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

MID
'Jackdaw' timestamp='1336433719' post='4287324']

the oversized footprint come one legged BIG FOOT ON THE MOON and the print of a sneaker come training shoe?

Your famed footprint issue was convered already, but here:

Schmitt_Overshoe_NASM2009RK_1.jpg

This is exactly what made the famed footprints on the Moon. An AL7 overshoe, this one in fact being worn on the Moon by Jack Schmitt on Apollo 17 in December 1972.

It was a opretty simple and straight forward answer...just like this one. No mystery about the footprint. Big treads; soft, compressible adherant soil; foot print.

And the same shot of a flag transversed and used on another "so called" lunar landing

What's a "transversed" flag???

Show us.

and the moon buggy that left no tyre tracks

18576.jpg

Where was on of those "buggy" things that left no tire tracks??

Just curious, as titanium chevron treadles left distinctive tracks...all over the place

and the astro - nots collecting and then bringing home fake moon rocks - from a certain part of earth! etc etc etc.

Roll ya eyes all ya want Cz - but do try to get with the programme. Thanks.

Get with the program?

:-*

Yea.

Along those lines, start showing what your being asked to show, and---

--Prove those fake moon rocks..."from a certain part of earth ( :clap: ).

There's too much work for you to do...too much study and homework, for you to be wasting so much time posting silliness... :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

Thanks a lot man, I was getting a little worried there.

Ah Seand, there's so much silliness in that film it's utterly dumbfounding.

One thing is easy:

If you see the name Bart Sibrel behind a film, it's definitely a hack job, filled with outright lies, and utter fabrications.

:tu:

Thanks a lot man, I was getting a little worried there.

Ah Seand, there's so much silliness in that film it's utterly dumbfounding.

One thing is easy:

If you see the name Bart Sibrel behind a film, it's definitely a hack job, filled with outright lies, and utter fabrications.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

The pics of the fake moon landings are widely covered on the net for all to see.

Including the oversized footprint come one legged BIG FOOT ON THE MOON and the print of a sneaker come training shoe?

And the same shot of a flag transversed and used on another "so called" lunar landing and the moon buggy that left no tyre tracks and the astro - nots collecting and then bringing home fake moon rocks - from a certain part of earth! etc etc etc.

Roll ya eyes all ya want Cz - but do try to get with the programme. Thanks.

Post your evidence.

Until you do that, you are just flapping your fingers and saying nothing at all.

Ball's in your court, Jackdaw, where its always been. Support your claims with actual evidence or retract them.

That is the programme we're currently following.

ETA...

Saru has posted a FAQ regarding providing sources. Here are some relevant excerpts from it:

This FAQ is aimed at providing clarification on a few common questions on the topic of providing sources in posts.

Do I have to post sources when I present information in a post?

We do not have a specific requirement for members to provide source links to relevant data when making a claim or presenting factual statements in their postshowever it is often a very good idea to do so whenever you can. If there are specific facts you are relying on in a discussion to support your argument and the provision of a source is possible then being able to provide one to back up those facts helps you to solidify your position and will go a long way to convincing others that your argument has merit. Obviously there are many cases where it isn't possible or practical to provide a source but where it is and where one is warranted then its a good idea to do so.

Why should I post a source - its up to everyone else to do research and validate what i'm saying

No it isn't, if you are making a claim that requires validation and you are able to provide it then it is generally up to you to do so; you are making the claim and therefore you need to back it up with sources if you want it to be taken seriously. Again while there is no strict enforcement of this if you are looking to convince others that your point is correct but are telling others that they will need to look up the facts themselves or to "do their homework" then you are unlikely to elicit much support.

I've been asked to provide a source, do I have to ?

If you are putting forward an argument, a source has been requested and it is possible to provide one then while not compulsary it will substantially harm your position and likely render your argument void if you deliberately refuse to provide one. If you are unable to provide a source when one has been requested it is good practice to respond by explaining the reason behind that.

Emphasis added, obviously...

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

I also provided him with the results of those previous polls, that didn't stop him from demanding them again. I've asked him, given that truth is based on evidence NOT on popularity polls, what he thinks he'll achieve, but he hasn't answered that simple question.

