Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.

# Did we land on the moon?

## Recommended Posts

this is what you posted:

why did you drag this over into a different thread?

lol I was soooo wondering that! Mid!! What's going on buddy?

##### Share on other sites

• Replies 14.1k
• Created

• 2565

• 1272

• 770

• 726

#### Posted Images

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

No, you just misinterpreted the data.

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

It's completely relevant because it shows you've misinterpreted the data.

[

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.

Actually, you are the one trying to invent data that isn't there! There is NO data for knee flex on Suit A, but you claim it's in another table, anyway! It's not.

[

Secondly, those measurements were taken while seated.

Where does it mention they were seated for those measurements? On what page?

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?

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

This table is measuring "Angles of excursion" for "Knee flexion-extension".. Angles}, plural. In Suit B, the measurement is 130 deg. IThat is not the same as having 130 deg. knee flexion!. We know this is not.so. IWe know that knee flexion in Suit B measured 93 deg., in another table.. .

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

Suit B is either 130 deg. or 93 deg.

Suit C is either 125 deg., or 87 deg..

You still haven't addressed the glaring problem here, you just tried to skip past it. .

We can clearly see that the numbers are entrirely different in the two tables. They obviously cannot be for the same measurement of 'knee flexion'.

You can't avoid the facts.

##### Share on other sites

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.

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

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

You have two claims' on this...

First, you claim no sound is heard because they are in a vacuum. But we know they have air in the capsule, and they can speak and hear each other speak in the capsule, don't we? . A vacuum exists outside the capsule, in space. But not inside the capsule itself.So your 'vacuum' claim is false

Of course, you already knew that, which is why you made a second claim, about their microphones.

You claim the mics were voice-activated, no other sounds could be heard except for their voices at close range...

Onboard voice recorders were supposed to be voice-activated on the LM, but weren't...

Because the automatic voice activation (VOX) keying was not good enough to catch the start of an astronaut’s voice, engineers decided to use the tape in a continuous record mode, which made the 10 hours of available recording time a carefully husbanded resource. In each mission’s flight plan, a table was included which listed for the astronauts, exactly what was to be recorded.

Can you show me sources on the mics being voice-activated?

But it's not relevant, since we can hear them talking during the LM landing, as the descent engine (supposedly) was still firing.

In a tiny capsule, practically sitting on a rocket engine firing 1000 bs + of thrust, and nothing but their voices can be heard!! No vibrations that shake spoken words. Could be in a church, it's so calm and peaceful...

Sorry, we had no such microphones 40 years ago, and we still don't. It's pure fantasy.

##### Share on other sites

Turbo, rocket engine noise on Earth is caused by the exhaust interacting with atmosphere, creating pressure waves. There is no atmosphere on the Moon to transmit the rocket exhaust "noise". The 1000 pounds of thrust they were near was the plume in a vaccuum below them. Any sound they hear would need to be in direct contact with, and effectively transmitted by, the spacecraft structure.

No vibration? Why should there be vibration? Again, they're in a vaccuum, no turbulence, no windshear, no aerodynamic buffeting or anything like that.

You need to think about why jet engines and rocket engines (or even light prop planes) make sound here on Earth.

##### Share on other sites

No, you just misinterpreted the data.

145 degrees is 145 degrees.

It's completely relevant because it shows you've misinterpreted the data.

Misinterpreted 145 degrees as 145 degrees?

Actually, you are the one trying to invent data that isn't there! There is NO data for knee flex on Suit A, but you claim it's in another table, anyway! It's not.

Are you lying, or just being deliberately obtuse?

Where does it mention they were seated for those measurements? On what page?

YOU first mentioned it in post 14060. I'll remind you of your own words...

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..

This table is measuring "Angles of excursion" for "Knee flexion-extension".. Angles}, plural. In Suit B, the measurement is 130 deg. IThat is not the same as having 130 deg. knee flexion!. We know this is not.so. IWe know that knee flexion in Suit B measured 93 deg., in another table..

