Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Illiniblue35

Did we land on the moon?

14,130 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

BertL

I see the new board format is in. We got that a week or so ago at EF.

Not many changes but a little better.

Well, for one thing the "read first new post" button is fixed as it takes me to the newest unread post rather than the very last post in the thread. Happy about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

You clearly don't understand the concept of a "baseline". It's a reference point used for comparison, not an absolute value

I recall someone posted a similar description...... ...

"Look at column 3 of this table - 'Nude baseline, deg.'

It is a reference point (a "baseline") range of mobility for an average human.."

Who said that? Oh, right.- that would be.... me ! :rolleyes:

Do some research on exactly what a baseline is. Educate yourself. Then you'll understand why you have no argument.

As I've just shown you, I do know what a baseline is.

In the future, it might be better if you actually read my posts, and drop the pompous blowhard routine..

Poisoning the well fallacy. The tests on an Apollo proto-type show knee flexion consistent with that in the Apollo video. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool conspiracist should have alarms bells ringing, and thinking to themselves... maybe I made a boo-boo?

So - asking for actual Apollo documentation is "poisoning the well"? Now that's a good one!

And why do you keep posting the same image from 2001, over and over again? It has NO relevance to the issue!, Why can't you grasp that very simple, basic fact??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

What does that have to do with the Apollo moon landings and the fact the Soviet Union confirmed that the United States landed men on the moon?

Once more, I'll try and get this through to you...

This is what you said....

"I grew up during the Cold War and considering the mindset of the former Soviet Union during the Apollo moon flights, there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY they would have allowed us to get away with a moon hoax and yet, they confirmed the United States sent men to the moon. The reaction of the Soviet Union exposing hoaxed Apollo moon flights to the whole world would have been like throwing a pound of meat in the middle of a shark feeding frenzy and yet, they confirmed that we landed men on the moon"..

Now,,let's replace 'moon hoax' with the JFK murder....

]I grew up during the Cold War and considering the mindset of the former Soviet Union during the JFK murder, there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY they would have allowed us to get away with our own government killing the President and yet, they did. The reaction of the Soviet Union exposing the US Government as murderers of their own President to the whole world would have been like throwing a pound of meat in the middle of a shark feeding frenzy and yet, they said and did absolutely nothing.

Get it now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

I said..

You think shoulder rotation in these spacesuits is not only equal to, but greater than, in your birthday suit?"

Please explain the contradiction here, because I can't see it. The trousers I am currently wearing are capable of 180o bending at the knee.. in a forward direction. My knee is not capable of bending forward at all. How is this possible using your argument?

The reality, of course, is that when wearing the trousers the limiting factor is me, not the trousers.

It has nothing to do with how flexible trousers (or spacesuits) are when they aren't worn!

I'm talking about joint mobility - in the nude versus wearing a pressurized spacesuit. A spacesuit limits our joint mobility. It does not improve our joint,mobility..Shoulder rotation cannot be greater in a pressurized spacesuit than it is not wearing a spacesuit (ie:nude). The table would be showing impossibe figures, going by postie's argument.. ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

I'd like postie to look at his document again - specifically, the table on page 56

Knee flex in the 3 pressurized spacesuits.- Suit C is 93 deg., Suit B is 87 deg, and Suit B has no measurement.

This is about the knee flexion of sitting in a chair.

As I said, it fails to compare with the incredible knee flex of the Apollo videos..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk

I recall someone posted a similar description...... ...

"Look at column 3 of this table - 'Nude baseline, deg.'

It is a reference point (a "baseline") range of mobility for an average human.."

Who said that? Oh, right.- that would be.... me ! :rolleyes:

As I've just shown you, I do know what a baseline is.

In the future, it might be better if you actually read my posts, and drop the pompous blowhard routine..

Clearly you don't know what a baseline is, otherwise you wouldn't have tried to gain any mileage out of some of the flexion measurements being greater than the baseline figure! Why are you arguing the issue, if you really understand what a baseline is? Either you did kniow what a baseline is, in which case you knew you had no argument to make, or you didn't know what a baseline is. Which is it?

So - asking for actual Apollo documentation is "poisoning the well"? Now that's a good one!

Deliberate misinterpretation. I was referring to your "fishy" comment. If the document you seek exists I haven't seen it yet. We do, however, have a document from 1966 that shows the knee flexion of a prototype Apollo suit, which comports with the flexion seen in the Apollo video. Instead of dealing with this, you ignore it and demand a document for the finished article. Why can you not address the data we DO have? Is it because you know it destroys your argument?

