Transitions can be gradual. Who knows what kind of classified equipment they had back then.More appeal to magic.
I'm still not convinced by your assertations that it's impossible to make sand dust-free.Who cares? You can't tell us how it's done, and you won't perform any experiments yourself to investigate the problem. So it doesn't matter that you're not convinced.
And further, it doesn't matter whether you can or not. The sand can't simultaneously be affected by air when you need it to, then not affected by it when the effect is inconvenient to your belief.
I'm not just going to take your word for it.No, you only take conspiracy theorists' word for it. You said as much.
I know you've got an accedemic background but the theory is that you are capable of saying things you know to be untrue.Calling people liars for having good reasons to disagree with you is not a good way to make your point.
You are aware of what the hoax believer community thinks of you and this whole site, aren't you?Opinion is irrelevant. You can't tell us
how we're wrong; so who cares if you think we are?
All it takes is one case of footage that was obviously filmed on earth that everything else falls by the wayside.Hogwash. You need a preponderance of evidence in order to make any such case. You're trying to set the bar ridiculously low for yourself and ridiculously high for your critics.
I haven't seen any conclusive proof yet.It is not possible in any situation to provide evidence so airtight that it can withstand your appeals to magic. When you're explaining away evidence by saying, "They must have had some classified way of doing it; I don't know what it is, but they
must have had it," then there is no point in further attempts at rational discussion.
As far as I'm concerned the footage played at double speed here closes the whole case.We're not interested in the one point you believe today closes the whole case, ignoring all the other evidence. Earlier it was rover plume that "closed the whole case," and you admitted you had been wrong about that. Before that it was the visor reflections that "closed the whole case," and you admitted you didn't know enough to make your case.
You must look at and explain the
totality of evidence, not just the one thing that holds your interest today.
He could have flailed his arms faster than that.Prove it. Put on a space suit costume and show yourself flailing your arms at twice normal rate.
It had all been recorded beforehand.Nope. Contemporary events were discussed.
You people know physics. Is this person right?No, he is not. He clearly has not studied thermodynamics or heat transfer. He's pretty clueless.
"Objects which are heated cannot be cooled by space."This is misleading. Things cannot be cooled
by space, at least in the convective or conductive senses, but they can be cooled
in space by radiative means. An object that is hot radiates electromagnetic energy. The hotter it gets, the faster it radiates. This radiation cools the object because the heat is converted to light.
The rate is also affected by how much radiation arrives from the same direction. If an object is facing toward an area of space in which there is little if any arriving radiation, it will radiate away toward that direction faster. Since most of space is the perfect radiative heat sink, the object can be said to be radiatively cooled
by space.
"In order for an object to cool it must first be removed from direct sunlight."False. An object in direct sunlight still radiates. It simply radiates at a slower rate. It cools in the sense that it rejects heat, but because it cools at a slow rate there is a limit to how much heat can be rejected and therefore the equilibrium temperature it will reach.
"Objects cool because the laws of motion dictate that the molecules of the object will slow down due to the resistance resulting from striking other molecules..."No. A single molecule will cool by radiation even if it has nothing to bump up against. This person clearly does not understand heat transfer in space.
"NASA insists the space suits the astronauts supposedly wore on the lunar surface were air conditioned."No, NASA does
not insist this. This person does not have his facts straight.
NASA does not in any way claim that space suits used a common convective heat transfer system that requires an ambient into which heat is conveyed. And he changes his story here:
"NASA claims that water was sprayed on the coils causing a coating of ice to form."No. The water was allowed to leak very slowly into space through a porous nickel plate. Spraying liquid water into space does not cause it to form a single body of ice, but instead very tiny ice crystals. If liquid water is introduced very slowly into a vacuum, it will stick to the plate as a cake of water ice.
"There are two problems with this that cannot be explained away. 1) The amount of water needed to be carried by the astronauts in order to make this work for even a very small length of time in the direct 55 degrees over the boiling point of water (210 degrees F at sea level on Earth) heat of the sun could not have possibly been carried by the astronauts."Utterly clueless.
First, the individual who just got done telling us that space is neither hot nor cold is now trying to tell us there's an ambient temperature the astronauts must deal with. The 200+ F temperatures he quotes are for the lunar
surface. Objects
in space indeed reach certain temperatures, depending on their radiative and absorptive properties, but space itself does not have a temperature. The lunar rocks reaching a peak temperature of 200+ F does not mean the astronauts in space suits -- which have different optical properties than rocks -- reach the same temperature.
