Faking the moon landing impossible

Good post scepti.

Apparently there's just under 5psi of pressure on the top of Mt Everest, we're told that people have survived up there, I haven't climbed Everest so I am just going along with what I have been told.

We do need oxygen to keep us breathing up there.

Let's assume people can survive up Everest. I don't believe it but for the sake of it let's accept that the height is legit and people have climbed it to the top.

Let's play with the 5 psi at the top as we are told.
A person getting to the top still has 5 psi crushing him, right?
It may not seem like much but it's 5 psi of pressure.

His suit is just a body heat suit. It's not a so called space suit. It's merely a loose suit and boots and hat gloves and whatever...you get the gist.

Let's go to so called space with the space suit on, like the Gemini carry on with Ed White, allegedly.
If he gets out of that space craft he is doing so with absolutely no pressure external to his space suit.
It would be like the Everest climber getting to the top in that space suit but the top of Everest has no psi of pressure at all. Zero.

As we can deduce, there is absolutely NOTHING pushing or squeezing against the so called astronaut from outside of his suit but inside it's inflated to 3.7 psi as we are led to believe.
This means that his suit is stopping that pressure from leaking out but also creating an equal and opposite reaction on his body and the suit material itself.

If you put a balloon inside a chamber and evacuate pressure, the balloon will expand to fill the void due to the molecules of air being allowed to decompress against the less pressure outside of it.
The more pressure evacuated the bigger the balloon gets, until it either bursts or the pump isn't strong enough to allow more evacuation....OR, the molecules inside the balloon simply cannot expand any more, or the balloon make up starts to be taken apart.
You get my drift, I'm sure.

Ok so back to the suit.
No matter what psi is in that suit, it is going to try and expand to fill the void of so called space vacuum.
The suit bladder can stretch like the balloon and the material of the suit can stop the expansion but the person inside of the suit will expand as well, meaning the suit becomes tighter and tighter until the person inside of it would be literally like a Michelin man...and I'm being mild here just for the sake of clarity.
The reality of a real near vacuum would be a breakdown in all material make up of everything that the space suit is and also what the person inside of it is.

Space as a fantasy for those that are into it, is fine b y me.
I'm just telling it from the reality side...the reality side that is does not exist in how we are shown and told about, especially with the silly astronaut spacewalk nonsense.


Now at the mild end of what I've said, the simple blatant in your face issue is, the so called astronaut is absolutely not going to be turning his head or moving about like he does. It just isn't or wouldn't happen....ever.

I would think the resistance caused by the material could cause pressure?

Like how an air compressor works, it has a steel cylinder that can hold a high pressure without exploding.

Turning your head is a complex issue, I understand that it would be difficult to make something hold pressure and also swivel, I couldn't design one, I don't think it is impossible however.

My bike tyres run at 100 psi. They have not exploded.

I would think the resistance caused by the material could cause pressure?

The only pressure that can be gained is the pressure already in the suit. There's no external pressure, at all.
You would be blown up like a balloon.

Like how an air compressor works, it has a steel cylinder that can hold a high pressure without exploding.

Yes but the so called space suit is not a metal container and also it's under atmospheric pressure.
The problem people have is by thinking that atmospheric sea level pressure is negligible. It's far from it.

Turning your head is a complex issue, I understand that it would be difficult to make something hold pressure and also swivel, I couldn't design one, I don't think it is impossible however.

Have you ever tried to get the lid off a jar of pickled onions or whatever?
That's the power of atmospheric pressure clamping down on a lid to stop you twisting it.
Low pressure inside surrounded by higher pressure outside looking to equalise but stopped from doing so by the jar and the fact that it's own pressure upon the lid is working against it.

Just reverse this act with the space suit with the pressure inside expanding as much as possible against the resistance of the actual suit.
Nothing is going to be moving about with any meaningful gain for anything.
Basically Ed white or any so called space walker are not getting out of anywhere to do anything inside a so called space suit.

My bike tyres run at 100 psi. They have not exploded.

Why should they explode?

They are a thin pressure bladder with a thin outer covering operating at many times the ambient pressure.

