1970 replies to this topic

[postbaguk]

turbonium, on 01 February 2013 - 04:55 AM, said:

This isn't about belief, it's about proof. It's your burden to prove. You can't make excuses for that.

And the proof is in the videos. You just choose to believe otherwise. There are many such reflections in the Apollo 15 videos.

http://www.hq.nasa.g...15v.1195542.mpg - the clip we've been discussing. In addition to the reflections off the underside of the rung, look at the reflections in the thermal shielding and the side of the ladder at the very end of the clip.

http://www.hq.nasa.g...15v.1195800.mpg - reflection in the thermal shielding at the statr of the clip. At the 40% mark, similar reflection, and side of ladder is lit up.

http://www.hq.nasa.g...15v.1200031.mpg - 33% in, reflection in thermal shielding and ladder illuminated

http://www.hq.nasa.g...15v.1200330.mpg - 5% in, similar to above. Reflections caused by astronaut moving out of frame to the right (i.e. out of LM shadow, into bright sunshine)

http://www.hq.nasa.g...15v.1200916.mpg - 75% in, reflection in thermal shielding as astronaut moves in from the left in bright sunlight

http://www.hq.nasa.g...15v.1201156.mpg - Watch from 60% onwards. Look at the astronaut walking in front of the folding up lunar rover on the LM quad. When he's in the shadow of the LM, you can see his shadow on the rover, which gives an indication of how much light is reflected back onto the LM from the surface. As he moves out of frame to the right (and into bright sunshine), he is no longer casting a shadow, but is reflecting light both onto the folded up rover, and a panel above it on the LM.

Wherever you look in these videos, you see evidence of astronauts in sunlight reflecting off various parts of the LM structure, at a distance of several feet. You can choose to believe whatever your worldview dictates you must believe, but the evidence doesn't support you.  

Quote

You've spoonfed mush, that's about it so far.

I've spoonfed you the evidence. See above for more examples. I can't help it if you don't like the taste.

Quote

I'd like to see just one example that actually holds up without excuses,

They all do. Your 'interpretation' is the one that requires excuses (oh, there was some glitch that explains what we see here. Oh, it was a stage-light that just so happened to be pointing in that direction at the exact time required to create the reflection. Oh, let me refer to MoonHoax Believer Excuses 101, page 13, section 2...)

Quote

So now there's "ample evidence"?  

Wow.

Ample. Sufficient. Enough. Plenty. An abundance. It matters not, since you choose to believe that you are right, and the evidence is wrong. That's the brilliant thing about faith, it doesn't require evidence.

[frenat]

turbonium, on 02 February 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

No. Collins was answering a question about whether stars could be seen from the lunar surface

PATRICK MOORE: When you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?
ARMSTRONG: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.
COLLINS: I don't remember seeing any.

The question wasn't about if stars were seen while taking photos of the solar corona. I suppose you could say Collins was referring to Armstrong going into that, but it still comes off fishy.

Stars would be the most amazing spectacle to see beyond our atmosphere, and beyond LEO. Billions of stars would virtually 'blanket the skies', so to speak. So to not even mention stars they are really exposing the fact that they were not there!.  It's utterly ridiculous to not mention the stars.

I've been in the Nevada deserts at night, and it was one of the most magnificent, utterly beautiful moments of my entire life. I will never forget it.

Anyone who's seen it knows exactly what I'm talking about here. It's stunning.

And - this point is very important  - I TOLD EVERYONE I KNEW ABOUT IT!!

Nobody could see this and not speak about it  

I can only imagine just how much more incredible, how much more beautiful, the stars must appear from space.

So when I hear all of those Apollo astronauts babble on about going to the moon, without a word about the amazing stars they'd see....then I know for sure that they're lying.  

You're wrong.  Armstrong offered the info about the surface and Collins answered about the experiment.  I know your ego won't allow you to admit you are wrong but you are.

