A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The Eagle Lunar Landing Site Anomalies



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 29th 03, 04:08 PM
Nathan Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Eagle Lunar Landing Site Anomalies

NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The Eagle Lunar surface lighting hostspot and landing anomalies.

Serious discrepancies in the photographic evidence still remain to be
explained by the "pro Apollo" fanatics. All images may be viewed or located
by google at the NASA archive.
Nathan Jones.

In attemts to explain away the lighting hotspot visible in images
AS11-40-5902 and AS11-49-5903 it was 1) postulated that it was as a result
of Solar reflection off of an instrument housing panel and 2) postulated
that it may have been due to changed optical characteristics of the lunar
surface after it had been swept over by the engine as the Eagle landed.
The first postulate is easily falsified with examination of image
AS11-40-5915 where it becomes apparent that the reflective panel is facing
almost directly at the Sun and not angled anywhere near sufficiently to
cause the reflection in question. The second postulate is also falsified
when consideration is given to the trench dug in the ground by the footpad
probe (contact probe) as the Eagle landed. The footpad is about 3 feet in
diameter and the contact probe is about 6 feet in length. The boot impressions
in the ground must be at least 12 inches in length. The footpad and contact
probe concerned are in the lower right corner of AS11-40-5915 and it is clear
that the last 3 metres if not more of flight of the Eagle was in a straight
line and came in from the right side as viewed in the image. This is clearly
evident from the gouge in the ground made by the surface probe which was
attached to the foot pad. The lighting hotspot in the ground is to the left in
the picture and if it were caused by the ground being swept by the engine
exhaust gasses then that would indicate that the engine (and the Eagle)
followed a last few metres trajectory different to that indicated by the gouge
in the ground made by the contact probe. The swept area indicates a possible
landing trajectory originating from the left side in the picture but the
evidence left in the ground by the contact probe indicates a landing from
the right.
The only way the exhaust gasses could have swept the ground in the left of
the picture and at the same time the Eagle come down to land from the right
as evidenced by the trench is if the Eagle had landed with a severe list to
the right. If that had happened then the probeless leg on the Eagle, the one
on the right side in back of the picture would have dug into the ground first
and caused the LM to spin clockwise when veiwed from above in AS11-40-5915.
That would have meant that the footpad and the trapped contact probe would no
longer have aligned with the trench in the ground so neatly and all in one
straight line. Had the Eagle listed so during the last few metres of travel
then the contact probe would have made an arc shaped trench. Thus the "swept
area" is not consistent with a landing from the right as is implied by the
trench made in the Lunar ground by the contact probe.
This leaves the lighting hotspot anomaly intact and without reasonable
explanation so far. If one cares to take the so called "swept area" as
evidence of engine exhaust blast then we are left with an even more serious
anomaly regarding how the Eagle landed or was set down.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQE/n4woRWOn50Sx7XgRArS5AJ49LBCoJIWxVEEd6DzdOfE3iHAZfA CfVvzv
P9MJXrPHH4VX8UqPZv5dmkE=
=iohj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  #2  
Old October 30th 03, 01:51 AM
Jay Windley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Eagle Lunar Landing Site Anomalies


"Nathan Jones" wrote in message
...
|
| Serious discrepancies in the photographic evidence still
| remain to be explained by the "pro Apollo" fanatics.

We are not "fanatics". Name-calling is not an argument.

Mr. Jones, you continue to evade any meaningful burden of proof. You claim
to follow the "scientific method" yet you do not understand what that means.
Therefore you have invented your own method, which you erroneously label
"scientific method," which has the effect of requiring your opponent to
prove everything and requiring you to prove nothing.

You have rejected the historical method. You assert, but provide no
suitable argument, that the historical method does not apply because Apollo
is not "ancient history." This does not reflect a suitable understanding of
the historical method and its applicability or non-applicability.

You imply that Apollo evidence only has value when it can be proved to be
airtight. You imply that even conjectural or highly improbable hypothetical
alternatives to Apollo claims have the power to render those claims invalid,
even if you do nothing to demonstrate that they are anything but purely
abstract. You refuse to accept a burden of proof that demonstrates any of
your alternative propositions as more probable than Apollo claims, or in
fact probable at all. Since any proposition can be pitted against a
conjectural absurdity, it therefore follows that such a method -- i.e.,
posing only conjectural alternatives -- does not constitute a meaningful
challenge to a hypothesis for which some putative evidence exists.

Until you are able to face up to that reality, none of what you argue will
have the slightest falsificatory effect on Apollo findings.

| The first postulate is easily falsified with examination of image
| AS11-40-5915 where it becomes apparent that the reflective panel
| is facing almost directly at the Sun and not angled anywhere near
| sufficiently to cause the reflection in question.

Agreed. Therefore the proposition was withdrawn.

Technically the first proposition was your straw man invoking
Heiligenschein, which I disavowed in this case. We do not claim that the
"hot spot" behind Aldrin in the photo could be caused by Heiligenschein.

| The second postulate is also falsified when consideration is given
| to the trench dug in the ground by the footpad probe (contact probe)
| as the Eagle landed.

This is the second attempt you have made to falsify that hypothesis and the
second attempt in which you fail to consider all applicable evidence. It is
basically a rehashing of the same hasty argument you made when I first
presented my hypothesis.

The motions described in my hypothesis are evident in the film of the
landing, in the telemetry, and are testified to by the pilots. There is
further photographic evidence that you have not yet considered considering
the condition of the right contact probe and of all the contact probes.
Until you are able to explain *all* the various evidence, and why it so
clearly and consistently tells the same story, you cannot claim to have
falsified this hypothesis.

