Proving the moon landing was a hoax - John Young is caught 'bare handed'.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

That's the palm of the glove. A more advanced glove than those used by Apollo.

That's true - almost anything is more advanced than Apollo gloves.

Now, do you have any proof at all that the Apollo gloves were pressurized, or can we assume you have none, and it's a done deal?

originally posted by: turbonium1
They are complete space gloves, like the gloves you say Apollo wore,

Wrong again, if you actually read the article you would clearly see that they are NOT like the gloves Apollo wore!

So I've proven my argument.

No you have not, as they are NOT the gloves worn by Apollo - you are very confused.

You need to show me the Apollo gloves before and after pressurization, in a continual process.

Wrong again, we do not need to show you anything.

NASA will not let anyone test the Apollo gloves,

Where is you evidence for that claim? Oh, you have no evidence!

Do you have any valid proof at all,

Yes, you can clearly see pressurised gloves in the first post in this thread!

a reply to: turbonium1

Now, do you have any proof at all that the Apollo gloves were pressurized, or can we assume you have none, and it's a done deal?

Yes. They were used on the Moon.
Do you have any proof they were not?

Oh wait, you do. John Young is bare handed. I forgot.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: turbonium1
Saying I don't know how the gloves were constructed is yet another fine example of NOT supporting your claim.

And I'm sure it won't be the last one you try, either.

And how is your claim that he is not wearing gloves working out?

And your claim that there is no footage of testing?

Posting pictures of a pressurised glove working in space as an example of how pressurised gloves can't work in space also seems a risky strategy.

I'm still waiting for you to show the footage of the Apollo gloves before and after pressurization, in a continual process. So how is that working out for you?

I showed what pressurized gloves actually look like, to prove that they don't look anything like Apollo gloves. I have no idea why you didn't realize what I meant. Actual pressurized gloves do not flex, crease, flap excess material along finger joints. Just Apollo gloves, and rubber garden gloves, will do that...

So, that works out fine for me, but not so fine for you.

originally posted by: Phage
Yes. They were used on the Moon.
Do you have any proof they were not?

Saying they were used on the moon is your claim. You have to prove that claim. Saying it over and over is not proof of a claim. Asking me to disprove your claim that has no proof to begin with?? That's like someone claiming flying pink elephants really exist, although he has no proof of his claim, then he asks you to prove they DON'T exist!


Get the idea, now?

a reply to: turbonium1

You have to prove that claim.

There are mountains of evidence that the landings occurred.
Your claim is that it did not occur. You have provided no evidence. Including your claim of bare hands. (heh)

a reply to: turbonium1

You said there was no film of Apollo gloves being tested. You get some. Goalposts get moved.

You can see pressurised gloves in the Apollo footage - not just on the moon but also in things like the Apollo 9 EVA. do you have any proof that they are not pressurised gloves? Do you have any proof of how they should look other than your own opinion?

I have no idea why you posted a video claiming that John Young wasn't wearing gloves but then moved the goalposts to "wrong sort of gloves" other than knee-jerk contrarianism and ill-informed opinion desperately trying to divert attention from the massive fail of your OP?

The original footage you posted was from a continuous live broadcast of EVA-2, one that even zooms in on Earth before they get back into the LM. They were on the moon.

From the ALSJ conversations before EVA-2:

140:28:20 Young: Yeah. (Long Pause) (Garbled). (Long Pause) I'm going to leave my protective cover on my gloves this time, in case Houston gets some wild ideas (garbled) (Pause)
[Here, John is referring to the fingerless cover gloves - much like a golf glove - they wore over their EVA gloves to protect them from abrasion during the ALSEP deployment. They had planned to discard the cover gloves after the first EVA because they add bulk to the hands and reduce finger dexterity. John is concerned about working on the cosmic ray experiment and/or the heat flow connector without the added protection the cover gloves provide.]
140:29:33 Young: Is that yours? Is this yours right here? (Pause) (Garbled) (Long Pause) (Garbled) one more time

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Here is how it should be done.



Also the only time it is allowed.

a reply to: boymonkey74
Those are not goal posts.
It is a goal net.

The original proposition of the thread (that man did not go to the Moon because Young was not wearing pressurized gloves) has been fully debunked. Nothing that the OP presents (his original proposition that they were bare hands, and then the modification of his proposition to state they were not pressurized gloves) has not been followed with any tangible proof, and further the OP continues to support his arguments with a basic total misunderstanding of the physics involved, the science applied, and the history that supports everyone arguing against him.

