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?

14,116 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

turbonium

That was most likely the "Moon Machines" episode about the Apollo EVA suit. Turbs has been told already about that show, and has been provided with screenshots from the show and with links - several times - to view that episode on YouTube.

As expected, he has apparently refused to view it.

I watched your video. I;ve told you why it fails to support your case.

You just ignore reality, as usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk
It is totally irrelevant. You obviously don't understand why this has no bearing on my argument. So I'll try and spell it out for you, one more time...

I am comparing this spacesuit to the Apollo spacesuit, in regards to knee flexion range. It's not relevant if it's a prototype spacesuit. It isn't relevant that the finished product is more flexible than the prototype. The prototype SAS has "greatly improved mobility over the Apollo gas pressure suits"

If the finished/final/released version of the SAS has even greater mobility than the prototype SAS, it doesn't matter to the comparison I made with the prototype SAS suit.

We're well aware you're trying to compare the knee flexion range of 2 suits. As I pointed out to you several pages agao, you're doing this by conflating "suit mobility" with "average knee flexion". I've demonstrated to you very clearly and concisely why those two things are not the same.

For example, in the SAS, you can bend over sideways at the hip, something it's impossible to do in an Apollo suit. Much greater mobility, yet it has nothing to do with the average knee flexion angle.

Again, here is what they stated...

"the SAS greatly improved mobility over the Apollo gas pressure suits"

Greatly improved MOBILITY. Where does it state that the knee flexion angle was greatly improved?

So even they don't say "the prototype SAS greatly improved mobility over the Apollo gas pressure suits". And if they did say "the prototype SAS...", SO WHAT??

Can you finally understand why it's irrelevant? That it has no bearing to my argument? I sure hope so, because I can't make it any simpler for you to grasp.

I understand your argument, and I understand why it is flawed. I've shown you why it's flawed. You've been led, thirsty, to the well. That you choose not to slake your thirst is your choice, and yours alone.

It's not relevant. Again, I'll try and explain the reason why...

First of all, the 81 degree average has to be based on realistic figures. I'm sure you know that, yes?

It must have a realistic minimum figure, and a realistic maximum figure, to base their 81 degree average.

We know the prototype SAS has much greater mobility than the Apollo spacesuit. So knee flexion, as a significant factor in mobility, obviously must be greater.

Highlighted again to show where your argument is based on a faulty premise.

They'd need at least a 110 degree maximum knee flexion to match the Apollo videos, let alone surpass it!! 'Much greater' would have to be nearly the unsuited average of 141 degrees!!

If you were correct, yes. But you're wrong, due to conflating mobility with knee flexion.

Again, you prove why your argument fails. You are conflating knee flexion with suit mobility. You've been shown why the two terms aren't interchangeable.

The point I'm making is...

Mobility is much greater than Apollo, therefore knee flexion is much greater than Apollo.

Again, a logical leap that isn't born out of fact. Example: "My car has a more powerful engine than your car, therefore it can go faster". It's a simplistic argument that doesn't look at the detail. The power of an engine is just one factor in its top speed. Similarly, average knee flexion is just one factor in the overall mobility of a space suit. This has been demonstarted to you. It's also been shown that the angle of flexion isn't considered on it's own: they look at the amount of torque required to bend a joint over a range of angles. This leads to a performance envelope for each joint. This is documented in the paper I linked to that you accused me of being a distraction tactic.

I hope you now realize this has nothing to do with my argument.

I'm explaining to you why the SAS has limited knee joint flexion. It's because it's a prototype suit. They admit the necessity to develop more elasticated materials in order to improve the knee flexion. The point being, it's perfectly possible for the prototype SAS to have greater mobility than the Apollo suit, while at the same time having poor maximum knee flexion that would need to be improved in an actual suit. This is probably to do with fabric bunching, compression of the space suit leg, and friction between fabric layers.

Again, we know this is not relevant to my case.

