[RhesusVX]

That stuff is just gravy.  The meat is scientific observation and analysis.  A strictly objective scientific (and/or zetetic, perhaps) approach is the most efficient way to study this subject.  It's that objectivity and the many incorrect definitions taught of science, scientific method, and experiment that make that so challenging.

It is indeed, and I'm all for scientific observation and analysis.  I've actually read a lot of your posts and I agree with @james38, you are incredibly eloquent in your writing style, sometimes overly so, to the point it can come across as like you are doing it on purpose in an attempt to confuse.  However, you're a researcher, clearly educated, and it's actually refreshing to read compared to some of the nonsense I've read.  I disagree on your insistence that we do not use the word belief, but then I disagree on a few things I've seen you write about.  Belief does not just have meaning in relation to religion/mythology.  That's just your opinion and chosen use of the word is it not?  I can believe something to be true, like "I believe I left the light on downstairs".  I don't know that because I'm not sure, but I can prove it by going downstairs and making an observation.  Now I know that I left the light on.

For a man of such eloquence, I find it odd that you think that mass is not real and cannot be rigorously defined.  Mass is just a quantity, an amount of "stuff".  The unit is somewhat irrelevant.  If you have 10 bowling balls, it doesn't matter where you take those bowling balls in the universe, you will still have 10 bowling balls.  Doesn't matter if it's here on Earth, on the Moon, or the outer reaches of the galaxy.  What does change is the thing we call weight, because weight is directly proportional to the amount of mass measured in gravity.  Those 10 bowling balls will be heavier on Earth compared to the Moon for example.  But, you also say that gravity is not real.  So what is gravity then?  If you are a man of science and are dismissing all of the accepted theories and laws that describe gravity and how objects behave in relation to each other, surely you must have your own alternatives that scientifically prove these facts?  I mean, on the one hand you quote pascals law which fundamentally relies on such things, yet on the other you say mass and gravity are not real, which means weight isn't real either under that definition - indeed you say it's just an intrinsic property of matter.  Yes it is, matter in gravity has weight.

Again, reading what you've put elsewhere about things at rest cannot be in constant acceleration because that violates the law of energy conservation.  How?  When you jump out of an aeroplane, for arguments sake let's just say you fall down towards the Earth (or it rises up to you) at a rate of 9.81m/s^2.  At this point you have an amount of kinetic energy.  When you finally meet the Earth, you stop (and probably die!).  You are no longer in motion because the Earth's surface is stopping you - you now have potential energy.  The Earth is, in effect, pushing up towards you with the equivalent force, thus you feel weight, thus preserving the law of energy conservation.  I'm not sure what is hard to understand about that concept.

The thing about a vacuum being abhorrent in nature is also extremely bizarre.  I am going to assume that you do know the difference between what we call the vacuum of space, and what we call suction.  Only reason I say this is because plenty of people don't, and they assume that the vacuum of space would suck away our atmosphere just like our vacuum cleaner sucks up dust from our carpet.  Suction is a consequence of creating a vacuum in the presence of an atmosphere, and is actually a pushing force.  I'm sure you knew, apologies, but others may not.  Anyway, if the notion of an infinite vacuum above our heads is offensively stupid and unscientific, what wouldn't be stupid and more scientific?  I know you conclude that the Earth cannot be a sphere. What I'm not sure about is if you subscribe to the flat Earth theory that we are constantly accelerating upwards to account for what we call gravity.  If you do, and we are, one of two things are needed for us to have air to breath:

1. A dome to contain it, or
2. An infinite column of air above us

Both sound offensively stupid to me, but then that's why I'm here - to learn more about flat Earth theory and how best to approach it.  I know an alternative flat Earth theory has been put forward that we are not accelerating upwards, but instead we have an infinitely large flat disc with finite gravity.  Again, that sounds offensively stupid to me, but the same reasoning applies in my view.

On the more relevant topic of proof, and the shape of the Earth, I have three direct observations made by myself that require little to no complex science or understanding:

1. Reproduction of Eratosthenes experiment - shadows of different lengths in different parts of the Earth at the same time (was surprisingly accurate!)
2. A friend of mine has a small boat, and we often sail out on a river that just happens to head towards, and past, a tall radio mast.  The mast appears from the top down.
3. The reverse of 2, viewing a cruise ship sailing out to sea.  It clearly disappears from the bottom up.

I know, these might be considered clichés, but these aren't some observations I've read about and taken as blind faith.  I've seen them myself, and repeated with friends.  I can therefore conclude from these findings that the Earth cannot be flat, and must be one of the following shapes:

A. Sphere-like
B. Ovoid-like
C. Disc-like (where we live on the outer edge)
D. Ring-like (where we live on the outer edge)
E. Cylinder-like (where we live on the outer edge)

The fact that multiple people all over the Earth experience 2 and 3 quite routinely no matter what their location or direction of travel means that either A or B can be the only logical explanation. With millennia of additional scientific observation, exploration, surveillance, aerial photography and space exploration on top of that, I have no reason to posit that the Earth is anything but A.  Whether it is or isn't, whether NASA are lying or not, life will just go on as it is anyway so it's all a bit moot really!  I'll leave it at that for now because loads of different things are getting discussed and debated at once now and is getting hard enough to follow as it is.

Appreciate your input, it's genuinely fascinating.

Edit:

I have seen the rainy lake "experiment"/observation and I find that the methodology is flawed AND that it does not involve measuring water.

This experiment?

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment

The experiment that proves the Earth is curved so gets disregarded because it doesn't fit the flat Earth narrative?  I'd love to know why you find the methodology flawed, because from what I can see:

• The experiment was carried out on a frozen lake, so the surface was ice.  Ice is water.
• Every effort was made to make sure points of reference were made at the same elevation.
• Every effort was made to reduce the effects of refraction caused by the cold surface and density gradient.
• All of the numbers, calculations, laws of refraction, observations and reasoning are provided.

