Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: webstra

People who understand that the moonlanding was a fraud do understand a lot more then you can ever imagine wmd_2008.....i'm afraid.

Seeing as you "understand" so much, could you please point out which line of my calculation is in error, and why? I have demonstrated that not only is the PLSS cooling capacity what it is claimed to be (1600 BTU/hr), but also that that cooling capacity is sufficient to remove the heat generated by the astronaut, the electrical system and sunlight.


If you think I am wrong, point out my error. It's not advanced maths we're doing here, it's high-school stuff.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: webstra

People who understand that the moonlanding was a fraud do understand a lot more then you can ever imagine wmd_2008.....i'm afraid.

Seeing as you "understand" so much, could you please point out which line of my calculation is in error, and why? I have demonstrated that not only is the PLSS cooling capacity what it is claimed to be (1600 BTU/hr), but also that that cooling capacity is sufficient to remove the heat generated by the astronaut, the electrical system and sunlight.


If you think I am wrong, point out my error. It's not advanced maths we're doing here, it's high-school stuff.

Don't you worry Rob..i did your math. But telling me that 1+ 1 = 2 does not tell me that we were there.

And yes, Jarrah makes mistakes..like we all do.

Solar gain: 250 BTU/hr. Also a figure from NASA ?

originally posted by: webstra
Don't you worry Rob..i did your math. But telling me that 1+ 1 = 2 does not tell me that we were there.

But if I say 1 + 1 = 2, and Jarrah says 1 + 1 = 20, does that not tell you something?

And yes, Jarrah makes mistakes..like we all do.

Agreed, we all make mistakes. The thing is to admit when you have made one. I keenly await his announcement on YouTube that a central tenet of his latest video was, in fact, just a mistake. I left a comment on his video today, so he should be aware of his error.

Solar gain: 250 BTU/hr. Also a figure from NASA ?

I gave my sources. One from NASA, and one from a thermodynamics textbook by two respected academics who are nothing to do with NASA. From the back cover:

Dr. Donald R. Pitts holds three engineering degrees – the B.M.E. from Auburn University, the M.S.M.E., and Ph.D. from the Georgia Institute of Technology. His 27 years of academic experiences include appointments at Tennessee Technological University, Clemson University, and the University of Tennessee-Knoxville.

Dr. Leighton E. Sissom is a registered professional engineer. He holds four degrees, including a B.S.M.E. from Tennessee Technological University and M.S.M.E. and Ph.D. from the Georgia Institute of Technology. He has served as a consultant to more than 600 organizations in 41 states and 11 foreign countries.

How many degrees does "Aussie genius" Jarrah White have? Does he know more about thermodynamics than these gentlemen?

And even if I had only posted a cite from NASA itself, they are not just plucking these figures out of thin air. They were the result of many years of research by many thousands of people, many of them not working for NASA at all. If you have several spare hours, have a read of this weighty tome on the bioenergetics of space suits. This was published in 1966, when scientists were busy working out what the requirements of a working space suit would be. There's 140 pages of in-depth discussion of every last detail of heat gains and losses that the suits would have to cope with. Look at how much work they put in. The bibliography contains no fewer than 352 citations to sources, the vast majority of which are academic journals with no affiliation to NASA whatsoever.

Where are your citations, other than YouTube?

I really don't understand your reasoning. You have no evidence other than "I think I know better than everyone else", and you don't even try to do any research on your own to see whether you are right. You post links to videos of Australian weirdos loading shopping trolleys with milk, but ignore it when their arguments are shown to be bogus. Why are you being so gullible?

I'm just trying to help you here. Jarrah White and his ilk are charlatans, liars and hoaxers. They think you are stupid and will fall for their lies. Prove them wrong. Don't let yourself be conned.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: webstra
Don't you worry Rob..i did your math. But telling me that 1+ 1 = 2 does not tell me that we were there.

But if I say 1 + 1 = 2, and Jarrah says 1 + 1 = 20, does that not tell you something?