I find it impossible to believe that anyone could use this as a valid argument. Is this what you're reduced to? You're a complete and utter joke. The sad thing is, you're not helping your cause by prostrating yourself. By extension, if you're reduced to this, what does it say about the strength of your arguments? It speaks volumes. You lost the argument a long time ago, but are so intractable you don't have the moral strength to say, "Oops, I goofed". More fool you. You were handed a get-out weeks ago, but decided to persist. This is the result, and it's painful to read.

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

Suit B is either 130 deg. or 93 deg.

Suit C is either 125 deg., or 87 deg..

You still haven't addressed the glaring problem here, you just tried to skip past it. .

We can clearly see that the numbers are entrirely different in the two tables. They obviously cannot be for the same measurement of 'knee flexion'.

You can't avoid the facts.

The facts are, you're referring to suits B and C, which aren't the Apollo suits! Neither are these measurements from the mobility table data. They were taken in the mock-up of the CM couch.

So, did you have any evidence supporting your original assertion? Or is the best you can come up with arguing over the plurality of the word angle(s)?

##### Share on other sites

Actually, you are the one trying to invent data that isn't there! There is NO data for knee flex on Suit A, but you claim it's in another table, anyway! It's not.

Actually, it is you, who is guilty of inventing. The facts were very clear in the photos and in a documentary on the developement of the Apollo spacesuit that the spacesuit was capable of a wide range of motion under pressurized. conditions.

##### Share on other sites

Can you show me sources on the mics being voice-activated?

But it's not relevant, since we can hear them talking during the LM landing, as the descent engine (supposedly) was still firing.

In a tiny capsule, practically sitting on a rocket engine firing 1000 bs + of thrust, and nothing but their voices can be heard!! No vibrations that shake spoken words. Could be in a church, it's so calm and peaceful...

Sorry, we had no such microphones 40 years ago, and we still don't. It's pure fantasy.

Your post was a weak attempt to derail us from noticing that you are, once again, avoiding your obligation here.

That's OK, becuase we fully understand that you cannot prove your "case".

You say we don't have vox microphones today? We never did?

Then again, you said there were stage hands and TV monitors and such on the TV from Apollo 12's 1st EVA.

Are you that daft? Do you deliberately ignore the easily available material in favor of being foolish?

This was covered for YOU, long ago.

First of all, how could we have heard the crew during the critical descent to the surface, or while on the surface, without the standard voice activated mic mode turned on?

One needed two hands on the LM controls all the time during descent. Imagine having tio reach down to the com carrier and push the talk button while you're jockeying the throttle, the attitude controller, your instruments, etc......

On the surface, these guys were working with two hands, and geez, I recall Neil Armstrong coming down the ladder and letting go with one hand so he could fumble for the push to talk button!

Your comments are elementary and ridiculous, especially when you consider that documentation of the COM system is readily available to you, and since that ridiculous dwelling on SIbrel's film, and that whispered word "Talk" which was heard, and fabricated into some clandestine thing by you HBs, was simply Mike Collins telling Neil to switch to VOX mode on his system while he was describing the Earth to the fans back home. He was push-to-talk, and was talking without pushing after Charlie asked him to offer a few comments about what he was seeing,

Would you please knock off the diversions and get with the program.

By the way. I don't have any claims on tthis subject.

I only have something that you don't: knowledge of these things.

Now, what did you say?

First, you claim no sound is heard because they are in a vacuum.

No, I said the engine made no sound in a vacuum. It didn't, nor does anything, rocket engine, or nuclear explosion, make a sound in space.

I also said you'll hear no engine sound, nor would anyone listening to the recordings, because the crew was sealed inside a pressure suit w/helmet, and no extraneous sound could be recorded via their mnicrophones because they only registered sounds loud enough to trigger them ON, meaning a human voice talking to mission control.