All this does is one thing - prove that the Earth's surface curves, and it correlates with my own observations as well.  At the very least it means it's not flat.

[james38]

This thread needs to stay civil and friendly, in accordance with the forum rules: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=977.0 .  Interestingly, it looks like this website has a specific forum for ranting (the Angry Ranting thread). I want this thread to be the opposite of that. I want us to all try to respect each other's views. Like I've said, I dislike how some in the majority considers FET a cult and I equally dislike how some in FET consider globe earth theory a "faith". I actually have a high amount of respect for FET researchers because of the courage they have to exercise their right to free thought, as well as their rigorous pursuit of truth free from societal bias. I think its pointless and sad for us to insult each other's intelligence. That will get us nowhere.

It's arguably a personal attack to call the other's views "offensively stupid". Both sides have done it in the last few posts, and I really dislike it and find it counterproductive. I understand how emotions can start to rise. Obviously, this conversation will get frustrating at certain points. But we all need to take a deep breath before we write our responses and not use this thread to blow off steam. And I'm not saying I've been perfect either. I also regret some of the offensive things I have said. I'm asking everyone to stay patient with each other. Focus on the common ground, and then let's work out exactly where our lines of reasoning diverge.

[RhesusVX]

Well said james38, and I agree, I have a new found respect for those who support FET.   There is a lot of thought put into the equivalence theories and things that show there is more than one way to skin a cat (awful saying, but hey ho!). The “offensive stupid” thing wasn’t a direction at anyone, just repeating back what I’ve seen written because I actually believed the very statement itself to be the same.

Regarding the whole thing being a cult, I guess it could be considered offensive, but if you consider a cult just being a group of individuals who share a common commitment to a particular ideology, it’s not so derogatory really.  I think where it starts to become derogatory is when FET supporters go out of their way to simply state that RET supporters are wrong and that we have all been fed lies, yet provide no rationale.  That’s when some in the majority will consider FET a cult.

It’s interesting because I don’t consider RET as a cult or faith either.  For most people, it’s just accepted as being what it is, part of daily life and background noise.  We don’t necessarily go around attesting that the Earth is a globe.  The fact that people do so only happens because of FET, which again could fuel people into looking at it as a cult.  I know the opposites could apply here, but I think you get my point.

The burden of proof, therefore, lies squarely with FET in my opinion as it is that which is challenging 2,500 years of science and advancement through observation and knowledge.  I’m not saying I have all of the answers either, not at all.  But, when somebody just says to me, “Earth can’t be round because water would fall off the bottom” or “Earth can’t be spinning because water would fly off”, it just shows a level of ignorance and complete lack of understanding or willingness to understand, even if they ultimately don’t subscribe to the idea.  This is what I’m trying to do - understand, and part of that will be by challenging things.  I just need to follow some of my own advice as well along the journey.

[Mark Antony]

In looking at your clip with the visible wire I was definitely intrigued. But here we go again with we see what we want to see. So I had to really look into this one as I have not seen it before. So, take it at face value. I did a deep dive on it and we will all walk away with what we believe, most likely. But in doing so, trying to be as objective as possible, I think it's debunked. Here's what I came up with.

In short, the "wire" is a line outlining a sign on the hatch behind them all in the frame. What I did to determine this, first off, is found the whole higher quality clip here, starting at around 31:46 of this:



The low quality of the clip you provided helps us not.

Then, there was a hint that the "wire" in question was actually a line printed on the hatch door behind them around some text. So I followed that lead. I then found a clear view of the hatch door, albeit, slightly off angle, and superimposed it over the video image. For the most part, it lined up. Shown here:



Now, I then took the clip and slowed it down - I went frame-by-frame to double-check, but I think the slowed down gif reveals a lot:



Notice how the "wire"/line never moves laterally or otherwise from it's fixed point along with the movement of the guy. Watch really, really closely. And even gets obscured by the pants of the guy behind the guy in front. It's not moving. It's a line in background. It's not a wire affixed to the guy in front nor grabbed by the guy on the right.

This was a particularly compelling in a, "Wow, is that a wire/cable thing faking the ISS tumbles and such?" video. No, it is not.

There is no visible wire in this clip. The wires are edited out using software. There are other videos where they simply forgot to edit the harnesses out altogether. I can pull these  up if you like, a google search should do. My point is that you can clearly see the astronaut on the right pull something that is physically attached to the astronaut on the left in order to bring him under control after his somersault. Also, look how ridiculous Sandy's hair looks. This is not how you would expect hair to behave in space. It should have a more fluid out of control behavior as it would in water. This is just blatantly gelled upwards.

How would they fake this effect?

That is very impressive CGI and nothing more. No astronaut would be wreckless enough to let water splash everywhere out of control like this. It contradicts instructional videos they did previously on how to brush your teeth in space where they were being very careful about water use, swallowing their toothpaste for example and not washing their hair for extended periods (or not at all).

So, this could be a powerful argument on your side. If you could just clear this up: is your argument that NASA's current explanation for how their spacesuits work inconsistent with physics as we know it? Or are you saying that their past explanations are not consistent, the current one are, but that the fact that their explanations changed over time is the problem. In any case, if you could provide the mathematical proof or at least a reference to a reading or a URL, that could also help. After you expand this, I'll give a more full response.

