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

Waspie_Dwarf

It is also worth noticing that Jackdaw claims people are more questioning of the truth now than they were in the 60's. Given that I'd like to see his explanation for the percentage believing in Apollo actually rising (albeit marginally) with each poll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafterman

So I had an interesting discussion with a friend of mine the other day about the whole hoaxing thing.

Conspiracists would have us believe that the United States spent $25 or so billion dollars to hoax the moon landing and that it is physically impossible for human beings to travel to the moon (Van Alen belts and all).

Given that China, India, and Russia have all publicly stated that they intend to send astronauts to the moon in the coming years, are we to assume that they also are going to waste tens of billions of dollars to pull off an equally elaborate hoax? Keep in mind that they would also have to hoax in exacting detail the Apollo equipment that is already on the moon - because you know they're going to take pictures of it or even bring some of it back. So if Russia goes first, will they let China and India "borrow" their Apollo models?

And while we're at it, what about Orion? The United States is going to waste another hundred or so billion to fake sending more astronauts into space?

In whose mind does this make sense exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden

...In whose mind does this make sense exactly?

I refuse to answer on the grounds that it could get me banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RaptorBites

Greetings mister WD.

The only relevant point that your previous poll links - which are in themselves dated re the advances within the net and knowledge - reveal to myself is the fact that some of its participants had doubts about the so called moon landings and indeed the astroNOTS?

I watched England on a black and white tele win the world cup in 1966 via the BBC. It was true and happened.

Watching the moon landing courtesy of NASA? hmmmm?

N icely A nimated S pace A dventures

I just had to laugh regarding this post.

I mean seriously, World Cup? Moon Landing? How can you even put those 2 in the same comparison?

Ok back to the subject at hand, your reasoning regarding NASA's claim to the moon landing is your mis-trust of NASA (since you did make a mockery of the acronym). Yet have not come up with any evidence of your own outside of what has already been debunked multiple times over this thread.

I believe that you are only here to troll the forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Hey Jackdaw....

(Maybe that'll grab his attention)

Just in case you ignored missed this earlier, I'll ask it for the THIRD TIME now...

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.

If you aren't able to provide a link, perhaps you'd be kind enough to withdraw your claim that such an image exists, or explain why it seems to be too much to ask for you to back up what you are claiming.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Food for thought...

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

Food for thought...

Cz

Indeed. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Food for thought...

Cz

I heard that!! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RaptorBites

Food for thought...

Cz

LOL.

People still try to beat the bloody pulp that used to be a dead horse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

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?

Sure, CEO's resign their posts all the time. Like the dozens of bank CEO's, including the World Bank, recently resigned. Like the CEO's of BP, Research in Motion, and so on, have resigned.

In the vast majority of these cases, there is either a scandal or a massive financial crisis in play at the time. Some are due to illness, company takeover, or just retirement.

NASA had no major financial crisis at the time Webb resigned. He was not ill. There was no takeover involved. And he wasn't retiring.

The main reason Webb gave for his resignation...

..Webb was a Democrat tied closely to Johnson, and, with Johnson choosing not to run for reelection, he decided to step down as administrator to allow the next president to choose his own administrator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Webb

Webb was the administrator of NASA from February 14, 1961 to October 8 (or 7) , 1968.

Apollo 7 launched on Oct.11, 1968.

The Presidential election took place on Nov.5, 1968.

Apollo 8 launched on Dec. 21, 1968.

To claim he resigned to 'leave the position open for the next President' is pure nonsense. He resigned nearly one month before the election took place! Even worse, his resignation was just 3 (or 4) days before Apollo 7 - only the most important mission NASA had ever planned to that point!

He had also signed off on Apollo 8 being the first manned mission to the moon, which was planned to launch only 2 months after Apollo 7.

This has scnadal written all over it.

Regardless, how did the remaining hoaxers know he wouldn't blow the lid off the hoax? Why wasn't he bumped off?

I'm sure they had enough dirt on him, especially after the Apollo 1 fire, to know he would not try to expose the hoax.

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.

The televised EVA's didn't have to be 'live', and they weren't live. How do you know what Ed Fendell actually saw, or was doing, at the time? Supposedly, he was operating a remote control camera on the moon. But we have nothing to verify this, in any way, and you know it.

You simply assume this as true, along with everything else. That's why it is very easy to fake. You believe the story as told, and don't think of challenging one single part of it.

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).[/b]

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.

Perhaps the US threatened any nation who knows of the hoax will be bombed into dust if they dre speak out.

It's pure speculation, at any rate.

As for the next generation of scientists - well, they've all been scratching their heads over how Apollo somehow managed to fly men to the moon 40 years ago, while they cannot even get a manned rocket beyond LEO!

I really wonder how many of them still believe in the Apollo story now...

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

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.

As I said, this makes no sense.

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).

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 .

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.

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.

A "visionary", indeed.

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.