Moon Landing Hoax - The Space Suit

a reply to: turbonium1

We have already supplied that, and we also gave examples for you to try out also.

Other then you...no one else on ATS spouts BS about the Moon landing hoax anymore, except the rare one or two posts from new members who never post again after being shown why they are incorrect.

You wonder why the moon landing hoax thing died down massively? Everyone has access to everything now, other then the ignorant like yourself who cannot see reason at all, it is hard to try to convince someone of a hoax when they can just type in a couple of words and research the correct proof themselves.

You're lost the battle long ago, you can only latch onto one element and not let go because you have nothing else.

How much of the hoax crap has been proven wrong and backed up with actual proof? All of it.
And how much of the hoax has actually been proven...? None of it.

You provide us with humor and smiles - you stopped frustrating us long ago.

a reply to: turbonium1

Could you do something for us really really simple:

Grab a image of the moons surface, and draw on it what YOU think is missing from the image...to give us a clue to what you think it should look like.

As you seem not to be able to understand the basics, or you seem to know something that we all do not...could you do that? Draw on the image what YOU say is missing from it and HOW it should LOOK, I don't mean put arrows or red circles what is missing, draw in what is missing.

Be good to see.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: turbonium1

I am talking about one, specifc feature, seen in the lunar orbit images. Roughly an area no more than 200 m long, and 100 m wide. The area shown in this source...

www.nasa.gov...


This is an actual, physical feature on the lunar surface. It is a DISTINCT feature on the surface.

Any similar-sized feature identified from lunar orbit, would be identified from the surface, as well.

I'm not sure what it is you would expect to be able to see from the ground. The area in question would still be a dusty lunar surface, but the reason the dust in that area looks subtly lighter than the dust in the surrounding area is that it was disturbed dust.

The disturbed dust reflects light ever-so-slightly differently than the undisturbed dust, maybe due to (and I'm just speculating) the descent engine "fluffing it up" as a fine powder and strewing across the undisturbed surface, after that dust had previously laid undisturbed for a couple of billion years.

But it is still dust. It would be a dusty area surrounded by a dusty area, and the difference would not be that evident from the ground.

That subtle brightness of the disturbed dust is barely visible from above, and it does not have a distinct boundary, but rather a "fuzzy" boundary where the disturbed dust gradually gives way to the undisturbed dust. It is not at all surprising that the difference (i.e., the boundary between them) is not noticeable when you are standing on the surface.

No. The area beyond any disturbance would definitely be found, in many of the surface images.

What is distinct between the two areas is even more distinct, from the surface.

Try to make something invisible from surface, but seen at long distance.....just for fun!

I tend to think the difference between the two grey colors would be too subtle to notice that while standing in a field of, say, "Grey-tone A", a person would be able to see the difference between it and previously standing in a field of "Grey-tone B".

I think the differences would be too subtle, and only noticeable when compared side-by-side. And furthermore, the boundary between the two would not be a sharp enough boundary to notice from ground level (i.e., there would not be a sharp line between them to be able to easily compare the two).


For example, I think this color:




looks exactly like this color:



However, if we can compare the two side-by-side (or in this case, a blob of one gray-tone in the middle of the other), we see they are actually different:


And I don't think this sort of side-by-side comparison relating to this dust halo question would be extremely difficult to "eye up" while standing on the surface, because the boundary between the two would be gradual. WE are talking about blowing dust landing on other dust; the boundary would not be well-defined.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: turbonium1

I am talking about one, specifc feature, seen in the lunar orbit images. Roughly an area no more than 200 m long, and 100 m wide. The area shown in this source...

www.nasa.gov...


This is an actual, physical feature on the lunar surface. It is a DISTINCT feature on the surface.

Any similar-sized feature identified from lunar orbit, would be identified from the surface, as well.

I'm not sure what it is you would expect to be able to see from the ground. The area in question would still be a dusty lunar surface, but the reason the dust in that area looks subtly lighter than the dust in the surrounding area is that it was disturbed dust.

