Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 6 votes

[Merged] Did we land on the moon?

nasa apollo hoax

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
2593 replies to this topic

#1771    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 30,961 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 29 March 2013 - 12:45 AM

 frenat, on 28 March 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

More fun to watch you make a fool of yourself.

 skyeagle409, on 28 March 2013 - 11:52 PM, said:

I don't think you realize just how silly that remark is, and it is very clear as to why no one can take you seriously. After all, you are proving it beyond a shadow of a doubt with each post.

 turbonium, on 29 March 2013 - 12:23 AM, said:

You're one to talk about a silly remark! What about some proof?

Now, now children. If you are quite finished squabbling like a bunch of nursery school kids in the playground can we have some grown up behaviour please?

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#1772    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 30,961 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006

Posted 29 March 2013 - 12:56 AM

 turbonium, on 28 March 2013 - 11:35 PM, said:

You have no proof the suit IS pressurized! That's the first claim, it's your burden to prove that first of all!

Why haven't you done that?
You still haven't got the hang of the burden of proof have you. I'm bored repeating it but here goes.

As the accepted truth there is no burden of proof on Apollo... it is already considered proven. The burden of proof is yours and yours alone. Since Apollo is considered proven it is sufficient say, "Apollo happened, therefore, since the footage is considered to be genuine it must, therefore be possible for the knees of an Apollo suit to bend to that angle when pressurised".

It is up to you to prove that the suit isn't pressurised since yours is not the accepted version of events. If you want to claim that your argument is logical and scientific you must be confined by the conventions of logic and science.

If you wish to argue from a point of belief then you are not constrained by those conventions, but you can not claim that your argument is logical and scientific.

You have to chose one road or the other, they are mutually exclusive.

Now back to the subject in hand:

The image of the cosmonaut has been offered multiple times to show you that your argument is false. You have always claimed that the image is irrelevant or that the suit is not pressurised. Your argument is false on both accounts.

If the suit is pressurised then it shows that a pressurised space suit can achieve the kind of knee bend you claim is not possible. If a Russian Sokol suit can do it then there is no physical reason why an Apollo suit can't.

The Soyuz Sokol suit most certainly IS pressurised. The image used shows part of the pre-launch leak check (you can't check a space suit for leaks if it isn't pressurised). Why would you have the helmet shut on the ground UNLESS the suit is pressurised.

The position the cosmonaut is in replicates the position he will adopt in the Soyuz capsule for both launch and landing. Do you really think the Russians are so incredibly stupid that they would put their cosmonauts in a position which would be impossible to maintain in a pressurised suit.

But you don't have to take my word for it, here is a passage from the Encyclopedia Astronautica (widely regarded as one of the best on-line sources for information on spaceflight) on the Sokol-KV2 suit:

Quote

After manufacture of a individually-tailored flight suit, the crew member occupied the Kazbek seat with the custom-fitted couch liner and sat in the flight posture under positive pressure for two hours. The suit was readjusted as a result of this first fit test. The same procedure was then repeated in a vacuum chamber, with simulation of oxygen supply to the suit helmet. Finally the suit fit was checked again at Baikonur prior to the mission, and the crew member would spend some time in the suit in the reentry capsule of the actual spacecraft that would take them to orbit. On the day of the flight, the final check was accomplished by Zvezda personnel during suiting up for the lift-off, and even then last-minute adjustments could be made.
Source: http://www.astronaut...ft/sokolkv2.htm


I would also point you to THIS PAGE of astronaut Rick Mastracchio's Facebook entry where he has this image:

Posted Image


Unlike most images of the astronaut when in this position this one shows the astronaut's left side and not his right. The oxygen hose can be clearly seen connected to the suit. And what two words does 3 time astronaut Rick Mastracchio use to describe this image? That would "pressure check".

So the ball is in your court turbonium, let's see if you can satisfactorily describe a method of pressure testing a space suit that's not under pressure.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#1773    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,599 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 29 March 2013 - 01:02 AM

 turbonium, on 29 March 2013 - 12:23 AM, said:

You're one to talk about a silly remark! What about some proof?