And why do you keep posting the same image from 2001, over and over again? It has NO relevance to the issue!, Why can't you grasp that very simple, basic fact??

As a simple reminder that an approximately 120 degrees knee flexion in a pressurised suit isn't quite as impossible to achieve as you are saying. The Sokol suit has quite restricted mobility, yet it has greater knee flexion than the SAS suit. Impossible!

What now? Remind me again what proof you have that the Apollo suit couldn't bend at the knee as seen in the video? Ah, I remember: none. The video actually supports the notion that the suit is pressurised, since it requires a lot of effort to bend the knee that far, but it aids recovery as he springs back upright, exactly as expected given the descriptions in the literature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk

I'd like postie to look at his document again - specifically, the table on page 56

Knee flex in the 3 pressurized spacesuits.- Suit C is 93 deg., Suit B is 87 deg, and Suit B has no measurement.

This is about the knee flexion of sitting in a chair.

As I said, it fails to compare with the incredible knee flex of the Apollo videos..

In your own words... this is about the knee flexion of sitting in a chair. (According to the table notes, that measurement isn't even complete). In the Apollo video, is he sitting in a chair, or is he standing up, then crouching down to try and reach something on the surface? When I look at the video, it's the latter. I see no chair. What does the document say about the knee flexion of the suit in the mobility tests? From Table XI and page 53, the angle is 145 degrees, which comports with what we see in the video.

Remind me, what evidence did you have supporting your theory again?

Edited by postbaguk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Once more, I'll try and get this through to you...

This is what you said....

"I grew up during the Cold War and considering the mindset of the former Soviet Union during the Apollo moon flights, there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY they would have allowed us to get away with a moon hoax and yet, they confirmed the United States sent men to the moon. The reaction of the Soviet Union exposing hoaxed Apollo moon flights to the whole world would have been like throwing a pound of meat in the middle of a shark feeding frenzy and yet, they confirmed that we landed men on the moon"..

Now,,let's replace 'moon hoax' with the JFK murder....

]I grew up during the Cold War and considering the mindset of the former Soviet Union during the JFK murder, there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY they would have allowed us to get away with our own government killing the President and yet, they did. The reaction of the Soviet Union exposing the US Government as murderers of their own President to the whole world would have been like throwing a pound of meat in the middle of a shark feeding frenzy and yet, they said and did absolutely nothing.

Get it now?

Nope, because it still has nothing to do with the United States landing men on the moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frenat

Once more, I'll try and get this through to you...

This is what you said....

"I grew up during the Cold War and considering the mindset of the former Soviet Union during the Apollo moon flights, there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY they would have allowed us to get away with a moon hoax and yet, they confirmed the United States sent men to the moon. The reaction of the Soviet Union exposing hoaxed Apollo moon flights to the whole world would have been like throwing a pound of meat in the middle of a shark feeding frenzy and yet, they confirmed that we landed men on the moon"..

Now,,let's replace 'moon hoax' with the JFK murder....

]I grew up during the Cold War and considering the mindset of the former Soviet Union during the JFK murder, there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY they would have allowed us to get away with our own government killing the President and yet, they did. The reaction of the Soviet Union exposing the US Government as murderers of their own President to the whole world would have been like throwing a pound of meat in the middle of a shark feeding frenzy and yet, they said and did absolutely nothing.

Get it now?

Amazing that you think JFK in which the soviets would not have any reason to have special knowledge about the situation somehow compares to Apollo in which they would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frenat

I see the new board format is in. We got that a week or so ago at EF.

Not many changes but a little better.

I don't mind the change in format but it is odd that since the change I have gotten zero emails about updated threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

I don't mind the change in format but it is odd that since the change I have gotten zero emails about updated threads.

You aren't the only person who has mentioned this. Eldorado reported the same thing and this was Saru's response:

Haven't had an e-mail from UM since the site update, despite topics I follow being added to. Is it only me?

Check your notification preferences and make sure you have a valid e-mail address in your settings.

Hope that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frenat

You aren't the only person who has mentioned this. Eldorado reported the same thing and this was Saru's response:

Hope that helps.

