Doubts about the moon landings

#21
No, entirely different transmission mediums. 'Hearing' requires a pocket of resonant air - and the hot mic is a direct mechanical transmission. This is why you can hear a train coming on railroad tracks for a much longer distance than you can hear it through the air.
Sorry the astronauts refute what you are saying. Period.

This analogy is wrong, astronauts will here things coming in contact with the hard fittings of the suit but the suit itself is not like a railway track. Air would need to vibrate in the suit to activate the mic unless contact was with the helmet itself. There are different mediums involved.

In VOX mode noise levels must be over that of all of the suits systems and even the astronauts breath that is directly in front of the microphone. Look at what the astronauts say. "There is no way for that sound to reach you". When you tap a bolt, or hit with a hammer there is nothing. Even when using high powered drills there is nothing. you simply can't have it both ways.
 
Last edited:
#22
Look at when he is trying to pick up the hammer, he actually jumps up in order to get the momentum to crouch down
Well don't forget, walking on the lunar surface in 1/6 gravity must mess up the normal feedback loops involved in walking.

LS, do you think these questions about sound are the best evidence you have. I thought there were some dubious looking videos with odd perspectives and stray things visible.

David
 
#23
Sorry the astronauts refute what you are saying. Period.

In VOX mode noise levels must be over that of all of the suits systems and even the astronauts breath that is directly in front of the microphone. Look at what the astronauts say. "There is no way for that sound to reach you". When you tap a bolt, or hit with a hammer there is nothing. Even when using high powered drills there is nothing. you simply can't have it both ways.
But you are saying that the astronauts are telling the truth on sound transmission, yet lying on the existential fact of being there. You cannot have it both ways.

If they are lying about being on the Moon, then their testimony on sound transmission (Earth or Moon context) is not evidence.

You are employing as evidence, something you are claiming never happened. This is a wicker man argument.
 
#25
But you are saying that the astronauts are telling the truth on sound transmission, yet lying on the existential fact of being there. You cannot have it both ways.

If they are lying about being on the Moon, then their testimony on sound transmission (Earth or Moon context) is not evidence.

You are employing as evidence, something you are claiming never happened. This is a wicker man argument.
No I am saying that modern astronauts contradict what apparently only happened a few times on the moon over several missions and never again in the decades that followed.
 
#27
Well don't forget, walking on the lunar surface in 1/6 gravity must mess up the normal feedback loops involved in walking.
Yes of course, however 1/6 gravity does not negate momentum. In the video at 1:40 you can see him being lifted. Also you can see that despite low gravity which would make movement easier they have to literally fight in order to crouch down, but not jump. We still have centres of balance even on the moon. The back pack shifts the center of balance upward but you can see all sorts of irregularities in balance. they will often stand well over the center of balance for extended periods.

LS, do you think these questions about sound are the best evidence you have. I thought there were some dubious looking videos with odd perspectives and stray things visible.


Yes, I will eventually get to some of that. These are just my personal findings.
 
#28
I only examined the aspect of sound because on only a few instances sound was indeed heard while hammering on the lunar surface.
The NASA link for kids. Stated point blank that even though they used hammers on the moon no sound was heard. Once this came to light. The page was quickly taken down. I found it using the way back machine. It was in the transcripts, but I cannot find the footage where they say that.
So we have to ask why only a couple of times out of possibly hundreds? And why never again in the history of space exploration.

Also other instances where it is heard on film they say nothing about it at all. This is crazy!

Also the fact that noises can be heard when there is no contact with the suit refutes the hypothesis of the suit acting like a drum.

We also have at least one modern astronaut stating that the suit is flexible and does not act like a drum. Exact words.

Whether you believe or not, you have to admit this is quite curious and a enigma don't you think?
 

Creativemind

Cisco KId
Member
#29
I also believe that the moon is an artificial construct. This is actually an easier argument than the "moon landing question".
By their own admission the creation, placement, orbital pattern, surface composition, size ratios are all a mystery to today's
planetary scientists.

