truthorder, if you don't believe turbonium's story then there are ways to disagree without resorting to ridicule and implying that he is a liar. You are stepping perilously close to flame-baiting with your last two posts.

I could not agree more.

It seems a lot of people are willing to automatically turn off their critical thinking skills and accept the most ridiculous things as long as it comes tagged with a "government cover up or government conspiracy" label.

Having said that, these threads have developed, hopefully, with an eye toward discussion and information gain. I think peoples questions are legitimate, and deserve a knowledgable answer. Of course, many of these threads are populated by people who come forth with the foregone conclusion that the whole thing was a hoax, an untenable position, and they persist in arguing their case as fact without stopping to listen long enough to hear the truth. They dont even want to learn.This is generally unfortunate and largely a waste of everyones time, but its also human nature that has to be endured, for better or worse.

Thus, I think these threads neednt be discontinued until people are satisfied.

As long as MID is here, I am all ears...its with individuals like him who describe the actual facts of a situation that the Moon hoax scenario can be put to rest, or at least help those who are still wondering.

I've just noticed that this has now gone over 100 pages, in response to a question to which the answer could be put, quite simply and succinctly, as "Yes".

That's nothing, you should have been part of this one: moon landing, did humans land on the moon. 271 pages of fun, fantasy and flaming.

Indeed! As MID named it, the Grandpa of all moon hoax threads

Best,
Badeskov

My Grandpa was never that bad tempered.

Incidentally that thread is the reason why I respect Turbonium as a person even though I have no respect for his views on Apollo. When some of the, now banned, trolls on that thread tried to draw him in he never once resorted to flaming and name calling. I will continue to argue with Turbonium, I will continue to point out that his views are factually bankrupt but I will always defend his right to hold them and to post them here.

I would hope not



I would agree. While presenting factually bankrupts arguments, they are presented in a respectful manner and I have all respect for that - no matter how much I disagree.

Best,
Badeskov

Yes, indeed, that is great fun for the typical 9 year old.
However, Turb, be advised that our lunar explorers were not 9 years old and were not sliding around with reckless abandon on the lunar surface. They also had much more than a pair of jeans on. They were looking at where they were going, and could clearly see the ground they planned to kneel in...if that's what they wanted to do.

The point here is that we humans on Earth do more dangerous things on the surface of our own planet, on terrain which we have no real knowledge of, than any Apollo astronaut ever did on the Moon.





Turb, I did not say we found no sharp edged rocks. You really must read again what I said about embedded pebbles inside a couple inches of fine ground dirt:



As you can see, I am speaking of the likelyhood of invisible artifacts remaining within the mass of the regolith and which might have been beneath the surface, not these rocks, which were clearly visible extending out of the dust (which is one of the reasons they were picked up, or were chipped off of a large boulder).


The terrain photo you illustrate is not what any one in their right mind would be kneeling in, and it has no relation to this:



Which happens to be a photo of the terrain in the area of that video clip in question (AS17-109-17847).
Tell me, where are the jagged, sharp edged rocks? Further, tell me you couldn't see where you could kneel down in this picture without harming yourself. Clearly you can see the footprint in the lower part of the frame, and the benign pebbles sitting on the surface of the dust? Clearly you can see the more substantial rocks that one might not want to drop onto? And clearly, you can see where you can go down. Those little rounded pebbles will not even be felt through an inch and a half of alternating protective layers, and a pressure garment beneath them!







Mass times velocity gives you kinetic energy, Turb. No one was sliding on the Moon. No one had any substantial velocity when they plopped down to pick up a rock, and little KE was present.

p.s...I bear several scars from my encounters with pebbles on a ball field! But no Apollo astronaut was sliding about with reckless abandon.






I think anyone blind enough to descend on one of those rock samples you pictured would need an eye exam, and a slap across the head for being so blind and stupid. However, as you have seen, no such rock was present when astronauts did what you saw on the film clip you illustrated. It was a rather benign surface. Humans, and certainly astronauts, can see where they're going.

I agree with hazzard here. But I sometimes get so frustrated with people that dont se the "truth",the obvious,the logic and the science right infront of their noses. Oh well,only human.

Haz, I couldn't have said it better myself (I've tried, mind you...but in many cases to little avail!)!



