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

booNyzarC

He sugar coats a lot, doesn't he?

I try, I really do... but sometimes I just can't hold back. I wonder if this anything like Tourette syndrome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

As promised.

Evaluation and Comparison of Three Space Suit Assemblies

I couldn't find the actual designation of each suit, but suit A looks very similar to the A7L so I suspect it is the prototype submitted into the competition by International Latex (the study was published in 1966). The other two are by Hamilton Standard and David Clark.

On page 51, you can see that in the angular range study, knee flexion and extension is designated movement number 14. Looking up this number in the table on page 53 shows that the knee flexion for a pressurised suit ranges from 125 degrees to 145 degrees. Suit A scored best at 145 degrees.

145 degrees knee flexion, in a forerunner of the Apollo A7L spacesuit, pressurised to 3.7 psi, achieved in 1966.

You cannot see the obvious problems with your argument? Look at column 3 of this table - 'Nude baseline, deg.'

It is a reference point (a "baseline") range of mobility for an average human...nude, no restrictions (ie: a spacesuit).

The optimal range of motion.

And what is the figure given in point '14'? It is 140 degrees.

Your claim is 145 degrees in a pressurized spacesuit?

That's quite an amazing spacesuit you have there, to have greater mobility than the average person does 'in the buff'.!

Not.

Other examples can be found in this table - (ie: point '7')

You think shoulder rotation in these spacesuits is not only equal to, but greater than, in your birthday suit?

This is nonsense, of course.

No direct comparison is made between nude (non-suited) and suited (whether pressurized or not)

Nude baseline, deg. was used to compare their three spacesuits. Same as the 'weighted' column.

What about the documents for the suit in question? It should be easy to find. Why is it easier to find the pre-Apollo prototypes? Sort of fishy.

Now what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

You think shoulder rotation in these spacesuits is not only equal to, but greater than, in your birthday suit?

Please explain the contradiction here, because I can't see it. The trousers I am currently wearing are capable of 180o bending at the knee.. in a forward direction. My knee is not capable of bending forward at all. How is this possible using your argument?

The reality, of course, is that when wearing the trousers the limiting factor is me, not the trousers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk
You cannot see the obvious problems with your argument?

The problems with your argument are manifest and obvious, yet you persist...

Look at column 3 of this table - 'Nude baseline, deg.'

It is a reference point (a "baseline") range of mobility for an average human...nude, no restrictions (ie: a spacesuit).

The optimal range of motion.

And what is the figure given in point '14'? It is 140 degrees.

Your claim is 145 degrees in a pressurized spacesuit?

That's quite an amazing spacesuit you have there, to have greater mobility than the average person does 'in the buff'.!

You clearly don't understand the concept of a "baseline". It's a reference point used for comparison, not an absolute value. Wearing the suit does not make it possible to fle the knee more than when nude. Look at the nude base-lines. Most of them are multiples of 10. They've been rounded off, or are approximations. The important factor is the comparison of the 3 suits while pressurised. That's where the baseline is useful. Once again, it's a measurment made for comparison, NOT necessarily an absolute maximum value.

You think shoulder rotation in these spacesuits is not only equal to, but greater than, in your birthday suit?

This is nonsense, of course.

Your mis-interpretation is nonsense.

No direct comparison is made between nude (non-suited) and suited (whether pressurized or not)

There is no need for that figure, though it could easily be computed from the data. The important thing is the comparison between the 3 suits. That's what the study is about.

Nude baseline, deg. was used to compare their three spacesuits. Same as the 'weighted' column.

Do some research on exactly what a baseline is. Educate yourself. Then you'll understand why you have no argument.

What about the documents for the suit in question? It should be easy to find. Why is it easier to find the pre-Apollo prototypes? Sort of fishy.

Poisoning the well fallacy. The tests on an Apollo proto-type show knee flexion consistent with that in the Apollo video. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool conspiracist should have alarms bells ringing, and thinking to themselves... maybe I made a boo-boo?

Now what?

You have no evidence supporting your claim. It's been thoroughly dismantled. More than enough evidence has been presented to refute your claim. The only leverage you can possible get to try and support your flimsy argument is by deliberately conflating mobility with average knee flexion. It's been thoroughly demonstrated that you simply cannot equate the 2. The reason why the MCP suit has lower knee flexion has been demonstrated (would require joints to be made of different material).