There's also this from last month:

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Hmmm? 2006 polls aint now as mr WD said.

Times and mankind have moved on since I think . . . . and so to has the net :-D

Yes, it has. And judging by the dwindling posts at forums such as this, most folks have woken up to the inanity of the Apollo deniers.

Jackdaw, what do you think of this JREF poll?

http://forums.randi....ad.php?t=233454

It might well reflect a bit on the unbelievably ill-informed and poorly presented drivel of 'fatfreddy' (aka davidc, cosmored, David Cosnette) and his cohort Patrick1000 (aka fattydash, DoctorTea, and many others), but the numbers are pretty comprehensive.. Currently 293 to 1 in favour of Apollo being true.

May I ask what you think of David Cosnette? Patrick1000? Jarrah White?

And can you explain why these Apollo deniers need to use so many sockpuppets?

(I already know the answer to this one, so you needn't put too much effort in..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

And can you explain why these Apollo deniers need to use so many sockpuppets?

(I already know the answer to this one, so you needn't put too much effort in..)

Oh I think you can rest assured that Jackdaw will put virtually no effort into it whatsoever.... not really his style, you see....

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rambaldi

Hmmm? 2006 polls aint now as mr WD said.

Times and mankind have moved on since I think . . . . and so to has the net :-D

Your original comparison were the 60s, 2006 is close enough.

But it's true, mankind has moved on, just look at the remaining Moonhoaxers.

Just look at those who still hang on to the subject:

- Mr Sockpuppet fattydash

- Mr. Obsessed with JayUtah FatFreddy

- turbonium who's spouting the same long debunked nonsense since Bush was President

and a few others who appear to be more interested in being annoying than convincing anyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackdaw

Point taken

However not wishing to be banned - Again! - from posting on UM and being accused of TROLLING which is a phrase I am unfamiliar with?. . . . . I am now more conservative with my replies.

Like I said a few moons ago I quickly realised who has the "CON" on this thread?

By the by Mid - It was Ed Harris in the Apollo film?

More recently Mr WD hints that I need to grow up?

And refers to me as "HE"???

End of debate me thinks.

But it was fun :-D

ps. in my day a troll hid under a bridge

Edited by Jackdaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

Point taken

However not wishing to be banned - Again! - from posting on UM and being accused of TROLLING which is a phrase I am unfamiliar with?. . . . . I am now more conservative with my replies.

And yet with all your concern over being labeled a "troll" again, you seem to prefer to not provide evidence to back up your claims and prefer to insist that people do the research for you...

In other words, you're being a troll in an effort to not be viewed as a troll... :huh:

I'm trying REAL hard to see the logic behind that.

More recently Mr WD hints that I need to grow up?

And refers to me as "HE"???

In fairness, you haven't indicated your gender in your profile, and while it may not be a fair assumption to make, it is typical to assume that a poster is male first, rather than female, especially when one has a particularly male-sounding handle such as yours.

Now, all that said, and seeing as you have decided not to let us know if you're a "he" or "she", I'm perfectly happy to refer to you as "it". I'm sure others will follow suit...

End of debate me thinks.

But it was fun :-D

"End" of debate?

I wasn't aware that one had actually even started...

Usually a debate on this topic usually begins with those who believe in the Hoax presenting their evidence for their positions.

All you've done is declare your opinion, make some wild claims about evidence that allegedly exists, and then completely, flatly refuse to support your opinion or provide the evidence, thereby invalidating your entire line of discussion.

Not really a debate, more like a seagull pooping randomly on this topic...

ps. in my day a troll hid under a bridge

Yes, well, these days they tend to hang out on Internet forums, make wild claims about something that they then prove they know little to nothing about, ignore requests to support those claims, then declare the debate at an end before leaving, voluntarily or otherwise.

Cz

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

Like I said a few moons ago I quickly realised who has the "CON" on this thread?

Who? I wasn't aware that anyonwe had the con here.

]By the by Mid - It was Ed Harris in the Apollo film?