As for how much brighter stars would be in space, about 15 percent.  That is about how much the atmosphere dims them.  And of course that is only when you don't have the sun in your face and lighting up everything in your field of view like the astronauts did.  DId you have  bright lights shining in your eyes in the Nevada desert?

Some astronauts DID report seeing stars from the surface, when they took the time to let their eyes adjust in the shadow of the lander.

There was also the UV camera brought on Apollo 16 that specifically took pictures of stars but that is fake too isn't it?

Keep up the humor Turb!  Ever going to return to apollohoax.net?

Edited by frenat, 02 February 2013 - 02:19 PM.

[skyeagle409]

frenat, on 02 February 2013 - 02:17 PM, said:

Keep up the humor Turb!  Ever going to return to apollohoax.net?

Apparently, Turbonium is not interested in facts and evidence. His claims have been successfully debunked and refuted time after time and yet, he continues to push false claims, which is why no one can take him seriously, especially after his spacesuit debacle, which made him the laughing stock after photos of astronauts bending their knees in their spacesuits were revealed, which he claimed, could not happen.

Yes indeed, he is full of humor and lacked on the facts.

[postbaguk]

turbonium, on 02 February 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

No. Collins was answering a question about whether stars could be seen from the lunar surface

It's pretty clear from the context that Collins was referring to what Armstrong said about the photography experiment.

Quote

The question wasn't about if stars were seen while taking photos of the solar corona. I suppose you could say Collins was referring to Armstrong going into that, but it still comes off fishy.

Off course that's what Collins was referring to. He can't possibly have been referring to what he saw from the surface since he never landed. This is simply an issue of elementary language comprehension. Saying it's fishy is ridiculous.

Quote

Stars would be the most amazing spectacle to see beyond our atmosphere, and beyond LEO. Billions of stars would virtually 'blanket the skies', so to speak. So to not even mention stars they are really exposing the fact that they were not there!.  It's utterly ridiculous to not mention the stars.

How does not mentioning the stars prove they didn't go? Further to that, they went to the moon to see... drum roll please... the moon. Not the stars. As you've pointed out, you can see the stars very clearly on a dark night away from light pollution right here on Earth. So maybe the amazing sight of the moon was more relevant than the stars, which anyone can see right here on Earth?

Quote

I can only imagine just how much more incredible, how much more beautiful, the stars must appear from space.

So when I hear all of those Apollo astronauts babble on about going to the moon, without a word about the amazing stars they'd see....then I know for sure that they're lying.  

You went to the desert at night. Did the astronauts land on the moon at night or during the day? Please explain how you've factored in the sunlit lunar surface into the equation, and how it would effect the visibility of stars. Same for a bright Sun, low in the sky. And again, for an astronaut with his sun visor down (hint: what would the stars have looked like in the desert at night had you been wearing sunglasses?)

Once you've done that, you may want to re-appraise your amazing conclusion that you know for sure the astronauts are lying because they didn't rave about the amazing galaxy of stars you insist they should have seen.

[Obviousman]

turbonium, on 01 February 2013 - 04:55 AM, said:

This isn't about belief, it's about proof.

Correct, and the Apollo landing are an accept FACT. You are the one who disputes them and therefore YOU have the burden of proof.

turbonium, on 01 February 2013 - 04:55 AM, said:

You can't make excuses for that.

Correct, and you should face up to the fact that you have the burden of proof, not everyone else. Stop being so blatently dishonest.

[Obviousman]

skyeagle409, on 02 February 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

Apparently, Turbonium is not interested in facts and evidence. His claims have been successfully debunked and refuted time after time and yet, he continues to push false claims, which is why no one can take him seriously, especially after his spacesuit debacle, which made him the laughing stock after photos of astronauts bending their knees in their spacesuits were revealed, which he claimed, could not happen.

Oh no - those image are Photoshopped! Couldn't you see that?

[skyeagle409]

Obviousman, on 02 February 2013 - 09:52 PM, said:

Oh no - those image are Photoshopped! Couldn't you see that?

