Shall we take a look at what really happened on STS-37? Here's the writeup from the official Space Shuttle Vehicle Engineering Office In-Flight Anomaly Report:

QUOTE(STS-37 SSVEO IFA List, pg. 16)

Title: The EVA palm bar penetrated the restraint and bladder of the right glove of the EV2 crewman. (GFE)

Summary: DISCUSSION: During the receiving inspection at the Flight Equipment Processing Center, the palm bar of the right glove of the EV2 crewman was found to be penetrating through the restraint and bladder approximately 3/8 inch into the index finger side of the glove. Following the second EVA (total of 10.75 hours) and after doffing the gloves, the EV2 crewman noted an abrasion on his right hand approximately 3/4 inch behind his index finger metacarpal knuckle. The postflight inspection revealed that the palm bar was incorrectly positioned inside the palm restraint strap tunnel, thereby exposing the end of the bar to a non-reinforced area of the tunnel. The palm bar was able to work through the weave of the non-reinforced area of the tunnel fabric and penetrate the glove restraint and bladder.

The glove leakage rate with the palm bar in the failed condition was 3.8 sccm of air. The specification rate is 8.0 sccm. The leakage rate with the palm bar removed ranged from 18406 to 18972 sccm of air. Had the palm bar come out of the hole during the EVA, the leak rate would not have been sufficient to activate the secondary oxygen pack. The primary oxygen system would have maintained satisfactory suit pressure, but displayed a high oxygen use rate indication. CONCLUSION: The penetration of the glove restraint and bladder was caused by insufficient restraint at both ends of the palm restraint tunnel which allowed the palm bar to shift into a non-reinforced area of the tunnel. CORRECTIVE_ACTION: The palm bar strap will be modified to incorporate bar tack stitching at both ends of the glove palm bar restraint strap tunnel and thereby prevent movement of the bar within the tunnel. This corrective action will preclude the bar from being exposed to the non-reinforced section of the tunnel where it could push through the loose weave area. EFFECTS_ON_SUBSEQUENT_MISSIONS: None

So, the failure was actually due to a part of the glove assembly that shifted out of position and worked it's way gradually through the fabric weave in an unreinforced area of the glove. Since the failure occurred on the second EVA, we know it took at least 4 1/2 hours of activity (the length of the first EVA) to work the bar through to the pressure liner. This is not at all the same type of event as briefly kneeling down on a rock while wearing this:

QUOTE(MID @ Sep 16 2007, 03:47 PM)

I think what you do not realize is that the Apollo suit (specifically, the J-suit, or A7LB), consisted of tear and puncture resistent outer teflon fabric layer which was pretty darn sturdy and heavy weight (alot was required to get through that). Beneath that was the flame impingement layer of teflon coated yarn beta cloth, and beneath that were 6 layers of alternating beta cloth and gridded aluminized kapton, then 10 alternating layers of dacron and aluminized mylar....and then a rubber coated nylon micrometeoroid layer...and then...

...you finally got to the 5 layer integrated torso limb suit, which you'd have to get through, after all that other stuff, to actually relieve suit pressure.

Other than your belief that the lunar rocks would be dangerous, do you have any actual data to show that the Apollo A7LB suit MID mentioned above was vulnerable to punctures from routine contact with the lunar surface? Do you really think it was impossible to build a spacesuit to withstand a few rocks? That's a pretty easy problem to solve here on Earth, and the lunar surface isn't really much different.

No emprical evidence?

OK...I think we know what we're dealing with here...

Did you not think that John was looking where he was going, and would see a rock in his path if one was there? One could see the ground on the lunar surface, and see rocks that might be sticking out in a certain location.


You do realize that Shuttle astronauts on ISS assembly missions are working around METAL? It is a highly complex and marvelous structure with tons of sharpish edges and abraision possibilities, and that they work with hand tools all day long and are constantly manipulating tether clamps and cables, and that the potentials that exist in fact curtailed one of the STS-118 EVAs because of a small tear in a glove?


You're not talking apples to apples here, Turb.


Besides, the Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface were cognizant of potential dangers. However, they were not building a humongous metal space station in zero g. They were exploring a lunar surface which they could feel and clearly see under 1/6 g conditions, which is quite a bit different. The two environments are completely different, and require completely different techniques and training.


I think Peri and Posty have completely explained your contentions here. The Apollo suit was designed specifically for what you saw happen in this video clip. There was absolutely nothing untoward about it whatsoever.


What else is there...again?

I have lurked this thread the last few days and read through about half of it and was incredibly impressed by numerous posters and their voluminous knowledge of the space program, especially MID. I'd also like to thank those who debated with them, as without that provocation we wouldn't have learned nearly as much about NASA, the Apollo project and just how difficult it was to to put a man on the moon. And yes, we did put a man on the moon, but if you don't believe that it doesn't mean you're stupid.

Sometime in the summer of '01 I went out for a cigarette and two guys from the IT department who I knew to be intelligent, rational fellows whom I liked were talking about a program on Fox they'd seen that cast doubt on whether we'd actually landed on the moon. They had been absolutely convinced by that program, and as I respected them both for their intelligence and geniality I didn't laugh in their faces. As I hadn't seen the program I couldn't address it directly, but as the conversation evolved it turned out all the 'evidence' amounted to was some funny-looking pictures and a misunderstanding of the danger of radiation.

Early on in this thread the guy named 'S3th' noted the Kennedy assassination and suggested that like that we should be suspicious of what we are told, and that it's possible the official explanation may be suspect. However, there's one thing Kennedy conspiracy theorists have that Moon-hoax CTs will never have: extremely suspicious circumstances that are very difficult to explain. No matter how hard you research, two things stand out from the Kennedy assassination that even proponents of the 'lone gunmen' theory have trouble explaining: That Oswald had defected to the Soviet Union, married the daughter of a KGB colonel, passed out leaflets for Castro and quite likely visited the Cuban embassy in Mexico City shortly before the assassination. The other is Jack Ruby managed to waltz into the garage of the Dallas PD and blow him away at point blank range. Even if you believe those things coincidental, it's still suspicious, which is why many cannot believe it was really the work of one lone nutcase. There is direct proof of three entities, the Soviet government, the Cuban government and with Jack Ruby's association with the mob a total of three elements who had good reason to want Jack Kennedy dead and who had the resources to conspire to do so.

