I hate to say it, but PROOF that the moon landing was real

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by john_bmth

 

The logistics of a manned space mission compared to an unmanned probe are miles apart in difficulty. As people have pointed out in this thread we know that the Russian's sent probes to the moon that returned with samples of moon rock.

Mirrors on the moon doesnt prove that humans went there and placed them themselves. It just prooves theres mirrors on the moon.

Then how did they get there?

Wait: think very carefully before you hit that reply button and answer "robotic unmanned probe"

Any unmanned vehicle like that would have had to use telemetry. That type of downlink would have been detectable by anyone with communications here on Earth, including the Soviets, who again, would NOT have hesitated in using information like that.

It doesn't matter anyway: LROC shows that we went up there, and for those who say "Yah, but that's NASA, and they are lying to us!"
Let me educate you:

LROC is NOT controlled by NASA, but by a 3rd party:

Images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission beginning in July 2009 show the six Apollo Lunar Module descent stages, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP) science experiments, astronaut footpaths, and lunar rover tire tracks. These images are the most effective proof to date to rebut the "landing hoax" theories.[13][14][15] Although this probe was indeed launched by NASA, the camera and the interpretation of the images are under the control of an academic group — the LROC Science Operations Center at Arizona State University, along with many other academic groups.[16]

Source

reply to post by eriktheawful


Your assuming that NASA would use something that would use telematry that could be tracked and that the russians had the technology to do that at the time.

Proving a hoax would have been a huge propaganda win for the Soviets. Bart Sibrel responded, "the Soviets did not have the capability to track deep spacecraft until late in 1972, immediately after which, the last three Apollo missions were suddenly canceled."

source

reply to post by PhoenixOD


So you still are going to ignore explaining the footprints, huh. You say it could be fake, that is so weak. Why fake footprints? NASA didn't have rovers, look it up, for at least a decade, answer, faked. We have reached two different conversations now. Or its faked, so that is your answer to everything to fit snugly into your belief system. How do you know Russia didn't fake the rovers? Where is your proof that lends credence to all things Russian? See how that works?

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

Your assuming that NASA would use something that would use telematry that could be tracked and that the russians had the technology to do that at the time.

Proving a hoax would have been a huge propaganda win for the Soviets. Bart Sibrel responded, "the Soviets did not have the capability to track deep spacecraft until late in 1972, immediately after which, the last three Apollo missions were suddenly canceled."

source

You are using hoaxes to prove fact? Your very link states;

Bart Sibrel – a filmmaker, produced and directed four films for his company AFTH, including a film in 2001 called A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, examining the evidence of a hoax. The arguments that Sibrel puts forward in this film have been debunked by many sources, including Svector's video series Lunar Legacy,

A film maker who made a hoax film, really credible.

It continues;

However, the Soviets had been sending unmanned spacecraft to the Moon since 1959, and "during 1962, deep space tracking facilities were introduced at IP-15 in Ussuriisk and IP-16 in Evpatoria, while Saturn communication stations were added to IP-3, 4 and 14", the latter having a 100 million km range. The Soviet Union tracked the Apollo missions at the Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment".

You have been duped by selective reading.

Originally posted by LifeInDeath

Originally posted by Illustronic
That's a good and valid point, but what would the point be to place footprints around the mirror, wouldn't circular wheels or tracks of some sort be a more efficient mobility mechanism than a seemingly random array of what appears to be footprints from boots?

Some will say that photo is another part of the hoax, not the real mirror just something set up in a sound stage so NASA can pass it off as the mirror left by the astronauts...

...it's a nutty explanation, I don't ascribe for one second to the moon hoax theory, but those who do will always find some way to explain away the much more simple and logical explanation that yes, indeed we went to the moon six times with twelve of our guys.

I still don't understand why it's so hard to believe for some that we went to the moon. Yes, it's an amazing feat, but well within the technology and science of the time. Sure, we had to push and expand our knowledge and technology to get there, but that's what we as a species do. We did it first with shipping and navigation on the seas, and in our time we are doing it in space.

Oh but we all believed to begin with.
Then some off us saw sense.
www.cluesforum.info...

The evidence presented here proves the fakery.

The OP proves nothing!

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by PhoenixOD

 

So you still are going to ignore explaining the footprints, huh. You say it could be fake, that is so weak. Why fake footprints? NASA didn't have rovers, look it up, for at least a decade, answer, faked. We have reached two different conversations now. Or its faked, so that is your answer to everything to fit snugly into your belief system. How do you know Russia didn't fake the rovers? Where is your proof that lends credence to all things Russian? See how that works?

Well it seems that Russia faked gagarin's trip, and nasa knew this.
www.cluesforum.info...

The two countries were in cahoots.

reply to post by pshea38


You are using a hoax site to prove fact? We went over this.

No wonder why they blackened the photo out (conjecture). There are two light sources, better known as spotlights, one from the rear right and one reflecting on the front nut's visor

The author doesn't recognize the two sources of light reflecting on the visor are the sun and earth, (parens I added).

In this vintage photograph the batman looks more like the cameraman (crouching in tennis shoes)

The author doesn't know much about optics, a visor is near a half dome.

Why do hoaxers call people names? "batman, nut" Do they feel it supports their views on things?

reply to post by PhoenixOD

All you have proof of is that there is a mirror on the moon. You are just inferring how it got there.

Let's get some things straight here. First of all I would say that the mirror on the Moon is evidence that men did in fact land on the Moon. To me proof is in the copious amounts of images and word from the astronauts themselves, but that's just me.