The suits they supposedly use now and also the new xEMU suits have hinges/bearings at the joints. The suits used during the Apollo missions did not. Let me explain why this is a huge problem:
On earth, there is 101,000 Pascals or Newtons per square meter of pressure or 1 atmosphere exerted on us right now. I'm spelling out the units so it's easier to comprehend how huge a pressure that is. So why don't we get crushed, or why don't our lungs collapse under this pressure? Because inside our lungs and blood vessels and body cavities there is also 101,000 Pa  of pressure - the difference between the inside and outside is effectively zero. But in space they don't have this luxury. So if you send a vessel that has
1 atm of pressure inside it into space, now you have a very difficult engineering problem on your hands because now all the materials used to make the rockets, the lunar landers, the space suits all have to withstand at least 101,000 Pa of pressure (this is not an easy problem to solve at all).
Let me give you a real world example of how huge a pressure this is: Lets say on earth we open up a spacesuit and for arguments sake the opened material is 1 square meter of fabric. If you take this piece of fabric and fix the four corners to a rope (so it's like a trampoline) if you were to put 10,100 Kg (or 10 tonnes) of mass on the fabric, the tension experienced would be the equivalent of having a space suit in space with 1 atm of pressure inside it. There are very few flexible materials that can withstand these pressures and even if they could, they would be rendered so incredibly rigid that the astronaut inside would not be able to maneuver. Think of how stiff the wall of a basketball is, well the space suit would be pressurized to twice this amount at least.

So in the post Apollo era they had to explain this away somehow. Nasa's official stance now is that before going on a space walk the astronaut has to depressurise the suit down to 5-6KPa of pressure in order to allow maneuverability. But, there is a big problem with this, as divers know, this depressurization causes bubbles of nitrogen to form in the blood causing a condition known as "the bends". To overcome this, they must pump pure oxygen into the space suits so the astronaut can expel all the nitrogen from their blood. But this raises another problem - breathing pure oxygen for extended periods causes hyperoxia which can cause death in minutes!

None of this was taken into account during Apollo missions. There were no hinges on the suits, no depressurization chambers, no pure oxygen elements in the suits. And yet they hop around happily on the moon hitting golf balls and doing burnouts on the lunar rover!

The whole thing is preposterous if you dig in just a tiny bit.

[Iceman]

In looking at your clip with the visible wire I was definitely intrigued. But here we go again with we see what we want to see. So I had to really look into this one as I have not seen it before. So, take it at face value. I did a deep dive on it and we will all walk away with what we believe, most likely. But in doing so, trying to be as objective as possible, I think it's debunked. Here's what I came up with.

In short, the "wire" is a line outlining a sign on the hatch behind them all in the frame. What I did to determine this, first off, is found the whole higher quality clip here, starting at around 31:46 of this:



The low quality of the clip you provided helps us not.

Then, there was a hint that the "wire" in question was actually a line printed on the hatch door behind them around some text. So I followed that lead. I then found a clear view of the hatch door, albeit, slightly off angle, and superimposed it over the video image. For the most part, it lined up. Shown here:



Now, I then took the clip and slowed it down - I went frame-by-frame to double-check, but I think the slowed down gif reveals a lot:



Notice how the "wire"/line never moves laterally or otherwise from it's fixed point along with the movement of the guy. Watch really, really closely. And even gets obscured by the pants of the guy behind the guy in front. It's not moving. It's a line in background. It's not a wire affixed to the guy in front nor grabbed by the guy on the right.

This was a particularly compelling in a, "Wow, is that a wire/cable thing faking the ISS tumbles and such?" video. No, it is not.

There is no visible wire in this clip. The wires are edited out using software. There are other videos where they simply forgot to edit the harnesses out altogether. I can pull these  up if you like, a google search should do. My point is that you can clearly see the astronaut on the right pull something that is physically attached to the astronaut on the left in order to bring him under control after his somersault. Also, look how ridiculous Sandy's hair looks. This is not how you would expect hair to behave in space. It should have a more fluid out of control behavior as it would in water. This is just blatantly gelled upwards.

How would they fake this effect?

That is very impressive CGI and nothing more. No astronaut would be wreckless enough to let water splash everywhere out of control like this. It contradicts instructional videos they did previously on how to brush your teeth in space where they were being very careful about water use, swallowing their toothpaste for example and not washing their hair for extended periods (or not at all).

So, this could be a powerful argument on your side. If you could just clear this up: is your argument that NASA's current explanation for how their spacesuits work inconsistent with physics as we know it? Or are you saying that their past explanations are not consistent, the current one are, but that the fact that their explanations changed over time is the problem. In any case, if you could provide the mathematical proof or at least a reference to a reading or a URL, that could also help. After you expand this, I'll give a more full response.

The suits they supposedly use now and also the new xEMU suits have hinges/bearings at the joints. The suits used during the Apollo missions did not. Let me explain why this is a huge problem:
On earth, there is 101,000 Pascals or Newtons per square meter of pressure or 1 atmosphere exerted on us right now. I'm spelling out the units so it's easier to comprehend how huge a pressure that is. So why don't we get crushed, or why don't our lungs collapse under this pressure? Because inside our lungs and blood vessels and body cavities there is also 101,000 Pa  of pressure - the difference between the inside and outside is effectively zero. But in space they don't have this luxury. So if you send a vessel that has
1 atm of pressure inside it into space, now you have a very difficult engineering problem on your hands because now all the materials used to make the rockets, the lunar landers, the space suits all have to withstand at least 101,000 Pa of pressure (this is not an easy problem to solve at all).
Let me give you a real world example of how huge a pressure this is: Lets say on earth we open up a spacesuit and for arguments sake the opened material is 1 square meter of fabric. If you take this piece of fabric and fix the four corners to a rope (so it's like a trampoline) if you were to put 10,100 Kg (or 10 tonnes) of mass on the fabric, the tension experienced would be the equivalent of having a space suit in space with 1 atm of pressure inside it. There are very few flexible materials that can withstand these pressures and even if they could, they would be rendered so incredibly rigid that the astronaut inside would not be able to maneuver. Think of how stiff the wall of a basketball is, well the space suit would be pressurized to twice this amount at least.