There are cultures that talk of a time BEFORE there was a moon. Food for thought and some fun.
 
#30
Much has been talked about the moving flag, mostly when they are in contact with it, and can be explained by that and it's dynamics in a low grav situation. Then we had the astronaut passing close by and initiating movement on the flag. Then the excuse of static charge was employed.

Well take a look at this.



What excuse shall we invent here? Discuss.
They reacted by cropping the footage, clearly this is because of this smoking gun! This explains the sound, they are not in a vacuum at all!
 
Last edited:
#33

"If you bang on something while your're doing your spacewalk (performs hammer motion) you will NOT be able to hear that, the only noise you will hear is internal in your suit because you have atmosphere in your suit, so the noise of your suit, there is a hum of a fan noise..."
If the astronaut hears nothing then the microphone is not able to pick up anything either. We only hear the internal sounds of the suit when the astronauts speak activating the microphone and shortly after until it deactivates. Note in my clip there is no impact even on the suit the point of impact is between the rock and the rover seat. This tiny amount of energy, insignificant to striking with a hammer is not physically possible to travel through the rock itself the many layers of soft insulation to then vibrate the air and activate the microphone over the internal noises of the suit. It is not possible. Modern astronauts are telling the truth. It is not possible! You can not have it both ways or maybe sometimes and not others when much much more energy than tapping a rock is produced!

Please let us be intellectually honest! It does not mean man has never been to the moon. Logically that cannot be deduced from that alone. There are only two possibilities. There is an atmosphere on the moon, or it was shot right here on Earth! I understand that both are difficult pills to swallow. It is however a result of cognitive dissonance that things have to be twisted to fit one situation while ignoring everything else. That being that all modern astronauts say what Michael Massimino here is telling us. You simply cannot have your cake and eat it as well. You need two cakes! :)
 
#34
"If you bang on something while your're doing your spacewalk (performs hammer motion) you will NOT be able to hear that, the only noise you will hear is internal in your suit because you have atmosphere in your suit, so the noise of your suit, there is a hum of a fan noise..."
Oh you were referring to later space shuttle walks - 'no noise when banging', gotcha...

This is still different than standing on the lunar surface. The shuttle/space-walk astronaut is not mechanically leveraged to any sound-propogating surface. If the space walker firmly grabbed a metal rail with 30 lbs of grip pressure, using boot resin between their hand and the rail, and then pounded on that rail with a hammer - this is the test which would be needed in order to prove your conjecture that a hot mic could not pick this up at all.
 
#35
Orange juice was able to leak through the seal of the helmet. The orange juice was a big problem, during Apollo 16 it leaked through the seal and apparently became like glue making it very difficult for them to remove their helmets. It also appears that it had leaked completely through to stain the lens of the camera, resulting in a drip pattern of two days worth of photographs. Again this supports the hypothesis of working in an atmosphere.

I grabbed this from a flat earth channel. No I don't believe that at all! The clip is from the documentary "Moon Hoax Now". Nothing to do with flat Earth.

The fact that this ring is exposed in the Apollo 11 photos prompted this investigation. As we will see, it should have been fully covered by the glove/gauntlet.

Apollo Space Suits: Shenanigans and Shortcomings

https://www.aulis.com/suits.htm
This is a highly detailed look at the suit, it's shortcomings as well as what also can be seen of course as the insulation qualities, which would include sound, many layers of them.
 
Last edited:
#36
Oh you were referring to later space shuttle walks - 'no noise when banging', gotcha...

This is still different than standing on the lunar surface. The shuttle/space-walk astronaut is not mechanically leveraged to any sound-propogating surface. If the space walker firmly grabbed a metal rail with 30 lbs of grip pressure, using boot resin between their hand and the rail, and then pounded on that rail with a hammer - this is the test which would be needed in order to prove your conjecture that a hot mic could not pick this up...
The lunar surface will only act as insulation. It is the mere tapping of a rock.

