A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

We *did* NOT land on THE moon



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 14th 03, 07:00 AM
King Azzy I
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

George wrote:
"M Cynth" wrote in message
...

"Steve Dufour" wrote in message
om...
Also explain the geosync
satellites I uplink video to every day in my work as a television

engineer.

They could be suspended from balloons in the atmosphere.


I don't believe that you exist. You're a fabrication. It must be so

because
I haven't seen you.


One ACTOR in the moon sequences doesn't seem to want to act OUTSIDE the laws
of physics...I've looked at all the footages of the moon walks...and one
thing keeps bugging me about the MOON DUST...its dispersal patterns and how
high it kicks up.

Take into account there is NO atmosphere on the moon...the gravity is 1/6 of
earth gravity.

Therefore, the disperal pattern would be different, and the height of the
dust raising should be over the astronauts' heads by quite a distance.

Conclusion...since the dust behaves EXACTLY the same as earth atmosphere and
gravity...we can safely assume that lot of sequences was NEVER near the moon

Dust can't lie.


*plonk*

  #23  
Old August 14th 03, 04:08 PM
Robert Ehrlich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

lunar dust is quite "sticky" compared to terrestrial dust. globs up
into multi-particle aggregates. This means that the dust is not
dispersed as single particles and its effects are not the same as
terrestrial dust. There is a nice set of literature on this that goes
back a long ways. Just goes to show that "common sense" commonly means
"it works in my backyard".

Jay Windley wrote:

"George" wrote in message
...
|
| I've looked at all the footages of the moon walks.

So approximately how many hours of video is that? I know. Do you?

| one thing keeps bugging me about the MOON DUST...its dispersal
| patterns and how high it kicks up.

Yes, funny how you can't fake those ballistic trajectories, even by
adjusting the frame rate as has been suggested.

| Therefore, the disperal pattern would be different

Different *how*?

| and the height of the dust raising should be over the
| astronauts' heads by quite a distance.

Sorry, no credit on this exam unless you show your work.

| Conclusion...since the dust behaves EXACTLY the same as earth
| atmosphere and gravity.

Funny how peopled trained in physics seem to reach exactly the opposite
conclusion.

| we can safely assume that lot of sequences was NEVER near
| the moon

Even granted your premises (which we don't), that's still not a safe
assumption. It's a fallacy of the affirmed consequent.

| Dust can't lie.

So let me get this straight. You come up with some arbitrary standard for
how dust *should* behave, which you neither fully explain, justify, or
quantify; and then you simply declare that the dust behavior violates your
standard without explaining the violation. And this is somehow "proof"?

How about this instead: you've just up and decided that the footage is
fake, and now you're tyring to post-justify your opinion.

I live in Utah, the land of dust. One thing you learn *very* quickly is
that dust, in the presence of an atmosphere, really likes to be in that
atmosphere. You can't disturb it without raising a cloud of it, even in
still air. Show me in the lunar EVA videos where there's a raised cloud of
dust, even when the dust is being massively disturbed.

Since most of the interesting dust displacement is from footsteps, and since
this produces low, flat trajectories, the *height* of the dust plumes is
largely irrelevant. It is the *distance* they travel that is the telltale
sign.

Further, the dispersal patterns are equidistant, and noticeably so on the
video. If I kick into loose dust, it all goes up and then all comes back
down -- none sticks in the air -- and it all comes down roughly equidistant
from the contour of my book. Try *that* on earth.

You're right: dust can't lie.




  #24  
Old August 14th 03, 06:04 PM
Jay Windley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Robert Ehrlich" wrote in message
news:CBN_a.143256$o%2.61787@sccrnsc02...
| lunar dust is quite "sticky" compared to terrestrial dust. globs up
| into multi-particle aggregates. This means that the dust is not
| dispersed as single particles and its effects are not the same as
| terrestrial dust.

True, but the "stickiness" of lunar dust is not the same under all
circumstances. The lack of an oxide patina means you have greater chemical
bonding at the particle interfaces and also greater propensity to
"cold-weld". The generally uneroded shape of the individual particles means
the aggregate is more susceptible to impression.