The proof has been presented many times.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1774    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,254 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 29 March 2013 - 02:19 AM

 postbaguk, on 29 March 2013 - 12:06 AM, said:

Actually, it's you who claims that its impossible for a pressurised suit to perform a deep knee bend. A claim uusupported by mere niceties like facts and evidence. These videos and photos of pressurized suits doing just what you claim to be impossible should set alarm bells going in the mind of someone who is debating in good faith and following evidence rather than trying to shoehorn facts to suit their deeply rooted beliefs. This is just another example that proves you don't care about the truth, or about learning, or about admitting you've made an error. You only care about not being seen to lose the debate. Your reaction to counter evidence presented to you proves this. A genuine, objective, open-minded truth seeker would say "Wow! I didn't know about that. I'll do some more digging and find out about this." Instead, you try reversing the burden of proof, and simply refuse to rationally and objectively re-assess your position.

This video is supposedly proof for your claim?

What was the psi, then? Where is it mentioned in the video?

Can you cite any supporting documents?


Back to you...


#1775    postbaguk

postbaguk

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 977 posts
  • Joined:17 Aug 2006

Posted 29 March 2013 - 02:40 AM

 turbonium, on 29 March 2013 - 02:19 AM, said:



This video is supposedly proof for your claim?

What was the psi, then? Where is it mentioned in the video?

Can you cite any supporting documents?


Back to you...

I was hoping the video and the photos of the Russian suit might get you thinking. I was wrong. They didnt get you thinking. You're too entrenched to even entertain the thought the you might be wrong. I guess those pesky Russians have been faking their pre flight pressurised suit tests as well.




#1776    ChrLzs

ChrLzs

    Just a contributor..

  • Member
  • 2,814 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2009

Posted 29 March 2013 - 06:16 AM

And again I would point out that this supposedly high-level pressurisation is in the order of much less than 1 ATM (14.7psi) - the Apollo suits ran at about 3-4 psi!  It's not like it's a truck tyre, more like a half-flat air mattress...!  Anyone suggesting that sort of pressure differential would cause the suit to become significantly less flexible just hasn't thought it through.

And someone who then keeps bringing it up over and over and over, simply isn't debating in good faith.

___
All my posts about Apollo are dedicated to the memory of MID - who knew, lived and was an integral part of, Apollo.

#1777    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,254 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 29 March 2013 - 06:29 AM

 Waspie_Dwarf, on 29 March 2013 - 12:56 AM, said:

You still haven't got the hang of the burden of proof have you. I'm bored repeating it but here goes.

As the accepted truth there is no burden of proof on Apollo... it is already considered proven. The burden of proof is yours and yours alone. Since Apollo is considered proven it is sufficient say, "Apollo happened, therefore, since the footage is considered to be genuine it must, therefore be possible for the knees of an Apollo suit to bend to that angle when pressurised".

It is up to you to prove that the suit isn't pressurised since yours is not the accepted version of events. If you want to claim that your argument is logical and scientific you must be confined by the conventions of logic and science.

If you wish to argue from a point of belief then you are not constrained by those conventions, but you can not claim that your argument is logical and scientific.
.

You try again with this.....nonsense...   

"As the accepted truth there is no burden of proof on Apollo... it is already considered proven"

What is the "accepted truth", in regard to Apollo? It is the official account of Apollo, which (most) people accept as true.

That is all it means.

It doesn't prove Apollo - just because it's accepted as 'truth', (or mostly is), does not make it the truth.

Something accepted as truth still has a burden of proof, even your glorious Apollo story.

Many of our previous 'accepted truths' were found to be completely wrong, many years, even centuries, later..

Apollo is accepted as truth by fewer people today than ever before. In the past, it wasn't held up to scrutiny.


Clearly, Apollo has the burden of proof.   ,


#1778    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,599 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 29 March 2013 - 07:07 AM

 turbonium, on 29 March 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

You try again with this.....nonsense...   

He is right on the money! In fact, there are documentaries featuring physical demonstrations in pressurized spacesuits.