Are you asking me? Ed's not here, last I checked...

More recently Mr WD hints that I need to grow up?

And refers to me as "HE"???

I was wondering if you could slow down and employ a sntax that could be clearly understood.

You could simply state that you're a she rather than be silly about someone referring to you as a "he". I ask, what do you expect with a screen name of JACKDAW ???

End of debate me thinks.

There's never been a debate about this issue. We did it, as we said we did. The world watched, and it's documented more than any event in history. We try to teach how it was done, and many other things that result from the posts of people with no subject matter knowledge. But there's no real debating that can be done concerning the Moon hoax. It's a construct of people with profound lack of knowledge, distrust of authority, and in many cases, a blessedly vivid imagination that has been wastefully employed on this topic rather than something worthy of such a gift.

Many have tried to debate from the weak side (HB side). None have succeeded, and quite a few were forced to take their ignorance elsewhere (behavior sometimes suffers for some folks when they're backed into a corner and realize they've been defeated).

We've asked you for questions. You haven't really 'gotten with the program'. That would be fun. Learning something is alot of fun.

Not much matches the joy of watching someone know something they never knew before.

That's yours right here, if you want it.

But somehow, I rather doubt you're inclined to go for that. Pity. :no:

:td:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

I seriously doubt the moon actually exists. It is just an optical illusion, like a desert mirage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

urban myth, pencils were not used because of graphite dust and also they did not want pencil sharpenings floating around, neither did nasa spend millions developing a 'space pen' they simply used a ballpoiint

A little historical information:

Pencils were used originally on manned spaceflights.. The idea of creating a pen that could be used in microgravity conditions wasn't NASA's, and NASA spent no koney on the effort to develop that pen.

The Fisher AG-7 was developed by the Fisher Pen Company and cost the company 2 million dollars to develop the specially formulated ink, the pressurized cartridge, and the pen casing itself.

A very innovative piece of engineering that was eaten up when it was offered to NASA. NASA has issued that pen, or another model of the same ink formulation and construction, to every manned spaceflight astronauts since Apollo 8 in October of 1968.

The pen cost NASA nothing to develop. It was a testimony to what private industry can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

MID I think you are seriously over estimating the population of the world if you think that 6.95 billion people are 15%

I think you seriously failed to read what I said. I cited ~ 1 billion as the figure,

The whole thing was shot on a Hollywood lot. Stanly Kubrick did around the time he shot 2001 a Space Odyssey

Stanley Kubrick never got close to Hollywood. He left the United States for England in 1962.

@001 was shot in England between 1964 and 1968.

Kubrick had nothing to do with Hollywood. I often wonder how his name came up associated with this silliness and with Hollywood...?

:td:

Edited by MID

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conrad Clough

this is what you posted:

...meaning that there are about 6.95 billion non-Americans who believe this stuff too!

why did you drag this over into a different thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mentalcase

this is what you posted:

why did you drag this over into a different thread?

lol I was soooo wondering that! Mid!! What's going on buddy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

The existing data supports the fact that the prototype Apollo suit could bend at the knees up to 145 degrees.

No, you just misinterpreted the data.

No. I'm saying the data for suits B & C isn't relevant to the knee flexion of the Apollo suit.

It's completely relevant because it shows you've misinterpreted the data.

[

For starters, you can't extrapolate data that way as the suits are different and behave differently. Your trying to invent data that isn't there.

Actually, you are the one trying to invent data that isn't there! There is NO data for knee flex on Suit A, but you claim it's in another table, anyway! It's not.

[

Secondly, those measurements were taken while seated.

Where does it mention they were seated for those measurements? On what page?

Oh dear. This is getting excruciating. They are measuring the angle difference between "knee flexion" and "knee extension". If this diagramme doesn't drop the penny, you're beyond help on this one. Or perhaps you can explain exactly what angle the 145 degrees refers to?

faq_stretching.jpg

Knee flexion-extension is the angle measured between the knee being fully flexed, and fully extended.

