Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by ppk55


rushing your judgement there arent you??

how many sorties has the current spacesuit seen??

and its not just a simple cut in the suit or a sharp rock and the astronauts are dead.. you obviously have no idea how many layers there are.. not to mention gravity is much lower on the moon causing the forces of a fall to be much less than on earth.

but nice way to over-simplify things for scare-mongering..

reply to post by ppk55


F22 is more advanced than the F15

F22's have crashed.

Do they not exist either and are part of some huge fighter plane cover up?

Just because something advances doesn't mean its immune from occasional technical glitches

reply to post by ppk55


The only real risk of suit damage on the moon would be landing on their back, and damaging the PLSS. And even doing that would be difficult.

Originally posted by ppk55
It's funny isn't it ... after nearly 45 years of spacesuit technological advancement it seems we've gone backwards.

When we supposedly landed on the moon we were able to perform all sorts of incredible gymnastics without any fear of a suit breach. Just look at these guys go at it, remembering if they hit one sharp rock and cut their suit they're dead....

...[snip]...

However in 2013, a relaxed space walk in far more controlled circumstances just a few hundred kilometres from earth results in a near drowning.

"By now, the upper part of the helmet is full of water and I can't even be sure that the next time I breathe I will fill my lungs with air and not liquid.

So it seems today we can't replicate the supposedly fantastic technology we had half a century ago.

So, according to your logic, the fact that we didn't have a catastrophic failure of a spacesuit during one of the Apollo missions means that now and in the future there should NEVER be a catastrophic failure of a spacesuit, because the more advanced spacesuits of today are even safer?

That's faulty logic.

**double post**

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

so what you are saying is that the entire US Navy screening process is entirely inept?? considering the yearly medical examinations they need to go through.. never once catching mattingly's non-immunity to measles over the decades he was in the US Navy.

which must also mean that the US Navy is hoax.. the US Navy is not real..

choos, you must be hallucinating! How can you deny the reality of the US Navy who sent the aircraft carriers to pick up all the Apollo splashdown capsules?

Don't you see how your argument is flawed? If you deny the US Navy, how can the US Navy pick up the capsules?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Faulty logic is to grasp at straws as to try to excuse that an impractical event was built out of a hey stack. It is not one or two straws that break the camel's back its the accumulation of improbabilities and exceptionalities...

reply to post by Panic2k11


That depends on what you are considering "improbabilities and exceptionalities".

If you are considering it improbable that the Apollo spacesuits would work without a problem for the 12 men who used them on the Moon, then I would say you would be wrong to consider that improbable.

There have been many more hours of astronauts using spacesuits other than for walking on the Moon without a major failure (namely all of the hours spent constructing the ISS and servicing the Hubble telescope) until the recent episode of the water leak inside the suit. Unless you are saying that the ISS and Hubble spacewalks did not happen, then I would say that the fact the spacesuits worked so well for the Apollo astronauts cannot be counted as an "improbability".

What else is on your list of improbabilities and exceptionalities?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Just to be clear I was referring to the complete program. I do not buy into the story as has been told by NASA. (I can't remember the best post I made about it, if interested try to check my posts on this thread or look the site I indicate in this post).

I have no real intent in discussing the issues but if you point me to any final debunking of Jarrah White points (those that are not simple conjectures, even if they contribute to the cumulos) I would appreciate.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

so what you are saying is that the entire US Navy screening process is entirely inept?? considering the yearly medical examinations they need to go through.. never once catching mattingly's non-immunity to measles over the decades he was in the US Navy.

which must also mean that the US Navy is hoax.. the US Navy is not real..

choos, you must be hallucinating! How can you deny the reality of the US Navy who sent the aircraft carriers to pick up all the Apollo splashdown capsules?

Don't you see how your argument is flawed? If you deny the US Navy, how can the US Navy pick up the capsules?

but this isnt my logic.. this is your logic..

apparently Dr. Berry's inability to find out that mattingly had no immunity to measles implies some sort of hoax because he might be CIA and not a real doctor..

well then the US Navy also didnt realise mattingly had no immunity to measles over several years while he was in the US Navy.. so that must mean there is some sort of hoax in the US Navy.. might be CIA ops, which means the US Navy is a hoax..

not my logic.. this is your reasoning..

Originally posted by Panic2k11

I have no real intent in discussing the issues but if you point me to any final debunking of Jarrah White points (those that are not simple conjectures, even if they contribute to the cumulos) I would appreciate.

edit on 27-8-2013 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)

there are lots of videos debunking him on youtube.. but really isnt all his claims basically conjecture itself? all his "experiments" are basically in his house.. the moon is lowered gravity in a near vacuum..

i havent really seen all his videos though.

reply to post by choos


Some are conjectures that can't really be defended or opposed without inside intel, like how during an active war the us managed to put the necessary resources in an non-priority the project (manpower and money) or the unique response of the USSR no attempt to diminish (even if propagandistically, like the US did to Sputnik and other USSR victories) or outdo the deed.