The disturbed dust reflects light ever-so-slightly differently than the undisturbed dust, maybe due to (and I'm just speculating) the descent engine "fluffing it up" as a fine powder and strewing across the undisturbed surface, after that dust had previously laid undisturbed for a couple of billion years.

But it is still dust. It would be a dusty area surrounded by a dusty area, and the difference would not be that evident from the ground.

That subtle brightness of the disturbed dust is barely visible from above, and it does not have a distinct boundary, but rather a "fuzzy" boundary where the disturbed dust gradually gives way to the undisturbed dust. It is not at all surprising that the difference (i.e., the boundary between them) is not noticeable when you are standing on the surface.

No. The area beyond any disturbance would definitely be found, in many of the surface images.

What is distinct between the two areas is even more distinct, from the surface.

Try to make something invisible from surface, but seen at long distance.....just for fun!

I tend to think the difference between the two grey colors would be too subtle to notice that while standing in a field of, say, "Grey-tone A", a person would be able to see the difference between it and previously standing in a field of "Grey-tone B".

I think the differences would be too subtle, and only noticeable when compared side-by-side. And furthermore, the boundary between the two would not be a sharp enough boundary to notice from ground level (i.e., there would not be a sharp line between them to be able to easily compare the two).


For example, I think this color:

looks exactly like this color:

However, if we can compare the two side-by-side (or in this case, a blob of one gray-tone in the middle of the other), we see they are actually different:

And I don't think this sort of side-by-side comparison relating to this dust halo question would be extremely difficult to "eye up" while standing on the surface, because the boundary between the two would be gradual. WE are talking about blowing dust landing on other dust; the boundary would not be well-defined.

It's a very distinct area to identify from orbit. And it has an overall shape, outlined. Nothing indicates it is undefined, or so gradual, in the images from orbit.

You say it's gradual, because you have to make an excuse for why it's not seen, from the surface.

If it was so gradual, it would appear as a very gradual change in orbit images, too. It does not appear gradual in any way, though. You assume it must be so incredibly gradual, which is not the case.


Nonetheless, I've challenged you to replicate this phenomenon on Earth, with any materials, any surface, you choose.

You can make it as subtle, and undefined, as you want. Since that is what you argue as reasons it's not seen from the surface, only from high above.

Here's the big problem - you have to make a distinct area, but cannot even know you've made it, since it cannot be seen from the surface!!...

How would you know you've made it, when you'll never even SEE it??

Your argument is pure nonsense..

Not really.

We are talking about grey dust sprinkled on other gray dust that is ever-so-slightly a different shade. And at the boundary (even if that boundary is only a dozen meters or so wide), it might be 50% one shade of grey dust and 50% the other shade of grey dust.

The difference at either side of that boundary would be obvious when both sides of the boundary/both shades of grey are being viewed from a similar vantage point and while viewing it from similar angles, but not obvious when I'm viewing one shade under my feet compared to the other shade 30 meters away from me -- and doing this viewing from an eye level of about 2 meters, which means I''m looking more straight down at the dust around me, but at an oblique angle for the dust 30 meters away.

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: turbonium1

Could you do something for us really really simple:

Grab a image of the moons surface, and draw on it what YOU think is missing from the image...to give us a clue to what you think it should look like.

As you seem not to be able to understand the basics, or you seem to know something that we all do not...could you do that? Draw on the image what YOU say is missing from it and HOW it should LOOK, I don't mean put arrows or red circles what is missing, draw in what is missing.

Be good to see.

You want me to outline where the disturbance should be, and where it should end, into the surrounding area?

I could do that for you, but why?

The area doesn't even exist in so-called 'surface' images. You're the one who claims it exists, not me.

You say it exists, yet want ME to draw where you say it is, but cannot be seen?