Now what? The impossible may just happen. You may admit you were in error about the knee flexion of a pressurised Apollo suit. I don't recall it happening before, so I doubt it will happen again. Interested parties can come to there own conclusion.

Wow. A pressurised suit with knee flexion greater than the SAS suit. And this suit isn't even designed for a great degree of mobility! Impossible!

baikonur04_048358.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thunkerdrone

It's pretty obvious that Kubrick helped NASA fake the moon landing footage. His other stuff

about The Shining might be a bit of a reach, but it sure is interesting.

Weidner has put out a second DVD in his 'Kubrick's Odyssey' series , btw.

look it up , its worth a look

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waspie_Dwarf

It's pretty obvious that Kubrick helped NASA fake the moon landing footage.

Is this some new meaning of the word "obvious" I wasn't previously aware of? Is it like the way "wicked", "bad", and "sick" have come to mean good?

I only ask because I've never seen it used to mean, "there is absolutely no evidence to support" before.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thunkerdrone

what's interesting is that Kubrick added a hedge maze to The Overlook Hotel in The Shining, and there was no hedge maze in Stephen King's original book. In the original book there were sculpted hedges in the form of animals which became animated,

bbut Kubrick changed it completely into a hedge maze.

He could be hinting at ritual sacrifice, because according to Greek legend every nine years a child would be sacrificed

to the Minotaur inside the maze.

The Minotaur resembles Baphomet.

Minotaur

A Minotaur is a creature from Greek mythology that is half human and half bull. It was said to have lived at the center of a great labyrinth (an elaborate maze) built for King Minos. In Greek mythology the minotaur was eventually killed by Theseus.

"Minotaur" is Greek for "Bull of Minos".

Firstly, King Minos built the maze below his palace. Secondly, the Minotaur came into existence when King Minos asked Poseidon for a bull for sacrifice. When the bull came out of the sea, Minos took it and thanked Poseidon a lot. But when Minos broke a vow that he'd made previously, the god made Minos's wife fall in love with the bull. She had an affair with it and out came the Minotaur. Minos was terrified and locked the beast away in the maze. Every nine years he would sacrifice children to the monster to keep it at bay.

Source: Mythical Creature and Beasts Wiki

Monster-of-the-Maze.png

In 'The Shining', two young girls are murdered by the previous caretaker of the Overlook Hotel

and then Jack Nicholson's character attempts to murder his son Danny. Kubrick could be hinting that ancient occult practice of child sacrifice is still going on.

Edited by Karlis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

what's interesting is that Kubrick added a hedge maze to The Overlook Hotel in The Shining, and there was no hedge maze in Stephen King's original book. In the original book there were sculpted hedges in the form of animals which became animated,

bbut Kubrick changed it completely into a hedge maze.

He could be hinting at ritual sacrifice, because according to Greek legend every nine years a child would be sacrificed

to the Minotaur inside the maze.

Or maybe he just realized that animating a bunch of animal shaped hedges would be very difficult to accomplish in a believable format with the special effects available at the time, and opted instead for the suspense inherent in the chase through the maze?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden

It's pretty obvious that Kubrick helped NASA fake the moon landing footage. His other stuff

about The Shining might be a bit of a reach, but it sure is interesting.

Weidner has put out a second DVD in his 'Kubrick's Odyssey' series , btw.

look it up , its worth a look

It's pretty obvious that Weidner is a hoaxer, preying on the gullible.

Edited by Gaden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

It's pretty obvious that Kubrick helped NASA fake the moon landing footage.

No, it is not obvious by any stretch of the definition of "obvious".

Here are a few reasons why the whole Kubrick topic falls flat on its face:

Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey showed that convincing special effects were possible in 1968, and that accurate depictions of space travel could be produced on movie soundstages.