I did have a valid email address but it is a old student email address that forwards everything (supposedly) to a gmail address. I've complained to them before about the lack of access to the spam filters for the forwarding service and was told that only current students and faculty can access the spam settings. I suppose it is POSSIBLE that every email since the forum change has been blocked as spam by OSU (I've checked gmail). Regardless, I've since changed my email address. We'll see if that fixes it. Thanks for the help. Sorry for the temporary derailment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

In your own words... this is about the knee flexion of sitting in a chair. (According to the table notes, that measurement isn't even complete). In the Apollo video, is he sitting in a chair, or is he standing up, then crouching down to try and reach something on the surface? When I look at the video, it's the latter. I see no chair.

Can't see a chair, Stating the obvious, what not? ,

What does the document say about the knee flexion of the suit in the mobility tests? From Table XI and page 53, the angle is 145 degrees, which comports with what we see in the video.

You presented this document for your case, which has clearly backfired. .

There is another table (I cited), and it sinks your argument. And 'incomplete' is not an excuse. No more hiding, please..

I'll address specific data which exists

Let's compare Suit B and Suit C, for 'knee flexion' at 3.7 psi......

In the table you cite, it is 130 deg. and 125 deg., respectively.

In the other table, it is 93 deg. and 87 deg. respectively.

You see the problem here?

No doubt you do. There is nearly a 40 deg. discrepancy in suit B, and suit C!

The data is described as 'knee flexion' in the table I cited, with 93 and 87 deg. ..

Not in the table you cite. Point 14 is described as 'knee flexion-extension', not just 'knee flexion. And, the column description is 'angles of excursion'', in the table. .

If this was i'knee flexion' degree, it would describe it as such. Like the other table does.

.. . ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Can't see a chair, Stating the obvious, what not? ,

You presented this document for your case, which has clearly backfired. .

There is another table (I cited), and it sinks your argument. And 'incomplete' is not an excuse. No more hiding, please..

I'll address specific data which exists

Let's compare Suit B and Suit C, for 'knee flexion' at 3.7 psi......

In the table you cite, it is 130 deg. and 125 deg., respectively.

In the other table, it is 93 deg. and 87 deg. respectively.

You see the problem here?

You don't seem to understand that the real problem for you is that it has been demonstrated and shown, that the Apollo spacesuit was capable of a wide range of movement under pressurized conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium
Nope, because it still has nothing to do with the United States landing men on the moon.

This was your argument...

- the USSR was our sworn enemy at the time of Apollo.

- As our sworn enemy, the USSR would have surely exposed us, if we'd attempted a moon hoax.

- thus, we went to the moon, since even our sworn enemy had to admit it.

So our sworn enemy didn't bother with JFK, because it had nothing to do with the 'moon lsndings'?

It fails all logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium
As a simple reminder that an approximately 120 degrees knee flexion in a pressurised suit isn't quite as impossible to achieve as you are saying. The Sokol suit has quite restricted mobility, yet it has greater knee flexion than the SAS suit. Impossible!.

I'm not saying that. Never did, What gave you this idea, anyway? I'm a bit curious.

It is not relevant to my issue, and it never will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Coffin It Up

I was wondering, if Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon, then who was video taping him when he came out of the lunar module?

That's a good question!. Probably some mobile camera that went ahead first though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

Suppose you were standing within a yard of a rocket engine. Do you think it would make some noise - operating at 1000 lb thrust?i

What rocket engine is totally silent at 1000 lb of thrust?

A fake one. As seen in the Apollo movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk
Can't see a chair, Stating the obvious, what not?

You said that the figures you were quoting were "about the knee flexion of sitting in a chair". Why, then, does it apply to someone bending down to pick something up?

You presented this document for your case, which has clearly backfired. .

Hardly! It's documented evidence that the angular mobility of the knee in the proto-type Apollo suit is 145 degrees.

What doumentation do you have to support your case?

NONE. All you have is deliberate conflation of mobility and knee flexion, which you have even admitted yourself isn't the same. It boils down to this. The SAS suit has greater OVERALL mobility than the A7L. The A7L has better KNEE FLEXION than the SAS. The reason for this has been explained to you.

For your argument to have any credence, you have to make the assumption that if a suit is described as having greater mobility than another suit, it must outperform (or at least match) the other in EVERY SINGLE TEST. Your whole argument rests on this assumption. It's false. If you disagree, please provide proof that for a spacesuit to be described as having greater mobility than another suit, it must outperform (or match) the suit in each and every test. If you can't provide the proof, or if you agree the assumption is false, then you have absolutely no argument.

