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 -

Probe to photograph Apollo landing sites


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

MID, I can plainly see that you have been educated very well by NASA. Let me ask you this, do you still believe only one bullet was pumped into JFK and the Governor of Texas?

No.

But what does that have to do with anything in this thread?

Its strange that you should feel confident mentioning Richard Hoaglands name. Judging by your lack of knowledge, you shouldn't feel privileged to even mention his name.

I don't feel privileged in the least discussing Hoagland. He's not worth commenting on too much, and has been thrashed effectively far too much as it is.

More importantly, it seems rather odd that you say it would be wise of me to not debate with the likes of royalty such as yourself. You operate in a very narrow field of knowledge, and I would tear you to shreds in a debate. All you know are lies as spoon fed to you from NASA.

Let me remind you that it was YOU who said the following:

"...i really don't wish to argue with all the (know it alls) here."

I merely thought that was wise of you, and agreed. Your tone in delivering your outrageous claims was a little over-the-top.

And I say this not out of anger, but rather as a way of saying I have stepped onto the field. If you really fancy yourself as the GOD ALMIGHTY authority.........................Put up you dukes...............you might actually learn something.

"GOD ALMIGHTY authority, huh? :o OK great...

You, who say---

I do know for certain that none of the footage and photo's were recorded in the locations that it was said to have been...

and...

...it was impossible for the landers to land in the sea's. This was obvious when our first Ranger craft took photos. It was abundantly clear when our first Apollo missions flew over the surface and photographed the Seas.

...are now stepping up to the plate, huh?

Well, this is simple.

PROVE IT.

And be advised that we don't have any obligation here...you have it all. You're making the ridiculous accusations, stating untenable things. You have the responsibility to prove it.

You don't even have to argue.

Simply show your proof...

But wait, you also said:

I wont get into what the seas are. It would be over the heads of even the best...

A classic drive-by copout.

I don't think you have any intention of stepping onto the field.

But if you do, be advised that the ball's 100% in your court, and if you dump the typical CT crap on us that we have to prove something that's counter to your contentions because your case is so weak, be prepared to be nailed to the wall on it.

MODERATORS........if this is too point blank and borders on insulting, please let me know. I have been warned that this members agenda is to p*** people off as to where they get themselves in a tissy and ultimately get banned.

Nice touch TALM.

This members agenda is, and has been to provide education on space related matters.

Anyone who's been banned from this site has accomplished the task on their own, and their fate was obvious and self-induced.

As the member to whom you are referring I can say this:

What you've said is not too point-blank, nor is it insulting.

The attitude you illustrate is typical.

But you pose a challenge to yourself, and thus you are compelled to do what you must...prove your contentions.

We'll sit by and wait.

But I might suggest not being too all-fired high and mighty about it. Making definitive declarations about something that has no substance to it is generally a one way ticket to ruin. It would likely be more beneficial for you, to ask questions about the doubts you have, rather than issuing challenges and making declarations without substance. It's easier to learn that way, because there are plenty of people who are knowledgeable and can provide you with information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • MID

    15

  • TALM

    7

  • HerNibs

    2

  • jbondo

    2

Top Posters In This Topic

What you got to love more is when some one rattles off what they have been spoon fed and closes their eyes to what is real.

Gee Golly, I bet if I rattle off cool names I would sound credible also. Please rattle off some more. I am impressed. :tu:

Why don't you rattle off some proof?

Illustrating your lack of comprehension about "fancy names" like iron, titanium rich flood basalts, oxidation and hydration isn't winning you any points, nor is it impressing me...

Your proof now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive always been impressed with the Moon Buggy hoax. Lets take the story line from NASA that the Astronauts were highly trained people who know the importance of not abusing vital equipment. I have seen the fake footage of them hot rodding and kicking up sand.

It's a little hard to "hot rod" at about 5 MPH.

Keep in mind this is the same piece of equipment that allegedly was supposed to carry out vital missions.

Tell me about those "vital missions". In fact, tell me about the LRV and what its purpose was.