Also absolutely true!
Talk about cutting to the heart of the matter....




Me neither!!!



...stop it Haz!


Seriously though, and once again, many thanks for the kind comments.

Well, Bade, you've got to have respect for that. It's discussion. We've been plagued in the past by a complete lack of propriety and discussion in these threads. Turb was never one of those folks, I'll agree!

Well, you know 747400...


...by the way, did I ever tell you....





...THAT'S A HELL OF AN AIRPLANE (a 747-400 that is!)...still gives me goose bumps watching one of those babies!


Anyway,

I'm not so sure a succinct "Yes" is adequate, despite the fact that it seems sufficient to many.

Lot's of poeple simply don't know about these things as they happened. That's what this is about: knowing.

That "Grandaddy of all Moon Hoax threads" went about 4000+ posts. If it wasn't for the dearly departed and therir somewhat moronic trolling that went on within the corpus of that thread, it might still be alive. We can be thankful that this one hasn't been so infected!

It seems to me that, once again, turbonium makes a incorrect association between the term "risk" and the term "danger". The two are related but not the same.

I would bet that Turbonium has never taken part in risk assesment. It is something I did a fair bit of in my previous job. To make a risk assessment it is necessary to determine what hazard exists, what the worst case scenario of that hazard is and what the likelihood of that worst case scenario is. Turbo takes the first and second second step but fails totally to take the third. Their is no attempt to qualify the risk. If Turbo lives his life the way he expects the astronauts to behave on the moon then he will never get out of bed and he will certainly have never crossed a road.

In order to quantify the risk to the astronauts in kneeling onto the moon we have to know the following things:

• How likely is it that sharp rocks will puncture an Apollo space suit?
• How likely is it that an astronaut will kneel on such a rock?
• What is the benefit of the astronaut kneeling?
• Is the risk of the action too great when compared to the benefit?

The last question can only be quantified by calculating the first two. Turbonium has made no effort to quantify the first two and has leaped straight to the last, hence this is faulty risk assessment.

I should point out that an acceptable risk is not no risk at all, as Turbo seems to believe. It will depend on the benefits. For example actions with chemicals which would be deemed too risky for me may very well be considered acceptable for a fire fighter.

What I have described above is a formal risk assessment, my colleagues and I carried out dozens in my old lab, some times with surprising (and counter intuitive results) but we all make a similar, mental calculation every time we carry out any action (even if it is a subconscious, "if I do this will it hurt?") Sometimes we get it wrong (as with Turbos knee), but John Young will have gone through this process himself. He was in a better position to calculate the risk then anyone else, including those at mission control. There were only two human being that could clearly see if there were sharp rocks there, Young and Charlie Duke. Even if Turbo is correct and this action carried unacceptable risks it does not qualify as evidence that Apollo was fake, only that astronauts were human.

From a point of fairness I must say that the "Grandaddy of all Moon Hoax threads" was eventually killed off at the request of participants so that several smaller threads discussing individual points ot the hoax theory could be discussed. It was these smaller threads that were mostly trolled to death.

I should also point out that not all the trolling was carried out by the hoax believers (although a high percentage was).

I frequently used Turboniums behaviour as an example to those who resorted to name calling when they couldn't make their point intelligently, sadly to no avail. They would rather insult and be banned so that they can claim the truth is being covered up than argue in an adult manner. The fact that Turbonium is still posting and (as far as I am aware) has made no complaints about censorship rather disproves those claims. As long as they behave in the same manner as Turbonium I would welcome all hoax believers that want to debate the points. What I do hate to see are the,

"It's a hoax, get over it" or the "We went, 'nuff said" sort of posts which contribute absolutely nothing.

You know, Waspie, this is an excellent point!
And of course, risk assessment was a crucial part of Apollo in every respect...even down to the astronaut himslef performing one!

I seem to recall some vehement requests for help back then in that huge thread!
I also recall the idea that we should split it.

And, as I've said, hoax believers are welcome...that's what we're here for!

But one is definitely boring and wasting time with the sort of postings you outline above!

I couldn't agree more. Sometimes a new slate is needed!