Yikes!

a reply to: toocoolnc

If you learn about physics, which applies everywhere without respect to political ideology, you will understand the concept of "heat," properly defined, and thus how sublimation works to cool astronauts in space. If, on the other hand, you rely on ideologically based blogs to construct your version of reality you will be forever puzzled. Those who want you to believe that one of humanity's most impressive accomplishments is a lie do not have humanity's best interests in mind.

At some point when people just don't understand physics or other branches of science, person(s) have to give up and figure an explanation of fact cannot be conveyed to the first group of people.

Despite society trying to do it, there is only a certain level of dumbing down that can be reached.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: turbonium1

Could you do something for us really really simple:

Grab a image of the moons surface, and draw on it what YOU think is missing from the image...to give us a clue to what you think it should look like.

As you seem not to be able to understand the basics, or you seem to know something that we all do not...could you do that? Draw on the image what YOU say is missing from it and HOW it should LOOK, I don't mean put arrows or red circles what is missing, draw in what is missing.

Be good to see.

You want me to outline where the disturbance should be, and where it should end, into the surrounding area?

I could do that for you, but why?

The area doesn't even exist in so-called 'surface' images. You're the one who claims it exists, not me.

You say it exists, yet want ME to draw where you say it is, but cannot be seen?

Yikes!

It's not a "disturbance" that would be seen from the surface. What you would see from the surface is a thin coating of dust particles of top of other dust particles -- with one type of dust particle being practically the same shade of gray as the other type of dust particle.

I mean, It's not as if that entire "halo" area in the JAXA image is supposed to be a place where all of the dust had been completely blown away. It's more subtle than that.

The only way to gauge the subtle differences in shade of grey from one type of dust to the other would be to have an "apples to apples" comparison -- i.e., comparing the shapes as seen from the similar vantage points (such as from above, looking down at them from the same general angle at the same general distance) -- which would result in similar lighting and reflectivity conditions.

If I were trying to tell the difference from the ground, it would be an apples-to-oranges comparison. That is to say, looking at dust near me compared to dust "way over there" would not be a valid way to compare them, because I'm looking at them from totally different points of view, which would result in totally different lighting and reflectivity conditions.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: turbonium1

Could you do something for us really really simple:

Grab a image of the moons surface, and draw on it what YOU think is missing from the image...to give us a clue to what you think it should look like.

As you seem not to be able to understand the basics, or you seem to know something that we all do not...could you do that? Draw on the image what YOU say is missing from it and HOW it should LOOK, I don't mean put arrows or red circles what is missing, draw in what is missing.

Be good to see.

You want me to outline where the disturbance should be, and where it should end, into the surrounding area?

I could do that for you, but why?

The area doesn't even exist in so-called 'surface' images. You're the one who claims it exists, not me.

You say it exists, yet want ME to draw where you say it is, but cannot be seen?

Yikes!

It's not a "disturbance" that would be seen from the surface. What you would see from the surface is a thin coating of dust particles of top of other dust particles -- with one type of dust particle being practically the same shade of gray as the other type of dust particle.

I mean, It's not as if that entire "halo" area in the JAXA image is supposed to be a place where all of the dust had been completely blown away. It's more subtle than that.

The only way to gauge the subtle differences in shade of grey from one type of dust to the other would be to have an "apples to apples" comparison -- i.e., comparing the shapes as seen from the similar vantage points (such as from above, looking down at them from the same general angle at the same general distance) -- which would result in similar lighting and reflectivity conditions.

If I were trying to tell the difference from the ground, it would be an apples-to-oranges comparison. That is to say, looking at dust near me compared to dust "way over there" would not be a valid way to compare them, because I'm looking at them from totally different points of view, which would result in totally different lighting and reflectivity conditions.

I'd like to see you replicate this non-existing phenomenon, just once.

I''d accept a single example of this phenomenon, if you can't replicate it.

Both of the areas are well within view. The distinction between the two areas would clearly be seen in surface images.


Either you replicate it, or show a single example of it, or cite the scientific principles for it. How about citing one expert supporting your incredible phenomenon?