This table is measuring "Angles of excursion" for "Knee flexion-extension".. Angles}, plural. In Suit B, the measurement is 130 deg. IThat is not the same as having 130 deg. knee flexion!. We know this is not.so. IWe know that knee flexion in Suit B measured 93 deg., in another table.. .

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

Suit B is either 130 deg. or 93 deg.

Suit C is either 125 deg., or 87 deg..

You still haven't addressed the glaring problem here, you just tried to skip past it. .

We can clearly see that the numbers are entrirely different in the two tables. They obviously cannot be for the same measurement of 'knee flexion'.

You can't avoid the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

I could tell you that Posty is correct...Any nominal sound or vibration passed through the medium of the cabin atmosphere wouldn't be heard through the microphione, which, set to vox mode, only transmitted when the proximity sound of the voice triggered the mic open. Any other sound outside the sealed helmet wouldn't have triggered the mic.

If a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one there to hear. Does it make a sound?

ANSWER: Yes, it does.

If a rocket engine fires in a vacuum, regardless of whether anyone is there, does it make a sound?

ANSWER: No it doesn't.

You have two claims' on this...

First, you claim no sound is heard because they are in a vacuum. But we know they have air in the capsule, and they can speak and hear each other speak in the capsule, don't we? . A vacuum exists outside the capsule, in space. But not inside the capsule itself.So your 'vacuum' claim is false

Of course, you already knew that, which is why you made a second claim, about their microphones.

You claim the mics were voice-activated, no other sounds could be heard except for their voices at close range...

Onboard voice recorders were supposed to be voice-activated on the LM, but weren't...

Because the automatic voice activation (VOX) keying was not good enough to catch the start of an astronaut’s voice, engineers decided to use the tape in a continuous record mode, which made the 10 hours of available recording time a carefully husbanded resource. In each mission’s flight plan, a table was included which listed for the astronauts, exactly what was to be recorded.

http://www.ehartwell.com/Apollo17/MissionTranscriptCollection.htm

Can you show me sources on the mics being voice-activated?

But it's not relevant, since we can hear them talking during the LM landing, as the descent engine (supposedly) was still firing.

In a tiny capsule, practically sitting on a rocket engine firing 1000 bs + of thrust, and nothing but their voices can be heard!! No vibrations that shake spoken words. Could be in a church, it's so calm and peaceful...

Sorry, we had no such microphones 40 years ago, and we still don't. It's pure fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrbusdriver

Turbo, rocket engine noise on Earth is caused by the exhaust interacting with atmosphere, creating pressure waves. There is no atmosphere on the Moon to transmit the rocket exhaust "noise". The 1000 pounds of thrust they were near was the plume in a vaccuum below them. Any sound they hear would need to be in direct contact with, and effectively transmitted by, the spacecraft structure.

No vibration? Why should there be vibration? Again, they're in a vaccuum, no turbulence, no windshear, no aerodynamic buffeting or anything like that.

You need to think about why jet engines and rocket engines (or even light prop planes) make sound here on Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk

No, you just misinterpreted the data.

145 degrees is 145 degrees.

It's completely relevant because it shows you've misinterpreted the data.

Misinterpreted 145 degrees as 145 degrees?

Actually, you are the one trying to invent data that isn't there! There is NO data for knee flex on Suit A, but you claim it's in another table, anyway! It's not.

Are you lying, or just being deliberately obtuse?

Where does it mention they were seated for those measurements? On what page?

YOU first mentioned it in post 14060. I'll remind you of your own words...

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..

This table is measuring "Angles of excursion" for "Knee flexion-extension".. Angles}, plural. In Suit B, the measurement is 130 deg. IThat is not the same as having 130 deg. knee flexion!. We know this is not.so. IWe know that knee flexion in Suit B measured 93 deg., in another table..

I find it impossible to believe that anyone could use this as a valid argument. Is this what you're reduced to? You're a complete and utter joke. The sad thing is, you're not helping your cause by prostrating yourself. By extension, if you're reduced to this, what does it say about the strength of your arguments? It speaks volumes. You lost the argument a long time ago, but are so intractable you don't have the moral strength to say, "Oops, I goofed". More fool you. You were handed a get-out weeks ago, but decided to persist. This is the result, and it's painful to read.