Quote

It doesn't prove Apollo - just because it's accepted as 'truth', (or mostly is), does not make it the truth.

Of course it does and it explains why a number of countries around the world have validated the Apollo moon missions by tracking the Apollo spacecrafts or photographing Apollo landing sites.

Quote

Apollo missions tracked by non-NASA personnel

This section contains reports of the lunar missions from facilities that had significant numbers of non-NASA employees. This includes facilities such as the Deep Space Network, which employed (and still employs) many local citizens in Spain and Australia, and facilities such as the Parkes Observatory, which were hired by NASA for specific tasks, but staffed by non-NASA personnel.

http://en.wikipedia....o_Moon_landings


Posted Image

Astronaut Bruce McCandless II floated freely in space while testing the Manned Maneuvering Unit (MMU) during an early shuttle flight.

Seems to me those knees are bent in a pressurized spacesuit.

Quote


Project Apollo Space Suit

Because Apollo astronauts had to walk on the moon as well as fly in space, a single space suit was developed that had add-ons for moonwalking. The basic Apollo space suit, which was worn during liftoff, was the backup suit needed in case cabin pressure failed.
The Apollo suit consisted of the following:
  • A water-cooled nylon undergarment
  • A multi-layered pressure suit: inside layer - lightweight nylon with fabric vents; middle layer - neoprene-coated nylon to hold pressure; outer layer - nylon to restrain the pressurized layers beneath
  • Five layers of aluminized Mylar interwoven with four layers of Dacron for heat protection
  • Two layers of Kapton for additional heat protection
  • A layer of Teflon-coated cloth (nonflammable) for protection from scrapes
  • A layer of white Teflon cloth (nonflammable)
The suit had boots, gloves, a communications cap and a clear plastic helmet. During liftoff, the suit's oxygen and cooling water were supplied by the ship.
For walking on the moon, the space suit was supplemented with a pair of protective overboots, gloves with rubber fingertips, a set of filters/visors worn over the helmet for protection from sunlight, and a portable life support backpack that contained oxygen, carbon-dioxide removal equipment and cooling water. The space suit and backpack weighed 180 lb (82 kg) on Earth, but only 30 lb (14 kg) on the moon.

The basic Apollo space suit was also used for spacewalking during the Skylab missions.

Posted Image


Posted Image



Are there bent knees in pressurized spacesuits?

Edited by skyeagle409, 29 March 2013 - 07:44 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1779    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,254 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 29 March 2013 - 07:43 AM

 postbaguk, on 29 March 2013 - 12:06 AM, said:

Actually, it's you who claims that its impossible for a pressurised suit to perform a deep knee bend. A claim uusupported by mere niceties like facts and evidence. These videos and photos of pressurized suits doing just what you claim to be impossible should set alarm bells going in the mind of someone who is debating in good faith and following evidence rather than trying to shoehorn facts to suit their deeply rooted beliefs. This is just another example that proves you don't care about the truth, or about learning, or about admitting you've made an error. You only care about not being seen to lose the debate. Your reaction to counter evidence presented to you proves this. A genuine, objective, open-minded truth seeker would say "Wow! I didn't know about that. I'll do some more digging and find out about this." Instead, you try reversing the burden of proof, and simply refuse to rationally and objectively re-assess your position.

Reasons?  You've emotionally bought in to the hoax theory and lack the moral fibre to admit that any of the"evidence" you've presented is dubious.

Contrast and compare to how most contributors on here refer to the laser reflectors. It is no longer presented as proof, where it may have in the past. It's presented as evidence, since there is the albeit small chance that the reflectors could have been placed remotely. That's a sign of a genuine objectivity in assessing the evidence, rather than an approach hampered by emotional attachment.

Try it. You might like it. Admit you're wrong on the spacesuit issue. Doesnt mean you have to admit Apollo did happen. Do you have the courage to admit when your arguments fail, or are you really here just to pull our collective pud?

Documents of note..

http://docserver.ing...52CD74C7511C4E5

In the above document, flexibilty is an issue.


http://docserver.ing...AE9E92D3392FB16


Above document is on gloves.