In comparison the moon-hoax theory dissipates with any close examination, and in fact directly assaults common-sense. If any government could manage to perpetuate a fraud of this magnitude, they'd never get caught but a few years later burglarizing opponents HQ in order to (probably) embarrass them for their hiring prostitutes to entertain delegates. They'd have to be so all-powerful they could mau-mau the French and the Soviet governments who both could track our spacecraft and silence the thousands of radio enthusiasts who tuned in to hear the messages from the moon. Note if that craft simply achieved orbit and nothing more all those people listening would have lost them as they went across to the other side of the Earth--but they didn't because those messages were actually transmitted from the moon.

Another thing to consider is if it was actually possible to fool people about this, the Soviet government would have tried. They had no free press and a police state, and expended a massive effort and killed many brave Cosmonauts in an attempt to succeed here--but they were never foolish enough to think they could get away with the pretense they'd been to the moon when they had not.

It simply could not be done. Going to the moon was easy compared to what would have been necessary had we tried to fake it.

Still not right, if you count Skylab and ASTP the Apollo hardware was used for 15 manned missions.

If you think there is no third-party evidence of Apollo, you are forgetting all the astronomers, amateur and professional, who tracked Apollo to the moon, the trackers, again amateur and professional, including the Russians, who picked up the voice and TV transmissions from the moon, the geologists all around the world who accept the returned rocks as genuine and the deployed scientific instruments that operated for years from the lunar surface.

What evidence do you have for a hoax? Not the "anomalies" in the pictorial record that don't convince anyone who really studies them, but whistleblowers, people who made fake films, fake rocks, etc? Who can even give a plausible method for how these could be faked? It is the hoax side that which is best described by "credibility...has dropped to absolute zero and without empiracle evidence".

This is one hell of a post Kaosium!
I thank you for your kind comments.
Further, I'll tell you that you're completely correct, not so much in respect to the fact that it was extremely difficult to put men on the Moon (it was, you're right), but moreso in respect to your idea that not believing it doesn't mean one is stupid.

I've always approached these threads as an opportunity to educate, because Moon hoax theories are in large part the product of a lack of knowledge.
If people learn something, the purpose of being here is fulfilled!






Ah yes, the Fox program...perhaps the grand daddy of this whole thing, featuring Mr. Kaysing...rest his soul...the godfather of the Moon hoax himself!
It does you credit that you didn't laugh in their faces, as laughable as this thing actually could be.

There are many factors that contribute to this sort of belief system:

• Lack of knowledge about Apollo.
• Generational separation (i.e., removed from the events by decades).
• The lack of anything quite so compelling happening in the decades since.
• A lack in educational paradigms which results in ignorance about history and the details of past accomplishments.

Short list to be sure, but somewhat inclusive of the entire system.
Of course, the perpetrators of this situation (Kaysing, Percy, Sibrel, Rene, et. al.), did so fully realizing the short list above, and used ignorance as a basis to make a profit. Kaysing sold alot of books (and got himself on TV far too many times); Rene's sold alot of books, Sibrel's sold alot of films, and Percy's sold lots of stuff too...although his alleged credentials make him especially heinous, because if he actually is what he says he is, he absolutely knows better. Kaysing, Sibrel, and Rene have no particular credentials, and their work shows it fully to the educated.


You're correct: the so-called "evidence" is a gross mis-understanding of radiation hazards, and the "funny looking pictures" showed nothing but natural photographic effects which could be observed on Earth photographs of similar things (the divergent shadows, the Resseau marks disappearing in bright whites, etc....all common photographic things seen on countless earth photos). The rest is fabrication and a mis-understanding of depth perception as it exists (or, I should say, doesn't exist) in a lack of atmosphere...as I've said, we're looking at photos of an alien world. Certainly, things are a little different there, and they are.




Actually, that was at the beginning of the prior massive Moon hoax thread. S3th, bless his heart, coundn't see the difference between what you've stated below and the complete untenability of Apollo hoax ideas. He also had a few problems which became apparent (he got downright unbearable and nasty), and he is now dearly departed as a result of the conduct that those problems produced...(he was not alone).




There's plenty that the rational mind has a problem with with the official word on the JFK assassination. There's plenty of trouble that officialdom has had with it, in the decades that have elapsed since that terrible time.

However, there is no similarity between the two events (the Apollo program and the Kennedy assassination), and it would be un-wise to start a discussion of that event in the midst of this one....








Correct...





Also very correct. Further, the Soviets fully understood and accepted the U.S. accomplishment, because they knew full well it had been done.





Neil Armstrong would agree with you....


Cheers, and thanks again.

True enough...on all counts, Swanny.

I shall be interested to hear the answers to the questions posed....although, I'm thinking the odds of that are slim to none.

Here's an interesting idea of the Germans landing on the Moon in 1942...
http://books.google.com/books?id=jak4-0l4U...NcgQkGvQxHyFcDQ




http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2007/03/1...-german-colony/


or in the 1950's
http://www.naziufos.com/NEWSCL/VESCO.HTM
http://greyfalcon.us/restored/Aryan%20UFOs...tic%20Bases.htm
ooops!!! how do I shrink it??? just learnt how to post picture today!!!!!! lol lost it!!!

Hello I'm new to the site and I have been reading this thread for awhile now. I remember watching the FOX program "Did we land on the Moon?" and I remember saying to myself, "Oh my God they faked it!" After researching all the hoax claims, I came to realize that we obviously did go. I have a question though that maybe someone on here has the answer to. It's footage of the Astronauts from Apollo 11 I believe and it's on a documentary titled, "A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon". It appears in this film that they are in deep space because it shows them filming what appears to be Planet Earth out of a window of the ship they are in, but when the camera pulls back you clearly see blue sky and the sun beams light right into the ship! I've always wondered why in the hell they would do such a thing? Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

Yes, the clip does show that he dropped down on one knee, not both knees. I'm happy to concede that point. But even you now say that he dropped down on one knee, which is entirely different than saying he was "bending down on one knee". And that is the correct description - he most definitely drops down on one knee.



