1967 replies to this topic

[MID]

turbonium, on 30 September 2012 - 08:03 AM, said:

You claim the average lunar dust grain dimension =  0.006 in., or 15.24 micrometers.

It's about 4x larger on average, according to this source ...  

"Lunar dust particles are minuscule, with an average size of 70 micrometers.."

Ever seen lunar dust turb? I have.
Ever actually read any of the many varying reports on this really neat material? I have.

Ever do any research on it?

Obviously no.  I neither know why I ask or why you post...

What I said was .006 inches.
15.84 micrometers is 0.0006 inches, which is 10 times smaller.

My size wasn't 15.84 micrometers.  It was more like 156 micrometers. 0.006 in., turb.

I know you don't understand the many reports, and that in each one you'll find different sizes of grain measurements.

Woops.

Quote

ou also claim average sand grain size is 0.079 in., or 2006.6 micrometers.

Again you're wrong, according to this source..

http://www.geo.mtu.e...s/GRADISTAT.pdf

See the chart (pg.1239 of doc). Sand grains - very fine (63 micrometers) fine (125 mm) medium (250 mm) coarse (500 mm) very coarse (1000 mm).

So very coarse sand is twice as small as your average grain!! Just where did you get such a figure, anyway? It's out of whack..

Imeasured about 20 grains I have. , and unfortunately turb, you say they average between .002 in. and  40 inches across! That's a very course bunch of boulders.
You're wasting my time (or, I am!).  You do realize that, don't you??

Enough, lunar soil (like powder, if you ever get the chance to see some, which isn't likely) is alot smaller than average sand.

You're wrong, again, and again...

What's your point?
Were you attempting to prove your contention?
Stop wasting time and get on with it.

Quote

I'm obviously referring to this (supposed) 'halo' phenomenon. I've pointed it out many times while you spout on about how I'm not learning anything! Quite ironic, methinks.

And I really do understand this phenomenon. I understand it hasn't a shred of proof. And therefore, I have come to understand this phenomenon is nothing but a convoluted, contrived mess of your own invention..

You rfeally understand nothing at all. It's clearly visible in photos, and it is perfectly logical a phenomenon, if you understand anything about the creation of it, the lunar soil, the lighting conditions of the Moon, and things like that.  but you don, and you won't.
I didn't invent it.
I don't actually care about it.
You seem to think it has some significance, when in reality the only significant issue here is your proving your contention.

Quote

If micro-fine particles are known to cause such a phenomenon, you need to show the evidence for it!!

Gee turb, nice dodge.  It's not like anyone doesn't clearly see the tactic here.
My burden of proof?   My evidence?


I don't care about haloing, turb.  Didn't when I first saw it, ecades ago (long before you were even around)  You do!
You try and explain why it's so significant...

I cared about landing on the Moon, doing the science, and getting back home again.


I'm sure turb that if I anticipated the cultural malaise that would, decades later, produce the idiocy we see on this thread, I'd have made some definite suggestions regarding photographing the landing sites from orbit, and other things to make sure some nit wit didn't think we faked it all...

Of course, I'd have been committed for psychological analysis and have been terminated.

Sorry Buddy!  I was just covering my own butt but not trying to prohibit cool stuff.
Wouldn't have mattered anyway.

You'd  still be here, claiming it was all a fake, and producing nothing to sustantiate the lunacy you put forth.   I guess it was just destiny...

Because you've failed to meet your burden of proof, I've searched and searched for information on this phenomenon. But I can't find it anywhere. It appears to be a false claim.



Too much talk about this old, already explained (to you) nonsense.
Your proof of your contention was???

[Czero 101]

turbonium, on 30 September 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

So you finally get the point! Yes, indeed, I am speculating. There is no proof of it. Just the same way you are speculating about what happened, and you have no proof of it!!

You now see the light, well done.

Wow... this is a first. Turbs actually admits he has no proof for his idle speculation... I'm rather stunned at that.

Quote

Let's review this point...

"Parkes Radio Telescope was seconded to NASA for periods of about six weeks around the Apollo missions"

Hmm...what do you think that means? You think NASA is controlling Parkes during Apollo, or is under control of Aussies who worked there? It's pretty clear who is running the show, and who is following their orders and instructions.

Apollo was a NASA project. It was not a joint NASA-Australian project. It was not a joint NASA-Grumman/Honeywell/et al project. It was a NASA project, period. And like most large-scale projects, this included external contributors. Like Grumman, Honeywell, etc. and like the Australians, Africans, etc. employed by NASA for their Apollo project.   

You have this bizarro notion that NASA just let the Australians control the show, or something like that.

I have shown you facts from the link that you provided.

I have shown you where it says in the Honeysuckle link you provided that NASA gave money to Parkes.