Do you think for one instant these outstanding men well versed in machinery would hot rod the Buggy knowing full well that if it broke down on them a long ways from the lander they would most likely die?

Did you know that the crews were never in a position where they couldn't get back to the LM on foot? Did you think that the lunar EVA plans were designed to put them in a position to be permanently stranded too far away from the LM?

C'mon.

Do you think for one instant that Mission Control would let them do this? The answer is (no) for both questions, but yet, they can be seen abusing this delicate piece of machinery in NASA supplied footage of the pretend landings.

No, Mission Control would not allow them to abuse the equipment, and the crews didn't abuse the equipment. Once, during Apollo 16 or 17 I beleive, the lunar crew was going down hill and got them selves up to around 9-10 MPH, and they were told to back it off a bit. Other than that, no abuse ever took place, and even that wasn't abuse, it was a safety concern for the folks in the MOCR.

I know for a fact that we went to the Moon. What the real missions were still is a mystery to me.

So do I know it for a fact. And there's no mystery about what the missions were.

You said we couldn't land in the "seas", and made some snide remarks about my descriptions of what the lunar mare were.

Again...explain what your beliefs are here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a little hard to "hot rod" at about 5 MPH.

Tell me about those "vital missions". In fact, tell me about the LRV and what its purpose was.

Did you know that the crews were never in a position where they couldn't get back to the LM on foot? Did you think that the lunar EVA plans were designed to put them in a position to be permanently stranded too far away from the LM?

C'mon.

No, Mission Control would not allow them to abuse the equipment, and the crews didn't abuse the equipment. Once, during Apollo 16 or 17 I beleive, the lunar crew was going down hill and got them selves up to around 9-10 MPH, and they were told to back it off a bit. Other than that, no abuse ever took place, and even that wasn't abuse, it was a safety concern for the folks in the MOCR.

So do I know it for a fact. And there's no mystery about what the missions were.

You said we couldn't land in the "seas", and made some snide remarks about my descriptions of what the lunar mare were.

Again...explain what your beliefs are here.

Well, all kidding aside for now, you have some valid observations, and I apologize for being rude. I must chew this over and think of what kind of hole I have dug myself into. I could knock your socks off in person with my research but being how I must convince here and now, I really have to evaluate if I should back down or not. I could release my studies here for what purpose I don't know other than to prove you wrong, but what would be the purpose of it in the long run? Being how I must protect the marketability of what I have, I really see no choice but to back down.

So therefor, I concede in this debate and cowardly walk away without showing evidence of what I know to be fact (just like you predicted).

So you can put another notch in your victory log (for now).

It hurts so, but I must leave it where it is. Me making my claims, but unable to tip my hand (for now).

Best wishes to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MID, I can plainly see that you have been educated very well by NASA. Let me ask you this, do you still believe only one bullet was pumped into JFK and the Governor of Texas? Is it possible the US government lied about that? Its strange that you should feel confident mentioning Richard Hoaglands name. Judging by your lack of knowledge, you shouldn't feel privileged to even mention his name. More importantly, it seems rather odd that you say it would be wise of me to not debate with the likes of royalty such as yourself. You operate in a very narrow field of knowledge, and I would tear you to shreds in a debate. All you know are lies as spoon fed to you from NASA.

And I say this not out of anger, but rather as a way of saying I have stepped onto the field. If you really fancy yourself as the GOD ALMIGHTY authority.........................Put up you dukes...............you might actually learn something.

MODERATORS........if this is too point blank and borders on insulting, please let me know. I have been warned that this members agenda is to p*** people off as to where they get themselves in a tissy and ultimately get banned.

Wow............just..............wow. Enjoy your Coco-Puffs. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, all kidding aside for now, you have some valid observations, and I apologize for being rude.

No apologies necessary.

I must chew this over and think of what kind of hole I have dug myself into. I could knock your socks off in person with my research but being how I must convince here and now, I really have to evaluate if I should back down or not. I could release my studies here for what purpose I don't know other than to prove you wrong, but what would be the purpose of it in the long run? Being how I must protect the marketability of what I have, I really see no choice but to back down.

