Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
Followers 15

# [Merged] Did we land on the moon?

## 2,594 posts in this topic

U

The thing is..... If you've got a powerful enough telescope, you can actually (or so I've been told/learned) that you can see foot prints left by astronauts on the surface.

Whilst I agree with your sentiments I'm afraid you won't be taken very seriously with an opening line like that. In fact it is usually the less informed hoax believers that bring telescopes into the argument, claiming that because no terrestrial telescope has photographed Apollo hardware on the moon this is proof of fakery.

I've been doing some calculations. An Apollo over boot was around 33 cm in length. The average distance to the moon is 384,400 km. If I've got my trigonometry right, that means from the Earth a telescope would need an angular resolution of 0.001 seconds of arc to be able to see a lunar foot print. The largest single telescope mirrors belong to the Keck I & Keck II telescopes Their mirrors are each 10m across. Even a 10m mirror can only manage a theoretical angular resolution of 0.01 seconds of arc, 10 times too little to see yhe footprints.

But it gets worse, Earth has an atmosphere which limits the resolution which can actually be resolved (hence my emphasis on the word theoretical). In fact no terrestrial telescope can achieve a resolution much better than about 0.4 secs of arc.

In practice, if you had a space telescope with a mirror around a 100m (330 ft) in diameter, in earth orbit then it would just about be able to pick out the footprints.

Of course it would be cheaper to send a smaller telescope to lunar orbit and use that to photograph the Apollo hardware... which is exactly what NASA have done. The hoax believers, of course, don't like the images it has returned so they either totally ignore it or claim that its results can't be trusted.

The scientific way is to try and come to a conclusion that fits the available evidence.

The way of blind faith is to try and fit the evidence to an unchanging conclusion.

The hoax believers fit firmly in the second camp.

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

The thing is..... If you've got a powerful enough telescope, you can actually (or so I've been told/learned) that you can see foot prints left by astronauts on the surface. There is no atmosphere, no wind..... Therefore, it's not going to disappear.

Philthy and Waspie have both given you factual information regarding seeing the lunar footprints. Waspie's post has information that should provoke some study for you.

And you're right. There's no wind, no weather, no atmosphere, and those footprints are still right where the men left them (many clear tracks have been imaged by LRO).

.

The technical effects needed to fake the moon landing on Earth would of been highly technical and difficult to do, even if the ability was there. Remember, the spacecraft had less power than a mobile phone....

Not that it matters much, but the spacecraft had less power than a mobile phone?

How much power was that?

Yet people are saying it was possible for the government to silence both actors, scientists, camera crew, sound crew, caters, cleaners, builders... So on and so forth while they built a film set that could mimic the effect of the Moon... on Earth. Sorry folks, I don't think even the might US of A could of done that back then. Sure they could kill everybody off, but that's a lot of people to kill, which means killing their family.. then their friends, then their family and friends... so on so forth.... Paying them off isn't an option either, you'd need A LOT of money to pay them off..... paying off the entire set of people involved? That'd be an enormous cost, which America did not have, since it already spent a huge amount of their national treasure on building spacecraft, fuelling them and everything else involved... How could they then pay off actors, scientists... camera crews. I also accept they could of been lied to, made out that it was for another reason, but they'd of asked questions or at least, 60 years later, to say "Um, now that I think of it, I was asked to create a vacuum on a moon film set.... They said it was for practising moon walks... but now that I think about it, there was a lot of camera crews about and Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were not actually in space... they were on set being told what to act out!"

Yeah... Sorry, it's more fantastical that America faked it than them landing on the moon.Just like it's mathematically improbable than Humans (and all other animals, plant life and cell life) are the only living beings in the entire universe. During 13.75 Billions years, humans are the pinnacle of evolution (or creation). Bit depressing, isn't it?

pretty implausible, just like the idea that a cell phone coul've even lit up the displays on one DSKY aboard the CM or LM.

We went to the Moon, we did it 9 times, and landed on it 6 times.

But I guarantee you, troublehalf...we did that on alot more power than a cell phone battery has...!

Edited by MID

##### Share on other sites

But I guarantee you, troublehalf...we did that on alot more power than a cell phone battery has...!

I'm guessing here, but I suspect that when troublehalf is talking about the power of a cell phone he means computing power, not electrical.

##### Share on other sites

BEtter listen to Mid, He knows Troublehalf ! And I for one know that the little pink bunny on board of all our Missions had Giga watts ! to spare !