Darn!! I should have known that someone would notice the photos were faked and knew I should have removed my initial "C"  from the photos. I used a special rock to stamp my initial on the photos so I could keep track of my photos. I bought the rock from NASA for only $2,000,000,000,000,000,000.01, which I consider that a great deal because NASA agreed to pay shipping and handling charges and all I had to do was to give NASA the cash to pay for the S/H charges.

The photos were made,...oops.....I mean, faked in Hollywood using lighting from the Eiffel Tower in France, which was reflected from a B-747 flying over Russia at 250,000 feet off the coast of Australia. The reason I used lighting from France is because the lamps in my studio were repossessed.

Edited by skyeagle409, 03 February 2013 - 01:23 AM.

[the L]

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=241845

[Ove]

turbonium, on 26 May 2012 - 04:02 AM, said:

You're asking me for documentation?

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.....

[turbonium]

postbaguk, on 02 February 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

And the proof is in the videos. You just choose to believe otherwise. There are many such reflections in the Apollo 15 videos.

http://www.hq.nasa.g...15v.1195542.mpg - the clip we've been discussing. In addition to the reflections off the underside of the rung, look at the reflections in the thermal shielding and the side of the ladder at the very end of the clip.

http://www.hq.nasa.g...15v.1195800.mpg - reflection in the thermal shielding at the statr of the clip. At the 40% mark, similar reflection, and side of ladder is lit up.

http://www.hq.nasa.g...15v.1200031.mpg - 33% in, reflection in thermal shielding and ladder illuminated

http://www.hq.nasa.g...15v.1200330.mpg - 5% in, similar to above. Reflections caused by astronaut moving out of frame to the right (i.e. out of LM shadow, into bright sunshine)

http://www.hq.nasa.g...15v.1200916.mpg - 75% in, reflection in thermal shielding as astronaut moves in from the left in bright sunlight

http://www.hq.nasa.g...15v.1201156.mpg - Watch from 60% onwards. Look at the astronaut walking in front of the folding up lunar rover on the LM quad. When he's in the shadow of the LM, you can see his shadow on the rover, which gives an indication of how much light is reflected back onto the LM from the surface. As he moves out of frame to the right (and into bright sunshine), he is no longer casting a shadow, but is reflecting light both onto the folded up rover, and a panel above it on the LM.

Wherever you look in these videos, you see evidence of astronauts in sunlight reflecting off various parts of the LM structure, at a distance of several feet. You can choose to believe whatever your worldview dictates you must believe, but the evidence doesn't support you.  

The first clip has been discussed - and I'm still waiting for your "easy peasy" demonstration to support your argument.

Second clip - are you referring to the white bag's reflection in the ladder's side, at the 1:11 mark? (Sidenote: in video clips, could you please use specific time markers (ie: 1:11), instead of percentages? Thanks.) Anyway - the clip shows a white material reflecting at close range, like we saw in the ISS clip you posted earlier on. In both cases, it not a reflection from 10-15 ft. distance away...as you claim it has in the 'boot heel' image.

The other clips are also reflecting white material at close range.


However, only with an Apollo spacesuit (genuine replica), could we ever settle this issue, so....

Shall we agree to disagree on this matter, and move onward?

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 09 February 2013 - 08:31 AM, said:

The first clip has been discussed - and I'm still waiting for your "easy peasy" demonstration to support your argument.

Second clip - are you referring to the white bag's reflection in the ladder's side, at the 1:11 mark? (Sidenote: in video clips, could you please use specific time markers (ie: 1:11), instead of percentages? Thanks.) Anyway - the clip shows a white material reflecting at close range, like we saw in the ISS clip you posted earlier on. In both cases, it not a reflection from 10-15 ft. distance away...as you claim it has in the 'boot heel' image.

The other clips are also reflecting white material at close range.


However, only with an Apollo spacesuit (genuine replica), could we ever settle this issue, so....

Shall we agree to disagree on this matter, and move onward?

Actually, Mr. Reality, Uncle Laws of Physics, and cousins, Facts and Evidence, who have disagreed with you a long time ago. Gee, they did a documentary on the pressurized spacesuits as test folks conducted a variety of exercises, including bending their knees.