If he did look down at the area before he dropped down his knee, it's not readily apparent from the clip. At most, it was a perfunctory glance as he bounced his way to the area. But as I said, there could easily have been sharp rocks, or other hard, jagged surface formations hidden just below a few thin layers of dust. The danger of puncturing or tearing the spacesuit in such a knee drop would have still existed.



NASA disagrees with you...

...the shuttle extravehicular mobility unit (EMU) spacesuit, which was developed to be More durable and more flexible than previous spacesuits were.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm?pa...pacewalking.pdf

When working on the moon, Apollo astronauts had difficulties moving around in their spacesuits. The Apollo suits were not nearly as flexible as the EMU used today

http://science.howstuffworks.com/space-suit5.htm



!! Now you go back to your previous - and misleading - description!! "Bending down on one knee" is not equivalent to "dropping down on one knee". I'm disappointed in you, postie - you're trying to water down the danger as insignificant with deceptive phrasing. It's beyond any doubt that he drops to one knee - he does not simply bend down on one knee. You know this very well, so please cut out the word play.



Now you're acting really juvenile, postie. I mean, come on - "There, I just proved they faked Space Shuttle EVAs as well."?!?!

You usually make some worthwhile points, but this isn't exactly one of your better examples. But, hey, I've been just as guilty of going off-track as anyone else - so let's move along...

Again, this is a misleading, watered down description of the actions seen in the Apollo video clip. It's true - he is indeed "briefly kneeling". But that was because he dropped down to his knee. You and postie make it sound like he's gently bending down to one knee, like someone just before entering a church pew!



What makes a full body weight knee-drop "routine contact with the lunar surface"?

Do you think the Apollo spacesuit could be punctured by a steel-blade knife? Because that's what Moon rocks are often like - harder than a steel-blade knife, nearly as sharp, but much more jagged and irregular.

Well, I agree with you about JFK being a conspiracy. What you failed to mention, however, is that the official historical record still claims Oswald did it alone!! Ask yourself why this is the case, in light of the overwhelming evidence against the official account...

I don't get your point about burglary and prostitutes in relation to a Moon hoax.

As for fooling other nations, or ham radio buffs, it's entirely possible to do when you control all aspects of the missions, and could send an unmanned probe to the Moon to fool any tracking attempted outside of NASA.

The Soviets space program may have been 100% authentic, although that's recently become more in dispute. As for staging a manned Moon landing, I think the Western nations' film industry had already established itself as fully capable of pulling it off (2001: A Space Odyssey, came out in 1968). I don't think the Soviets were putting out high-tech flicks like that in the late 1960's (maybe they still don't!). So it seems very unlikely they could fake it with Hollywood-style special effects, they simply didn't have that capability.

As for your last comment....

"Going to the moon was easy compared to what would have been necessary had we tried to fake it."

That's a popular argument made by the pro-Apollo camp. But I really beg to differ. As I said, we had already proved that it was possible to create a very realistic looking manned space mission a year before Apollo 11, thanks to the genius of Kubrick and his team of special effects experts.

And he did it all with a $10 million budget. What do you think NASA could have done with its $12.4 billion budget?

Saying it's easier to go to the Moon than to fake it is really quite ridiculous, once the above facts are taken into account.

As I said in an earlier post - it's not really evident from the clip whether or not he even looks down to the area before he does his knee-drop. And a rock could easily be hidden from view under some dust. The danger still would exist, whether it could be seen or not.



And again, I pointed out that Moon rocks are often very sharp edged, harder than a steel blade knife, and much more jagged and irregular. Add to that the fact that some of them might be hidden below some dust! At least they know what they're dealing with, working on the ISS.

The lunar surface is largely an unknown, alien terrain. To claim that it was perfectly safe to go to the Moon, and bounce around in a pressurized spacesuit, as if we already knew everything about the lunar surface, and that we had previously established that nothing at all in the terrain poses a risk to an astronaut's life?!? Because of those almost puncture-proof spacesuits?

Good grief, MID - that's utterly absurd.

Bends down, drops down. The words are a matter of semantics. The evidence is in the video. Neither description is incorrect IMO.



Fair enough, I'll concede the point. (EMUs certainly had to be more durable since they're designed to last for up to 25 missions).



It's not word play, it's amatter of semantics. If you want to refer to it as "dropping down on one knee" in future I'll try to stick to that. While you're doing that though, remember that the force applied to the knee will be much reduced from our experience on earth due to reduced gravity, and the tendency of the suit knee joint to spring back into shape.



I think it was clear that I was playing Devil's advocate making a point on how easy it is to put a certain spin on events by over-emphasising things that aren't proof of anything. Let's take this a bit further. Say an Apollo suit had suffered a puncture and the astronaut had made it safely back to the LM. I can just hear the CTs up in arms now - "His suit would have decompressed and he'd have died instantly", "No way he could have made it back to the LM in time", "Clear act of whistle-blowing", "They did it to add to the perceived drama and danger because TV ratings were low". Then we'd point to the fact that a similar incident happened on the Shuttle. "It was staged to provide continuity for Apollo." "We only have NASAs word for it". "Shuttle suits were a better design, 35 year old Apollo suits couldn't have survived".

At least, I thought it was clear...

Welcome to the site and the thread Andrew.

I know exactly what you are talking about and it is a good question. In fact they didn't do such a thing.

That film, "A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon," is made by the professional liar and stalker Bart Sibrel (professional because he sells his videos, liar because none of his claims are true and stalker because he has harassed the astronauts). He claimed that the NASA footage was secret, unreleased NASA film which proves that Apollo 11 was in low Earth orbit when they should have been a 3rd of the way to the Moon. In fact it was no such thing, it was footage of a rehearsal for a live broadcast the astronauts were to make later. It was not secret and unreleased and is actually available on commercial DVD's. What is more Sibrel does not show all the footage (I said he was a professional liar). He only shows some of it as the footage, in it's entirety, shows that he was lying.

