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.


- - - - -

Uncomprehensible apollo photographs


  • Please log in to reply
189 replies to this topic

#181    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 20,758 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 11 November 2006 - 04:12 PM

Well done, Straydog.


#182    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 11 November 2006 - 09:54 PM

I'm actually impressed...to a degree, as well.
At least the spot light issue is resolved to his satisfaction.

I think...

Nonetheless, I should address this comment:


Quote

MID .. As usual you are your delightful self ... but if I am really as off base and as ignorant as you believe me to be about Apollo , then why would you want me to leave this web site ? .... It would seem that you would want me to stick around so you could "teach" me all there is know about Apollo .... Or does the fact that I keep bringing up the fact that you have no proof that Apollo ever went to the moon really upset you that much ?


Stray, with all due respect, you are in fact off-base about Apollo.  You have also illustrated yourself to be ignorant regarding many facets of space flight.

As I have said before, ignorance of these things is not a debasement, and there is certainly nothing wrong with not knowing about this stuff.  The problem comes from your obstinate refusal to take what's been presented to you and do your own research on it.  You refuse to learn when you're given the tools to do so, preferring to argue blindly without even acknowledging the pertinent points given you to counter your positions.

I did not say I want you to leave this website.   What I said, and have repeated previously, many times, is the question, "Why are you here?"    The reason for this is that you refuse to learn.

I have repeatedly stated that I approach this from an educational standpoint.  Thus, of course, I endeavor to teach where I can.   If I am upset at all, it is akin to how any teacher would be upset when his students don't do their homework, don't listen in class, and come ill prepared.

It most certainly has nothing to do with the fact that you keep insistently bringing up the point that I have no proof that Apollo went to the Moon.

All that that assertion does is illustrate the fact that you do not understand your burden, as you wish to argue rather than learn, and it further illustrates that you are ill-prepared to even argue...

You have been taught about many aspects of Apollo, by myself, and several other astute contributors.  You have failed to learn.

Of course, the fact is that proof of Apollo is of course extant, voluminous, and substantiated, while proof to the contrary is not existent.
___________________________________________________________________________

Now, it took pericynthion finding a "non-NASA" photo of Gene Cernan's visor to apparently convince you that there were indeed scratches on his gold-leaf visor.   You have even conceded the argument.  This is admirable, as I said, to a degree.   At least you have conceded this aspect.

And the truth is, too much discussion of so-called photographic anomalies in Apollo photographs is somewhat boring, because there are none that have ever been substantiated to be anything but nominal photgraphic representations and effects.   I am more interested in the sciences and technological issues which present in the arguments of hoax proponents.  This is an area I can address, know a little about, and posess knowledge of which can fill the holes in the typical HB's arguments.  

You have brought up about a hundred different points.   From the idea that the LM couldn't fly to the notion that the lunar surface astronauts should've been able to jump much higher that is physically possible on the Moon.

When these things are explained to you...with an eye toward your getting a little knowledge in the subject matter, you have steadfastly ignored them, preferring to refer to basic physical concepts like the relation between mass and weight as "crap".  

Indeed, you present a consistent and profound dislike for me personally, which has not only been expressed here, but in other locations  (I get tipped off about these things!).  I think the reasons for that attitude are rather clear.

Nonetheless, it is impressive that you've conceded a point.  It really doesn't have to do much with Apollo, it has rather to do with the fact that light makes funny reflections off of a curved and scratched surface.

I hope this is a harbinger of things to come.


#183    postbaguk

postbaguk

    Conspiracy Theorist

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

Posted 11 November 2006 - 10:40 PM

Here here, it takes a certain amount of moral fortitude to retract a claim that one has been arguing so strongly.

Now, about that smear on Schmitt's visor...  wink2.gif


#184    Trinitrotoluene

Trinitrotoluene

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 995 posts
  • Joined:24 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 November 2006 - 04:13 PM

Respect to you Straydog for admitting that you were mistaken.

Next then - the jumping on the moon. I disagree, you say it's two feet, I rekon it's around 4 - however it doesn't matter. No-one could jump 2 feet with 183lb's on their back on earth anyway, so if you could address my previous comments that'd be cool original.gif

Cheers

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology." - Carl Sagan

#185    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 12 November 2006 - 07:59 PM

Quote


Respect to you Straydog for admitting that you were mistaken.

Next then - the jumping on the moon. I disagree, you say it's two feet, I rekon it's around 4 - however it doesn't matter. No-one could jump 2 feet with 183lb's on their back on earth anyway, so if you could address my previous comments that'd be cool original.gif

Cheers


Gav:

If I'm not mistaken, you guys are talking about that snippett of Apollo 11 EVA where Neil or Buzz is going up the ladder, and there's some contention about how high one had to go to get on the ladder?

This is a picture of precisely what you're looking at (AS11-40-5869):

IPB Image\


Same LM, same place, photographed from the other side, of course.  It clearly shows the attitude an astronaut would take when getting ready to go up the ladder.

One would push off from the outer lip of the footpad, and would never not have his hands on the ladder for stability.  Additionally, a pull was involved to help ascend.