It sheds light on why you're wrong.

Again, this isn't relevant to my argument.

What, a photograph of a pressurised suit, with a knee angle well over 90 degrees, isn't relevant to your argument? It trashes your argument!

More to come, and you're not going to like it I'm afraid. Get your excuses in early!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrbusdriver

You say "considerable effort" is needed for such flexibilty? Look at this clip...

Hmm...not much effort is really needed, after all.

"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?

See above.

You seriously believe this image supports your case? Not close to the deep knee bends, as shown in the Apollo clips.

Do you have any worthwhile points? You've no case at all, right now.

Going back to the early parts of this particular debate...

It's pretty obvious to me that this video demonstrates Duke using the suit's resistance to spring up onto his feet. Obviously, the suit's knee joint is able to bend beyond 90 degrees, we can see that. But he is using his mass to get it in this position, then using that suit resistance to spring to a vertical, "feet under the body mass" position.

The suit was capable of significant flexation under unusual conditions, that's clearly demonstrated here. He was using his mass to accomplish it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk

In response to Turbonium's recent claims about knee flexion and how it effectively equates to mobility.

Source - Development of a Space Activity Suit

Look at Table IV on page 81. It lists joint angles for the SAS suit for 2 test subjects. I've highlighted the data for the knee joint. In particular, look at the last 2 columns, which show what percentage of the 'nude' range of movement is retained. See where the knee joint comes, 9th out of 12 measurements, averaging 58%! Compare that to shoulder rotation, which is effectively 100%. The worst joint in this study is the trunk-hip (lateral flexion in the frontal plane), where flexion is reduced to 41%. This is the same suit that is characterised as having 'greatly improved mobility' over pressurised suits. So why does Turbonium insist that the knee flexion must be greater than the Apollo suit, when clearly there is a large variance in the percentage reduction in flexion for each joint in the SAS suit?

SAS_Joint_Movement.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

I watched your video. I;ve told you why it fails to support your case.

You just ignore reality, as usual.

Do you even realize how silly your comments sound? The video proved you wrong on all counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

DSC_0106.jpg

Again, this isn't relevant to my argument.

How hilarious when the photo is that of a person bending the knees, which you have claimed, was not possible. Now, for us all, are those knees bent or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1

You'd think in 925 pages any actual evidence of a faked moon landing would have been provided.

Of course since it wasn't a hoax, I'm hardly surprised by the result.

I love this thread. It's so funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman

You know what it really reminds of? How some people will continue to argue their belief regardless of being proved wrong. This says it all:

dilbert%20clip%20181207.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

You'd think in 925 pages any actual evidence of a faked moon landing would have been provided.

Of course since it wasn't a hoax, I'm hardly surprised by the result.

I love this thread. It's so funny.

:rolleyes:

I've never once expected any "evidence" of such a thing to be presented--neither here, nor in the previous massive thread.

There've been "creative" attempts to fabricate and/or imagine "evidence", and simply a lot of really dumb stuff that makes the head spin, but honestly, there is no such evidence.

thus, the "believer's burden of proving his contention falls woefully short of being even remotely executed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1

:rolleyes:

I've never once expected any "evidence" of such a thing to be presented--neither here, nor in the previous massive thread.

There've been "creative" attempts to fabricate and/or imagine "evidence", and simply a lot of really dumb stuff that makes the head spin, but honestly, there is no such evidence.

thus, the "believer's burden of proving his contention falls woefully short of being even remotely executed.

No need to roll your eyes, I was simply being a bit facetious.

Of course there's no evidence of a hoax, because there wasn't one. It's just one ridiculous claim after another. All of which have clearly been shown to be faulty claims.

I personally enjoy how evidence to the contrary is always outright ignored by those who scream hoax. If it doesn't make the case for conspiracy, then they just ignore it and pretend it never happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

No need to roll your eyes, I was simply being a bit facetious.