The test was done hundreds of times on the lunar surface when far greater impacts than the mere tapping of a rock produced no sounds what so ever.

It is completely incredulous to believe that the tapping of o rock, or closing the seat can resonate through the rover, through the rubber tires, the lunar soil, through, the outer boot, the inner, boot, through the layers of insulation, latex and liquid filled rubber tubing to resonate the air above the level of the suits noise and astronauts breath to activate the mic. Sound is energy, is is transferred and is directly dependent on the absorption coefficients of the medium. Part is transferred to each surrounding molecule and part is lost in heat.

Standing on the lunar surface would have the opposite effect and only be further insulation. It resembles nothing like your test. Once again it is contradicted by modern astronauts who will also have one hand on whatever they are working on whilst using tools such as hammers and high powered drills and hear nothing. Even though they are in contact with highly conductive materials such as metal. The lunar surface will only act as insulation.

You are really stretching here TES.

Also you can hear that the sound is not muffled as would be expected it has lost hardly any range of frequency as would be expected.
 
#37
Sound is energy, is is transferred and is directly dependent on the absorption coefficients of the medium. The lunar surface will only act as insulation.

You are really stretching here TES.
I am merely defending plurality - you are making a final claim... so by parsimony, I can't be 'stretching'. I am not making a final assertion, simply saying that your claim has not risen to the level of 'evidence'.

The claim here is that sound could not (claiming an absence) be picked up mechanically by a hot mic (electrically amplified), moving through about 8 ft of solid compressed medium. The 'tires' of the LRV were piano wire strung in recursive tension - this is a sound focal mechanism (aka an amplifier), not a sound attenuator. This was a rather critical missing element in the logical calculus of this conjecture, would you not say? Within a given distance, there is no such thing as a perfect sound attenuation through solid media. 8 ft is NOTHING for sound tranferrence.... EASY.. Why do I know this? Because I have designed Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (more than a couple) as the lead engineer. The barrier between a speak-zone and a visitor zone at Langley CIA was 30 ft through conical FOAM, drywall, fiberglass insulation, wood and slate tile. That was the minimum - and that was a NOISY environment to attenuate a voice - not even a percussive-brisant impact like a rock hitting metal.

The path of conjecture you have claimed as final here, based upon space walks, is called anecdote (modus absens) - one of the warning indicators on my earlier chart of inference.

We have no test of this circumstance to provide this falsification you are chalking up to a confirmed epistemology. I am merely stating that this is a weak linear inductive affirmation and not any form of deductive evidence.
 
Last edited:
#38
I am merely defending plurality - you are making a final claim... so by parsimony, I can't be 'stretching'. I am not making a final assertion, simply saying that your claim has not risen to the level of 'evidence'.

The claim here is that sound could not (claiming an absence) be picked up mechanically by a hot mic, moving through about 8 ft of solid compressed medium. The 'tires' of the LRV were piano wire strung in recursive tension - this is a sound focal mechanism (aka an amplifier), not a sound attenuator. This was a rather critical missing element in the logical calculus of this conjecture, would you not say? Within a given distance, there is no such thing as a perfect sound attenuation through solid media. 8 ft is NOTHING for sound tranferrence.... EASY.. Why do I know this? Because I have designed Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (more than a couple) as THE engineer. The barrier between a speak-zone and a visitor zone at Langley CIA was 30 ft through FOAM, drywall, insulation, wood and slate tile. That was the minimum - and that was a NOISY environment to attenuate a voice - not even a percussive impact like a rock hitting metal.

The path of conjecture you have claimed as final here, based upon space walks, is called anecdote (modus absens) - one of the warning indicators on my earlier chart of inference.

We have no test of this circumstance to provide this falsification you are chalking up to a confirmed epistemology. I am merely stating that this is a weak weak linear inductive affirmation and not any form of deductive evidence.
But you are also committing a fallacy here by misrepresenting my true position. Granted I have not made this clear but have made it clear in the other thread which you acknowledged and apparently agreed with. I can on principle not betray what I believe regarding any science. Let me clarify.