So in the post Apollo era they had to explain this away somehow. Nasa's official stance now is that before going on a space walk the astronaut has to depressurise the suit down to 5-6KPa of pressure in order to allow maneuverability. But, there is a big problem with this, as divers know, this depressurization causes bubbles of nitrogen to form in the blood causing a condition known as "the bends". To overcome this, they must pump pure oxygen into the space suits so the astronaut can expel all the nitrogen from their blood. But this raises another problem - breathing pure oxygen for extended periods causes hyperoxia which can cause death in minutes!

None of this was taken into account during Apollo missions. There were no hinges on the suits, no depressurization chambers, no pure oxygen elements in the suits. And yet they hop around happily on the moon hitting golf balls and doing burnouts on the lunar rover!

The whole thing is preposterous if you dig in just a tiny bit.

I think you need to do better than that. You've merely said that they're on invisible harnesses, using some super CGI because getting water on a towel and hands is 'reckless', and then rambled about spacesuits without providing a shred of any useful information to support anything you've said.

[Mark Antony]

I think you need to do better than that. You've merely said that they're on invisible harnesses, using some super CGI because getting water on a towel and hands is 'reckless', and then rambled about spacesuits without providing a shred of any useful information to support anything you've said.

Sounds to me like you are stumped. You don't have the means or the knowledge to challenge anything I said.

[stack]

I think you need to do better than that. You've merely said that they're on invisible harnesses, using some super CGI because getting water on a towel and hands is 'reckless', and then rambled about spacesuits without providing a shred of any useful information to support anything you've said.

Sounds to me like you are stumped. You don't have the means or the knowledge to challenge anything I said.

There's a lot more to it than what you mentioned. Without the complete picture it's hard to really examine how some of these things work, especially give the complexity involved. For instance, oxygenation, decompression/depressurization, in regard to capsules and spacesuits is quite complex, with a tremendous amount of preparation involved in order to prevent some of the harmful outcomes you bring up. Here's some of the Apollo prep:

The cabin atmosphere at launch was adjusted to 60% oxygen and 40% nitrogen at sea-level pressure: 14.7 psi (101 kPa). During ascent the cabin rapidly vented down to 5 psi (34 kPa), releasing approximately 2/3 of the gas originally present at launch. The vent then closed and the environmental control system maintained a nominal cabin pressure of 5 psi (34 kPa) as the spacecraft continued into vacuum. The cabin was then very slowly purged (vented to space and simultaneously replaced with 100% oxygen), so the nitrogen concentration fell asymptotically to zero over the next day. Although the new cabin launch atmosphere was significantly safer than 100% oxygen, it still contained almost three times the amount of oxygen present in ordinary sea level air (20.9% oxygen). This was necessary to ensure a sufficient partial pressure of oxygen when the astronauts removed their helmets after reaching orbit. (60% of five psi is three psi, compared to 60% of 14.7 psi (101 kPa) which is 8.8 psi (61 kPa) at launch, and 20.9% of 14.7 psi (101 kPa) which is 3.07 psi (21.2 kPa) in sea-level air.)[63]

The environment within the astronauts' pressure suits was not changed. Because of the rapid drop in cabin (and suit) pressures during ascent, decompression sickness was likely unless the nitrogen had been purged from the astronauts' tissues before launch. They would still breathe pure oxygen, starting several hours before launch, until they removed their helmets on orbit. Avoiding the "bends" was considered worth the residual risk of an oxygen-accelerated fire within a suit.

As for flexibility in Apollo space suits:

When pressurized, the differential pressures Impose stress or tension on the suit wall. The "soft" suit becomes very rigid or stiff, and almost impossible to bend except in those areas where specially designed joints are provided to accommodate normal body flexure. An example of this stiffness: inflate a large cylindrical balloon or the inner tube of a tire, the balloon or tube will become very stilt and almost Impossible to twist or bend. Without these specially developed joints for the space suit, It would be virtually impossible for the astronaut to do useful work on the moon's surface.
These special joints are installed Into the CMP A7LB suit at the knees, wrist, shoulders, elbows, ankles, and thighs. The EV A7LB suit was further modified to include special joints at the neck and waist to allow bending movements in those areas. This added suit flexibility permits the astronaut to conserve his energy, reduce fatigue and to work for longer periods on the lunar surface.

As for hair, I'm not sure how gel could replicate this movement:

[james38]

@Stack
Thanks for the info. If you could post the links from where you get it from, that would be helpful.

@Mark Antony

The claim that the videos involve CGI or hair gel is speculation as to possible explanations for how they could have faked it. Stack seemed to debunk the hair gel theory with his useful video of an astronaut washing her hair. In any case, I think we can both agree that you are merely explaining your version of how these videos could have been created but not providing any hard evidence that these videos are fake.

EDIT: I do see your point about the invisible harness, however. After rewatching a bunch of times I still can't figure out what the guy is grabbing. Very curious if Stack or anyone else has thoughts on this. Also definitely would love to see the other videos you mentioned with the harnesses.

Onto the spacesuit.

The suits they supposedly use now and also the new xEMU suits have hinges/bearings at the joints. The suits used during the Apollo missions did not. Let me explain why this is a huge problem:
On earth, there is 101,000 Pascals or Newtons per square meter of pressure or 1 atmosphere exerted on us right now. I'm spelling out the units so it's easier to comprehend how huge a pressure that is. So why don't we get crushed, or why don't our lungs collapse under this pressure? Because inside our lungs and blood vessels and body cavities there is also 101,000 Pa  of pressure - the difference between the inside and outside is effectively zero. But in space they don't have this luxury. So if you send a vessel that has
1 atm of pressure inside it into space, now you have a very difficult engineering problem on your hands because now all the materials used to make the rockets, the lunar landers, the space suits all have to withstand at least 101,000 Pa of pressure (this is not an easy problem to solve at all).
Let me give you a real world example of how huge a pressure this is: Lets say on earth we open up a spacesuit and for arguments sake the opened material is 1 square meter of fabric. If you take this piece of fabric and fix the four corners to a rope (so it's like a trampoline) if you were to put 10,100 Kg (or 10 tonnes) of mass on the fabric, the tension experienced would be the equivalent of having a space suit in space with 1 atm of pressure inside it. There are very few flexible materials that can withstand these pressures and even if they could, they would be rendered so incredibly rigid that the astronaut inside would not be able to maneuver. Think of how stiff the wall of a basketball is, well the space suit would be pressurized to twice this amount at least.

