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

ChrLzs

At some point I think further discussion becomes useless, if the only person who 'isn't happy' is demonstrably ill-informed, doesn't listen, and keeps repeating the same unsupported rubbish.

That would be you, Turbonium. Stop wasting people's time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden

At some point I think further discussion becomes useless, if the only person who 'isn't happy' is demonstrably ill-informed, doesn't listen, and keeps repeating the same unsupported rubbish.

That would be you, Turbonium. Stop wasting people's time.

:clap::tsu::clap::tsu::clap::tsu::clap::tsu::clap::tsu::clap::tsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

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!

Correct me if I am wrong, but you did admit that you saw the video on the developement of Apollo spacesuits where mobility in those suits under presurized conditions allowed a wide range of movement. I agree with others that you are just here to waste people's time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

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!

No, that's entirely your own 'Postielogic' at its finest, making a flawed 'sausage casserole' analogy!

It's baffling to me why this concept is such a struggle for you to grasp. Let me spell it out for you, with a sentence by sentence comparison...

We start with your analogy, followed by the revised version...

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

'In order to have spacesuit mobility, (firstly) you need knee flexion.'

We don't need knee flexion "firstly", of course, that's why I put it in brackets. Other than that, the revised version fits nocely.

"Since I mentioned onions and sausage casserole in the same sentence, onions must be the same as a sausage casserole, no?"

'Since I mentioned knee flexion and spacesuit mobility in the same sentence, knee flexion must be the same as spacesuit mobility, no?'

Err...no. It is not the same.

I have never claimed it is the same. Not once. NOT EVER.

Knee flexion is an integral factor in spacesuit mobility. But it is certainly not the only factor.

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.

For sure - knee flexion is just one of the factors to consider in spacesuit mobility. But it certainly IS one of the factors. And it's a very important factor for any EVA.

You can't ignore that, or dismiss that, or exclude it from their statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

Fail Fail Fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

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.

What is the point of repeatedly posting this image??!!??

You keep posting this image of an astronaut on a 2001 ISS mission... wearing a spacesuit that is ompletely different, completely inapplicable, and completely irrelevant to my argument!

My argument has nothing to do with the capabilities of current/recent spacesuits - ie: on ISS missions.

My argument is about the Apollo spacesuits, and specifically its knee flexion. To determine the maximum range of motion in a properly pressurized Apollo spacesuit, especially at the knee joint.

You keep saying how much evidence there is to 'prove' the Apollo story. But after I challenge you on a specific issue regarding the Apollo spacesuits, you have shown me zero evidence to support your position.

Where is all the superb Apollo documentation I keep hearing about, over and over again, ad nauseum, on this specific issue?

You ask me to prove my argument, while you can't even prove your own argument to begin with!

I've shown you the documents to support my argument.

Do you have anything more than irrelevant images/videos to support yours?

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

I've shown you the documents to support my argument.

And we've explained to you why your documents actually DON'T support your argument... actually, its not even an argument you have, its just your misinformed opinion, yet again

Please tell us how your documents, studies that reference data obtained from a 1963 study of pre-prototype Apollo suits, bear any major relation to the capabilities of the production model A7L Apollo EVA suit that you have referenced in the images you have posted.

Its like you're saying that this 1968 Mustang Fastback

1968%20Mustang%20Bulllitt%20Fastback_11.JPG

Can't do 100 mph because you read a review of the test drive of this 1962 Mustang prototype

1962_prototype_08_f.jpg

and that review said it couldn't go over 70 mph.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

Correct me if I am wrong, but you did admit that you saw the video on the developement of Apollo spacesuits where mobility in those suits under presurized conditions allowed a wide range of movement. I agree with others that you are just here to waste people's time.

You assume it's pressurized. It is a personal opinion

You have no evidence.

Therefore, you are the one who is wasting people's time.

You want people to accept your unfounded claim(s) without question. You claim it as a 'fact', and those who want to see evidence are just 'wasting people's time'.

Next excuse....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

And we've explained to you why your documents actually DON'T support your argument... actually, its not even an argument you have, its just your misinformed opinion, yet again

Please tell us how your documents, studies that reference data obtained from a 1963 study of pre-prototype Apollo suits, bear any major relation to the capabilities of the production model A7L Apollo EVA suit that you have referenced in the images you have posted.