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

Suit B is either 130 deg. or 93 deg.

Suit C is either 125 deg., or 87 deg..

You still haven't addressed the glaring problem here, you just tried to skip past it. .

We can clearly see that the numbers are entrirely different in the two tables. They obviously cannot be for the same measurement of 'knee flexion'.

You can't avoid the facts.

The facts are, you're referring to suits B and C, which aren't the Apollo suits! Neither are these measurements from the mobility table data. They were taken in the mock-up of the CM couch.

So, did you have any evidence supporting your original assertion? Or is the best you can come up with arguing over the plurality of the word angle(s)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Actually, you are the one trying to invent data that isn't there! There is NO data for knee flex on Suit A, but you claim it's in another table, anyway! It's not.

Actually, it is you, who is guilty of inventing. The facts were very clear in the photos and in a documentary on the developement of the Apollo spacesuit that the spacesuit was capable of a wide range of motion under pressurized. conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

Can you show me sources on the mics being voice-activated?

But it's not relevant, since we can hear them talking during the LM landing, as the descent engine (supposedly) was still firing.

In a tiny capsule, practically sitting on a rocket engine firing 1000 bs + of thrust, and nothing but their voices can be heard!! No vibrations that shake spoken words. Could be in a church, it's so calm and peaceful...

Sorry, we had no such microphones 40 years ago, and we still don't. It's pure fantasy.

:td:

Your post was a weak attempt to derail us from noticing that you are, once again, avoiding your obligation here.

That's OK, becuase we fully understand that you cannot prove your "case".

You say we don't have vox microphones today? We never did?

Then again, you said there were stage hands and TV monitors and such on the TV from Apollo 12's 1st EVA.

Are you that daft? Do you deliberately ignore the easily available material in favor of being foolish?

This was covered for YOU, long ago.

First of all, how could we have heard the crew during the critical descent to the surface, or while on the surface, without the standard voice activated mic mode turned on?

One needed two hands on the LM controls all the time during descent. Imagine having tio reach down to the com carrier and push the talk button while you're jockeying the throttle, the attitude controller, your instruments, etc...... :no:

On the surface, these guys were working with two hands, and geez, I recall Neil Armstrong coming down the ladder and letting go with one hand so he could fumble for the push to talk button!

Your comments are elementary and ridiculous, especially when you consider that documentation of the COM system is readily available to you, and since that ridiculous dwelling on SIbrel's film, and that whispered word "Talk" which was heard, and fabricated into some clandestine thing by you HBs, was simply Mike Collins telling Neil to switch to VOX mode on his system while he was describing the Earth to the fans back home. He was push-to-talk, and was talking without pushing after Charlie asked him to offer a few comments about what he was seeing,

Would you please knock off the diversions and get with the program.

By the way. I don't have any claims on tthis subject.

I only have something that you don't: knowledge of these things.

Now, what did you say?

First, you claim no sound is heard because they are in a vacuum.

No, I said the engine made no sound in a vacuum. It didn't, nor does anything, rocket engine, or nuclear explosion, make a sound in space.

I also said you'll hear no engine sound, nor would anyone listening to the recordings, because the crew was sealed inside a pressure suit w/helmet, and no extraneous sound could be recorded via their mnicrophones because they only registered sounds loud enough to trigger them ON, meaning a human voice talking to mission control.

But we know they have air in the capsule, and they can speak and hear each other speak in the capsule, don't we? . A vacuum exists outside the capsule, in space. But not inside the capsule itself.So your 'vacuum' claim is false

Yes! Very good, they had air in the cabin.

However, Turb, it should be noted that the engine WASN'T ACTUALLY INSIDE THE CABIN :innocent: ..It was actully mounted in the descent stage, several feet "below" the crew's feet, with its business end pointed away from them. Further, they were inside sealed suits at about 3.5 PSI. Despite the fact that the DPS made a sound that might have passed through cabin atmosphere--a low grade rumble perhaps--that might have been faintly heard, and certainly felt, through the cabin, crews didn't hear anything profound. . Certainly there was no engine roaring or massive vibration going on...(???)