While I have indulged you in providing hypotheses which you asked for to
explain this phenomenon, I remind you that scientific epistemology does not
allow you to consider failure to prove one hypothesis proof of any other
hypothesis. Please see

http://www.clavius.org/holmes.html

for an explanation of this facet of epistemology. Anomalous data is not per
se proof of falsified or fraudulent data.

| The footpad is about 3 feet in diameter and the contact probe
| is about 6 feet in length.

The footpad is 3 feet in diameter, plus or minus a small number of inches to
account for insulation. The contact probe is 5 feet 7 inches in length.
However, it is mounted off center inboard on the underside of the footpad.
If folded outboard at its attachment point, the footpad would be expected to
obscure about 2 feet of its length as seen from above, leaving approximately
3.5 feet of it exposed beyond the footpad's diameter.

| AS11-40-5915 and it is clear that the last 3 metres if not more
| of flight of the Eagle was in a straight line and came in from
| the right side as viewed in the image.

The problem with this argument now is the same problem that was with this
argument when you first presented it. Your argument does not account for
the disposition of all the contact probes. Your argument does not account
for the full body of evidence that applies to the spacecraft's touchdown.

| This is clearly evident from the gouge in the ground made by the
| surface probe which was attached to the foot pad.

You do not account for the fact that the furrow in the lunar surface gives
evidence of transverse motion. The buildup of material only along the rear
edge of the trench, the width of the trench in comparison to the diameter of
the contact probe, and the position of the probe within this trench is very
strong evidence that the probe's motion was not linear along its length as
you propose.

My hypothesis accounts for all this evidence.

| ...if it [the hotspot] were caused by the ground being swept by
| the engine exhaust gasses then that would indicate that the engine
| (and the Eagle) followed a last few metres trajectory different
| to that indicated by the gouge in the ground made by the contact
| probe.

First, I do not agree with your analysis of the disposition of the right
contact probe. I don't agree that there is evidence to support a leftward
drag of 3 meters. The furrow extends perhaps twelve inches beyond the tip
of the contact probe.

Second, you have not considered the combined disposition of all the contact
probes.

Third, I do not agree that the "swept" area requires necessarily that the
lunar module itself passed over that area. It is evidence only that the
*exhaust plume* core swept that area. The linear nature of the sweeping
indicates the axis of the plume was, at the point it ceased having an effect
on that area, west and south of the swept area. Given that the lunar module
effects fine attitude corrections by tilting the entire spacecraft and
changing the impact point of the plume core relative to the point directly
under the spacecraft (in the gravitational sense), there is no
substantiation for concluding as you have.

| The swept area indicates a possible landing trajectory originating
| from the left side in the picture but the evidence left in the
| ground by the contact probe indicates a landing from the right.

I'm not sure what directions you refer to. You seem to be using "left" and
"right" in relation to photograph '5915, which is taken looking roughly
southwest. This is confusing, as my hypothesis uses the pilot's "left" and
"right" irrespective of any photograph.

To avoid ambiguity, let us assume an overhead view of the lunar module,
irrespective of any photograph of it. Let us orient the lunar module
according to the clock face so that "12 o'clock" is the pilot's direction
straight ahead. This is the normal pilot's heading reference.

In this reference, the swept area is between 3 o'clock and 5 o'clock. The
footpad in question is at 3 o'clock. Aldrin reports that the LM was
"drifting to the right a little" (i.e., toward the 3 o'clock direction)
while still several feet above the surface. Armstrong reports that he was
in the process of (over)correcting that -- and thereby inducing significant
left drift (i.e., in the 9 o'clock direction) -- when he realized the LM had
made surface contact.

In order to induce a drift to the left, the entire spacecraft is rolled
briefly to the left, so that the exhaust plume is pointed toward the right.
This attitude is not held, however, as to do so would produce an increasing
drift rate. The normal mode of operation for the lunar module calls for the
pilot to move the joystick to the left to command a left drift. The degree
to which he deflects the joystick selects the drift rate. Armstrong says he
was, at the time, performing "erratic" control movements in order to cancel
the various lateral drifts.

Whether the swept area was produced as the lander rolled left to induce a
left drift rate, or whether the lander passed over that point with the
exhaust plume roughly vertical is not necessary to know. Each is consistent
with the recorded data, testimony, and photographs. Either way the lander
moved forward (toward 12 o'clock) and to the left (9 o'clock). Either way
the exhaust would have swept a portion of the surface corresponding to 4
o'clock or 5 o'clock at some point prior to touchdown.

The right footpad (3 o'clock) shows evidence of dragging across the lunar
surface. It also shows evidence of moving backwards (toward the 4 o'clock
position). This is consistent with the motion of the lander after initial
probe contact and after footpad contact. It is not claimed that this
evidenced motion is connected in any way necessarily with the motion of the
lander seconds earlier when the exhaust plume may have swept the surface in
question.

| That would have meant that the footpad and the trapped contact
| probe would no longer have aligned with the trench in the ground
| so neatly and all in one straight line.

Strange then that they *don't* align with the furrow, all in one straight
line.

| This leaves the lighting hotspot anomaly intact and without
| reasonable explanation so far.

Codswollop. You have not falsified anything. You have simply proposed a
competing scenario without showing how that scenario explains all the
available evidence.

I also require you to make a case for why historical evidence should be
considered fraudulent simply because it has an anomaly that certain people
cannot conclusively explain.

--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 August 5th 04 01:36 AM
"Space: 1999" Eagle: Realistic? Chuck Stewart Technology 0 July 12th 04 07:20 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 April 2nd 04 12:01 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 2nd 04 04:33 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 12th 03 01:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.