The document was written in Nov. 1971.

That is, written AFTER Apollo 11 - 15.

The Apollo spacesuits already existed in final version, and had been used on several Apollo missions.

Apollo prototype suits make no sense, if they already had an improved version, a 'proven' success...

Simple logic, yes?

So why go with prototypes, and basically ignore the better, final version?

If it's just a big hoax.

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk
No, that's entirely your own 'Postielogic' at its finest, making a flawed 'sausage casserole' analogy!

You're totally and utterly failing to grasp the point I was making. You are the one who is hung up on mobility equating to knee flexion. I've demonstrated to you quite clearly and logically, using the relevant literature, why you are wrong. You are unable to refute that without resorting to bluster and your usual argument from ignorance.

You falsely accused me of saying that suit mobility and knee flexion have nothing to do with each other. I never said such a thing. I've stated that knee flexion is just one contributing factor among many that contribute to mobility. I went further than that: it isn't just the maximum angle that is relevant to mobility, but the amount of torque required to move a joint through a certain range. Taken together, this describes a working envelope which is effectively the 'overall suit mobility'. What you CAN'T do is take a single figure from a ream of data, totally out of context, and compare it to the overall mobility for a totally different suit. That's what you've done: cherry-picked a single figure that you think supports your flawed argument, and clung to it like a safety blanket, refusing to objectively examine the rest of the information that's been handed to you on a plate.

'Since I mentioned knee flexion and spacesuit mobility in the same sentence, knee flexion must be the same as spacesuit mobility, no?'

Err...no. It is not the same.

EXCELLENT! Now you're learning. Knee flexion and suit mobility are NOT the same

I have never claimed it is the same. Not once. NOT EVER.

You may not have come out and said it, but the way you have formulated your arguments demonstrates says otherwise.

Knee flexion is an integral factor in spacesuit mobility. But it is certainly not the only factor.

Which is what I've been saying for weeks! It is a FACTOR. But they do not EQUATE to one another. In other words, you cannot say that because one type of suit has greater mobility, it MUST have greater maximum angles of flexion at EACH AND EVERY joint. The torque and the work envelope has been explained to you previously. There is also the ENERGY COST of a particular type of suit, which in itself will be a great factor in suit mobility. Why are you happy to totally ignore all these other factors, and concentrate on just one factor?

For sure - knee flexion is just one of the factors to consider in spacesuit mobility. But it certainly IS one of the factors. And it's a very important factor for any EVA.

You can't ignore that, or dismiss that, or exclude it from their statement.

No such attempt has been made by anyone. You have attempted to prove that it is impossible for an Apollo suit to bend at the knee as shown in the video clips. You've failed utterly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk
What is the point of repeatedly posting this image??!!??

Because it must surely cast doubt even into the mind of the person who made this claim, no matter who closed-minded they are?

.. it is impossible to bend one's knee like the astronaut does in a pressurized spacesuit.
You keep posting this image of an astronaut on a 2001 ISS mission... wearing a spacesuit that is ompletely different, completely inapplicable, and completely irrelevant to my argument!

Really? Then why did you say the following.

It's further confirmed with a comparison to spacesuits developed after Apollo, like Shuttle spacesuits. They state these spacesuits have greater flex at the oints, yet even these suits do not fully flex at the knee joints!

So, can newer spacesuits 'fully flex' at the knee joints or not? More importantly, where is your proof that the knee joint in a pressurised Apollo suits can't flex as mush as the knee joint in the pressurised space suit in this image?

My argument has nothing to do with the capabilities of current/recent spacesuits - ie: on ISS missions.

My argument is about the Apollo spacesuits, and specifically its knee flexion. To determine the maximum range of motion in a properly pressurized Apollo spacesuit, especially at the knee joint.

We've been waiting for weeks for your 'proof', and you've yet to produce it. All you've produced is this:-

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".

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.

For your argument as presented to hold ANY water, you MUST make the assumption that knee flexion and mobility are effectively the same. You agreed in your previous post that they are not the same. Therefore, YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT.

You keep saying how much evidence there is to 'prove' the Apollo story. But after I challenge you on a specific issue regarding the Apollo spacesuits, you have shown me zero evidence to support your position.

Where is all the superb Apollo documentation I keep hearing about, over and over again, ad nauseum, on this specific issue?

