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

Thanks a lot man, I was getting a little worried there.

No problem Sean, happy to help. If you search the thread for "window" you'll find several discussion points on this that have been gone over previously. That video makes for a great summation of the key points though, and I was able to share it with you courtesy of a prior post from frenat.

Cheers. :tu:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cenobite

I think it would have been harder to pull off a hoax of this magnitude than it would have been to just go to the moon.

Then again, NASA does have a way of doing things the round-about way. Take for example the pen NASA spent millions of dollars developing, that would work in space; the Russians used pencils.

dontgetit.gifdisgust.gifrolleyes.gifw00t.gif

urban myth, pencils were not used because of graphite dust and also they did not want pencil sharpenings floating around, neither did nasa spend millions developing a 'space pen' they simply used a ballpoiint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackdaw

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.

Really?

Can you produce those poll results please.

Thankyou.

Albeit 'marginal' is and never will be truly 'convincing'

Edited by Jackdaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

Really?

Can you produce those poll results please.

Thankyou.

Albeit 'marginal' is and never will be truly 'convincing'

It was right above the post you quoted... :unsure2:

Here you go...

What exactly do you think that will achieve? Since when is scientific truth determined by an opinion poll? It is determined by the weight of evidence. That evidence convinced all the relevant authorities of the authenticity of the Apollo landings more than 4 decades ago. Since that time there has been not a single piece of evidence which has cast doubt on the authenticity of Apollo. Not one.

If you think a poll will help feel free, start one. But maybe you should know the results of the previous polls on this subject before you do so.

This poll from 2003: http://www.unexplain...=1 found that over 63% of members that voted believed the landings to be genuine. Those that voted against include 12.2% that agreed landings were impossible because the moon is made of cheese.

There is this poll from 2005: http://www.unexplain...6&mode=show&st= found that nearly 66% of members that voted believed that the landings were genuine. Those that disagreed included10% that voted for a totally blank option.

Then there is this poll from 2006: http://www.unexplain...pollo hoax&st=0 here 68% believed that the landings were genuine.

Now given that this is not a scientific site, encourages alternative views and has a very active conspiracies section I would expect a higher level of belief in the hoax theory than in the population at large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackdaw

It was right above the post you quoted... :unsure2:

Here you go...

Hmmm? 2006 polls aint now as mr WD said.

Times and mankind have moved on since I think . . . . and so to has the net :-D

Edited by Jackdaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

Hmmm? 2006 polls aint now as mr WD said.

Times and mankind have moved on since I think . . . . and so to has the net :-D

Feel free to start a poll then, if you think it will prove something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Feel free to start a poll then, if you think it will prove something.

BooNy, Jackdaw can't be bnothered to even attempt to back up the willfully ignorant, demonstrably false and almost certainly fabricated claims he makes. What makes you think he'd take the time to start a poll....?

:rolleyes:

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

BooNy, Jackdaw can't be bnothered to even attempt to back up the willfully ignorant, demonstrably false and almost certainly fabricated claims he makes. What makes you think he'd take the time to start a poll....?

:rolleyes:

Cz

I'm not expecting him to, but considering that Waspy had already told him to feel free I thought it was kind of stupid for him to complain about it at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackdaw

BooNy, Jackdaw can't be bnothered to even attempt to back up the willfully ignorant, demonstrably false and almost certainly fabricated claims he makes. What makes you think he'd take the time to start a poll....?

:rolleyes:

Cz

The pics of the fake moon landings are widely covered on the net for all to see.

Including the oversized footprint come one legged BIG FOOT ON THE MOON and the print of a sneaker come training shoe?

And the same shot of a flag transversed and used on another "so called" lunar landing and the moon buggy that left no tyre tracks and the astro - nots collecting and then bringing home fake moon rocks - from a certain part of earth! etc etc etc.

Roll ya eyes all ya want Cz - but do try to get with the programme. Thanks.

Edited by Jackdaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

I'm not expecting him to, but considering that Waspy had already told him to feel free I thought it was kind of stupid for him to complain about it at this point.