There has been some very good analysis of Sibrel's claims which prove he is lying. THIS LINK will take you to that analysis and give you a very good explanation of what REALLY happened. It shows stills from ALL the footage not just that that Sibrel wants you to see. The page finishes with some brilliant research carried out by some of the members of the Apollo-Hoax forum. They compared the Apollo 11 images with the weather patterns for June 17th 1969. They found that there was a virtually perfect match. As NASA could not have known what the weather would be like for the entire planet Earth before the launch (unless they have some secret weather making machine) this provides extraordinarily good evidence that Apollo 11 and it's crew where exactly where NASA claim they were on 17th June 1969, through the Van Allen Belts and on there way to the Moon.

The whole "where were the astronauts" argument is one of the big flaws that shows just how feeble the hoax claims are. These people can't even agree amongst themselves. Some believe that the the astronauts were in low Earth orbit for the entire mission, some believe that they returned to Earth almost immediately and some believe that they never left the Earth at all. If they can not agree amongst themselves it is clear that they have no evidence for any of these claims. Pathetic really.

Great summation, Waspie! If you don't mind, I'd like to add...


Link to ApolloHoax thread on Sibrel's video and weather patterns on 17 June 1969

It does you credit that you try to educate them, that's the one thing I was in awe of reading this thread. You know so much about the space program and the technologies required I was stupefied in comparison. Did you actually work on the project or did you just make it your life's passion to learn that much about it? I am a big fan of space science, I grew up reading Heinlein, Pournelle etc. but while I knew those spacesuits had to be extremely tough and resilient to survive a vacuum I had no idea they had seven layers of whatever-it-was backed up by fifteen more layers of whatever-you-said sometime 3-50 pages back!


I couldn't laugh in that guys face, but I have to admit to chuckling a bit as I took a drag. The reason I couldn't laugh in his face is about a week before I had to call him over to my workstation as while putzsing around on my computer while on a phone call I'd managed to put my taskbar on the right of my screen and after fiddling with it for about an hour had to admit complete and utter defeat. Since he didn't laugh in my face as he simply clicked on it and dragged it back where it belonged I wasn't about to humiliate him publicly for holding an arcane idea out at the smoker's kiosk.

He was a smart guy, he could make computers sit up and beg for him, in comparison despite once being a radar technician on F-14s at that point I still didn't know how to get my task bar back to the bottom of my screen where it belonged. But I knew better than to believe it was even possible to have faked the moon landing. Maybe it was because my dad was a radiomen for twenty years in the USN and was actually listening to it at the time. He could conjure signals from WABC while in Wisconsin because he knew the best places in town to get the 'bounce' and listen to his beloved Yankees. He'd have laughed at this conspiracy theory because he knew there was no way he could have heard that signal (on his equipment) if it was in orbit because of this big rock called the 'Earth' which would have been in the way half the time. Radio signals travel real well in a vacuum but they have big troubles penetrating a gazillion tons of rock.




There's something else I think. You have to want to believe this sort of thing. That's the only way you could ignore the mountains of evidence and focus solely on a few funny-looking photographs which are easily explained. S3th wasn't stupid, but I believe the reason he couldn't keep an even keel is he wanted to believe this so badly he surrendered his rationality in the process. You shot down each and every one of his pieces of 'evidence' quite adroitly, but his belief still remained. He could still post skillfully, but as he had no 'evidence' that you hadn't completely and thoroughly debunked all was left was his belief and emotion.



My guess is they're simply trying to make a buck. P.T. Barnum put it best: "There's a sucker born every minute." In his day you went to the circus and he promised you death, daring and a naked lady. No one died, the daring was as safe as they could manage it and you never got to see the naked lady's better parts because they were obscured by big snakes or somesuch. You still left happy. The problem with this theory is it's so easy to knock down and there's virtually no evidence of it except some funny looking photographs and a fifty year-old theory about radiation that has been thoroughly discredited. As for funny-looking photographs that would describe just about every one I've been in. I know I don't have red eyes, I look in the mirror and they're blue every time, but if you take a picture of me they're red half the time. Pisses me off.


It wasn't my intention in the slightest. I was simply pointing out the reason speculation about that thrives is no matter how much you explain things there's still elements which are extremely suspicious. This is not the case in the moon hoax theory. Once things are explained you actually know more. You're not left with Jack Ruby waltzing into a garage and blowing away the most wanted man in America on national television in front of the Dallas police department.



The funniest argument I recall on this thread regarded Neil Armstrong. It was something along the lines of him not being too public about his achievements. I couldn't help but think the whole time maybe that's 'cuz Neil Armstrong has something known as 'class.' Perhaps he realized he was simply the embodiment of perhaps a half-million men who sweated, thought, designed and achieved for him to get where he ended up? He might have felt guilty if he basked overmuch in the public acclaim. The sort who while they might have earned every laurel chose not to dwell on them because they understood the meaning of humility? Maybe he was just a really good guy?

It is not evident because you couldn't see the astronaut's eyes lookin'. And even if it was up close you still couldn't have, because his face was blocked out by the gold visor.
To assume he was not looking where he was going is somewhat silly.
There is always danger, even on Earth. Hell, a rock could be hidden in the sand on a beach (although the likelyhood of that is about as high as the likely hood of one being buried in a couple inches of regolith). If you go down an make light contact (which is all John did in that video), the odds of you hurting yourself are slim...the odds of encountering some object that would pierce all that suit is probably more slim.

You're arguing about nothing here Turb...it was a typically performed non-thing which has no bearing on a moon hoax at all.





No kidding Turb....it was the Moon. How many times I've tried to explain the alien nature of the Moon to HBs...to little avail, is astounding, and here you are trying to convince me?


I did not, ever...say that it was "perfectly safe to go to the Moon". That's absurd. It was hazardous and one had to be impeccably trained and very careful about everything in order to do it sucessfully.