Second, the heat we must deal with is not the heat absorbed by the sun. That's very easily insulated and reflected by the space suit. Thermal design in space is largely a matter of controlling how much radiant heat is absorbed, and not all objects absorb the same amounts. The heat we need to deal with is the 80-100 watts of metabolic heat the astronaut generates. The fine insulation that prevents absorbed heat in the outer layers of the suit from reaching him also prevents his body heat from going anywhere.
Third, this guy hasn't computed anything. Telling us that something is "too much" requires a quantitative argument.
Rocky, I will stipulate that the human body generates 80 W of metabolic heat at normal levels of activity. The heat of sublimation of water is 2.6 kJ per gram. What mass of water is required to sublimate in order to reject an astronaut's body heat for one hour? I know that most of the people here can solve this problem because it's asked frequently and they've solved it before. Can you solve it?
"NASA has since claimed that they found ice in moon craters. NASA claims that ice sheltered from the direct rays of the sun will NOT evaporate destroying their own bogus "air conditioning" explanation."Ice in craters does not evaporate outside the sun's influence because there is no source of heat to make it do so. In the case of the sublimator in the astronauts' space suit, the source of heat is the astronaut's metabolism.
"NASA claims that the spacecraft was slowly rotated causing the shadowed side to be cooled by the intense cold of space..."No. He is right in saying even heating was the goal. It's a problem when parts of a machine are at radically different temperatures because it puts mechanical stress on things that are trying to expand or contract.
In fact the shaded side
will radiate heat away into space. But mostly the spacecraft was simply made reasonably reflective so as not to absorb solar heat so much.
"It is also proof of the arrogance and contempt in which the Illuminati holds the common man."So this guy is wearing is agenda on his sleeve.
"In the actual Lunar Lander this engine is present but in the film and pictures of the inside of the Lunar Lander that was "said" to be on the moon the engine is absent."Hogwash. The APS cover is clearly visible in several photographs and all the film and video taken inside flight LMs.
"It would also be a good idea for you to measure the dimensions of the astronauts in their spacesuits and then measure the actual usable dimensions of the hatch that they had to use to egress and ingress the Lander."This guy is just regurgitating Jim Collier's ignorant claims. Covered here:
www.clavius.org/lmdoors.html"We have examined the gloves NASA claims the astronauts wore and find they are made of pliable material containing no mechanical, hydraulic, or electrical devices which would aid the astronauts in the dexterous use of their fingers and hands while wearing the gloves."False. Most people examine the gauntlets thinking they're examining the pressurized gloves. The pressurized Neoprene inner gloves have bulbous constant-volume areas at the knuckles.
"Experiments prove absolutely that such gloves are impossible to use..."The only experiment I am aware of was done by Ralph Rene using an entirely
different glove in a pressure gradient three times greater than those applicable to space suits. In other words, he loaded the dice.
Are you saying that it's impossible to use gloves in a vacuum at all? So all those Salyut and ISS and shuttle EVAs are bogus too?
"The films show clearly that there is no pressure whatsoever within the gloves..."He's looking at the gauntlet overgloves, which were not pressurized. The pressure was contained inside the inner gloves where aids to flexibility were provided. Why are you trusting someone who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about?
"We found that data is available for any day of any year during which data has been collected EXCEPT the days and hours of all of the Apollo Moon shots."Hogwash. If you insist on getting it from the federal government it's at the NSSDC in Greenbelt Maryland and is quite available for all the Apollo missions.
However, any observatory in the entire world can give you that information because they all study it. Solar weather observations are a part of every observatory's duties. Because it is so widely studied, it's ludicrous to suppose that NASA can hide space weather data from the whole world simply by not supplying it themselves.
This guy is clearly lying through his teeth.
The data is not available because it would demonstrate that the so-called astronauts would have been fried crisp.Then why do no astrophysicists doubt the authenticity of Apollo missions? Why are the people who spin the radiation gloom-and-doom story always the ones who can't demonstrate even a high school student's understanding of the space environment?
Now I've indulged you in your latest and most egregious change of subject. Will you kindly stop regurgitating other people's claims blindly and actually try to do some thinking for yourself?