|If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.|
||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
For Nathan Jones, "The Eagle has landed" NOT! Flood lighting indicated.
Apologies for not posting in the thread. My news server hiccupped and I
never saw the original. I'm cutting and pasting from Google.
From: nathan jones )
| The LM lunar surface probes attached to the landing pads
| indicate the true last moments trajectory path taken
| by the LM and if you look at AS11-40-5915 among others you
| can see the orientation of 3 probes and the direction in which
| they are bent ...
Agreed, and this is the strongest evidence in favor of my hypothesis that
the area behind Aldrin in AS11-40-5903 was "swept" by the DPS plume.
First, the lay of the land. The LM lands facing west. There is therefore
the west landing strut (forward), the east strut (aft), the north strut
(pilot's right), and the south strut (pilot's left). The forward (west)
strut did not carry a landing probe for fear it would bend and hamper egress
(All photo references are AS-11 roll 40.)
SOUTH (LEFT) STRUT
Reference photographs: 5850, 5860, 5887, 5927, 5928
The contact probe is sharply bent approximately 2 feet from its attachment
point. The contact end of the probe is sticking up and pointing westward.
The attached portion of the probe is bent northward and lies pinned beneath
the footpad. There is a buildup of regolith under the left (south) lip of
the footpad, indicating significant lateral motion in that direction upon
This is consistent with leftward (south) drift on initial contact and a
combination of leftward (south) and forward (west) drift upon footpad
EAST (AFT) STRUT
Reference photographs: 5892, 5914, 5915, 5925, 5926, 5927, 5929
The contact probe is bent from its footpad attach point, pointing toward the
northeast (aft, and to the pilot's right). The probe shaft is straight, and
the probe tip is approximately 1.5 feet above the lunar surface. There is a
considerable buildup of regolith to the southwest of the footpad and
evidence of compression to the northeast.
This is consistent with leftward (south) and forward (west) drift upon
NORTH (RIGHT) STRUT
Reference photographs: 5858, 5870, 5901, 5902, 5903, 5915, 5917, 5918, 5920
The contact probe is bent pointing toward the north, and slightly to the
west. The probe shaft lies along the east side of an east-west trench in
the lunar regolith, which is approximately twice as wide as the probe shaft
diameter. The trench has apparently been excavated by the probe to a depth
of approximately the probe's diameter. There is a buildup of regolith on
the east edge of the trench. The lower one foot of the probe is above the
trench level owing to the irregularity of the terrain. The trench extends
northward from the end of the strut approximately 1.5 feet.
There strong evidence of compression north of the footpad. The compression
pattern is triangular with the base forming the diameter of the embedded
footpad and the apex pointing north. This is consistent with progressive
compression of a cupped object drawn southward as it is lowered. There is
also strong evidence of erosion from a laminar, linear fluid motion (esp.
5917) to the north and east of the footpad's final resting place. There is
unmistakable evidence of regolith build-up on the south end of the footpad.
The soil mechanics effects appear to have occurred in this order: (1) fluid
erosion, (2) compression of the surface by a broad, cupped object (3)
entrenchment by an object drawn southward, and (4) extension of the trench
transverse to its axis. This order is inferred from the obliteration of
portions of one effect by subsequent effects.
This is consistent with a leftward (south) motion at footpad impact,
occuring approximately the same time as a short (approx. 3 inch) motion to
the east, causing the contact probe to push the eastern side of its trench
further eastward (aft).
WEST (FORWARD) STRUT
There is insufficient photographic information to make any determination
about the soil mechanics effects of the forward strut. Because the forward
strut did not have a contact probe, there is a limit to how much information
could be obtained from the photographs anyway.
The photographic evidence of the contact probes and footpads shows
conclusively that the lander was moving leftward (south) at impact. This is
fully consistent with both pilots' testimony.
| These do not correspond with the positioning of the hotspot
| and the fluid errosion given that the engine continued to
| fire untill just after it set down.
Although it is Armstrong's opinion that the engine continued to fire after
touchdown, that has been contradicted by guidance telemetry and by the
visual inspection of the struts and the energy that was absorbed.
In any case, the most severe plume effects -- both mechanical and thermal --
are observed directly beneath the DPS skirt (cf. AS11-40-5921 and
AS11-40-5864). The photographs of this effect conclusively triangulate the
discoloration and apparent center of the radial erosion pattern to directly
beneath the DPS skirt. This is obviously the point at which the most
intense plume effects are expected.