What is also absurd is your insistence on dwelling on a non-issue, in lieu of posting your previously un-mentioned evidence.

No one said anything about knowing "everything" about the lunar surface. By the time this video clip was taken, we had landed on the Moon 4 times, and had done 8 EVAs, several of long duration. We understood the nature of the surface, and the methods for mobility on it were well understood. We also had carefully examined rocks, thousands of photos, and debriefed every lunar surface crewman about his observations exhaustively.

We knew that in the lunar dust, no one had ever encountered a sharper than steel rock buried in the dust that they couldn't see, poised and waiting to puncture a suit. In fact, the rocks we recovered were all sitting in the dust and sticking out of it, ejecta. The dust itself was the product of several billion years of bombardment, and little if anything was embedded in it beneath the surface. The surface rocks are all on the surface for far less time than the dust has been there being disintegrated.

This maneuver that you've decided to focus on, for some reason, is a no-thing, a practiced technique to get down and up efficiently, utilizing mass, and the pressure inside the suit to help in the process. This was done on the 11th of 14 Apollo EVAs. We knew alot by April of 1972 regarding the lunar surface and how to do things there. We could clearly see what we were doing, and besides the fact that we were wearing an EMU, and were working in a vacuum on a heavenly body 230,000 miles away in 1/6 the gravity of home, there was nothing that was unearthy or wierd or unusual about stomping on ground, looking at it, realizing that since our foot had just stepped in it, we had a smooth place to bend down and pick up a rock, or a dropped item, and we did it, like we practiced it!

What is the problem here...where's the other unmentioned "evidence"? You're grasping at very thin straws again....

this thread needs to die and turbonium is right.

What's Turbonium right about? At best all it amounts to is sometimes pictures can come out looking really funny. You've probably been in a few yourself, your eyes take on this demonic red color, sometimes it looks like you're in two places at once. It doesn't mean you're a demon or have superhuman abilities, what it generally means is something mundane about the exposure or somesuch.

If this thread dies it should be because all the people silly enough to believe it was possible to pretend we'd gone to the moon when we really hadn't had finally fessed up publicly they were funning you to get your cash.

I mean that in the very best way.

It was, and still is a passion.
It used to be in terms of being involved with it. Today, it's in terms of educating about it.
One of the things that I find fulfilling is that when you address questions about it, which is what I look for in these threads, many times a great deal of seemingly unassociated things pop up that can lead into some really cool stuff.

Right here, you're learning that the Apollo suit was actually a highly complex piece of gear, involving many layers of different material that was designed to sustain life (by allowing a pressurized atmosphere and providing for respiration and an adequate temperature environment), to allow work, and to protect from micrometeoroid impact, solar radiation including heat, as well as protection from abraisions and cuts from various external sources that were present. It also provided liquid and solid nourishment, and provided for the collection or elimination of bodily wastes. In other words, it was a million dollar plus, custom made and meticulously manufactured spacecraft for one, which was continually improved upon during the program (as was the case with all aspects of the program). Documentation concerning structure, testing, performance, operation of, and donning and doffing this complicated thing can be measured in many hundreds of pages.

Learning this stuff makes people go, "Whoa, you're kidding!" When they realize I am not, they get that cool sensation that comes from learning something new for the first time.

We had a previous discussion concerning the rather silly idea that the Apollo 11 films of Earth were actually tranparencies mounted in the CM windows which led into someone asking how they could photograph the Earth out their windows when they were pointing at the Moon.

Well, the answer being that they weren't pointing their nose at the Moon led into a long discussion of the idea that you can go in one direction in space, but can do so in any orientation you can think of and it'll make no difference, which got into how an Apollo spacecraft was oriented in space, guidance and navigation systems and stuff like that...which was an eye opener for some folks (others likely thought I was just spewing nonsense, I am certain), and folks learned something they never knew.

Apollo was incredibly complex, and that complexity was never really explained or translated adequately by NASA back in the day. I say that without reservation. I never thought about it myself back in those days, but really, it should've been done so that the public could understand better what really was going on and how.

But...we try to do it here!






Well, you know there are lots of smart folks today who adhere to the idea that it might have been possible to fake it.
I understand how one without specific knowledge of the vast complexity and effort that was required could produce doubt. We have a whole generation and a half of people today who never saw it happen, and have never been exposed to anything so compelling in their lives. I regret that as deeply as I regret anything about the premature scrapping of Apollo, and a failure to continue with what we started by executing the original Apollo Applications program and the extensions that were envisioned for it.

It is, once knowledge is present, a silly idea to contemplate--that it was all a fake--as if so, a whole bunch of people have kept their mouths shut for decades about it, and the fake they produced was impeccable to the very tiniest of details. Additionally, we have tens of thousands of pages of written documentation (more than any endeavor in the history of humanity), most of which the general public is unaware of, and wouldn't understand if they read it, and over 6000 photos of the lunar surface...all of which have absolutely no inconsistency in them.

Why would we have done all that...most of which the public never saw, and wouldn't care to, or read...in support of a fake? Overkill? Yea...





How many times I have used that phrase..."want to believe"!
You're correct. One's dearest illusions, brought about by many a complex societal factor, are shattered by the obvious, and that is a difficult thing to come to grasps with. I've often said that belief has nothing to do with science. It's about knowledge, not belief.

In all fairness to S3th, and without any desire to denigrate the departed, if you examine his posts throughout his colorful tenure here, you will find that he admittedly had some problems he was dealing with of a psychological nature. As time went on, that became apparent. So, there was a little bit more than simply a desire to believe involved in his situation, and his emotion was infected with a self-admitted difficulty.





You are correct about making a buck of course, when referring to folks like Kaysing, Sibrel, Percy, Rene, et.al. (although I do think Ralph Rene has a few rather obvious difficulties that enhance his position).

I can't necessarily refer to the people who buy into the Apollo hoax as "suckers". P.T. Barnum was referring to folks that you could pull an illusion off before and they would pay to see it again, and they might believe it was real eventually...tell others of similar mind, and they'd come and pay to see it, etc...

