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

This was your argument...

- the USSR was our sworn enemy at the time of Apollo.

- As our sworn enemy, the USSR would have surely exposed us, if we'd attempted a moon hoax.

- thus, we went to the moon, since even our sworn enemy had to admit it.

So our sworn enemy didn't bother with JFK, because it had nothing to do with the 'moon lsndings'?

It fails all logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium
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!.

I'm not saying that. Never did, What gave you this idea, anyway? I'm a bit curious.

It is not relevant to my issue, and it never will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Coffin It Up

I was wondering, if Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon, then who was video taping him when he came out of the lunar module?

That's a good question!. Probably some mobile camera that went ahead first though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

Suppose you were standing within a yard of a rocket engine. Do you think it would make some noise - operating at 1000 lb thrust?i

What rocket engine is totally silent at 1000 lb of thrust?

A fake one. As seen in the Apollo movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk
Can't see a chair, Stating the obvious, what not?

You said that the figures you were quoting were "about the knee flexion of sitting in a chair". Why, then, does it apply to someone bending down to pick something up?

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

Hardly! It's documented evidence that the angular mobility of the knee in the proto-type Apollo suit is 145 degrees.

What doumentation do you have to support your case?

NONE. All you have is deliberate conflation of mobility and knee flexion, which you have even admitted yourself isn't the same. It boils down to this. The SAS suit has greater OVERALL mobility than the A7L. The A7L has better KNEE FLEXION than the SAS. The reason for this has been explained to you.

For your argument to have any credence, you have to make the assumption that if a suit is described as having greater mobility than another suit, it must outperform (or at least match) the other in EVERY SINGLE TEST. Your whole argument rests on this assumption. It's false. If you disagree, please provide proof that for a spacesuit to be described as having greater mobility than another suit, it must outperform (or match) the suit in each and every test. If you can't provide the proof, or if you agree the assumption is false, then you have absolutely no argument.

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

There is an addendum to the table which describes some of the test data as being incomplete! How can you possibly describe that as hiding and expect to be taken seriously??!!

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?

The big problem I see is that neither Suit B nor Suit C were the Apollo proto-type suits. That was suit A.

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

You're comparing a mobility test to a test done while seated!

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.

Knee flexion-extension measures the angle between the knee being flexed, and the knee being extended. Unless you're privy to some information that says otherwise? WHat other angle could it possibly be measuring? The mobility table analysis for Suit A (Apollo proto-type) was 145 degrees.

The data you're referring to in table XIII, as you well know, was collected while the subject was sitting in the mock-up couch!

Look up Turbs. See that small, blue, ever decreasing circle? It's telling you to stop digging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk

I'm not saying that. Never did, What gave you this idea, anyway? I'm a bit curious.

It is not relevant to my issue, and it never will be.

"The SAS suit has greater mobility than the Apollo suit, ergo it should have greater knee flexion".

Does the above sentence accurately sum up your argument?

If so, why does the next sentence not also apply?

"The SAS suit has greater mobility than the Sokol suit, ergo it should have greater knee flexion".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk

Suppose you were standing within a yard of a rocket engine. Do you think it would make some noise - operating at 1000 lb thrust?i

What rocket engine is totally silent at 1000 lb of thrust?

A fake one. As seen in the Apollo movies.

One that was operating in a vacuum maybe? Recorded using microphones designed to pick up as much speech and as little background noise as possible?

http://www.clavius.org/techengine.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden

Suppose you were standing within a yard of a rocket engine. Do you think it would make some noise - operating at 1000 lb thrust?i

What rocket engine is totally silent at 1000 lb of thrust?

A fake one. As seen in the Apollo movies.

I hope you are not suggesting that rocket engines would create sound in a vacuum, as you are surely aware that sound transmission requires molecules of some type, whether air, water or any other medium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

I hope you are not suggesting that rocket engines would create sound in a vacuum, as you are surely aware that sound transmission requires molecules of some type, whether air, water or any other medium.

