Author Topic: What happened on the moon [major update]  (Read 7093 times)

Idoru

  • Hydlaa Notable
  • *
  • Posts: 981
    • View Profile
Re: What happened on the moon [major update]
« Reply #60 on: February 24, 2007, 02:11:04 pm »
ahhh, well, i suppose il mention one of my favourite pieces of evidence (conjecture if you like) The lack of a blast crater from the large thrust of the descent enginges of the lunar module. Add to this the lack of any dust on the module, if you land in a big cloud of dust your bound to get some on your craft.

[EDIT RE: the next post]

If you are not interested in the subject then you should enforce your own form of a forum lock. Dont click the little link that brings you here, im sure you can avoid it.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2007, 02:23:35 pm by Idoru »

"May there only be peaceful and cheerful Earth Days to come for our beautiful Spaceship Earth as it continues to spin and circle in frigid space with its warm and fragile cargo of animate life."

Kixie

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 1868
  • I chase the moon, liquour, cars and women.
    • View Profile
Re: What happened on the moon [major update]
« Reply #61 on: February 24, 2007, 02:15:03 pm »
Well besides Quin's last post, I've read nothing new or intellectually moving in the 3 or 4 pages since the original post. I'm sensing a lock... in the force... :o

Parallo

  • Forum Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 2035
  • Ꞇíꞃ Luıᵹ̇ꝺeaċ
    • View Profile
Re: What happened on the moon [major update]
« Reply #62 on: February 24, 2007, 02:20:29 pm »
You expect something intellectually moving on these forums? Heh, no chance.  :P
I suggest the statue of Laanx gets turned into a statue of Parallo <3. An NPC could never replace the huge hole he left in my heart when he died  :'(

Quin

  • Hydlaa Resident
  • *
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: What happened on the moon [major update]
« Reply #63 on: February 24, 2007, 02:33:13 pm »
For Idoru:

pulled from a source after Googling (a lot of good info from Google :) )


Bad: In the pictures taken of the lunar lander by the astronauts, the TV show continues, there is no blast crater. A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.

Good: When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn't need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.

Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle.

[Note added December 6, 2001: Originally in this section I said that the engines also cut off early, before the moment of touchdown, to prevent dust from getting blown around and disturbing the astronauts' view of the surface. This was an incorrect assertion; it was known that dust would blow around before the missions were launched, and steps were taken to make sure the astronauts knew their height above the surface. Anyway, the incorrect section has been removed.]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bad: The next argument presented on the show deals with the lunar dust. As the lander descended, we clearly see dust getting blown away by the rocket. The exhaust should have blown all the dust away, yet we can clearly see the astronauts' footprints in the dust mere meters from the lander. Obviously, when NASA faked this they messed it up.

Good: Once again, the weird alien environment of the Moon comes to play. Imagine taking a bag of flour and dumping it onto your kitchen floor (kids: ask your folks first!). Now bend over the pile, take a deep breath, and blow into it as hard as you can. Poof! Flour goes everywhere. Why? Because the momentum of your breath goes into the flour, which makes it move. But note that the flour goes up, and sideways, and aloft into the air. If you blow hard enough, you might see little curlicues of air lifting the flour farther than your breath alone could have, and doing so to dust well outside of where your breath actually blew.

That's the heart of this problem. We are used to air helping us blow things around. The air itself is displaced by your breath, which pushed on more air, and so on. On the Earth, your breath might blow flour that was dozens of centimeters away, even though your actual breath didn't reach that far. On the Moon, there is no air. The only dust that gets blown around by the exhaust of the rocket (which, remember, isn't nearly as strong as the HBs claim) is the dust physically touched by the exhaust, or dust hit by other bits of flying dust. In the end, only the dust directly under or a bit around the rocket was blown out by the exhaust. The rest was left where it was. Ironically, the dust around the landing site was probably a bit thicker than before, since the dust blown out would have piled up there.