Oh, it's there.

You ask me to prove my argument, while you can't even prove your own argument to begin with!

I'm not making an argument. I'm showing you why your argument fails.

I've shown you the documents to support my argument.

NONE of the documentation you've linked to supports your argument. You've been shown why.

Do you have anything more than irrelevant images/videos to support yours?

An image of a pressurised suit showing approx 120 degrees knee flexion is irrelevant to an argument that a pressurised space-suit can't have a knee flexion of 120 degrees?

I want you to fully and exhaustively flesh out your own argument first. I've seen documentation that describes the joint flexion of Apollo suits and it destroys your argument. Of course, you'll laugh it off and ignore it as NASA propaganda. So, is that all you've got to offer as proof that the pressurised Apollo suit could not flex as shown at the knees, your four facts above? An argument that even YOU must admot doesn't hold together, now that you agree that knee flexion and suit mobility are not one and the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

The document was written in Nov. 1971.

And once again, Turbs, if you had been paying attention to what has been presented to you, or if you had actually been doing the necessary research and following the references, you would find that the information comes from this 1966 report

NASA - Bioenergetics of Space Suits for Lunar Exploration.

Which itself references a 1963 series of tests done on the pre-prototype Apollo suit:

METABOLIC COST OF WALKING IN SPACE SUITS

Let us now return to the actual metabolic cost of locomotion in current space-suit assemblies. In the spring of 1963 the AiResearch Manufacturing Division of the Garrett Corporation compared the effects of unpressurized and pressurized suits on metabolic requirements of walking. The pre-prototype suit being developed by the International Latex Corporation for the Apollo mission was used. The data to be presented were communicated by Wortz of the AiResearch Manufacturing Division.

Is it sinking in yet, Turbs...?

That is, written AFTER Apollo 11 - 15.

The Apollo spacesuits already existed in final version, and had been used on several Apollo missions.

Apollo prototype suits make no sense, if they already had an improved version, a 'proven' success...

Those tests were done in 1963, BEFORE THE FIRST UNMANNED GEMINI MISSION WAS LAUNCHED.

Whether the report you're quoting was written in 1971, 1984 or yesterday does not make any difference to that fact that the data being referred to was produced in 1963 from a suit that bears only a superficial semblance to the production model A7L suit that was used on the Moon.

This is why your document does not support your argument.

This is why you have failed once again to prove anything but your general incompetence at doing even the simplest research.

Simple logic, yes?

Yes, it is quite simple. Unfortunately you have still failed to grasp it.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

You assume it's pressurized. It is a personal opinion

Where did you get that idea? Another misconception on your part.

You have no evidence.

Folks here have presented tons of evidence, which you have been ignoring.

Therefore, you are the one who is wasting people's time.

On the contrary, your claim of an Apollo moon hoax and no evidence to back it up proves beyond any doubt that it is you who is wasting people's time and you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence of an Apollo moon hoax. Did you really think that we would spend billions of dollars to fly all of those Saturn rockets in a program that involved thousands of people just for show when it would have been far easier and cheaper to simply say we couldn't do it? As hstory has shown, we sent men to the moon.

Observers of all missionsThe Soviet Union monitored the missions at the Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment". Vasily Mishin ("The Moon Programme That Faltered."), in Spaceflight. 33 (March 1991), pages 2–3 describes how the Soviet Moon programme lost energy after the Apollo landing.

The Soviet Union would have had the most to gain from exposing the hoax. With their involvement in the space race, they would be the best qualified to spot any cheating going on. Why then, with more motivation than anyone to expose a hoax, did they remain silent? The truth is that the USSR tracked the Americans all the way to the Moon and back. They had no doubt that the mission was successful.

My link

The missions were tracked by radar from several countries on the way to the Moon and back.

New lunar missions

220px-Lroc_apollo11_landing_site_20091109_zoom.jpg[/url]Apollo 11 landing site photographed by LROPost-Apollo lunar exploration missions have located and imaged artifacts of the Apollo program remaining on the Moon's surface.