And yes, Jarrah makes mistakes..like we all do.

Agreed, we all make mistakes. The thing is to admit when you have made one. I keenly await his announcement on YouTube that a central tenet of his latest video was, in fact, just a mistake. I left a comment on his video today, so he should be aware of his error.

Solar gain: 250 BTU/hr. Also a figure from NASA ?

I gave my sources. One from NASA, and one from a thermodynamics textbook by two respected academics who are nothing to do with NASA. From the back cover:

Dr. Donald R. Pitts holds three engineering degrees – the B.M.E. from Auburn University, the M.S.M.E., and Ph.D. from the Georgia Institute of Technology. His 27 years of academic experiences include appointments at Tennessee Technological University, Clemson University, and the University of Tennessee-Knoxville.

Dr. Leighton E. Sissom is a registered professional engineer. He holds four degrees, including a B.S.M.E. from Tennessee Technological University and M.S.M.E. and Ph.D. from the Georgia Institute of Technology. He has served as a consultant to more than 600 organizations in 41 states and 11 foreign countries.

How many degrees does "Aussie genius" Jarrah White have? Does he know more about thermodynamics than these gentlemen?

And even if I had only posted a cite from NASA itself, they are not just plucking these figures out of thin air. They were the result of many years of research by many thousands of people, many of them not working for NASA at all. If you have several spare hours, have a read of this weighty tome on the bioenergetics of space suits. This was published in 1966, when scientists were busy working out what the requirements of a working space suit would be. There's 140 pages of in-depth discussion of every last detail of heat gains and losses that the suits would have to cope with. Look at how much work they put in. The bibliography contains no fewer than 352 citations to sources, the vast majority of which are academic journals with no affiliation to NASA whatsoever.

Where are your citations, other than YouTube?

I really don't understand your reasoning. You have no evidence other than "I think I know better than everyone else", and you don't even try to do any research on your own to see whether you are right. You post links to videos of Australian weirdos loading shopping trolleys with milk, but ignore it when their arguments are shown to be bogus. Why are you being so gullible?

I'm just trying to help you here. Jarrah White and his ilk are charlatans, liars and hoaxers. They think you are stupid and will fall for their lies. Prove them wrong. Don't let yourself be conned.

When ever your dealing with with apollo deniers you must understand there position isnt based on fact but a belief. It all comes down to one of two reasons they believe everything the US does is corrupt and must attack it or they believe that the world is being lied to and manipulated and this is just part of a much larger conspiracy. Either way they cant present facts because they dont exist but when pushed on this issue they claim well the government manipulates the numbers or scientists are in on it. The only ones that will truly change their mind is people that actually look critically at the facts than and only than will they realize we went to the moon.

He cant dispute your math or the science involved so where down to him saying he doesnt think its right however take solice in the fact your stopping someone else from buying into the lies. Because most people want to know the real truth not fiction.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Cestrup, Don't waste your time arguing about a youtube video with an Apollo Defender. They are having a laugh on you, they are taking the piss.

Every Apollo Defender knows that this youtube video consists of non-original video copies and are non-admissable evidence that would be thrown out of any debate, public hearing or grand jury proceeding.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: FoosM

Thanks FoosM. Watching Jarrah's "Better Eight Than Never" right now.

Priceless. SJ, who was holding forth on why YouTube videos are so worthless just a few posts earlier, now avidly watches Jarrah's steaming pile of horse pellets... on YouTube.

You couldn't ask for a better illustration of the hoaxer mentality

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: FoosM
So the solar heat flux is calculated to 10,000 Btu per hour.
How much of that heat did the Astronaut's suit limit?

Cool quote Foosm :-)

It would be cool if you understood it

People who understand that the moonlanding was a fraud do understand a lot more then you can ever imagine wmd_2008.....i'm afraid.