So in the post Apollo era they had to explain this away somehow. Nasa's official stance now is that before going on a space walk the astronaut has to depressurise the suit down to 5-6KPa of pressure in order to allow maneuverability. But, there is a big problem with this, as divers know, this depressurization causes bubbles of nitrogen to form in the blood causing a condition known as "the bends". To overcome this, they must pump pure oxygen into the space suits so the astronaut can expel all the nitrogen from their blood. But this raises another problem - breathing pure oxygen for extended periods causes hyperoxia which can cause death in minutes!

None of this was taken into account during Apollo missions. There were no hinges on the suits, no depressurization chambers, no pure oxygen elements in the suits. And yet they hop around happily on the moon hitting golf balls and doing burnouts on the lunar rover!

There's a lot more to it than what you mentioned. Without the complete picture it's hard to really examine how some of these things work, especially give the complexity involved. For instance, oxygenation, decompression/depressurization, in regard to capsules and spacesuits is quite complex, with a tremendous amount of preparation involved in order to prevent some of the harmful outcomes you bring up. Here's some of the Apollo prep:

The cabin atmosphere at launch was adjusted to 60% oxygen and 40% nitrogen at sea-level pressure: 14.7 psi (101 kPa). During ascent the cabin rapidly vented down to 5 psi (34 kPa), releasing approximately 2/3 of the gas originally present at launch. The vent then closed and the environmental control system maintained a nominal cabin pressure of 5 psi (34 kPa) as the spacecraft continued into vacuum. The cabin was then very slowly purged (vented to space and simultaneously replaced with 100% oxygen), so the nitrogen concentration fell asymptotically to zero over the next day. Although the new cabin launch atmosphere was significantly safer than 100% oxygen, it still contained almost three times the amount of oxygen present in ordinary sea level air (20.9% oxygen). This was necessary to ensure a sufficient partial pressure of oxygen when the astronauts removed their helmets after reaching orbit. (60% of five psi is three psi, compared to 60% of 14.7 psi (101 kPa) which is 8.8 psi (61 kPa) at launch, and 20.9% of 14.7 psi (101 kPa) which is 3.07 psi (21.2 kPa) in sea-level air.)[63]

The environment within the astronauts' pressure suits was not changed. Because of the rapid drop in cabin (and suit) pressures during ascent, decompression sickness was likely unless the nitrogen had been purged from the astronauts' tissues before launch. They would still breathe pure oxygen, starting several hours before launch, until they removed their helmets on orbit. Avoiding the "bends" was considered worth the residual risk of an oxygen-accelerated fire within a suit.

As for flexibility in Apollo space suits:

When pressurized, the differential pressures Impose stress or tension on the suit wall. The "soft" suit becomes very rigid or stiff, and almost impossible to bend except in those areas where specially designed joints are provided to accommodate normal body flexure. An example of this stiffness: inflate a large cylindrical balloon or the inner tube of a tire, the balloon or tube will become very stilt and almost Impossible to twist or bend. Without these specially developed joints for the space suit, It would be virtually impossible for the astronaut to do useful work on the moon's surface.
These special joints are installed Into the CMP A7LB suit at the knees, wrist, shoulders, elbows, ankles, and thighs. The EV A7LB suit was further modified to include special joints at the neck and waist to allow bending movements in those areas. This added suit flexibility permits the astronaut to conserve his energy, reduce fatigue and to work for longer periods on the lunar surface.

So thanks Mark Antony for providing some detailed info and arguments we can attempt to debunk and Stack for providing more info. I'm going to try to break this all down and paraphrase your arguments, please let me know if I'm putting up a straw man.

Argument 1: The pressures inside a spacesuit would be unrealistically high and render the spacesuit too rigid to be able to move. Although they eventually claimed to have hinges in the suit, this was only after the Apollo Era.

Thanks for going into so much depth. And I understand and agree it's a huge engineering challenge. Nobody doubts that what NASA was doing was difficult. But, difficulty alone is not strong enough evidence as I'm sure you know. And you seem to accept that NASA's current explanation (the hinges in the suit) are a perfectly logical explanation for how the suits can maneuver. And Stack explained these hinges in more detail.

So if I understand correctly, you're only real concern is that the hinges/joints weren't explained until after the Apollo missions. I did a very quick bit of research on this by searching the wikipedia page on the specific space suit model used in the Apollo missions. You can see it here https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Apollo/Skylab_space_suit . On this page, just do a search for "joint" and you will see the explanation for it.

Do you deny that this wikipedia page explains the joints on an Apollo-era spacesuit, and if so where is your contradicting evidence?


Argument 2: To avoid "the bends", NASA must have pumped hyperoxia-level amounts of oxygen into the astronaut's blood. Also, none of this was taken into account during the Apollo missions.

Interesting! This should be a killer argument if it holds up. It would have been helpful to know where Stack's info came from since that's my main reference for now, but since he called it "Apollo prep" I'm assuming it comes from the Apollo era which contradicts your second point that this stuff wasn't taken into account during the Apollo missions. Seem's like we'd have to wait for Stack to provide a reference to where this comes from or for Mark Antony to deny it as legitimate?

Normal air has approximately 21% oxygen (https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-percentage-of-oxygen-in-air?share=1). However, I'm having trouble finding a reference for how much oxygen causes hyperoxia, and after how much time. Can you please share your reference?