I'm sure you don't believe any of that, nor does it mean anything when I point out your silliness...

...My vacuum claim is false???? :whistle:

We had 9 LMs that flew with men aboard. We had 17 engines which operated successfully on those LMs, and ALL OF THEM operated in a vacuum.

Not a one of them made a sound in that vacuum.

Nor did any of the4 J-2s that powered the Saturn vehicles, or the SPS.

Oh well.

But it's not relevant, since we can hear them talking during the LM landing, as the descent engine (supposedly) was still firing.

In a tiny capsule, practically sitting on a rocket engine firing 1000 bs + of thrust, and nothing but their voices can be heard!! No vibrations that shake spoken words. Could be in a church.

I think we just got finished explaining that to you--again. Hopefully you can understand why we could hear them talking while the DPS was operating.

But I think you watch too many movies, where rocket engine firings are always depicted as these earth shattering events in the cabins of spacecraft, and crewmen have to shout to be heard, and shake around as if they're an ice cube in a drink mixer in a bar!

Rdiculous representations.

I think you're impressionable. Too impressionable.

If you devote a little time to it, you'll understand, I'm sure.

But then again, given past behavior, I have to be somewhat dubious about your chances...

:no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

Turbo, rocket engine noise on Earth is caused by the exhaust interacting with atmosphere, creating pressure waves. There is no atmosphere on the Moon to transmit the rocket exhaust "noise". The 1000 pounds of thrust they were near was the plume in a vaccuum below them. Any sound they hear would need to be in direct contact with, and effectively transmitted by, the spacecraft structure.

They were virtually standing on the rocket engines. It even poked up into the middle of their cabin!

How is that for "direct contact"? .

No vibration? Why should there be vibration? Again, they're in a vaccuum, no turbulence, no windshear, no aerodynamic buffeting or anything like that.

First of all, to claim 'they're in a vacuum' is misleading, a half-truth at most..

We know they had air inside the craft. We also know that air does not exist in a vacuum. So we know they are NOT in a vacuum, inside that craft.

.

Most certainly vibrations would be heard (and felt) inside the LM, just an arm's length from a rocket engine with (a minimum of) 1000 lbs. thrust.

The vacuum outside the craft does not block out sounds and vibrations being directed to the inside of the craft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

Moderator notice

In order to help improve the loading speed of the forums we are going to be closing down and creating continuations of several of the largest threads on the forums, typically those that are several hundred pages long ( and especially those with 1,000 or more. )

As such we will be closing the Did we land on the moon? thread in around 24 hours time and creating a new thread in which this discussion can be continued, rather than do this out of the blue we thought it best to give you a heads up in advance so that it doesn't come as too much of a surprise when this happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

YOU first mentioned it in post 14060. I'll remind you of your own words...

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..

Look - THERE IS NO ACTUAL CHAIR INVOLVED,, NOR IMPLIED

I said 93 deg. and 87 deg. is about the knee flexion someone will have when sitting in a chair. Or sitting on a couch. Or sitting on a park bench. Or sitting on a toilet.

There is no actual couch involved, no actual park bench involved, no actua toilet involved. And there is no actual chair involved either. Do you get the idea now? I'm merely saying that 87 deg/93 deg. knee flexion is about the knee flex for a normal sitting position.

I told you to forget about the 'chair', because there is no 'chair'.. Do you get my point, finally??

So in the document, they never said anything about being seated, did they? You presented this document, so you must have known that. Right? So why did you try and twist my words to that effect? I never claimed they were 'seated' during the tests. The 87/93 deg knee flexion were measurements in the table. I noted that is about the same degree of knee flex as sitting in a chair (or sitting on a couch, or sitting on a toilet, etc.) I never said the tests used a chair. I never said they measured knee flexion from a seated position.

You did. .

I find it impossible to believe that anyone could use this as a valid argument. Is this what you're reduced to? You're a complete and utter joke. The sad thing is, you're not helping your cause by prostrating yourself. By extension, if you're reduced to this, what does it say about the strength of your arguments? It speaks volumes. You lost the argument a long time ago, but are so intractable you don't have the moral strength to say, "Oops, I goofed". More fool you. You were handed a get-out weeks ago, but decided to persist. This is the result, and it's painful to read.

