Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Moon Landing Hoax - The Space Suit

page: 15
63
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


I am BEGGING you to either bring something that is coherent to the topic ---- or else, bow out.

The idea, here (apparently) is that the Apollo EVA suits, AS DESIGNED< would not work as "advertised" in HISTORICAL records.....(MANY historical records, I might add.....)....

.....yet, for NASA, these SAME suit designs were continued, with minor enhancements, even into the SKYLAB, and Space Shuttle, and ISS missions!!!!!

WoW!!!

THAT is pretty AMAZING!~!!!!!!

Kind of shooots the OP's Premise down, in FLAMES, eh??? I mean, the FACTS are there.....all ....and I mean ALL here, in this thread (and, available to easily search on the InterWebs....Go Haead, Search Yourself!!....
edit on Sat 7 April 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


I am BEGGING you to either bring something that is coherent to the topic ---- or else, bow out.

The idea, here (apparently) is that the Apollo EVA suits, AS DESIGNED< would not work as "advertised" in HISTORICAL records.....(MANY historical records, I might add.....)....

.....yet, for NASA, these SAME suit designs were continued, with minor enhancements, even into the SKYLAB, and Space Shuttle, and ISS missions!!!!!

WoW!!!

THAT is pretty AMAZING!~!!!!!!

Kind of shooots the OP's Premise down, in FLAMES, eh??? I mean, the FACTS are there.....all ....and I mean ALL here, in this thread (and, available to easily search on the InterWebs....Go Haead, Search Yourself!!....
edit on Sat 7 April 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



Chill son,
The op has very pertent points that you just dismiss off hand. Not very gentel on your part. You portray yourself like a loose cannon on the deck of the Enterprise. No one here is out to get you.
It is just a talk.
What is available on the webzs is mostly what the fox (NASA) has on hand at the time. I don"t have to remind you about missing tapes, lost plans, the extinction of Sat5, lunar landers and rovers etc.
You see when folks see and know how stupid the agency is, they have the right to question every little bolt screw and NUT they pay for.
If you have a problem with that

relax ljb



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


You mention the "deck" of the Enterprise.....did you mean to refer to the 20th century Flat-Top Aircraft Carrier? Or, the "fictional" StarShip Enterprise???

You "must" be more specific, Sparky!! Try to sent any swords and (sorry, very failed) violent parrys in the correct direction......sorry.....you lose.......what is the sound??? (You can hear hear it, I am sure.................................)


jra

posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
You say NASA learned something from the death of Guss ( the Best Dern Astronaut ever) (you don't say what)


There were three astronauts that died. Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Edward H. White, and Roger B. Chaffee.

As for what they learned. I assumed that you'd be capable of researching that much for yourself, but I obviously I was wrong. Fortunately for you, others gave you that information.


Then NASA went on to kill yet more folks and that's just routine for you.

Then it happens again and your ok with that too.

Did you ever consider that the Victims were as confident as you about the FIXES as you?? Difference is they are dead and you are spinning their deaths, for shame ljb


I never said or implied that it was routine nor that I was ok with it. And you accuse me of spinning, you're clearly the professional at it.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


You mention the "deck" of the Enterprise.....did you mean to refer to the 20th century Flat-Top Aircraft Carrier? Or, the "fictional" StarShip Enterprise???

You "must" be more specific, Sparky!! Try to sent any swords and (sorry, very failed) violent parrys in the correct direction......sorry.....you lose.......what is the sound??? (You can hear hear it, I am sure.................................)

Yeah, sure, not quite, motly mumble mumble.
I looked for the on topic part but Sparky was you best you had there.
Have you been to the new construction??
Did you nuzzle Larry?? Was he distracted by the people in the street??
here is a tiny nuz from your bud ljb



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


Well.....I think I understand a little bit more about how it works.....there are a LOAD of so-called "social media" venues.....(don;t mention them!!!....Shhhhhh!!!!)......but when my robin trills, or the next person gives me a plant that is face-first....well.....YOU can figure it out.....ODDLY...I do NOT follow any of those paths!!!

Weird, huh???

Now, where was I???

Oh, yeah......the FAKE THREAD of the "alleged" Moon "landing hoax"? What a shame...this is dead.....has been dead to those who are intelligent, and well-informed for decades.

But, of course.....the game is "AFOOT"....and time is short, for those who continue to perpetuate this hoax....and by "HOAX" I refer to, of course.....those still alive, such as Bart Sibrel......a person whose only "mission in life" (it seems) is to "Moon Landing Hoax - The Space Suite" to those willing idiots of the WORLD who will listen.....is to Proselytism as a "FALSE PROPHET".....Oh, the "IRONY"....(and if the IRONY doesn't hit you yet, it should...........)



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by longjohnbritches
You say NASA learned something from the death of Guss ( the Best Dern Astronaut ever) (you don't say what)


There were three astronauts that died. Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Edward H. White, and Roger B. Chaffee.

As for what they learned. I assumed that you'd be capable of researching that much for yourself, but I obviously I was wrong. Fortunately for you, others gave you that information.


Then NASA went on to kill yet more folks and that's just routine for you.

Then it happens again and your ok with that too.

Did you ever consider that the Victims were as confident as you about the FIXES as you?? Difference is they are dead and you are spinning their deaths, for shame ljb


I never said or implied that it was routine nor that I was ok with it. And you accuse me of spinning, you're clearly the professional at it.


jra
I think you are a gentleman.
And I am sure of my assessment.
I also respect your cabability to post the names of true heros.
NASA is an Agency. It is a calculated arms lenth away from the US military. The USAF was the established begining of the Space Programs.
Unless you can prove otherwise all the death in space or low earth orbit was accomplished by NASA. Can you find any spin here?
revervations ljb



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


I tried...either you are worth responding to, or you are not:

:If you are worth it then you will reply with a response to a post above...

...if not, well then....we have a term......



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish

You would think the Chines would jump on the moon landing hoax.



The scientists also spotted traces of the previous Apollo mission in the images, said Yan Jun, chief application scientist for China's lunar exploration project.

Link

I guess objective evidence is good enough for China.


Doesn't mean that the missions were manned.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
There is no doubt they would love to disprove the moon landings, but it's not be and now they have proof.

The 6th image in the gallery and its annotations clearly show details of Apollo 11 landing module with a size of 2 pixels, coordinates of the landing module, trace of lunar rover, zoomed-in figure of lunar rover route.
Link

So, Apollo 11 had a unmanned lunar rover.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Ha-ha. This is so hilarious. For the moon hoax crowd the whole topic seems like a religious belief. They will construct their reality around the hoax completely dismissing any factual evidence. It is like trying to discuss evolution with a creationist, a complete waste of time.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   
I was under the impression that ammonia was used to vent the heat, not water, due to the different freezing point of ammonia (around 100 deg F i think).



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
get over it.


This is probably the most used line ever used by Apollo defenders.
Why is that?

Why shouldn't Apollo defenders accept the fact there is a growing number
of people who don't believe we landed men on the moon in the late sixties & early seventies.
Get over it.

edit on 7-4-2012 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   
Ok, question about the sublimation process.

Im assuming that the astronauts had de-pressurized their cabins prior to
leaving the LM because the cooling system of the suits don't work in a pressurized cabin, correct?

So, they are standing there, with these big suits on and their large PLSSs getting warm, with hardly no "space" in the LM to climb out. (Now, I don't believe it was really possible to climb out the way they did, but thats for another thread)

From what people had posted, when water gets exposed to a vacuum it first gets hot. It boils.
And for it to get cold enough to freeze, it takes awhile. So, what Im asking, did the cooling water first get hot, before it froze, and if so, did that initially warm the astronauts?



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

From school physics lessons many many years ago the water boils but in a vacuum it doesn't have to get hot to do this,as air pressure decreases water's boiling point also goes down.20,000 feet up a mountain they can't make a decent cup of tea because water boils at something like 90 deg and I seem to remember a book on strange quirks of physics called something like "How can water freeze and boil at the same time?" The answer was of course in a vacuum.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 





cannot accept reality, even when confronted with it..


I once read the adverse reactions to a popular SSRI antidepressant and it listed ' failure to accept a fact when presented with irrefutable evidence '...



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
From what people had posted, when water gets exposed to a vacuum it first gets hot. It boils.
And for it to get cold enough to freeze, it takes awhile. So, what Im asking, did the cooling water first get hot, before it froze, and if so, did that initially warm the astronauts?


No. When the pressure drops, the boiling point goes down. When the pressure drops to zero, the boiling point will drop to the triple point of water, which is right at 0C, and unless the water is very pure, just a tad below it.

