How can the Apollo astronaughts grip something smaller than an inch...The guy saying they can't is wrong. I didn't even have to see the end of the video to figure that out. The guy has never been on the moon and is simply rehashing 2nd or 3rd hand information.
Look at it this way: if NASA has never been to the moon, how would this guy know how the gloves handled for the astronaughts on the moon?
By accurate replica they mean it's aesthetically accurate, it couldn't be used of an actual mission. In response to everything else in the video, you seem to have a general lack of understanding on this subject.
NASA didn't give the idiot a glove or take any interest in his idiotic experiment because they simply don't have time, or the need for that matter, to prove to every moron on the planet that the moon landing did happen.
If NASA was taking these idiots seriously, someone should be putting their boot up NASA's ass and force them to stop wasting tax payer's money on paranoid pea brains.
1 year ago "I would like to know how you explain the earth "blueberry" photo from Apollo 17."
I assume you mean the "Blue Marble", I've never heard it described as the blueberry. Anyways, I'd say that was a model of the earth that they took a photo of against a black backdrop.
WhiteJarrah 1 year ago
this can be seen in MANY apollo photos.. open then in a photo editor and adjust the various settings and you can see where they mask the objects and black the background..
I just watched an old clip of james burke showing the apollo spacesuits, and he says that they just crapped in their pants as needed... what about after a couple days of shitting their pants?
@scottson2 They changed the waste collection and disposal undergarment after each lunar EVA, dumb dumb. Couldn't be more obvious. Are you stupid enough to believe that NASA didn't or couldn't think that one through? Is it that hard to take off a waste disposal "diaper," and dispose of it, and put on a new one before their next EVA?
I am not normally one who uses as hominim attacks. However, in this instance, I'll make an exception. So: Horseshit video. Nonsense from the get go, and I only picked this up on your episode 3. Astronaut's glove: gauntlets, dipshit. Sapcesuit integrity and design: Heinlein, to start, followed by improvements by Pournelle and others which are perfectly workable. Get a damn education, after you take off the tinfoil hat, you idiot. Survey says "Thorazine." Might as well be a creationist.
But when those incidents happened it was only the OUTer layer that was damaged. Mission control told the shuttle astronauts to come in before any more damage was done. The astronauts would be in danger if the pressure layer was damaged.
Seems like you forgot to actually bust the hammer vs. feather test. Trying to prove that they didn't go to the moon with these suit theories do not prove anything about the Galileo's experiment you started this episode with. Why does the hammer fall so slowly, and why does the feather fall as fast as the hammer in the experiment?
@datzfast As I said before "For me the feather seems to flex too much to be made out of wire. In any case, there's no proof for the wire-theory." Feather made out of lead wouldn't flex while moving it. Also you can re-check the image of the feather on the surface of the moon, does it look like it has been casted from lead?
Uhm...Jarrah. The key word for here for that suit Windley uses is "Replica". There is nothing that says that suit can handle being pressurized. If Rene' really wanted to test this on a replica glove, he could have just contact the thousands of people who make these replica suits. Just like Windley probably did. That whole argument is silly.
And I don't see why you or Rene thought it was suspicious for NASA not to hand over one of their equipment. That thing probably costs more than your house.
@Europasingstome (continued) I can see why NASA didn't want to hand rene over a glove. If you want links to sights that sell replicas of the Apollo suits, than you can either look on google, or contact me. They cost around 2,000 or more.
Seems Prez Obama cancelled 2020 moon hoax last week . He seems to think those billions are better spent on actual space station that can be used to advance space exploration, other than mere propaganda and hitting a golf ball on Kubricks stage @ Groom Lake
Apollo left a mirror on moon to shoot laser from earth to measure distance. The beam spreads for miles wide, is the mirror that wide ?
Russians shot laser at surface and go a strong reflection back measuring exact distance, no mirror needed, beside the mirror reflected less than .001%, the rest was surface .
Is there really a mirror...... the Russians must wonder ?
I'm interested in becoming a Moon Hoax enthusiast. What is the best way to go about this? Should I huff gasoline fumes? (cheapest) Get a frontal lobotomy? (expensive) Or, perhaps just fall on my head a few dozen times? (dangerous)
The Apollo pressure glove was covered externally in a metal woven fabric called Chromel-R which imuch stronger than the current shuttle era suit gloves. It's also interesting to note that the Apollo pressure glove was form fitted to the individual wearer.
The glove that Ralph Rene uses in his homemade vacuum chamber is not a good approximation to an Apollo glove, which is tight fitting and articulated, as opposed to the ballon like size of Ralphs glove, which would have a greater surface area and become far more rigid than the actual Apollo glove in vacuum. No astronaut ever said the suit or glove was easy to use, it would of been physically demanding, but definitely able to be done with the Apollo glove design.
Oh come ON!! The Procucers had an "exact" suit replica IN EXTERNAL APPEARENCE ONLY!!!!! Jarrah, do you ACTUALLY believe that was a flight ready EVA pressure suit? That was a COSTUME!!! I know the owner of Global Effects who makes such things. Mind you, his are so good, he's sold them to ILC and David Clark (the guys who make the REAL suits) to display in their lobbies... because even THEY cannot afford to have a four million dollar, REAL space suit in a glass case! Hahahaha!!!
The point is that Even Global Effects highly detailed COSTUME space suits are NOT pressure suits! There are three or four prop shops in Los Angeles who make and rent Moon Suits... and NONE of them are pressure suits. Look at the way that suit hangs on the actor! There is nothing more than atmospheric pressure inside it. Isn't that horribly obvious? You are very eager to make unqualified assumptions to support your position. You really should try fact checking SOME of your caims.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I would like to know how you explain the earth "blueberry" photo from Apollo 17. The photo doesn't depict a moon landing, but there is no way a photo like that could have been taken from low earth orbit, and Apollo was the only manned spacecraft to ever travel outside of low earth orbit. Even the space shuttle doesn't go high enough. Not to mention the info on Google Moon which shows the LEMs from the moon landings.
"I would like to know how you explain the earth "blueberry" photo from Apollo 17."
I assume you mean the "Blue Marble", I've never heard it described as the blueberry. Anyways, I'd say that was a model of the earth that they took a photo of against a black backdrop.
Yes you are right the "blue marble" photo. I was thinking of the references in the movie Rocket Man.
One thing you have to remember is that until that picture came out, nobody had ever seen the world as a whole before so therefore it would be impossible to construct an accurate model as you suggest. You also could not use a collage of low earth orbit photos to construct a model either because the clouds would be different along the edges of the pictures.
I bet it took you a couple of hours to think up that little gem, right dope? .. Or perhaps you borrowed it from one of the propandists you all parrot.
I think you should make another video concentrating on the Gollum like creatures scuttleling around here like cockroaches defending the moon landings after reading the comments here.
I was told that Paul Hogan wore boxer shorts during the filming of Crocodile Dundee 1 but briefs in 2. I contacted Hogan to verify and he stated that he couldn't remember. I pointed out to Hogan that he could not have done his knife stunt in boxers. He stated that he could do knife stunts in briefs or boxers. Crocodile Dundee is fake Australian propaganda- I just proved it- knife stunts can only be done in briefs.
WOW WHAT AN ASSHOLE-U must be a MOON-NOT.Totally twist shit around for your own advantage,try to make someone look foolish whenit is you that is the total incompetent asshole. It figures.
Do you hoaxers really think you can make Apollo a hoax with ridiculous essays based on hearsay and anecdotal meanderings? Do you sincerely believe NASA will hand over Apollo hardware to a hoaxer in order for that hoaxer to experiment on it thereby proving or disproving whether or not Apollo landed men on the Moon? Do you people ever run your thoughts through your mouths and listen to what you 'think' before speaking it? Wow- ya.
"I guess they filmed all of the lunar footage in the vomit comet as well! They must have had HUGE vomit comets back in 69-72."
No, they filmed it on lunar sets.
"The VC footage was almost identical to the Apollo lunar footage, and nothing like the footge with a wire support."
The operative word being "almost".. The wire support evidence looked more like the Apollo footage.. The "Mythbusters" just wanted us to believe otherwise, since their agenda was to bust the hoax evidence.
"The wire support evidence looked more like the Apollo footage.. "
No it doesn't, the wire support footage lacked the lightness of the vomit comet footage. It was really easy to tell that he was just jumping around on earth. With the vomit comet footage you could see he could easily jump very high with minimal effort, you don't get that as nicely with a wire rig.
"All we really proved was how easy it is to fake a Moon landing on Earth." - Mythbusters
Watch how NASA faked some of their Apollo Hassleblad still photography by using small scale models on moonsets, plus a single light source spotlight.
These clowns set out to prove that the Apollo photography was real and accomplished the exact opposite!.. Can anyone say irony? .. Ok, how about oops!
"Watch how NASA faked some of their Apollo Hassleblad still photography by using small scale models on moonsets, plus a single light source spotlight."
You can't simply scale down a set to that size and get photos showing the same detail levels of the Apollo photos, plus you'd run into the same problems as if you had a full size set. It wouldn't make sense in the slightest to have a scaled down set, you wouldn't want multiple models of everything, you might forget details on one of them.
"You can't simply scale down a set to that size and get photos showing the same detail levels of the Apollo photos,.."
As far as the "distance" shots are concerned, they got the same exact results as NASA did when they faked the Apollo photos.
The "Mythbusters" may have selectively debunked some already debunked, very old conspiracy theories, but in the process they proved just how easy it was for NASA to fake the Apollo photography.
"As far as the "distance" shots are concerned, they got the same exact results as NASA did when they faked the Apollo photos."
They didn't, you're looking at a crappy youtube video, compare the Mythbuster's Hasselblad photos with the ones from NASA, the differences will be noticeable immediately.
"They didn't, you're looking at a crappy youtube video, compare the Mythbuster's Hasselblad photos with the ones from NASA, the differences will be noticeable immediately."