Well you have show you understand JACK S*^T that's why you only post your deluded ramblings!

originally posted by: choos
I had assumed that the ropes tying the mythbusters would not have affected their jump therefore being close to a natural jump thats where i was wrong..

You have shown no evidence of the ropes affecting the jump, right?

If you do, then please point it out to me.

If you don't, then your claim doesn't hold up.


Back to you

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos
I had assumed that the ropes tying the mythbusters would not have affected their jump therefore being close to a natural jump thats where i was wrong..

You have shown no evidence of the ropes affecting the jump, right?

If you do, then please point it out to me.

If you don't, then your claim doesn't hold up.


Back to you

You mean the wire attached to back of his suit here?



From this clip

Yes, that's it.

Choos called them ropes, but they were actually using wires. It wasn't relevant to correct him on that, so I went with it as 'ropes'.


Do you see any evidence of the wires interfering with his jump? I don't.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Do you see any evidence of the wires interfering with his jump? I don't.

Perhaps I am not understanding you right, but if the wire wasn't affecting the jump, then what would be the point in wearing it?

I think choos is claiming that the wires interfered with the jump.

I don't see any evidence of the wires interfering with his jump.

Do you?

originally posted by: turbonium1

You have shown no evidence of the ropes affecting the jump, right?

If you do, then please point it out to me.

If you don't, then your claim doesn't hold up.


Back to you

wow..

ok

this will be the THIRD time and counting that i have posted the evidence that the ropes/wires have affected the mythbusters jump..



frame 10 = .333 seconds
frame 24 = .800 seconds
frame 38 = 1.267 seconds

.934 total airtime

therefore 0.467 seconds to fall from apex

this is all in earth gravity.. so a fall at earths gravity that takes 0.467seconds will mean the object falls from a height of 1.07m.. the mythbusters fall from a height of about 50-70cm.. proof that the ropes/wires have slowed the mythbusters jump already..

how many more times are you going to ask for this proof.

and yet you are still ignoring the dust..



can you explain at all how this guy was able to miss the error of 12 frames?? he estimated the time as 1.24seconds.. but 1.24seconds will give him lunar gravity.. if this video footage was slowed 1.5x as you claim it to be, then it should have reached its height in 0.76seconds.. a difference of about 0.5 seconds.. or an error of about 65%.. how do you explain that? and how would you explain any real scientist or any partially educated person missing such a large error?

originally posted by: Rob48


Heat gains:

Electrical system: 140 BTU/hr
Solar gain: 250 BTU/hr
Astronaut metabolic rate: 1200 BTU/hr
Total: 1590 BTU/hr


Heat loss: 1600 BTU/hr

Wait, where are you getting this 1200 BTU/hr figure from?

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: FoosM

Ahmmm!!!

STILL WAITING

Man, what are you still waiting for, not enough arrows for you to understand whats going on??
I did it for you guys.

Yes and the arrows show that you don't understand what junior school kids would understand, so please explain how you think your arrows are correct I can supply some crayons if you need them

Why dont you tell me how they are not correct.
Since you think they are not.
And if you need me to use crayons for you to understand, then it confirms that this
is already too much for you to handle.

originally posted by: FoosM
Wait, where are you getting this 1200 BTU/hr figure from?

Time and time again you are demonstrating that you are not reading what I wrote!

Here is what I wrote in the very post you linked to:

The astronauts' body weight was one sixth of that on the Earth, so moving around expends less energy. With that in mind, the PLSS design which was based on a nominal metabolic rate of 1200 BTU per hour [1] looks quite generous.

See that little [1]? That's called a reference. That's how scientists quote citations. Look at the bottom of my post:

[1] Apollo Operations Handbook: Extra Vehicular Mobility Unit www.lpi.usra.edu...

That tells you that the figure referenced by the [1] comes from the source numbered [1] in the footnotes. This is pretty basic stuff.