Dimensionally, the bottom of the ladder was about 34" from the upper lip of the pad.  Thus, the distance was just about 3 feet for this particular jump.   The hands were most certainly used to accomplish this.   Also, it should be pointed out that this jump was at its highest on the Apollo 11 mission, as the LM struts were not compressed hardly at all due to Neil's very soft landing.   On future flights, CDRs deliberately plopped down with a little more force to collapse the struts and allow for a lesser jump to get back up to the ladder.

Neil Armstrong described the jump up the ladder:

"...the first step was pretty high; 3 to 3 1/2 feet.  So the initial  test was to see if we would have any trouble getting back on the first step.  There were no difficulties...Going up the ladder and going through the hatch are not high workload items.  They are items that require some caution and practice."

         ...from Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing  report, released 7-31-69.



The jump was about 3 feet maximum.   And of course, no astronaut could've executed a jump of that height with 180+ pounds of mass strapped to him...without the help of his hands.





#186    DogsHead

DogsHead

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 408 posts
  • Joined:04 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:'straya

Posted 13 November 2006 - 01:48 AM

I'd like to add my appreciation Straydog - it is sometimes hard to admit that one is wrong, but you have done it gracefully.

Quote

DogsHead ... Don't hold your "baited breath" too long , as I haven't the time to try to locate the article on the moon rocks right now ... but when I do I will be sure to post it here , as it not only talked about how easy it is to fake moon rocks but it also talked about how NASA only sends out tiny little slivers of rock and sand from these rocks for the scientists to study , making it difficult for them to even know what the actual properties of these alleged moon rocks really are .

I am still interested to see this report, but no rush. It is true that only tiny amounts are ever sent out for research (with one exception, IIRC, when a whole rock was loaned) but geology doesn't require a large sample to determine physical make-up and origin; micron sized samples will be sufficient to show the characteristics of lunar origin.


#187    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,997 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 November 2006 - 09:35 AM

Quote


Neil Armstrong described the jump up the ladder:

"...the first step was pretty high; 3 to 3 1/2 feet.  So the initial  test was to see if we would have any trouble getting back on the first step.  There were no difficulties...Going up the ladder and going through the hatch are not high workload items.  They are items that require some caution and practice."

         ...from Apollo 11 Technical Crew Debriefing  report, released 7-31-69.
The jump was about 3 feet maximum.   And of course, no astronaut could've executed a jump of that height with 180+ pounds of mass strapped to him...without the help of his hands.

Check out the ALSJ for the end of the EVA.  Armstrong claimed he jumped right up to the third step of the ladder.


"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#188    postbaguk

postbaguk

    Conspiracy Theorist

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

Posted 13 November 2006 - 10:06 AM

Quote


Check out the ALSJ for the end of the EVA.  Armstrong claimed he jumped right up to the third step of the ladder.


If you look at the albeit small and grainy video footage on the ALSJ, it does appear as if he is jumping higher than three feet (just by comparing where his feet end up to his body height). You can see his feet end up higher than the horizontal strut. Looking at other photos of the LM ladder, I would guess that he has indeed jumped to at least the second, or more likely the third step on the ladder - approximately 5 feet.

Which equates to a jump of approx 10 inches on earth (probably pulling himself with his arms). Which seems achievable to me.


#189    Trinitrotoluene

Trinitrotoluene

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 995 posts
  • Joined:24 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 November 2006 - 12:50 PM

Quote


Check out the ALSJ for the end of the EVA.  Armstrong claimed he jumped right up to the third step of the ladder.


On top of this it lists 5 feet on the ALSJ

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology." - Carl Sagan

#190    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 14 November 2006 - 02:19 AM

5 feet is certainly possible, while pulling oneself up with the hands, and pushing off with one's feet...it's actually rather easy.

I think the point here is that a high jump on the lunar surface, without the aid of anything to pull up with (like a ladder) is impossible, as well as foolhearty, because of off center mass issues.

But jumping up 3 feet or even 5 feet is not a big deal on the Moon, when one has something for the hands to grasp and pull up with (which they did with the ladder).

If any of you have ever done any gymnastics, you will know this is true.

Think of the uneven parallel bars.  One with a reasonable amount of physical prowess could jump up, grap the high bar of the set (which is about 7 1/2 feet high, and pull oneself up all the way, so that you were waist high on the bar, no?

In that case, your feet are about 4 feet off the ground.  You did that by pulling up to enhance your vertical motion, which was initiated by your legs.

Same prinicpal, although not quite so difficult in 1/6 g with 60 pounds of weight being moved by your human strength...which has no problem with that much weight.
___________________________________________________________________________

Again., think of yourself with 183 pounds on your body in a similar configuration to the LM ladder, where you have  something to grip and pull up with.   Just as you couldn't get off the ground without anything to grip maybe 3-4 inches, if you pulled up on something like ladder rungs, while jumping up you might get 9-10 inches up...which would equate to perhaps 4.5-5 feet on the Moon, as postbaguk has indicated.

Additionally, it takes much less energy to move 60 pounds of weight than it does to move 360 pounds, so on the Moon, it is easier to get a start on motion, since less initial strength is necessary.

Still...one had better watch out for the mass!  It still has the same effect....


It was not possible to jump up much more than 2 feet un-assisted on the Moon in an EMU.

It was however possible to jump up 3 to 5 feet, maybe even a bit more on the ladder due to the assist of the hands pulling up.










0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users