The OP can only continue to argue that posters on the board are not presenting hard evidence - and his definition of hard evidence would have to be NASA suiting up the OP in a space suit and walking him on the moon with gloves on to prove anything to him, as the OP will continue to argue against videos and testimony presented by anyone.

This thread only proves two things:


1) We have lost a generation of logical analytical thinkers (presenting the OP as an example of this loss); our higher education system is now producing a generation of people incapable of discerning between what their limited knowledge base can understand and what cannot be analyzed with the knowledge they are capable of comprehending. Much like the people that see a machine fail and try to identify the failure.

A logical thinker that doesn't understand the machine knows there is a reason for the fault even though they cannot define it. A logical analytical thinker can quickly recognize what they are capable of understanding and what they do not have the knowledge to understand, and accepts that there are people with greater knowledge in some areas than them.

The OP would describe the failure as a mystery and therefore caused by some demon possessing it. This is not logical thinking, as the OP will not accept that their knowledge in things such as physics and science is limited, and therefore they are not capable of understanding the concepts behind the operation of the machine, so they attribute the failure to the realm of fantasy.

The engineer that understands and repairs it understands the machine and describes the same failure as a faulty sensor causing a spike in the low-voltage circuit that corrupts the data registers in the RAM memory resulting in the failure. This person has the total knowledge of he workings of the machine and understands the cause of the fault.

The logical thinker would accept that the engineer has the knowledge of the machine; even thought the logical thinker may have knowledge of areas the engineer does not understand, he accepts that the engineer DOES understand areas of knowledge he does NOT.

The OP would change his argument, and insist the demon caused the sensor failure and therefore they were right. This person would not accept the explanation from someone with a greater understanding of the machine; as this person refuses to accept that anyone could be smarter or more analytical than them (in this case, the OP).


2) There are some people that refuse to stop arguing after they have been proven incapable of arguing. This is not denial of ignorance, this is the epitome of ignorance!


Young went to the Moon, and walked on the Moon, with pressurized gloves on. The OP wishes to disprove this with fantasy. FAIL.

Looks like a glove to me... not a bare hand.
If that is a bare hand it is all swolled up...

originally posted by: hellobruce

It is as if they have no clue at all how the gloves are actually constructed!

hey let me correct that for you

It is as if they have no clue at all .

originally posted by: Phage

There are mountains of evidence that the landings occurred.
Your claim is that it did not occur. You have provided no evidence. Including your claim of bare hands. (heh)

You haven't shown any evidence of the gloves, so why not? Do you not have 'mountains' of evidence?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

a reply to: turbonium1

You said there was no film of Apollo gloves being tested. You get some. Goalposts get moved.

You can see pressurised gloves in the Apollo footage - not just on the moon but also in things like the Apollo 9 EVA. do you have any proof that they are not pressurised gloves? Do you have any proof of how they should look other than your own opinion?

I've been asking you for video of the Apollo gloves before they are pressurized, and then being pressurized to 3.75 psi, as one continuous process.

That's all I want you to show me, here.

You don't seem to have it, or know where it can be found, right?

This is your idea of Apollo having so much evidence for everything, then?

Not...

originally posted by: turbonium1
You haven't shown any evidence of the gloves,

Apart from the many pictures and video's posted here, including the pictures in the first post you mean.

originally posted by: turbonium1
That's all I want you to show me, here.

If you were shown it you would just move the goalposts again, as you are not interested in facts!

So, NASA doesn't have (in public, at least) any video of their Apollo gloves, which show the gloves before, and after, being pressurized, in one continuous process...

How can you possibly prove that these gloves DID work?

The videos of Apollo show no gloves are pressurized at all, while you say it does...

Who are you to tell me you know the gloves were pressurized, and not what I 'think' they should look like?!?!

What a joke!


It's my view the gloves are not pressurized, while your view is that the gloves are pressurized.

You have to prove the original claim, that the gloves were, in fact, pressurized..

originally posted by: turbonium1
How can you possibly prove that these gloves DID work?

They were used on the moon, and in space.... so of course they work. Duh!

The videos of Apollo show no gloves are pressurized at all,

Try actually watching the video and looking at the pictures in the first post, you can clearly see gloves!

What a joke!

Yes, your silly claims certainly are!

that the gloves

You really are very confused, you claimed he was not wearing gloves, now you claim he is wearing gloves..... you post so much crap here you get confused what crap you already said!