I also provided him with the results of those previous polls, that didn't stop him from demanding them again. I've asked him, given that truth is based on evidence NOT on popularity polls, what he thinks he'll achieve, but he hasn't answered that simple question.

I don't think he's here to have a grown up debate, but given my previous warning about trolling I would suggest that he starts VERY soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RaptorBites

The pics of the fake moon landings are widely covered on the net for all to see.

Including the oversized footprint come one legged BIG FOOT ON THE MOON and the print of a sneaker come training shoe?

And the same shot of a flag transversed and used on another "so called" lunar landing and the moon buggy that left no tyre tracks and the astro - nots collecting and then bringing home fake moon rocks - from a certain part of earth! etc etc etc.

Roll ya eyes all ya want Cz - but do try to get with the programme. Thanks.

Post pictures including soruce.

I do not think it is our job to search the net trying to locate the pictures you claim prove your point the moon landings were faked.

I know I am starting to sound like a broken record seeing as you have been told countless of times to provide evidence. If you have nothing constructive to add to your argument then I suggest you move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID
'Jackdaw' timestamp='1336433719' post='4287324']

the oversized footprint come one legged BIG FOOT ON THE MOON and the print of a sneaker come training shoe?

Your famed footprint issue was convered already, but here:

Schmitt_Overshoe_NASM2009RK_1.jpg

This is exactly what made the famed footprints on the Moon. An AL7 overshoe, this one in fact being worn on the Moon by Jack Schmitt on Apollo 17 in December 1972.

It was a opretty simple and straight forward answer...just like this one. No mystery about the footprint. Big treads; soft, compressible adherant soil; foot print.

And the same shot of a flag transversed and used on another "so called" lunar landing

What's a "transversed" flag???

Show us.

and the moon buggy that left no tyre tracks

18576.jpg

Where was on of those "buggy" things that left no tire tracks??

Just curious, as titanium chevron treadles left distinctive tracks...all over the place

and the astro - nots collecting and then bringing home fake moon rocks - from a certain part of earth! etc etc etc.

Roll ya eyes all ya want Cz - but do try to get with the programme. Thanks.

Get with the program?

:-*

Yea.

Along those lines, start showing what your being asked to show, and---

--Prove those fake moon rocks..."from a certain part of earth ( :clap: ).

There's too much work for you to do...too much study and homework, for you to be wasting so much time posting silliness... :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

Thanks a lot man, I was getting a little worried there.

Ah Seand, there's so much silliness in that film it's utterly dumbfounding.

One thing is easy:

If you see the name Bart Sibrel behind a film, it's definitely a hack job, filled with outright lies, and utter fabrications.

:tu:

Thanks a lot man, I was getting a little worried there.

Ah Seand, there's so much silliness in that film it's utterly dumbfounding.

One thing is easy:

If you see the name Bart Sibrel behind a film, it's definitely a hack job, filled with outright lies, and utter fabrications.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

The pics of the fake moon landings are widely covered on the net for all to see.

Including the oversized footprint come one legged BIG FOOT ON THE MOON and the print of a sneaker come training shoe?

And the same shot of a flag transversed and used on another "so called" lunar landing and the moon buggy that left no tyre tracks and the astro - nots collecting and then bringing home fake moon rocks - from a certain part of earth! etc etc etc.

Roll ya eyes all ya want Cz - but do try to get with the programme. Thanks.

Post your evidence.

Until you do that, you are just flapping your fingers and saying nothing at all.

Ball's in your court, Jackdaw, where its always been. Support your claims with actual evidence or retract them.

That is the programme we're currently following.

ETA...

Saru has posted a FAQ regarding providing sources. Here are some relevant excerpts from it:

This FAQ is aimed at providing clarification on a few common questions on the topic of providing sources in posts.

Do I have to post sources when I present information in a post?

