It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proving the moon landing was a hoax - John Young is caught 'bare handed'.

page: 10
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 05:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

Now you are totally confused, why should I get the gloves, you are the ones making the silly claims, so it is up to you to get the gloves. But obviously you have not even tried, nor apparently do you want to even try!


But if I didn't get them, you would not believe me, right?

So if I did get them, you would say the gloves are not genuine replicas..

If I could prove they were genuine, you would not accept my tests if they supported my claim, as you'd say I had a bias which skewed all my results, and so forth...


It is up to NASA to prove the gloves were genuine, because they have claimed that the moon landings were genuine, in the first place. So do you.

You just say it is all so incredibly documented, and it's up to me to prove otherwise. That's nonsense. You have to prove the claim, not invent these inane excuses to try and avoid the problem.




posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 06:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

so umm.. what makes you think they are NOT pressurized?? looks like it wont cut it here.. so drop that excuse..



What would ever make you believe it WAS a pressurized glove? That's the real question...

The main flaw is with their fingers, no doubt.



i believe its a pressurized glove because it was filmed in a vacuum (considering a hoax or not)..

what you are telling everyone (from your argument) is that you believe that none of the footage was filmed in a vacuum this is the result of your claim that the suit is not pressurized..

you know, apart from the fact that the astronaut (actor in your case) would suffocate within a few minutes if it was as you say it was.. the only way to not suffocate the person would be to pump air into the suit.. which would *gasp* add air pressure into the suit!!



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos
the only way to not suffocate the person would be to pump air into the suit.. which would *gasp* add air pressure into the suit!!


Ah, they could have used one of the friendly Terminator robots that traveled back in time....

Well, it makes as much sense as the OP does!
edit on 29-8-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 06:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
But if I didn't get them, you would not believe me, right?

So if I did get them, you would say the gloves are not genuine replicas..

If I could prove they were genuine, you would not accept my tests if they supported my claim, as you'd say I had a bias which skewed all my results, and so forth...


No. You don't get to make up what you think people's responses would be as a way of proving something. Concentrate on providing your own words, not what you think other people's would be.



It is up to NASA to prove the gloves were genuine, because they have claimed that the moon landings were genuine, in the first place. So do you.


No. NASA don't have to prove anything. They have to provide a working space suit with gloves. Which they did. There are lots of photos and videos of the suits in action. There is plenty of documentation of the suit's development process. Go read some of it.



You just say it is all so incredibly documented, and it's up to me to prove otherwise. That's nonsense. You have to prove the claim, not invent these inane excuses to try and avoid the problem.


No, it really is well documented. Your inability to find that documentation does not prove that the suits were not capable of working as described.

The video in the OP is part of a long EVA sequence that contains evidence of astronauts in a vacuum (shown by the behaviour of the material they disturb), lunar gravity (as demonstrated by both the astronauts and the material with which they interact), the moon itself (as demonstrated by the surface features not visible in any images prior to the EVAs) and a time and date specific image of the Earth broadcast on live TV.

What part of that proves that the suits weren't pressurised?



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

No. NASA don't have to prove anything. They have to provide a working space suit with gloves. Which they did. There are lots of photos and videos of the suits in action. There is plenty of documentation of the suit's development process. Go read some of it.


The video in the OP is part of a long EVA sequence that contains evidence of astronauts in a vacuum (shown by the behaviour of the material they disturb), lunar gravity (as demonstrated by both the astronauts and the material with which they interact), the moon itself (as demonstrated by the surface features not visible in any images prior to the EVAs) and a time and date specific image of the Earth broadcast on live TV.

What part of that proves that the suits weren't pressurised?


I'd like to see proof they WERE pressurized, first of all.

Since you have no proof, your other claims are irrelevant to the issue. And they are all wrong, anyway

Lunar gravity is not proven by 66.66x slower than normal speed footage, but it sure does prove exactly how they faked it! True 1/6g is the vomit comet, which is almost floating in 0g. Hardly like we see with the Apollo-nots, in trying (dismally) to fake it.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 06:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
True 1/6g is the vomit comet, which is almost floating in 0g.


Once again you are showing your complete ignorance of physics and science, you think 1/6 g = 0 g!


Lunar gravity is not proven by 66.66x slower than normal speed footage,


WTF are you babbling about now? Who said it did? That makes no sense at all.
edit on 29-8-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

No. NASA don't have to prove anything. They have to provide a working space suit with gloves. Which they did. There are lots of photos and videos of the suits in action. There is plenty of documentation of the suit's development process. Go read some of it.


The video in the OP is part of a long EVA sequence that contains evidence of astronauts in a vacuum (shown by the behaviour of the material they disturb), lunar gravity (as demonstrated by both the astronauts and the material with which they interact), the moon itself (as demonstrated by the surface features not visible in any images prior to the EVAs) and a time and date specific image of the Earth broadcast on live TV.

What part of that proves that the suits weren't pressurised?


I'd like to see proof they WERE pressurized, first of all.