It's up to individual preference whether to believe the effects in 2001 were credible and accurate. We don't believe they were actually created in outer space. Here's where the cat gets let out of the bag:

  • There are too many goofs. In several scenes we can see evidence that this is a manufactured film. We can see the edges of scenery panels, fly wires, reflections of equipment, rear projections, etc. These imperfections appear in every feature film despite efforts from filmmakers. Kubrick had several months and a large budget to orchestrate what would eventually be only two and a half hours of final product, and there were still errors. The Apollo program produced ten times that much footage with no editing seams and with no obvious mistakes.
  • The astronomy is wrong. The views from earth to the moon, and of the earth from the lunar surface don't match. For example, the earth is high in the lunar sky as seen from Clavius; it should be low on the horizon. The phase of the earth changes radically between scenes.
  • The photography is wrong. As in every space movie, we see a moving starfield in all the space scenes in 2001, along with sunlit objects. You cannot photograph both with the same camera settings. And even if you had a magical camera that could do it, the starfield shouldn't move. The cinematic reason for the moving starfield is to provide a background against which the motion of the foreground can be reckoned; filmmakers acknowledge it doesn't really happen that way, but it needs to happen in a movie.
  • The propulsion is wrong. As Dr. Floyd's lunar transport lands, the dust billows as it would in an atmosphere, because it was filmed in an atmosphere. The dust would displace in a vacuum, but it would tend to form a flat sheet and would disperse quickly. When Dave Bowman blows the emergency hatch on the pod in order to re-enter the airlock, the pod stays right there. It should have been propelled away from the ship by the force of the escaping air.
  • The zero-gravity scenes are wrong. As Dr. Floyd ascends to orbit he sips through a straw, and the fluid level drops back down to the container when he lets go. Sure, it could be a vacuum effect, but it's not the way drinking happens currently in zero gravity. In several scenes you can see supposedly weightless people moving as if there were gravity -- "grip soles" notwithstanding:
    • The Pan-Am captain hunches over Dr. Floyd's seat as a man in normal gravity would have done in order to rest his body weight on the seat back. Such a "hunker" is intuitive in gravity, but uncomfortable and unnatural in weightlessness.
    • Dr. Floyd's tray rises up from his lap -- presumably because Dr. Floyd has forgotten to secure it. What made it spontaneously start floating upward? Why did it sway from side to side? And why did it stop floating upward for no visible reason a split-second before Dr. Floyd grabs it? Newton screams "fraud!" at this sort of cinematic license.

    [*]The low-gravity scenes are wrong. The space station floor curves upward correctly to indicate the inside of a torus that spins to provide artificial gravity. But as the characters move about the scene they remain vertical with respect to the frame. They should instead tilt perpendicular to the angle of the floor where they are standing. There are numerous scenes that supposedly take place on the lunar surface, but no evidence of lesser gravity can be seen. The characters move as they would have on earth.

    [*]The lunar landscape is wrong. Kubrick shows us sharp-pointed mountains even though high-definition close-range photographs from Lunar Orbiter 2 (1966) showed the rounded mountains familiar in Apollo photographs.

Again conspiracists claim to be able to identify obscure and minute anomalies in Apollo photos and video, but they can't seem to do it with their own evidence. Nevertheless the important point is the conspiracist argument that NASA could do it because Kubrick could do it. As we've seen, Kubrick can't do it. He can't establish and maintain a truly credible "hoax" for two hours. Nor are the special effects convincing enough to fool observant people into actually thinking they represent space or lunar environments.

But there's actual evidence -- historical accounts -- that Kubrick worked with NASA to fake the footage.

Many conspiracists, led by Clyde Lewis, point to an article circling around the Internet which purports to describe in detail the process Kubrick used to fake the moon landings. But the article is obviously intended as a joke, as a careful reading reveals.

Stanley Kubrick's and Peter Hyams' budgets were very small compared to NASA's. With $40 billion and professional physicists on hand to correct mistakes, these directors could have made the effects much more convincing.

If so then the supposed genius of 2001: A Space Odyssey and Kubrick are irrelevant. The argument was that Kubrick was such a brilliant filmmaker he could have made a convincing hoax. But if Kubrick would have needed expert advisors, then those advisors (not Kubrick) would have been the real geniuses behind it. The conspiracists are just back to speculating about what might be done with supposedly limitless resources. The demonstrable state of the art in 1968 -- compelling but not convincing -- doesn't really have much to do with that.