Specifically, you said:

To overcome this, they must pump pure oxygen into the space suits so the astronaut can expel all the nitrogen from their blood. But this raises another problem - breathing pure oxygen for extended periods causes hyperoxia which can cause death in minutes"

I have no idea if the part about hyperoxia is accurate or not. I found one reference saying it takes hours. This would contradict your point that it takes minutes, but I won't link it because I'm not sure if it is credible and it didn't specify the percent oxygen that causes hyperoxia.

Stack's information seems to confirm that the astronauts breathed pure (100%)? oxygen for extended periods. I'm confused about this because if what Mark Antony is saying about hyperoxia is correct, there does seem to be a contradiction here and all astronauts should be dead from hyperoxia. Anyone?

The whole thing is preposterous if you dig in just a tiny bit.

In conclusion, it seems most of your points were disproven above.  The hyperoxia argument (EDIT: and the invisible harnesses) seems to be the only one that could still hold up, but we're lacking complete information about it.

[stack]

Apollo space suit construction/flexibility (About a 1/3 of the way through the document, no page numbers):

https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/outreach/SignificantIncidentsEVA/assets/space_suit_evolution.pdf

Apollo capsule/suit oxygen preparation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1#Pure_oxygen_atmosphere

[RhesusVX]

Sounds to me like you are stumped. You don't have the means or the knowledge to challenge anything I said.

Well you seem to think space suits are depressurised to just 5-6 KPa, or are you going to claim that’s just a typo now as you frantically copied the wrong numbers and units out of a quick Google search?  I’m also really not sure what knowledge we need to challenge what you’ve said.  The videos of astronauts on board exist, the photos of the Earth from space exist.  Retroreflectors are on the surface of the Moon so that laser light can be bounced back to Earth.  How did they get there?  If you think it’s all conspiracy and fake, per the thread, the burden is on you to provide actual evidence that they are fake, not just your own interpretation of how they could be faked based on your own limited knowledge.  On top of that, why would they fake it all?  What purpose does it serve?  You’re happy to use sat nav and other things that rely on satellites orbiting the Earth, but aren’t willing to accept we’ve been into space.  Or do you think sat nav works some other way than what we’ve been told?

Regarding the video, I too can’t really see what is supposedly being grabbed at, other than one astronaut reaching out to stabilise his colleague.  Not the first one I’ve seen where people claim that wires and harnesses were used but have no actual proof of the fact.  Thing is, when you think that something is true, like the Earth being flat, and something comes along that absolutely proves that it’s not, the easiest thing to do is just dismiss it and say it’s all conspiracy and fake.  Never mind that all the photos and videos from space do is confirm what people have worked out for over 2,500 years.  Humanity has already provided its proof.  It’s up to the Flat Earth Society and its supporters to provide counter-evidence that videos are fake, photos are fake, curvature tests are flawed, and that all known laws of science and motion in relation to Earth and its surroundings are all wrong.

[Longtitube]

In conclusion, it seems most of your points were disproven above.  The hyperoxia argument (EDIT: and the invisible harnesses) seems to be the only one that could still hold up, but we're lacking complete information about it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430743/#_article-26493_s2_

Hyperoxia effects set in about 24 hours after beginning breathing pure oxygen, not minutes.

The trigger for hyperoxia is too high a partial pressure of oxygen. We breathe air that is approximately one fifth oxygen and approximately 15psi pressure, so the partial pressure of oxygen in the air is one fifth of atmospheric pressure, or approximately 3psi. If we instead breathe pure oxygen at 3psi, say, in a decompression chamber, the partial pressure of oxygen would be 3psi and it wouldn’t harm us.

Astronauts breathing pure oxygen at atmospheric pressure a couple of hours before launch are not going to suffer, nor would a working pressure of 5psi pure oxygen (the actual pressure used) in the Apollo capsule for a week’s mission kill them with hyperoxia. This also means the capsule has to contain a 5psi atmosphere, not a 15psi one, so the pressure loading is less.

[Iceman]

When it comes to the burden of proof, I'd remind all that just one single photo or video taken from outer space proves it exists and we're able to reach it. I've previously provided an example of the video of Chris Hadfield doing experiments on demand, wringing a water-soaked towel on the ISS as something that probably couldn't be faked in a vomit-comet, and I dont think we have good enough CGI to create the seamless video we see linked above.

As far as the argument that the astronauts are on harnesses... here's an hour-long tour through the ISS using a single camera with extended periods with no breaks. I didnt watch the whole thing, but they seamlessly travel through multiple compartments, spanning several minutes, with no cut breaks. The video explains a lot of what's going on up there and how it works. And you see the astronauts backs numerous times, and their travel through the numerous compartments would be impossible with any kind of fixed rack/harness/pulley system.

[RhesusVX]

That's just it Iceman2020, there are things in this world that FET supporters have to irrefutably acknowledge because they can see it with their own two eyes, like our own existence for example.  Happy to acknowledge that an organic lifeform can be conceived, develop into a grown adult with its own life, and that person hop onto an aeroplane to get from A to B or get in a car and drive somewhere and be guided by Sat Nav systems.  Happy to acknowledge that the internet exists and computers exist, because it does and they do, despite maybe not knowing exactly how they work at a macro, micro, nano or quantum level.  Yet, they can't comprehend that something as simple as space exists, or that we've ever been there?  Just doesn't stack up.  Or it does, but only because such evidence proves that the Earth is in fact a globe.