Just like the suit.

They are a thin pressure bladder with a thin outer covering operating at many times the ambient pressure.

Just like the suit.

Nothing like the suit environment, at all.

The actual loadings are considerably higher than 100 psi as they operate with a 90 kg bloke lweighing them down.

In another development, the wheels to which are attached contain a bearing that turns quite happily in a 15 psi environment.

If anyone wants to explain why these analogies don't apply using actual science rather than made up pretend fantasy science and lalala I'm not listening bluster then be my guest.

Quote from: markjo on April 12, 2017, 08:07:34 PM

Quote from: Kuijiblob on April 12, 2017, 07:35:55 PM

Pressurization is a completely different matter making it impossible for the astronaut to attempt his maneuvers. Are you blind,deaf, and dumb?

You do know that the Gemini EVA suit was pressurized to all of 3.7 psi, don't you?  You also understand that the whole point of a pressure suit is so that you can move around in a very low air pressure environment, don't you?

You do realise that your body at sea level is under around 15 psi, right?
You understand that the less pressure upon your body the more your body swells. Why does it swell?
It swells because you are under compression from this 15 psi atmosphere and taking away some of the pressure would allow your cells to expand. Take too much pressure away and you will expand so fast that you will look like your body is boiling due to massive expansion.

That's why it generally takes several hours to decompress safely.  It's quite amazing how adaptable the human body can be when you take your time to adjust.

So first of all, don't even think for one second that a so called space suit can have under 4 psi in it in so called space vacuum, because there's something you're forgetting.

In a so called capsule that is apparently pressurised to sea level atmosphere, in so called space, a so called astronaut would be under that pressure inside his suit without pressurisation required.

So you're saying that the pressure inside the capsule can't ever be lowered?  That's just silly.

If Ed White (for instance) left that capsule for his supposed space walk, he would have had to decompress the entire capsule to get out but at the same time, equalise his inner suit to match the pressure decrease by increasing it inside the suit.
3.7 psi is just not going to cover it, in no way shape or form for starters.

Why not?  How do you think that deep sea divers adjust?

Now let me explain something to you and I want all genuine free thinking people to pay attention to this.
The so called 3.7 psi in the so called space suits are done at sea level.

No.  The spacesuit 3.7 psi is relative to whatever environment the astronaut happens to be in, in this case the zero pressure of space.

But remember that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Basically the extra pressure exerted onto you is being exerted onto the elasticity of the bladder which is now mildly crushing you by an extra 3.7 psi.

If you were to take that to so called space, then the whole shebang changes.
This is why space is impossible and this is why these so called astronauts are no more than paid actors playing a game of pretence.
It's almost like a long running series that moves along with the times.
It's a world of fantasy that is cast out as science.
It's nonsense.

People should really see this. I'm serious. People should not be arguing it in favour of real space because its so in your face clear.

You actually a pretty good good build up to a potential argument going there, until you finished with you typical argument from incredulity closer.

Some more food for thought on pressurised suits



https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/639715main_Vacuum_Testing_FTI.pdf

The evidences that the Moon Landings were real are numerous.  I can't even understand some of the evidence and I can point to other evidence.

One was the difference in gravity shown in the Moon Landing telecasts - golf balls hit for miles, jumps that go forty feet, stuff like that.  You cannot fake gravity like that.
Another is the retroflectors.  They needed to be set up by humans because they required orientation too precise for mere robots in 1969 & 1970; and they worked.
Another is the radio frequencies.  Mere shortwave freqs wouldn't penetrate the ionosphere, that's why they bounce all the way from London or Moscow, but the frequencies used for the moon capsules were ultra-high that penetrate the ionosphere - were heard by receivers in many countries simultaneously, couldn't have been sent from earth, must have been sent from outer space.

The evidences that the Moon Landings were real are numerous.  I can't even understand some of the evidence and I can point to other evidence.

