Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15
Waspie_Dwarf

[Merged] Did we land on the moon?

2,594 posts in this topic

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I would advise against trying to enagage Turbs in a rational debate. They have shown themselves to be intellectually dishonest in this area, dismissing or refusing to acknowledge clear evidence presented to them when asked for, as well as demonstrating a number of logical fallacies (argument from ignorance, argument from silence, shifting the burden of proof, equivocation, kettle logic, etc).

I, for one, don't waste my time on them anymore.

Yes indeed! The moon hoax folks are not interested in facts and evidence regarding the reality of the Apollo moon missions. They disregard real evidence and substitute a boat of fantasy, which sunk decades ago and that explains why the moon hoax folks are in the same class as those who've claimed the earth is flat; the evidence is there for all to see, but they are too blind to see reality for what it is.

This is reality!

Apollo 11

The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies.

  • A compilation of sightings appeared in "Observations of Apollo 11" in Sky and Telescope magazine, November 1969, pp. 358–359.
  • The Madrid Apollo Station, part of the Deep Space Network, built in Fresnedillas, near Madrid, Spain tracked Apollo 11.
  • Goldstone Tracking Station in California tracked Apollo 11.
  • At Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, the telescope was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik. At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the unmanned Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to land on the Moon. In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings they made.
  • Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and in the command module. Recordings made by Baysinger share certain characteristics with recordings made at Bochum Observatory by Heinz Kaminski (see above), in that both Kaminski's and Baysinger's recordings do not include the capsule communicator in Houston and the associated Quindar tonesheard in NASA audio and seen on NASA Apollo 11 transcripts. Kaminski and Baysinger could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from the earth.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The cheese stands alone,

The cheese stands alone,

Hi-ho, the derry-o,

The cheese stands alone."

I've read this thread from beginning to end since I joined.

Turbonium, let me get this right... everyone else in this forum and almost everyone else in the world is wrong, but you alone are right? For God's sake, even the USSR acknowledged the landings and they had the most to win by discrediting it!

And here we are now, over 1600 replies later with people providing the evidence, page after page, that it did happen and you sit there and still demand more evidence.

You said, "It's your burden to prove." It's like a flat earther demanding proof that the world is round. It isn't going to happen because the flat earther simply can't wrap their head around the concept.

Perhaps it's time to give this one a rest. :)

Evidence has been placed before him many, many times and yet, he continued to dismiss the evidence that was handed to him on a silver platter. For an example, he claimed that an astronaut in a pressurized spacesuit cannot bend his knees and yet,photos were shown which debunked his claim and yet he continued to spew his false claim.

Image4.jpg

DSC_0106.jpg

GPN-2000-001408.jpg

Just goes to show that you cannot take him seriously.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who could make up stories any better than Apollo astronauts?

Michael Collins couldn't recall seeing any stars from the lunar surface, He obviously made up another version of the story. In that version, he lands on the moon.

Such mistakes can happen with a made up story - one can actually forget the basic script!!

now it is apparent that YOU are making up stories. Collins was answering a question about whether they could see stars in the solar corona specifically referring to an experiment done NOT on the surface. What is worse is I'm pretty sure this has been pointed out to you before.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now it is apparent that YOU are making up stories JUST LIKE YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT DOING IN THE PAST. Collins was answering a question about whether they could see stars in the solar corona specifically referring to an experiment done NOT on the surface. What is worse is I'm pretty sure this has been pointed out to you before.

Fixed that for you, Frenat... ;)

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read this thread from beginning to end since I joined.

Turbonium, let me get this right... everyone else in this forum and almost everyone else in the world is wrong, but you alone are right? For God's sake, even the USSR acknowledged the landings and they had the most to win by discrediting it!

And here we are now, over 1600 replies later with people providing the evidence, page after page, that it did happen and you sit there and still demand more evidence.

You claim...Almost the entire world believes in the moon landings.

I'm not sure what you consider to be "almost", as a percentage. Let's say you put it in the 90-99% range, for argument's sake.

Look at some actual figures, now ....

James Oberg of ABC News said that the conspiracy theory is taught in Cuban schools and wherever Cuban teachers are sent.[10][11] A poll conducted in the 1970s by the United States Information Agency in several countries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa found that most respondents were unaware of the Moon landings, many of the others dismissed them as propaganda or science fiction, and many thought that it had been the Russians that landed on the Moon.[12]

A 1999 Gallup poll found that 6% of the Americans surveyed doubted that the Moon landings happened and that 5% of those surveyed had no opinion,[13][14][15][16] which roughly matches the findings of a similar 1995 Time/CNN poll.[13] Officials of Fox television said that such skepticism rose to about 20% after the February 2001 airing of Fox network's TV show Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? seen by about 15 million viewers.[14] This 2001 Fox special is seen as having promoted the hoax claims

A 2000 poll held by the Russian Public Opinion Fund found that 28% of those surveyed did not believe that American astronauts landed on the Moon, and this percentage is roughly equal in all social-demographic groups.[19] In 2009, a poll held by the United Kingdom's Engineering & Technology magazine found that 25% of those surveyed did not believe that men landed on the Moon.[20] Another poll gives that 25% of 18–25-year-olds surveyed were unsure that the landings happened

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

It's a hoax according to... . ... .. ...