Since you have no proof, your other claims are irrelevant to the issue. And they are all wrong, anyway

Lunar gravity is not proven by 66.66x slower than normal speed footage, but it sure does prove exactly how they faked it! True 1/6g is the vomit comet, which is almost floating in 0g. Hardly like we see with the Apollo-nots, in trying (dismally) to fake it.


I for one believes the OP just likes to argue, but is lacking the mental capacity (and a vast wealth of knowledge) to assemble an argument on a subject matter where his knowledge and experience is SORELY LACKING.

Further, he stretches his argument from one area he KNOWS OBVIOUSLY NOTHING ABOUT, and takes it to prove a totally unfounded conspiracy he also has no power to prove.

The fact that he continues to argue within this thread while ignoring the evidence presented in this thread shows his diminished capacity to absorb new knowledge and learn.


Let this thread die, I for one would be curious how many postings the OP would make before he discovers he is arguing with no one but himself.
I wager he posts two pages of 'didn't happen, ain't true' before he tires of himself and goes home for a cookie.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce


originally posted by: turbonium1
True 1/6g is the vomit comet, which is almost floating in 0g.


Once again you are showing your complete ignorance of physics and science, you think 1/6 g = 0 g!


No, you are showing your complete ignorance of understanding basic English, you think "..almost floating in 0g" means = 0 g!

I said..

Lunar gravity is not proven by 66.66x slower than normal speed footage,



originally posted by: hellobruce
WTF are you babbling about now? Who said it did? That makes no sense at all.


That's right, it makes no sense at all. Nobody said it makes sense. The Apollo-ites obviously think it makes sense, however. All the Apollo lunar footage, after Apollo 11, was just slowed down to 66.66% normal (Earth) speed, to try and simulate 1/6 g, lunar gravity. Only the first lunar mission, Apollo 11, was slowed down to 50% normal speed.

In retrospect, that was a dead giveaway they were not in lunar gravity. Changing from 50% speed up to 66.66% speed cannot be done, because lunar gravity doesn't change.

It also allows us to compare Apollo 11 footage to the other Apollo missions' footage.

Simply compare Apollo astronaut movements against normal human movements on Earth (ie: normal speed)...

Put the Apollo 11 footage to 2x faster speed. The astronauts' movements become normal Earth-speed movements. They walk the same speed, move their arms at the same speed, like anyone does on Earth.

Now, put Apollo 14, 15, 16, and 17 footage to 2x faster speed. The astronauts' movements become faster than normal Earth-speed movements.

That proves the astronauts were not on the moon, since they would all move at the same speed, on the moon, just like we move at the same speed on Earth.

NASA goofed up by changing speeds after the first mission. I think they did it to look more convincing, or perhaps they were concerned how people had cameras/video machines which can double the speed of any film footage.
The general public didn't have the technology to reverse 66.66% speed footage, at that time. We do now, and that's how we caught it.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




All the Apollo lunar footage, after Apollo 11, was just slowed down to 66.66% normal (Earth) speed, to try and simulate 1/6 g, lunar gravity. Only the first lunar mission, Apollo 11, was slowed down to 50% normal speed.

False.
Like your claim of a bare hand.

edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Care ro prove your claim?.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: lakesidepark
I for one believes the OP just likes to argue, but is lacking the mental capacity (and a vast wealth of knowledge) to assemble an argument on a subject matter where his knowledge and experience is SORELY LACKING.

Further, he stretches his argument from one area he KNOWS OBVIOUSLY NOTHING ABOUT, and takes it to prove a totally unfounded conspiracy he also has no power to prove.

The fact that he continues to argue within this thread while ignoring the evidence presented in this thread shows his diminished capacity to absorb new knowledge and learn.


Let this thread die, I for one would be curious how many postings the OP would make before he discovers he is arguing with no one but himself.
I wager he posts two pages of 'didn't happen, ain't true' before he tires of himself and goes home for a cookie.


I guess you aren't tired of yourself, although I wish you took your own advice, and gone home for a cookie.

I'm still WAITING for evidence to be presented by your side, on the pressurization of the Apollo gloves.

You don't help your side with crappy posts, and you obviously don't have the evidence I'm waiting for, so please don't waste everyone's time...



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: turbonium1

Care ro prove your claim?.


Sure, but I'll need to create a new thread for it.... Soon as time permits



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




so please don't waste everyone's time...

The irony is strong with this one.
Eagerly awaiting your next Skunk Works thread.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

i believe its a pressurized glove because it was filmed in a vacuum (considering a hoax or not)..


So, because you believe that they filmed this in a vacuum, it leads you to a further belief - that the gloves (and suits) were pressurized....

This is a 'house of cards' type of argument. The first belief supports a second belief, and perhaps another belief, and so on. But, if the first belief is shown to be wrong, then there is nothing to support the rest of it, and it all comes crashing down...



originally posted by: choos
what you are telling everyone (from your argument) is that you believe that none of the footage was filmed in a vacuum this is the result of your claim that the suit is not pressurized..

you know, apart from the fact that the astronaut (actor in your case) would suffocate within a few minutes if it was as you say it was.. the only way to not suffocate the person would be to pump air into the suit.. which would *gasp* add air pressure into the suit!!