Incidentally, although 1200 BTU was the design specification, the actual measured metabolic rates were lower than that:

Based on lessons learned from the Gemini EVAs, pre-flight predictions anticipated high energy expenditure on the surface of the moon; however, the metabolic rates were lower than predicted. Average metabolic rates ranged from 822 kJ/hr (780 Btu/hr) to 1267 kJ/hr (1200 Btu/hr), with an overall average of 979.2 kJ/hr (928.1 Btu/hr). The highest average metabolic rate (1267 kJ/hr, 1200 Btu/hr) during an EVA was experienced by the Lunar Module Pilot (LMP) on Apollo 11 during a locomotion evaluation for which he had to be very active.

That is from here: ntrs.nasa.gov...

Once again, Foos, all this data is in the public domain. I don't have some magic search tool, just Google, the same as you. It took all of two minutes to find that information. Next time you see some ludicrous claim by Jarrah & co, for goodness' sake test it! He's feeding you a load of rubbish and you are swallowing it whole. BECOME A SKEPTIC. You're halfway there - if you put Jarrah's claims under half as much scrutiny as you are putting my calculations, you will see through him in an instant!

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: FoosM
Wait, where are you getting this 1200 BTU/hr figure from?

Time and time again you are demonstrating that you are not reading what I wrote!

Here is what I wrote in the very post you linked to:

The astronauts' body weight was one sixth of that on the Earth, so moving around expends less energy. With that in mind, the PLSS design which was based on a nominal metabolic rate of 1200 BTU per hour [1] looks quite generous.

See that little [1]? That's called a reference. That's how scientists quote citations. Look at the bottom of my post:

[1] Apollo Operations Handbook: Extra Vehicular Mobility Unit www.lpi.usra.edu...

That tells you that the figure referenced by the [1] comes from the source numbered [1] in the footnotes. This is pretty basic stuff.

Oh... cause I got this from NASA:

Analysis results indicated that the Apollo astronauts fell 3% of their EVA time; walked, loped, or ran at speeds ranging from 1.3 to 5.5 kph (0.8 to 3.4 mph); and reached metabolic rates of more than 2 215 617.39 J/hour (2100 BTU/hour).

And yeah, obviously numbers like 2100 likely wasn't sustained for a full hour, but I wonder how fast water would get depleted when such numbers are being reached? And how much discomfort an astronaut was feeling if he wasn't being cooled quick enough. Or the air was not being scrubbed fast enough?


Lets see here:

Heat gains:

Electrical system: 140 BTU/hr
Solar gain: 250 BTU/hr
Astronaut metabolic rate: 2000 BTU/hr
Total: 2390 BTU/hr

Heat loss: 1600 BTU/hr

hmmm...

Let me ask you this question.
Did NASA ever state that there were problems with the sublimators getting clogged?


ston.jsc.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: choos
this is all in earth gravity.. so a fall at earths gravity that takes 0.467seconds will mean the object falls from a height of 1.07m.. the mythbusters fall from a height of about 50-70cm.. proof that the ropes/wires have slowed the mythbusters jump already..

I just wanted to confirm what you're saying, because it's an important point.

If you recall, I told you wires can be used to control a jump. You didn't agree.

The wires ARE used to control the Mythbusters jump. You say - the wires "have slowed the Mythbusters jump".

Good. That is correct. The jump IS slower than a normal jump in 1g.

Then, it is true that we CAN match Young's jump on Earth, by using wires. You said it was impossible because the wires do NOT slow the jump down, and do NOT control the speed of the jump (specifically, the descent).

So there is nothing in Young's jump that can only be done in lunar gravity. We can do it on Earth, with wires, and slow it to 66.66% speed, for a perfect match to Young's jump.


Young's jump is easily repeatable on Earth. Because Young's jump WAS done on Earth!

A jump in true lunar gravity would NOT look like Young's jump. It would be very different. An astronaut in 1/6g would jump MUCH higher than Young did, without a doubt.

Do you really think a jump on the moon would be identical in every way to a jump on Earth, by just using wires and set to 66.66% speed?