Otherwise, we must conclude it is purely a fantasy.

Whatever 'reasons' you come up with, you still cannot replicate the phenomenon.

'Too diffuse', 'very gradual over a large area', 'very subtle', 'it's a reflective distinction, based on differing perspectives' .

And various combinations.


They are simply excuses.

a reply to: turbonium1

There is no point explaining what the world is like to someone who refuses to see for themselves. Take a walk on the beach and look at the sand. Can you see the patterns it forms when seen from above? All this has been explained to you countless times. You must now go out and see for yourself and stop troubling others.

originally posted by: turbonium1
This area is nothing like a fog bank.

it is very similar

What makes the area distinct from the surrounding area, is a physical difference.

A physical feature.

fog isnt a physical feature???

so what is fog in your opinion?

If we can identify this feature from orbit, it must be quite distinct.

The physical difference can be seen from orbit. It doesn't vanish from sight at close-range.

you can clearly define fog from a distance, but you can only start seeing it from about 1-2m away.. and at that range i can only just barely see it.

At close-range, we can finally determine the REASON(S) it is so clearly distinct from the surrounding area!

Very simple concept, really

already told you why it is visible from orbit.. compressed lunar regolith reflects slightly more light.

same as fog, fog deflects light, the thicker the fog you look into the more unlikely it is you cant see through it the thinner it is the more likely you can see through it.

with this the compress lunar regolith reflects more light uniformly, meaning light is not penetrating the surface, (ie. looking through thick fog)
the uncompressed lunar regolith lets light penetrate the surface thus reducing reflection of sunlight. (ie. looking through thin fog.)

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
This area is nothing like a fog bank.

it is very similar

What makes the area distinct from the surrounding area, is a physical difference.

A physical feature.

fog isnt a physical feature???

so what is fog in your opinion?

If we can identify this feature from orbit, it must be quite distinct.

The physical difference can be seen from orbit. It doesn't vanish from sight at close-range.

you can clearly define fog from a distance, but you can only start seeing it from about 1-2m away.. and at that range i can only just barely see it.

At close-range, we can finally determine the REASON(S) it is so clearly distinct from the surrounding area!

Very simple concept, really

already told you why it is visible from orbit.. compressed lunar regolith reflects slightly more light.

same as fog, fog deflects light, the thicker the fog you look into the more unlikely it is you cant see through it the thinner it is the more likely you can see through it.

with this the compress lunar regolith reflects more light uniformly, meaning light is not penetrating the surface, (ie. looking through thick fog)
the uncompressed lunar regolith lets light penetrate the surface thus reducing reflection of sunlight. (ie. looking through thin fog.)

Sunlight is reflecting off the surface, in images from the surface, right?

And it reflects at various angles, and at various times, yes?

How do you know what is reflecting more light from these poor-fair quality images, from 50 km above?

You assume it is an area seen from orbit, which reflects more sunlight than elsewhere, and it only reflects more light upward, and it's only seen from orbit...

An amazing surface that can reflect more light in one direction, upward, so it cannot be seen reflecting more light anywhere else!

Somehow, when you are standing in this more reflective area, on the surface, and look down to the surface, and take images of the area, it STILL is not seen to be a more reflective area!

It 'knows' whenever someone has stepped into it, and immediately stops reflecting more sunlight!


So where is your proof?

You have no proof.

This is certainly a claim you could prove, though.


A provable claim, that you can never hope to prove, is simply a falsehood.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1

There is no point explaining what the world is like to someone who refuses to see for themselves. Take a walk on the beach and look at the sand. Can you see the patterns it forms when seen from above? All this has been explained to you countless times. You must now go out and see for yourself and stop troubling others.

A pattern seen from above is not seen from ground, as I said before, is not comparable to those areas.

We would see two distinctly different areas from the surface images. The reason they are distinctly different is through their physical difference(s).

A physical difference is like an area of soil which is similar all around, and you blast a patch with compressed air. This could make it look like two distinct areas, right?