We do not have a specific requirement for members to provide source links to relevant data when making a claim or presenting factual statements in their postshowever it is often a very good idea to do so whenever you can. If there are specific facts you are relying on in a discussion to support your argument and the provision of a source is possible then being able to provide one to back up those facts helps you to solidify your position and will go a long way to convincing others that your argument has merit. Obviously there are many cases where it isn't possible or practical to provide a source but where it is and where one is warranted then its a good idea to do so.

Why should I post a source - its up to everyone else to do research and validate what i'm saying

No it isn't, if you are making a claim that requires validation and you are able to provide it then it is generally up to you to do so; you are making the claim and therefore you need to back it up with sources if you want it to be taken seriously. Again while there is no strict enforcement of this if you are looking to convince others that your point is correct but are telling others that they will need to look up the facts themselves or to "do their homework" then you are unlikely to elicit much support.

I've been asked to provide a source, do I have to ?

If you are putting forward an argument, a source has been requested and it is possible to provide one then while not compulsary it will substantially harm your position and likely render your argument void if you deliberately refuse to provide one. If you are unable to provide a source when one has been requested it is good practice to respond by explaining the reason behind that.

Emphasis added, obviously...

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

I also provided him with the results of those previous polls, that didn't stop him from demanding them again. I've asked him, given that truth is based on evidence NOT on popularity polls, what he thinks he'll achieve, but he hasn't answered that simple question.

There's also this from last month:

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Hmmm? 2006 polls aint now as mr WD said.

Times and mankind have moved on since I think . . . . and so to has the net :-D

Yes, it has. And judging by the dwindling posts at forums such as this, most folks have woken up to the inanity of the Apollo deniers.

Jackdaw, what do you think of this JREF poll?

http://forums.randi....ad.php?t=233454

It might well reflect a bit on the unbelievably ill-informed and poorly presented drivel of 'fatfreddy' (aka davidc, cosmored, David Cosnette) and his cohort Patrick1000 (aka fattydash, DoctorTea, and many others), but the numbers are pretty comprehensive.. Currently 293 to 1 in favour of Apollo being true.

May I ask what you think of David Cosnette? Patrick1000? Jarrah White?

And can you explain why these Apollo deniers need to use so many sockpuppets?

(I already know the answer to this one, so you needn't put too much effort in..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

And can you explain why these Apollo deniers need to use so many sockpuppets?

(I already know the answer to this one, so you needn't put too much effort in..)

Oh I think you can rest assured that Jackdaw will put virtually no effort into it whatsoever.... not really his style, you see....

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rambaldi

Hmmm? 2006 polls aint now as mr WD said.

Times and mankind have moved on since I think . . . . and so to has the net :-D

Your original comparison were the 60s, 2006 is close enough.

But it's true, mankind has moved on, just look at the remaining Moonhoaxers.

Just look at those who still hang on to the subject:

- Mr Sockpuppet fattydash

- Mr. Obsessed with JayUtah FatFreddy

- turbonium who's spouting the same long debunked nonsense since Bush was President

and a few others who appear to be more interested in being annoying than convincing anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackdaw

Point taken

However not wishing to be banned - Again! - from posting on UM and being accused of TROLLING which is a phrase I am unfamiliar with?. . . . . I am now more conservative with my replies.

Like I said a few moons ago I quickly realised who has the "CON" on this thread?

By the by Mid - It was Ed Harris in the Apollo film?

More recently Mr WD hints that I need to grow up?

And refers to me as "HE"???

End of debate me thinks.

But it was fun :-D

ps. in my day a troll hid under a bridge

Edited by Jackdaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Point taken

However not wishing to be banned - Again! - from posting on UM and being accused of TROLLING which is a phrase I am unfamiliar with?. . . . . I am now more conservative with my replies.

And yet with all your concern over being labeled a "troll" again, you seem to prefer to not provide evidence to back up your claims and prefer to insist that people do the research for you...

In other words, you're being a troll in an effort to not be viewed as a troll... :huh:

I'm trying REAL hard to see the logic behind that.

More recently Mr WD hints that I need to grow up?

And refers to me as "HE"???