What does it say about your arguments if you're reduced to childish name-calling? I expect better from you, postie

The facts are, you're referring to suits B and C, which aren't the Apollo suits!

Nor is Suit A.

Neither are these measurements from the mobility table data. They were taken in the mock-up of the CM couch.

Specify the page(s) where they state this, please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk
Look - THERE IS NO ACTUAL CHAIR INVOLVED,, NOR IMPLIED

I said 93 deg. and 87 deg. is about the knee flexion someone will have when sitting in a chair. Or sitting on a couch. Or sitting on a park bench. Or sitting on a toilet.

There is no actual couch involved, no actual park bench involved, no actua toilet involved. And there is no actual chair involved either. Do you get the idea now? I'm merely saying that 87 deg/93 deg. knee flexion is about the knee flex for a normal sitting position.

I told you to forget about the 'chair', because there is no 'chair'.. Do you get my point, finally??

Now that you've clarified it, yes. You can see how your sentence could be mis-interpreted. 'About' can mean 'concerning' as well as 'approximately'. I assumed you meat 'concerning', since the document mentions a mockup of the CM couch.

So in the document, they never said anything about being seated, did they?

Yes they do.

You presented this document, so you must have known that. Right?

Yes I did.

So why did you try and twist my words to that effect? I never claimed they were 'seated' during the tests. The 87/93 deg knee flexion were measurements in the table. I noted that is about the same degree of knee flex as sitting in a chair (or sitting on a couch, or sitting on a toilet, etc.) I never said the tests used a chair. I never said they measured knee flexion from a seated position.

You did. .

Misunderstanding cleared up. Not that it helps your case.

Now, stop focussing on minor issues, and deal with the 145 degrees knee flexion of suit A as laid out in table XI.

What does it say about your arguments if you're reduced to childish name-calling? I expect better from you, postie

I've laid my argument out in detail. You can't address it. Not that it matters a jot anyway. You made a claim about the Apollo suit. You haven't been able to provide any evidence to back your claim up. This document is just a little Brucie bonus that I hoped would demonstrate to you why you were wrong. I thought you might learn.

But you're right, calling you a joke is taking things bit far. I should have said your evidence and arguments are a complete and utter joke, not you personally. Perhaps you could clear things up, and state what it is you think they are measuring in the knee flexion-extension test? Surely it's the difference in angle between the knee fully flexed, and fully extended? Assuming the knee fully extended is zero degrees (I'm sure even you would agree that's reasonable), then for the flexion-extension to be 145 degrees, surely the knee flexion itself MUST be 145 degrees?

Oh, I'll ask again as you seem to have missed it: where is your evidence that the Apollo suit could not bend at the knee as witnessed in the video clip?

Nor is Suit A.

Suit A is the proto-type of the Apollo suit. If it's possible for the prototype of the Apollo suit to display a knee flexion-extension of 145 degrees, is it unreasonable to expect that the finished article may exhibit a similar angle?

Specify the page(s) where they state this, please.

Table XI is the mobility table data, using flexometers and the mobility notation table (as well as other techniques). Table XIII is from the X-ray study. Look at page 50 and see what equipment they use for each sub-test. Subtest 2 (X-ray study) lists X-ray facilities and a mock-up of the couch as necessary equipment. They suit someone up, sit him in the couch, and X-ray him to determine the eye-heart angle, and measure the joint angles using the mid-points of the major bones. If that wasn't enough, you can infer he's seated by looking at what they measure. In the mobility table study, they measure (among others): hip adduction-abduction; hip flexion-extension; hip rotation; trunk rotation; trunk-hip flexion-extension; trunk-hip lateral flexion. In the X-ray study, the only one of these angles they measure is hip flexion. This conform's with what you'd expect if the subject was seated in a couch.

Regardless, let's drag this issue back on topic. Your claim. Your evidence. Do you have anything?

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.