How would you know that unless you've seen the "Mythbusters" Hassie photo held up next to a faked Apollo photo?.. This has nothing to do with "a crappy YouTube video", since this balony was a TV program before it landed here.
Look at those two photos again .. They look exactly the same.
"How would you know that unless you've seen the "Mythbusters" Hassie photo held up next to a faked Apollo photo?"
I'm a photographer and I've done work with miniature figures. If you closely examine a high resolution shot of a miniature all the little imperfections that wouldn't be on a full size model become very obvious. That would be the case for the Mythbusters photos as well.
"They look exactly the same."
Only because you're looking at very small low-res images.
You can't just switch things around like that. Take the issue of parallel shadows. Percy made a specific claim that the shadows MUST have been parallel, and that the image in question was proof that two different light sources were used. Mythbusters thoroughly debunked that claim, by demonstrating that slight changes in local topography can cause shadows to appear non-parallel. Percy's claim that this proves two light sources is therefore refuted. Will he withdraw the claim? I doubt it.
"You can't just switch things around like that. Take the issue of parallel shadows."
I haven't switched anything around .. The parallel shadow theory was already busted, long before the "Mythbusters" decided to bust it again by using their selective debunking tactics .. So there is nothing to debate.
At least you've had the guts to finally agree it was busted. Shame Percy doesn't do the same. Problem is, there are still people who believe that this proves the moon landings were faked, just like they still think that fiducials apparently behind bright white objects proves fakery as well.
Looks like Clavius was right on that issue all along.
"Percy's claim that this proves two light sources is therefore refuted. Will he withdraw the claim? I doubt it."
You must have forgotten that before the Apollo defenders realized that one light source could explain away the non parallel shadow issue, they claimed that "Earthshine" was the second light source on the Moon, which caused the non parallel shadows in the Apollo photos.. In fact, I believe you were one of the game players who used that very example on that MSN Moon Hoax Forum.
If anyone claimed Earthshine was responsible for that shadow, they were wrong. That doesn't mean that Apollo was faked, it means someone made a mistake. I never made that claim myself, I've always said that it's a combination of variations in terrain and the perspective that accounts for any strange looking shadows. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten David Percy and Jack White that they were wrong on the non-parallel shadow issue?
"If anyone claimed Earthshine was responsible for that shadow, they were wrong."
Well, thanks to the "Mythbusters", we now know exactly what type of single light source was used to fake the photos.
"Perhaps you'd care to enlighten David Percy and Jack White that they were wrong on the non-parallel shadow issue?"
Perhaps you'd care to enlighten Phil Plaitt that Neil disagrees with his scientific claim that stars can be seen from the daylight side of the Moon, without the use of optics?
"...they claimed that "Earthshine" was the second light source on the Moon, which caused the non parallel shadows in the Apollo photos.."
You can't group all Apollo defenders into one group like that, I would never even suggest that the light reflected off of the earth caused the non parallel shadows. I know enough about light to know that if you have two light sources (earth and the sun) you get TWO SHADOWS on every object. Something the moon hoax believers don't seem to get.
"Why not? .. You all belong to the same herd of duped sheep."
Well, for one thing, not all of us agree on specific things (like this earth shine issue.)
Secondly, you would then be inviting moon hoax believers to be lumped in with the flat earth society (as they don't believe in the moon landings either.)
"Secondly, you would then be inviting moon hoax believers to be lumped in with the flat earth society (as they don't believe in the moon landings either.)"
Point taken .. There are different herds of duped sheep, probably on both sides of this fence.. LOL
"I would never even suggest that the light reflected off of the earth caused the non parallel shadows."
Then you are one of the few Apollo Fan Boys who didn't make that silly claim.
"I know enough about light to know that if you have two light sources (earth and the sun) you get TWO SHADOWS on every object."
Yet, the Earthshine IS one of the light sources on the Moon.. So why do you figure there are never any double shadows in any of the Apollo photographs?
"Yet, the Earthshine IS one of the light sources on the Moon.. So why do you figure there are never any double shadows in any of the Apollo photographs?"
Same reason the moon doesn't cast a double shadow on earth while the sun is out. Or why you never see a double shadow in any photos from LEO. The suns light is too overpowering for a noticeable shadow to be caused by the earth. I can do an experiment for you with two strobes, a 400W at low power and a 1600W at full power if you'd like.
"Same reason the moon doesn't cast a double shadow on earth while the sun is out. Or why you never see a double shadow in any photos from LEO. The suns light is too overpowering for a noticeable shadow to be caused by the earth."
Thank you for that predictable reply!.. You just proved that secondary light sources could have been used on the moonsets for fill, but would have been so overpowerd by the huge arc spotlight that NASA used to replicate the Sun that no double shadows would be seen.
"You just proved that secondary light sources could have been used on the moonsets for fill, but would have been so overpowerd by the huge arc spotlight that NASA used to replicate the Sun that no double shadows would be seen."
No, a secondary light source bright enough to act as a fill light will cast a shadow. The earth wouldn't work well as a fill light because it would be so overpowered by the light from the sun, which is the same reason it wouldn't cast a shadow.
"No, a secondary light source bright enough to act as a fill light will cast a shadow."
Not if the secondary light source is only as bright as a flashlight and the arc "sun" spotlight could light up a stadium.
Jeeze zak, don't you ever sleep? .. Go to bed and stop obsessing about Apollo .. I thought you only posted while at work ..Or is NASA paying you overtime now? .. LOL
"Not if the secondary light source is only as bright as a flashlight and the arc "sun" spotlight could light up a stadium."
Okay I'm about to go find some AA Batteries for my Canon 440EX flash (brighter than a flashlight) to see if it will be a noticeable fill light when I take a photo with my 1600W alien bees at full power.
"Jeeze zak, don't you ever sleep?"
I was about to go to bed, first I wanted to setup VNC then I wanted to check my e-mail, saw your reply and felt I should respond.
Shocking, the weak flash provides no fill light when taking photos against an object lit from behind by a 1600W light.
jmaug[dot]com/fill/NoFill.jpg - Just the 1600W light
jmaug[dot]com/fill/Fill.jpg - 1600W and a flash.
Sorry the pictures are out of focus, all the lights were off (didn't want any outside light to taint the experiment.) I did use the same exposure settings they would have used on the moon (f/7.1 and 1/250th shutter speed.)
"I thought it was already established that the Apollo astronots didn't use any flash photography on the moonsets."
It was, then you suggested that I proved the fill light would cast no shadow. I said that was wrong, and my experiment shows if the fill light casts no noticeable shadow then it won't make a very good fill light. Not only that, it also shows how much light gets reflected (the entire garage is lit up even objects behind the flash, which is the only light source.)
"You do realise that they can't see microscopic particles right ? UNLESS they form a pack ... "
Well yeah, the only way they can see the fountains on the moon is because the entire sunlit surface is ejecting the microscopic particles. There wouldn't be enough of these particles around the astronaut to create a significant dust cloud around each step.
Plus it would be obscured by the dust kicked up with every step, how do you expect to distinguish between repelled dust and kicked dust?
"Wrong , they would repell a bunch of 'dust' you will easily see these particles"
So why is it that only microscopic particles are repelled during the change between lunar day and night?
"visible and constant repel of 'dust' MUST be observed everytime they walk"
What about all the dust that is kicked up when they walk? How can you distinguish between dust that was only kicked and dust that was also repelled? Do you have a vacuum chamber with positively charged dust for experimenting?
Only the sunlit surface. Otherwise the entire moon would be positively charged.
"no repel is observed EVER , end of story ."
It's not going to go shooting across the surface every time they step. If you notice the article only says microscopic particles are ejected off the moons surface so easily so you obviously wouldn't see particles just shooting away from the astronauts as they walk.
"The positive charge build on the sunlit surface , the astro-clowns allegedly landed there during lunar daylight ..."
It doesn't say the entire surface would be positively charged, anything below the surface or in the shade would still have a negative charge. It's also entirely possible that they were repelling dust, but the sharp hook like nature of the dust caused it to stick to their suits when it would come in contact with them.
"Poor zakahog ... even wikipedia is against him now . "
...? Actually based on the article not all of the dust would have a positive charge and the dust takes a stronger negative charge than a positive charge.
Seems like the dropped objects should fall slower than that. Has anyone done a computer simulation of 1/6th gravity? Wouldn't people jump around like they do in the video game Virtua Fighter? /watch?v=CDDPAxyErL0
In may 2007 Nasa held a contest to design a better space glove for space.Peter Homer, an engineer from Southwest Harbor, Maine, beat out three other competitors and the current NASA Phase VI glove to bag the $200,000 prize with his design made with off-the-shelf kitchen cleaning gloves and "a cloth material he found on eBay." lol no way nasa's glove held up during a moon walk.
"There is no much of a static buildup on earth due to the sun"
Then, I guess we shouldn't worry about storms, or any form of weather. I give. I can't debate with "religous" zealots who will make stuff up, to make it seem that what he says is true, no matter what real physics or math has to say about it. All i can ask of you is please read up on trasfer of energy , and valance elections. good luck and i hope you understand someday. おやすみなさい。 ー二オ寺様
1plus8 is right (again). You would do good to check on NASA saying that Moon dust has a notable electrostatic charge. That is also how they explain the dust storms on the Moon: it's caused by the electrostatic charge and discharge, not by the air currents.
Once again NASA is silent and refuses to allow simple tests on suit gloves!
And dopey NASA pimp wspaceport is caught out making things up to defend Nixon's vile-smelling Apollo fantasy concoction, served up by the NASA/CIA/Pentagon axis of evil!
Well done, Jarrah! I always enjoy your vids. I admire your dedication and determination to expose the Apollo Fraud and get to the truth.
The Apollo Fraud denying NASA pimps claim that the "moon dust" couldn't be sand because it attached itself and dirtied up the a/not's suit legs.
But the completely dry "moon-dust" adhering to the suit legs of the a/not couldn't have attached to the suit because the "dust" was POSITIVE, and the suit was POSITIVE.