In fact aside from the landing project stuff, it is to me very weird that the USSR decided to cooperate in many other space project from then on (aside from the landing, they had superiority in all areas of space exploration at that time and mostly until the collapse, well not the assets but the know how).

There are two items that I have no satisfactory response or rational to defend the status quo (that wouldn't negate this landing/exploration project). Why there isn't a permanent robotic presence on the moon (even without good AI we could have remote presence in the moon for ages now, even robots that build robots and infrastructure via telepresence) and how all new discoveries and considerations regarding beyond low orbit and the moon seem out of phase with what was managed then.

I have seen most of the replies to his points but I feel that they spend more time in attempting to discredit the dude or his sources than in solid debunking the points he raises (I also have seen many of his replies to those and even some admissions of minor errors/imprecisions, he also gets at times lost in the heat of the having to reply to some of the attacks, that part is the only thing I can criticize on his presentation, I would much prefer that he was more to the point and address only the subject matter but character assassination at times is hard to dismiss). The more interesting points is in regards to the shielding/radiation, solar flares, the rocks/meteorites.

reply to post by choos


Choose they are taking you on a wild goose chase the fact that a faulty valve in a space suit now makes all the times they were used impossible is just stupid. And a doctor not checking for immunity to measles is also stupid. I was in the military for 12 years and never once did any one ask me or check to see if i had an immunity and i was a medic. Id say if this is the best they can do to try to prove NASA didnt go to the moon then id say its a safe bet they did. Really measles and cooling system in space suits makes it impossible to go to the moon. Do you guys even listen to what your saying????

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by choos

 

Some are conjectures that can't really be defended or opposed without inside intel, like how during an active war the us managed to put the necessary resources in an non-priority the project (manpower and money) or the unique response of the USSR no attempt to diminish (even if propagandistically, like the US did to Sputnik and other USSR victories) or outdo the deed.

not sure what you are referring to but even during a war any gov will still have a budget that spreads money around the country. just because there is a war does not always mean everything else must cease. if that were the case then the gulf war, korea, iraq invasion also do not fit this reasoning.

with the unique response of the soviets you really need to understand the politics of the time and what the soviets are like, but judging what the soviets are supposed to do based on an outsiders views is not exactly accurate.. its like judging the reactions of a different culture based on what you know of your own culture.. eg. some cultures think burping after a meal is rude and some think its a compliment..

There are two items that I have no satisfactory response or rational to defend the status quo (that wouldn't negate this landing/exploration project). Why there isn't a permanent robotic presence on the moon (even without good AI we could have remote presence in the moon for ages now, even robots that build robots and infrastructure via telepresence) and how all new discoveries and considerations regarding beyond low orbit and the moon seem out of phase with what was managed then.

i dont know about a permanent robotic presence.. they have a very limited traverse, where as a satellite can orbit the moon several times and get a look at a larger picture.. you need to also keep in mind the budget of NASA atm.. they are short on money with the projects already in planning and running, it would be very difficult to find the extra budget for a permanent robotic presence.

not sure what you mean about all new discoveries being out of phase..

I have seen most of the replies to his points but I feel that they spend more time in attempting to discredit the dude or his sources than in solid debunking the points he raises (I also have seen many of his replies to those and even some admissions of minor errors/imprecisions, he also gets at times lost in the heat of the having to reply to some of the attacks, that part is the only thing I can criticize on his presentation, I would much prefer that he was more to the point and address only the subject matter but character assassination at times is hard to dismiss). The more interesting points is in regards to the shielding/radiation, solar flares, the rocks/meteorites.

edit on 28-8-2013 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)

half the time the guy is attacking others while they have remained civil, look at how he treated Jay windley in a certain yahoo group talk, saying that jay is about as qualified as a garbage truck driver..

Originally posted by choos
rushing your judgement there arent you??

No not really. The facts speak for themselves.

Apollo 17's longest EVA was 7 hours 37 mins. Pretty good life support technology for nearly half a decade ago.
I wonder how far we've advanced in 2013. We must be up to a day or so, yes?

Well no actually. In half a decade of amazing technological advancement our longest EVA is only 8 hours 56 minutes. STS-102.

We've advanced by just over 1 hour. Amazing.

The most interesting part is that during the supposed moon landings they exerted themselves quite a bit. You'd think their air supply would only last a couple of hours with all that activity.

