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 -

Did we land on the moon?


Illiniblue35

Recommended Posts

Your image? Well, it shows that an astronaut can, indeed, perform deep knee bends in a non-pressurized Apollo-type spacesuit.

I already knew that.

The suit is pressurized, Turbs. You need to pay closer attention.

Your videos? Except for the image you posted, I have no idea what you want me to address.

It shows the history of the design and construction of the suit, showing it being tested and men doing things in it that you say are impossible. What I want you to address is the fact that you don't know what you're talking about and that this video proves you wrong.

Yes, I know... its a pipe-dream that you'll ever admit you're wrong, despite the overwhelming evidence that proves you wrong, but maybe one day you'll grow a pair and start being honest with us and yourself.

And you already know what MCP stands for.

Yes... I know what it means... but do you know what it means and why it invalidates your evidence?

Based on your answers so far, that'd be a "no".

Cz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have no evidence here.

There are tons of evidence supporting the fact that men worked on the moon, which explains why the moon hoax folks have yet to present evidence that supports their claims.It is silly to think that the government would spend billions of dollars to concoct moon mission hoaxes just to please the public when such a hoax could easily be revealed and since 1969, not one shred of evidence has surfaced that the moon missions were hoaxed.

We can take a couple of examples where the moon hoax folks had to wipe the mud off of their faces after scientific experiments smashed their theories in regards to the flag waving and foot step issues in a vacuum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote name='turbonium' timestamp='1332063697' post='4235740']

You have no evidence here.

:wacko::rolleyes:

You...YOU...just told someone they have no evidence???

:huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The layer of the suit you're looking at isn't the pressure suit! It's the protective layer. That layer does NOT get pressurised. The layer that gets pressurised is visible from 3:44 in this video. He has a hose hooked up to the suit, and is displaying a large range of motion, including deep knee bends at 4:00.

Are you actually claiming this is a pressurized Apollo (or Apollo-era) spacesuit we see at 4:00?

This spacesuit has virtually unlimited mobility, at every joint!! How can this be possible in a pressurized spacesuit designed over 40 years ago, when it's not even possible to design one TODAY??

So it's just another example of Apollo-land - a mythical fantasy-world, where we designed a perfectly functional lunar lander, fly men to the moon in amazing rocket-ships, wearing spacesuits with unlimited flexibility!

We still can't design a perfectly functional lunar lander, nor can we build these amazing rockets....nor have we designed a pressurized spacesuit with such an incredible degree of mobility as the spacesuit seen at the 4:00 mark of your video clip...

To suggest this could be done in an Apollo-era spacesuit is utterly ridiculous!

Is it really such a stretch to believe that a suit that WAS designed for lunar EVA could be designed with such mobility in mind?

Yes, it is a stretch. Such a degree of flexibility was beyond the limits of an Apollo spacesuit. I have 20+ years experience in molded plastic bellows, to cover (roboric) limb joints. The minute I saw the bellows in that video, I knew it confirmed my rgument.

If you doubt me on that, I can cite examples of current research and/or analysis involving bellows-type design.

What is the maximum angle that an Apollo knee joint can possibly bend to,

So you don't know, either? You (and your camp) always chirp on about how thoroughly documented Apollo is, and helps prove your case, blah, blah. Now you're asking me for Apollo documentation? That's a tiny bit odd, no?

Remember, the Apollo 16 video of the astronaut trying to stand back up shows that he is having some difficulty bending the knees as much as he needs to to stand upright. You can also see the spring-like nature of the joint as he finally gets upright, and some of the stored energy is recovered from the joint. Direct evidence that the joint is indeed pressurised.

Same flawed argument, I see.

To sum it up for you..

Whether it's very difficult, or not so difficult, it isn't relevant to this issue

The point is that it was done. Period.

You say it was difficult for him to do deep knee bends because his suit was pressurized. That is merely your opinion, nothing more.

You also say it was difficult for him to stand up after the deep knee bends because his suit was pressurized. Again, that is merely your opinion, nothing more.

So much "direct evidence". Not.

And it's not relevant to my case, I remind you again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why I do your homework for you--

You know it's really silly for me to sit here and take care of your rediculous avoidance maneuver.

The suit flexibility issue?

Oh...let's see:

This you, March 10, outlining some of your ridiculous requirements.

Turbonium:

"Fully flexible" - allows a joint to have complete range of motion. For example, the knee joint,

The spacesuit's knee joints are fully flexible - they're able to fold and sit on their legs with ease.

You must realize this, surely?

How in the world can you interpret my comments above into my "requirements"??!!??

He did a deep knee bend in the video clip. I described how the spacesuit was 'fully flexible', since he was able to do the deep knee bend in that spacesuit.

He did a deep knee bend, I described that as a 'fully flexible' spacesuit.

I never said it was a "requirement". It's no part of my argument. Never was.

It's clear to you, now?

Now it's suits. And...amazingly, since you can't recognize that you can flex in a pressurized suit, you apply your inimitable brand of logic once again to bore us all by saying Apollo couldn't have happened.

I'm well aware that one can flex in pressurized spacesuits.

It's the degree of flex I'm disputing. Like in the deep knee bend example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The suit is pressurized, Turbs. You need to pay closer attention.

It shows the history of the design and construction of the suit, showing it being tested and men doing things in it that you say are impossible.

So when does it show the spacesuits being pressurized?

Where do they show how a spacesuit looks and performs - both before and after pressurization?

I seem to have missed those parts of your video. Maybe you can point them out?

What indicates to you that a suit is pressurized, or is not pressurized, when fully suited up (including the helmet, gloves, etc.)?

Because, just saying that it's a pressurized suit....really doesn't cut it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you actually claiming this is a pressurized Apollo (or Apollo-era) spacesuit we see at 4:00?

I can't know for certain, but the suit is hooked up so it's plausible. Regardless, it's your claim that a pressurised suit can't display the knee flexion shown in the Apollo 16 video. Your claim seems to be based entirely on a matter of disbelief, or an argument from ignorance. In order to rid yourself of that ignorance, you need to openly and objectively assess the available evidence. You aren't doing that. You're trying to rid yourself of the burden of proof... again.

This spacesuit has virtually unlimited mobility, at every joint!! How can this be possible in a pressurized spacesuit designed over 40 years ago, when it's not even possible to design one TODAY??

It doesn't have unlimited mobility, but it does have a good range of motion, good enough for exploring the moon during three 8 hour EVAs: just what it was designed to do. Who says it's not possible to design such a suit today?

So it's just another example of Apollo-land - a mythical fantasy-world, where we designed a perfectly functional lunar lander, fly men to the moon in amazing rocket-ships, wearing spacesuits with unlimited flexibility!

My oh my, they were actually capable of designing and building things that worked in the 1960s! How odd! Argument from ignorance again.

We still can't design a perfectly functional lunar lander, nor can we build these amazing rockets....nor have we designed a pressurized spacesuit with such an incredible degree of mobility as the spacesuit seen at the 4:00 mark of your video clip...

NASA don't have a manned moon programme at the moment, which probably explains why they haven't got around to building the lunar lander yet. Spacesuits for use in LEO EVA don't require the same level of mobility as the Apollo suit did, yet they can still bend their knees about 90 degrees! Wow, the Apollo suits could bend at the knees a few more degrees, albeit with difficulty, yet you claim it is impossible for a suit to be designed in such a way to make that possible. You don't give any evidence to support your opinion, relying once more on ridicule and disbelief. I ask again: where is your evidence?

To suggest this could be done in an Apollo-era spacesuit is utterly ridiculous!

:rolleyes:

Yes, it is a stretch. Such a degree of flexibility was beyond the limits of an Apollo spacesuit.

Proof, please!

I have 20+ years experience in molded plastic bellows, to cover (roboric) limb joints. The minute I saw the bellows in that video, I knew it confirmed my rgument.

Great, you should be able to utilise your knowledge and experience to figure out why your argument fails.

If you doubt me on that, I can cite examples of current research and/or analysis involving bellows-type design.

Is this research applicable to a pressurised, constant volume joint? Great, put it on the table. All you have so far is disbelief.

So you don't know, either? You (and your camp) always chirp on about how thoroughly documented Apollo is, and helps prove your case, blah, blah. Now you're asking me for Apollo documentation? That's a tiny bit odd, no?

I'm not claiming that the suit doesn't work as shown in the video, YOU are. Presumably this argument is based on some actual evidence? Well, where is it?

Same flawed argument, I see.

To sum it up for you..

Whether it's very difficult, or not so difficult, it isn't relevant to this issue

The point is that it was done. Period.

It was. You say it was impossible. Proof please.

You say it was difficult for him to do deep knee bends because his suit was pressurized. That is merely your opinion, nothing more.

It's not just my opinion, it's well documented in the literature.

During unsuited running, kinetic and potential energy

changes are closer to being in phase, and cycle to cycle

recovery of energy is very low. Space suit knee torques

are substantial, and space suits act as relatively high

recovery springs in parallel with the legs. The high recovery

nature of soft-goods space-suit knee joint is

illustrated by the difficulty experienced by Apollo 16

astronauts in picking up tools from the lunar surface [19;

Apollo 16, 146:50:32].

Source - When is Running More Efficient Than Walking in a Space Suit?

Authors - Christopher E. Carr and Dava J. Newman, MIT Department of Aeronautics & Astronautics and Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences & Technology

You also say it was difficult for him to stand up after the deep knee bends because his suit was pressurized. Again, that is merely your opinion, nothing more.

If the suit wasn't pressurised, it would have been far easier for him to stand up at the first attempt. That said, the spring-like nature of the knee-joint in a pressurised suit does help him to stand up, once sufficient flexion has been achieved. Look at the video. You can see the spring-like nature of the knee joint when under flexion. You can see how it helps him to stand up, once he's managed to use sufficient force to bend the joint sufficiently. Again, this is documented in the literature. Spacesuit legs act as springs, especially when under a high degree of flexion. The greater the flexion, the greater the spring-back force. Of course, it means doing more work initially to create the high degree of flexion. Which is EXACTLY what we see in the Apollo 16 video (where he falls over nad has three attempts at standing up).

And it's not relevant to my case, I remind you again.

You have no case, at least not one supported by evidence. You have disbelief and argument from ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting!

DSC_0106.jpg

Photo: ESA.

Caption: Claudie strapped into her chair before launch on board the Soyuz for the Andromède mission to the International Space Station (21 October 2001)

Edited by postbaguk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do I know it was pressurized? If all they wanted to do was check the range of movement in the unpressurized suit, why would they put on the helmet and gloves, then attach the air lines to it? Why would all the mobility testing be done that way when one of the main points of the episode is how the PRESSURIZED suit had more mobility than any previous design?

Then there's this:

At 4:57 in the part 4 video, we see the suit being tested with a man running, playing football, doing pushups while the voice over says:

"It was still pumped full of air like a balloon, but it moved like a normal suit of clothing"

You wanted evidence, we gave it to you. You now have to refute it with actual evidence of your own. So far, as Posty has pointed out, all you have put forward - well... all you EVER put forward - is your personal disbelief, incredulity, and willful ignorance. That is not good enough... Never has been, never will be, and you REALLY need to understand that.

Turbs... its finally time for you to stop with the bul**hit and put up some ACTUAL, REAL, VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE (that you haven't fabricated) to prove your assertion.

Without actual evidence, you have no case, Turbs.

Put up or shut up, Turbs... Put up or shut up.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guessing someone will be linking to the mobility test of the A7L in a decompression chamber? The one where we see knee bends, etc, in a vacuum? I'm guessing that Turbs will proclaim that we have no proof it is really being conducted in a vacuum (they faked it because they knew Turbs would ask for proof).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also guessing that Turbs has no idea how the suits are actually constructed, how the problems associated with a pressurised suit in a vacuum were avoided.

Ignorance is understandable; willful ignorance is unforgivable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also guessing that Turbs has no idea how the suits are actually constructed, how the problems associated with a pressurised suit in a vacuum were avoided.

Ignorance is understandable; willful ignorance is unforgivable.

He has been presented with the means to educate himself by watching the Moon Machines episode. All he would have to do is click a link, remember to breathe and to keep his eyes open and yet that apparently is still too much trouble for him.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has been presented with the means to educate himself by watching the Moon Machines episode. All he would have to do is click a link, remember to breathe and to keep his eyes open and yet that apparently is still too much trouble for him.

Cz

You didn't really expect him to actually acknowledge any of the counter points that he has been given, did you?

^rhetorical

After so many years of his blatant denial and hand waiving, I feel confident in predicting that he will probably never accept how obviously wrong he is; at least not publicly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't really expect him to actually acknowledge any of the counter points that he has been given, did you?

No, but each time he denies facts, ignores evidence that he demands we provide him, tries (and inevitably fails) to shift his burden of proof, slides goalposts ever farther apart, fabricates or cherry-picks quotes to try and support his pathetically weak position, changes topic or completely abandons it altogether mid-stream when he can no longer defend his opinion or answer the questions posed of him he reinforces just how truly ignorant he is of this topic (and many others) and how completely desperate he is to remain so.

^rhetorical

I know, but had to answer anyway... ;)

Cz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm well aware that one can flex in pressurized spacesuits.

It's the degree of flex I'm disputing. Like in the deep knee bend example.

Still...it's a ridiculous issue and a grand waste of time.

You have far too much proof to offer, and nothing in the tank to run your car on (never actually had anything in this thread anyway).

It's a long dead issue...like: when you started it.

We went there. We landed, we did so 6 times. 12 men walked there, landing in craft specifically and masterfully designed for the purpose...snd flexing their knees as required in million dollar suits specifically designed and built for the purpose (believe it or not, America used to do things like that).

Waiting for you to get over it (as if it needed to be gotten over by anyone! :angry: ) is boring...

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't bend my knees some days all without a pressurised suit :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't bend my knees some days all without a pressurised suit :rolleyes:

And you expect us to believe you're sitting at your computer? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spacesuits for use in LEO EVA don't require the same level of mobility as the Apollo suit did, yet they can still bend their knees about 90 degrees! Wow, the Apollo suits could bend at the knees a few more degrees.

My argument, as I've told you repeatedly, is about the degree of knee flex possible in apressurized Apollo spacesuit.. I cited the video clip of a deep knee bend to examine the legitimacy of it.

The 'difficulty' you claim is required for deep knee bends (as seen in the clip) is not relevant. But no matter - here's another still from the new clip thst clearly shows it's really not so difficult to do deep knee bends, after all...

apollo16kneebend2.jpg

He performs this knee bend while his legs are off the ground!

To the main point. I posted this earlier...

The only functioning full-body MCP suit prototype that is known to have been built and tested was the Space Activity Suit (SAS) developed by Webb and Annis in the 196os [Annis & Webb, 1971]. It enabled much greater mobility than the Apollo pressure suit and caused a decreased metabolic rate compared to the Apollo suit. However, the knee flexion range in the SAS was still less than the unsuited range (81 degrees suited average vs. 141 degrees unsuited average)

http://www.google.ca...LddYC31l3M6PbFg

So - once again - I'll try and clarify how the deep knee bends (seen in the clips) are simply impossible to do in a pressurized Apollo spacesuit..

Fact # 1 - The knee flexion range for sitting in a chair (in normal position) is about 90 degrees.

Fact #2 - the knee flexion range of the SAS was 81 degrees, on average.

Fact #3 - the SAS has "..much greater mobility than the Apollo pressure suit".

Now, what would you estimate the knee flexion is in the still frame below?...

apollo16kneebend.jpg

This is easily over 100 degrees knee flexion. I mean, his calf is almost touching to his upper leg!!

But let's be extremely generous and say...

Fact #4 - the Apollo spacesuit (as shown in the still frame) shows a knee flexion greater than 90 dregrees.

Therefore, the Apollo spacesuit MUST be unpressurized.

You wanted to see the facts to prove my argument, and now you have them.

Edited by turbonium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

turbonium,

Have you considered the reason why you have been unable to produce evidence of a moon hoax is because men have already walked on the moon? You might as well face reality.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We landed on the moon, the next question we need to ask is why haven't we or any other country for that matter been back. Or how did the moon even get there and why in the 7000 years of orbiting us has it not rotated one inch? Why are the archived tramissions of the apollo mission so short.

For a second set aside the old right and wrong or yin and yang therious and say every one is right about everything, all religious beliefs are true. There is no wrong answer but as were taught in pre school with the telephone game there is a gain or loss of information.

Now we all know that with out the moon there would be no us.

Heres a theroy based on all known facts and popular belief. The moon was deliberately put there by an alien who gentically altered the already exsiting primitive life just intelligent enough to mine the presious medal of gold for thier space craft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ummm question.... Didnt the bay of pigs incident with russia happen after the apollo mission.

Edited by Tinker6785ab
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The moon is a space station and we were basically told to stay the **** off and continue doing what we were created to do, act like ants until the hole entire galatic federation imperial court is able to travle here with thier final verdict is on the future of the human race. but still it's the only logical theroy based on popular written belief which coulds in fact be lies. Do your own research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

turbonium,

Have you considered the reason why you have been unable to produce evidence of a moon hoax is because men have already walked on the moon? You might as well face reality.

I just finished posting evidence of a hoax. But you just ignored it, like usual, You just keep saying there's no evidence of a hoax, over and over agaib, pretending it duesn't exist

It does

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't bend my knees some days all without a pressurised suit :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

I understand the feeling, B !

:rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We landed on the moon, the next question we need to ask is why haven't we or any other country for that matter been back. Or how did the moon even get there and why in the 7000 years of orbiting us has it not rotated one inch? Why are the archived tramissions of the apollo mission so short.

If we landed on the Moon, the question is, what have we learned by doing so? The answers are available to everyone.

7000 years? Not rotated one inch?

What does it mean to say "Why are the archived transmissions of the Apollo missions so short?

a

For second set aside the old right and wrong or yin and yang therious and say every one is right about everything, all religious beliefs are true. There is no wrong answer but as were taught in pre school with the telephone game there is a gain or loss of information.

Now we all know that with out the moon there would be no us.

Heres a theroy based on all known facts and popular belief. The moon was deliberately put there by an alien who gentically altered the already exsiting primitive life just intelligent enough to mine the presious medal of gold for thier space craft.

OK, was this utter foolishness posted here for a reason other than to see your writing appear on the screen?

:blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.