In a vacuum, with no air to discharge the static, the "dust" and suit would have repelled each other! As they don't repel, then the a/nots are on Earth!
"But the completely dry "moon-dust" adhering to the suit legs of the a/not couldn't have attached to the suit because the "dust" was POSITIVE, and the suit was POSITIVE."
wiki "On the daylit side of the Moon...positive charges build up until the tiniest particles of lunar dust are repelled from the surface and lofted anywhere from meters to kilometers high... On the night side the dust is negatively charged by electrons in the solar wind"
The a/nots were on the daylit side well into the Moon's morning, and the "dust" would be positive. Because of the LM's time in sunlight, it and the a/not's suits would already be positive.
"The a/nots were on the daylit side well into the Moon's morning, and the "dust" would be positive. Because of the LM's time in sunlight, it and the a/not's suits would already be positive."
Not all of it, the dust doesn't immediately build up a positive charge the second the suns rays hit it, it takes some time, and any dust that was in the shade would have a negative charge.
I said the EVA was well into the Moon's morning. Therefore, the "moon-dust" would not be at its maximum positivity, but it would still repel from the suit.
Unfortunately for you NASA pimps, the Chinese astronauts in 2018 won't deliberately dirty their suits in order to defend scum-bag Nixon's Apollo Fraud!
The US and World public WILL find out the truth eventually!
You should be ashamed of your role in the cover-up.
How will you justify yourself before God when you die and go for judgement?
"I said the EVA was well into the Moon's morning. Therefore, the "moon-dust" would not be at its maximum positivity, but it would still repel from the suit."
Again, not all of it. Some of the dust will stick to the astronauts space suits. Some of it will have a positive charge and be repelled by the suits, either way it doesn't result in ALL of the dust having the same charge.
Glove Liar wspaceport, I'm so glad you like jokes. Let's hope you see the funny side of the hugely jolly joke that the Nixon/von Braun/NASA/CIA/astroNOTs troupe of clowns performed in 1968-72!
The cardelo YT vid "Moon hoax - Wire Supports (Mythbusters)" shows more wires! Three in fact and TWO in the same frame! And it comes from an an Apollo Fraud denying documentary!!
This confirms greenmagoos vid "The Dwarf In The Visor" at the 10.25 sec mark, where you will also CLEARLY SEE A SUPPORT WIRE!
zakabog: "any dust that was in the shade would have a negative charge".
Oh, Zaka KNOWS again. Pray tell me, how do you know the dust in the shadows would be negatively charged? As you probably know, shadows tend to ROTATE. And there is rarely lasting big shades on the Moon, except deep craters.
Ionized atoms also tend to rebalance to neutral, given a chance, so thick dust layers in craters could very well be neutral. But we don't know until someone actually measures it!
zakabog: "It wasn't yet exposed to the UV energy to give it a positive charge."
1) If the dust is not reachable by the ionizing radiation, then how did it get a negative charge?
2) Why would it stay negatively charged? If it's not (ever) directly reachable by Sun's radiation, the electrons hit free from its neighborhood would still fly to all directions, and so the negatively charged can capture these.
3) The dust and the shadows move. So nothing is in the shade for ever.
"Just saying that the "dust that is in the shade is negatively charged" is Bush-science."
It's simplification of the mechanisms by which the lunar dust looses it's positive charge, which is basically to help it fit youtube's character limit.
I wrote "2) .... "and so the negatively charged can capture these"
Ooops! Spoke positive charges there. But the same basically applies to loosing negatively charges, with the difference that they get RID of an electron, not capture it.
"But the same basically applies to loosing negatively charges, with the difference that they get RID of an electron, not capture it."
I don't get it, are you saying that the loose electron knocks other electrons out of the nearby negatively charged soil? I don't think it works like that...
Oh, give me a break! Where did you get that ballony! Photoelectron is an elelctron kicked out by the high enegy photon, but the excess energy of the photon from the ionization is still carried with the free electron! So it definately can ionize mote atoms!
Maybe some close surrounding atoms, which would still leave negatively charged lunar regolith below the surface or in the shade. Although the point still stands that the entire surface will not have a positive.
During the lunar night it picks up a strong negative charge from the solar wind.
"...so the negatively charged can capture these."
Electrons have a negative charge so "capturing" electrons would result in a negative charge.
"So nothing is in the shade for ever."
Yeah, and nothing is in the sun forever, since the sun gives the positive charge and the shade gives a negative charge, there isn't a constant positive charge on the moon.
zakabog said: "During the lunar night it picks up a strong negative charge from the solar wind."
I asked "1) If the dust is not reachable by the ionizing radiation, then how did it get a negative charge?"
And solar wind is radiation, you know.
Yeah, nothing is in the Sun for ever, either. But I never claimed them to have a positive charge, did I? I'm just saying you would need some HUGELY SERIOUS shade to keep the dust there negatively charged, and most probably it still wouldn't!
Ionizing radiation takes away electrons. The process by which the solar wind deposits free floating electrons on the lunar surface is not ionizing radiation.
"But I never claimed them to have a positive charge, did I?"
My point is not all of the lunar soil on the daylight side will have a positive charge. Also, Even if all of the lunar soil had a positive charge, what kind of repelling do you expect to see? Should the dust part like the red seas?
Not only that. It can also create positively charged ions. Check it out.
zakabog said: "The process by which the solar wind deposits free floating electrons on the lunar surface is not ionizing radiation."
That was however said where I read about the Moon dust storms. In the Moon's night side the negative charge is created by the solar wind. Said it everywhere where I read about it. Maybe you are right and they are wrong.
"In the Moon's night side the negative charge is created by the solar wind. Said it everywhere where I read about it. Maybe you are right and they are wrong."
Ah I see the confusion. Well I only had an hour sleep last night, yes, the solar wind is ionizing radiation that negatively charges the lunar surface although by now I've completely forgotten why any of this mattered.
So what kind of repelling do you expect to see of positively charged lunar dust by the positively charged space suits?
zakabog wrote: "by now I've completely forgotten why any of this mattered."
Heh, heh zaka! No wonder! I usually avoid answering you, because I know there will be no end!
It wasn't I who expected seeing the dirt repelling the suit. But it should keep the suits clean! Still, I'm not saying there isn't any negatively charged ions on dayside. I wouldn't know! I only answered to the theory of particles being negatively charged in shades, because it didn't sound believable to me.
"It wasn't I who expected seeing the dirt repelling the suit. But it should keep the suits clean!"
Not likely, once the dust touches the suit it's like Velcro so it's stuck there. Lots of dust was kicked up and if the velocity is high enough, it won't be repelled as easily. Plus whenever the astronauts fell, the dust would stick to them.
How are you getting along with the old tentpole Apollo flag, 'bog?
I would have thought someone of your dedication to the cause of partiality would have had it have it up n' fluttering in your one-room Brownstone apartment by now :-)
"How are you getting along with the old tentpole Apollo flag, 'bog?"
Did you not read my other comment? Mythbusters did the experiment with a replica of the flag in a vacuum with atmosphere then without. The flag stops swinging almost immediately in the atmosphere
"I would have thought someone of your dedication to the cause of partiality would have had it have it up n' fluttering in your one-room Brownstone apartment by now :-)"
Sort of, on the moon the process takes days (moon takes a month to rotate) so there are a lot of shadows that will last the length of the lunar missions.
@zakabog@zakabog Even if it were all positively charged, a positively charged particle would attract negative charges towards the surface of the spacesuit, creating a local negative charge, which it would stick to. Charged particles will stick to large objects, no other explanation is needed. Large objects, such as spacesuits, can have localized charges that are different from their net charges. Even water molecules are overall neutral, but have a localized positive and negative charge.
That is assuming that the dust holds a charge. the total ground of the moon sure. even if the dust did, It dose not nessisaraly mean they would effect each other staticly. the reason we see such larg effects in earth, is from the fact we have an atmopheare which can hold a larg ammont of static. I'm sorry i can't explaine it too well in english.
何？you have no idea what you are saying do you? I think you are confusing electrical force, and magnetic force. just becouse the charge is the same, for electrical, it dosn't always repell mass. What you said, is similar to saying that i put 2 positive sides of a battery to gether, since they don't repel therfore it dosnt hold a charge.
1plus8:"you lied, you are a liar, or if you prefer, you are a fraud!"
Nope. Sorry, you're wrong.
I attended NSTA in 1990. There was a vacuum chamber ("Glove Box") exactly as I described it in the NASA exhibit area. Parker confirms it, just not the EVA gloves.
I put my arms in up to my shoulders and got a good workout within a minute of flexing, twisting, turning and picking up objects from a wrench to a Quarter with both types of gloves.
Hey Jarrah, found a site Ralph Rene should look at -
terrauniversal[dot]com/
They make a vacuum glove box, he can contact them, they have neoprene gloves for sale (around $115) that I believe should work in his vacuum chamber. I'd give them a call and ask them about the gloves mobility when the chamber is at low pressures.
"Furthermore, you've once again demonstrated an irresponsible, reprehensible & unprofessional "rush to judgement" by not contacting me for a follow-up with Louis Parker's (in error) comment to allow a rebuttal or clarification of the facts as I know them to be from 18 years ago."
I've heard your "rebuttal", its the same old game. Something says something that hurts your case, you either say he's wrong, call him a liar or say he doesn't know jack.
WJ:"I've heard your "rebuttal"...Someone says something that hurts your case, you either say he's wrong" (etc., etc.)
--Your attention to detail overlooked this fact:
zakabog:"Your failure at simple research is amazing...There's just such a chamber at the JSC being used by students, so it's entirely possible that Louis A. Parker was incorrect."
--I agree with Zakabog. Simple research would show Jeremy Pyle is "the Public Affairs Guy" at NSS, not me.
If your computer is having trouble I can help you fix it through private messages or e-mail (I've been a computer technician for the past 13 years) if you'd like.
