Moon Landing Hoax - The Space Suit

a reply to: Ove38

So the background in that photo (i.e. the headboard of the bed) is 250,000 miles away is it?

You clearly have no actual photographic knowledge of your own.I think the tag line at the bottom of all my posts just about sums up what's happening here.

Anyone care to watch and comment on this about Apollo batteries/broadcasting:

a reply to: DickDribble

Apart from wanting to punch the smug so and so in the mouth repeatedly?

He claims it is not possible to broadcast a signal to a rotating Earth even though the people on Earth were pointing a HUGE dish at the moon, he even thinks that an antenna pointing at Earth on the moon would need to rotate for some reason - even though the Earth is pretty much a static object in the lunar sky. Even radio hams can fire a signal at the moon and get a return back. If you can't send a signal to a moving object how does he think mobile phones work in a car? He is another one under the delusion that everything on the moon instantly hits 250 degrees as soon as sunlight hits it, which is just garbage. He claims wire as plastic coated when it was Teflon. The camera and transmitter combined only used around 25 watts (see the comments under the original video, not the one hijacked by those morons at Shill Stompers). He has no idea that the PLSS had a battery (how else would it pump water around?) and that spares were stored in the MESA.

There have been many many probes sent to the moon, all of which have successfully sent large amounts of data back to Earth using very small transmitters, how does he explain that?

All he has is sneering incredulity and a lack of knowledge about how the TV transmissions worked and I wouldn't trust him to wire a plug.

Here are some links for you to explore.



www.amazon.co.uk...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

www.quora.com...

space.stackexchange.com...

a reply to: Ove38

and the lens?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Ove38

and the lens?

80mm, according to this Pintrest: www.pinterest.co.uk...
I wasn't able to find the original photo, it's probably on Flickr somewhere.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

There have been many many probes sent to the moon, all of which have successfully sent large amounts of data back to Earth using very small transmitters, how does he explain that?

All he has is sneering incredulity and a lack of knowledge about how the TV transmissions worked and I wouldn't trust him to wire a plug.

Some of the largest radio telescopes around the planet had a bit to do with all that ( duplex comms and analog TV transmission).

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

My Thoughts exactly . Was trying to figure how to respond to this streaming pile ……

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Wow, reading the comment section on that original video shows that we as a society are drastically failing in both education and treating mental health disorders.

On a tangentially related note, I facebook group I'm in posted a message this morning about the New Horizons probe sending images of Ultima Thule back to Earth. The power it's using? 15W.

What was that about impossible transmissions again?

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

This fact needs to be put into better context.Put that 15 watts into a dipole aerial which is omnidirectional and it'll probably only travel a few miles.It wastes so much of what it can do going in every possible direction it can.
Concentrate that same 15 watts into a tight beam using some sort of array (a dish or Yagi is good for this) and it travels a LOT LOT further because it's not wasting energy going all over the place.If the aerial or array has gain,it increases the ERP (Effective radiated Power) meaning it's capable of doing more work but with less power.If that transmitting aerial has 30db of gain,the ERP is now 15,000 Watts!
The difference is the beam is very tight and needs to be aimed directly at it's target,the dipole just sits there and doesn't need to be moved to get it's signal where it needs to be.

couple years ago visited the Apollo mission exhibit and got to see the actual module. it was tiny and the doorway seemed big enuf to exit with maybe a wetsuit, but definitely not a spacesuit.

when I asked the tour guide, she explained it was cuz neil got on his knees to exit down the ladder to the lunar surface.

they didn't even have a spacesuit on display, only buzz aldrin's gloves!

it seemed more like a tour of a low budget, low tech 'lost in space' movie set, not a hi-tech science mission. especially the tour narrative, which constantly referred to how everything was hand-made by women with everyday materials. ie, they mentioned the woman pouring hand-warmed resin like Worker Bees in a Honeycomb into the module walls to form insulation against thousand of degrees. err umm, wouldn't one use a material with higher melting point?

and that the space suit (which was not on display, just the gloves) was hand woven by Playtex Cross your Heart bra, and the 'computers' were made by hand Woven wires, the Pattern of the wires layout creating the 'computer program and memory' since there were no circuit boards.

emphasis was also placed about beating the Russians in the 'space race'. they bragged that americans make everything smaller and lighter, unlike Russians whose nukes were bulkier than Americans.

in retrospect, I didn't realize how much rhetoric/satire was 'woven' even into the materials til now after hearing about more issues with all aspects of the mission, including the Playtex spacesuits! cross my heart!

a reply to: tulsi

So your personal disappointment with a museum visit and your incredulity is somehow proof of something?

a reply to: tulsi

Do you not understand that this was 1969 and that your average digital watch has more computing power than all those Mission Control computers with those spinning tapes?

This was 50 years ago, what did you expect?

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

If moon hoaxers couldn't use "I don't understand it so it's fake" as an argument, they wouldn't have any arguments.

originally posted by: tulsi
couple years ago visited the Apollo mission exhibit and got to see the actual module. it was tiny and the doorway seemed big enuf to exit with maybe a wetsuit, but definitely not a spacesuit.
when I asked the tour guide, she explained it was cuz neil got on his knees to exit down the ladder to the lunar surface.

The forward hatch of the LMs that flew to the Moon was 32 inches x 32 inches. That's just a little smaller (4 inches smaller) than the width of the front door to most homes.

I don't know which exhibit you saw, but there were prototype LMs that had a smaller hatch. There are no flown LMs on display (obviously), but here is a picture of the Apollo 11 LM in situ showing it's forward hatch.

This guy did a LIDAR scan of the suit and the LM hatch and proved it was no problem for one to fit through the other:

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: tulsi

Do you not understand that this was 1969 and that your average digital watch has more computing power than all those Mission Control computers with those spinning tapes?

This was 50 years ago, what did you expect?

It's off topic, but you kind of touched on my biggest issue with the whole thing. It was 50 YEARS AGO. And look where we are now? We couldn't land on the moon and come back again today. Was it a combination of just the right people at the right time and a lot of luck? Our technology is 1000x stronger now. Trump wanted 19 billion for NASA to get back to the moon. What? We already did it with 50 year old technology. Something seems really off about it.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Who says we couldn't?

Those people certainly had the right stuff and luck was involved - a solar flare could have spelled disaster for them.

Years ago we had a supersonic commercial jet, now we don't, so, by your logic, was Concorde fake, too?

a reply to: oldcarpy

www.cnn.com...

Um, NASA says we can't. They're trying to make plans to be able to go back to the moon by 2028. They need 10 years and 12+ billion dollars. That's proof enough we're not even remotely close to being able to do what we were capable of 50 years ago. That's mind boggling!!

Concorde maybe not the best example since we have supersonic jets in use, just not commercially, but I know what you mean. It's more like we were able to dive to the bottom of the Mariana Trench 50 years ago, but today we don't have the technology to do it. Wouldn't make sense would it? Neither does our space program.

I'm not saying it's fake, but something is definitely off about the whole space program.

a reply to: jjkenobi

It's the difference between a card reading computer and a super computer. A computer with vacuum tubes will go through the Van Allen Belts with no problems because there's very little for the radiation to affect. A computer using transistors and modern processors is much more affected by the same amount of radiation.