But we know they have air in the capsule, and they can speak and hear each other speak in the capsule, don't we? . A vacuum exists outside the capsule, in space. But not inside the capsule itself.So your 'vacuum' claim is false

Yes! Very good, they had air in the cabin.

However, Turb, it should be noted that the engine WASN'T ACTUALLY INSIDE THE CABIN ..It was actully mounted in the descent stage, several feet "below" the crew's feet, with its business end pointed away from them. Further, they were inside sealed suits at about 3.5 PSI. Despite the fact that the DPS made a sound that might have passed through cabin atmosphere--a low grade rumble perhaps--that might have been faintly heard, and certainly felt, through the cabin, crews didn't hear anything profound. . Certainly there was no engine roaring or massive vibration going on...(???)

I'm sure you don't believe any of that, nor does it mean anything when I point out your silliness...

...My vacuum claim is false????

We had 9 LMs that flew with men aboard. We had 17 engines which operated successfully on those LMs, and ALL OF THEM operated in a vacuum.

Not a one of them made a sound in that vacuum.

Nor did any of the4 J-2s that powered the Saturn vehicles, or the SPS.

Oh well.

But it's not relevant, since we can hear them talking during the LM landing, as the descent engine (supposedly) was still firing.

In a tiny capsule, practically sitting on a rocket engine firing 1000 bs + of thrust, and nothing but their voices can be heard!! No vibrations that shake spoken words. Could be in a church.

I think we just got finished explaining that to you--again. Hopefully you can understand why we could hear them talking while the DPS was operating.

But I think you watch too many movies, where rocket engine firings are always depicted as these earth shattering events in the cabins of spacecraft, and crewmen have to shout to be heard, and shake around as if they're an ice cube in a drink mixer in a bar!

Rdiculous representations.

I think you're impressionable. Too impressionable.

If you devote a little time to it, you'll understand, I'm sure.

But then again, given past behavior, I have to be somewhat dubious about your chances...

##### Share on other sites

Turbo, rocket engine noise on Earth is caused by the exhaust interacting with atmosphere, creating pressure waves. There is no atmosphere on the Moon to transmit the rocket exhaust "noise". The 1000 pounds of thrust they were near was the plume in a vaccuum below them. Any sound they hear would need to be in direct contact with, and effectively transmitted by, the spacecraft structure.

They were virtually standing on the rocket engines. It even poked up into the middle of their cabin!

How is that for "direct contact"? .

No vibration? Why should there be vibration? Again, they're in a vaccuum, no turbulence, no windshear, no aerodynamic buffeting or anything like that.

First of all, to claim 'they're in a vacuum' is misleading, a half-truth at most..

We know they had air inside the craft. We also know that air does not exist in a vacuum. So we know they are NOT in a vacuum, inside that craft.

.

Most certainly vibrations would be heard (and felt) inside the LM, just an arm's length from a rocket engine with (a minimum of) 1000 lbs. thrust.

The vacuum outside the craft does not block out sounds and vibrations being directed to the inside of the craft.

##### Share on other sites

Moderator notice

In order to help improve the loading speed of the forums we are going to be closing down and creating continuations of several of the largest threads on the forums, typically those that are several hundred pages long ( and especially those with 1,000 or more. )

As such we will be closing the Did we land on the moon? thread in around 24 hours time and creating a new thread in which this discussion can be continued, rather than do this out of the blue we thought it best to give you a heads up in advance so that it doesn't come as too much of a surprise when this happens.

##### Share on other sites

YOU first mentioned it in post 14060. I'll remind you of your own words...

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..

Look - THERE IS NO ACTUAL CHAIR INVOLVED,, NOR IMPLIED

I said 93 deg. and 87 deg. is about the knee flexion someone will have when sitting in a chair. Or sitting on a couch. Or sitting on a park bench. Or sitting on a toilet.

There is no actual couch involved, no actual park bench involved, no actua toilet involved. And there is no actual chair involved either. Do you get the idea now? I'm merely saying that 87 deg/93 deg. knee flexion is about the knee flex for a normal sitting position.