You know I have said before that science is not about proof, that all science is tentative and subject to change. My position that the footage and photographs are fake is hypothesis and not simple based on just one line of evidence but several. Each compounding the hypothesis and each requiring due falsification. When there are multiple line of evidence then have a theory. We then must weigh multiple hypothesis for judgement. Even then all science is still provisional and tentative. What I have asked for in starting this thread is falsification. It is just as plausible as any other scientific hypothesis that has not undergone falsification.

If I could I would challenge NASA to get in their vacuum chamber and falsify it.

The thing is it should have been falsified in the many decades of actual space walks that have followed. So where does that leave us?

It leaves us with an enigma, contradictions and very real scientific issues that by their nature cannot co-exist.

In other words "Houston we have a problem".
 
#39
I am not making a final assertion, simply saying that your claim has not risen to the level of 'evidence'.

The claim here is that sound could not (claiming an absence) be picked up mechanically by a hot mic (electrically amplified), moving through about 8 ft of solid compressed medium. The 'tires' of the LRV were piano wire strung in recursive tension - this is a sound focal mechanism (aka an amplifier), not a sound attenuator. This was a rather critical missing element in the logical calculus of this conjecture, would you not say? Within a given distance, there is no such thing as a perfect sound attenuation through solid media. 8 ft is NOTHING for sound tranferrence.... EASY.. Why do I know this? Because I have designed Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (more than a couple) as the lead engineer. The barrier between a speak-zone and a visitor zone at Langley CIA was 30 ft through conical FOAM, drywall, fiberglass insulation, wood and slate tile. That was the minimum - and that was a NOISY environment to attenuate a voice - not even a percussive-brisant impact like a rock hitting metal.

The path of conjecture you have claimed as final here, based upon space walks, is called anecdote (modus absens) - one of the warning indicators on my earlier chart of inference.

We have no test of this circumstance to provide this falsification you are chalking up to a confirmed epistemology. I am merely stating that this is a weak linear inductive affirmation and not any form of deductive evidence.
I am not sure you are acknowledging that you also are presenting a hypothesis of how the mere tapping of a rock could be picked up on the VOX. That is of course subject to the very same charge and fallacy you are putting to me. You are putting forward a hypothesis that is in direct contradiction with that of actual working application in decades of actual space walks. It simply does not happen. It did not happen with much larger impacts either while apparently on the moon.

This is of course is cognitive dissonance. You need two cakes.
 
#40
But you are also committing a fallacy here by misrepresenting my true position. Granted I have not made this clear but have made it clear in the other thread which you acknowledged and apparently agreed with. I can on principle not betray what I believe regarding any science. Let me clarify.

You know I have said before that science is not about proof, that all science is tentative and subject to change. My position that the footage and photographs are fake is hypothesis and not simple based on just one line of evidence but several. Each compounding the hypothesis and each requiring due falsification. When there are multiple line of evidence then have a theory. We then must weigh multiple hypothesis for judgement. Even then all science is still provisional and tentative. What I have asked for in starting this thread is falsification. It is just as plausible as any other scientific hypothesis that has not undergone falsification.

If I could I would challenge NASA to get in their vacuum chamber and falsify it.

The thing is it should have been falsified in the many decades of actual space walks that have followed. So where does that leave us?

It leaves us with an enigma, contradictions and very real scientific issues that by their nature cannot co-exist.

In other words "Houston we have a problem".
Don't get me wrong... you are awesome at sniffing the vulnerability points, communicative, logical, and I love a good alternative hypothesis to the null hypothesis (even if it is called a 'conspiracy theory'). At this stage, I am rooting for the underdog as a skeptic - I WANT to see evidence for things which challenge the norm... just so I am clear on this.

And yes, I acknowledged this ethic that, once a consilience of multiple avenues has been firmly established, then plurality must be served.
 
Top