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 -

Belief in Apollo hoax conspiracy could grow


UM-Bot
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

Never said it was impossible.  I said it seems hard to believe in the context of 1960's technology.  That is all.

 

*sigh*

Hard for you to believe maybe. I ask again - where was the missing link in their technology? What was lacking that meant they couldn't have done it? Or do you concede that they had all the necessary tools to complete the mission?

And again - why do you believe Apollo 12 could have done it just 4 months later?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Aaron2016 said:

Never said it was impossible.  I said it seems hard to believe in the context of 1960's technology.  That is all.

 

Do you understand how many Gemini and Apollo missions there were before the first attempt to land a man on the Moon?  They didn't jusst come up with Apollo 11 and go to the Moon.  Do some homework before coming here and making an abject **** out of yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Merc14 said:

Do you understand how many Gemini and Apollo missions there were before the first attempt to land a man on the Moon?  They didn't jusst come up with Apollo 11 and go to the Moon.  Do some homework before coming here and making an abject **** out of yourself.

And this is why my blood boils when I see stuff like this on a forum. There's no homework, no knowledge of the subject, no appreciation for the work done, the lives taken and the risks made. Its just "don't get it, don't care about getting it".

Drives me nuts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Emma_Acid said:

OK - so what were the technological differences between the first and second steps?

Why could Apollo 12 have done it, but Apollo 11 couldn't have - just four months earlier?

I will let this guy answer.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

I will let this guy answer.

 

 

If it's an argument you stand by, show that you understand what you're arguing and you put it forward. Posting a video shows you understand nothing.

Edit - I just made the mistake of watching the first 30 seconds. Can you actually dissect that video and say why it supports the arguments you've been making?

Edited by Emma_Acid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

And this is why my blood boils when I see stuff like this on a forum. There's no homework, no knowledge of the subject, no appreciation for the work done, the lives taken and the risks made. Its just "don't get it, don't care about getting it".

Drives me nuts.

What irks me the most is the ignorant dismissal of the amazing achievements the men and women of that time period accomplished to reach that ultimate objective of a man on the Moon and there is absolutely no reason for it!   None.  We have had three amazing, award winning movies in the last few years, Hidden numbers, First man and Apollo 11 (that last one was a little harder to see, not on that many screens but well worth it and the last movie I took my brother to see before he passed from cancer) that do an incredible and enjoyable job of showcasing the effort put forth.  No need to dig in and find the info (although he seems to find the woo easily enough).

8 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

If it's an argument you stand by, show that you understand what you're arguing and you put it forward. Posting a video shows you understand nothing.

Edit - I just made the mistake of watching the first 30 seconds. Can you actually dissect that video and say why it supports the arguments you've been making?

You lasted longer than me.  Brilliant, show a YouTube video created by an idiot to prove your idiotic beliefs.

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

If it's an argument you stand by, show that you understand what you're arguing and you put it forward. Posting a video shows you understand nothing.

Edit - I just made the mistake of watching the first 30 seconds. Can you actually dissect that video and say why it supports the arguments you've been making?

Just a general consensus from those who deny the moon landing.  I don't support or endorse any theory.  I prefer to sit comfortably on the fence and observe and comment on both sides without supporting any side.  As Leo Tolstoy once said - "History would be a wonderful thing, if it were only true."

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Merc14 said:

What irks me the most is the ignorant dismissal of the amazing achievements the men and women of that time period accomplished to reach that ultimate objective of a man on the Moon and there is absolutely no reason for it!   None.  We have had three amazing, award winning movies in the last few years, Hidden numbers, First man and Apollo 11 (that last one was a little harder to see, not on that many screens but well worth it and the last movie I took my brother to see before he passed from cancer) that do an incredible and enjoyable job of showcasing the effort put forth.  No need to dig in and find the info (although he seems to find the woo easily enough).

Not seen Hidden Numbers, First Man was amazing though. Sorry to hear about your brother, hope you're ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Emma_Acid said:

Not seen Hidden Numbers, First Man was amazing though. Sorry to hear about your brother, hope you're ok.

I didn't mean to grieve, but thanks for asking, he was a very good man, I just wanted to illustrate what I thought of that movie and recommend it wholly.   My second viewing and you had to drive 45 minutes to see it.   Hidden figures is one I am sure you'd enjoy, I recommend it (Mercury missions) .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

Never said the moon landings were fake.  I just have doubts about the first televised one.  Of course I don't believe the Earth is flat.  I am merely voicing the general opinions that others have in regards to why they believe the moon landings were fake, and I threw in a few hypothesis as to why they believe it did not happen.