Quinidain Sherkhan : Enkidukai knife fighter and Starlight Hunter , living life one rat hide at a time

LARAGORN

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 1252
  • Facts dont cease to exist because they are ignored
    • View Profile
Re: What happened on the moon [major update]
« Reply #64 on: February 24, 2007, 06:54:41 pm »
Interesting posts Quin,

in regard to the lunar dust, why do we see the dust freely fly when kicked by the astronauts. The same can be said of the roostertail of dust from the rovers tires. Even with the thicker layer of dust under the blast area, the thrust should have been enough to move it a few feet.

Since we are on the lunar surface thing..... How could the dust clump so easily to form a perfect foot print? With no moisture or organic matter and only dust and shatterd rock. Why after 2 and a half years, were the serveyor crafts foort prints perfectly intact? With the constant bombardment of the moon by dust, how could this be?

All great truthes begin as blasphemies- SHAW
Adraax KCP Adraax Forum

steuben

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 1834
    • View Profile
    • Myspace
Re: What happened on the moon [major update]
« Reply #65 on: February 24, 2007, 07:05:57 pm »
the bombardment is constant but not uniform on the time scales that we think of. the bombardment is only uniform on the geologic timescales.

the lunar dust is about as fine as powdered sugar. set some in a shallow pan and try leaving a footprint in it. you'll get the same effect as you see in the photos, and there is no water in that...
may laanx frighten the shadow from my path.
hardly because the shadow built the lexx.
the shadow will frighten laanx from my path.

LARAGORN

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 1252
  • Facts dont cease to exist because they are ignored
    • View Profile
Re: What happened on the moon [major update]
« Reply #66 on: February 24, 2007, 07:16:29 pm »
the bombardment is constant but not uniform on the time scales that we think of. the bombardment is only uniform on the geologic timescales.

the lunar dust is about as fine as powdered sugar. set some in a shallow pan and try leaving a footprint in it. you'll get the same effect as you see in the photos, and there is no water in that...

There is moisture in the air we breath, A vacume is void of moisture, there is no comparison.

Quote
The surveyor probes showed that it was possible to land a spacecraft on the moon because the surface was crushed rocks, not deep, soft powder.

Ever try to make a foot print in crushed rock ?

you'd cook the optic of the hubble if you tried. they're calibrated and designed for low light intensities.

Linky
« Last Edit: February 24, 2007, 07:31:38 pm by LARAGORN »

All great truthes begin as blasphemies- SHAW
Adraax KCP Adraax Forum

zanzibar

  • Forum Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 6523
    • View Profile
Re: What happened on the moon [major update]
« Reply #67 on: February 24, 2007, 07:45:33 pm »
Congratulations, you've watched roughly 20 minutes of the video, and even that is debatable because you did not provide the exact time index (you can link directly to time index). But I'll let it slide this once. Now onto the response:

Targets? You mean reticles. Bright light sources? You mean backgrounds. They claim there was only a single light source (unless there really wasn't). The problem with your "proof" is that there are several photographs with bright backgrounds but without disappearing reticles. The shot with american flag is not all white but red and blue as well that aren't nearly as bright. The center reticle is actually the largest on the camera and it is the one that hits (or blocks) the flag but there isn't even a hint of it anywhere across the white, red or blue. Ever study photography? :)

Anything else or do you agree with the rest? Post a time index next time, so I know you really watched it. ;)


It was months ago that I watched the film, so how can I remember the exact time index? :)  No.  When I watched the film, I got curious so I went on google to look up the facts of the matter.  I found that every single "fact" in the film was nothing more than a pseudo-scientific lie.  You would see the same, if only you opened your eyes to other opinions.

You are a fanatic.  You are nothing more than a fool who wants to believe a lie.  You refuse to listen to reason.  Your position is based on nothing but blind faith and ignorance.  I'll have nothing more to do with you.
Quote from: Raa
Immaturity is FTW.

lordraleigh

  • Guest
Re: What happened on the moon [major update]
« Reply #68 on: February 24, 2007, 07:49:20 pm »
You are a fanatic.  You are nothing more than a fool who wants to believe a lie.  You refuse to listen to reason.  Your position is based on nothing but blind faith and ignorance.  I'll have nothing more to do with you.