One was the difference in gravity shown in the Moon Landing telecasts - golf balls hit for miles, jumps that go forty feet, stuff like that.  You cannot fake gravity like that.
Another is the retroflectors.  They needed to be set up by humans because they required orientation too precise for mere robots in 1969 & 1970; and they worked.
Another is the radio frequencies.  Mere shortwave freqs wouldn't penetrate the ionosphere, that's why they bounce all the way from London or Moscow, but the frequencies used for the moon capsules were ultra-high that penetrate the ionosphere - were heard by receivers in many countries simultaneously, couldn't have been sent from earth, must have been sent from outer space.

No 40' jumps, just little bunny hops.

The evidences that the Moon Landings were real are numerous.  I can't even understand some of the evidence and I can point to other evidence.

One was the difference in gravity shown in the Moon Landing telecasts - golf balls hit for miles, jumps that go forty feet, stuff like that.  You cannot fake gravity like that.
Another is the retroflectors.  They needed to be set up by humans because they required orientation too precise for mere robots in 1969 & 1970; and they worked.
Another is the radio frequencies.  Mere shortwave freqs wouldn't penetrate the ionosphere, that's why they bounce all the way from London or Moscow, but the frequencies used for the moon capsules were ultra-high that penetrate the ionosphere - were heard by receivers in many countries simultaneously, couldn't have been sent from earth, must have been sent from outer space.

I've heard terrible arguments for the hollywood show moon landing in 1969 but yours has to be the worst attempt.

One was the difference in gravity shown in the Moon Landing telecasts - golf balls hit for miles, jumps that go forty feet, stuff like that.  You cannot fake gravity like that.

a) slow motion
b) golf balls barely visible on the streams let alone being seen going miles
c) you can simulate gravity, there's many NASA videos doing exactly the thing you say is not possible

Another is the retroflectors.  They needed to be set up by humans because they required orientation too precise for mere robots in 1969 & 1970; and they worked.

Again, no real evidence for this. You're telling me they can send a man to space but not capable of setting mirrors? What kind of logic do moon believers have? Blind faith that's all.

Another is the radio frequencies.  Mere shortwave freqs wouldn't penetrate the ionosphere, that's why they bounce all the way from London or Moscow, but the frequencies used for the moon capsules were ultra-high that penetrate the ionosphere - were heard by receivers in many countries simultaneously, couldn't have been sent from earth, must have been sent from outer space.

And this proves the manned moon landing how?

All those who claim that faking the Moon "landings" in 1969-1972 was impossible but making the Moon landings in 1969-1972 possible, are essentially saying that warpdrives and Death Stars must be real.

1969 - computer - size of a house
1969 - filmstudios - everywhere available
1969 - no experience having been 380,000 kms from home
1969 - Kubrick had experience staging space films

The list is endless and every year that passes since those Nixon Nonlandings the whole scam becomes more laughable.

Jan 13, 2167: Mama, can we go to the Moon for summer holidays?
No son, they did it 6 times between 1969 and 1972 with medieval technology, but now we can't anymore

You can't edit videos with those computers LOL. They did not even have display screens which could play a video.

a) slow motion

It is not in slow motion. This is a media trope that many people mistakenly apply to the real thing - it is just not true.

b) golf balls barely visible on the streams let alone being seen going miles

You might call it stream, those of who were around at the time called it live TV broadcast. Apollo 14's TV quality was not good. It got much better for the next missions.

It was the astronauts themselves who jokingly said it went miles and miles, the TV footage only showed him hitting the ball. You can clearly see the ball, and you can see it clearly disappearing out of shot at quite a speed considering the one handed short strike he gave it. Harrison Schmitt's hammer throw, however, was captured much more clearly and went quite some distance

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.hammer.html

c) you can simulate gravity, there's many NASA videos doing exactly the thing you say is not possible

You can simulate it, but you can't replicate it. The simulation involves all manner of harnesses and contraptions and rigging that just aren't visible anywhere in the live TV broadcasts, photos or 16mm footage. Given the number of times astronauts crossed paths there is no possibility that they could have been suspended on a harness. You also can't simulate the behaviour of the material disturbed on the ground and otherwise not attached to the astronauts, which in all the footage behaves exactly as it should in a zero atmosphere low gravity environment.