I told you to forget about the 'chair', because there is no 'chair'.. Do you get my point, finally??

So in the document, they never said anything about being seated, did they? You presented this document, so you must have known that. Right? So why did you try and twist my words to that effect? I never claimed they were 'seated' during the tests. The 87/93 deg knee flexion were measurements in the table. I noted that is about the same degree of knee flex as sitting in a chair (or sitting on a couch, or sitting on a toilet, etc.) I never said the tests used a chair. I never said they measured knee flexion from a seated position.

You did. .

I find it impossible to believe that anyone could use this as a valid argument. Is this what you're reduced to? You're a complete and utter joke. The sad thing is, you're not helping your cause by prostrating yourself. By extension, if you're reduced to this, what does it say about the strength of your arguments? It speaks volumes. You lost the argument a long time ago, but are so intractable you don't have the moral strength to say, "Oops, I goofed". More fool you. You were handed a get-out weeks ago, but decided to persist. This is the result, and it's painful to read.

What does it say about your arguments if you're reduced to childish name-calling? I expect better from you, postie

The facts are, you're referring to suits B and C, which aren't the Apollo suits!

Nor is Suit A.

Neither are these measurements from the mobility table data. They were taken in the mock-up of the CM couch.

Specify the page(s) where they state this, please.

##### Share on other sites

Look - THERE IS NO ACTUAL CHAIR INVOLVED,, NOR IMPLIED

I said 93 deg. and 87 deg. is about the knee flexion someone will have when sitting in a chair. Or sitting on a couch. Or sitting on a park bench. Or sitting on a toilet.

There is no actual couch involved, no actual park bench involved, no actua toilet involved. And there is no actual chair involved either. Do you get the idea now? I'm merely saying that 87 deg/93 deg. knee flexion is about the knee flex for a normal sitting position.

I told you to forget about the 'chair', because there is no 'chair'.. Do you get my point, finally??

Now that you've clarified it, yes. You can see how your sentence could be mis-interpreted. 'About' can mean 'concerning' as well as 'approximately'. I assumed you meat 'concerning', since the document mentions a mockup of the CM couch.

So in the document, they never said anything about being seated, did they?

Yes they do.

You presented this document, so you must have known that. Right?

Yes I did.

So why did you try and twist my words to that effect? I never claimed they were 'seated' during the tests. The 87/93 deg knee flexion were measurements in the table. I noted that is about the same degree of knee flex as sitting in a chair (or sitting on a couch, or sitting on a toilet, etc.) I never said the tests used a chair. I never said they measured knee flexion from a seated position.

You did. .

Misunderstanding cleared up. Not that it helps your case.

Now, stop focussing on minor issues, and deal with the 145 degrees knee flexion of suit A as laid out in table XI.

What does it say about your arguments if you're reduced to childish name-calling? I expect better from you, postie

I've laid my argument out in detail. You can't address it. Not that it matters a jot anyway. You made a claim about the Apollo suit. You haven't been able to provide any evidence to back your claim up. This document is just a little Brucie bonus that I hoped would demonstrate to you why you were wrong. I thought you might learn.

But you're right, calling you a joke is taking things bit far. I should have said your evidence and arguments are a complete and utter joke, not you personally. Perhaps you could clear things up, and state what it is you think they are measuring in the knee flexion-extension test? Surely it's the difference in angle between the knee fully flexed, and fully extended? Assuming the knee fully extended is zero degrees (I'm sure even you would agree that's reasonable), then for the flexion-extension to be 145 degrees, surely the knee flexion itself MUST be 145 degrees?

Oh, I'll ask again as you seem to have missed it: where is your evidence that the Apollo suit could not bend at the knee as witnessed in the video clip?

Nor is Suit A.

Suit A is the proto-type of the Apollo suit. If it's possible for the prototype of the Apollo suit to display a knee flexion-extension of 145 degrees, is it unreasonable to expect that the finished article may exhibit a similar angle?