Like a magic show. People generally realize that what they're seeing is illusion. Yet, they enjoy the illusion. Some may even believe it to be real that the magician could cut that poor lady in half with a saw and she's come out of the box in one piece, or whatever it is. But most people realize fully that it is skilled prestidigitation...they know it's fake, but they enjoy the skill involved and the emotion it creates and they willingly pay for it.

A sucker, in the true sense of the word, ought to know better, and often prefers not to...in large part.

With the Apollo hoax, it's different. It's a scam put forth on people which is not so clear, because frankly the things behind Apollo are not necessarily common-sense to people who have little or no knowledge of celestial mechanics, aeronautics and astronautics, and associated disciplines.

Perhaps if education hadn't degraded as it did in the decades following the Apollo years (in terms of scientific, mathematical, and technical education...which of course has a large impact on critical and rational thinking skills), we wouldn't have such a problem with belief as we see in people who adhere to a faked lunar landing program.

These people aren't "suckers", per-se. They are uneducated in the necessary areas--areas which are essential to understanding the accomplishments made.

That's why I consider these threads an educational opportunity.






You would be absolutely correct about Mr. Armstrong. He has a great deal of class. His conduct has been utterly impeccable, and frankly, if we actually chose who would be the first man to land and set foot upon the Moon, it would've been Neil Armstrong. No one had more dignity and grace than that man did...(or does!).


It's just the man's makeup, an enviable and immensely classy one, that makes him the way he is.

And frankly, if you'd told him he was going to be the first to land on the Moon, he'd have jumped at the chance to do that (which he did). If you told him at the same time that he would, forever more, be one of the most famous men on the planet for the rest of his life...he may have reconsidered taking the job!


Neil Armstrong is in every sense a role model. He is a man of impeccable character, and his conduct in the post-Apollo 11 years is illustrative of impeccable character, grace, and character. He never sought fame, refused millions of dollars, and didn't want either.

More people should learn from the way this true American hero has conducted himself.

Don't sell him short MID, along with Yuri Gagarin he is a true GLOBAL hero.

Turb...

2001 was an illustration of Stanley Kubrick's ability as a film maker. Additionally, it proved that he was a film maker (not a "Hollywood" filmmaker, but a filmaker nonetheless...of extraordinary abilities. As such, he took artistic license and presented many innacuracies (some deliberately, and some not) to enhance the visual presentation he was making. This is typical and expected of movie producers. 2001 was no different in that respect than it is today.


It fully established Kubrick's credentials in that respect. However, 2001 flies in the face of what was actually videotaped and filmed on the actual lunar surface a year or so after the films release...in many, many respects.

The idea that Kubrick established the "fact" that the film industry could actually fake what we knew little about at the time (the actual nature of the lunar surface) is ridiculous, and fallacious. It proved no such thing.

There is of course this "theory" out there that the lunar landings were filmed and produced by Kubrick on a sound stage at Area 51 or some such place. That of course is idiocy, since Kubrick hadn't been in the United States since 1962, and did all of his movies out of British studios from that point on (including 2001), and of course, the Apollo films were absolutely not "Hollywood" quality. This is because they were real.


I am supposing you think that Kubrick and his ilk had something to do with the Apollo 12 mess that you tend to dwell on so vehemently?
Where was the cinematic brilliance in any Apollo film? Apollo 12's 15 seconds of shame was a product of the Western film industry that was producing a fake? Why were all the moutains rounded off like that in Apollo films, when 2001 showed sharp, rigid young mountains? Why did the astronauts move like they were in a 1/6 g vacuum on the Apollo films when 2001 showed people walking around normally, albeit somewhat slowly? Why would their be dust clouds billowing up underneath the Aries 1B craft and the "moon bus" when those were impossibilities on the Moon? And why, during Dr. Floyd's briefing at Clavius Moon base, was everyone walking around in that lunar conference room just as if they were in 1g on Earth, when they had to be in 1/6 g on the lunar surface?





Perhaps you would like me to tell you precisely how innaccurate Kubrick and his staff of special effects experts actually were in 2001?




Exactly what they did (incidentally, it was actually about twice what you quoted above as pertains to expense).
Build the spacecraft and the launch vehicle, test them all exhaustively, train the men, also exhaustively, test the profile, and execute a lunar landing mission, over the period of a decade.






You are stating no facts above. You are stating the ridiculous.

Just how realistic and accurate was 2001 in a technical sense?


1) In the initial Earth Orbital scenes, there are far too many stars in the sky visible. In fact, none should be, especially during the sunrise scene.

2) Space Station 1 is said to be 1000 feet in diameter, and its rotation produces 1 g at the periphery. The problem is, we see this station rotating at a rate between 1 time per minute to 1.5 times per minute during the orbital sequences.
--- During the phone call scene, the Earth’s rotation in the window shows a value between 1 and 1.5 times per minute.
--- None of these values are great enough to produce more than 3/8 g. Everyone on board station is walking normally in what appears to be 1 g, but given the slow rotation, that is impossible.
--- The station would have to rotate about 2 ½ time faster in order to produce 1 g at it’s periphery.


3) SS1 appears to change its orbital altitude quickly. From the angular size of the earth during the rendezvous sequence, it appears to be in the 1000 SM range in altitude (which is probably a bit too high for an Earth orbital station). Yet, while Dr. Floyd is making his phone call, the station is obviously in the 8-10,000 Mile altitude range!

4) Dust clouds appear around the base of the Aries 1B craft, and on the “Moon Bus” when they touch down on the surface. Dust clouds are not possible in vacuum.

5) The astronauts on the Moon's surface are obviously walking slowly, but in 1g (it was a wee bit hard to simulate 1/6 g walking, I understand, but I don’t think "Hollywood" thought of that anyway).