Again, no real evidence for this. You're telling me they can send a man to space but not capable of setting mirrors? What kind of logic do moon believers have? Blind faith that's all.

Indeed you can remotely set up a mirror on the moon, the Soviets did it twice. However what you have here is TV footage, 16mm film and still photograph evidence of people positioning those mirrors. Those images contain details (not known about prior to the missions) that have been confirmed in subsequent orbital probe photography. The TV signals of the installation came from exactly where you can fire a laser to get a signal return from them. The experimental stations set up at the same time and place also sent signals back. The locations and details of those locations and the record of their installation are all consistent.

If you can get a rocket to the moon, land something on the surface in a controlled way, get a probe to unload and install a mirror on the ground with 100% accuracy (the Soviet reflectors were on top of their probes), then the only thing missing from the equation is a person. There isn't much difference between being capable of getting an object to the moon and getting a person there.

And this proves the manned moon landing how?

If signals are monitored as coming from the moon (and amateurs did detect them) and receiving stations around the world rotating under the moon detect them as always coming from the moon, and a spaceship was monitored all the way to the  moon by dishes in many countries, and those radio signals have astronaut voices with the correct amount of delay, and those dishes also receive TV signals that contain time and date specific images of Earth that could only have been sent from a location outside of Earth, exactly what do you think was gong on?

Slow motion doesn't work when the video often involved live interaction with mission control.

Puffed up suits and terrible movement in arms and gloved hands, etc and yet they can play golf.
Not only that, they can do it in slow motion and yet we are told that video wasn't responsible for the slow motion.

If the video wasn't responsible for it,  it means that the slow motion was cast off as real footage as is.
1/6th of Earth's so called gravity we are told, as well as no air friction and yet we have slow motion movement.
Does that not seem odd to anyone?

Shouldn't the movement be the opposite to slow motion?
What's creating any resistance to movement?

And before anyone shouts " it's 1/6th gravity you fool, that's why it appears slow"...then take a look at the hammer and feather nonsense.

It takes a person to be extremely authority gullible to believe this crap in this day and age....but here we are dealing with exactly that.
I just hope it's all shills or game players. I hope it's not genuine people that believe this space crap.

Puffed up suits and terrible movement in arms and gloved hands, etc and yet they can play golf.

Yes, it appears he was able to get in 9 holes at the country club before they left.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 14, 2017, 05:28:27 AM

Puffed up suits and terrible movement in arms and gloved hands, etc and yet they can play golf.

Yes, it appears he was able to get in 9 holes at the country club before they left.

I wish you'd have told me about him playing 9 holes at the country club in his pressurised space suit that mimics the so called moon. 

Puffed up suits and terrible movement in arms and gloved hands, etc and yet they can play golf.

The suit is not puffed up, they are wearing a pressure garment. The suit is on top of that and a few other layers. 'They' did not play golf. One astronaut, a keen golfer, took a couple of golf balls and a club head, attached the club head to a tool and hit, one handed, the golf balls. This is not quite 18 holes. He also did it on live TV.

[quoe]
Not only that, they can do it in slow motion and yet we are told that video wasn't responsible for the slow motion.[/quote]

It's not video, it's live TV, and it's not in slow motion. Cheap sci-fi use slow motion because they think it looks right. Learn to tell the difference,

If the video wasn't responsible for it,  it means that the slow motion was cast off as real footage as is.
1/6th of Earth's so called gravity we are told, as well as no air friction and yet we have slow motion movement.
Does that not seem odd to anyone?

It's not slow motion.

Shouldn't the movement be the opposite to slow motion?

It's not slow motion.

What's creating any resistance to movement?

Nothing, other than the stiffness of his suit's many layers.

And before anyone shouts " it's 1/6th gravity you fool, that's why it appears slow"...then take a look at the hammer and feather nonsense.

Already did that.

It takes a person to be extremely authority gullible to believe this crap in this day and age....but here we are dealing with exactly that.
I just hope it's all shills or game players. I hope it's not genuine people that believe this space crap.

blahblahblahblahblah...