Best,
Badeskov

Indeed. And I think we all do risk assessment in our line of work every single day, although few of us are seriously threatened on our lives when making a wrong assessment. But in that respect I can't help thinking of the early test pilots in the X-plane programs...thus we all take risks and some more than others, but typically after a thorough evaluation of the probability of success (meaning getting out of it alive).

Best,
Badeskov

This is a point frequently (or conveniently) forgotten by the hoax believer about the Apollo astronauts, they were, for the most part, test pilots and many had seen combat. Risking their life was part of their job and they accepted it (and still do). Twice shuttle crews have climbed into their vehicle and flown it, knowing that the previous crews had not returned home alive. This is the right stuff indeed, but it is not unique to astronauts. Fire fighters will walk into a burning building to save a human life and far from claiming to be heroes will tell you that it is just part of their job.



The quote above comes from the book "Grand Prix Year - The Inside Story Of A Formula One Season". It was written by Damon Hill, the son of the 1962 and 1968 Formula 1 World Champion, Graham Hill. So what did a kid surrounded by the death of his father's friends do when he grow up? He became a Formula 1 driver. That particular passage I quoted came from a very moving chapter of the book. It is the chapter that describes the events of the San Marino Grand Prix, 1994. A race that saw the death of Roland Ratzenberger in practice for the event and then, during the race itself, the accident that claimed the life of one of the greatest drivers of all time and Damon Hill's team mate, Ayrton Senna. Despite this Hill did not give up and went on to become the World Champion in 1996.

Hill writes about his thoughts after Senna's death:


The above references to Formula 1 may seem VERY off topic but I have used them for a reason. It shows how humans will accept danger and even death in pursuit of their goal. To claim that the astronauts seem to be doing something that carries risk, so Apollo most be faked shows not only an ignorance of the Apollo programme but an ignorance of human nature. Are we to believe that Formula 1 is faked, or motor cycle racing, or hang gliding or mountaineering? Obviously not, and yet these activities can be dangerous, mistakes are often fatal. If danger is a normal part of human activity how can it possibly be evidence of Apollo being faked?

By the way, if you think that Damon Hill is unique in his attitude to risk then I have news for you, he isn't even the best example. The 1997 World Champion, Jacques Villeneuve, took up motor racing just two years after his father Gilles was killed at the wheel of a Formula 1 Ferrari. Markus Winklehock, who made his F1 début this year is the son of the F1 drive Manfred Winkelhock who was killed driving a Porsche in a World Sportscar race in Canada when Markus was just 5yo.

The first quote by Damon Hill also brings me to another point. His father was racing at the time of the "space race". The risks that drivers took then would simply not be accepted by the modern era of drivers, nor by the paying public. Damon Hill would have refused to race if they had given him a car with the same safety features his father had. This is not because drivers are more cowardly now, it still takes bravery to strap yourself into a 200 mph+ racing car and push it, and yourself, to the very limit.

My maternal grandfather was (like his father and his father before him) a coal miner in Wales before WWII, working in conditions that had barely changed in centuries. No British miner would accept those conditions now, are these men more cowardly than my grandfather's generation?

No! The reason is simply that times have changed. Those of my generation and younger (I'm 41) live in a world where the death of young men is seen as unacceptable. Most of us see war on TV, but very few of us experience it. That was not the case for those who were adults in the 1960s. My father was born in 1936. He lived for some of his childhood, (when he wasn't evacuated to Yorkshire) in a city where death rained from the skies night after night. That city is not some far of land but about a mile from where I am sitting now. Most children his age had fathers away, fighting in a distant land, many would never know their fathers. The death of young men, whether it be in a racing car, a coal mine or in an Apollo spacecraft was not as shocking to that generation as it is to mine. All most all of them had experienced that kind of loss first hand.

So when a hoax believer claims that something is unacceptably risky, try putting it into historical context before considering whether they have a point. When a hoax believer points to Apollo and says they took more risks than would be considered acceptable on a shuttle now, he is possibly right. When he claims that this is evidence that Apollo is faked he is definitely wrong.

One claim repeated over and over again by hoax believers is that the USA simply would not risk losing the Astronauts in front of a watching world. Those who make this idiotic claim provide no evidence to back it up. They also fail to mention that NASA and the USA risked losing Alan Shepard in the fall glare of the world. They risked losing John Glenn in the fall glare of the world. They risked losing every crew in the full glare of the world before Apollo and they have done so with every crew since Apollo, including the tragic flights of STS-51L (seen live on TV by hundreds of millions of people) and STS-107 (estimated to have had more eye witnesses than any other fatal accident in history). By what strange logic do they claim Apollo to be different?