In fairness, you haven't indicated your gender in your profile, and while it may not be a fair assumption to make, it is typical to assume that a poster is male first, rather than female, especially when one has a particularly male-sounding handle such as yours.

Now, all that said, and seeing as you have decided not to let us know if you're a "he" or "she", I'm perfectly happy to refer to you as "it". I'm sure others will follow suit...

End of debate me thinks.

But it was fun :-D

"End" of debate?

I wasn't aware that one had actually even started...

Usually a debate on this topic usually begins with those who believe in the Hoax presenting their evidence for their positions.

All you've done is declare your opinion, make some wild claims about evidence that allegedly exists, and then completely, flatly refuse to support your opinion or provide the evidence, thereby invalidating your entire line of discussion.

Not really a debate, more like a seagull pooping randomly on this topic...

ps. in my day a troll hid under a bridge

Yes, well, these days they tend to hang out on Internet forums, make wild claims about something that they then prove they know little to nothing about, ignore requests to support those claims, then declare the debate at an end before leaving, voluntarily or otherwise.

Cz

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

Like I said a few moons ago I quickly realised who has the "CON" on this thread?

Who? I wasn't aware that anyonwe had the con here.

]By the by Mid - It was Ed Harris in the Apollo film?

Are you asking me? Ed's not here, last I checked...

More recently Mr WD hints that I need to grow up?

And refers to me as "HE"???

I was wondering if you could slow down and employ a sntax that could be clearly understood.

You could simply state that you're a she rather than be silly about someone referring to you as a "he". I ask, what do you expect with a screen name of JACKDAW ???

End of debate me thinks.

There's never been a debate about this issue. We did it, as we said we did. The world watched, and it's documented more than any event in history. We try to teach how it was done, and many other things that result from the posts of people with no subject matter knowledge. But there's no real debating that can be done concerning the Moon hoax. It's a construct of people with profound lack of knowledge, distrust of authority, and in many cases, a blessedly vivid imagination that has been wastefully employed on this topic rather than something worthy of such a gift.

Many have tried to debate from the weak side (HB side). None have succeeded, and quite a few were forced to take their ignorance elsewhere (behavior sometimes suffers for some folks when they're backed into a corner and realize they've been defeated).

We've asked you for questions. You haven't really 'gotten with the program'. That would be fun. Learning something is alot of fun.

Not much matches the joy of watching someone know something they never knew before.

That's yours right here, if you want it.

But somehow, I rather doubt you're inclined to go for that. Pity. :no:

:td:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

I seriously doubt the moon actually exists. It is just an optical illusion, like a desert mirage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

urban myth, pencils were not used because of graphite dust and also they did not want pencil sharpenings floating around, neither did nasa spend millions developing a 'space pen' they simply used a ballpoiint

A little historical information:

Pencils were used originally on manned spaceflights.. The idea of creating a pen that could be used in microgravity conditions wasn't NASA's, and NASA spent no koney on the effort to develop that pen.

The Fisher AG-7 was developed by the Fisher Pen Company and cost the company 2 million dollars to develop the specially formulated ink, the pressurized cartridge, and the pen casing itself.

A very innovative piece of engineering that was eaten up when it was offered to NASA. NASA has issued that pen, or another model of the same ink formulation and construction, to every manned spaceflight astronauts since Apollo 8 in October of 1968.

The pen cost NASA nothing to develop. It was a testimony to what private industry can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

MID I think you are seriously over estimating the population of the world if you think that 6.95 billion people are 15%

I think you seriously failed to read what I said. I cited ~ 1 billion as the figure,

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

Stanley Kubrick never got close to Hollywood. He left the United States for England in 1962.

@001 was shot in England between 1964 and 1968.

Kubrick had nothing to do with Hollywood. I often wonder how his name came up associated with this silliness and with Hollywood...?

:td:

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conrad Clough

this is what you posted:

...meaning that there are about 6.95 billion non-Americans who believe this stuff too!

why did you drag this over into a different thread?

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.