Quote from: markjo on April 14, 2017, 05:34:53 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 14, 2017, 05:28:27 AM

Puffed up suits and terrible movement in arms and gloved hands, etc and yet they can play golf.

Yes, it appears he was able to get in 9 holes at the country club before they left.

I wish you'd have told me about him playing 9 holes at the country club in his pressurised space suit that mimics the so called moon. 

His pressure garment is pressurised., not the entire suit.

Notice how long it takes the golf ball to drop from his hand and hit the ground.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 14, 2017, 05:38:05 AM

Quote from: markjo on April 14, 2017, 05:34:53 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 14, 2017, 05:28:27 AM

Puffed up suits and terrible movement in arms and gloved hands, etc and yet they can play golf.

Yes, it appears he was able to get in 9 holes at the country club before they left.

I wish you'd have told me about him playing 9 holes at the country club in his pressurised space suit that mimics the so called moon. 

His pressure garment is pressurised., not the entire suit.

Notice how long it takes the golf ball to drop from his hand and hit the ground.

His pressure garment would have to be against all of his skin to stop it expanding. This means that he still has to be constricted from proper movement.
To be honest, I do not see any bladder on any space suit that does any of the pressurisation you people talk about.
But assuming I'm missing something, then tell me how the suit manages to separately pressurise the entire astronowt?

Of course, you don't have to tell me or need to. All people have to do is understand what would happen to the astronowt in a so called vacuum on a so called moon without a sufficient pressure against his body to stop his body from basically expanding, or cell boiling, as we vision it in a low pressure chamber.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on April 14, 2017, 05:46:35 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 14, 2017, 05:38:05 AM

Quote from: markjo on April 14, 2017, 05:34:53 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 14, 2017, 05:28:27 AM

Puffed up suits and terrible movement in arms and gloved hands, etc and yet they can play golf.

Yes, it appears he was able to get in 9 holes at the country club before they left.

I wish you'd have told me about him playing 9 holes at the country club in his pressurised space suit that mimics the so called moon. 

His pressure garment is pressurised., not the entire suit.

Notice how long it takes the golf ball to drop from his hand and hit the ground.

His pressure garment would have to be against all of his skin to stop it expanding. This means that he still has to be constricted from proper movement.
To be honest, I do not see any bladder on any space suit that does any of the pressurisation you people talk about.
But assuming I'm missing something, then tell me how the suit manages to separately pressurise the entire astronowt?

Google is your friend. Early suits had a pressure garment under the outer suit that basically constricted the skin. Later suits were themselves pressurised, but not to full atmospheric pressure because they used pure oxygen.

Of course, you don't have to tell me or need to.

No, I don't, but if you were genuinely interested in finding the answer for yourself you would actually look. The information is not difficult to find, this is why I have purposely not linked to it. You have already decided it's impossible, so there's really no point spoonfeeding you stuff you'll just spit out again.

All people have to do is understand what would happen to the astronowt in a so called vacuum on a so called moon without a sufficient pressure against his body to stop his body from basically expanding, or cell boiling, as we vision it in a low pressure chamber.

And I have already posted links for you to show you that the suits were tested in a vacuum. The suits may have been exposed to vacuum, but the astronauts themselves were not. There was one well documented incident where suit pressure was lost in a vacuum:

https://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/16-things-gravity-got-wrong-and-some-things-it-got-right-too/

What you need to do is demonstrate that the astronauts were not in a vacuum and that their suits could not withstand that vacuum. So far you have not.

Some videos on the development of the suit





Includes footage of astronauts wearing the suits under much higher pressures (ie 1 atmosphere) than when used in space, yet still managing to work them without a problem.

The problems of mobility in the suit were not related to pressure but to their bulky nature.

Google is your friend. You can't see the pressure garment because it is under outer suit layers.
 if you were genuinely interested in finding the answer for yourself you would actually look. The information is not difficult to find, this is why I have purposely not linked to it. You have already decided it's impossible, so there's really no point spoonfeeding you stuff you'll just spit out again.