They were playing golf, kangaroo hopping all over the place, falling over everywhere, setting up flags on EVERY supposed landing, setting up experiments, unloading the rover, jumping up for the salute photo, drilling for rock core samples, taking thousands of photos, repairing the rover, laying cables, setting up TV cameras, antennas, positioning the LRV high gain antenna, and of course, falling over all the time potentially rupturing their suit and rendering them dead.



And yet today, where no where near that physical exertion is occurring, our maximum EVA time has barely changed. Worse still, with barely no activity a modern day suit malfunctions and fills up with water.

reply to post by ppk55


And there hasn't been a requirement for longer than about 9 hours in space, so why would they stay out for a day or so longer than Apollo?

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by choos
rushing your judgement there arent you??

No not really. The facts speak for themselves.

Apollo 17's longest EVA was 7 hours 37 mins. Pretty good life support technology for nearly half a decade ago.
I wonder how far we've advanced in 2013. We must be up to a day or so, yes?

Well no actually. In half a decade of amazing technological advancement our longest EVA is only 8 hours 56 minutes. STS-102.

We've advanced by just over 1 hour. Amazing.

The most interesting part is that during the supposed moon landings they exerted themselves quite a bit. You'd think their air supply would only last a couple of hours with all that activity.

They were playing golf, kangaroo hopping all over the place, falling over everywhere, setting up flags on EVERY supposed landing, setting up experiments, unloading the rover, jumping up for the salute photo, drilling for rock core samples, taking thousands of photos, repairing the rover, laying cables, setting up TV cameras, antennas, positioning the LRV high gain antenna, and of course, falling over all the time potentially rupturing their suit and rendering them dead.

And yet today, where no where near that physical exertion is occurring, our maximum EVA time has barely changed. Worse still, with barely no activity a modern day suit malfunctions and fills up with water.

First off uses less energy to run on the moon then it does to walk in a space suit. By Apollo 17 the astronauts were running around like road runner they figured it out. Now as far as how long you can spend in a space suit depends on how big you make the tank holding so please explain why you would expect some advancement in the length of time if they wanted to do that they double the size of the tank. So apparently you believe physics just goes out the window and somehow we can magically change the way we compress oxygen in a tank?

Heres a shocker scuba gear hasn't changed either still holds the same amount of oxygen as when Cousteau first invented it. the only difference now is we have really cool dive watches that can help us keep track of it. How long is directly related to the size of the tank and there is no reason in the world an astronaut shout be in a suit more then 10 hrs.

reply to post by ppk55

Here is a simple question for you, ppk55.

How long would you like to spend in a very confined place where all essentials for life support are limited, such as; breathing (oxygen), staying hydrated (water), nourishment (food), relief of bodily functions (defecating, and urinating), endurance (exertion creating need for rest), etc.

Seems to me, the limitation of time spent in an EVA is not due to lack of advancement in technology, rather in the limits of what a human can endure.

reply to post by choos

what you are referring to but even during a war any gov will still have a budget that spreads money around the country. just because there is a war does not always mean everything else must cease. if that were the case then the gulf war, korea, iraq invasion also do not fit this reasoning.

By that I get that you have a very limited historic context of the times and realities. Not all wars are equal and comparing Vietnam to Iraq (1.0 or 2.0) is extremely naive, I would even say that economically and in its effects on public opinion it would even supplant Korea (even if not geopolitically).

I have a good understanding of the Soviet mentality that is why I don't get the cooperation, even if I do get that the cold war was initiated by the US/UK and for most part the USSR was mostly fallowing suit I can't see any logic in the cooperation in this area especially since it was mostly one sided (since the US did get something out of it, not only technology and know how but an economical strain on economic system of the USSR). One needs only read some of the info on Regan and Thatcher (ISS and Starwars) to see how the fall of the USSR was partially orchestrated. Again we are talking about space endeavors so it makes even less sense that there was any cooperation at all if there wasn't a "secret" carrot that would make it all move along...

Originally posted by choos

not my logic.. this is your reasoning..

No, my reasoning did not extend that far. YOU extended the strawman and YOU built it up to say "the US Navy is not real".

(I am pretty sure that your strawman is going to get burned.)

All I indicated was that Dr. Berry was probably a real doctor who probably did not have access to quality medical records because 3 days before the launch Dr. Berry got a big surprise! Exposures to measles!!! Yikes!!!

choos, put yourself in the place of Dr. Berry. You were caught blindsided by this exposure to the measles.

How could this be? The last minute crew switcher-oo is caused by the fear of rubella.

You see, rubella epidemics break out every six to nine years. The last outbreak was in 1964. Which means the next one is due any day now. Source 1970 Metropolitan Life Insurance Ad German Measles Rubella www.ebay.com...

Dr. Berry must have known. Only at the last minute, when Mattingly got cold feet, it proves that NASA changed it's crew based on the fear of the rubella exposures, which surprised them. I think my case against Dr. Berry's competence is very straight forward.