Of course there's no evidence of a hoax, because there wasn't one. It's just one ridiculous claim after another. All of which have clearly been shown to be faulty claims.

I personally enjoy how evidence to the contrary is always outright ignored by those who scream hoax. If it doesn't make the case for conspiracy, then they just ignore it and pretend it never happened.

I understand.

Do you actually enjoy that behavior?

If so, you'll have some degree of happiness here !

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1

I understand.

Do you actually enjoy that behavior?

If so, you'll have some degree of happiness here !

:tu:

It is frustrating to see people whose claims have been completely refuted still cling onto their crazy ideas. After a while, however, I just have to start laughing at the....'imagination'.... of some of these people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

The good thing is that it seems to me that there are very few hard-core deniers left (and some of those create multiple personalities to try to bolster the impression that they have supporters (Hi, fattydash/Patrick1000!)). It is notable that the only lurkers who occasionally pop by, do so to thank all the Apollo information providers for helping them jump off any fence they may have been tempted to sit upon. So indirectly, the deniers show many others the way to the truth.

And of course the hard-core deniers are always exposed as illogical, ill-informed, uneducated, uneducatable, garbage-regurgitating drones. Hey, there is nothing wrong with any of those characteristics - I am guilty of them at times, too.

But I don't do them all simultaneously...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

The good thing is that it seems to me that there are very few hard-core deniers left

Oh they are still out there. Most of them have moved over to YouTube Land. There you can delete the replies that disagree with you, presenting only one side of the argument. But it is true that there are very few like turbonium left, prepared to argue their case on an environment where others can refute your claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Oh they are still out there. Most of them have moved over to YouTube Land. There you can delete the replies that disagree with you, presenting only one side of the argument. But it is true that there are very few like turbonium left, prepared to argue their case on an environment where others can refute your claims.

That raises an interesting point (although probably for another thread..). I don't browse Youtube much, largely because of the way it has turned into a venue for loonies. You are absolutely right about the fact that it is a perfect venue for the person who wishes to troll or push the most ludicrous claims, because of the fact they can easily moderate comments, block users, remove any dissent, etc. It's like a personal forum where the channel owner is an omnipotent deity. And given these folks have likely never been given any attention or kudos in real life, the attraction of that must be significant. (BTW, what makes it worse is the obvious 'double' trolling, where people falsely compliment and egg them on simply for fun - sadly these folks don't spot they are being laughed at).

For those that do surf the gutters and sewers of Youtube, they will find plenty of exactly what they should expect or want. Keeps 'em off the streets, I guess.

PS - having said all that, I do have a youtube channel where I post the odd debunk.. so like I said, I hypocritically do it too! However, I do allow all comments, good or bad, as it exposes those who don't have a clue..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Philthy

Oh they are still out there. Most of them have moved over to YouTube Land. There you can delete the replies that disagree with you, presenting only one side of the argument. But it is true that there are very few like turbonium left, prepared to argue their case on an environment where others can refute your claims.

Case in point. Cruise over to the Icke forums. brucel is classic!

Yes, I mostly lurk, only because by the time I see the idiocy, someone else has answered. I get lucky sometimes though.

Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden

Case in point. Cruise over to the Icke forums. brucel is classic!

Yes, I mostly lurk, only because by the time I see the idiocy, someone else has answered. I get lucky sometimes though.

Phil

A lot of the time (on this thread, for instance,the last few months) posts don't really deserve a comment, or,at least, one that wouldn't get censored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

It is frustrating to see people whose claims have been completely refuted still cling onto their crazy ideas. After a while, however, I just have to start laughing at the....'imagination'.... of some of these people.

I understand the humor. it's probaby healthy!

There's some fairly good discussion and commentary coming through regarding what you speak to happening right now.