Except for 13 that one was a close call !

##### Share on other sites

I'm guessing here, but I suspect that when troublehalf is talking about the power of a cell phone he means computing power, not electrical.

You might be right Waspie.

Hopefully, he'll come back and clarify his statement on that...

##### Share on other sites

Avoiding a simple, direct question again Turbs? Here's a summary of the recent requests for you to provide evidence that you've ignored.

1. For the umpteenth time, did you have any evidence supporting your assertion that the suit couldn't bend at the knee as witnessed, or not?

2. I'm asking you to provide evidence supporting your assertion. All this tap-dancing around the issue proves one thing: you don't have any. If you did, you'd have presented it weeks ago. You're simply trying to bog the discussion down in a mire of obfuscation, red herrings, goal-post shifting and burden-of-proof avoidance.

Which is why I cut to the chase in my earlier post, so that we could rationally and objectively examine your evidence. Well, where is it? I keep asking, and you keep avoiding.

Why? Is it because you have no evidence? If so, just admit it. Is it because the evidence is very poor and doesn't stand up to scrutiny? Nothing you've presented on this issue has so far. All you have is a tenuous argument where you conflate "knee flexion" with overall suit mobility. Apart from that, tumbleweed.

3. All of this is just froth and bubble around the main point. The point that you keep avoiding. Your evidence please. Can you present it now, if you have any? If not just say so.

4. I suspect no-one really cares any more Turbs. You were given ample opportunity and encouragement to take the intellectually honest route (either providing evidence, or withdrawing the claim), and chose to do neither. Actions speak louder than words. Hey ho.

I'll ask again. The unimpeachable evidence you have supporting your claim re the Apollo spacesuit. Does it exist? If so, where is it?

You have to get some, first of all. You have no case without it.

Why so easy to find the relevant documents for old prototypes, but nothing (as yet, anyway) on the world-famous Apollo suit?

I'm still waiting for documents.....

You know, the evidence that proves this is impossible?

You must be joking here, right?

##### Share on other sites

I'd just like to PUBLICLY point out, rather than via mod.. what an unbelievable WASTE of space posts like that one from Turbonium are. He (again) brought absolutely nothing to the debate, and simply reposted content (ironically proving him wrong) presumably simply to annoy people and waste bandwidth.

Personally, I think it is probably best to just ignore that sort of nonsense non-debate. The space suit 'issue' was a non-starter from the first post...

##### Share on other sites

You want the actual issue...AGAIN?

What you missed (while refusing to understand that the Apollo suits performed exactly as they were designed, and apparently seeking to get me in grief for being bad (i.e, trying to keep you on the real track here--- ( what you're supposed to be doing) and whining about me supposedly treating you badly, and arguing with mods)--- is what everyone here knows (to the point of boredom I suspect):

You missed SHOWING ANY PROOF OF YOUR CONTENTION(S):

A.) That the Apollo Program was faked( the only thing you need to do here).

B.) Most recently, that the AL7 didn't function as it did, (and I don't know why you're on that nonsense. It's already been handled nicely).

You pick things that can't be argued successfully, and belabor them to death.

Let me re-state: The suits worked (very well), we went to the Moon and landed there six times.

Prove we didn't (and you want me to go elsewhere???)

It's basic logic...

Apollo moon landings - a hoax or not a hoax.

So we examine the knee flexion issue (and many others) to try and find out.

Knee flexion, as seen in those video clips, was either possible or impossible for astronauts to do, while on the moon. If the evidence shows it can be done, then we can drop it. But if the evidence shows it cannot be done, it is proof of a hoax.

So if you have anything at all...please post it...

##### Share on other sites

It Sure was, Sky.

Just as all of the "arguments" Turb has put forth were so settled; Swiftly and definitively.

But I suppose if you can obstinately argue-- in the face of the obvious facts to the contrary--that the LM couldn't have landed on the Moon because it was never tested , you certainly have no qualms about continuing to argue against the obvious effectiveness and mobility of the Apollo suit!

So now you're making up arguments for me? Who needs to quote their actual words, when you can invent it for them!!

I'm still waiting for documents on the spacesuit, your side appears to have none, Just a failed argument with documentation of prototype suits.

You need a bit more than that, clearly.

##### Share on other sites

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

The question should be: Do you know why you have been unable to provide evidence of moon mission hoaxes?