 

 

Are you even old enough to have watched the first televised landing?  Or are you referring to replays 30 or 40 years later.

Why don't you voice your own opinions instead of what you THINK are the general opinions that others have.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

Not seen Hidden Numbers, First Man was amazing though. Sorry to hear about your brother, hope you're ok.

OK, stupid me, it was Hidden figures, not Hidden numbers, you have probably seen.  My bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Aaron2016 said:

Just a general consensus from those who deny the moon landing.

Yeah and it's wrong. And here is where the problem lies - you're way too eager to just throw your hands up any time anyone says "oooh conspiracy" and just go with it - without doing any rational thought of your own.

I skipped ahead in that video and he's ranting about how it's "pathetic" that they need blankets after landing. 

Shall I do the legwork you can't be bothered to do?

They need blankets because they've been in space for over 100 days and this has drastic effects on the body. Zero g leads to weird fluid distribution that causes temperature regulation to go completely off kilter. This means when they get back to earth they are highly susceptible to being very cold.

Plus - it was 8am in Khazakstan. According to Nasa on the ground there it was below freezing. 

Can you please start thinking rationally about this and stop p*ssing on a great scientific legacy because some morons on youtube told you to?

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Merc14 said:

OK, stupid me, it was Hidden figures, not Hidden numbers, you have probably seen.  My bad.

I thought it sounded odd, but it's 1am, I have girl-flu and have had a few glasses of bourbon, so not in a fit state to argue. Not about that anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

I thought it sounded odd, but it's 1am, I have girl-flu and have had a few glasses of bourbon, so not in a fit state to argue. Not about that anyway.

Well if you thought it sounded odd then you were right!  :lol:  My apologies, I saw the movie at least three times so no excuse.  If you haven't seen it then please do, great movie, very well done.

Edited by Merc14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Are you even old enough to have watched the first televised landing?  Or are you referring to replays 30 or 40 years later.

Why don't you voice your own opinions instead of what you THINK are the general opinions that others have.

Replays.  I really have little interest in the topic.  I only pick up what other's said and repeat what they say here to see what other's think. e.g.  I overheard a motorcycle gang talking about crazy 9/11 conspiracies and one of them changed the subject to the moon and he was convinced that we have two moons and how the second one is always hidden in the shadow of the closer moon.  I don't believe it or endorse his beliefs, I just throw into the pot what everyone out there thinks.  That is all.

 

Edited by Aaron2016
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

Because I have little interest in the topic.  I only pick up what other's said and repeat what they say here to see what other's think. e.g.  I overheard a motorcycle gang talking about crazy 9/11 conspiracies and one of them changed the subject to the moon and he was convinced that we have two moons and how the second one is always hidden in the shadow of the closer moon.  I don't believe it or endorse his beliefs, I just throw into the pot what everyone out there thinks.  That is all.

 

Why in the hell would you "throw into the pot" something so incredibly ridiculous as "we have two moons and how the second one is always hidden in the shadow of the closer moon" if you don't believe it?   What on earth would possess you to do such a thing?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Why in the hell would you "throw into the pot" something so incredibly ridiculous as "we have two moons and how the second one is always hidden in the shadow of the closer moon" if you don't believe it?   What on earth would possess you to do such a thing?

Stupidity?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Why in the hell would you "throw into the pot" something so incredibly ridiculous as "we have two moons and how the second one is always hidden in the shadow of the closer moon" if you don't believe it?   What on earth would possess you to do such a thing?

Because the heading of this topic is - 'Belief in the Apollo Hoax Conspiracy Could Grow'.  So it is common sense that I would contribute by stating what everyone out there thinks and why they believe it is a hoax.  It would be a pretty pointless topic if those concerns by so many were just ignored or brushed to one side and labelled too stupid to discuss.  All that does is strengthen their suspicions.

e.g  There is a growing number who believe the holocaust is largely exaggerated or entirely fake.  I don't have to endorse what they say, but I certainly think it is important to discuss what they think and why they think it e.g.

 

Bishop Williamson

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Aaron2016 said:

Looking at the space record and I can see the majority of missions in the 1950's and 1960's were a technological failure when it came to space travel.