I've seen plenty of videos of people in space and on the ISS and just find it extremely hard to believe that for 2,500 years, scientists the world over have been a part of one huge, massive lie to hide the shape of the Earth, faking videos and photos even before we had CGI capabilities.  The sheer amount of paperwork and money to uphold that would be just as, if not more immense than actual, tangible published research.  It would mean that every single piece of technology ever developed to circumnavigate the Earth, or anything related to it, has to have been been rigged to make it feel/appear like we are travelling around a globe, but are in fact just going around in circles (pun intended) on a flat Earth.  Every single book, paper, article, web site, and app ever written would need to be fabricated around a lie or misconception.  Now, I'm not going to turn around and say some things aren't kept from the public or lied about in the interests of national security and whatnot, but celebrated space travel and the shape of the Earth...come on.

At the time of writing SciManDan had published a new video in response to people claiming that space doesn't exist and that we have never been there:

[james38]

@Stack

Thanks for posting the references and further backing up all the arguments in my last post

@RhesusVX

Respectfully, I think you can get your points across without ranting so much. I'd really like for this thread to keep a friendly tone.

I really like your question about satellite tech, cell phones, GPS, etc. Now I'm really curious about what the current FET thinking about them is.

And thanks for the video, although I'm not sure if it's really constructive in this thread. I say that because it looks like that video is trying to debunk the claims that one person had about space being fake. But isn't that putting up a straw man, since these might not be the same claims that jack44556677, Mark Antony, and others are making on this thread? We need to be patient and let them explain their views.

@Longtitube

Thanks, your info looks like a solid debunking of the hyperoxia argument.

@Iceman2020

I generally agree the harness argument seems weak after the hour-long video you presented.

About videos and pictures alone being sufficient evidence: I think we can make a much stronger case if we go beyond pictures and videos. The way I look at it is that we are going down the path of a  "Reductio ad absurdum". And one might think it's absurd that all of this footage could be faked. But in my opinion, the absurdity level of the possibility that NASA is hiding some futuristic CGI capabilities is actually not that high. But if in addition to the pics/vids we also provide:
A) 3rd party scientific evidence (such as the research on moon rocks)
B) counter-arguments that debunk any evidence of the supposed conspiracy

Now we have a significantly stronger case. Now, the opposing viewpoint would depend on further assumptions. Not only is NASA hiding futuristic CGI capabilities, but also:
A) it's not just NASA, but a global conspiracy (since 3rd parties have provided scientific evidence of space travel)
B) the global conspiracy has been near-perfectly concealed (since no valid evidence of this global conspiracy can be found)

At this point, in my opinion, the absurdity level of the conspiracy theorist's view would be significantly higher. And the more absurd one view, the stronger the opposing view becomes.

[RhesusVX]

@james38, fair comments mate, duly noted, and I agree with your "Reductio ad absurdum" statement.  In my opinion, two millennia of science, uncovering of physical laws, tested theories and observation, all being either falsified or covered up by NASA, related organisations and all of academia is heavily skewed toward absurdity.  When you also factor in that it's not just large organisations, but thousands of small, independent companies carrying out research and even individuals in their own back gardens making their own observations and measurements...at what point do the scales tip?  I know the focus here is now largely on proof related to space travel, but we mustn't discount the proof that relates to what we observe from down here as well.

[Mark Antony]

@Stack

Thanks for posting the references and further backing up all the arguments in my last post

@RhesusVX

Respectfully, I think you can get your points across without ranting so much. I'd really like for this thread to keep a friendly tone.

I really like your question about satellite tech, cell phones, GPS, etc. Now I'm really curious about what the current FET thinking about them is.

And thanks for the video, although I'm not sure if it's really constructive in this thread. I say that because it looks like that video is trying to debunk the claims that one person had about space being fake. But isn't that putting up a straw man, since these might not be the same claims that jack44556677, Mark Antony, and others are making on this thread? We need to be patient and let them explain their views.

@Longtitube

Thanks, your info looks like a solid debunking of the hyperoxia argument.

@Iceman2020

I generally agree the harness argument seems weak after the hour-long video you presented.

About videos and pictures alone being sufficient evidence: I think we can make a much stronger case if we go beyond pictures and videos. The way I look at it is that we are going down the path of a  "Reductio ad absurdum". And one might think it's absurd that all of this footage could be faked. But in my opinion, the absurdity level of the possibility that NASA is hiding some futuristic CGI capabilities is actually not that high. But if in addition to the pics/vids we also provide:
A) 3rd party scientific evidence (such as the research on moon rocks)
B) counter-arguments that debunk any evidence of the supposed conspiracy

Now we have a significantly stronger case. Now, the opposing viewpoint would depend on further assumptions. Not only is NASA hiding futuristic CGI capabilities, but also:
A) it's not just NASA, but a global conspiracy (since 3rd parties have provided scientific evidence of space travel)
B) the global conspiracy has been near-perfectly concealed (since no valid evidence of this global conspiracy can be found)

At this point, in my opinion, the absurdity level of the conspiracy theorist's view would be significantly higher. And the more absurd one view, the stronger the opposing view becomes.

While I respect that you are far more polite than most others here, I'm coming to realize your intentions really are no different. It appears what you seek mainly is to reinforce your own belief in the globe rather than challenge the evidence against it. The title of the thread is "Burden of proof", and you are placing it squarely on the flat earther. No flat earth believer is interested in convincing you of anything. They will present the evidence, you can challenge it by all means but you have to come to your own conclusions. And if that conclusion is that the earth is a globe then so be it - you are taking the position of 99.99% of the population, I won't lose sleep over it.

Also, primarily to the others, just because someone presents a counter-argument and I haven't responded immediately, does not mean they have debunked anything. I have a job like most people. My life is not consumed by flat earth as many globe theorists may percieve. In fact, I spend very little time thinking about it and the time I do spend, I can assure you won't be wasted trying to preach to those who despise it.