And it really didn't have much to do with budget. The problems in 2001: A Space Odyssey and Capricorn One had more to do with deciding what effects to attempt rather than attempting good ones and failing. Budget would have increased the quality of the effects, but not their faithfulness to real life. No matter how much money you spend making a realistic starfield, it doesn't compensate for the fact that you shouldn't see one -- much less a moving one. The glitches also deal with basic filmmaking techniques, something Kubrick should already have known, and physicists wouldn't necessarily be helpful.

Consider also Silent Running. Kubrick budgeted $10 million for 2001: A Space Odyssey, while Douglas Trumbull's Silent Running was shot for about a tenth the cost. Trumbull produced the visual effects for both films. Silent Running is less ambitious than Kubrick's masterpiece, but achieves a greater level of consistency and credibility. Increasing the budget does not automatically increase the quality and seamlessness of the final product.

This is an excerpt from a page at http://www.clavius.org. Clavius is perhaps the best single source for information that debunks the various and myriad Moon Landing Hoax claims.

I highly recommend you read it in its entirety.

His other stuff about The Shining might be a bit of a reach, but it sure is interesting.

Interesting, perhaps, but garbage nonetheless.

Weidner has put out a second DVD in his 'Kubrick's Odyssey' series , btw.

look it up , its worth a look

Given the fact that the Kubrick claims are ludicrous, can be shown to be completely false and most likely stem from a joke article that a desperate Conspiracy Theorist attempted to show as actual evidence, I highly doubt its "worth a look".

To be honest, the only use I could probably find for Weidner's dvd would be as a drink coaster... but only if it were given to me since I wouldn't pay one penny for it.

Cz

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obviousman

I see the new board format is in. We got that a week or so ago at EF.

Not many changes but a little better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BertL

I see the new board format is in. We got that a week or so ago at EF.

Not many changes but a little better.

Well, for one thing the "read first new post" button is fixed as it takes me to the newest unread post rather than the very last post in the thread. Happy about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

You clearly don't understand the concept of a "baseline". It's a reference point used for comparison, not an absolute value

I recall someone posted a similar description...... ...

"Look at column 3 of this table - 'Nude baseline, deg.'

It is a reference point (a "baseline") range of mobility for an average human.."

Who said that? Oh, right.- that would be.... me ! :rolleyes:

Do some research on exactly what a baseline is. Educate yourself. Then you'll understand why you have no argument.

As I've just shown you, I do know what a baseline is.

In the future, it might be better if you actually read my posts, and drop the pompous blowhard routine..

Poisoning the well fallacy. The tests on an Apollo proto-type show knee flexion consistent with that in the Apollo video. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool conspiracist should have alarms bells ringing, and thinking to themselves... maybe I made a boo-boo?

So - asking for actual Apollo documentation is "poisoning the well"? Now that's a good one!

And why do you keep posting the same image from 2001, over and over again? It has NO relevance to the issue!, Why can't you grasp that very simple, basic fact??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

What does that have to do with the Apollo moon landings and the fact the Soviet Union confirmed that the United States landed men on the moon?

Once more, I'll try and get this through to you...

This is what you said....

"I grew up during the Cold War and considering the mindset of the former Soviet Union during the Apollo moon flights, there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY they would have allowed us to get away with a moon hoax and yet, they confirmed the United States sent men to the moon. The reaction of the Soviet Union exposing hoaxed Apollo moon flights to the whole world would have been like throwing a pound of meat in the middle of a shark feeding frenzy and yet, they confirmed that we landed men on the moon"..

Now,,let's replace 'moon hoax' with the JFK murder....

]I grew up during the Cold War and considering the mindset of the former Soviet Union during the JFK murder, there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY they would have allowed us to get away with our own government killing the President and yet, they did. The reaction of the Soviet Union exposing the US Government as murderers of their own President to the whole world would have been like throwing a pound of meat in the middle of a shark feeding frenzy and yet, they said and did absolutely nothing.

Get it now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

I said..

You think shoulder rotation in these spacesuits is not only equal to, but greater than, in your birthday suit?"

Please explain the contradiction here, because I can't see it. The trousers I am currently wearing are capable of 180o bending at the knee.. in a forward direction. My knee is not capable of bending forward at all. How is this possible using your argument?

