Apollo 11 Moon Landing Revisited: Hoax ~vs~ Debunk

[Foster Zygote]

And let's not forget Apollo 16 and magazine 116, which got some schmutz on it which got dragged onto every frame as the film advanced. I mean just look at how uncannily perfect that is. (Also looking up sun.)

AS16-116-18578

 

[P.J. Denyer]

No, that's not how "we" accountants speak. (As a reminder, and for anyone new, I'm a former accountant.) You pulled that out of an orifice, as usual, just like your BS claim that "nano" is British slang for "super-tiny," to try to pretend that you didn't put your foot in it yet again.

To be fair as a former British management accountant I will use K or M as a shorthand for thousand or million, but I'd also include a pound sign, miles or km etc to clarify WHAT it was thousands or millions of. And I wouldn't put in the zeros as well!

 

[JayUtah]

One of his most laughable bit of "evidence" involved his 'vacuum chamber glove' demonstration.

That was Ralph René, not Bill Kaysing. Kaysing is the cat guy. René at least gets some points for trying to demonstrate his claims empirically, even if his demonstrations are naïve and wrong.

When I was an undergraduate engineering student, I worked on the then-next-generation space glove. In this famous photo



Bruce McCandless is wearing gloves I helped design.

The problem with saying you can't use gloves in a vacuum is that it applies to all human spaceflight, not just Apollo. That makes it harder to say it's easy to fake.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

That was Ralph René, not Bill Kaysing. Kaysing is the cat guy. René at least gets some points for trying to demonstrate his claims empirically, even if his demonstrations are naïve and wrong.

When I was an undergraduate engineering student, I worked on the then-next-generation space glove. In this famous photo

View attachment 72274

Bruce McCandless is wearing gloves I helped design.

The problem with saying you can't use gloves in a vacuum is that it applies to all human spaceflight, not just Apollo. That makes it harder to say it's easy to fake.

Presumably that would also mean that you couldn't make a usable glove on a pressurised diving suit.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Presumably that would also mean that you couldn't make a usable glove on a pressurised diving suit.

I'm sure Vixen will be right by to inform us that you can't.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

To be fair as a former British management accountant I will use K or M as a shorthand for thousand or million, but I'd also include a pound sign, miles or km etc to clarify WHAT it was thousands or millions of. And I wouldn't put in the zeros as well!

I would consult the ex-payroll (and audit) bod across the table from me: I know what the response will be and I've been sworn at enough for one day.

Discretion, valour'n'that...

 

[Steve]

Presumably that would also mean that you couldn't make a usable glove on a pressurised diving suit.

No such thing! Underwater you need to use a wheeled submarine.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

No such thing! Underwater you need to use a wheeled submarine.

Are those the flying ones for sinking ships by holing them above the waterline? I think that needs a twelve hour news blackout in which it's reported across Europe and they hold a news conference.

 

[Foster Zygote]

That was Ralph René, not Bill Kaysing. Kaysing is the cat guy. René at least gets some points for trying to demonstrate his claims empirically, even if his demonstrations are naïve and wrong.

When I was an undergraduate engineering student, I worked on the then-next-generation space glove. In this famous photo

View attachment 72274

Bruce McCandless is wearing gloves I helped design.

The problem with saying you can't use gloves in a vacuum is that it applies to all human spaceflight, not just Apollo. That makes it harder to say it's easy to fake.

I could have sworn I'd seen Kaysing doing it too. It was outside, at a trailer (I think) in the desert, and I definitely remember cats around.

 

[JayUtah]

I could have sworn I'd seen Kaysing doing it too. It was outside, at a trailer (I think) in the desert, and I definitely remember cats around.

That may be true, but I highly doubt it. Kaysing never did any demonstrations. He just talked. In the OP video it’s René. Kaysing’s version of the claim was simply that the gloves looked too bulky and restrictive for delicate tasks.

 

[Trebuchet]

I've just given up and jumped ahead the 15 or so pages that happened since about yesterday. Nothing's going to change anyhow. Especially Vixen's mind.

 

[arthwollipot]

I've just given up and jumped ahead the 15 or so pages that happened since about yesterday. Nothing's going to change anyhow. Especially Vixen's mind.

Yeah, me too.

 

[Andy_Ross]

That was Ralph René, not Bill Kaysing. Kaysing is the cat guy. René at least gets some points for trying to demonstrate his claims empirically, even if his demonstrations are naïve and wrong.

When I was an undergraduate engineering student, I worked on the then-next-generation space glove. In this famous photo

View attachment 72274

Bruce McCandless is wearing gloves I helped design.