But give moon dust a swift kick and you'll find you can overcome most of
those accretion factors. It's true that lunar dust has some very
interesting soil mechanics, but that doesn't mean you can't break it down to
very small particles. The photography (i.e., the dust contamination of the
optics) gives us a good idea of how fine and individual the particles can
be.

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

  #26  
Old August 14th 03, 11:11 PM
Robert Ehrlich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

give the lunar soil a swift kick and most of it will settle at once. a
very small fraction might disperse into individual particles. Even these
should fall quite rapidly in the lunar vacuum. In fact they will fall
with the same speed as a pebble. Samples of lunar "soil" examined on the
earth under normal conditions i still sticky. Very difficult to
disaggregate. Dispersal difficult even when added to alcohol, water,
etc. etc.

The many photos of footprints made by astronauts, or by the bounce marks
of a landing strut also testify to the cohesiveness of lunar soil.

BTW what is the grain size of the particles contaminating the optics?

Jay Windley wrote:

"Robert Ehrlich" wrote in message
news:CBN_a.143256$o%2.61787@sccrnsc02...
| lunar dust is quite "sticky" compared to terrestrial dust. globs up
| into multi-particle aggregates. This means that the dust is not
| dispersed as single particles and its effects are not the same as
| terrestrial dust.

True, but the "stickiness" of lunar dust is not the same under all
circumstances. The lack of an oxide patina means you have greater chemical
bonding at the particle interfaces and also greater propensity to
"cold-weld". The generally uneroded shape of the individual particles means
the aggregate is more susceptible to impression.

But give moon dust a swift kick and you'll find you can overcome most of
those accretion factors. It's true that lunar dust has some very
interesting soil mechanics, but that doesn't mean you can't break it down to
very small particles. The photography (i.e., the dust contamination of the
optics) gives us a good idea of how fine and individual the particles can
be.




  #27  
Old August 15th 03, 12:05 AM
Jay Windley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Robert Ehrlich" wrote in message
news:sOT_a.146653$YN5.96279@sccrnsc01...
|
| The many photos of footprints made by astronauts, or by the
| bounce marks of a landing strut also testify to the cohesiveness
| of lunar soil.

Of course. Compression from footprints or strut impacts creates energy in
the rubbing together of particles which, in the absence of a patina, "welds"
the particles together.

| BTW what is the grain size of the particles contaminating the optics?

Unknown, since it was observed only and never sampled. But consistent with
being held against the lens surface by electrostatic charge. This effect
was anticipated.

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

  #28  
Old August 20th 03, 10:11 AM
UndiFineD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"George" wrote in message
...
I've seen the programs showing the so-called proof that moon landings were
supposedly faked.
I turned the sound DOWN...and just kept looking at the dust.
Anyone watching would still be seeing EARTH dust...because, although the
laws of physics don't change...we are STILL talking about a place where
there is ONE-SIXTH earth gravity and NO atmosphere.
I still say the dust is NOT behaving as if it were in one-sixth gravity

and
no atmostphere...and I think if ANYONE looked at ANY footage of EARTH dust
in a desert, they'd SEE what I'm talking about...and a comparison with the
moon footage would show the moon dust is TOO much like the height and
dispersal of earth.
Repeat after me..."ONE-sixth gravity, NO atmosphere"...then just keep
looking and comparing with an earth dust scene.

--
http://home.iprimus.com.au/georgehall George Hall's E-Serial Corner


next time you'll tell me you can pull the plug out of the ocean


 




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
NASA begins moon return effort Steve Dufour Policy 24 August 13th 04 10:39 PM
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) Nathan Jones Astronomy Misc 5 July 29th 04 06:14 AM
Back to the Moon on what? Saturn V, Magnum, Ares launcher, Shuttle Z TKalbfus Policy 179 January 16th 04 03:11 AM
SMART-1 leaves Earth on a long journey to the Moon (Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 5 October 1st 03 09:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:16 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.