However, that is not presumed to be the only notable effects. There is
considerable evidence of fluid erosion in the area aft of the right (north)
strut and to the right of the aft (east) strut. Similar effects are not
noted in the other quadrants. This corresponds to the area on the lunar
surface that would have been "swept" by the DPS plume in the final seconds
of a forward-left final descent.
If we interpret the photographic evidence according to the principles of
flying the LM, a picture of those final seconds becomes exceptionally easy
The LM is always flown with some component of forward motion. You never fly
backwards while you're hovering for the obvious reason that you can't see
behind you. However, excessive forward motion results in a rough touchdown,
and so the flight manual calls for eliminating almost all the forward motion
just prior to touchdown. To do this in the LM requires back pressure on the
control stick, which pitches the LM "nose-up". This is identical to how
forward motion is eliminated when flying a helicopter. This manuever
directs a portion of the thrust forward.
In a "nose-up" condition, the rear contact probe would strike the surface
first. If the LM enters this condition with significant drift to the left,
the drag of the contact probe will immediately yaw the spacecraft to the
left. It will also pitch the spacecraft forward, eliminating the forward
braking thrust. However, Armstrong's forward speed prior to forward braking
was only 4 fps, and so it would have required little pitch-up to eliminate
The left yaw would have been corrected by rotating the control stick to the
right. Armstrong's control actions here were, by his own admission,
"spasmodic". He was overcorrecting many of the attitude errors.
The final condition of the lateral contact probes is fully consistent with a
right yaw that would overcorrect a left yaw induced by initial aft probe
contact. If the spacecraft yawed to the right after footpad contact, the
left footpad would "scoot" forward and the right footpad would "scoot"
backward. The forward "scoot" of the left footpad would "roll" the contact
probe forward, explaining why its bent tip is pointing forward. The
rearward "scoot" of the right footpad would drag/roll the contact probe
rearward, explaining the buildup of soil along the back side of the trench
that probe dug.
In short, Nathan, *all* the visible evidence is fully consistent with my
theory, and there is a *lot* of that evidence. Since you listed the
apparent discrepancy in the LM's final motion as the reason why you would
not accept the possibility of a "swept" surface behind Aldrin in
AS11-40-5902 and AS11-40-5903, it appears you're all out of excuses.
| It looks more as if the LM was dropped in position onto
| an already prepared ground made to look like it landed under
| rocket power but unfortunately whilst dropping the Eagle it
| wasn't accurately lined up with the pre-made rocket mess on
| the ground.
This is pure speculation, and it's not even good speculation.
1. Why would you carefully prepare a particulate surface for a soundstage
and *then* put your major prop on it? As a theater and film man myself, I'd
put all the major stuff in place first and then groom the surface.
2. Why would it be such a difficult thing to accurately lower a major prop?
We have cranes in aerospace than can position things to within a fraction of
an inch -- albeit very slowly.
3. The "pre-made rocket mess on the ground" lines up perfectly with the DPS
skirt (in terms of the major thermal and mechanical effects). Further, the
rest of the mess is *entirely* consistent with all the photographs and the
landing film. It shows erosion effects right where the DPS plume would have
passed over on the claimed trajectory.
| No actual Moon landing implies floodlighting was used on a
| moon "set".
No, no, Nathan. You've changed horses, which is to say, you've changed your
hypothesis in the middle of the investigation. That's a logic no-no.
The original argument was that the apparent pool of light behind Aldrin in
AS11-40-5902 and AS11-40-5903 must be an artificial flood light because it
couldn't possibly be from any natural source. That argument requires you to
expressly and specifically falsify each hypothesis that suggests a natural
source. Remember, you have no *direct* evidence that a flood is being used
here (e.g., a lighting cable or visible portion of the light itself.). You
have simply proposed an artificial light as an explanation for what you
claim is an anomalous lighting condition.
You falsified heiligenschein, even though it really wasn't proposed as an
explanation for -5903. After some discussion you were able to falsify spill
from the aft equipment bay cover. Now the hypothesis in question is a DPS
sweep of that ground. Now I have shown absolutely consistent, fairly
conclusive proof that the DPS would have swept that area, and the
illumination effects of having thus smoothed the surface are a matter of
standard reference. You most certainly have *not* falsified the hypothesis
that the DPS sweep is responsible for the optical characteristics of the
lunar surface at that point.
Instead you have tried to change the argument. Now you're saying that the
photography doesn't give evidence of a credible or consistent scenario for
landing, and that this belies an artificial setup which, necessarily, must
have studio lights. That's not the argument you started with. Before you
talk about whether the photographs listed above tell a credible story of
Eagle's last seconds "air"borne, you need to bring to closure your indirect
proof of illumination.