Waspie,

Very good and illustrative post, thank you!



Indeed, and people like that still do it. And, honestly, who of us wouldn't find the trip worth the risks to see space and the Earth from orbit?



This is a very good analogy and I can tell you know your Formula 1 very well



I would hate to think that they are more cowardly, but at those times it was a risk they had to take to feed their children; that is not the case anymore, which is very good.



I would agree with you, however, I also think that one issue that really comes into play is that it is a lot easier to be vocal and express your opinions. And unfortunately some very vocal people have apparently not really been in touch with reality in this respect. As you mentioned firefighters do this on a regular basis. They know the risk, but none go to work every day with the thought that they will get killed during the day fighting fires. And so do many others. I have a few friends that are professional soldiers, where one used to be special forces and have been around the hell holes of the world - they also knew the risks, yet did it anyways. Not because they had a death wish, but had a job to do and found the risks calculated and well understood. And in that respect, I would like the cite what is hanging on the wall in Hereford in your neck of the woods: "who dares wins". That is the motto of SAS (Special Air Service), your highly trained, motivated, skilled and respected special forces group. Again, these men do not go into combat or any other situation with a specific death wish; they do it to do a job based on a very thorough risk assessment - just like any man entering the Apollo capsule.



Not only historic context, but also into the context of the people that risk their lives every single day. Right now the US has 130,000 troops in Iraq, where a good percentage of those are doing exactly that. The UK have 7,000 troops, down from the peak of 10,000, where again a lot where putting their lives on the line every single day. And while coal mining have definitely become a lot safer, a lot of people in various jobs are still putting their lives on the line every day.



That strange logic would be the absence of logic. Space flight has always been and still is an inherently dangerous business to be in; and will probably be for quite a while yet. But as you correctly state, the risks are well assessed and understood, and the testament to that is also the few people that have actually been lost during the manned space flight program.

Best,
Badeskov

Yes, I'll say that for this thread, those who hold very differeing opinions seem to have managed to stay reasonably courteous and to try to explain their points very patiently. That other thread was... a bit, wasn't it.

And THAT is as true a statement as I've read in a while.
Precisely correct Bade. It is a dangerous business, and the risks are "managed".


...I have no idea how many times I've attempted to explain what "managed risk" actually means.


By the way, Bade and Waspie..and excellect discussion about risk there, fellows.
Spot on and exactly descriptive of what's going on in that area of human endeavor!

Yes, I'll agree they have.

And yes, the other thread was a wee bit... ...I shall agree!

It seems kind of unlikely that NASA, an organization of supposedly "smart people", would do all these kinds of bad mistakes. Let alone release the material for everyone to see and "debunk".

Why not distort the material and blame it on radioactive waves or signals from earth?

I'm feeling the need to add a "me too" post and agree with MID: Excellent discussion, guys!

Yep, that's a real puzzler, isn't it? turbonium's claims about the Apollo 12 video are a perfect example of this. If those few seconds of shaky video really did show a TV studio, film crew, and stagehands, why would NASA dig it out of storage after 30 years, digitize it ,and put it on the Web for all world to see? They could have easily just shown the existing clips of the crew coming down the ladder and then put up a note saying that no other useful video exists because the camera was burned out while being removed from the LM. Who would have missed it?

If you really want to see how "deep" of a "gouge" can be inflicted to one's knee , then look at the image link below (WARNING: THIS IS A DIRECT LINK TO A GRAPHIC IMAGE)...

http://terrapin.ws/1of_hurts_his_knee/knee-split-open.jpg

The full story explaining the injury is linked below. As the guy who suffered the injury recalls - "I was snow shoeing up at Cypress Mountain with the mighty Bishop and the Ecospirit crew. In hindsight I am an idiot. Horseplay does HURT"

http://terrapin.ws/1of_hurts_his_knee/1_of...s_his_knee_.htm

His injury was more severe than mine was - he required 8 internal stitches and 8 surface stitches.