6) In the carousel aboard discovery, it is obvious that Frank Poole is jogging along the surface of the outer carousel in 1 g. This is impossible, since the rotation of the cylinder, as evidenced by Dave Bowman’s entry into the zero-g hub at its center, is only about 4.7 FPS at the outer edge. That would only produce a small fraction of a g. The carousel rotation would have had to be 5 times faster in order to produce the 1g which was obviously present at its outside edge…in other words, once every 5 seconds, rather than the once every 23 seconds as illustrated in the film.

7) Again, too many stars being seen when discovery is visible in the space sequences, and the motion through the star fields would never be seen in reality.

8) The EVA scenes are convincing, save one profoundly untenable thing: why would the pod be parked a couple hundred feet away, and then the astronaut float untethered through free space all the way to the antenna unit, with no obvious means of attitude or directional control!? Dramatic effect, perhaps, but completely ridiculous.

9) In the pod bay, after Bowman has recovered the AE-35 unit, you see he and Frank Poole leaning on a table, and moving variously under the full force of gravity, when they should be floating around in zero g. This is also seen in other places where someone is in the pod bay, which is a zero g area.

10) Movement on the control deck, also a zero g area is obviously done in 1 g.

11) What a great scene when Bowman entered the emergency airlock sans helmet! However, where’d the explosive hatch go? Further, it was a full 17 seconds before Dave had enough pressurized atmosphere around him to breathe, and he held his breath forcefully against the vacuum. He may have been able to remain conscious for that long…it’s on the outside edge of that possibility for the average human, but holding his breath forcefully against the vacuum, rather than expelling it all first, would most certainly have resulted in some debilitating lung damage, and odds are, he’d have been in hurting shape.


Try those for starters....

You know, Waspie, you always impeccably pick up my inadequacies... :


You are absolutely correct.
People such as Gagarin and Armstrong truly are global heroes.

Despite the fact that I, being a Yank, tend to speak in terms of America (by rote, I should imagine) when referring to an American, it is absolutely true that the conduct and behavior and character of such men is perceived by intelligent, discriminating people all over the globe in the same way.


Impeccable character is the same everywhere on our world.

Neil Armstrong and Yuri Gagarin are indeed Global heroes, and are respected worldwide as such...

Brilliant.
Thank you for your contributions (sans any substantive content of course).

If you think the thread needs to die...simply don't bother with it (you know, turn the channel...it's your choice. Dont complain about it when you can do something about it).

Nomatter what anyone says yes we DID land on the moon.

Don't worry, I don't hold that against you.

I am extremely relieved, Waspie!

Thank you so much!!!!

I'm really not being picky here (nor am I trying to be) when I point out that to "bend down" is quite different than to "drop down". It's a distinction which is quite relevant to this issue - ie: whether the actions of the astronaut should be considered dangerous.



Thank you.



And again, it is a distinction relevant to the issue - it's not merely a matter of semantics. And yes, it would be great if you could likewise describe it as a "drop". Thanks.



I do realize that 1/6 gravity would mean less weight, downward force, etc. But that doesn't make such actions safe. Dropping full body weight - plus the added weight of the PLSS, etc. - down onto sharp, jagged edges of Moon rocks is still dangerous, even if it's a 50 lb. astronaut in 1/6th gravity.



I wan't sure of what your intent of this point was from your earlier post. I see it's meant as a sort of tounge-in-cheek comeback, or what have you. That's fine.

The "what if" scenario you describe is still relevant to the points I'm trying to make. Yes, you would point out that a similar incident happened on the Shuttle. But, it still needs to be compared to the Shuttle astronauts' EVA procedures and safety precautions. The Apollo astronauts did not follow the strictly followed Shuttle procedures - slow, careful movements during EVA's.

This is what I find peculiar about Apollo - why didn't they move slowly and carefully like the Shuttle astronauts do during EVA's?

They were never warned or cautioned about such dangerous antics by Ground Control, either. Why not?

You and MID have argued it's because their antics were not dangerous. But as I said, I think such a claim is entirely unfounded. We're not dealing with a fully known environment and terrain here - unlike the Earth, we knew very little about the Moon (and we still have very much to learn about it). Just based on what had already been established by the time of Apollo 16, we knew that the lunar surface contained many sharp, irregular rocks (among other hazardous features).

That's one thing. But what cannot be disputed is that 99.9% of the lunar terrain was (and still is) yet to be explored by humans via direct surface contact. What if the dust covered patches of razor sharp spikes, made from some sort of crystalline (glass) materials? Who knows? The fact is, we really had no idea what dangers might exist for Apollo moonwalkers - whether it be a genuine event(s) or not. And we still don't know most of the lunar terrain.

So what are we to conclude then?

If Apollo was genuine, then...

NASA was blissfully ignorant of the possible dangers of the largely unknown lunar terrain, and somehow just 'assumed' it was safe for the astronauts to run around, jump, etc. in their pressurized spacesuits on the Moon.

If Apollo was a hoax, then...

NASA knew it was perfectly safe, because it was all being staged right here on Earth. The astronauts weren't warned to move very slowly and carefully, simply because they were never in any danger in the first place!

And this is where the comparison to the Shuttle missions becomes relevant. NASA does not 'assume' it's safe for Shuttle astronauts on EVA's to move around quickly, etc. They have implemented cautionary procedures, which makes perfect sense. But in the case of Apollo, it does not make any sense - if it was genuine.

It makes perfect sense if Apollo was staged, however. In fact, that's the only way it makes any sense.


My other point is still to be determined - which is, what is the actual full range-of-motion possible for the knee joints, in a pressurized Apollo spacesuit. Can the deep knee-bends seen in the Apollo video clips be duplicated? I highly doubt it. That's yet to be proven, but I'll keep looking into it....

Everybody keeps forgetting one important point, the Russians were watching very closely, if they didn't go to the moon, the Russians would have said so, surely.

I take issue with the "everybody" part. Those of us the support the reality of Apollo have brought this point up many MANY times. The Apollo truth dodgers either ignore it or bring in some other fanciful conspiracy (often the Russians were given grain in return for their silence) in order to explain why yet again reality and their world view are at odds.