Images taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission beginning in July 2009 show the six Apollo Lunar Module descent stages, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP) science experiments, astronaut footpaths, and lunar rover tire tracks. These images are the most effective proof to date to rebut the "landing hoax" theories

LRO_Apollo14_landing_site_369228main_ap14labeled_540.jpg

600px-Apollo_12_LRO.jpg

Apollo15_ascentphoto.jpg

Apollo 15 ascent photo

119px-Apollo15_Moon_photo.jpg119px-Apollo_15_with_lunar_rover.jpg120px-JAXA_Moon_photo.jpg

The light-coloured area of blown lunar surface dust created by the lunar module engine blast at the Apollo 15 landing site was photographed and confirmed by comparative analysis of photographs in May 2008. They correspond well to photographs taken from the Apollo 15 Command Module showing a change in surface reflectivity due to the plume. This was the first visible trace of manned landings on the Moon seen from space since the close of the Apollo Program.

My link

Just goes to show that your moon hoax claim crashed and burned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wandering

On the contrary, your claim of an Apollo moon hoax and no evidence to back it up proves beyond any doubt that it is you who is wasting people's time and you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence of an Apollo moon hoax. Did you really think that we would spend billions of dollars to fly all of those Saturn rockets in a program that involved thousands of people just for show when it would have been far easier and cheaper to simply say we couldn't do it? As hstory has shown, we sent men to the moon.

Hey Moon crazies, I really have nothing new to add to this that has not been discussed several times already. I did feel when I read this I had to say something though...

Sky, you know what I think of you...It doesn't help your case when you say things like what I have highlighted in bold.

No country wants to admit they "couldn't do it" and that is reason enough for some to attempt fakery...

Now believe me, I'm not arguing against the moon landings being real as I'm of the opinion they are... It just doesn't help your case in this thread, or others when you say things like that....Things that fly in the face of what history has shown. Is there any examples where a country has been in competition/race and just come straight out with a 'oh well we can't do it you guys win!'....

=/

I hope you take this as a friendly reminder in the spirit it was intended and not a go at you. I'm sure if you think about it you will understand what I mean.

Edited by Wandering

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

No country wants to admit they "couldn't do it" and that is reason enough for some to attempt fakery...

I expected men to walk on Mars by the end of the 1980s, but we didn't spend billions of dollars to hoax Mars missions. If NASA was unable to send the moon by 1969, then all they had to do was to explain why and then explain that there will be a delay in sending a man to the moon until the problem is worked out. Instead to spending billions of dollars to hoax moon missions, use the money to solve the problem.

It is inconceivable to think that we would have spent billions of dollars to launch Saturn rockets in order to hoax Apollo moon missions when it would have been very easy to expose a moon hoax and if exposed, how would that make us look in the eyes of the world? The Soviet Union had the means to expose a hoaxed moon mission and considering our relations during the Cold War, they would have instantly exposed a moon hoax to the whole world.

How would the U.S. government explain to American citizens that one of the reasons they paid billions of dollars in taxes is because we used some of their hard-earned tax dollars to hoax Apollo moon missions? That would not be good for government officials seeking reelection in Washington D.C. The best thing elected officials could have done at that point would be to seek asylum in another country because they would be considered dead meat here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

I'm sure if you think about it you will understand what I mean.

Actually, if YOU thought about it I'm sure you would understand why your argument is nonsense.

At the time of Apollo the USA and the Soviet Union were in a genuine race to the moon. The USA had pulled ahead but the USSR had a manned lunar problem of its own. The Soviets did not make their programme public and later denied it had ever existed, but it was well known about in the West. This Soviet manned lunar programme was not abandoned until 1974, two years after the Apollo lunar missions ended.

The USA and NASA could not have known that the Soviet programme would end without a hammer & sickle flag been planted on the moon. Had the Soviets persisted they would eventually have succeeded. They would have had the ability to show that Apollo was a fake.

The main reason for the race to the moon was propaganda, to show that capitalism was better than communism or vice versa. If the USA had been caught lying it would have destroyed their credibility. The risk of being uncovered simply outweighs any benefits that faking Apollo would have gained by such a huge margin that it simply makes no sense.

Indeed it did not even need a manned Soviet success for my argument to remain true. The Soviets developed the unmanned Lunokhod rivers and landed two of them on the moon. These could easily have been used to explore the Apollo landing sites and reveal a fake. Again, the US could not have known that the Soviet Union would not do something like this.