So, these are your prior beliefs, which led you to believe it was filmed in a vacuum, which led you to believe the gloves were pressurized..

You believe the astronauts would suffocate in the spacesuits.

So you obviously believe the astronauts are in air-tight spacesuits, in order for you to believe they would suffocate..

Why do you believe the astronauts are in air-tight spacesuits?

Because you believe they are filming then in a vacuum, right?

And why do you believe they are filming them in a vacuum?

Is it because you believe the dust is in a vacuum?

You believe the dust is in a vacuum, because you believe a video shows it is, right?

But as I've told you, dust cannot possibly be measured for speed, with any degree of accuracy, by watching dust clouds in Apollo videos. Dust is not an object. A dust particle is an object. Do you understand the very important difference? This video claims to be measuring dust. In fact, he is claiming that a dust 'cloud', which consists of thousands of individual dust particles, was measured accurately, by a random 'line' he plops as the 'apex' of the dust cloud, and he also plops a second random line, to where he thinks the apax now is, and measures the distance between his two lines over a specific time period.

Somehow, you still believe this is 'measuring dust' accurately!

It is virtually impossible for anyone to accurately measure the speed of dust in this video. The only way to measure the speed of the dust is to locate - among thousands of particles forming the 'dust cloud' - one, miniscule, specific particle of dust. And then, measure the height of this one, little dust particle above the ground. To measure the height accurately is also impossible, because of various problems, but let's assume it could be done, for argument's sake. Now, you have to be able to identify this one, specific, dust speck, through an entire period of time, as it falls to the ground. And once again, measure (by again assuming it's possible to measure accurately) the speck's height above the ground. Now, over this period of time, you could calculate the speed of the dust..as well as can be expected, anyway.

I've gone over this with you many times before, but it still doesn't sink in.

More likely, you will never allow it to sink in..


To believe dust is measured in any way using a dust cloud, arbitrary 'apex' points, from crappy old video clips, is ludicrous. That's your main reason for believing they are in a vacuum, and it's also the main reason why you believe the astronauts are not moving/jumping in 66.66% normal speed.

House of cards, indeed.


edit on 30-8-2015 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1




so please don't waste everyone's time...

The irony is strong with this one.
Eagerly awaiting your next Skunk Works thread.


To post about the irony of wasting time, while having no clue that you, yourself, are actually wasting our time, is beyond ironic.

But it's hardly the first example of it, from the Apollo-ite group.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:32 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1
Ah. So this was a waste of time?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I can see how you might think so.

Eagerly awaiting your next Skunk Works thread. Entertainment is never a waste of time.




edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:50 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Do so this thread has run it's course.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
All the Apollo lunar footage, after Apollo 11, was just slowed down to 66.66% normal (Earth) speed, to try and simulate 1/6 g, lunar gravity.


False. Prove otherwise.


Only the first lunar mission, Apollo 11, was slowed down to 50% normal speed.


False. Prove otherwise.



Put the Apollo 11 footage to 2x faster speed. The astronauts' movements become normal Earth-speed movements. They walk the same speed, move their arms at the same speed, like anyone does on Earth.


False. It is not normal movement. Tell me, how did they synchronise the audio on the live tv transmissions? How did they manage to change the way the dirt kicked up by their feet behaved?

How did they do that?



Now, put Apollo 14, 15, 16, and 17 footage to 2x faster speed. The astronauts' movements become faster than normal Earth-speed movements.


Yes, because they were on the moon.



That proves the astronauts were not on the moon, since they would all move at the same speed, on the moon, just like we move at the same speed on Earth.


No, it proves if you mess around with playback speed things don't look right.



NASA goofed up by changing speeds after the first mission. I think they did it to look more convincing, or perhaps they were concerned how people had cameras/video machines which can double the speed of any film footage.
The general public didn't have the technology to reverse 66.66% speed footage, at that time. We do now, and that's how we caught it.


Yes they did. 8mm film of the moonwalks was freely available, I have some. It doesn't take a genius to work out how to change the playback speed.
edit on 30-8-2015 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Here is 'the actual Apollo spacesuit', when pressurized..



The still is from this video..

www.youtube.com...

Watch him as he walks in. He is walking like a robot, due to being in a pressurized Apollo spacesuit. He never flexes his elbows, nor his knees, nor his hands. If this is the actual Apollo spacesuit, as they claim it is in the film, then it shows that they were not in pressurized spacesuits in the Apollo 'lunar' footage.

But you'll say he CAN move just like the Apollo astronauts did....he just didn't try to. Why should he, because someone like me will claim it's a hoax? Right?

I've heard it all before. You have 'answers' for everything. No proof, of course, but who cares!



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Here is 'the actual Apollo spacesuit',

No. It isn't. It's a prototype.


He is walking like a robot, due to being in a pressurized Apollo spacesuit.
Except that, if the suit were pressurized to the same level as the Apollo suits, it would display negative pressurization since atmospheric pressure is 14 psi.



edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join