Looking at it. Where does it say they were using an A7L-B suit glove? Where does it say such a glove was in a vacuum chamber at the exhibition wspaceport claims he went to?
All I'm getting is info on current EVA gloves, which are quite different to those used on Apollo.
"All I'm getting is info on current EVA gloves, which are quite different to those used on Apollo."
In what way? It's basically the same design, the gloves might provide a bit more mobility (the gloves are custom made for each astronauts hands) and grip (grip would be achieved by the outer surface) although I doubt the gloves used in that demonstration would be the $40,000 EMU gloves they would use on an EVA and would be closer to the Apollo gloves in mobility.
"although I doubt the gloves used in that demonstration would be the $40,000 EMU gloves they would use on an EVA and would be closer to the Apollo gloves in mobility."
If you are doubtful that they are the same gloves, then why are using it to prop up your arguments then? You give me a site that says stuff about shuttle gloves, then you deny that the gloves are what the site says they are.
And you are telling me that my and Ralph's scientific method are flawed?
"If you are doubtful that they are the same gloves, then why are using it to prop up your arguments then?"
Everything I've read so far says they're basically the same design except they allow for temperature control and are molded to the hands of the astronauts. I haven't found anything to say otherwise, if you believe they're not the same basic design then show that evidence.
"Everything I've read so far says they're basically the same design"
Did you by any chance read your must-see Encyclopedia Astronautica, which specifically states that the Shuttle EMU gloves are an imporovement over the A7L-B gloves?
"Did you by any chance read your must-see Encyclopedia Astronautica, which specifically states that the Shuttle EMU gloves are an imporovement over the A7L-B gloves?"
... an improvement only means it's improved, not that it's different. My MacBook Pro is an improvement over last years MacBook Pro although they're the same basic design (mine just has a nicer video card and slightly faster CPU.)
"Improved flexibility makes a huge difference to the previous one-inch grip."
Actually wasn't the point to prove that the grip was only one-inch? How can you establish the fact based on an interview with someone who had nothing to do with the development of the glove?
I'd like to also ask, what is so magical about today's gloves that they couldn't have possibly done for the gloves in Apollo?
Lastly, did you check out Terra Universal? They have neoprene gloves for vacuum chambers.
WJ:"Where does it say such a glove was in a vacuum chamber at the exhibition wspaceport claims he went to?"
--It doesn't, but it's irrelavant; that's the "vacuum chamber" ('glove box' to argue sementics) that I accurately & truthfully described to you at the NSTA conference in 1990.
WJ:"you are telling me that my and Ralph's scientific method are flawed?"
-Obviously, Yes. You also owe me a personal apology & retraction on YouTube for your libelous statements against me in this clip.
I beg to differ. The Shuttle EMU glove and A7:-B suit glove are quite different.
"that's the "vacuum chamber" ('glove box' to argue sementics) that I accurately & truthfully described to you at the NSTA conference in 1990."
And yet your source of information told me that such a machine with a A7L-B glove was absent at the conference you speak of. And the vacuum chamber shown on that site says nothing about an A7L-B suit glove.
WJ:"And yet your source of information told me that such a machine with a A7L-B glove was absent at the conference you speak of."
Wrong. Louis says "The 1990 NSTA...had a number of space suit items displayed. There was [a] glove box with this equipment, but *we* (meaning JSC) did not have a suit or parts of one inside a vacuum chamber.
There were other field centers represented at NSTA, all under the common banner of "NASA." It's plausible the suit arms & gloves came from one of them.
Nice twist of words. There is a difference between having a glovebox with an A7L glove inside, and a DEPRESSURIZED glove box with an A7L glove inside. He clearly specifies that they didn't have a vacuum chamber at that exhibition. How long are you going to continue lying to me?
This has been flagged as spam show
(w)(w)(w).telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8746306/Nasa-releases-new-high-definition-images-of-Apollo-moon-landings.html
TheFireForEffect 5 months ago
Mark Gray is a thief.
PopsDizzy 6 months ago
How can the Apollo astronaughts grip something smaller than an inch...The guy saying they can't is wrong. I didn't even have to see the end of the video to figure that out. The guy has never been on the moon and is simply rehashing 2nd or 3rd hand information.
Look at it this way: if NASA has never been to the moon, how would this guy know how the gloves handled for the astronaughts on the moon?
balios1 7 months ago
Oh...Just saw the end of the video.. ..You're an ASS Jarraw..A real spoiled-brat SMALL-FRY
.
Ed White gave his life for the achievement you've been attaching yourself to and attacking so arrogantly.
Yet you praise him ...If Ed White was here today, I don't think he would approve of your assertions or using and evoking his image or memory.
Have you any decency?
Tweekerhead 7 months ago
Why didn't NASA take the LM, blueprints,Moon rocks, the suits, the gloves and everything they had to Rene's house to show him??
Maybe cuz' Rene wasn't that important and nobody gives a crap what he thought in his self deluded world.
These vids' are entertaining and really funny.
Tweekerhead 7 months ago
you're all wrong!! it was me you fools.i was the man on the moon
belgamie 8 months ago
if the space suit is relatively easy to get torn, then falling on the moon surface is very risky, due to the abrasive nature of moon soil!
TheGrotesqueReality 11 months ago
Just because they had a big box with suit parts in it doesn't mean they actually reduced the internal pressure.
The entire project stinks of a con.
ISamuelII 1 year ago
By accurate replica they mean it's aesthetically accurate, it couldn't be used of an actual mission. In response to everything else in the video, you seem to have a general lack of understanding on this subject.
Craigthepope 1 year ago
NASA didn't give the idiot a glove or take any interest in his idiotic experiment because they simply don't have time, or the need for that matter, to prove to every moron on the planet that the moon landing did happen.
If NASA was taking these idiots seriously, someone should be putting their boot up NASA's ass and force them to stop wasting tax payer's money on paranoid pea brains.
tek1001 1 year ago
WhiteJarrah
1 year ago "I would like to know how you explain the earth "blueberry" photo from Apollo 17."
I assume you mean the "Blue Marble", I've never heard it described as the blueberry. Anyways, I'd say that was a model of the earth that they took a photo of against a black backdrop.
WhiteJarrah 1 year ago
this can be seen in MANY apollo photos.. open then in a photo editor and adjust the various settings and you can see where they mask the objects and black the background..
scottson2 1 year ago
I just watched an old clip of james burke showing the apollo spacesuits, and he says that they just crapped in their pants as needed... what about after a couple days of shitting their pants?
scottson2 1 year ago
@scottson2 They changed the waste collection and disposal undergarment after each lunar EVA, dumb dumb. Couldn't be more obvious. Are you stupid enough to believe that NASA didn't or couldn't think that one through? Is it that hard to take off a waste disposal "diaper," and dispose of it, and put on a new one before their next EVA?
tek1001 1 year ago
I am not normally one who uses as hominim attacks. However, in this instance, I'll make an exception. So: Horseshit video. Nonsense from the get go, and I only picked this up on your episode 3. Astronaut's glove: gauntlets, dipshit. Sapcesuit integrity and design: Heinlein, to start, followed by improvements by Pournelle and others which are perfectly workable. Get a damn education, after you take off the tinfoil hat, you idiot. Survey says "Thorazine." Might as well be a creationist.
kurtjk01 1 year ago
But when those incidents happened it was only the OUTer layer that was damaged. Mission control told the shuttle astronauts to come in before any more damage was done. The astronauts would be in danger if the pressure layer was damaged.
MrNeptunebob 1 year ago 2
Seems like you forgot to actually bust the hammer vs. feather test. Trying to prove that they didn't go to the moon with these suit theories do not prove anything about the Galileo's experiment you started this episode with. Why does the hammer fall so slowly, and why does the feather fall as fast as the hammer in the experiment?
Ebuli 1 year ago 2
@Ebuli
I point out at the beginning that the feather is probably made of wire.
WhiteJarrah 1 year ago
@WhiteJarrah For me the feather seems to flex too much to be made out of wire. In any case, there's no proof for the wire-theory.
Ebuli 1 year ago
@WhiteJarrah i can make a lead feather painted white fall like a hammer by...........................droping it.
datzfast 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@datzfast As I said before "For me the feather seems to flex too much to be made out of wire. In any case, there's no proof for the wire-theory." Feather made out of lead wouldn't flex while moving it. Also you can re-check the image of the feather on the surface of the moon, does it look like it has been casted from lead?
Ebuli 1 year ago
@WhiteJarrah You got it wrong. The feather was made of pixie dust. Get your facts straight!
tek1001 1 year ago
@Ebuli i can make a lead feather painted white fall fast.
datzfast 1 year ago
@Ebuli I personally bust the hammer and feather in one of my videos... go check it out.
yesiamawizardjonny 7 months ago
Uhm...Jarrah. The key word for here for that suit Windley uses is "Replica". There is nothing that says that suit can handle being pressurized. If Rene' really wanted to test this on a replica glove, he could have just contact the thousands of people who make these replica suits. Just like Windley probably did. That whole argument is silly.
And I don't see why you or Rene thought it was suspicious for NASA not to hand over one of their equipment. That thing probably costs more than your house.
Europasingstome 1 year ago
@Europasingstome (continued) I can see why NASA didn't want to hand rene over a glove. If you want links to sights that sell replicas of the Apollo suits, than you can either look on google, or contact me. They cost around 2,000 or more.
Europasingstome 1 year ago
Risperidone, people. I have a friend that takes it and it has helped her immensely. I'm sure it would help many of you out as well.
DarwinsChihuahua 2 years ago
Unfortunately for you @DarwinsChihuahua, they don't make pills to cure cognitive dissonance.
