Moon Landing Hoax - The Space Suit

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
A vaccum is a perfect insulator for heat.

No it's not. Heat transfer by radiation is a real thing. The Moon's surface goes from over 200 F during the day down to minus 200 F during the night, all due to radiative heat loss.

In fact, it's the atmosphere that serves as an insulator, keeping a lot of the heat in. In vacuum, heat is lost fairly quickly when not in direct sunlight.

essentially build a 1000W microwave a size that can enclosed a man in space suit.
Then have him stand in it for up to 7 hours (about the longest excursion time on moon)
Well within that time the suit interior will get to 250 degrees Farenheight and need an equivalent wattage power to expel the heat to maintain a habitable temperature. The power rating on them packs is clearly insufficient and incapable to meet this requirement.

Moan landings are clearly a hoax.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

I think that you have more than amply demonstrated that, unlike other posters on here, science is not something that you have much of a clue about.

May I respectfully suggest that you give up this nonsense before you make an even bigger fool of yourself?

All fake and yet we feel a compulsion to believe it because it is ingrained in the psyche of western culture.

Incredible claims require incredible evidence and yet your happy to believe in what Nasa showed through the TV.
All bull# and a complete waste of my time spend a minute more talking about.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

There is plenty of evidence not just from the TV or NASA. You, on the other hand, are happy to believe what you are told by idiots/liars on Flat Earth sites and in shonky Youtube videos.

So, now that you have lost the argument, you are going to flounce off?

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
All fake and yet we feel a compulsion to believe it because it is ingrained in the psyche of western culture.

Incredible claims require incredible evidence and yet your happy to believe in what Nasa showed through the TV.
All bull# and a complete waste of my time spend a minute more talking about.

You say that, yet you were the one who misunderstood the proper premises (or maybe intentionally used misleading premises?) when you did your maths.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

And do you have any evidence to support your belief that it's all fake or is it simply blind faith in long debunked pseudoscience and lies?

Nasas first attempts at filming the moon landings were carried out with such poor direction the y went to Stanley Kubrick to direct.
Some secret footage has been covertly attained of Nasas CIA black ops team bungling an amaturish attempt at film making to shoot the moon.

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
Nasas first attempts at filming the moon landings were carried out with such poor direction the y went to Stanley Kubrick to direct.

a huh yea, because stanley kubrick had first hand experience of walking on the moon, NASA would trust him so much so that they had to have him and only him to accurately portray humans on the lunar surface, even going to so far as to getting him to direct the hoax.. because you know, he has been to the moon and knows whats it like and he is 100% completely trustworthy, wouldnt tell a soul no matter how popular and relevant he could become.

a reply to: choos

Yes, and of course his 2001 was a flawless exercise in getting sequences in space/on the moon done without any glaring mistakes or simple errors. Wasn't it?

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
Nasas first attempts at filming the moon landings were carried out with such poor direction the y went to Stanley Kubrick to direct.
Some secret footage has been covertly attained of Nasas CIA black ops team bungling an amaturish attempt at film making to shoot the moon.

I really dont understand this response, do you actually believe the video posted?

or am I missing some massive joke because in your other post

"Incredible claims require incredible evidence and yet your happy to believe in what Nasa showed through the TV"

May I ask what medium you have used to view your opposing opinion or have you actually been to the moon? could I just return your above quote changing 2 words

"Incredible claims require incredible evidence and yet your happy to believe in what Youtube showed through the Monitor"

a reply to: choos

Kubrick would first need to pass through the deadly Van Allen radiation belts on way to moon - we know that cant happen

But first would be fried by enormous temperatures outside earth's atmosphere

Conclusion is that Kubrick did not go to the moon to film the landings ……..

a reply to: firerescue

How do you know this about the Van Allen belts? Been on a Flat earth website, by any chance?

By temperature, do you mean the Thermosphere?

NASA - Thermosphere

You may not trust the source as it is NASA but essentially you would be cold up there due to the lack of gas molecules (atmosphere) necessary to transfer heat. It's very simple physics.

a reply to: firerescue

The ISS orbits in the middle of the Thermosphere:

Quora Article on the ISS in the Thermosphere

It does not get hot due to the lack of atmosphere to transmit heat to it. Or do you think that the ISS is fake, too?

a reply to: firerescue

Wait a minute, were you being sarcastic? In which case I apologise.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Yes was attempt at sarcasm throwing back all the stupid quotes at the flat earther hoaxers ……...

The Earth is to small and to low in the sky.


AS17-137-20960

originally posted by: Ove38
The Earth is to small and to low in the sky.

AS17-137-20960

Earth looks to be the right size considering the 60 mm focal length of the lens used.

it is low in the sky because Apollo 17 was the farthest mission from the lunar meridian (farthest east mission), with a landing site at almost 31 degrees east longitude.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

Earth looks to be the right size considering the 60 mm focal length of the lens used.

it is low in the sky because Apollo 17 was the farthest mission from the lunar meridian (farthest east mission), with a landing site at almost 31 degrees east longitude.

So "the 60 mm focal length of the lens used" made the Earth in the background look smaller ?



And the moon cannot be over there, that low in the sky, since the same side of the moon always faces earth.

a reply to: Ove38

Why did you compare the 60 mm focal length the a 24 mm? The other common Apollo image focal length was 250 mm. So if you would have compared the two common Apollo image focal lengths, the Earth would look smaller in the 60 mm images compared to the 120.

EDIT TO ADD: I guess you used the 24 mm lens because it is a common consumer camera/mobile phone camera focal length. However, the Earth still looks the right size in that image. It should be noted that even the Moon would look surprisingly small in an image taken with a normal camera or mobile phone without zoom or cropping (smaller than a person would expect it to look/Smaller that it seemed in person), such as this picture:


Full-sized Image

Take your own picture of the Moon with your mobile phone camera. The Moon in the image you get may seem smaller than you thought it would be.


As for your comment about the Moon always having one side facing the Earth, I know that. That’s why I mentioned that Apollo 17 landed the farthest east of any mission, at almost 31E longitude.

Your little stick figure is standing on the lunar meridian.