Interesting. And confusing. You have research. Thus, it would seem you have the proof we ask for, and yet, "proving me wrong" wouldn't satisfy you, and you question the purpose of doing so?

If you were able to prove me wrong, then you'd have the vindication of your ideas. You'd prove yourself right. I should think that this alone would satisfy you, based on what you've said to date. What other purpose could there be?

Marketability? I don't think that has anything to do with your dilemma. Bart Sibrel had marketability...probably still does to an extent, despite the fact that he's failed to actually prove a single thing he's ever marketed for public consumption. And Hoagland---a guy who's been shown to be a crackpot numerous times--he's still got marketability.

I think you're simply contemplating the hole you've dug.

So therefor, I concede in this debate and cowardly walk away without showing evidence of what I know to be fact (just like you predicted).

There hasn't actually been any debate or discussion of substance. Just unsubstantiated claims.

So you can put another notch in your victory log (for now).

Victory is counted only as educating people and seeing it take. That certainly hasn't even begun to happen here.

It hurts so, but I must leave it where it is. Me making my claims, but unable to tip my hand (for now).

Well...when you feel you can tip your hand, please feel free to discuss your claims, and substantiate them with something.

Best wishes to you.

Same to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NASA really shouldn't be bothered with it.

Nibs

Oh they're not, Nibs.

It's not a concern of NASA's, and never has been.

They've got many more important things on their plate than dealing with silliness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buggy knowing full well that if it broke down on them a long ways from the lander they would most likely die? Do you think for one instant that Mission Control would let them do this?

They always drove as far as their air tanks would allow them to walk back, then drove back towards the lander and completed missions on the way. So the chance of breaking down far away was smaller because they'd order mission prorities from furthers to closest. That way if they broke down at the very start of the drive, they would have enough air to walk all the way back.

Seriously, anymore questions? i'm here all week LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's a great conspiracy theory to read both sides of, anyways. I've always enjoyed the great 'did we land on the moon' debate.

There's a few satellites, is there not, taking pics of the moon? I thought I just read abt one from Japan...or was that China? I dunno. Anyhow, I think pics from maybe one of those countries, other than from the USA, would have more of an impact with the CTers. If there was no moon landing, wouldn't another country jump all over the chance to prove it? If there was a moon landing and another country took the pics, I think they would probably be viewed as more legitimate.

Edited by rassy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's a great conspiracy theory to read both sides of, anyways. I've always enjoyed the great 'did we land on the moon' debate.

There's a few satellites, is there not, taking pics of the moon? I thought I just read abt one from Japan...or was that China? I dunno. Anyhow, I think pics from maybe one of those countries, other than from the USA, would have more of an impact with the CTers. If there was no moon landing, wouldn't another country jump all over the chance to prove it? If there was a moon landing and another country took the pics, I think they would probably be viewed as more legitimate.

JAXA has just completed a fantastic lunar imaging mission, and the U.S. currently has the LRO on orbit, which may image the areas with 1 meter resolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no doubts among the scientifically literate, jbondo.

NASA is not addressing the issue with LRO. Nor are they proving anything (there is no "issue" regarding the lunar landings of the past--they happened). They may be able to image all of the Apollo landing sites with high resolution imagery due to LROs polar orbit, and that'll be great if possible (although those images will do nothing to quell the nonsense about hoaxes that's spread about on forums like this one...).

These images will be in the category of someone who flies over the Capitol and takes a picture of it, because it's lovely and interesting and historically significant.

These sites are national historical treasures. It'll be interesting to see what sort of resolution we can obtain of these places...but that's all.

What they are doing and what is perceived are two different things. Of course you and I read and understand the entire report. However, the average Joe will only see what he wants to see and the word that will stand out to him is "proof". You and I both know this will be twisted into a bigger conspiracy and that's the point I was trying to convey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they are doing and what is perceived are two different things. Of course you and I read and understand the entire report. However, the average Joe will only see what he wants to see and the word that will stand out to him is "proof". You and I both know this will be twisted into a bigger conspiracy and that's the point I was trying to convey.

Well, you're right, as unfortunate as that may be...