##### Share on other sites

It's basic logic...

Apollo moon landings - a hoax or not a hoax.

A very simple question to answer. Tons of evidence has already been provided proving the moon landings were not hoaxed, while on the other hand, you have failed to provide a single ounce of evidence that proved the moon landings were hoaxed.

##### Share on other sites

So now you're making up arguments for me? Who needs to quote their actual words, when you can invent it for them!!

It's the only possible tactic when you lost your argument, and you did that long ago.

As if you don't remember the idea that the LM couldn't have landed on the Moon because it was never tested???

I suppose you don't remember the stage hands and the TV monitors and the obvious human arms that only you were able to see in the ill-fated Apollo 12 EVA video?

Of course you do. You remember it all, as you were the originator.

But this strategy of yours (using your own dead falacies as a device to keep a dead argument going) is worn out, and utterly boring.However, I'm filled with a little hope when you say I invented something you said.

Why?

Because, it shows me that there may be some hope for you, as you must've realized that what you actually did say, and have said in the past about these various issues, is almost impossible to believe for you! If it's getting difficult for you to actually believe you said something herein, there's a glimmer of hope.

Keep working it.

I'm still waiting for documents on the spacesuit, your side appears to have none, Just a failed argument with documentation of prototype suits.

Manuals are available, but...

Each is about 150 pages of trchnical jibberish which, as you've shown in the past, isn't your forte.

You obviously haven't lerned anything, and still, you're on the suit issue! An issue completely dismissable now.

It worked, ans with the exception of some scratched visors, almost 100% perfectly.

The flexion is evidenced in lunar surface films and on others you've been shown.

But you wnt to claim the suit couldn't have worked?

OK, that's just another aspect of the burden you have, and of which you've never done anything about save ignore it, and try to divert the thread into irrelevancies.

Prove the suit didn't work as advertised, and demonstrated.

And, PROVE WE DIDN'T GO TO THE MOON.

I know you've been asked hundreds of times, and I know you won't ever even attempt it.

But on the slim outside chance that you actually do post something non-redundant--something that might be a spark for some knowledge to be provided you...we ask.

.

##### Share on other sites

It's basic logic...

Apollo moon landings - a hoax or not a hoax.

Not a hoax, obviously.

So we examine the knee flexion issue (and many others) to try and find out.

Knee flexion, as seen in those video clips, was either possible or impossible for astronauts to do, while on the moon. If the evidence shows it can be done, then we can drop it. But if the evidence shows it cannot be done, it is proof of a hoax.

No, it's you. "We" doesn't exist here anymore. It's all you.

Fortunately, the suit did maneuver adequately to perform as it did, many times on the lunar surface. We watched it do so. If it didn't flex to a fairly subtantial degeree, no one would've egressed the LM! Knees had to bend alot to allow people to back out the hatch.

with a PLSS on (around 140-150 degrees flexion), and of course, this is photographically documented many times. It also had to be flexible to allow our Charlie Duke and Jack Schmitt to entertain us on live TV as they both set records for falling down and getting back up on the lunar surface.

We can drop it, as it should've been dropped long ago.

The whole issue in fact. Unless you really think you can satisfy your burden of proof.

if you have anything at all...please post it...

##### Share on other sites

GUYS (and Gals)!

Use the ignore button. It clears the dross and you can spend your time on worthwhile endeavours like educating people.

2 people like this

##### Share on other sites

I agree and I was amazed at the size of the Saturn rocket as it launched off the pad, and as I look back, I am still amazed. I remember an accident where the Soviet Union built a rocket and the thing blew up killing many of its engineers and technicians.

It is difficult to imagine that there are people who actually think that the United States spent billions of dollars to concoct moon hoax missions, which would have been easy to reveal and no guarantee that everyone would have kept their mouths shut.

That little boom was to welcome me into the world! I was born that day.

Can you imagine anyone being stupid enough to use welding equipment around a fully fueled rocket? Apparently one did not have to be particularly bright to be a General officer in Russia at the time....oooops

##### Share on other sites

That little boom was to welcome me into the world! I was born that day.

Can you imagine anyone being stupid enough to use welding equipment around a fully fueled rocket? Apparently one did not have to be particularly bright to be a General officer in Russia at the time....oooops

Marshall Nedelin's actions were the result of intense political pressure, not stupidity. No welding was involved, the accident was caused by the accidental ignition of the 2nd stage.