Specify the page(s) where they state this, please.

Table XI is the mobility table data, using flexometers and the mobility notation table (as well as other techniques). Table XIII is from the X-ray study. Look at page 50 and see what equipment they use for each sub-test. Subtest 2 (X-ray study) lists X-ray facilities and a mock-up of the couch as necessary equipment. They suit someone up, sit him in the couch, and X-ray him to determine the eye-heart angle, and measure the joint angles using the mid-points of the major bones. If that wasn't enough, you can infer he's seated by looking at what they measure. In the mobility table study, they measure (among others): hip adduction-abduction; hip flexion-extension; hip rotation; trunk rotation; trunk-hip flexion-extension; trunk-hip lateral flexion. In the X-ray study, the only one of these angles they measure is hip flexion. This conform's with what you'd expect if the subject was seated in a couch.

Regardless, let's drag this issue back on topic. Your claim. Your evidence. Do you have anything?

##### Share on other sites

lol I was soooo wondering that! Mid!! What's going on buddy?

I'm still trying to figure out how I might have done that, Mentalcase

I'm thinking, late at night, working two threads at the same time, tired....and maybe I did something wierd (wouldn't be the first time!).

I think we can effectively disregard them as irrelevant.

• 1
##### Share on other sites

They were virtually standing on the rocket engines. It even poked up into the middle of their cabin!

How is that for "direct contact"? .

First of all, to claim 'they're in a vacuum' is misleading, a half-truth at most..

We know they had air inside the craft. We also know that air does not exist in a vacuum. So we know they are NOT in a vacuum, inside that craft.

.

Most certainly vibrations would be heard (and felt) inside the LM, just an arm's length from a rocket engine with (a minimum of) 1000 lbs. thrust.

The vacuum outside the craft does not block out sounds and vibrations being directed to the inside of the craft.

OK, now let's add in the fact that the LM cabin would be pressurized with 100% O2 at under 4psi, which would transmit less engine noise from the pressure fed APS than a sea-level pressure. They were wearing sealed helmets, with visors closed. They used vox mics.

Can you provide information on how noisy the APS should have been within the cabin? Again, how much noise of a rocket engine is transmitted mechanically (via structure) vs interaction of the exhaust with atmosphere?

I'm sure that if they were taking off from the Earth's surface (disregarding variances in "g" for a moment), it would have been noisy with the exhaust interacting with the atmosphere right near them.

Just how noisy is a rocket engine when you take away all sounds of the exhaust stream? Don't you think this analysis was part of the flight test regime on Apollo 9 and 10?

##### Share on other sites

I'm still trying to figure out how I might have done that, Mentalcase

I'm thinking, late at night, working two threads at the same time, tired....and maybe I did something wierd (wouldn't be the first time!).

I think we can effectively disregard them as irrelevant.

Irrelevant? Naa! You still made your point! I think we all enjoy what you have to say! Now where is your avatar sir?

##### Share on other sites

Irrelevant? Naa! You still made your point! I think we all enjoy what you have to say! Now where is your avatar sir?

Irrelevant? Naa! You still made your point! I think we all enjoy what you have to say! Now where is your avatar sir?

Well, thanks Pal...but those posts did get a little misplaced, didn't they?

Good question about the avator. I think some of the forum changes may have wiped some of those away!

I'll go check that out and see what I can do about something!

##### Share on other sites

Moderator notice

In order to help improve the loading speed of the forums we are going to be closing down and creating continuations of several of the largest threads on the forums, typically those that are several hundred pages long ( and especially those with 1,000 or more. )

As such we will be closing the Did we land on the moon? thread in around 24 hours time and starting a new thread in which this discussion can be continued, rather than do this out of the blue we thought it best to give you a heads up in advance so that it doesn't come as too much of a surprise when this happens.

This thread is now closed, but the debate can continue here: Did we land on the moon? Continued

##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.