The reality, of course, is that when wearing the trousers the limiting factor is me, not the trousers.

It has nothing to do with how flexible trousers (or spacesuits) are when they aren't worn!

I'm talking about joint mobility - in the nude versus wearing a pressurized spacesuit. A spacesuit limits our joint mobility. It does not improve our joint,mobility..Shoulder rotation cannot be greater in a pressurized spacesuit than it is not wearing a spacesuit (ie:nude). The table would be showing impossibe figures, going by postie's argument.. ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

I'd like postie to look at his document again - specifically, the table on page 56

Knee flex in the 3 pressurized spacesuits.- Suit C is 93 deg., Suit B is 87 deg, and Suit B has no measurement.

This is about the knee flexion of sitting in a chair.

As I said, it fails to compare with the incredible knee flex of the Apollo videos..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk

I recall someone posted a similar description...... ...

"Look at column 3 of this table - 'Nude baseline, deg.'

It is a reference point (a "baseline") range of mobility for an average human.."

Who said that? Oh, right.- that would be.... me ! :rolleyes:

As I've just shown you, I do know what a baseline is.

In the future, it might be better if you actually read my posts, and drop the pompous blowhard routine..

Clearly you don't know what a baseline is, otherwise you wouldn't have tried to gain any mileage out of some of the flexion measurements being greater than the baseline figure! Why are you arguing the issue, if you really understand what a baseline is? Either you did kniow what a baseline is, in which case you knew you had no argument to make, or you didn't know what a baseline is. Which is it?

So - asking for actual Apollo documentation is "poisoning the well"? Now that's a good one!

Deliberate misinterpretation. I was referring to your "fishy" comment. If the document you seek exists I haven't seen it yet. We do, however, have a document from 1966 that shows the knee flexion of a prototype Apollo suit, which comports with the flexion seen in the Apollo video. Instead of dealing with this, you ignore it and demand a document for the finished article. Why can you not address the data we DO have? Is it because you know it destroys your argument?

And why do you keep posting the same image from 2001, over and over again? It has NO relevance to the issue!, Why can't you grasp that very simple, basic fact??

As a simple reminder that an approximately 120 degrees knee flexion in a pressurised suit isn't quite as impossible to achieve as you are saying. The Sokol suit has quite restricted mobility, yet it has greater knee flexion than the SAS suit. Impossible!

What now? Remind me again what proof you have that the Apollo suit couldn't bend at the knee as seen in the video? Ah, I remember: none. The video actually supports the notion that the suit is pressurised, since it requires a lot of effort to bend the knee that far, but it aids recovery as he springs back upright, exactly as expected given the descriptions in the literature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk

I'd like postie to look at his document again - specifically, the table on page 56

Knee flex in the 3 pressurized spacesuits.- Suit C is 93 deg., Suit B is 87 deg, and Suit B has no measurement.

This is about the knee flexion of sitting in a chair.

As I said, it fails to compare with the incredible knee flex of the Apollo videos..

In your own words... this is about the knee flexion of sitting in a chair. (According to the table notes, that measurement isn't even complete). In the Apollo video, is he sitting in a chair, or is he standing up, then crouching down to try and reach something on the surface? When I look at the video, it's the latter. I see no chair. What does the document say about the knee flexion of the suit in the mobility tests? From Table XI and page 53, the angle is 145 degrees, which comports with what we see in the video.

Remind me, what evidence did you have supporting your theory again?

Edited by postbaguk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Once more, I'll try and get this through to you...

This is what you said....

"I grew up during the Cold War and considering the mindset of the former Soviet Union during the Apollo moon flights, there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY they would have allowed us to get away with a moon hoax and yet, they confirmed the United States sent men to the moon. The reaction of the Soviet Union exposing hoaxed Apollo moon flights to the whole world would have been like throwing a pound of meat in the middle of a shark feeding frenzy and yet, they confirmed that we landed men on the moon"..

Now,,let's replace 'moon hoax' with the JFK murder....