How dare you bring legitimate science into a conspiracy argument! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

Suppose you were standing within a yard of a rocket engine. Do you think it would make some noise - operating at 1000 lb thrust?i

What rocket engine is totally silent at 1000 lb of thrust?

Tell me you're just posting trash for fun.

Tell me you don't know the answer to your question--the real answer, not the trash you wrote.

A fake one. As seen in the Apollo movies.

:cry:

We are here to educate.

Sound is a wave which registers in the ear after the wave is transmitted through a medium.

The thrust level of the engine has no bearing on the fact I am about to tell (epreat to) you:

in vacuum, sound isn't possible.

Thus a rocket engine in vacuum makes no discernible sound out in the vacuum.

It can't...like all those" fake one seen in the Apollo movies". :w00t:

I am sure you'll attempt to explain and of course, prove that statement...some day...

...not!

:no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

This was your argument...

- the USSR was our sworn enemy at the time of Apollo.

- As our sworn enemy, the USSR would have surely exposed us, if we'd attempted a moon hoax.

- thus, we went to the moon, since even our sworn enemy had to admit it.

The Soviets saw themselves as superior and their admission that the United States landed men on the moon was very significant.

So our sworn enemy didn't bother with JFK, because it had nothing to do with the 'moon lsndings'?

It fails all logic.

You are tripping over yourself over JFK. Once again, you can't ignore the fact that the United States landed men on the moon, which was not only confirmed by the Soviet Union, but by other trackers as well, and they have confirmed the moon landings as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Suppose you were standing within a yard of a rocket engine. Do you think it would make some noise - operating at 1000 lb thrust?i

What rocket engine is totally silent at 1000 lb of thrust?

A fake one. As seen in the Apollo movies.

How much noise can you expect to hear in a vacuum?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

Oh look... Turbs can't defend his Space Suit argument any more (not that he ever could) so he starts in on a new topic...

How totally predictable and completely not unexpected... :rolleyes:

Cz

Just as predicted :tu:

I wonder if this latest nugget can offer some insight into why turbs may not be able to actually hear any counter arguments. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrbusdriver

How much noise can you expect to hear in a vacuum?

Well, gee...all those supernovas they show on TV make enormous thunderous noises... :unsure2:

Turbs, any noise audible within the cabin might be minimal at best...plumbing sounds, valves opening (the ascent engine was pressure fed, no pumps). Maybe some vibration noises, but again the noise cancelling mikes wouldn't transmit that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

You said that the figures you were quoting were "about the knee flexion of sitting in a chair". Why, then, does it apply to someone bending down to pick something up?

Still not getting it, I see...

Look - just forget the chair entirely, okay?

The chair was just a prop, if you will, so everyone can visualize a knee flexion of approx. 90 degrees. I didn't think you'd have such problems with the 'chair'..... I hope it's clear to you now...

There is an addendum to the table which describes some of the test data as being incomplete! How can you possibly describe that as hiding and expect to be taken seriously??!!

The problem is, you're using it as an excuse for not addressing the EXISTING data in that table! Which means, you are hiding from it.

You are really saying 'Oh, look, this other table is incomplete, so it's not relevant whatsoever!'

The table is over 90% COMPLETE, You cannot ignore that data. So please stop the excuses, and deal with it.

The big problem I see is that neither Suit B nor Suit C were the Apollo proto-type suits. That was suit A.

Because,,,,there is no knee flexion data for Suit A, right?

Whie we don't have the knee flexion data for Suit A, we do have it for Suit B and Suit C. In each case, the figures are about 40 degrees less than the table you cite. If we extrapolate for Suit C, the 145 degrees (you claim is knee flexion) gives us ~100% knee flexion. .

Your 145 degrees is a combined figure. The table clearly states it is "Knee flexion-extension" That is NOT THE SAME THING as 'knee flexion'. "Knee flexion-extension" is two movements/phases. There is a knee flexion movement/phase, and a knee extension movement/phase. The two movements are combined as one total figure. And that is why the figures are larger in that table - iit has two movements (knee flexion-extension), while the other table has one movement (knee flexion)

You're comparing a mobility test to a test done while seated!

So now it's just "a test"? You really do try anything to dismiss this table, don't you? .

I'm sure you know what the test is for, as it's clearly titled.....

"TABLE XIII. ANGULAR DATA FOR JOINT MOBILITY AND SUIT-JOINT INTERFACE"

As for the test being done "while seated", exactly what are you referring to?

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

Sound is a wave which registers in the ear after the wave is transmitted through a medium.

Like the medium we call 'air', of course..

in vacuum, sound isn't possible

Like the medium we call 'space', of course.

.

Thus a rocket engine in vacuum makes no discernible sound out in the vacuum.

Right, But you didn't mention how these sound waves travel both outward (into space) AND inward, (into the capsule)

We have air in a capsule, so we know that sounds can be heard in the capsule.

The capsule may be in the vacuum of space, but there is air inside the capsule itself. Sounds are heard in the medium of air.

.

I thought you knew this, but obviously you didn't. Because you would have mentioned it, no doubt...

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
postbaguk
Still not getting it, I see...

Look - just forget the chair entirely, okay?

I think you should, because it isn't helping your case.

The chair was just a prop, if you will, so everyone can visualize a knee flexion of approx. 90 degrees. I didn't think you'd have such problems with the 'chair'..... I hope it's clear to you now...

Oh, I don't have problems with the "chair". Nither do I have a problem with the mobility data. Seems you do though.

The problem is, you're using it as an excuse for not addressing the EXISTING data in that table! Which means, you are hiding from it.

The existing data supports the fact that the prototype Apollo suit could bend at the knees up to 145 degrees.

You are really saying 'Oh, look, this other table is incomplete, so it's not relevant whatsoever!'

No. I'm saying the data for suits B & C isn't relevant to the knee flexion of the Apollo suit.

The table is over 90% COMPLETE, You cannot ignore that data. So please stop the excuses, and deal with it.

Ignore it? The data supports my case, and destroys yours! 145 degrees in the mobility table analysis! No more excuses please! Deal with it!

Because,,,,there is no knee flexion data for Suit A, right?

Not from the X-ray study. But we do have the knee flexion-extension measurement from the mobility table study, which clearly shows the knee can flex up to 145 degrees.

Whie we don't have the knee flexion data for Suit A, we do have it for Suit B and Suit C. In each case, the figures are about 40 degrees less than the table you cite. If we extrapolate for Suit C, the 145 degrees (you claim is knee flexion) gives us ~100% knee flexion.

For starters, you can't extrapolate data that way as the suits are different and behave differently. Your trying to invent data that isn't there. Secondly, those measurements were taken while seated. The mobility table data destroys your argument, so it's no wonder you keep avoiding it.

Your 145 degrees is a combined figure. The table clearly states it is "Knee flexion-extension" That is NOT THE SAME THING as 'knee flexion'. "Knee flexion-extension" is two movements/phases. There is a knee flexion movement/phase, and a knee extension movement/phase. The two movements are combined as one total figure. And that is why the figures are larger in that table - iit has two movements (knee flexion-extension), while the other table has one movement (knee flexion)

Oh dear. This is getting excruciating. They are measuring the angle difference between "knee flexion" and "knee extension". If this diagramme doesn't drop the penny, you're beyond help on this one. Or perhaps you can explain exactly what angle the 145 degrees refers to?

faq_stretching.jpg

Knee flexion-extension is the angle measured between the knee being fully flexed, and fully extended.

So now it's just "a test"? You really do try anything to dismiss this table, don't you? .

I'm sure you know what the test is for, as it's clearly titled.....

"TABLE XIII. ANGULAR DATA FOR JOINT MOBILITY AND SUIT-JOINT INTERFACE"

Didn't you say previously, it was done while seated? You clearly have no argument and are resorting to inane nit-picking. Address the data please. 145 degrees knee flexion-extension. Oh and try to do it without presenting your inability to measure an angle to the world.

