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

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
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
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.