Perhaps this will make you look into a subject first, before posting mocking rants that only display ignorance.

Btw, thanks for your response to truthorder on this, Waspie. I appreciate it.

"Clearly you can see the more substantial rocks that one might not want to drop onto?"

How can you make that claim with such certainty?!?

I've cropped a small section of the image you posted....



I've pointed out one example above (though many others exist in the photo) which could easily be a large rock, mostly covered by inches of dust, with only a small, jagged section of it visible, pointing up through the surface.

Why do you think that there wouldn't be, or couldn't be, any rocks that are either partially covered, or totally hidden, underneath several inches of dust? Sure, if you're talking about rocks big enough to see from 100 feet away or something, no problem. But I'm talking about rocks which rest no higher than, say, about 1 foot above the solid surface. That is, any rocks which could be hidden, or mostly covered, below several inches of dust.

A sharp-edged rock - even 4 or 5 inches high - could certainly puncture or tear into the spacesuit of an astronaut doing a knee-drop.

And your evidence to support this assumption is...?

Uh, maybe the astronaut simply checked the ground (or would that be 'surface'?) for sharp-edged rocks before he went down on his knee?

I don't have the inclination to look it up, but I am sure that there exist reports of the kind of puncture testing that the Apollo suits went through. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they were actually overengineered for the kind of terrain (Lunain? Selenain? There's that language problem again!) that the suits were expected to encounter.

After all, how hard is it to test a spacesuit to see if it can survive falling on a rock?

MID and Pericynthion, thank you for the very kind words; they are very much appreciated!

Best,
Badeskov

Could be a rock. Could be a clod of dust too.
However, if you were standing there, looking at it with your eyes, from a few feet above, you'd know.



I clearly said there could be rocks protruding from the dust. There obviously are. I said the likelhood of finding a razor sharp rock buried beneath the surface is slim, because the weathering that produced the dust made the dust out of rocks. Whatever's buried is a small well "weathered" pebble, which, even if you came down and made contact with, wouldn't likely even be felt through about 1.5" of strong suit material covering another thick layer of pressure garment.

Anything big enough to stick out of the surface could be seen. Further, as is common on Earth, you can easily tell what rocks are sitting on the surface of ther Moon (more recent ejecta), and which ones are protruding from the surface.




Sure it's possible it might be able to tear through all that suit...but people aren't stupid enough to kneel down on a clearly visible sharp edged rock 4 or 5 inches high. You can see what looks safe on the Moon, just as you can on Earth. This is not difficult to understand.

Lil, darlin', once again, you cut to the simple heart of the matter!!!

We've got eyes...we can see.
It's no different that doing the same thing on Earth...

I suppose you try to puncture it with a screwdriver or something...!
(frankly you'd need a hammer and a screwdriver with a few good smacks to get through that thing...)

I am not certain of what specific test were done on the suits in that vein. There is an Experience Report on the Apollo EMU, which goes through every aspect of the suits development and testing:

NASA TN D-8093, November 1975.

This might have some of the info you're looking for (...everything you wanted to know about the Apollo EMU but were afraid to ask!):

NASA TN D-8093


As is the case with most of this faked Apollo material, it's 79 pages of horrific technish that most people wouldn't care to read (one wonders why we bothered with all this crap that was of interest only to those in the field in support of a hoax???).

Have fun with it!

You are certainly welcome, Bade...
And those words are, as always, much deserved.

To return to a motorsport analogy:
As well as Formula One I am also a big fan of motorcyle racing. Anyone that has followed this sport would have seen riders fall off of their bike, hurtle over the tarmac and into the gravel trap at speeds well inexcess of 100mph. Not only do they usually get up and walk away to race again another day, but they frequently do so without a rip in their leathers. If a motorcycle racers leathers can survive that kind of abuse I find it very hard to believe that an Apollo space suit would be so fragile that an astronaut would be risking death by kneeling on a rock.

Now if I can only work Rugby Union into this thread some how...

Thanks, MID!

I checked the report, and while there are no references to spacesuit testing, there are several references to teflon fabric added for extra protection against abrasion in the knee, elbow and shoulder areas of the outer suit. It seems to me that the spacesuit designers anticipated the kind of conditions that their product would be exposed to on the Moon.

Ooooh, Tonga.... are you ready Waspie?

(very quietly: aussie aussie aussie; oi, oi, oi)

I was going to attempt to do it both subtly and keep it on topic. It would have been some challenge.

Ah, you mean thusly: Much as some(6) try(s) TO NeGAte the validity of spacesuit design, nothing has beEN GLeANeD (2). Keep in mind this is only an opinion.
hehe.

That's an unsubstantiated claim. It could be a rock, covered by a clod of dust, which you wouldn't realize even if you were a couple feet away from it.



Why do so many of the rock samples tell a different story? Six more samples...



Anorthosites and breccias, such as the samples shown above, are extremely hard, angular (jagged) rocks...and are commonly found on the lunar surface, and within the subsurface - that is, buried below dust, etc.

As for your claim that "Whatever's buried is a small well "weathered" pebble", you might want to consider this article...

Radar maps of the Moon have been produced since the late 1960’s, and have been used by a number of authors to study the surface roughness, subsurface rock abundance, and dielectric properties of the lunar surface [e.g., 1–3]. These studies focused on a range of topics, including the depth and rock population of the regolith, crater ejecta blankets, pyroclastic mantling layers, and cryptomare deposits. Limited radar sounding data from the Apollo missions identified layering in some regions of the maria [4]. As radar datasets have improved in resolution and calibration, it has become more possible to make quantitative comparisons between the backscatter properties of the Moon, other remote sensing observations, and the ground truth provided by Surveyor photos and Apollo traverses.

Regolith Properties: The lunar regolith is a mixture of fine soils and rocks formed by repeated impacts from the original “bedrock” of the maria and highlands. In the maria, this basal layer is clearly the basalt flow surfaces, while in the highlands the presence of deep ejecta layers from the formation of giant basins implies a jumbled megaregolith of large crustal blocks. In neither case is the rock population with depth and the transition from regolith to substrate well understood.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/moon98/pdf/6032.pdf

"Subsurface rock abundance". Hardly the same thing as the "small weathered pebbles" which you claim to be the closest thing to "rocks" which exist in the subsurface (below the dust, etc.)



If it sticks out far enough, sure. But if only an inch or so sticks out, it would be very easy for someone to fail noticing it. But that's a minor point, because as noted above, there are certainly rocks which are completely covered by the surface dust. They cannot be seen, no matter how close you are to them.



Again, MID, that is irrelevant, since there are lunar rocks which cannot be seen at all below the dust.



I'm glad we can agree on this point.



Once again, I agree with you. If they can see a sharp, jagged rock, they won't do a knee-drop on it.



And once again, here is where your argument fails. You can't see a rock if it's buried below the surface dust. A hard, sharp edged, jagged rock - not a "small weathered pebble".

No, I'm well aware of what they mean, and their relationship. Read on for details...



You'd lose the bet.



Again, that's wrong. As you'll see....



We only know a small fraction about the lunar surface (and the Moon in general). That means the risks - speciically, all potential risks - cannot be quantified or qualified to any significant degree.



Again, "kneeling" implies less danger than a knee-drop, which is what the astronaut actually did in the video clip. But moving along...



MID, for one, agrees with me that it's possible.





A knee-drop, you mean? We know there are many rocks hidden, either fully or partially, on the lunar surface. The sizes and numbers of rocks vary from area to area, but we still have very little data on quantity, dispersal pattern, type, size, and subsurface depth of these rocks.

So we know that it's possible, but we can't say what the likelihood is with any certainty. It would vary with the area, but that doesn't tell how likely or unlikely it is in quantifiable terms.



Minor, in regard to the knee-drop done in the video clip. He did it to help his crewman pick up a dropped sample bag. There were other, safer methods they could have used to pick up the bag.



Yes!! Without doubt.



Again, we can only go on what we already know, and don't know. We know that sharp, jagged rocks are common on the Moon, as the samples show. We also know that many rocks are hidden below the dust - subsurface. But we don't know much in terms of quantity, dispersal pattern, type, size, and subsurface depth of these rocks.

We know that the dangers do exist, but we don't know much more than that. I think that a knee-drop, just to pick up a sample bag, is a completely foolish to do under the known conditions.



I agree. But as I've explained, this is not an example of an acceptable risk to take. Not in any way whatsoever.