The problem with saying you can't use gloves in a vacuum is that it applies to all human spaceflight, not just Apollo. That makes it harder to say it's easy to fake.

Once again Adam Savage provides...

Space Glove Vacuum Chamber.

 

[junkshop]

@Vixen: you are, yet again, brandishing a rusty butter knife at a mountain. Why do you persist in doing this over and over again? Do you have some kind of humiliation kink going on? (No shame if that is the case, but it's bad form to co-opt others into scratching your itch unknowingly).

 

[EHocking]

<original deleted>

On the subject of photography, last week we saw the Chinese Zhuque-2E Y6 rocket as it overflew Australia.
I’ll have to ask my friend to send me the photo taken on a smartphone (I was heading for the bottle shop at the time).
It had us flummoxed as to what we’d seen, until we read about it in the local news, e.g.,

 

[bknight]

One of his most laughable bit of "evidence" involved his 'vacuum chamber glove' demonstration. It was bad enough that he used an industrial rubber glove instead of the A7L glove designed specifically to be usable when pressurized, but he evacuated his glass tank to a near vacuum, not understanding that the A7L wasn't inflated to earth sea level pressure of ~14.7 psi, but only 3.7 psi. He didn't understand pressure differential. To be accurate, in addition to a proper glove, he'd need to evacuate his chamber down to just 3.7 psi under ambient pressure. Guy was as much an engineer as he was the reincarnation of Napoleon.

that wasn't Kaysing but Ralph Rene.

 

[Thermal]

Of course it'd be of keen interest to an astronaut. My ex, who only did a double Physics degree because he became interested in astronomy, could point to the sky and say, 'There's Andromeda, or there's Cassiopeia...etc'.

As could the average pre-teen Cub Scout. I sure as hell could identify most of the well-known constellations before I hit puberty.

The idea you'd go on a 250K mile trip to the Moon and not care a darn about the stars is utterly bonkers.

Surprisingly, I'd be expecting them to be virtually 100% focused on mission objectives, not getting giddy over a view if stars they've pretty much seen a thousand times.

All three were Air Force pilots, IIRC, because NASA didn't need a bunch of starry eyed sightseers. They wanted seasoned, disciplined pilots to operate the spacecraft.

 

[EHocking]

To be fair as a former British management accountant I will use K or M as a shorthand for thousand or million, but I'd also include a pound sign, miles or km etc to clarify WHAT it was thousands or millions of. And I wouldn't put in the zeros as well!

I love the story about an IT tech applying for a job that was advertised as paying $120K*.
Once hired he demanded that his pay check was $122,880. He won the case.

* in truth I cannot remember the starting number. But the point he made remains.

 

[Trebuchet]

Ok, I've had a glass or two and feeling stupid so here's a challenge for Vixen. Who probably won't.
Wait for a clear starry night.
While waiting, obtain yourself a bright light source. It doesn't have to be as bright as the sun, just bright enough to see a subject 3-5 meters away. Maybe a typical LED headlight.
Go out in the dark, and illuminate your subject. If you have a nice DSLR, use that. But I'll settle for your phone.
Take a photo. Take lots of photos. Then upload a picture that shows both the subject and the stars properly exposed. And give us the exposure data, time and lens opening, which modern cameras always report. And tell us what the light source for the subject was.
I'll wait. I'm long retired and have nothing but time.

 

[Thermal]

This is where you have a misconception. Contrary to the belief, 'it's all on Google', I am actually one of those rare old school people who still read proper books and magazines.

Sooooo... what's the misconception? That you think reading paper books is rare? That you think you are some kind of standout (look around the forum- avid book readers as far as the eye can see). Yet an up-to-the-minute website or wiki page is stellar for quick factual information. You should try it.

For instance, it would only take you a couple minutes online to find out that you don't know what the hell you are talking about... for instance, about rooster tails. But you read... paper magazines... and you think that gives additional credibility?

I know I am right about the potential weight of the backpack on the Moon...because I was read up on it by reading books on the matter. Thus, it was faintly amusing and irritating to have a whole line of people claiming to have up to Nobel Prize physicist status that I was an uneducated imbecile.

You might have read a lot of books, but it's pretty clear you didn't understand them.

Only one person had the integrity to affirm I was correct.

You were correct on a triviality, and light years off on your major point. The major point had an eclipsing value, there.

So, no, that is not my claiming 'victimhood'; if you bully someone you are bullying them. Of course, being well read on a topic doesn't necessarily mean one is right. However, it is quite unnecessary to act as though your faith is under threat.

Trust me, not a soul here feels they are "under threat" from. your whacky beliefs. it's just kinda hard to believe you are serious.