1:33 onwards. Take a look at the silly glove on a silly twist on mechanism and also look at his bare hand and arm as you see it going up the sleeve.
No way is any of that in any pressurised bladder, or any bladder at all, ready to be pressurised.

2:40 onwards. The frigging helmet. Another quick twist and this is a perfect seal against losing your pressure to a vacuum. 

4:20 onwards, the suit comes in half. Look at all those joints and yet the suit just comes in half. I don't actually see any twist and turn seal on that midriff, do you? Does anyone?
What a crock. 

4:35 onwards. Take a look at this supposed bladder he's wearing. It's a pair of long John's.
A total piss take of people's intelligence.
Only a nutter would go in a low pressure chamber with one of these ridiculous things on, never mind in a so called moon for crying out loud.

The liquid cooling garment. The long John liquid frigging cooling garment with a couple of see through tubes sticking out. What an absolute pathetic laughable piss take it all is.
Can anyone tell me where this bladder is that stops these astronowts from expanding in so called space?

And to finish off, a frigging nappy to crap in.
1969 and they had this all sorted.
No bladder to inflate to stop them expanding an d also a nappy to crap in.
Seriously people, what does it actually take for you lot to wake the eff up?

I have already posted links for you to show you that the suits were tested in a vacuum. The suits may have been exposed to vacuum, but the astronauts themselves were not. There was one well documented incident where suit pressure was lost in a vacuum:

https://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/16-things-gravity-got-wrong-and-some-things-it-got-right-too/

Nah, they could have shown us all this in proper detail but they didn't. They didn't because they know for an absolute fact that a person would be dead in short order at just lower pressure, never mind a supposed moon vacuum, as we are told.

What you need to do is demonstrate that the astronauts were not in a vacuum and that their suits could not withstand that vacuum. So far you have not.

I think James Burke demonstrates it all perfectly well, as well as the ridiculous way the supposed astronowts recklessly act on the so called moon, not giving a rats arse whether they damage them.
There's a good reason for them not giving a crap about damaging the suits. Can you guess?
Correct. It's because they're playing in the desert or in ready made moon staging sets.


It really shouldn't need rational people defending the nonsense.
By all means enjoy it as the fantasy that it was and still is, but know that it is far from reality.

2:40 onwards. The frigging helmet. Another quick twist and this is a perfect seal against losing your pressure to a vacuum. 

You've never seen a quick disconnect fitting on an air hose before? 

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 14, 2017, 08:28:08 AM

2:40 onwards. The frigging helmet. Another quick twist and this is a perfect seal against losing your pressure to a vacuum. 

You've never seen a quick disconnect fitting on an air hose before? 

Sure have but they're small and robust.
If they're bigger they are more robust.
Those so called space suits connectors are a heap of crap and would do nothing for anyone inside a so called space vacuum.
How about telling me where the bladder is on that.

Quote from: markjo on April 14, 2017, 08:38:14 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 14, 2017, 08:28:08 AM

2:40 onwards. The frigging helmet. Another quick twist and this is a perfect seal against losing your pressure to a vacuum. 

You've never seen a quick disconnect fitting on an air hose before? 

Sure have but they're small and robust.
If they're bigger they are more robust.
Those so called space suits connectors are a heap of crap and would do nothing for anyone inside a so called space vacuum.
How about telling me where the bladder is on that.

What have you got that says they aren't robust? What evidence do you have that says the suits were not up to the job given the considerable amount of testing that went into them?

Quote from: onebigmonkey on April 14, 2017, 07:29:43 AM

Google is your friend. You can't see the pressure garment because it is under outer suit layers.
 if you were genuinely interested in finding the answer for yourself you would actually look. The information is not difficult to find, this is why I have purposely not linked to it. You have already decided it's impossible, so there's really no point spoonfeeding you stuff you'll just spit out again.

1:33 onwards. Take a look at the silly glove on a silly twist on mechanism and also look at his bare hand and arm as you see it going up the sleeve.
No way is any of that in any pressurised bladder, or any bladder at all, ready to be pressurised.