WackyDumpsite 2 years ago
Nasa want to fake it to Mars so they can steal $100 billion from the US taxpayer
nasafakedit 2 years ago 4
@nasafakedit
Seems Prez Obama cancelled 2020 moon hoax last week . He seems to think those billions are better spent on actual space station that can be used to advance space exploration, other than mere propaganda and hitting a golf ball on Kubricks stage @ Groom Lake
euro944t 2 years ago
lol @ euro
nasafakedit 2 years ago
@euro944t Obama's a moron. He's a one term wonder who's only accomplishment will be the first half black President.
Honestinwilkesbarre 7 months ago
@Honestinwilkesbarre
Obombya, did you vote in 2008 general election to make history ?
euro944t 7 months ago
@nasafakedit And do what with it?
Craigthepope 1 year ago
Apollo left a mirror on moon to shoot laser from earth to measure distance. The beam spreads for miles wide, is the mirror that wide ?
Russians shot laser at surface and go a strong reflection back measuring exact distance, no mirror needed, beside the mirror reflected less than .001%, the rest was surface .
Is there really a mirror...... the Russians must wonder ?
euro944t 2 years ago
There are no mirrors on the moon its just nasa propaganda
Scientists were bouncing lasers off the moon before nasa faked it
nasafakedit 2 years ago 3
I'm interested in becoming a Moon Hoax enthusiast. What is the best way to go about this? Should I huff gasoline fumes? (cheapest) Get a frontal lobotomy? (expensive) Or, perhaps just fall on my head a few dozen times? (dangerous)
DarwinsChihuahua 2 years ago
I wouldn't advise falling on your head. That is what I did and now I don't believe in automobiles. :(
shananagans5 2 years ago
Do you know how much the entire Apollo project cost ?
$50 Billion Same cost as 40,000 troop surge or $1 million per troop
So when will USA do it again ? Got to be USA, it seems Russia failed. Where are the robot pathfinder cams on moon ? Why just Mars rovers ?
euro944t 2 years ago 2
@DarwinsChihuahua
You already do all that nasa hoaxtard
nasafakedit 2 years ago
@DarwinsChihuahua " I'm interested in becoming a Moon Hoax enthusiast."
No trolls allowed
Colt2571 1 year ago
One other point: glove wear.
The Apollo pressure glove was covered externally in a metal woven fabric called Chromel-R which imuch stronger than the current shuttle era suit gloves. It's also interesting to note that the Apollo pressure glove was form fitted to the individual wearer.
markjh2005 2 years ago
The glove that Ralph Rene uses in his homemade vacuum chamber is not a good approximation to an Apollo glove, which is tight fitting and articulated, as opposed to the ballon like size of Ralphs glove, which would have a greater surface area and become far more rigid than the actual Apollo glove in vacuum. No astronaut ever said the suit or glove was easy to use, it would of been physically demanding, but definitely able to be done with the Apollo glove design.
markjh2005 2 years ago
Oh come ON!! The Procucers had an "exact" suit replica IN EXTERNAL APPEARENCE ONLY!!!!! Jarrah, do you ACTUALLY believe that was a flight ready EVA pressure suit? That was a COSTUME!!! I know the owner of Global Effects who makes such things. Mind you, his are so good, he's sold them to ILC and David Clark (the guys who make the REAL suits) to display in their lobbies... because even THEY cannot afford to have a four million dollar, REAL space suit in a glass case! Hahahaha!!!
satweavers 2 years ago
The point is that Even Global Effects highly detailed COSTUME space suits are NOT pressure suits! There are three or four prop shops in Los Angeles who make and rent Moon Suits... and NONE of them are pressure suits. Look at the way that suit hangs on the actor! There is nothing more than atmospheric pressure inside it. Isn't that horribly obvious? You are very eager to make unqualified assumptions to support your position. You really should try fact checking SOME of your caims.
satweavers 2 years ago
The shot at 2:45-2:53 looks totally like a studio shot. FAKE.
I guess taking chances with Shuttle astro-nots going outside to play might be a little hazardous.
istanbul18 2 years ago 3
@istanbul18 No, that's a real shot... Don't tell me you don't believe ISS EVAs...
yesiamawizardjonny 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I would like to know how you explain the earth "blueberry" photo from Apollo 17. The photo doesn't depict a moon landing, but there is no way a photo like that could have been taken from low earth orbit, and Apollo was the only manned spacecraft to ever travel outside of low earth orbit. Even the space shuttle doesn't go high enough. Not to mention the info on Google Moon which shows the LEMs from the moon landings.
travelbytommy 3 years ago
"I would like to know how you explain the earth "blueberry" photo from Apollo 17."
I assume you mean the "Blue Marble", I've never heard it described as the blueberry. Anyways, I'd say that was a model of the earth that they took a photo of against a black backdrop.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Yes you are right the "blue marble" photo. I was thinking of the references in the movie Rocket Man.
One thing you have to remember is that until that picture came out, nobody had ever seen the world as a whole before so therefore it would be impossible to construct an accurate model as you suggest. You also could not use a collage of low earth orbit photos to construct a model either because the clouds would be different along the edges of the pictures.
travelbytommy 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Try reading some books and finish highschool. Every time I read the shit that hoaxTards write I think of W.C.Fields:
"Go away kid, you bother me."
CIA? Conspiracy Idiots Alliance
.
dopje31857 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Try reading some books and finish highschool.":
Try posting a rebuttal instead of ridicule.
"Every time I read the shit that hoaxTards write I think of W.C.Fields:
"Go away kid, you bother me.".."
Couldn't have said it better myself, except for maybe FUCK OFF dopje.. The j being optional of course!
straydog02 3 years ago
Comment removed
straydog02 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"CIA? Conspiracy Idiots Alliance"
I bet it took you a couple of hours to think up that little gem, right dope? .. Or perhaps you borrowed it from one of the propandists you all parrot.
straydog02 3 years ago
gotta be the most annoying voice i've ever heard.. (first one)
Cruve01 3 years ago 2
watch?v=0XJFwcA7TOI
Grumman Moon Base on Long Island
ed11561 3 years ago
keep up the good work, jarrah!
xismxist 3 years ago 2
watch?v=0XJFwcA7TOI
GRUMMAN MOON BASE HANGAR-LONG ISLAND NY
cadu1995 3 years ago
He stands there very causally but
not only is he holding a feather he cannot possibly hold
hes actually fondling it too
Thanks for your observation Jarrah!
play69ball
play69ball 3 years ago 2
watch?v=0XJFwcA7TOI
cHECK OUT MOON BASE GRUMMAN on LongIslandNY
lol
cadu1995 3 years ago
Top notch again Jarrah.
This series just gets better and better.
I think you should make another video concentrating on the Gollum like creatures scuttleling around here like cockroaches defending the moon landings after reading the comments here.
Especially wspaceport.
greenmagoos 3 years ago 4
I was told that Paul Hogan wore boxer shorts during the filming of Crocodile Dundee 1 but briefs in 2. I contacted Hogan to verify and he stated that he couldn't remember. I pointed out to Hogan that he could not have done his knife stunt in boxers. He stated that he could do knife stunts in briefs or boxers. Crocodile Dundee is fake Australian propaganda- I just proved it- knife stunts can only be done in briefs.
gen57b 3 years ago
WOW WHAT AN ASSHOLE-U must be a MOON-NOT.Totally twist shit around for your own advantage,try to make someone look foolish whenit is you that is the total incompetent asshole. It figures.
cadu1995 3 years ago
cadu1995: I'm the one twisting?
Now for the incompetent remark.
Do you hoaxers really think you can make Apollo a hoax with ridiculous essays based on hearsay and anecdotal meanderings? Do you sincerely believe NASA will hand over Apollo hardware to a hoaxer in order for that hoaxer to experiment on it thereby proving or disproving whether or not Apollo landed men on the Moon? Do you people ever run your thoughts through your mouths and listen to what you 'think' before speaking it? Wow- ya.
gen57b 3 years ago
"I guess they filmed all of the lunar footage in the vomit comet as well! They must have had HUGE vomit comets back in 69-72."
No, they filmed it on lunar sets.
"The VC footage was almost identical to the Apollo lunar footage, and nothing like the footge with a wire support."
The operative word being "almost".. The wire support evidence looked more like the Apollo footage.. The "Mythbusters" just wanted us to believe otherwise, since their agenda was to bust the hoax evidence.
straydog02 3 years ago
"The wire support evidence looked more like the Apollo footage.. "
No it doesn't, the wire support footage lacked the lightness of the vomit comet footage. It was really easy to tell that he was just jumping around on earth. With the vomit comet footage you could see he could easily jump very high with minimal effort, you don't get that as nicely with a wire rig.
zakabog 3 years ago
"All we really proved was how easy it is to fake a Moon landing on Earth." - Mythbusters
Watch how NASA faked some of their Apollo Hassleblad still photography by using small scale models on moonsets, plus a single light source spotlight.
These clowns set out to prove that the Apollo photography was real and accomplished the exact opposite!.. Can anyone say irony? .. Ok, how about oops!
Mythbusters Moon Landing photo hoax 2
watch?v=MtWMz51eL0Y&feature=related
straydog02 3 years ago
"Watch how NASA faked some of their Apollo Hassleblad still photography by using small scale models on moonsets, plus a single light source spotlight."
You can't simply scale down a set to that size and get photos showing the same detail levels of the Apollo photos, plus you'd run into the same problems as if you had a full size set. It wouldn't make sense in the slightest to have a scaled down set, you wouldn't want multiple models of everything, you might forget details on one of them.
zakabog 3 years ago 2
"You can't simply scale down a set to that size and get photos showing the same detail levels of the Apollo photos,.."
As far as the "distance" shots are concerned, they got the same exact results as NASA did when they faked the Apollo photos.
The "Mythbusters" may have selectively debunked some already debunked, very old conspiracy theories, but in the process they proved just how easy it was for NASA to fake the Apollo photography.
straydog02 3 years ago
"As far as the "distance" shots are concerned, they got the same exact results as NASA did when they faked the Apollo photos."