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
einfopedia

its a very interesting article....but my question is that what is the VA Belts????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman

VA Belts AKA VAB = the Van Allen Belts, which are an area of radiation surrounding the Earth. There are gaps in them, and they vary in radioactive intensity. From Wikipedia:

The Van Allen radiation belt is a torus of energetic charged particles (plasma) around Earth, which is held in place by Earth's magnetic field. It is thought that most of the particles that form the belts come from solar wind, and other particles by cosmic rays.[1] It is named after its discoverer, James Van Allen, and is located in the inner region of the Earth's magnetosphere. It is split into two distinct belts, with energetic electrons forming the outer belt and a combination of protons and electrons forming the inner belts. In addition, the radiation belts contain lesser amounts of other nuclei, such as alpha particles. The belts pose a hazard to satellites, which must protect their sensitive components with adequate shielding if their orbit spends significant time in the radiation belts.

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

350px-Van_Allen_radiation_belt.svg.png

The most important thing to be aware of, with respect to the thread, is that manned lunar missions went through the parts of the belts that had minimal radiation intensity and kept exposure to a minimum.

Edited by Obviousman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DONTEATUS

I understand the humor. it's probaby healthy!

There's some fairly good discussion and commentary coming through regarding what you speak to happening right now.

:tu:

I really thought that Mid would of written a very believable High tech spoof on How NASA really did fake the Apollo program ! Afterall it was April Fool`s and One must be a Fool to believe that we really didnt Go to the Moon! But maybe next year !

Come on Mid ! dont be slippin ! justDONTEATUS :tu:

post-68971-0-66563600-1333677760_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

We're well aware you're trying to compare the knee flexion range of 2 suits. As I pointed out to you several pages agao, you're doing this by conflating "suit mobility" with "average knee flexion". I've demonstrated to you very clearly and concisely why those two things are not the same.

THEY referred to both mobility and average knee flexion within the same sentence.

But you argue... they have nothing to do with each other.

Logical...

Sure. :no:

!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

Greatly improved MOBILITY. Where does it state that the knee flexion angle was greatly improved?

The knee flexion would be as good as the Apollo suits, at very least. Most likely is better than Apollo suits.

So the average knee flexion still can't account for the Apollo clips, without any improvements at all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk
THEY referred to both mobility and average knee flexion within the same sentence.

So, in your world, referring to two things in the same sentence means they are the same? You must realise how simplistic this take on things is?

In order to cook a sausage casserole, firstly you need to chop up some onions.

Aha! Since I mentioned onions and sausage casserole in the same sentence, onions must be the same as a sausage casserole, no? Turbologic at it's finest!

But you argue... they have nothing to do with each other.

Logical...

Sure. :no:

!

I argue no such thing, and you know it. I've demonstrated that there are many different components that contribute to 'mobility', of which average knee flexion is but one. Further, I've demonstrated, by referring to the extant literature, that maximum angle of flexion is not the only factor that contributes to mobility. The torque required to move a joint through a certain angle is also important, describing a work envelope for each joint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk

The knee flexion would be as good as the Apollo suits, at very least. Most likely is better than Apollo suits.

So the average knee flexion still can't account for the Apollo clips, without any improvements at all!

In your uninformed opinion. You've been given the data that would have changed your uninformed opinion into an informed one, and chose not to apply it. That's your choice.

In your uninformed opinion, how do you explain this impossible feat for an astronaut in a pressurised suit?

6345420138_92901d7f8b_z.jpg

Wow! A knee flexion, in a pressurised suit, greater than the average maximum of the SAS suit! Clearly the Russians have been faking their trips to the ISS.

This is why you have lost all credibility Turbs. You simply don't have the maturity to admit you made an error, when it's proved beyond all possible doubt. Admitting you made an error and withdrawing a claim isn't an admission of defeat on the Apollo issue, it's a sign of intellectual honesty. You'd go a long way to restoring some of your tattered credibility here by simply admitting you made a mistake, and withdrawing the claim. No-one here will beat you up over it.

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.