Just change the "you" for "I", think about everything you believe in, and you will finally get the wisdom of an act named Self-criticism.

zanzibar

  • Forum Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 6523
    • View Profile
Re: What happened on the moon [major update]
« Reply #69 on: February 24, 2007, 08:09:02 pm »
You are a fanatic.  You are nothing more than a fool who wants to believe a lie.  You refuse to listen to reason.  Your position is based on nothing but blind faith and ignorance.  I'll have nothing more to do with you.

Just change the "you" for "I", think about everything you believe in, and you will finally get the wisdom of an act named Self-criticism.


I give you permission to make sense.
Quote from: Raa
Immaturity is FTW.

lordraleigh

  • Guest
Re: What happened on the moon [major update]
« Reply #70 on: February 24, 2007, 08:11:18 pm »
Anyway the definitive proof is still to be found, if this is really just a "conspiracy theory" the flag and some signs of the landing should still be there, in the moon, awaiting to be discovered to finally put an end in this old debate.

LARAGORN

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 1252
  • Facts dont cease to exist because they are ignored
    • View Profile
Re: What happened on the moon [major update]
« Reply #71 on: February 24, 2007, 08:16:01 pm »
Back on topic....


In these photos it shows foot prints, but the rover leaves no tracks at all. How is this possible?

All great truthes begin as blasphemies- SHAW
Adraax KCP Adraax Forum

Quin

  • Hydlaa Resident
  • *
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: What happened on the moon [major update]
« Reply #72 on: February 24, 2007, 09:27:17 pm »
the bombardment is constant but not uniform on the time scales that we think of. the bombardment is only uniform on the geologic timescales.

the lunar dust is about as fine as powdered sugar. set some in a shallow pan and try leaving a footprint in it. you'll get the same effect as you see in the photos, and there is no water in that...

There is moisture in the air we breath, A vacume is void of moisture, there is no comparison.

Quote
The surveyor probes showed that it was possible to land a spacecraft on the moon because the surface was crushed rocks, not deep, soft powder.

Ever try to make a foot print in crushed rock ?

you'd cook the optic of the hubble if you tried. they're calibrated and designed for low light intensities.

Linky


The powdered sugar analogy isn't a bad one.  Right out of the bag it is dry.  If you poured it on the floor and stepped in it, you would leave a sharp foot print.  At that moment the atmosphere and water vapor in it have no effect on what you see.

As far as the foot print in crushed rock comment (your not going to like this :) ), I work, at times, with pulverized limestone at work. And yes I have left very sharp foot prints, hand prints and other prints in it.  The atmosphere on earth has no effect on the compaction of the rock dust. As far as being perfectly intact, on the moon they would stay that way for a very long time since the only erosion comes from impact events (any where from micro dust to big honkin' rocks).

You also asked why no dust moved in the blast area when the craft landed.  I remember seeing landing footage before, and as the craft gets close to the surface the camera on the landing craft clearly showed dust shooting away.  My quick Google search for landing footage was unsuccessful but I'll keep looking.

***edit***  got it!  Here is Apollo 11 landing. Dust is clearly flying http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11Landing.mov

No rover tracks?  try this link http://www.clavius.org/rover2.html
Follow a few of his links and you can get more pictures of the same rover at the same time.  I buy the explanation.


***edit***
I've spent a little time clicking on everybodies links in this thread.  There are a lot of good ones, I've even book marked a few. For hoax stuff, this one is quite good: http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
And just for the pictures I really liked this one: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html
Sorry for not remembering whose links were whose  :flowers:
« Last Edit: February 25, 2007, 12:28:13 am by Quin »
Quinidain Sherkhan : Enkidukai knife fighter and Starlight Hunter , living life one rat hide at a time

Under the moon

  • Forum Addict
  • *
  • Posts: 2335
  • Writer extraordinaire.
    • View Profile
Re: What happened on the moon [major update]
« Reply #73 on: February 25, 2007, 12:37:47 am »
LARAGORN, I am going to use my own proccess of logic, and my own knowledge of how things work (though I did look some things up just to be sure) to explain to you in very simple terms why the men's footprints showed up, while the rover's tracks did not.

It is all relative to the motion of the point of contact. A man stands on two feet, and therefore has to try to keep his balance. He does this be shifting the position of his feet on the ground. Also, he does this to a greater effect every time he turns. The space suits are very inflexible, so the foot turning is even more exaggerated than here on lovely Earth. Add to that the amount of traction on the boots, and the fact that the men have to place their weight on one foot at a time. Simply put, the men are digging their footprints into the packed dust.