The chances of the USA getting caught faking Apollo were so high that it would have been crazy to try it.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden

...At the time of Apollo the USA and the Soviet Union were in a genuine race to the moon. ...The chances of the USA getting caught faking Apollo were so high that it would have been crazy to try it.

Well put, Waspie_Dwarf, the entire post is full of logical thinking, and reasons there was no hoax. I don't believe any more can be said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wandering

Actually, if YOU thought about it I'm sure you would understand why your argument is nonsense.

At the time of Apollo the USA and the Soviet Union were in a genuine race to the moon. The USA had pulled ahead but the USSR had a manned lunar problem of its own. The Soviets did not make their programme public and later denied it had ever existed, but it was well known about in the West. This Soviet manned lunar programme was not abandoned until 1974, two years after the Apollo lunar missions ended.

The USA and NASA could not have known that the Soviet programme would end without a hammer & sickle flag been planted on the moon. Had the Soviets persisted they would eventually have succeeded. They would have had the ability to show that Apollo was a fake.

The main reason for the race to the moon was propaganda, to show that capitalism was better than communism or vice versa. If the USA had been caught lying it would have destroyed their credibility. The risk of being uncovered simply outweighs any benefits that faking Apollo would have gained by such a huge margin that it simply makes no sense.

Indeed it did not even need a manned Soviet success for my argument to remain true. The Soviets developed the unmanned Lunokhod rivers and landed two of them on the moon. These could easily have been used to explore the Apollo landing sites and reveal a fake. Again, the US could not have known that the Soviet Union would not do something like this.

The chances of the USA getting caught faking Apollo were so high that it would have been crazy to try it.

That's nice but I didn't suggest they faked it. I quite clearly said I thought they were real.

I suggested that there was no way the US of A was going to openly admit they "couldn't do it".

Do you think they would openly come out and tell the world "we can't do it"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrbusdriver

What sort of completely insurrmountable problem would have demanded such an "it's impossible" determination, announced or otherwise? What issue, given appropriate funding and brainpower, could not be solved and overcome?

They had determined that it was "possible" before Kennedy made his Rice University speech. They just needed to solve the problems and make it all happen, which became a significant national priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

That's nice but I didn't suggest they faked it. I quite clearly said I thought they were real.

I suggested that there was no way the US of A was going to openly admit they "couldn't do

I fully understood the point you were making, which is why I fully understand why it is nonsense.

I thought my point was simple enough, but clearly not, so I'll simplify it for you.

1) The USA could not have known that they could have got away with faking the Apollo landings.

2) The consequences of being caught faking the Apollo landings would be far more detrimental to the USA than failing to make the landings.

3) Given 1 and 2 it would be in the USAs interest to admit failure rather than being caught lying.

Do you think they would openly come out and tell the world "we can't do it"?

If you have managed to understand the simplified version of my argument my answer should be self evident.

Given the facts, the real question is do you still believe that the US government would lie about something that (despite what the hoax believers would claim) they could not possibly cover up.

If you knew much about the history of the space race you would understand that your hypothetical situation simply does not come into play anyway. Kennedy chose to go to the moon precisely BECAUSE the scientists and engineers at NASA already knew they could achieve it. The only real question was whether they could do it before the Soviet Union.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conspiracy_Fogle

As of today, mankind still cannot leave the Earths outer atmosphere. The subatomic particles and solar radiation in space is lethal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrbusdriver

As of today, mankind still cannot leave the Earths outer atmosphere. The subatomic particles and solar radiation in space is lethal.

...unless you're protected...

There are plenty of "lethal" things we routinely deal with on a daily basis, and they don't automatically mean our demise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

As of today, mankind still cannot leave the Earths outer atmosphere. The subatomic particles and solar radiation in space is lethal.

Solar, Van Allen, and other particle radiation has never been lethal to a human in cis-lunar space, and shall not be in the future.

The misunderstood dangers of radiation neither prevented us from traveling to the Moon in 1968 (and from 69 through 72, nor shall it prevent a man from doing so again.

A well shielded spacecraft will be required...kind of like the one we had back then!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rambaldi

The subatomic particles and solar radiation in space is lethal.

Wow, thanks for telling us. We would have never thought about that.

Seriously, you Moonhoaxers need at least to try to act like you are interested in a debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

As of today, mankind still cannot leave the Earths outer atmosphere.

Ever thought why some people have been awarded astronaut wings?

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.