]I grew up during the Cold War and considering the mindset of the former Soviet Union during the JFK murder, there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY they would have allowed us to get away with our own government killing the President and yet, they did. The reaction of the Soviet Union exposing the US Government as murderers of their own President to the whole world would have been like throwing a pound of meat in the middle of a shark feeding frenzy and yet, they said and did absolutely nothing.

Get it now?

Nope, because it still has nothing to do with the United States landing men on the moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frenat

Once more, I'll try and get this through to you...

This is what you said....

"I grew up during the Cold War and considering the mindset of the former Soviet Union during the Apollo moon flights, there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY they would have allowed us to get away with a moon hoax and yet, they confirmed the United States sent men to the moon. The reaction of the Soviet Union exposing hoaxed Apollo moon flights to the whole world would have been like throwing a pound of meat in the middle of a shark feeding frenzy and yet, they confirmed that we landed men on the moon"..

Now,,let's replace 'moon hoax' with the JFK murder....

]I grew up during the Cold War and considering the mindset of the former Soviet Union during the JFK murder, there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY they would have allowed us to get away with our own government killing the President and yet, they did. The reaction of the Soviet Union exposing the US Government as murderers of their own President to the whole world would have been like throwing a pound of meat in the middle of a shark feeding frenzy and yet, they said and did absolutely nothing.

Get it now?

Amazing that you think JFK in which the soviets would not have any reason to have special knowledge about the situation somehow compares to Apollo in which they would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frenat

I see the new board format is in. We got that a week or so ago at EF.

Not many changes but a little better.

I don't mind the change in format but it is odd that since the change I have gotten zero emails about updated threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

I don't mind the change in format but it is odd that since the change I have gotten zero emails about updated threads.

You aren't the only person who has mentioned this. Eldorado reported the same thing and this was Saru's response:

Haven't had an e-mail from UM since the site update, despite topics I follow being added to. Is it only me?

Check your notification preferences and make sure you have a valid e-mail address in your settings.

Hope that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frenat

You aren't the only person who has mentioned this. Eldorado reported the same thing and this was Saru's response:

Hope that helps.

I did have a valid email address but it is a old student email address that forwards everything (supposedly) to a gmail address. I've complained to them before about the lack of access to the spam filters for the forwarding service and was told that only current students and faculty can access the spam settings. I suppose it is POSSIBLE that every email since the forum change has been blocked as spam by OSU (I've checked gmail). Regardless, I've since changed my email address. We'll see if that fixes it. Thanks for the help. Sorry for the temporary derailment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

In your own words... this is about the knee flexion of sitting in a chair. (According to the table notes, that measurement isn't even complete). In the Apollo video, is he sitting in a chair, or is he standing up, then crouching down to try and reach something on the surface? When I look at the video, it's the latter. I see no chair.

Can't see a chair, Stating the obvious, what not? ,

What does the document say about the knee flexion of the suit in the mobility tests? From Table XI and page 53, the angle is 145 degrees, which comports with what we see in the video.

You presented this document for your case, which has clearly backfired. .

There is another table (I cited), and it sinks your argument. And 'incomplete' is not an excuse. No more hiding, please..

I'll address specific data which exists

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

In the table you cite, it is 130 deg. and 125 deg., respectively.

In the other table, it is 93 deg. and 87 deg. respectively.

You see the problem here?

No doubt you do. There is nearly a 40 deg. discrepancy in suit B, and suit C!

The data is described as 'knee flexion' in the table I cited, with 93 and 87 deg. ..

Not in the table you cite. Point 14 is described as 'knee flexion-extension', not just 'knee flexion. And, the column description is 'angles of excursion'', in the table. .

If this was i'knee flexion' degree, it would describe it as such. Like the other table does.

.. . ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Can't see a chair, Stating the obvious, what not? ,

You presented this document for your case, which has clearly backfired. .

There is another table (I cited), and it sinks your argument. And 'incomplete' is not an excuse. No more hiding, please..

I'll address specific data which exists

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

In the table you cite, it is 130 deg. and 125 deg., respectively.

In the other table, it is 93 deg. and 87 deg. respectively.

You see the problem here?

You don't seem to understand that the real problem for you is that it has been demonstrated and shown, that the Apollo spacesuit was capable of a wide range of movement under pressurized conditions.

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.