The inner pressure suits were in the Mercury suits. I am happy to point out that I have also been confused about how the different suits were constructed. They did wear an inner glove for comfort and constant wear garments under all of it. The suit designs are freely available. Feel free to point to any evidence you can that this wouldn't have worked.

2:40 onwards. The frigging helmet. Another quick twist and this is a perfect seal against losing your pressure to a vacuum. 

Feel free to prove it wouldn't have worked. You can have very similar setups on diving suits that work just fine.

4:20 onwards, the suit comes in half. Look at all those joints and yet the suit just comes in half. I don't actually see any twist and turn seal on that midriff, do you? Does anyone?
What a crock. 

Argument from in credulity anyone? Any evidence the suit couldn't have done the job it was designed for? No?

4:35 onwards. Take a look at this supposed bladder he's wearing. It's a pair of long John's.
A total piss take of people's intelligence.
Only a nutter would go in a low pressure chamber with one of these ridiculous things on, never mind in a so called moon for crying out loud.

Or people who wanted to go to the moon. Plenty of evidence that people did the vacuum chambers to test and went to the moon. Got any evidence it couldn't have worked?

The liquid cooling garment. The long John liquid frigging cooling garment with a couple of see through tubes sticking out. What an absolute pathetic laughable piss take it all is.
Can anyone tell me where this bladder is that stops these astronowts from expanding in so called space?

Again, prove the suit couldn't work. The LCG was to keep them cool. It used pretty simple and effective technology.

And to finish off, a frigging nappy to crap in.

And? Any other mechanisms to do that you can come up with?

1969 and they had this all sorted.
No bladder to inflate to stop them expanding an d also a nappy to crap in.

It took them a long time to get it sorted, with lots of testing and re-testing and hard work. The only proof you seem to have is that they wore a nappy just in case they got caught short. Pretty convincing evidence there.

Seriously people, what does it actually take for you lot to wake the eff up?

blahblahblablahblah...

Quote from: onebigmonkey on April 14, 2017, 07:29:43 AM

I have already posted links for you to show you that the suits were tested in a vacuum. The suits may have been exposed to vacuum, but the astronauts themselves were not. There was one well documented incident where suit pressure was lost in a vacuum:

https://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/16-things-gravity-got-wrong-and-some-things-it-got-right-too/

Nah, they could have shown us all this in proper detail but they didn't. They didn't because they know for an absolute fact that a person would be dead in short order at just lower pressure, never mind a supposed moon vacuum, as we are told.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on April 14, 2017, 07:29:43 AM

What you need to do is demonstrate that the astronauts were not in a vacuum and that their suits could not withstand that vacuum. So far you have not.

I think James Burke demonstrates it all perfectly well, as well as the ridiculous way the supposed astronowts recklessly act on the so called moon, not giving a rats arse whether they damage them.
There's a good reason for them not giving a crap about damaging the suits. Can you guess?
Correct. It's because they're playing in the desert or in ready made moon staging sets.

I don't see anything about them not giving a crap. i see a well designed robust suit working as designed. Prove it couldn't.

It really shouldn't need rational people defending the nonsense.
By all means enjoy it as the fantasy that it was and still is, but know that it is far from reality.

blahblahblahblahblah..

All those who claim that faking the Moon "landings" in 1969-1972 was impossible but making the Moon landings in 1969-1972 possible, are essentially saying that warpdrives and Death Stars must be real.

1969 - computer - size of a house
1969 - filmstudios - everywhere available
1969 - no experience having been 380,000 kms from home
1969 - Kubrick had experience staging space films

The list is endless and every year that passes since those Nixon Nonlandings the whole scam becomes more laughable.

Jan 13, 2167: Mama, can we go to the Moon for summer holidays?
No son, they did it 6 times between 1969 and 1972 with medieval technology, but now we can't anymore

1969 - computer - size of a house
Wrong.
1969 - no experience having been 380,000 kms from home
Wrong
No son, they did it 6 times between 1969 and 1972 with medieval technology, but now we can't anymore

Wrong, 1. They went to the moon more than 6 times counting from 1968 It has been done since then with remote controlled robots.