They didn't, you're looking at a crappy youtube video, compare the Mythbuster's Hasselblad photos with the ones from NASA, the differences will be noticeable immediately.
zakabog 3 years ago 2
"They didn't, you're looking at a crappy youtube video, compare the Mythbuster's Hasselblad photos with the ones from NASA, the differences will be noticeable immediately."
How would you know that unless you've seen the "Mythbusters" Hassie photo held up next to a faked Apollo photo?.. This has nothing to do with "a crappy YouTube video", since this balony was a TV program before it landed here.
Look at those two photos again .. They look exactly the same.
straydog02 3 years ago
"How would you know that unless you've seen the "Mythbusters" Hassie photo held up next to a faked Apollo photo?"
I'm a photographer and I've done work with miniature figures. If you closely examine a high resolution shot of a miniature all the little imperfections that wouldn't be on a full size model become very obvious. That would be the case for the Mythbusters photos as well.
"They look exactly the same."
Only because you're looking at very small low-res images.
zakabog 3 years ago
You can't just switch things around like that. Take the issue of parallel shadows. Percy made a specific claim that the shadows MUST have been parallel, and that the image in question was proof that two different light sources were used. Mythbusters thoroughly debunked that claim, by demonstrating that slight changes in local topography can cause shadows to appear non-parallel. Percy's claim that this proves two light sources is therefore refuted. Will he withdraw the claim? I doubt it.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago 2
"You can't just switch things around like that. Take the issue of parallel shadows."
I haven't switched anything around .. The parallel shadow theory was already busted, long before the "Mythbusters" decided to bust it again by using their selective debunking tactics .. So there is nothing to debate.
straydog02 3 years ago
At least you've had the guts to finally agree it was busted. Shame Percy doesn't do the same. Problem is, there are still people who believe that this proves the moon landings were faked, just like they still think that fiducials apparently behind bright white objects proves fakery as well.
Looks like Clavius was right on that issue all along.
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"Looks like Clavius was right on that issue all along."
Well, I'm glad they got something right, cuz most of what the obsessive shill Jay Windley spews there (ad nauseum), is NASA disinformation.
straydog02 3 years ago
"Percy's claim that this proves two light sources is therefore refuted. Will he withdraw the claim? I doubt it."
You must have forgotten that before the Apollo defenders realized that one light source could explain away the non parallel shadow issue, they claimed that "Earthshine" was the second light source on the Moon, which caused the non parallel shadows in the Apollo photos.. In fact, I believe you were one of the game players who used that very example on that MSN Moon Hoax Forum.
straydog02 3 years ago
If anyone claimed Earthshine was responsible for that shadow, they were wrong. That doesn't mean that Apollo was faked, it means someone made a mistake. I never made that claim myself, I've always said that it's a combination of variations in terrain and the perspective that accounts for any strange looking shadows. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten David Percy and Jack White that they were wrong on the non-parallel shadow issue?
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"Perhaps you'd care to enlighten David Percy and Jack White that they were wrong on the non-parallel shadow issue?"
:-D I actually tried that, Percy said White further reviewed the images in question and decided to stick with his original argument.
zakabog 3 years ago
"If anyone claimed Earthshine was responsible for that shadow, they were wrong."
Well, thanks to the "Mythbusters", we now know exactly what type of single light source was used to fake the photos.
"Perhaps you'd care to enlighten David Percy and Jack White that they were wrong on the non-parallel shadow issue?"
Perhaps you'd care to enlighten Phil Plaitt that Neil disagrees with his scientific claim that stars can be seen from the daylight side of the Moon, without the use of optics?
straydog02 3 years ago
"...they claimed that "Earthshine" was the second light source on the Moon, which caused the non parallel shadows in the Apollo photos.."
You can't group all Apollo defenders into one group like that, I would never even suggest that the light reflected off of the earth caused the non parallel shadows. I know enough about light to know that if you have two light sources (earth and the sun) you get TWO SHADOWS on every object. Something the moon hoax believers don't seem to get.
zakabog 3 years ago
"You can't group all Apollo defenders into one group like that"
Why not? .. You all belong to the same herd of duped sheep.
straydog02 3 years ago
"Why not? .. You all belong to the same herd of duped sheep."
Well, for one thing, not all of us agree on specific things (like this earth shine issue.)
Secondly, you would then be inviting moon hoax believers to be lumped in with the flat earth society (as they don't believe in the moon landings either.)
zakabog 3 years ago
"Secondly, you would then be inviting moon hoax believers to be lumped in with the flat earth society (as they don't believe in the moon landings either.)"
Point taken .. There are different herds of duped sheep, probably on both sides of this fence.. LOL
straydog02 3 years ago
"I would never even suggest that the light reflected off of the earth caused the non parallel shadows."
Then you are one of the few Apollo Fan Boys who didn't make that silly claim.
"I know enough about light to know that if you have two light sources (earth and the sun) you get TWO SHADOWS on every object."
Yet, the Earthshine IS one of the light sources on the Moon.. So why do you figure there are never any double shadows in any of the Apollo photographs?
straydog02 3 years ago
"Yet, the Earthshine IS one of the light sources on the Moon.. So why do you figure there are never any double shadows in any of the Apollo photographs?"
Same reason the moon doesn't cast a double shadow on earth while the sun is out. Or why you never see a double shadow in any photos from LEO. The suns light is too overpowering for a noticeable shadow to be caused by the earth. I can do an experiment for you with two strobes, a 400W at low power and a 1600W at full power if you'd like.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Same reason the moon doesn't cast a double shadow on earth while the sun is out. Or why you never see a double shadow in any photos from LEO. The suns light is too overpowering for a noticeable shadow to be caused by the earth."
Thank you for that predictable reply!.. You just proved that secondary light sources could have been used on the moonsets for fill, but would have been so overpowerd by the huge arc spotlight that NASA used to replicate the Sun that no double shadows would be seen.
straydog02 3 years ago
"You just proved that secondary light sources could have been used on the moonsets for fill, but would have been so overpowerd by the huge arc spotlight that NASA used to replicate the Sun that no double shadows would be seen."
No, a secondary light source bright enough to act as a fill light will cast a shadow. The earth wouldn't work well as a fill light because it would be so overpowered by the light from the sun, which is the same reason it wouldn't cast a shadow.
zakabog 3 years ago
"No, a secondary light source bright enough to act as a fill light will cast a shadow."
Not if the secondary light source is only as bright as a flashlight and the arc "sun" spotlight could light up a stadium.
Jeeze zak, don't you ever sleep? .. Go to bed and stop obsessing about Apollo .. I thought you only posted while at work ..Or is NASA paying you overtime now? .. LOL
Goodnight zakabog.
straydog02 3 years ago
"Not if the secondary light source is only as bright as a flashlight and the arc "sun" spotlight could light up a stadium."
Okay I'm about to go find some AA Batteries for my Canon 440EX flash (brighter than a flashlight) to see if it will be a noticeable fill light when I take a photo with my 1600W alien bees at full power.
"Jeeze zak, don't you ever sleep?"
I was about to go to bed, first I wanted to setup VNC then I wanted to check my e-mail, saw your reply and felt I should respond.
zakabog 3 years ago
Shocking, the weak flash provides no fill light when taking photos against an object lit from behind by a 1600W light.
jmaug[dot]com/fill/NoFill.jpg - Just the 1600W light
jmaug[dot]com/fill/Fill.jpg - 1600W and a flash.
Sorry the pictures are out of focus, all the lights were off (didn't want any outside light to taint the experiment.) I did use the same exposure settings they would have used on the moon (f/7.1 and 1/250th shutter speed.)
zakabog 3 years ago
"Shocking, the weak flash provides no fill light when taking photos against an object lit from behind by a 1600W light."
I thought it was already established that the Apollo astronots didn't use any flash photography on the moonsets.
So I guess the "Mythbusters" are correct then, and NASA only used ONE GIANT SPOTLIGHT FOR ALL MANKIND to fake the Apollo photography.
straydog02 3 years ago 2
"I thought it was already established that the Apollo astronots didn't use any flash photography on the moonsets."
It was, then you suggested that I proved the fill light would cast no shadow. I said that was wrong, and my experiment shows if the fill light casts no noticeable shadow then it won't make a very good fill light. Not only that, it also shows how much light gets reflected (the entire garage is lit up even objects behind the flash, which is the only light source.)
zakabog 3 years ago
thanks WhiteJarrah
dont bother these people, they are sick people. people who have KOL NIDRE(TELLING LIES) in their minds.
it is impossible for a man to be outside earth because of the sun
Mahdiarmy 3 years ago
"it is impossible for a man to be outside earth because of the sun"
...? So you're saying any mission to space is fake? What about the sun makes it impossible to be "outside earth"?
zakabog 3 years ago
"You do realise that they can't see microscopic particles right ? UNLESS they form a pack ... "
Well yeah, the only way they can see the fountains on the moon is because the entire sunlit surface is ejecting the microscopic particles. There wouldn't be enough of these particles around the astronaut to create a significant dust cloud around each step.
Plus it would be obscured by the dust kicked up with every step, how do you expect to distinguish between repelled dust and kicked dust?
zakabog 3 years ago
"Wrong , they would repell a bunch of 'dust' you will easily see these particles"
So why is it that only microscopic particles are repelled during the change between lunar day and night?
"visible and constant repel of 'dust' MUST be observed everytime they walk"
What about all the dust that is kicked up when they walk? How can you distinguish between dust that was only kicked and dust that was also repelled? Do you have a vacuum chamber with positively charged dust for experimenting?
zakabog 3 years ago
"the entire surface will pe positively charged"
Only the sunlit surface. Otherwise the entire moon would be positively charged.
"no repel is observed EVER , end of story ."
It's not going to go shooting across the surface every time they step. If you notice the article only says microscopic particles are ejected off the moons surface so easily so you obviously wouldn't see particles just shooting away from the astronauts as they walk.
zakabog 3 years ago
"The positive charge build on the sunlit surface , the astro-clowns allegedly landed there during lunar daylight ..."