The terrain was (and is) largely unknown, and someone walking around for an hour or two on it does not make them an instant expert. But again, the most important point to understand is that there is no way to know if sharp rocks are hidden below the dust. Not even if you're just a few feet away from them.



I agree it does not prove Apollo was fake. In itself, it cannot prove that.

But it does raise serious questions about the authenticity of Apollo. The astronaut doing the knee-drop should have been immediately told by ground control that his actions were dangerous, or at very least, unwarranted risk-taking. And they should have made sure he understood how critical it is for him to move around much more slowly and carefully, etc. and to never repeat such a reckless activity. Why weren't they the least bit concerned about it?

That was the type of thing that should have been said - during the actual mission. Furthermore, since that time, nothing has ever been said about it being dangerous, etc. by NASA. Apparently, we can only conclude that those antics are still not considered by NASA to have been dangerous, or unnecessarily risky.

And that doesn't jibe with the known facts.

The dangers were unknown, and NASA surely realized that. But if there were no dangers, it's because it was being staged. And because NASA knew that there were no dangers, they weren't concerned about the antics of the astronauts. So they didn't warn the astronauts at the time, and have never said it was dangerous since then.

Imaginary phone call between Head of Apollo Spacesuit Operations at ILC Dover and his design team:

You see guys, these samples show the types of rocks that Neil and Buzz brought back. They look pretty sharp, and NASA is concerned about what might happen if the guys on the J Missions took a spill on them. Those highlands are rough, you know.

So how sharp are we talking about? What's their hardness?

Feldspar. Hardness six.

Feldspar? That's what they're worried about about? 60% of the earth's crust is feldspar! We tested the suits to death with feldspar!

Yeah, I know. Just to play it safe, I want you guys to reinforce the areas of the A7L that are subject to rock abrasion with patches of Teflon fabric. Knees, elbows, the places on a suit that a geologist is going to likely contact rock with.

Gotcha. I know that Harrison likes to get down and dirty. We can have a test article ready in a couple of weeks, and after field testing and a couple of sessions on the Vomit Comet, we'll have a report ready for you.

The point of this exercise is the show that spacesuits are not designed by fools. These guys know what conditions their product is likely to face, and that anticipation, feedback, and improvement is part of the design process. I really think that they anticipated that their suit may make contact with a sharp rock. That's part of the hazards of geology, and geology is part of why the astronauts were sent to the Moon.

Turbonium, your posts really do not make any logical sense. In response to this point:
you reply:
Which is true and is EXACTLY my point.

However in reply to this point:
you reply:
This is obviously nonsense. Apart from the fact that currently every other participant in the debate is doubting that, you simply can't say "we don't know what the risks are but without a doubt it is too dangerous". It is one or the other. You have effectively admitted (again) that you can't prove the point, you simply don't have the evidence to quantify it yet you cling to the conclusion without the evidence. That is not rational, scientific method, it is religious faith.

How can you not see the contradictions and double standards you are using? How can you possibly not understand how illogical and factually bankrupt your arguments are. How can you not realise that every time you are forced to say:(and you say that to just about every argument you have made) it is because their is no validity to your argument.

I know what you reply to this point will be, it will be something like:

You say that to every time you back away from your argument, every time you admit that your lost 30 posts aren't actually proof. You have done it with just about every claim you have made EXCEPT the silly "bare arm claim". You are trying to have your cake and eat it. You present post after post of "evidence". It gets throughly debunked. You, of course, wont admit it has been debunked, but instead say, "I never said it was proof".

When you raised the issue of why the European Souther Observatory had not taken photographs of the Apollo artefacts you said:

When you were claiming that the fact NASA are using a modified RL10 instead of the Apollo DPS was evidence that the LM was faked you said:

When you were claiming that the fact that NASA is still studying the Van Allen Belts proves that Apollo could not have passed through them in the period 1968 - 72: and

You did it here when you were claiming that footprints should not be retained in dry lunar soil:

You have said: But waht is a neutral going to think of all your "non-evidence" and "non-proof". You also say:

Looking at your "body of [non-]evidence above it is clear that you are making a mistake. It doesn't matter how many time you add zero to zero you still end up with zero.