Now we move to the rover. It has four tires, meaning four points to rest on. The movement of the rover is caused by the rotation of these tires, not the individual placement of each. The tires never shift from side to side, nor do they lift off the ground to reposition the rover. They do not have to keep their balance. If you look at the photos, you can also see the tires have a very small tread, making them relatively smooth. I would wager anything this was intended to reduce the tossing of dust from the treads onto the equipment. Why? That is what I would do. Also, the tires are rolling across the surface of the dust with very little pressure on each tire, which is the opposite of what the men are doing. (remember, they are digging in with each step)

Taking the flour example, men’s boots are cookie cutters. Rovers are rolling pins.

Now, lets move on to something even more obvious that will explain the lack of tracks in some photos. The rover's tires are not completely smooth, and some dust -is- picked up by the tires, then tossed off. Think a bit where that dust is being tosses. Notes to help you: And object tossed on the moon travels in an arc in the exact direction you tossed it. Tires spin on a perfect axis. There is no air on the moon, so dust can not be blown around.

Hmm. Can't figure that out yourself? Let me put it another way. The tires pick up dust, then toss it back into their exact tracks, partially filling them. Do not forget to take into account the rovers make shallow tracks in the first place.

Now, you may question why the boots do not do the same thing. Also simple. Watch the videos given as proof for your answer. When the men walk, they toss dust -forward- where they have not been yet. The rovers toss dust -backwards- where they have already been. Do the math.

Also note that the dust kicked up in the photos and vids does not hang in the air at all, and it never deviates from its path. Dust could never do this out of a vacuum. The claims about the moon being solid rock are just completely bunk for anyone that knows anything about geology and the formation of rock.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2007, 12:49:48 am by Under the moon »

Vulcas

  • Guest
What happened on the moon [!]
« Reply #74 on: February 25, 2007, 03:19:46 am »
First, a quick note on someone's earlier mention (before my last reply) about Van Allen not believing in his own findings about the radiation belts.

In Part 2 of the video I posted, you can hear at some point that in the latest interview, Van Allen confirmed that he stood by his findings on the radiation belts. Also, 1969 and 1970 were among the peak years for solar flares. In other words, some of the worst time to send astronauts into space.

I just wanted to mention it quickly to get it out of the way, so that false rumors about Van Allen's "doubts" in his own findings do not spread.

Second, I actually did not read any replies in this thread since the last time I posted. I will explain why.

I decided that this kind of forum will probably make the least difference regarding this subject. I already know that many people who are viewing this have probably more knowledge and common sense than the ones trying to argue with me. They are simply not the kind that like to get into heated discussions. Yes, you, the kind of people that rarely post and are already aware of things like this dwindling into personal attacks most of the time.

I've mostly observed naive or belligerent replies that are based on what they want to believe rather than what they find (not all of you). However, those who supported me (publically and privately) - thanks!

I will say this much (because I'm nice) - I agree that not every single word or point brought up in the video is the kind of evidence that leads to 100% proof. Some of it is speculation that they could certainly do without to make them sound more credible. However, the rest are shockingly credible and prove that the moon landing is a hoax.

The only places where such discussions would make any difference are probably the video comments themselves on Google, YouTube and similar. Or dedicated forums that are much closer to the topic than a pretty much "Off Topic" forum on an MMORPG board.

Not to mention that I'm only relaying the message, and not the author of the video. I can already see this going into further personal attacks and evaluation of my personal life and character, as if it's of any relevance, rather than paying attention to the points raised on the subject itself.

Finally, I can imagine this turning into a nightmare for already overworked and overly criticized moderators to deal with.

Remember, always keep an open mind!

See you in the game! :)

*edit*

Edited to say "Part 2"  instead of "Part 1" as it was meant all along. Still didn't read any replies though. ;)

Also, here is a direct link with time index to exact moment when they make a statement about Van Allen:

Van Allen is sure!

See you! :)
« Last Edit: February 25, 2007, 06:19:45 am by Vulcas »