It doesn't say the entire surface would be positively charged, anything below the surface or in the shade would still have a negative charge. It's also entirely possible that they were repelling dust, but the sharp hook like nature of the dust caused it to stick to their suits when it would come in contact with them.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Poor zakahog ... even wikipedia is against him now . "
...? Actually based on the article not all of the dust would have a positive charge and the dust takes a stronger negative charge than a positive charge.
zakabog 3 years ago 2
Seems like the dropped objects should fall slower than that. Has anyone done a computer simulation of 1/6th gravity? Wouldn't people jump around like they do in the video game Virtua Fighter? /watch?v=CDDPAxyErL0
Sorry, I just felt like sharing that video.
stalepie3000 3 years ago
In may 2007 Nasa held a contest to design a better space glove for space.Peter Homer, an engineer from Southwest Harbor, Maine, beat out three other competitors and the current NASA Phase VI glove to bag the $200,000 prize with his design made with off-the-shelf kitchen cleaning gloves and "a cloth material he found on eBay." lol no way nasa's glove held up during a moon walk.
harooni22 3 years ago
How does someone winning a competition to improve glove design for ISS and Shuttle astronauts prove that the Apollo gloves couldn't work?
HeadLikeARock 3 years ago
"There is no much of a static buildup on earth due to the sun"
Then, I guess we shouldn't worry about storms, or any form of weather. I give. I can't debate with "religous" zealots who will make stuff up, to make it seem that what he says is true, no matter what real physics or math has to say about it. All i can ask of you is please read up on trasfer of energy , and valance elections. good luck and i hope you understand someday. おやすみなさい。 ー二オ寺様
Neoterrataru 3 years ago
1plus8 is right (again). You would do good to check on NASA saying that Moon dust has a notable electrostatic charge. That is also how they explain the dust storms on the Moon: it's caused by the electrostatic charge and discharge, not by the air currents.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
Once again NASA is silent and refuses to allow simple tests on suit gloves!
And dopey NASA pimp wspaceport is caught out making things up to defend Nixon's vile-smelling Apollo fantasy concoction, served up by the NASA/CIA/Pentagon axis of evil!
Well done, Jarrah! I always enjoy your vids. I admire your dedication and determination to expose the Apollo Fraud and get to the truth.
sergemck 3 years ago
Superb observation, 1plus8!
The Apollo Fraud denying NASA pimps claim that the "moon dust" couldn't be sand because it attached itself and dirtied up the a/not's suit legs.
But the completely dry "moon-dust" adhering to the suit legs of the a/not couldn't have attached to the suit because the "dust" was POSITIVE, and the suit was POSITIVE.
In a vacuum, with no air to discharge the static, the "dust" and suit would have repelled each other! As they don't repel, then the a/nots are on Earth!
sergemck 3 years ago
"But the completely dry "moon-dust" adhering to the suit legs of the a/not couldn't have attached to the suit because the "dust" was POSITIVE, and the suit was POSITIVE."
en[dot]wikipedia[dot]org/wiki/Lunar_soil#Moon_fountains_and_electrostatic_levitation
Not all of the dust has a positive charge.
zakabog 3 years ago
wiki "On the daylit side of the Moon...positive charges build up until the tiniest particles of lunar dust are repelled from the surface and lofted anywhere from meters to kilometers high... On the night side the dust is negatively charged by electrons in the solar wind"
The a/nots were on the daylit side well into the Moon's morning, and the "dust" would be positive. Because of the LM's time in sunlight, it and the a/not's suits would already be positive.
No dust should have adhered to suits!
sergemck 3 years ago
"The a/nots were on the daylit side well into the Moon's morning, and the "dust" would be positive. Because of the LM's time in sunlight, it and the a/not's suits would already be positive."
Not all of it, the dust doesn't immediately build up a positive charge the second the suns rays hit it, it takes some time, and any dust that was in the shade would have a negative charge.
zakabog 3 years ago
I said the EVA was well into the Moon's morning. Therefore, the "moon-dust" would not be at its maximum positivity, but it would still repel from the suit.
Unfortunately for you NASA pimps, the Chinese astronauts in 2018 won't deliberately dirty their suits in order to defend scum-bag Nixon's Apollo Fraud!
The US and World public WILL find out the truth eventually!
You should be ashamed of your role in the cover-up.
How will you justify yourself before God when you die and go for judgement?
sergemck 3 years ago
"I said the EVA was well into the Moon's morning. Therefore, the "moon-dust" would not be at its maximum positivity, but it would still repel from the suit."
Again, not all of it. Some of the dust will stick to the astronauts space suits. Some of it will have a positive charge and be repelled by the suits, either way it doesn't result in ALL of the dust having the same charge.
zakabog 3 years ago
sergemck gets religion and whines:"How will you justify yourself before God when you die and go for judgement?"
Two Conspiracy Theorists die and meet St. Peter at the pearly gates. They demand (mind you, not ask politely) to see God. St. Peter takes them.
Before they can say anything, God says "I know what you want. Yes, the moon landings really did happen."
One of the CTs turns to the other and says "You see? It really does go all the way to the top."
wspaceport 3 years ago 2
Glove Liar wspaceport, I'm so glad you like jokes. Let's hope you see the funny side of the hugely jolly joke that the Nixon/von Braun/NASA/CIA/astroNOTs troupe of clowns performed in 1968-72!
The cardelo YT vid "Moon hoax - Wire Supports (Mythbusters)" shows more wires! Three in fact and TWO in the same frame! And it comes from an an Apollo Fraud denying documentary!!
This confirms greenmagoos vid "The Dwarf In The Visor" at the 10.25 sec mark, where you will also CLEARLY SEE A SUPPORT WIRE!
sergemck 3 years ago
zakabog: "any dust that was in the shade would have a negative charge".
Oh, Zaka KNOWS again. Pray tell me, how do you know the dust in the shadows would be negatively charged? As you probably know, shadows tend to ROTATE. And there is rarely lasting big shades on the Moon, except deep craters.
Ionized atoms also tend to rebalance to neutral, given a chance, so thick dust layers in craters could very well be neutral. But we don't know until someone actually measures it!
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
"Oh, Zaka KNOWS again. Pray tell me, how do you know the dust in the shadows would be negatively charged?"
It wasn't yet exposed to the UV energy to give it a positive charge.
"And there is rarely lasting big shades on the Moon, except deep craters."
Or dust under a layer of dust, which would be uncovered when an astronaut steps.
zakabog 3 years ago
zakabog: "It wasn't yet exposed to the UV energy to give it a positive charge."
1) If the dust is not reachable by the ionizing radiation, then how did it get a negative charge?
2) Why would it stay negatively charged? If it's not (ever) directly reachable by Sun's radiation, the electrons hit free from its neighborhood would still fly to all directions, and so the negatively charged can capture these.
3) The dust and the shadows move. So nothing is in the shade for ever.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
Just saying that the "dust that is in the shade is negatively charged" is Bush-science.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
"Just saying that the "dust that is in the shade is negatively charged" is Bush-science."
It's simplification of the mechanisms by which the lunar dust looses it's positive charge, which is basically to help it fit youtube's character limit.
zakabog 3 years ago
I wrote "2) .... "and so the negatively charged can capture these"
Ooops! Spoke positive charges there. But the same basically applies to loosing negatively charges, with the difference that they get RID of an electron, not capture it.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
"But the same basically applies to loosing negatively charges, with the difference that they get RID of an electron, not capture it."
I don't get it, are you saying that the loose electron knocks other electrons out of the nearby negatively charged soil? I don't think it works like that...
zakabog 3 years ago
Yep. That's exactly right.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
"Yep. That's exactly right."
That's not how it works... Photoelectrons are released but they don't knock electrons out of the surrounding soil.
zakabog 3 years ago
Oh, give me a break! Where did you get that ballony! Photoelectron is an elelctron kicked out by the high enegy photon, but the excess energy of the photon from the ionization is still carried with the free electron! So it definately can ionize mote atoms!
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
Ehh, typo.
"mote" <- "more"
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
"So it definately can ionize mote atoms!"
Maybe some close surrounding atoms, which would still leave negatively charged lunar regolith below the surface or in the shade. Although the point still stands that the entire surface will not have a positive.
zakabog 3 years ago
"...how did it get a negative charge?"
During the lunar night it picks up a strong negative charge from the solar wind.
"...so the negatively charged can capture these."
Electrons have a negative charge so "capturing" electrons would result in a negative charge.
"So nothing is in the shade for ever."
Yeah, and nothing is in the sun forever, since the sun gives the positive charge and the shade gives a negative charge, there isn't a constant positive charge on the moon.
zakabog 3 years ago
zakabog said: "During the lunar night it picks up a strong negative charge from the solar wind."
I asked "1) If the dust is not reachable by the ionizing radiation, then how did it get a negative charge?"
And solar wind is radiation, you know.
Yeah, nothing is in the Sun for ever, either. But I never claimed them to have a positive charge, did I? I'm just saying you would need some HUGELY SERIOUS shade to keep the dust there negatively charged, and most probably it still wouldn't!
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
"And solar wind is radiation, you know."
Ionizing radiation takes away electrons. The process by which the solar wind deposits free floating electrons on the lunar surface is not ionizing radiation.
"But I never claimed them to have a positive charge, did I?"
My point is not all of the lunar soil on the daylight side will have a positive charge. Also, Even if all of the lunar soil had a positive charge, what kind of repelling do you expect to see? Should the dust part like the red seas?
zakabog 3 years ago
zakabog said: "Ionizing radiation takes away electrons."
Not only that. It can also create positively charged ions. Check it out.
zakabog said: "The process by which the solar wind deposits free floating electrons on the lunar surface is not ionizing radiation."
That was however said where I read about the Moon dust storms. In the Moon's night side the negative charge is created by the solar wind. Said it everywhere where I read about it. Maybe you are right and they are wrong.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
I said "Not only that. It can also create positively charged ions. Check it out."