Second, the OP is not inferring anything he is explaining how the mirrors got there. You, and some others here, are inferring how it could have been done unmanned, there is a big difference.

The manner in which the Apollo astronauts placed mirrors on the Moon, the same mirrors that are used today to measure the distance of the Moon from Earth, has been very well explained. The onus is on you to explain how this could have been done unmmaned. So far all we have is pure speculation on your part, unmanned rockets and robots. I honestely think we all deserve much better than that.

Third, we have evidence that there is a mirror on the Moon. My skeptical mind thinks that all of that could have been faked as well, how about you? Of coarse to explain how that could have been/can be faked would require evidence and an explanation which does not exist or at least is unsatisfactory in my opinion.

If we are going to speculate and assume that all of this was probably done by unmanned rockets and robotic rovers and all of those images were faked then why not simply use this same speculation to assume that we did in fact land men on the Moon?

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


There were robots on the moon before the Apollo, no human hands required for assembly...

I'm still waiting for a valid reply to the radiation problem and shielding provided by the Apollo capsule.

The best presentation I've seen of the issues so far was by MoonFaker (see the free videos on YouTube) no speculations there just rational thinking with the data available...

reply to post by Panic2k11


Here, third party independent laboratory analytic studies of pre and post Apollo astronaut medical results. It is the only existing link I have of the entire studies, (section II), in that link you may find the entire studies and there are the emails of the independent scientists that authored the studies dating back from about 10 years before Apollo 11, not NASA employees. Check it out, I thought I saved the initial study link but I read it all already, and stuff gets congested, and things get discarded in cleaning hard drive space.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by OptimusSubprime

 

The Russians landed a rover on the moon which had a similar reflector in its back and was able to be found with a laser from earth, so unfortunately, the NASA placed reflectors aren't proof men walked on the moon...

edit on 11/4/12 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)

Hi Chad,
I am with you here. I suggest the HOAX BIN.
That's where this thread belongs.
cheers ljb

reply to post by longjohnbritches

What exactely about this thread do you consider to be a HOAX? That there is a reflector on the Moon? That astronauts placed this reflector there? Maybe it's the OP's potential misuse of the word "Proof" in the title?

Seriously, why HOAX?

Originally posted by Devino
reply to post by longjohnbritches

 

What exactely about this thread do you consider to be a HOAX?
Seriously, why HOAX?

Hi dev,
I'll go with this one.
It's the OP's misuse of the word "Proof" in the title?
ok ljb
BTW this angle has been beat to death. It is moot.

reply to post by longjohnbritches


What 'angle'? The explanation of footprints around the reflector and no signs of any mechanized means of placement or landing craft signatures? That has been 'beat to death'? Please expand other than saying fake, because that is a cop-out avenue. I can call you fake and be more technically accurate than what I have heard to explain the footprints.

Why am I addressing a cyber persona of shill?

reply to post by Illustronic


Thanks for the link. Have you seen MF: Radioactive Anomaly. PART 1 (List of all videos in that category) ?

I have a hard time believing the text claim that "Radiation doses measured during Apollo were significantly lower than the yearly average of 5 rem" considering the shielding used, the exposure time to solar radiation and crossing of the radiation belt.

In 1999, Sir Bernard was quoted by the BBC along these lines: “I had frequently asked my Soviet contacts when they intended to send a human being to the moon and their response was always ‘when we can be absolutely certain of getting him back alive’. And they did not believe the Americans would do this and in fact it’s pretty clear that the Americans did take considerable risk.”

The issue here is that the numbers claimed in the different sources do not match. That even new discoveries increase the dangers and reduce the probability of a successful mission with the technology available at that time. I'm open minded and not an adamant opposer to the moon landing but since there are many inconsistencies and even logical errors (for instance had I been part of the government at the time, I would have opted for a fake moon landing) the USA was at War (Vietnam War, that was itself part of the greater Cold War).

The only logical defense against not doing it is of holding a higher moral ground but that has never been a trade mark for any USA government (and of any other government in general). If that was an option why spend the resources, incur the risk of failure for absolutely no other gain than that of a propagandistic nature.

the russians put a mirror up there my friend, you're going to run into the "unmanned mission" response, which is response #7 in your program from the hoax-bots

the proof is in "Big Muley"

there was never any probe that could pick her up and bring her back, that is your proof

and then there is my favorite moon hoax link, the

Third Party Evidence for the Apollo moon missions

that link robs the bots of the "nasa lies about everything" response, which is #1 in your program

reply to post by syrinx high priest


Wikipedia links to controversial issues have no value. In that case a better point is made by linking directly the talk page...

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

Wikipedia links to controversial issues have not value. In that case a better point is made by linking directly the talk page...

knock yourself out, they are in the references

reply to post by Illustronic


A lazar can be bounced of the moon no reflector nessessary.
Quicker also. The reflector can move and screw up the readings. moot

OK now i don't intend this to be a "troll" type of post BUT I am amused that we have to continue to discuss whether we have been to the moon or not. Is it really that important?

We, as humans, are currently investigating Mars and other moons and planets etc. "We" have Rovers etc on Mars and have discovered "life" on Mars. OR maybe there are no rovers and they are all in the AZ desert hahahaha

Maybe we have or haven't but we are batting the ball around long after the game is finished.

I recon we move on there are newer activities we should keep our eyes on. We will be discussing whether there was a mon landing or not for the next 50 years and have been since the 60's.