[Split]Moon hoaxes - split from: Mars Voyage too Soon?

[Southwind17]

The same as it would be in Earth orbit. You know, where the Mercury and Gemini and Shuttle missions go.

Do the shuttle missions use the same technology as the Apollo program?!

 

[uruk]

I believe there could have been certain technical impediments that emanated from the extreme temerature differences that would appear to preclude some of the operations and records that were presented by NASA as fact.

Can you provide any specifics?

 

[Southwind17]

Full sunlight with the sun directly overhead, or the sun at a lower angle?

Well let's say at a relatively low sun angle, per the Apollo photos. Unless I'm mistaken (could be!) the timing of the Apollo landings was set to coincide with low sun angles, presumably to limit the temperature caused by electromagnetic radiation from the lunar surface.

 

[Brainache]

Do the shuttle missions use the same technology as the Apollo program?!

They use technology which has been designed using the knowledge that they gained during the Apollo program.

The Mercury and Gemini technology was used to develop the Apollo technology.

See NASA learns more with each program. Makes sense no?

 

[Southwind17]

I'll note that any problem with temperature extremes would be the exact same in Earth orbit. Having a big ol' rock under your feet doesn't change the situation, though a surrounding atmosphere would. The Shuttle astronauts seem to cope.

So my presumption regarding the reason for low sun angle landing times is wrong. i.e. the electromagnetic radiation from the sunlit lunar surface is zero, or negligible?

 

[Southwind17]

The claim that the CTs make with regard to fill lights etc, is that their answer is the only possible way events could have occurred. Therefore the landings were faked.

That's not my position.

The point of the hypothesis and theories on, for example, the moon's reflective surface, is that they provide an explanation that is consistent with the moon landings actually happening. Once you've got this plausible alternative, you can discard the CT. Of course, it has to be accepted that the alternative is plausible.

I disagree entirely. I think that just because something is plausible doesn't mean you can then necessarily rule out other possibilities. If those other possibilities are also plausible then which takes prescedence? The one that's most plausible, I suppose, but it still thend remains a question of degree.

It's plausible that England will win the 2010 soccer World Cup. As unlikely as that is, you cannot rule it out. Actually, that's a terrible example, let's substitute Italy for England!

The only way to determine for sure is to eliminate plausibility and move towards scientific proof.

 

[Southwind17]

Your dishonesty doesn't serve you well in a forum where everything you write is permanently recorded.

Would you care to back up this allegation with hard facts?

What part of "YES" did you not understand?

The qualification that followed it, and served to discount it as a 'one-word' answer! It seems you, too, don't understand the concept of a 'one-word answer', and the very obvious reason why somebody might be requested to respond to something 'in a word'! It's to force an unequivocal answer, which Corsair, consequently, never gave! Wake up!

 

[Southwind17]

You brought up the question of temperature. We assumed that there was a point to this, and noted that Shuttle astronauts cope with the same temperatures as the lunar astronauts. That's what they cope with.

Clear?

As mud! See above!

 

[Southwind17]

Yes, subjunctives are fun. But as you've made exactly zero progress towards that, it remains a subjunctive.

So we're still where we started, with certain contradictory evidence that raises questions that have only been answered with theory and hypothesis. You're putting up a compelling defence!

 

[Hindmost]

How about the difficulty in grabbing objects easily with the spacesuit gloves? The program showed a man trying to use the glove within a small vaccum chamber mimicking the conditions present on the moon and being unable to grab anything at all with it. Yet the astronauts seemed to have no difficulties at all. Has anyone an explanation for this?

What's your take on the allegation that the gloves were so cumbersome so as to have made the manual operation of the aperture ring on the chest-mount camera extremely difficult, to say the least, thereby leading, in all likelihood, to an ordinate number of incorrectly exposed photos, which is claimed not to be the case?

I came late to this tread and skimmed it quickly. If I am repeating what has been previously posted, I appologize.

The program that showed the person trying to move a glove in his homemade vacuum chamber--assuming it is the one I remember seeing on the science channel--conducted a very poor test. That person didn't come close to a valid test as far as the space suit gloves are concerned.

The Apollo mission and space suits were all designed to run on pure oxygen. This was to save weight for the ship. It is also needed to increase the movement ability of the suit. Since oxygen at full one atmosphere or 14.7 psi is toxic in about two hours, the suits have a pressure of about 4.5 psi. This partial pressure will allow the correct uptake of oxygen in a person so they won't get oxygen toxicity. This is still done in space suits today. During that TV show, the person pulled a full vacuum on the glove giving a pressure difference of close to 14.7 psi. A more reasonable test would have used only a 4.5 psi difference between the glove and the vacuum chamber. So, the test was off by a factor of about three. (it was irritating that this wasn't pointed out in the show)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity

Nasa assumes astronauts will have the dexterity of a three year old kid and designs tools accordingly. The lower pressure in the suit enables astronauts to move their fingers well enough...not great...but with hundreds of hours of training, well enought to manipulate tools.

glenn

PS: anyone mention that the laser reflectors put on the moon by the astronauts are still working and how we measure the distance to the moon about 200 times a year with them...

 

[Southwind17]

"Congratulations. Now... what about all of the other images?"

Because, you know... if even one photograph is genuine, it's proof that men landed on the Moon.

So, continuing the imagination, you have at least one faked photo (there will surely be more, if you consider motive!) and enumerable additional photos, none of which can be proven genuine, and ALL you're interested in is the additional photos! That neatly demonstrates something I offered my views on towards the start of this thread as to what it is that leads many people to believe certain things blindly (literally, in your case, it seems!), like the existence of god, for example!

 

[Southwind17]

Builders need tea. There was no need to build a landscape on the moon.

Where would we be without tea, eh! The World (but not the Moon!) would come to a grinding halt!

Oh, wait, that can't possibly be right, can it. What is there for it to 'grind' against?! Damn - yet another blind alley!

 

[332nd]

Where would we be without tea, eh! The World (but not the Moon!) would come to a grinding halt!

Oh, wait, that can't possibly be right, can it. What is there for it to 'grind' against?! Damn - yet another blind alley!

And the people helping the astronauts simulating 1/6th gravity?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So, continuing the imagination, you have at least one faked photo (there will surely be more, if you consider motive!) and enumerable additional photos, none of which can be proven genuine, and ALL you're interested in is the additional photos! That neatly demonstrates something I offered my views on towards the start of this thread as to what it is that leads many people to believe certain things blindly (literally, in your case, it seems!), like the existence of god, for example!

Perhaps you can turn that critical eye on yourself and pontificate on what it means when one finds it acceptable to dismiss all additional evidence when only one piece has been shown to be false (hypothetically speaking, of course).

 

[Southwind17]

You got your unequivocal yes. Corsair also pointed out that there is a lot of other evidence that by itself is also conclusive. You don't get to complain about that. [emphasis added]

So we have a veritable myriad of pieces of evidence, each of which, by itself, proves beyond reasonable doubt that man walked on the Moon. What was so hard for Corsair then simply to respond 'yes' then button it? Hell, what better way to shut Southwind up than to show that just one piece (and that's now just one piece from a number of pieces!) of evidence on its own is enough?! What an opportunity missed, eh!

Remember, Southwind, we can actually see what you wrote and what Corsair wrote.

Oops, I forgot this is an open forum. Silly me. I guess that's case closed then!

This would be a more accurate picture:

Windsock: I don't believe Europe exists! Have you ever been to Europe? Well, have you? Huh? Huh? Well?!

Cursor: As I have told you five times already, YES, I have been to Europe. More than once, in fact. I was married in Europe. My parents come from Europe. I work for a company with its headquarters in Europe. I have, right here in my house, over three hundred books written or printed (or both!) in Europe. My TV picks up BBC News (which comes from Europe), and at least a dozen channels in various European languages.

And if you had ever in your life read a book or a newspaper you would be aware of all of this.

You can't even get the question right, let alone a credible response! THIS more accurately reflects what you're desperately trying so hard to misunderstand, and succeeding, in the context of your version:

Windsock: In a word, have you ever been to Europe? Well, have you? Huh? Huh? Well? In a word?!

Now, please show me, notwithstanding the immediate failure by Cursor to answer the VERY SIMPLE question as asked, what in your blatantly disparate version above serves to even hint at qualifying the almost-initial 'YES' part of the 90+word response, as Corsair did.

Are you starting to get a slight incling as to why I might be inclined to disagree that this would be a more accurate picture, or is this whole thing proving just way too hard for you to comprehend?!

Unfortunately for you, Southwind, we did read the words.

Two words seem poignant here: 'unfortunately', because of it's woefully misplaced inapplicability, and 'carefully', which is conspicuous by its absence!

Do you understand yet that vacuum and low gravity are two different things?

Now, let me see ... er ...

The first is merely utterly impractical to implement for a movie set on Earth ...

Yes, the vacuum that we 'see' on the lunar video footage is unmistakable, isn't it. I'd say its a reddy-pink colour; what would you say?

... the latter is impossible.

Evidence?

Both are required to reproduce the Apollo videos.

Of course!

Yes.

Thank you. That's helpful!

And if you speed up the gross movements, the fine movements are all wrong, demonstrating that the videos were indeed taken in a low-gravity environment, which is (one more time) IMPOSSIBLE to reproduce on Earth.

One more time - EVIDENCE?

You can direct us to some speeded up lunar video footage that demonstrates this effect, presumably? Now this is where a one-word answer (which you now seem to have got the grasp of!) is not necessary!

 

[Southwind17]

What aspects? Specifically.

Uninsulated, essentially standard stock cameras, for starters.

 

[Southwind17]

What very last part? Specifically.

That would be the men actually on the Moon 'part'.

 

[Southwind17]

Really what were those so I can rip into these idiotic misconceptions.

You're denying there were technological obstacles?

 

[Southwind17]

Ahhh yes. The sun is not a point source of light. It's more like a spherical light bulb.

You obviously don't appreciate the concept of a point source of light in comparison to, say, a floodlight, or a fill-light reflector. Given the distance between the photographer and Aldrin either a reflection of the sun from 'Armstrong's visor' or a spherical light bulb can be considered a point source.

 

[Southwind17]

But you haven't shown that the consistent plausible explanation does not account for the observed effects. You've just given an opinion from your own incredulity.

Oh, that's right, I haven't, just like you haven't shown that your alternative theory and hypothesis does account for them! So we're left none the wiser aren't we, with just burden of proof left to debate, I suppose!