Dam! I meant it can also create NEGATIVELY charged ions.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
"In the Moon's night side the negative charge is created by the solar wind. Said it everywhere where I read about it. Maybe you are right and they are wrong."
Ah I see the confusion. Well I only had an hour sleep last night, yes, the solar wind is ionizing radiation that negatively charges the lunar surface although by now I've completely forgotten why any of this mattered.
So what kind of repelling do you expect to see of positively charged lunar dust by the positively charged space suits?
zakabog 3 years ago
zakabog wrote: "by now I've completely forgotten why any of this mattered."
Heh, heh zaka! No wonder! I usually avoid answering you, because I know there will be no end!
It wasn't I who expected seeing the dirt repelling the suit. But it should keep the suits clean! Still, I'm not saying there isn't any negatively charged ions on dayside. I wouldn't know! I only answered to the theory of particles being negatively charged in shades, because it didn't sound believable to me.
Aurinkohirvi 3 years ago
"It wasn't I who expected seeing the dirt repelling the suit. But it should keep the suits clean!"
Not likely, once the dust touches the suit it's like Velcro so it's stuck there. Lots of dust was kicked up and if the velocity is high enough, it won't be repelled as easily. Plus whenever the astronauts fell, the dust would stick to them.
zakabog 3 years ago
How are you getting along with the old tentpole Apollo flag, 'bog?
I would have thought someone of your dedication to the cause of partiality would have had it have it up n' fluttering in your one-room Brownstone apartment by now :-)
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"How are you getting along with the old tentpole Apollo flag, 'bog?"
Did you not read my other comment? Mythbusters did the experiment with a replica of the flag in a vacuum with atmosphere then without. The flag stops swinging almost immediately in the atmosphere
"I would have thought someone of your dedication to the cause of partiality would have had it have it up n' fluttering in your one-room Brownstone apartment by now :-)"
One-room brownstone apartment?
jmaug[dot]com/house[dot]jpg
zakabog 3 years ago
"As you probably know, shadows tend to ROTATE."
Sort of, on the moon the process takes days (moon takes a month to rotate) so there are a lot of shadows that will last the length of the lunar missions.
zakabog 3 years ago
@zakabog @zakabog Even if it were all positively charged, a positively charged particle would attract negative charges towards the surface of the spacesuit, creating a local negative charge, which it would stick to. Charged particles will stick to large objects, no other explanation is needed. Large objects, such as spacesuits, can have localized charges that are different from their net charges. Even water molecules are overall neutral, but have a localized positive and negative charge.
NekuraCa 1 year ago
That is assuming that the dust holds a charge. the total ground of the moon sure. even if the dust did, It dose not nessisaraly mean they would effect each other staticly. the reason we see such larg effects in earth, is from the fact we have an atmopheare which can hold a larg ammont of static. I'm sorry i can't explaine it too well in english.
Neoterrataru 3 years ago
何？you have no idea what you are saying do you? I think you are confusing electrical force, and magnetic force. just becouse the charge is the same, for electrical, it dosn't always repell mass. What you said, is similar to saying that i put 2 positive sides of a battery to gether, since they don't repel therfore it dosnt hold a charge.
Neoterrataru 3 years ago
1plus8:"you lied, you are a liar, or if you prefer, you are a fraud!"
Nope. Sorry, you're wrong.
I attended NSTA in 1990. There was a vacuum chamber ("Glove Box") exactly as I described it in the NASA exhibit area. Parker confirms it, just not the EVA gloves.
I put my arms in up to my shoulders and got a good workout within a minute of flexing, twisting, turning and picking up objects from a wrench to a Quarter with both types of gloves.
It certainly wasn't easy, but do-able.
wspaceport 3 years ago
Hey Jarrah, found a site Ralph Rene should look at -
terrauniversal[dot]com/
They make a vacuum glove box, he can contact them, they have neoprene gloves for sale (around $115) that I believe should work in his vacuum chamber. I'd give them a call and ask them about the gloves mobility when the chamber is at low pressures.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Furthermore, you've once again demonstrated an irresponsible, reprehensible & unprofessional "rush to judgement" by not contacting me for a follow-up with Louis Parker's (in error) comment to allow a rebuttal or clarification of the facts as I know them to be from 18 years ago."
I've heard your "rebuttal", its the same old game. Something says something that hurts your case, you either say he's wrong, call him a liar or say he doesn't know jack.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"Something says something that hurts your case"
Typo, "someone says something that hurts your case[...]"
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
WJ:"I've heard your "rebuttal"...Someone says something that hurts your case, you either say he's wrong" (etc., etc.)
--Your attention to detail overlooked this fact:
zakabog:"Your failure at simple research is amazing...There's just such a chamber at the JSC being used by students, so it's entirely possible that Louis A. Parker was incorrect."
--I agree with Zakabog. Simple research would show Jeremy Pyle is "the Public Affairs Guy" at NSS, not me.
And Louis didn't hurt my case...
wspaceport 3 years ago
Your failure at simple research is amazing.
tinyurl[dot]com/6775ba
There's just such a chamber at the JSC being used by students, so it's entirely possible that Louis A. Parker was incorrect.
zakabog 3 years ago
Your link doesn't work.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Your link doesn't work.
Replace [dot] with . and make sure you don't leave any characters off.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Replace [dot] with . and make sure you don't leave any characters off."
I did. My computer doesn't seem to like tinyurls anymore.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"I did. My computer doesn't seem to like tinyurls anymore."
Okay here's the original link -
coop[dot]jsc[dot]nasa[dot]gov/photo/1999/springwork/index[dot]htm
If your computer is having trouble I can help you fix it through private messages or e-mail (I've been a computer technician for the past 13 years) if you'd like.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Okay here's the original link -"
Looking at it. Where does it say they were using an A7L-B suit glove? Where does it say such a glove was in a vacuum chamber at the exhibition wspaceport claims he went to?
All I'm getting is info on current EVA gloves, which are quite different to those used on Apollo.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"All I'm getting is info on current EVA gloves, which are quite different to those used on Apollo."
In what way? It's basically the same design, the gloves might provide a bit more mobility (the gloves are custom made for each astronauts hands) and grip (grip would be achieved by the outer surface) although I doubt the gloves used in that demonstration would be the $40,000 EMU gloves they would use on an EVA and would be closer to the Apollo gloves in mobility.
zakabog 3 years ago
"although I doubt the gloves used in that demonstration would be the $40,000 EMU gloves they would use on an EVA and would be closer to the Apollo gloves in mobility."
If you are doubtful that they are the same gloves, then why are using it to prop up your arguments then? You give me a site that says stuff about shuttle gloves, then you deny that the gloves are what the site says they are.
And you are telling me that my and Ralph's scientific method are flawed?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"If you are doubtful that they are the same gloves, then why are using it to prop up your arguments then?"
Everything I've read so far says they're basically the same design except they allow for temperature control and are molded to the hands of the astronauts. I haven't found anything to say otherwise, if you believe they're not the same basic design then show that evidence.
zakabog 3 years ago
"Everything I've read so far says they're basically the same design"
Did you by any chance read your must-see Encyclopedia Astronautica, which specifically states that the Shuttle EMU gloves are an imporovement over the A7L-B gloves?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"Did you by any chance read your must-see Encyclopedia Astronautica, which specifically states that the Shuttle EMU gloves are an imporovement over the A7L-B gloves?"
... an improvement only means it's improved, not that it's different. My MacBook Pro is an improvement over last years MacBook Pro although they're the same basic design (mine just has a nicer video card and slightly faster CPU.)
zakabog 3 years ago 2
"an improvement only means it's improved, not that it's different."
Do you even feel comfortable typing what you write? Improved flexibility makes a huge difference to the previous one-inch grip.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"Improved flexibility makes a huge difference to the previous one-inch grip."
Actually wasn't the point to prove that the grip was only one-inch? How can you establish the fact based on an interview with someone who had nothing to do with the development of the glove?
I'd like to also ask, what is so magical about today's gloves that they couldn't have possibly done for the gloves in Apollo?
Lastly, did you check out Terra Universal? They have neoprene gloves for vacuum chambers.
zakabog 3 years ago 2
WJ:"Where does it say such a glove was in a vacuum chamber at the exhibition wspaceport claims he went to?"
--It doesn't, but it's irrelavant; that's the "vacuum chamber" ('glove box' to argue sementics) that I accurately & truthfully described to you at the NSTA conference in 1990.
WJ:"you are telling me that my and Ralph's scientific method are flawed?"
-Obviously, Yes. You also owe me a personal apology & retraction on YouTube for your libelous statements against me in this clip.
wspaceport 3 years ago
"It doesn't, but it's irrelavant"
I beg to differ. The Shuttle EMU glove and A7:-B suit glove are quite different.
"that's the "vacuum chamber" ('glove box' to argue sementics) that I accurately & truthfully described to you at the NSTA conference in 1990."
And yet your source of information told me that such a machine with a A7L-B glove was absent at the conference you speak of. And the vacuum chamber shown on that site says nothing about an A7L-B suit glove.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"I beg to differ. The Shuttle EMU glove and A7:-B suit glove are quite different."
In what ways do they differ to the point where the A7L-B glove wouldn't have the same range of mobility?
zakabog 3 years ago
WJ:"And yet your source of information told me that such a machine with a A7L-B glove was absent at the conference you speak of."
Wrong. Louis says "The 1990 NSTA...had a number of space suit items displayed. There was [a] glove box with this equipment, but *we* (meaning JSC) did not have a suit or parts of one inside a vacuum chamber.
There were other field centers represented at NSTA, all under the common banner of "NASA." It's plausible the suit arms & gloves came from one of them.
wspaceport 3 years ago
Nice twist of words. There is a difference between having a glovebox with an A7L glove inside, and a DEPRESSURIZED glove box with an A7L glove inside. He clearly specifies that they didn't have a vacuum chamber at that exhibition. How long are you going to continue lying to me?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago