Why I believe in the moon hoax theory

[smartcooky]

With some modifications, the A7L spacesuit was also used on Skylab missions, which included several EVA, including to repair the space station to liveable, operating conditions.
Was Skylab a hoax too? It fell out of the sky over Australia, with much debris found and identified.

Oooh, that explains it then.

Some of the debris must have fallen on Jarrah White's head, and turned him into The Blunder.

[smartcooky]

miker

I you really want to understand about Space Suits. then this site is one of the best I have seen

http://strangeblue.iwarp.com/spacesuits/design.html

It gives the maths, engineering and science behind space suits in a simple, easy to understand form 

For example, here is a simple explanation of the reasoning behind how a constant volume joint works...

"The simpler the better, so lets make our space suit out of fabric cylinders. As the astronaut bends a suit joint, the fabric cylinder will develop folds on the inner side of the bend. The outer side will remain the same length as it started out. this will cause the volume of the joint to decrease. The work to operate this joint will be the force required to it multiplied by the distance (d) through which this force acts. The work can also be viewed as the work required to decrease the volume plus the work required to bend the fabric (which is a insignificant force)."

[Kiwi]

I use information from the NASA site that I printed out in 1969 but I don't know if it's still there.

...according to  what I printed off from the NASA website 10 years ago.

Miker, this is a little confusing.  Which is it?  1969 (47 years ago) or 2006 (10 years ago)? Or are you talking about two different lots of information?

Off the topic, if you did indeed get the information in 1969, does that mean you watched Sputnik 1 in 1959? I saw it at 8:06 pm on Wednesday 9 October 1969 NZST.  New Zealand HAM radio operators picked up its signal a few days before, but the skies were too cloudy to see it in my area prior to the 9th. Besides, I now know that it's more likely we saw the rocket that put it up and not the little satellite, which was in a highly elliptical orbit.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

I watched several videos

Might I suggest text-based information?

Of the three experiments I did, all said that NASA, the news media and the government were lying.

You know the drill: Pics or it didn't happen!

I use information from the NASA site that I printed out in 1969

You might want to rephrase that, because how it is stated now is impossible.
No websites in 1969.

NASA claims they put bearings in several places in the suit

See? That's why I advise using text-based information.

cloth reinforcement glove

Which is not a spacesuit glove and therefor can't tell you much about the behaviour of spacesuit gloves.

Maybe you'll see that I did do my homework prior or maybe not.

Considering your misunderstandings I'd say not.

I've never seen that suit and I doubt that it was the suit used on the moon.

Your lack of information and your personal doubts and incredulity do not constitute evidence in any way, shape, or form.

[ChrLz]

Hi, Miker.  Let me be one of the first to call bullshit on the lot of it.

Do you think no-one notices that you made several statements about how good a learner you were and that you would now go back and address ALL of your MANY errors before Gish Galloping onto new crap?

And here you are, a day or so later, NOT doing that and Gish Galloping onto new, equally ill-informed hogwash.. Just like all the tinfoilhatters and trolls before you.

I don't buy the dog excuse either.  You are either a troll or a coward who cannot and will not admit his errors.  Incapable of learning, closed mind - lost cause.

Go on, ask me what I really think...

[bknight]

The spacesuit was 3/16 inch thick and pressurized to 8.3 psi or 16.9 in. of Hg.

Where did you get this bit of incorrect information?  The suit pressure was designed to operate at 3.5 psi.
http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/15-questions-about-the-moon-landings.html

Your experiment reminds me of Rene's flawed attempt to model glove function on the Moon.  There is a rather large differential between negative 14.7 and negative 3.5.

Maybe you'll see that I did do my homework prior or maybe not.

No, you haven't done your homework.  You really need to learn some basic physics and then the scientific method of proofs before posting nonsense like this in the future.

[onebigmonkey]

Hi, Miker.  Let me be one of the first to call bullshit on the lot of it.

First to call it, not the first to think it

[Bob B.]

Miker, did the glove in your experiment look likes these (with the bulbous constant pressure joints)...



If not, then your experiment isn't valid because it tested just some random glove and not the actual equipment used (or a facsimile thereof).

Furthermore, I strongly urge that you return to the other thread that you started and respond to the many replies that you received.

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1210.0

[Kiwi]

Oops, error in reply # 17, final paragraph. The correct year for Sputnik 1 was 1957, not 1959 and 1969. I saw it on 9 October 1957.

Horrors! Oldfartitis strikes again.

[bknight]

Horrors! Oldfartitis strikes again.

Been there and done that.

[Count Zero]

Miker, did the glove in your experiment look likes these (with the bulbous constant pressure joints)...



If not, then your experiment isn't valid because it tested just some random glove and not the actual equipment used (or a facsimile thereof).

Furthermore, I strongly urge that you return to the other thread that you started and respond to the many replies that you received.

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1210.0

Great picture!  Notice the straps that wrap around the hand and between the digits.  That'd keep the pressurized rubber from expanding off of the astronaut's hand & fingers.  Leonov sure could have used those on his spacewalk!

[Obviousman]

No reply from miker?

[JayUtah]

Maybe you'll see that I did do my homework prior or maybe not.

You haven't done your homework.

[JayUtah]

Hoax claimants tend to err in choosing which bit of technology they should attack as purportedly implausible.  Over at International Skeptics Forum there's a guy who wants to say the heat shield didn't work.  He has a lot of cobbled-up pseudo-physics that allegedly proves this.  But his biggest error is in realizing the Apollo thermal protection system wasn't invented for Apollo.  It was already old technology, having been invented for ICBM warheads, the re-entry vehicle.  The Apollo engineers had a choice of several existing methods.

Similarly, it's not as if pressure garments were suddenly and newly invented for Apollo.  The articulated pressure suit dates back to the 1930s.   By the 1950s the full pressure suit had arrived at a form Apollo engineers would recognize.  On this point too, Apollo did not invent radically new technology that is somehow suspect; it simply adapted existing technology that was not especially mysterious.

[bknight]

...
  On this point too, Apollo did not invent radically new technology that is somehow suspect; it simply adapted existing technology that was not especially mysterious.

This is a point that a lot of HB's make, technology in the 60's limitations and it is difficult to get them off of those points.  I suspect that many not all are very young who are near sighted on what went on during the Apollo years.  If only they would watch a few of the documentaries that discuss the planning and execution that occurred to get to the Moon.