##### Share on other sites

I'd just like to PUBLICLY point out, rather than via mod.. what an unbelievable WASTE of space posts like that one from Turbonium are. He (again) brought absolutely nothing to the debate, and simply reposted content (ironically proving him wrong) presumably simply to annoy people and waste bandwidth.

Personally, I think it is probably best to just ignore that sort of nonsense non-debate. The space suit 'issue' was a non-starter from the first post...

I agree. He's shown in recent months he's incapable of debating in good faith. The latest debacle over the spacesuit (non-)issue is further proof of that. I've suspected for a long time that he doesn't even believe his own arguments, and is only interested in wearing people down, presumably so he can claim some kind of victory. I'm sorely tempted to follow Obviousman's advice and stick him on ignore.

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

I agree. He's shown in recent months he's incapable of debating in good faith. The latest debacle over the spacesuit (non-)issue is further proof of that. I've suspected for a long time that he doesn't even believe his own arguments, and is only interested in wearing people down, presumably so he can claim some kind of victory. I'm sorely tempted to follow Obviousman's advice and stick him on ignore.

If it's any consolation, your efforts have been noted and admired. The spacesuit debate was over long ago thanks to several people, and every possible angle the argument could take has been dealt with thanks primarily to your contributions. Anyone seeking information about this will now be able to find it.

Cheers.

1 person likes this

##### Share on other sites

Marshall Nedelin's actions were the result of intense political pressure, not stupidity. No welding was involved, the accident was caused by the accidental ignition of the 2nd stage.

I'd advance the opinion that one could reasonably attribute any or all of the Soviet catastrophies/failures during those years to intense political pressure.

I've often said that when a communist nation's government / military is in functional control of something like this, and calling the shots...far too often orders don't take into consideration complexity or technical issues, and, disaster results. That's really the sole reason why we won the race to the Moon. It had nothing to do with the Soviets not being capable. It had to do with government and military pressure to take risks that weren't managed.

##### Share on other sites
How'd Buzz's knees bend that far?

##### Share on other sites

Marshall Nedelin's actions were the result of intense political pressure, not stupidity. No welding was involved, the accident was caused by the accidental ignition of the 2nd stage.

I stand corrected on the welding. I just remembered the problem was caused by an electrical issue and the General in charge deferred from safely defueling the rocket prior to the repair or test. Debatable whether you could call that stupid or not, I think. But yes, I'm sure he did have intense pressure being applied during that time. Anyway... his mistake was a monumental one and cost the Russians dearly in talent.

Edited by and then

##### Share on other sites

I stand corrected on the welding. I just remembered the problem was caused by an electrical issue and the General in charge deferred from safely defueling the rocket prior to the repair or test. Debatable whether you could call that stupid or not, I think. But yes, I'm sure he did have intense pressure being applied during that time. Anyway... his mistake was a monumental one and cost the Russians dearly in talent.

They had inadequate leadership. This is illustrated by a General being able to defer de-tanking prior to repairing a vehicle.

We in the U.S. had a slightly different situation, a situation wherein the people who were charged with accomplishing something were also empowered to do it, and totally responsible for doing it.

A launch director in the U.S. would've been 100% in charge of such an operation, and no one could tell him what to decide or how to manage a launch vehicle; not any government official, including the President of the United States. Flight directors were (and are) empowered similarly as pertains to all mission operations.*

* This is why we won the "space race".

Edited by MID

##### Share on other sites

If it's any consolation, your efforts have been noted and admired. The spacesuit debate was over long ago thanks to several people, and every possible angle the argument could take has been dealt with thanks primarily to your contributions. Anyone seeking information about this will now be able to find it.

Cheers.

Thanks for the words of support, booNy. I agree, the 'debate' about the suit, if there ever was one, was over a long, long time ago!

##### Share on other sites

Thanks for the words of support, booNy. I agree, the 'debate' about the suit, if there ever was one, was over a long, long time ago!

Roger that, , posty!

##### Share on other sites

Roger that, , posty!

The real mystery is... why does he persist? Why not show a smidgen of humility and honesty, save face, gain back some long lost credibility, and just concede the issue?

Here's an interesting article on Neil Armstrong's view on the Apollo conspiracy theorists.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2149979/I-know-fly-pick-camera-I-left-Neil-Armstrong-gives-rare-interview-silence-concpiracy-theorists-claim-didnt-walk-moon.html