I may or may not reply at the weekend, it depends on if I have the time. (although seeing that hour long "single-shoot" tour of the ISS made me laugh - I simply can't let that go unchallenged)

[RonJ]

It looks like everyone is wasting time discussing the two theories of the earth.  In a court trial both sides call their witnesses.  An eye witness is the best.  I don't know exactly how many astronauts say they have been in space, but there's your eye witnesses.  I believe that they all would claim that the earth is round, if you could ask them.  That's the 'elephant in the room' here. In order for the flat earth theory to work it's an implied fact that all the astronauts would have to be lying. Now that makes things a bit more complicated for the flat earth theory.  An astronaut says the earth is round by his/her observation and it would be up to the flat earth side to prove it would be impossible for the witness to be telling the truth.  Is the astronaut blind?  Was the astronaut seen in a bar somewhere when he/she was supposed to be in space?  The space vehicle never got to orbit but was observed to land in the ocean somewhere and all the people aboard got off and went into hiding.  No one was ever in the space vehicle when it left the earth and the astronauts 'left the premises' unobserved and went into hiding.  Many astronauts are said to have died in the process of launching from or returning to earth.  There's been plenty of pictures out there of some of the 'alleged' astronauts that are supposed to be dead. That's all I've seen is just pictures, but no investigation.  If you say yes, I saw the earth from space and it was round, how do you prove it?  There's pictures, but that's been alleged to be fabricated.  There's moon rocks out there that have been observed to be unique and couldn't have been formed on the earth.  There's the audio tapes, the space vehicles that have returned, ect. ect.  It looks like the burden of proof would be on the flat earth side to demonstrate that the astronauts have all lied. Even if one astronaut was caught in a lie that wouldn't mean that all the others couldn't be telling the truth.  So even if a flat earth theory was developed that was 'air tight' how do you deal with the astronaut witnesses? 

[RhesusVX]

The title of the thread is "Burden of proof", and you are placing it squarely on the flat earther. No flat earth believer is interested in convincing you of anything. They will present the evidence, you can challenge it by all means but you have to come to your own conclusions. And if that conclusion is that the earth is a globe then so be it - you are taking the position of 99.99% of the population

So here's the thing.  In the RET corner we have 2,500+ years of evolved science, observation, a single model that accounts for everything we observe on Earth (above the quantum level at least), along with photographs, videos and eye witnesses.  That's the pool of evidence to support a round Earth, which by all accounts is rejected by 0.01% of the population as they formed their own conclusions for whatever reasons.  I don't think it's case of either side trying to "convince" the other, but, given that there is an overwhelming skew towards round Earth, it's fair to say that the burden of proof does lie with the flat Earther.  If RET evidence is bunk, why?  Prove it.

The issue is that the "evidence" presented for a flat Earth isn't really evidence because it's largely just theories based on actual science, just with carefully selected elements and misinterpretation to make it sound plausible.  Like the size and dimensions of the Earth - those are based on an actual experiment carried out by Eratosthenes, but that experiment was carried out based on the observation that light travels in a straight line.  Nevertheless, FET chooses to accept that as the "diameter" of the observable Earth, but then suddenly introduces a whole new concept of "Electromagnetic Acceleration" to account for the spotlight effect of the Sun etc., in which light curves significantly and even does U-bends the further it travels.  On the one hand FET has light going straight, and on the other it has it curving to suit - which is it?  Such theories have no evidence to back them up, which is in complete contrast to round Earth where there is plenty of experimental evidence to back things up, hence there are mathematical models.  For me this is the key difference, and nowhere on Earth has anybody measured light doing anything other than going straight, only affected by known, calculable effects such as atmospheric refraction on Earth and gravitational lensing out in space.

[james38]

While I respect that you are far more polite than most others here, I'm coming to realize your intentions really are no different. It appears what you seek mainly is to reinforce your own belief in the globe rather than challenge the evidence against it. The title of the thread is "Burden of proof", and you are placing it squarely on the flat earther. No flat earth believer is interested in convincing you of anything. They will present the evidence, you can challenge it by all means but you have to come to your own conclusions. And if that conclusion is that the earth is a globe then so be it - you are taking the position of 99.99% of the population, I won't lose sleep over it.

I appreciate your honest criticism, but I disagree with some of it.

My intention is not to persuade. I do really want to listen to flat earthers and be open-minded. You're right that my tone has become persuasive and I apologize for that. I am trying to incorporate all the evidence everyone is sharing and update you all on my logical conclusions and how I got there. If at times I lean into it too much and offend in any way I am sorry. If you could tell me exactly how I offended I will try to improve my demeanor.

What I'm really fascinated by and would like to learn more about is how you perceive my logic, where we share common ground, and where our logic diverges. That final point, "where our logic diverges" is possibly the most challenging question to answer and requires that we really get into the nitty-gritty evidence and arguments on both sides. That's why I'd value your responses to some of the arguments I/we have presented if you ever find the time.

I am not that interested in who should have the burden of proof anymore (though to be fair, I can't remember if some loose ends from that conversation are still waiting for Jack44556677's reply). At this point, proof from both sides is fair game to me. The "Let's start with burden of proof" title was an attempt to start from a philosophical common ground, and because I'm completely new here so I actually didn't know exactly where to start. At this point, I'm personally fixated on the NASA conspiracy, the evidence for and against it, and how we all interpret such evidence so differently that we come to opposing views on it.

It looks like everyone is wasting time discussing the two theories of the earth. [...]

I sympathize with a lot of what you are saying. But respectfully, I think it's a bit ranty and not really constructive at this point. We have already built a list of talking points and evidence that awaits flat earthers' responses. If you think there is something crucially wrong/missing from that list let us know but otherwise, let's be patient and give flat earthers a chance to respond.

So here's the thing. [...]

He said he didn't have time for a full response. I appreciate if you are coming to my defence but let's please just be patient and let some flat earthers respond to the list of constructive evidence/talking points I posted above before adding more.

[james38]

To anyone who is not a flat earther,

I think it's counterproductive at this point for anyone except flat earthers to respond. Give them time and space to respond to everything. Let them catch up.