I have shown you detailed, conclusive proof that the DPS would have swept
that portion of the surface. The evidence is fully consistent on that
point. This means that the bright patch behind Aldrin is *not* anomalous
under those circumstances, but is in fact a natural and expected consequence
of the sequence of events which Armstrong claimed occurred, and which the
remainder of the photographic evidence substantiates. Thus it remains a
very credible alternative to your indirect hypothesis that an artificial
light was used. Remember, in your indirect approach you must *conclusively*
falsify *all* competing hypotheses before you can assert the indirect
Your inability to falsify it suggests you must concede it. And if you
concede it, it follows that the lighting in -5903 is *not* necessarily
Your attempt at changing horses has further introduced a circularity.
Earlier you were trying to prove that the lighting was artificial because
that was the premise of your argument that the photos had been taken in a
studio, or at least not on the moon. There was no artificial lighting
equipment taken to the moon except for the flash on the Gold camera. Now
you're trying to prove that the photos were taken in a studio (as evidenced,
you say, by the allegedly inconsistent soil conditions) as a premise to the
argument that artificial lighting was used. But that's simply the premise
to the prior conclusion that a studio was used, therefore by attempting to
rewrite your argument you have made irrelevant the entire issue of -5903's
To wit: if, in the new argument, the photographs were taken in a studio,
then *all* lighting effects would be achieved by studio lights, even the
ones that exhibit no apparent anomaly. Therefore the issue of anomalies
under that argument is irrelevant.
Your constant flirtation with circularity is very strong evidence that you
aren't attempting to disprove pro-Apollo evidence, but that you are instead
trying to establish a certain definite conclusion in its place. You keep
referring back to that same conclusion again and again, using a hodge-podge
of ad hoc and frequently contradictory arguments. Clearly it's the
conclusion you want established at all costs.
| Regarding the "Hadley" images 10075741.jpg and 10075742.jpg
| Anyone may examine them and try rotating them as you
| described ...
Yes, thank you for conceding that point. The point is that there exists a
harmonious registration for those photographs. The fact that you can devise
any number of *disharmonious* registrations for them is irrelevant; any pair
of known harmonious photos will, if improperly registered, appear
disharmonious. The existence of but one harmonious registration is
sufficient to prove harmony in the photos.
| and as for radiant heat I think I studied it well
| enough at university.
What university? What degree did you obtain? You say on the one hand that
you have appropriate qualifications for your arguments. You say that you
are an expert in the "queen of sciences," by which I assume you mean
physics. These statements are made ostensibly to support the strength of
your arguments. Yet on the other hand you say you do not require your
qualifications in order to write to the Internet, and when questioned about
them you become very evasive and defensive. This is not a consistent
approach. Please either give your specific qualifications, or refrain from
alluding to them in arguments.
Further, you most certainly have *not* studied radiant heat transfer
appropriately. Your error is fundamental and egregious, and would not be
made by anyone who had successfully passed a college-level course in
thermodynamics and heat transfer. The fact that your error has to be
painstakingly and repeatedly explained to you is ample conclusive evidence
that you have no appreciable expertise in radiant heat transfer.
The time required for a surface to reach a given temperature while absorbing
radiant energy -- other thermodynamic properties being equivalent -- is
proportional to the angle at which the radiation strikes the surface
(measured as an altitude angle). That angle determines how much energy per
unit area is absorbed. If that angle increases, the absorption rate
increases. The rate at which that angle changes affects the rate at which
the absorption rate changes. If the angle changes rapidly from a low angle
to a high angle, the absorption rate over time increases more rapidly than
for a slowly changing angle. This means the surface will absorb more energy
over a fixed time and will come to a higher equilibrium temperature sooner.
This is why you cannot directly compare insolation characteristics between
earth and moon. The earth's sun altitude changes an order of magnitude
faster than on the moon. This is the main reason why surfaces on earth heat
up faster than surfaces on the moon.
Not only is this basic radiant heat transfer, it's basic calculus. Your
inability to recognize the effects of differences in first and second
derivatives makes it extremely unlikely that you have any prowess whatsoever
in physics, which makes heavy use of these effects. You cannot be a dunce
in calculus and a whiz at physics.
| You'll see, the improved section regarding this will
| be clearer.
The lack of clarity in your previous example was only the lint on your
fundamental misunderstanding of radiant heat transfer. Simply clarifying
the same argument does not fix the problem.
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|"Space: 1999" Eagle: Realistic?||Chuck Stewart||Technology||0||July 12th 04 07:20 AM|
|"The Eagle has landed" NOT! Flood lighting indicated.||Fred Garvin||Astronomy Misc||0||August 5th 03 01:03 AM|