There is another table (I cited), and it sinks your argument. And 'incomplete' is not an excuse. No more hiding, please..

There is an addendum to the table which describes some of the test data as being incomplete! How can you possibly describe that as hiding and expect to be taken seriously??!!

I'll address specific data which exists

Let's compare Suit B and Suit C, for 'knee flexion' at 3.7 psi......

In the table you cite, it is 130 deg. and 125 deg., respectively.

In the other table, it is 93 deg. and 87 deg. respectively.

You see the problem here?

The big problem I see is that neither Suit B nor Suit C were the Apollo proto-type suits. That was suit A.

No doubt you do. There is nearly a 40 deg. discrepancy in suit B, and suit C!

You're comparing a mobility test to a test done while seated!

The data is described as 'knee flexion' in the table I cited, with 93 and 87 deg. ..

Not in the table you cite. Point 14 is described as 'knee flexion-extension', not just 'knee flexion. And, the column description is 'angles of excursion'', in the table. .

If this was i'knee flexion' degree, it would describe it as such. Like the other table does.

Knee flexion-extension measures the angle between the knee being flexed, and the knee being extended. Unless you're privy to some information that says otherwise? WHat other angle could it possibly be measuring? The mobility table analysis for Suit A (Apollo proto-type) was 145 degrees.

The data you're referring to in table XIII, as you well know, was collected while the subject was sitting in the mock-up couch!

Look up Turbs. See that small, blue, ever decreasing circle? It's telling you to stop digging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk

I'm not saying that. Never did, What gave you this idea, anyway? I'm a bit curious.

It is not relevant to my issue, and it never will be.

"The SAS suit has greater mobility than the Apollo suit, ergo it should have greater knee flexion".

Does the above sentence accurately sum up your argument?

If so, why does the next sentence not also apply?

"The SAS suit has greater mobility than the Sokol suit, ergo it should have greater knee flexion".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk

Suppose you were standing within a yard of a rocket engine. Do you think it would make some noise - operating at 1000 lb thrust?i

What rocket engine is totally silent at 1000 lb of thrust?

A fake one. As seen in the Apollo movies.

One that was operating in a vacuum maybe? Recorded using microphones designed to pick up as much speech and as little background noise as possible?

http://www.clavius.org/techengine.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden

Suppose you were standing within a yard of a rocket engine. Do you think it would make some noise - operating at 1000 lb thrust?i

What rocket engine is totally silent at 1000 lb of thrust?

A fake one. As seen in the Apollo movies.

I hope you are not suggesting that rocket engines would create sound in a vacuum, as you are surely aware that sound transmission requires molecules of some type, whether air, water or any other medium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

I hope you are not suggesting that rocket engines would create sound in a vacuum, as you are surely aware that sound transmission requires molecules of some type, whether air, water or any other medium.

How dare you bring legitimate science into a conspiracy argument! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

Suppose you were standing within a yard of a rocket engine. Do you think it would make some noise - operating at 1000 lb thrust?i

What rocket engine is totally silent at 1000 lb of thrust?

Tell me you're just posting trash for fun.

Tell me you don't know the answer to your question--the real answer, not the trash you wrote.

A fake one. As seen in the Apollo movies.

:cry:

We are here to educate.

Sound is a wave which registers in the ear after the wave is transmitted through a medium.

The thrust level of the engine has no bearing on the fact I am about to tell (epreat to) you:

in vacuum, sound isn't possible.

Thus a rocket engine in vacuum makes no discernible sound out in the vacuum.

It can't...like all those" fake one seen in the Apollo movies". :w00t:

I am sure you'll attempt to explain and of course, prove that statement...some day...

...not!

:no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

This was your argument...

- the USSR was our sworn enemy at the time of Apollo.

- As our sworn enemy, the USSR would have surely exposed us, if we'd attempted a moon hoax.

- thus, we went to the moon, since even our sworn enemy had to admit it.

The Soviets saw themselves as superior and their admission that the United States landed men on the moon was very significant.

So our sworn enemy didn't bother with JFK, because it had nothing to do with the 'moon lsndings'?

It fails all logic.

You are tripping over yourself over JFK. Once again, you can't ignore the fact that the United States landed men on the moon, which was not only confirmed by the Soviet Union, but by other trackers as well, and they have confirmed the moon landings as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.