5-20% of Americans, (various sources)

28% of Russians

25% of people in the UK

Many people in Latin America, Asia, and Africa

That's "almost" one-fourth of the world!!

As for the forum being all pro-Apollo, that's false. There have been others who share in my view. Not many, but certainly more than one.

You said, "It's your burden to prove." It's like a flat earther demanding proof that the world is round. It isn't going to happen because the flat earther simply can't wrap their head around the concept.

Flat earthers and Apollo-ites are much alike. Both are astounding claims, and both lack any proof to back their claims. The only difference is Apollo had enough money to fool people into believing it's genuine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now it is apparent that YOU are making up stories. Collins was answering a question about whether they could see stars in the solar corona specifically referring to an experiment done NOT on the surface. What is worse is I'm pretty sure this has been pointed out to you before.

Isn't it amazing that the majority of the world's population do not believe in a moon hoax?

Refuting the Most Popular Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Theories

How Many Truly Believe the Moon Landing Was a Hoax?

For the majority of people in the U.S., there's no doubt that the moon landing happened. Just six percent of Americans think the government staged the Apollo moon landings according to a 1999 Gallup poll, the most recent data available. A similar poll by Time/CNN, conducted in 1995, also revealed that six percent believe the moon landings were faked.

http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=8104410

"Will the LRO's incredibly high-resolution images of the lunar surface, including, eventually, the Apollo landing sites, finally quell the lunacy of the Moon Hoax believers? Obviously it won't," writes astronomer Phil Plait in his blog on Discover magazine's Web site. "These true believers don't live in an evidence-based world."

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You claim...Almost the entire world believes in the moon landings.

I'm not sure what you consider to be "almost", as a percentage. Let's say you put it in the 90-99% range, for argument's sake.

Look at some actual figures, now ....

James Oberg of ABC News said that the conspiracy theory is taught in Cuban schools and wherever Cuban teachers are sent.[10][11] A poll conducted in the 1970s by the United States Information Agency in several countries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa found that most respondents were unaware of the Moon landings, many of the others dismissed them as propaganda or science fiction, and many thought that it had been the Russians that landed on the Moon.[12]

A 1999 Gallup poll found that 6% of the Americans surveyed doubted that the Moon landings happened and that 5% of those surveyed had no opinion,[13][14][15][16] which roughly matches the findings of a similar 1995 Time/CNN poll.[13] Officials of Fox television said that such skepticism rose to about 20% after the February 2001 airing of Fox network's TV show Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? seen by about 15 million viewers.[14] This 2001 Fox special is seen as having promoted the hoax claims

A 2000 poll held by the Russian Public Opinion Fund found that 28% of those surveyed did not believe that American astronauts landed on the Moon, and this percentage is roughly equal in all social-demographic groups.[19] In 2009, a poll held by the United Kingdom's Engineering & Technology magazine found that 25% of those surveyed did not believe that men landed on the Moon.[20] Another poll gives that 25% of 18–25-year-olds surveyed were unsure that the landings happened

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

It's a hoax according to... . ... .. ...

5-20% of Americans, (various sources)

28% of Russians

25% of people in the UK

Many people in Latin America, Asia, and Africa

That's "almost" one-fourth of the world!!

As for the forum being all pro-Apollo, that's false. There have been others who share in my view. Not many, but certainly more than one.

Flat earthers and Apollo-ites are much alike. Both are astounding claims, and both lack any proof to back their claims. The only difference is Apollo had enough money to fool people into believing it's genuine.

Turbonium, your sources (when I just now quoted you) requote "conspiracy theory", i.e. there is no original source.

But you said, "As for the forum being all pro-Apollo, that's false. There have been others who share in my view. Not many, but certainly more than one."

Yes, you're probably right in that respect (I may have missed a few, and if I have disregarded anyone, I apologize).

But Turbondium, the views of the few on their island of skepticality cannot outweigh the proof of the majority. (And please don't recount your non-existant sources that say that only the minority believes that we set foot on the moon).

I appreciate your non-shaking disbelief, it's just that I'm looking at you like you were that last Japanese soldier on the the last island in the Pacific, 35 years after WW 2.