 

lunarmissions.png

 

The idea that we could successfully land, walk about, televise it, and safely return to Earth in that historic Apollo mission in 1969 just seems too hard to believe.  It may have happened, it just feels too perfect.  I would believe it without doubt if the lunar module crashed landed, or fell side ways, or there was a technical difficulty with their television signal, or the jamming of the door, or trouble taking off and returning to Earth.  The idea that it all went perfectly well and in front of a live television performance just seems too incredible to be believed without taking a step back and thinking twice.  I have stepped back and am thinking twice.  That is all.  Still on the fence.  I haven't been convinced that it did or did not happen.

 

.

Do you have a link for that table ? 

In addition, do you have a corresponding table showing successful missions ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Do you have a link for that table ? 

In addition, do you have a corresponding table showing successful missions ? 

Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing

There were some successes and partial successes, but "the majority" were failures.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing

There were some successes and partial successes, but "the majority" were failures.

Thanks for that Aaron2016

Isn't that what you would expect ? Failures in rockets occur even today. 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing

There were some successes and partial successes, but "the majority" were failures.

 

 

If you look at the lists, you can see a steady increase in success over failure as time went by

Humans learn from their mistakes.   Apollo 11 stood on the shoulders all those previous missions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Thanks for that Aaron2016

Isn't that what you would expect ? Failures in rockets occur even today. 

Correct, but I would imagine they would first test animals for a considerable time before attempting to sacrifice humans in their quest to walk on the moon.  The Soviets sent 2 tortoises and some insects on a lunar orbit in 1968.  The Americans (to my knowledge) never even tried to send animals near the moon before the Apollo 11 mission.  Seems rather dodgy to risk humans before animals on such a costly race to the Moon.  My guess is their ego to be the first on the moon was overshadowing their judgment.  If there was a 0.1% chance that something could go wrong then there would still be a reluctance to walk on the moon, and I think the cameras would be kept away just in case something bad happened.  I imagine there was possibly a 50% or greater risk in 1969 that sending humans to the moon first time could be a total disaster.  Televising it live to the world just seems too risky and unnecessary.  Watching the moon landing footage from start to finish feels like they were super confident and they knew everything would be ok.  Landing on the moon must have felt like landing at the bottom of the deepest ocean and one false step could have been instant death.  They were happily walking about and joking and not taking it seriously (at least that is the impression one gets).  I would have stepped one foot on the moon and immediately climbed back up the ladder and returned to Earth and declined the live television broadcast entirely.  It might have happened, just feels too perfect that is all.

 

 

Edited by Aaron2016
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Aaron2016 said:

Correct, but I would imagine they would first test animals for a considerable time before attempting to sacrifice humans in their quest to walk on the moon.  The Soviets sent 2 tortoises and some insects on a lunar orbit in 1968.  The Americans (to my knowledge) never even tried to send animals near the moon before the Apollo 11 mission.  Seems rather dodgy to risk humans before animals on such a costly race to the Moon.  My guess is their ego to be the first on the moon was overshadowing their judgment.  If there was a 0.1% chance that something could go wrong then there would still be a reluctance to walk on the moon, and I think the cameras would be kept away just in case something bad happened.  I imagine there was possibly a 50% or greater risk in 1969 that sending humans to the moon first time could be a total disaster.  Televising it live to the world just seems too risky and unnecessary.  Watching the moon landing footage from start to finish feels like they were super confident and they knew everything would be ok.  Landing on the moon must have felt like landing at the bottom of the deepest ocean and one false step could have been instant death.  They were happily walking about and joking and not taking it seriously (at least that is the impression one gets).  I would have stepped one foot on the moon and immediately climbed back up the ladder and returned to Earth and declined the live television broadcast entirely.  It might have happened, just feels too perfect that is all.

 

 

the Americans carried out DOZENS of manned space missions prior to Apollo 11. These included orbits around the moon, and live TV broadcasts from the spaceship. 

The Moon Landings didn't just spring fully-formed out of the forehead of Jove. They where the culmination of a decades work, with incremental steps all the way from earth orbit, to Lunar orbit, to Lunar landings. 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

the Americans carried out DOZENS of manned space missions prior to Apollo 11. 

Yes, but orbiting the moon, landing successfully, broadcasting live, and returning safely to Earth without any serious problems is certainly either a fantastic achievement or as many of the disbelievers would say 'too perfect to be true.'  It all really depends on how much trust the public has in what they are presented with.  Some believe, and some don't.

 

Edited by Aaron2016
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.