It's a matter of knowledge in these areas. Knowing eliminates the CT. Not knowing allows him or her to spew nonsense.

You can reach some, and others, you can't. It's rather a pity, as so few are actually possessed of scientific literacy these days. We try to educate, but it sure seems that some people would rather cling to intellectual laziness than take the time to acquire knowledge...

:cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Guys, all I can say is this:

If you are naive enough to believe everything NASA tells you then you have not done your research and don't have much to add to any debate or conversation on this subject. The fact of the matter is that NASA is simply a PR project. The real space projects go on behind closed doors. Is it really impossible to imagine that humans have recovered UFO's, and then piloted them? Is it really an impossibility that humans have already been to Mars? I imagine a lot of people will ridicule me, but I don't care. I have opened my mind and so should all of you. I don't claim to know if the moon-landing was faked, it probably did happen. However, I'm fairly convinced that most of the pictures are heavily edited or even a complete fallacy.

If you want to continue being 'spoon-fed' from an organization that has a very dark and mysterious history, go ahead, you're only fooling yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I for one am glad that they will be taking these pictures. It adds to a mission that I already think is wrong so this justs adds to the story.

It should be interesting to wait and see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
The scientists don't say mention it because photos wouldn't offer them a virtual goldmine for future research.

What's strange is that you think there's some profound scientific value to on-orbit photographs of places that we've photographed from the surface...in copious detail.

I'm referring to the scientific value in close-up images of the sites, after 40 years in the lunar environment, exposed to micrometoerites, etc.

Aren't they trying to study the effects of long-term lunar stays?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm referring to the scientific value in close-up images of the sites, after 40 years in the lunar environment, exposed to micrometoerites, etc.

Aren't they trying to study the effects of long-term lunar stays?

Actually, LRO is examining potential polar landing sites in extraordinary detail.

The resolution required for examining such effects as you mention with any appreciable detail won't be possible, even when LRO descends to it's low orbit. We would need to be right up on the stuff to get that sort of data (looking at things as if you were standing there with a magnifying glass).

These images are taken primarly as an adjunct to the LROs primary mission, and are possible because of it's very polar orbit. They are of historical interest, and they're right along the way at various times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, all I can say is this:

If you are naive enough to believe everything NASA tells you then you have not done your research and don't have much to add to any debate or conversation on this subject. The fact of the matter is that NASA is simply a PR project. The real space projects go on behind closed doors.

An interesting belief, but sans substantiation, I don't suppose it makes to much sense to continue pursuing that line of thought.

Is it really impossible to imagine that humans have recovered UFO's, and then piloted them?

No. It's not impossible to imagine this.

No one's talking about possibilities. People talk about the fact that it is happening, and that's a problem.

Is it really an impossibility that humans have already been to Mars?

Actually it is, for all intents and purposes, an impossibility.

I imagine a lot of people will ridicule me, but I don't care. I have opened my mind and so should all of you. I don't claim to know if the moon-landing was faked, it probably did happen. However, I'm fairly convinced that most of the pictures are heavily edited or even a complete fallacy.

That is one of the most interesting twists to the whole Moon hoax thing I've seen. It's been stated a couple of times, and each time, without substantiation of basis for the position.

The photographic record of Apollo has been fleshed out at great length, and anyone with basic photographic knowledge fully realizes that there is absolutely nothing incorrect or untoward in any of the lunar surface photos. In fact, they show precisely the same 2 dimension representations of three dimensional scenes that occur right here on Earth...

If you want to continue being 'spoon-fed' from an organization that has a very dark and mysterious history, go ahead, you're only fooling yourself.

And that "dark and mystyerious history" is what now???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It adds to a mission that I already think is wrong so this justs adds to the story.

What exactly does that mean?

...the mission is wrong and the photos add to the story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh looky here, This thread seems to have turned into a nasa bashing thread and the moon hoax again,;

Wasnt anybody alive when apollo 11 landed on the moon on live tv?? I mean comon the entire world was watching it all unfold as it happened,

Back on tyopic I think its great there going to take some cool shots while they are there,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.