So what happens is, as the pressure goes to zero, the sublimator water will immediately begin to boil at its current temperature, and will drop to freezing in seconds. It doesn't get hot first.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   
The issue that was raised by the OP, that the space suits used on the Apollo mission were somehow inadequate, was completely settled by page three. The following 12 pages have chiefly been dominated by people expressing an unsupported opinion, then saying "get over it. There have been a few posters who have added painfully faulty attempts at reason: "If they were capable of faking 9/11, they were capable of faking the Moon Landing." Sorry, but an unproven supposition cannot prove another supposition. Try again.

More recently, the thread has been hijacked by people who simply ignore the OP altogether, which was about the space suits. I will address these off topic comments very briefly for the benefit of those who are unaware of this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I will not bother to cite sources for the following, because they are all contained in the above thread.

It is true that the head of NASA photography department once worked for CIA. Why not? NASA needed the best aerial photography interpreter it could find to analyze the photographs being sent back by space probes, including the manned missions. Where would you expect them to look? Why does Sayanara not mention that prior to working for CIA, Underwood was an aerial photography expert in the military? Because it reveals the real reason he was chosen: he was an aerial photography expert. Where did you expect NASA to find an aerial photography expert? Campbell's Soup?

As for Ed Nixon: he went to work for Bellcom in the mid-1950's. Are you suggesting he was planted there half a decade before NASA even existed as part of a devious long term plan? Or was it just a case of the government turning to a company in the appropriate field of the private sector that had the most connections with the administration? Even if there was nepotism involved, and you have not proven that there was, you have merely suggested it, that does not mean the Moon Landings were a hoax.

The doctor chosen to select the first astronauts had security clearance? I'm shocked. In 1960, they should have hired a card carrying member of the Communist Party in order to look progressive.

Finally, the "missing" telemetry tapes, the gift that keeps on giving. You know perfectly well that they were re-used due to the flood of data being received by LandSat. Moon Hoaxers love to bring the "missing tapes" up because it looks "suspicious," but they never explain what they would do with them if they got their hands on them. Let's say NASA found them and dumped 70 cardboard boxes of vintage magnetic tape reels on your driveway. How would you read them? A team of electronics geeks had to scour the country looking for bits and pieces to reconstruct the tape reader they needed to reprocess the Lunar Orbiter tapes they found. Do you expect anyone to believe that you would do the same? Why? Even if you could read the tapes, could you make sense of them? They contain telemetry. They would sound like that squacking noise old dial up modems used to make. And if you could decode the signals, what information would it contain? The astronauts' heart beats and galvanic skin response, the temperature of the cryogenic storage cells, the attitude of the spacecraft relative to its gyro platform.... Are you in a better position to interpret this data, which incidentally, was also recorded on paper and is probably still available on microfilm, than the doctors and engineers who monitored it all in real time and reviewed the important parts later?

You see, this is where the Moon Hoax always falls apart. In order to make the "scam" work, NASA had to hire real engineers to build and launch a rocket capable of delivering a payload to the Moon. It had to be the size of a thirty six story building and actually fly. Millions of people would watch it live, so you couldn't fake it with a model on a wire. Same thing for the spacecraft. The people at Grumman would get suspicious if they were asked to make the LM out of plywood. The Command Modules are now all on public display; if you've ever seen one, you would know they are not made out of cardboard. Everything had to really work. Now, I ask you, why would anyone spend all that time and money on a complicated system that could actually fly people to the Moon, then not use it for its intended purpose? Well?
edit on 7-4-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   
You will be LAUGHING at NASA's chicanery after reading this series:

www.davesweb.cnchost.com...


Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.


The "whole world" means all of us, including me. But the light is coming in.....thank you Jesus, God is good.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
an the Moon Landings were a hoax.

The Command Modules are now all on public display; if you've ever seen one, you would know they are not made out of cardboard.


Go to the Air and Space Museum in DC and you can see a "lunar" module (assuming it is still on display). They had to miniaturize the "astronaut" dummy because anyone with two eyes could see a normal man in a spacesuit wasn't getting through the module door. When I first saw it I thought it looked strange but when you are deceived you will talk yourself into any alternate reality (aka, a lie) rather than tax your brain and senses. That is what I did at that time. No more.

LOL at all sheeple and disinfo agents on this site.

I hope to get to heaven but it won't be by the new age occultists at NASA. It will be by the blood of Jesus Christ.

Amen and amen.






top topics



 
63
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join