It shows exactly how they did Young's jump - using wires and putting it to 66.66% speed!

On another point -

NASA would stand to benefit immensely by proving Apollo was genuine.

The most convincing way to prove it is showing that all the landing sites are, indeed, on the moon.

NASA would want to show those sites close up, showing every little detail of the gear, the rovers, and all the footprints still intact on the lunar surface.

NASA can do that, of course.

NASA would do that, for sure. And they'd have ALREADY done it, years ago.


But NASA will obviously never do it.

That makes sense only if there are no landing sites to show, obviously.

Otherwise, it would now be done.

originally posted by: FoosM

Oh... cause I got this from NASA:

Analysis results indicated that the Apollo astronauts fell 3% of their EVA time; walked, loped, or ran at speeds ranging from 1.3 to 5.5 kph (0.8 to 3.4 mph); and reached metabolic rates of more than 2 215 617.39 J/hour (2100 BTU/hour).

And yeah, obviously numbers like 2100 likely wasn't sustained for a full hour, but I wonder how fast water would get depleted when such numbers are being reached? And how much discomfort an astronaut was feeling if he wasn't being cooled quick enough. Or the air was not being scrubbed fast enough?

Like you say, those are peak instantaneous rates, not sustained over a long period. From the link you posted: "A calibration curve constructed as such permits estimates of crew metabolic rate and energy cost on a minute-to minute-basis". It's like if you run fast for a few minutes in the sun, you get hot and sweaty. You're overheating. So you stop running and go to the shade. The suit temperatures were being monitored constantly. If they got too hot then the astronauts could do something about it: rest (or, where possible, find shade)

Lets see here:

Heat gains:

Electrical system: 140 BTU/hr
Solar gain: 250 BTU/hr
Astronaut metabolic rate: 2000 BTU/hr
Total: 2390 BTU/hr

Heat loss: 1600 BTU/hr

hmmm...

Again, that is not being fair, because the 2000 BTU/hr metabolic rate was not being sustained for anything like that long. As I said, the peak hourly rate was 1200 BTU/hr, which was actually within the design spec of the PLSS. Could the astronauts possibly get too hot inside the suits? Clearly yes they could. But you could get too hot right here on Earth if you were wearing a thick coat and ran around for an hour. It wouldn't be a sensible thng to do, so you don't do it!

Let me ask you this question.
Did NASA ever state that there were problems with the sublimators getting clogged?

I know that it was a problem that had to be overcome in the design stage, but it didn't significantly affect the PLSS operation on the moon as far as I am aware. Do you have more info?

I'm sorry if my last post seemed rude, FoosM. I'm just a bit frustrated. You say you want to be a skeptic, which is good. Skepticism is to be admired. You are asking the right questions (even if some have been answered), which is also good. You clearly know more about the missions than a lot of the low-grade hoax believers. It seems like you're close to seeing the light! I know it's hard to change long-standing beliefs, but I'm sure that if you could just get over your prejudice of "Jarrah good, NASA bad", then you would be there.

Like I said, if you subjected Jarrah's claims to half as much scrutiny as you are putting me under, you would immediately see that they don't stand up. I have no reason to lie about this stuff. I am not trying to sell anything or get YouTube hits or become an internet celebrity. I am just trying in some small way to educate people about what was one of mankind's finest hours.

Either way it is nice to be able to debate hard facts and figures for a change rather than nebulous accusations about Nixon, so thank you for that

originally posted by: turbonium1
On another point -

NASA would stand to benefit immensely by proving Apollo was genuine.

In what way? Everyone who matters already knows that they were genuine. The people giving them funding certainly know they were genuine. All the international organisations and scientists they collaborate with know.

We have already seen the landing sites from just 25km orbit. What tangible benefit would there be to wasting billions on a mission to photograph sites in close-up that we already have photos of (from the original missions) just to convince the tiny proportion of the population who don't believe? And who, in any case, have shown that no amount of evidence would change their mind?