I've asked this before, you continually post page after page of supposition, could of and maybes. You continually admit that it doesn't actually constitute proof of any thing. If your conviction is not an unfounded belief when are you going to post something that is more than just you opinion and stand up an by counted by saying, "I believe that to be proof"?

Yes, Atomic, they actually did think about that...alot.
If you've ever had the opportunity to see one of these things, and feel it, you'll clearly see that the thing is really, really tough!

Turb, these are large samples, which were easily seen. No one's going to kneel on one of them.




They're also found on Earth.


I am not getting your insistence on pursuing this line of thinking.

John clearly saw where he was going to go down. He just stepped in the same place. He had eyes, he could see. It's no different than on Earth. If there were any small rocks buried in there, he hardly made any contact with the surface at any rate, and since there's compacted dust on top, it would cushion it, and since you practically need a hacksaw to get through that suit...it was not a problem. The suits were built to take a whale of a beating, and in many cases they did...especially the gloves.

This is a non-issue.


You're taking hold of one point and expanding it into an argument which has no basis, and as point by point gets explained, you never acknowledge it, you just keep pressing on fewer and fewer points in your original argument, until you're down to one...this time it's some unusual hazzard posed by John Young (and Dave Scott and Charlie Duke and Jim Irwin and Gene Cernan and perhaps especially Jack Schmitt) bouncing lightly down to the surface to pick up something...a completely natural use of mass and momentum to assist one in easily going down and coming back up again.

Christ, these guys fell down all the time...escpecially Charlie and Jack (You really should've been there when that was happening. There were days when it was comedic on the Moon!)! You never heard a peep about that!

You decline to even acknowledge that the brains who created these suits made them like armor, and keep pressing on this idea that Flight Directors never said anything about these maneuvers, since they were so hazardous.

The reason they didn't is that 1) they weren't overtly hazardous and 2) the Flight Commanders and LMPS were empowered largely to do what they were trained to do (and they did train to do this) to get their jobs done in the manner that they saw fit.


Hell, you never heard CAPCOM say anything about Charlie Duke falling on his butt when he overzealously jumped up in the "air" and whifferdilled, did you?


That's because the CDR was responsible and he said something. Additionally, they knew full well that Charlie knew exactly what he did wrong, and would not repeat the action again. They couldn't have prevented it, and saying something was pointless.

The suits were designed to take pretty significant impacts, and were exceedingly tear and puncture resistant. They were designed that way. Nothing you saw in this one second maneuver was outside of the envelope. It had been done before, and it would be done again, and it was a practiced maneuver.




Turb, now really...

The paper discusses studies to determine subsurface rock abundance. The term doesn't refer to a large quantity of subsurface rocks. It refers to trying to learn what that abundance is. You are using the term completely out of its context. I am speaking to the likely character of things that are actually located in the dust...because, whatever is in the dust (save the small tops of rocks that may be immersed in the substrate) have been ground into the dust largely, and therefore are small, and likely not too sharp.


It's somewhat irrelevant anyway, since you fail to understand that the maneuver you observed was not someone slamming down into the ground full force. It was light contact and most anything buried beneath the dust wouldn't have been impacted at all hard, and it might not have been felt at all.




No, once again, your's fails, since no one ever encountered a jagged, sharp edged rock in the countless times that they plopped down on the surface, or fell down on the surtface.





Hold on there. You're now taking my remarks out of context.

Here's what I agreed with Turb:






See?

A sharp edged rock 4 or 5 inches high could, if slammed into hard, tear a suit. Agreed.
Waspie asked how likely it was, rhetorically of course (since the answer is or at least should be self evident).

The answer is, slim to none.
No one slammed down on anything, let alone a sharp edged rock 4 or 5 inches high.
Again, they could see where they were going, as you clearly read in my answer above.


The likelyhood of anyone being that dumb and absent-minded, especially an astronaut who's trained for the past two years of his life to do what he's doing, and being one who is entirely cognizant of what he's doing and where he's doing it, is slim to none.




I explained to you the precise nature of this "knee-drop". It was not a slam into the ground but a practiced and controlled maneuver which resulted in light contact with the surface utilizing momentum against a counter-acting force.




Turb...it is apparent that you weren't around for Apollo, and have no particular knowledge about the intense and vast planning and training that went on