Btw, what made such a distinct area on the moon? Blasting the surface with thrust of rocket engines?

Obviously that would cause a distinctly physical change, true?

Somehow, it can barely be physically changed, when it is physically changed, so it's strange that we would know that it's physically changed, when nobody can see that it's so physically distinct!! Wherever it is, it is a distinct area, right?


When they made the distinct area, they couldn't see it on the surface.



Please show how to create a distinctly physical change to an area that you cannot see at all, yet it's really there, and is distinctly different, physically.

If you can do that, I could also be able to prove that flying pink elephants really exist!!


So have fun trying...

originally posted by: turbonium1
Btw, what made such a distinct area on the moon?

The area isn't really that distinct. You were looking at a small, low-rez image that was probably contrast-stretched. That would make that vague, fuzzy feature look more prominent. I linked you some high-rez LRO images which show that the difference between that area and the rest of the terrain is a subtle one.

Apollo astronauts didn't see it from the ground, but saw it when the LM took off again.

Seems like all you're doing in this thread is straw man arguments.

a reply to: turbonium1

it doesnt reflect more light upward..
compressed lunar regolith reflects more light than uncompressed regolith.

proof is here:

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: turbonium1
Btw, what made such a distinct area on the moon?

The area isn't really that distinct. You were looking at a small, low-rez image that was probably contrast-stretched. That would make that vague, fuzzy feature look more prominent. I linked you some high-rez LRO images which show that the difference between that area and the rest of the terrain is a subtle one.

Apollo astronauts didn't see it from the ground, but saw it when the LM took off again.

Seems like all you're doing in this thread is straw man arguments.

Avoiding the whole problem, as usual.

Reality is that an area cannot be found in any surface images. It would certainly be seen in those images, beyond a sliver of doubt.

I'm very aware that you insist this area would not be seen from the surface, but you cannot ever.... PROVE any of it.

If it's possible, then it's entirely PROVABLE.


You can make an area of soil, which is distinct - in some way - from the soil surrounding it...right?

Anyone can do that.

But now, to prove your claim, you must NEVER BE ABLE TO SEE THE DISTINCTION FROM THE GROUND!!

It doesn't matter what reasons you think make it possible, I only want you to PROVE it....


Talk is all I ever get from you, nothing else.

aplanetruth.info...

NASA insists the space suits the astronauts supposedly wore on the lunar surface were air conditioned. An air conditioner cannot, and will not work without a heat exchanger. A heat exchanger simply takes heat gathered in a medium such as freon from one place and transfers it to another place. This requires a medium of molecules which can absorb and transfer the heat such as an atmosphere or water. An air conditioner will not and cannot work in a vacuum. A space suit surrounded by a vacuum cannot transfer heat from the inside of the suit to any other place. The vacuum, remember, is a perfect insulator. A man would roast in his suit in such a circumstance


NASA claims the spacesuits were cooled by a water system which was piped around the body, then through a system of coils sheltered from the sun in the backpack. NASA claims that water was sprayed on the coils causing a coating of ice to form. The ice then supposedly absorbed the tremendous heat collected in the water and evaporated into space. There are two problems with this that cannot be explained away. 1) The amount of water needed to be carried by the astronauts in order to make this work for even a very small length of time in the direct 55 degrees over the boiling point of water (210 degrees F at sea level on Earth) heat of the sun could not have possibly been carried by the astronauts. 2) NASA has since claimed that they found ice in moon craters. NASA claims that ice sheltered from the direct rays of the sun will NOT evaporate destroying their own bogus “air conditioning” explanation.

Remember this. Think about it the next time you go off in the morning with a “vacuum bottle” filled with hot coffee. Think about it long and hard when you sit down and pour a piping hot cup from your thermos to drink with your lunch four hours later… and then think about it again when you pour the last still very warm cup of coffee at the end of the day.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

You have posted a page of ignorance from a stupid Flat Earth website which demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the most basic science.

May I ask why?