To carry the analogy, please provide me the proof that WW2 hasn't ended, or man has not set foot on the moon.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now it is apparent that YOU are making up stories. Collins was answering a question about whether they could see stars in the solar corona specifically referring to an experiment done NOT on the surface. What is worse is I'm pretty sure this has been pointed out to you before.

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

PATRICK MOORE: When you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?

ARMSTRONG: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

COLLINS: I don't remember seeing any.

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody could see this and not speak about it

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbonium, your sources (when I just now quoted you) requote "conspiracy theory", i.e. there is no original source.

I'm not sure what sources you are referring to here. The Wiki article I linked lnotes the sources at the bottom. Like the Russian poll, etc.

So what do you mean, exactly?

But you said, "As for the forum being all pro-Apollo, that's false. There have been others who share in my view. Not many, but certainly more than one."

Yes, you're probably right in that respect (I may have missed a few, and if I have disregarded anyone, I apologize).

But Turbondium, the views of the few on their island of skepticality cannot outweigh the proof of the majority. (And please don't recount your non-existant sources that say that only the minority believes that we set foot on the moon).

?? What sources did I post make that claim? The polls I cited only have a minority who believe the hoax, the majority believe they landed on the moon. So once again, I simply don't know what you're talking about.

I appreciate your non-shaking disbelief, it's just that I'm looking at you like you were that last Japanese soldier on the the last island in the Pacific, 35 years after WW 2.

To carry the analogy, please provide me the proof that WW2 hasn't ended, or man has not set foot on the moon.

I'm still waiting for proof that man HAS set foot on the moon.

As for the Japanese soldier, I see the same thing happening to the Apollo believers. The story is crumbling apart, piece by piece. This is the inevitable future of Apollo-ites. The last one to deny the truth of a hoax will end up just like that Japanese soldier.

We now know that aluminum intensifies radiation. We now know that aluminum would be one of the worst materials for shielding any spacecraft traversing the VA Belts. You also might know that Apollo spacecraft were primarily thin aluminum shells, right?

Just connect the dots, and you'll realize Apollo was a sham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it amazing that the majority of the world's population do not believe in a moon hoax?

Yes, it is truly amazing!!

"Will the LRO's incredibly high-resolution images of the lunar surface, including, eventually, the Apollo landing sites, finally quell the lunacy of the Moon Hoax believers? Obviously it won't," writes astronomer Phil Plait in his blog on Discover magazine's Web site. "These true believers don't live in an evidence-based world."

Would this be high-resolution images with high-resolution blobs, or the high-res images of little dots, or perhaps high-res images with both the blobs and the little dots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This isn't about belief, it's about proof. It's your burden to prove. You can't make excuses for that.

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

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v.1195542.mpg - the clip we've been discussing. In addition to the reflections off the underside of the rung, look at the reflections in the thermal shielding and the side of the ladder at the very end of the clip.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v.1195800.mpg - reflection in the thermal shielding at the statr of the clip. At the 40% mark, similar reflection, and side of ladder is lit up.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v.1200031.mpg - 33% in, reflection in thermal shielding and ladder illuminated

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v.1200330.mpg - 5% in, similar to above. Reflections caused by astronaut moving out of frame to the right (i.e. out of LM shadow, into bright sunshine)

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v.1200916.mpg - 75% in, reflection in thermal shielding as astronaut moves in from the left in bright sunlight

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15v.1201156.mpg - Watch from 60% onwards. Look at the astronaut walking in front of the folding up lunar rover on the LM quad. When he's in the shadow of the LM, you can see his shadow on the rover, which gives an indication of how much light is reflected back onto the LM from the surface. As he moves out of frame to the right (and into bright sunshine), he is no longer casting a shadow, but is reflecting light both onto the folded up rover, and a panel above it on the LM.

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

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

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

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

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

So now there's "ample evidence"?

Wow.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

PATRICK MOORE: When you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?

ARMSTRONG: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

COLLINS: I don't remember seeing any.

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody could see this and not speak about it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by frenat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. Collins was answering a question about whether stars could be seen from the lunar surface

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This isn't about belief, it's about proof.

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

You can't make excuses for that.

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're asking me for documentation?

You have to get some, first of all. You have no case without it.

Why so easy to find the relevant documents for old prototypes, but nothing (as yet, anyway) on the world-famous Apollo suit?

I'm still waiting for documents.....

153lik9.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

museum-u2-suit-006_mini.jpg

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

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

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turbo you do have a few years on me in here,But one thing is for sure ,Your never a Dull moment ! As for the Facts your never a sharp moment.You have the facts all messed up man on this Moon Landings !

Whats it going to take to make you understand We Did Land,12 men Walked upon the surface And we made Six wonderful Missions to the Moon ?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky,

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

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

681433main_dress_for_altitude_226x336.jpg

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

125648-200x200.jpg

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

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.