As for the test being done "while seated", exactly what are you referring to?

Strictly speaking, it wasn't a 'chair'. It was a mock-up of the Apollo couch.

As interesting (or not) as this discussion is, you're guilty of your old tricks: reversing the burden of proof. You have no evidence whatsoever to back up your initial claim, so once again you're nit-picking around the edges of hard data to try and claim some kind of moral victory.

All you have is this (my summation of your argument, not quite your own words)

"The SAS suit has greater mobility than the Apollo suit, ergo it should have greater knee flexion".

It's been explained to you why you're wrong. If you have nothing else to add, then as far as I'm concerned, this particularly dead donkey no longer needs flogging. The carcass stopped twitching a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

One that was operating in a vacuum maybe? Recorded using microphones designed to pick up as much speech and as little background noise as possible?

I am surmising that he's addressing that tired old ancient silliness he did long ago, where he asked why the engine wasn't heard during the LM descent (or any other time an engine was operating while they were in space....).

This was explained to him so thoroughly that it even bored me after about a dozen times having to re-hash the fundamentals...

If this is what you're talming about Turb...

Well, I should ignore it... :td:

I could tell you that Posty is correct...Any nominal sound or vibration passed through the medium of the cabin atmosphere wouldn't be heard through the microphione, which, set to vox mode, only transmitted when the proximity sound of the voice triggered the mic open. Any other sound outside the sealed helmet wouldn't have triggered the mic.

I though this was clear long ago (it was, of course), but you like re-hashing old dead ideas, and thoroughly seem to enjoy making them sound as if they're somehow fresh and significant.

:td:

If a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one there to hear. Does it make a sound?

ANSWER: Yes, it does.

If a rocket engine fires in a vacuum, regardless of whether anyone is there, does it make a sound?

ANSWER: No it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

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?

???

Well, yes, I think most of us do get it.

You've posted another complete irrellevacy. It does pose a couple of questions:

1. What would make you think the USSR would care if the US Government Killed it's Chief Executive?

2. Prove they would've cared.

3. Oh yes, prove that the Government did kill President Kennedy, as you are wont to declare as if it's established fact (like the ridiculous Moon Hoax you allege without a shred of subtsantive proof).).

These questions actually expect no answer of substance, since you can prove none of what you allege here.

JFK has nothing to do with the "Moon Hoax".

If you are itching to answer any of this, that's for another thread.

You still have proof to come up with about Apollo fakery ... :whistle:

Right here, we wait...well, some of us do!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

I'm not saying that. Never did, What gave you this idea, anyway? I'm a bit curious.

It is not relevant to my issue, and it never will be.

Very little you post actually relates to your real issue.

We're just a bit curious about that issue and your avoidance of it:

...proving you case.--the real issue you have here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

The chair was just a prop, if you will, so everyone can visualize a knee flexion of approx. 90 degrees.

You can forget the Apollo spacesuit argument because you've lost that case a long time ago, which is one reason why no one takes you seriously.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Well, gee...all those supernovas they show on TV make enormous thunderous noises... :unsure2:

I guess you were right.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seand

I never post here and I've always believed the landings were genuine, but I found this today and I really needed to ask about it somewhere

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vrge-8F6rw

Is there any good explanation for this? Because I'm honestly baffled. All I've seen are people attacking the integrity of the guy who made the movie, but no proper debunking. Any ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

I never post here and I've always believed the landings were genuine, but I found this today and I really needed to ask about it somewhere

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vrge-8F6rw

Is there any good explanation for this? Because I'm honestly baffled. All I've seen are people attacking the integrity of the guy who made the movie, but no proper debunking. Any ideas?

There is a good explanation.

.

Cheers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seand

There is a good explanation.

.

Cheers.

Thanks a lot man, I was getting a little worried there.

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.