The issue was settled a long time ago and even if a genuine spacesuit replica was available for test purposes right now, you would simply find an excuse to dismiss the results of any test that refutes your claim. How do I know that? I have your own past history as proof. BTW, you might want to check this out.

"In the mid-1950s, the creation of the U-2 aircraft signaled the CIA’s entry into the world of overhead reconnaissance. The U-2 flew at an astonishing altitude of 70,000 feet at subsonic speed. With all the amazing innovations of the U-2, it’s easy to overlook another important invention that keeps a U-2 pilot alive at such high altitudes: the pilots protective assembly. It looks like a flight suit, but is actually a six-layer apparatus designed to protect the pilot whether he is flying, ejecting, parachuting, floating in water, or surviving in a harsh land environment."

"These suits were so effective in protecting pilots during flight that they have become the basis for modern day space suits used by astronauts."

Edited by skyeagle409, 09 February 2013 - 09:06 AM.

[turbonium]

postbaguk, on 02 February 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

How does not mentioning the stars prove they didn't go? Further to that, they went to the moon to see... drum roll please... the moon. Not the stars. As you've pointed out, you can see the stars very clearly on a dark night away from light pollution right here on Earth. So maybe the amazing sight of the moon was more relevant than the stars, which anyone can see right here on Earth?

You went to the desert at night. Did the astronauts land on the moon at night or during the day? Please explain how you've factored in the sunlit lunar surface into the equation, and how it would effect the visibility of stars. Same for a bright Sun, low in the sky. And again, for an astronaut with his sun visor down (hint: what would the stars have looked like in the desert at night had you been wearing sunglasses?)

No - I'm specifically talking about the amazing stars they'd be able to see during their flight(s) to the moon and back . No sunlight, no glaring reflections to obscure one's sight. The view would be absolutely stunning.....even through a small window.  That's what I compared to my experience of the countless stars in a desert sky, Or at least try to compare to.  

Not mentioning the stars isn't proof of a hoax, but it reveals it as a hoax - it is that damaging to the Apollo story. And it's not like three absent-minded guys had gone on a moon mission, and somehow just forgot to mention all the stars they'd seen. Apollo had nine moon missions, (supposedly).

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 09 February 2013 - 11:08 AM, said:

No - I'm specifically talking about the amazing stars they'd be able to see during their flight(s) to the moon and back . No sunlight, no glaring reflections to obscure one's sight. The view would be absolutely stunning.....even through a small window.  That's what I compared to my experience of the countless stars in a desert sky, Or at least try to compare to.  

Not mentioning the stars isn't proof of a hoax, but it reveals it as a hoax - it is that damaging to the Apollo story. And it's not like three absent-minded guys had gone on a moon mission, and somehow just forgot to mention all the stars they'd seen. Apollo had nine moon missions, (supposedly).

Once again, you have ignored facts and evidence related to the star issue, which has been explained to you before and look at you now! Now, what did a shuttle astronaut say he had to do in order to see stars in space?

[DONTEATUS]

Turbo you do have a few years on me in here,But one thing is for sure ,Your never a Dull moment ! As for the Facts your never a sharp moment.You have the facts all messed up man on this Moon Landings !
Whats it going to take to make you understand We Did Land,12 men Walked upon the surface And we made Six wonderful Missions to the Moon ?

[Obviousman]

Sky,

There are some marvellous books available on the subject of the pressure and partial pressure suits.

The first I would recommend is DRESSING FOR ALTITUDE - US Aviation Pressure Suits from Wiley Post to the Space Shuttle by Dennis Jenkins. It's available as a PDF (previous link) or as a free e-book.



The other is US SPACESUITS by Ken Thomas and Harold McMann. It's available as a hard copy or PDF but does cost money (about $45?). It's worth it, though. My copy has been a tremendous resource.



Both very good technical and historical resources, so they wouldn't be of any interest to Turbs.