So if Apollo suits were flexible enough for deep knee bends, and had gloves capable of closed fists....

Why is it not yet possible, decades later??  

A big conflict here...


#1780    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,599 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 29 March 2013 - 07:56 AM

 turbonium, on 29 March 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

Documents of note..

http://docserver.ing...52CD74C7511C4E5

In the above document, flexibilty is an issue.


http://docserver.ing...AE9E92D3392FB16


Above document is on gloves.

So if Apollo suits were flexible enough for deep knee bends, and had gloves capable of closed fists....

Why is it not yet possible, decades later??  

A big conflict here...

Posted Image


Posted Image



Posted Image




Posted Image



Posted Image
Fig. 2 -Apollo 17 commander Gene Cernan has his space suit fitted. The outer white covering has been removed to expose the pressure-containing garment. Note the accordion joints at the elbows and the knobby knuckles on the gloves. The knobs allow him to flex his fingers even though the suit is inflated. (NASA: 72-H-253)                                                                                    



Posted Image



Edited by skyeagle409, 29 March 2013 - 08:18 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1781    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,254 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 29 March 2013 - 08:08 AM

Another document

http://quest.nasa.go...5 MCP-Paper.pdf

A chart notes LOW flexibilty of gas-pressurized suits. The current suits, not the suits of 40 years ago used by Apollo!

It's flexible in a video, any guess why?...


#1782    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,599 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 29 March 2013 - 08:21 AM

 turbonium, on 29 March 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:


Thanks for posting that link because in it, it says:

Dust

Dust (on the moon) proved to be extremely hazardous on previous EVA missions, and Apollo astronauts found that it quickly abraded suit coverings, scratched helmet visors, covered external displays, degraded outer layer absorptivity and emissivity and contaminated seals and bearings. After two EVAs, astronauts reported that the outer layers of their spacesuits were“severely worn by lunar dust abrasion”.

On Apollo 17, Jack Schmitt had trouble securing his gloves and found that outer layer and worn through after 3 EVAs.


An Apollo suit weighed 100 kg on earth, but only 17 kg on the lunar surface. Schmitt (2002) noted that the total weight of the suit was acceptable, however Apollo astronauts were not subject to the physical deconditioning expected to occur on long-duration Martian missions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

That came from your own link, which confirmed the reality of the Apollo moon missions. In addition:

Posted Image

Edited by skyeagle409, 29 March 2013 - 08:40 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1783    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,254 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 29 March 2013 - 08:47 AM

 skyeagle409, on 29 March 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

Thanks for posting that link because in it, it says:

Dust

Dust (on the moon) proved to be extremely hazardous on previous EVA missions, and Apollo astronauts found that it quickly abraded suit coverings, scratched helmet visors, covered external displays, degraded outer layer absorptivity and emissivity and contaminated seals and bearings. After two EVAs, astronauts reported that the outer layers of their spacesuits were“severely worn by lunar dust abrasion”.

On Apollo 17, Jack Schmitt had trouble securing his gloves and found that outer layer and worn through after 3 EVAs.


An Apollo suit weighed 100 kg on earth, but only 17 kg on the lunar surface. Schmitt (2002) noted that the total weight of the suit was acceptable, however Apollo astronauts were not subject to the physical deconditioning expected to occur on long-duration Martian missions.

Any reason for posting this crap escapes me. Not on topic, nor anything else I can see.


#1784    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,599 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 29 March 2013 - 08:55 AM

 turbonium, on 29 March 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

Any reason for posting this crap escapes me. Not on topic, nor anything else I can see.

You missed the point.  Your link actually confirms the reality of the Apollo moon missions. Apparently, you didn't read the rest of the story before you posted your link.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1785    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,254 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 30 March 2013 - 03:29 AM

 skyeagle409, on 29 March 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

You missed the point.  Your link actually confirms the reality of the Apollo moon missions. Apparently, you didn't read the rest of the story before you posted your link.

You think briefly mentioning Apollo somehow "confirms the reality" of it!

How could I have missed such an obvious point as this?!? :-*