the picture I claimed existed (just like my hero Turbonium has claimed so many things that have later turned out to be things he made up non-existent), so instead, I'll just blather on lamely in my pathetic attempt to dodge the questions posed of me (just like my hero Turbonium dodges questions posed of him)..."

:rolleyes:

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackdaw

Translation: "I don't have any proof to provide, not even a link to the picture I claimed existed (just like my hero Turbonium has claimed so many things that have later turned out to be non-existent), so instead, I'll just blather on lamely in my pathetic attempt to dodge the questions posed of me (just like my hero Turbonium dodges questions posed of him)..."

:rolleyes:

Cz

Jackdaw has no heroes. His or her beliefs are true and founded.

Unlike some. Whose foundations are grounded by MID and his flying buddies? ha ha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackdaw

Translation: "I don't have any proof to provide, not even a link to the picture I claimed existed (just like my hero Turbonium has claimed so many things that have later turned out to be non-existent), so instead, I'll just blather on lamely in my pathetic attempt to dodge the questions posed of me (just like my hero Turbonium dodges questions posed of him)..."

:rolleyes:

Cz

Jackdaw has no heroes. His or her beliefs are true and founded.

Unlike some. Whose foundations are grounded by MID and his flying buddies? ha ha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Jackdaw has no heroes. His or her beliefs are true and founded.

Oh I'm quite sure you are a True Believer, in every sense of the term... And the way you speak of yourself in the 3rd person is very convincing...

:unsure2:

The problem with beliefs such as the ones you are so proud of is that they are rarely based on facts or actual evidence, which is why you can only "believe" in them, never prove them.

Unlike some. Whose foundations are grounded by MID and his flying buddies?

My opinions about the validity of the Moon landings are based in small part on the word of people like MID, people who have backed up what they say with solid evidence, unshakable logic, and a proven track record of intellectual honesty (in other words, people who show behaviour the exact opposite of your idol Turbonium) but mainly they from research and study of the US Space Program I have done on my own for over 30 years.

Now, any chance at all you're going to start providing any proof regarding your opinion that the landings were hoaxed, (that photo you claim exists would be a good starting point) or are you going to continue to hand wave whinge about this thread...?

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrbusdriver

Jackdaw has no heroes. His or her beliefs are true and founded.

Unlike some. Whose foundations are grounded by MID and his flying buddies? ha ha

No, as a matter of fact, some of us can read and analyze...even do math. We know how the moon flights were accomplished.

Funny how you use the 3rd person, should we be mightily humbled??

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackdaw

No, as a matter of fact, some of us can read and analyze...even do math. We know how the moon flights were accomplished.

Funny how you use the 3rd person, should we be mightily humbled??

:rolleyes:

Please do not be humbled or indeed bow sir?

But I take it you meant MATHS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TSS

Please do not be humbled or indeed bow sir?

But I take it you meant MATHS?

No, it's how he spelt it - MATH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackdaw

No, it's how he spelt it - MATH.

Really?

Well may I offer that within the context of his statement come sentence that the word is grammatically incorrect and should of been in the plural . . . ie - MATHS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TSS

Really?

Well may I offer that within the context of his statement come sentence that the word is grammatically incorrect and should of been in the plural . . . ie - MATHS

Depends on where you come from. Oxford and websters dictionary say it is plural, but often used as a singular noun, therefore removing 'emathic' from mathematics and leaving the 's' would make no sense.

There's no right and wrong answer to using math, or maths, so your correcting of it was inaccurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Where are the pictures and evidence, Jackdaw? I for one am not allowing you to make claims and then run as fast as you can.

WHERE is the evidence to back up your claims that:

...touched up photos or a moon buggy that has no tracks or footprints around it

...there is a pic on the net or web of a footprint that does not match the so called landing on the moon

LINKS/CITES. NOW.

Or wait, maybe this garbage was posted by an over-excited stagehand Apollo denier who actually just made it all up?

Post the images and evidence or admit you made it up (or did you get suckered by another Apollo denier with equally non-existent research abilities?).

It's a simple choice, and multiple attempts to avoid the issue will not work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackdaw

Depends on where you come from. Oxford and websters dictionary say it is plural, but often used as a singular noun, therefore removing 'emathic' from mathematics and leaving the 's' would make no sense.

There's no right and wrong answer to using math, or maths, so your correcting of it was inaccurate.

Beg to differ within the sentence it was used?

Now. . . please explain the moon buggy to our readers, believers and hoaxers.

i.e - how did it get to the moon? was it built on the moon? if so why no footprints around it? how did it get in position on the moon with no tracks? what engine size/capacity did it have?.......and I am thinking of weight here??? . . .re intitial take off and flight :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrbusdriver

i.e - how did it get to the moon? was it built on the moon? if so why no footprints around it? how did it get in position on the moon with no tracks? what engine size/capacity did it have?.......and I am thinking of weight here??? . . .re intitial take off and flight :-D

Pretty strange questions for one so familiar with the "alleged" program. How can you say it's a fraud when you don't even understand the basics of how it was claimed to have happened.

The pictures you have seen have areas where the tracks were obliterated by the astronauts working around the rover...they had to load and unload equipment at each work location. Footprints, same deal, they kicked a fair amount of dirt around.

Performance specs, they're readily available...look em up. It was a very interesting little "ride".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Now. . . please explain the moon buggy to our readers, believers and hoaxers.

i.e - how did it get to the moon? was it built on the moon? if so why no footprints around it? how did it get in position on the moon with no tracks? what engine size/capacity did it have?.......and I am thinking of weight here??? . . .re intitial take off and flight :-D

Pictures / links please. You know, actual EVIDENCE of what you're claiming...

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

And not with fluttering flags...

The flag issue has been addressed and explained. Go back where i posted a video on the flag experiment in a vacuum chamber. The flag in the vacuum chamber was waving just as it was on the moon. The video will explain why.

...or fake moon rocks

There were no faked moon rocks. Where did you get that false idea?

...or touched up photos

Where's your evidence?

Answer: You have no evidence!!

or a moon buggy that has no tracks or footprints around it?...

Says who?

MoonBuggy.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman

Hey! Someone is recycling already disproven Jack White claims!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

Really?

Well may I offer that within the context of his statement come sentence that the word is grammatically incorrect and should of been in the plural . . . ie - MATHS

Jackdaw , this is not the place for a discussion on the differences between British English and American English. This site has rules about off topic posting, thread derailment and other forms of trolling. Please try to keep within these rules.

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.