Turbonium, you are making less and less sense with every post. You seem to be claiming that the Apollo footage most be compared with procedures which were written AFTER the last Lunar EVA. Even if you are correct and the astronauts took silly risks on the Moon then it makes perfect sense that the LATER procedures would be written to stop such risks happening again. Therefore it is obvious that no comparison can be made between what the Apollo astronauts did and what CURRENT procedures say.

You are engaging in typical CT circular logic here. YOU have decided that Apollo is fake. YOU are then deciding (with little or no evidence to back you up) that an activity you see in a video is too dangerous. YOU are then claiming that as evidence that Apollo is faked. You are supporting your opinion with another of your opinions and claiming it as evidence. That is not evidence, not in the real world anyway.

Actually Turb, they did move carefully...as carefully as was necessary to maneuver about and do their work. They trained to do this, just as Shuttle astronauts train incessantly to do their EVA work.

However, there is a reason why lunar EVA crews didn't move (and in the future, won't move) in the manner that Shuttle crews on EVA do. It is because there is a vast difference between moving in a gravity field and in the absence of one. It is a completely different set of techniques applied.


Moving in 0g results in the induction of perpetual motion. One has to train to be able to make careful controlled inputs so as not to induce a "whifferdill". One can find one's self spinning off in a wild gyration that's unstoppable in 0g. One can bang inbto gear, rip open a suit on a piece of metal, etc., etc. No such potential occurs in gravity fields.

Shuttle EV crewmen and women move deliberately and slowly because they have to. Every thing they do is a controlled, rehearsed, and choreographed procedure involving checklists, special tools, anchoring and tethering techniques, and it's very tedious and careful by design, because of the environment they're working in.

In a gravity field, many of the 0g concerns are not present at all. If you jump on the Moon, you'll come down again. It takes a little getting used to when you go up more, decellerate slower, and come down slower than on Earth, but it's completely different from 0g, where if one can anchor themselves and "jump", you're starting a motion that will not stop, and mass, moving in 0g, is uncontrollable and carries alot of potential energy with it.

Essentially, they didn't move the way Shuttle EVA astronuats (or the way Gemini EVA astronauts, or Apollo 0g EVA astronauts did (ref: Apollos 9, 15, 16, and 17), becuase they were in a gravity field. It's a completely different environment.

By Apollo 16, we knew we could SEE the rocks. We also knew that the surface was uniformly contructed of several inches of micro-fine dust which hid nothing but a hard substrate in all the locations we'd been to. We could easily see what was there, and we could feel it as we moved along through our boots. John had just stepped in the very same place where he went down in that video. It's just like on Earth, albeit a bit easier. He made light contact with the surface at any rate, and sprung right back up....IF there was anything under there, he might have felt a slight impact with his knee, and it wouldn't have done anything, given the light contact.

Human prioprocetion is still in effect in 1/6g. We trained to learn the difference between that environment and 1g. The astronauts found it pleasant and relatively easy. I don't know how to explain it much further. On the Moon, what goes up must come down, and it does...in a wee bit different of a manner. In zero g, what goes "out" (there is no up), doesn't stop doing so. The necessity of slow careful movements is completely understandable there.

I sometimes wish everyone could experience it. If I tossed you out on the lunar surface, you'd be able to quickly adapt to movement, and would instinctively begin to understand what you can do and what you shouldn't do. If I tossed you out a Shuttle hatch and told you to go over to a certain place in 0g (tethered, of course, with someone else (trained) out there to reel you in)...you'd find out the vast difference quickly. You'd find that you had to be slow, and meticulous and careful, or you'd wind up puking in your suit.





They didn't drop down onto sharp jagged edges. They dropped onto soft, powdered dust.
It's not weight...it's mass we're talking about. These guys weighed maybe 60 pounds. It doesn't take alot of muscular force to move 60 pounds around, but the Mass is influential everywhere...even when there's no weight (indeed it's profoundly felt in 0g).

The movement you're talking about here could be instinctively learned by anyone in a couple minutes of adaptation to 1/6g. It was a completely human coordinated response, which resulted in utilizing mass accelerating downward to assist in a squat, which was easily reversed by a minimum of physical force, supplanted by the stiffness of the pressurinzed suit, which helped propel the astronaut back up after a light touch on the surface.


Thus, I cannot fathom this:




It is not in any way relevant, because as I've explained, the environments are completely different.
NASA doesn't assume anything. They know it's not safe to flit about in 0g, and procedures and intense training are provided so as to insure safe 0g OPS (we learned the dangers of 0g EVA OPS back in Gemini...try to contact Gene Cernan sometime and ask him about it! (We thought he was gonna die out there on GT-9A)). The astronauts themselves were the ones who showed what was safe to do on the lunar surface, in carefully executed demonstration on Apollo 11, and onward. Everything discovered was analyzed and trained for on subsequent missions. By Apollo 16, moving around on the lunar surface was rather well understood, and it had absolutely no relation to 0g OPS.




It makes perfect sense also, if you understand the mechanics behind that which you're observing, and the intense amount of training and such that was involved in making these things happen.




Turb...what do you mean "duplicated"? They were demonstrated multitudinous times! How can you doubt it when you can see it happening?!
The joint was designed to allow a full bend of the knee, the waist or the elbow (sans interference from the bulk of the suit itself). They allowed flexion of the neck, and overhead reaching with the shoulders, as well as ankle and hip joint flexion to a large degree.


Obviously, the astronouts could comfortably sit in the LRV, with a 90 degree bend in the hip joints. How far can a knee bend? Maybe 110 degrees? Lord, man, there's films of the men in training devices here on Earth bending their knees like that. We have abundant film of them doing it on the lunar surface! The joints were designed to allow them to bend the joints as far as they needed to in order to do what they had to do.


Proof that the astronauts could not do what they demonstrated in the actual environment will be interesting to see...since they have abundant proof that they could indeed do what the suits were designed to allow them to do!

Agreed...I take issue as well.
We've likely all mentioned that point numerous times....It's old stuff, and a true argument which should've silenced the critics long ago (I don't think they have a sense of logic about them largely).


We couldn't have faked Apollo.