I have shown you where it says in the Honeysuckle link you provided that Parkes - not NASA - used that money to upgrade its facility.

I have shown you where it says in the Honeysuckle link you provided that a team of Aussies from Tidbinbilla - not NASA employees - were assigned to man the Parkes site.

I have shown you where it says in the Honeysuckle link you provided that that same team of Aussies from Tidbinbilla - not NASA employees - was sent to Parkes to prepare and install the upgraded equipment.

You have nothing but your now admitted-by-you unsupported speculation.

So... please show us where it says that NASA installed, manned and controlled the Parkes site in that one sentence you have cherry-picked from that entire page of evidence against you.

Quote

You brought up the document, right?

Sure you did.

No Turbs... You brought it into the discussion here:

turbonium, on 24 September 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

  http://ntrs.nasa.gov..._1975002909.pdf .  

Or are you going to say that it is only good as a source when you choose it to be and at no time other...?

Time to stop with the crack and start keeping up with your own story.

Quote

Do you remember any possible reason you would have brought up the document?

If you can answer that, you'll realize who has the original claim about the document, and who has the burden of proving it, too!!

Yes, I can and did answer it.

YOU brought the document to the discussion as evidence to support your position.

YOU claim you have read it and that you know that the documents shows how the equipment was tested.

YOU claim that it was possible to simulate an entire mission without any of the controllers knowing it.

If you have read the document as you have claimed to have done, then you should know the section that goes into great detail of the procedures and methods used to test the system, including the simulations they did use.

It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to back up your claim with the evidence YOU HAVE BROUGHT TO THE DISCUSSION that you are correct.

IT IS ALWAYS YOUR BURDEN TO PROVE YOU ARE CORRECT, Turbs.

You can dance around that fact, evade it, ignore it and try to reverse it all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that the burden of proof has been and continues to be yours.

Quote

Hint: It's not me.

Fact: you're wrong.



Oh and hey... any chance you're going to get around answering this question - fourth time being asked now - any time this decade...?

Obviousman, on 29 September 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

I'm still waiting for Turbs to quote which section of the document they stated supports their views.

Since you have read the document it should be no problem for you to provide a quote and the specific page number where it backs up your assertion.







Cz

[MID]

skyeagle409, on 30 September 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

[/i]

Thank you for confirming the reality of the Apollo moon missions. Now, read this:

[i][/left]

And Sky, there's another pertinent piece of data  in this Apollo 15 video that proves it's on  the Moon:

That hammer and feather, falling equally, as they do and as they should, prove we're in a vacuum, certainly.
However, the drop Dave Scott made was from about 4 feet off the surface.  The time of fall was about 1.25 seconds.
Oddly enough, that shows the gravity field present to be about 5.3 FPS^2  .
If it was done on Earth, that drop would've taken a mere 1/2 second, and of course, air would've made a difference in the feather's fall as well


The drop time shows what is  1/6 of 32 FPS² or....1/6g..5.3 FPS ² It was on the Moon.  Vacuum, and 1/6 g.

And yes, he was shown this before, long ago.   It just proves that he's an HB...no interest in learning things, just ignore the facts and post innanities!

Edited by MID, 30 September 2012 - 07:11 PM.

[Saru]

Thread cleaned

Again, please keep personal attacks out of the discussion - attack the views being presented, not the person who holds those views.

We keep repeating this but it doesn't seem to be sinking in - please keep your comments civil, constructive and respectful.

[mrbusdriver]

Hey MID

cAs a geeky teenager, I built the AMT (I think) LM model, but found the plastic base "inadequate". Built a frame and filled it with cement powder...nice grey color and texture that took those little astronaut footprints perfectly...

How would that run-of-the-mill cement mix compare to the lunat soil...grain wise? Are there any such comparisons? Just looking at the real thing, the cement mix seems a real good analogy..

Thanks...

Edited by mrbusdriver, 02 October 2012 - 12:12 AM.

[Insanity]

I've felt that the moon landing was not a conspiracy, unless Russia was in on it.  Given the relationship between USA and Russia, if at the time, Russia had any inkling that USA faked the landing they'd been crying foul immediately.

Always been tempted to get a proper telescope and try to take a peek at the sites myself to see.

[Czero 101]

Insanity, on 02 October 2012 - 02:30 AM, said:

Always been tempted to get a proper telescope and try to take a peek at the sites myself to see.

Assuming you mean that you'd like to get a view of the artifacts / hardware left behind at the landing sites, you'd need a really big telescope... one so big it actually cannot be built with current materials / technology.






Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 02 October 2012 - 02:44 AM.

[Insanity]

Czero 101, on 02 October 2012 - 02:41 AM, said:

Assuming you mean that you'd like to get a view of the artifacts / hardware left behind at the landing sites, you'd need a really big telescope... one so big it actually cannot be built with current materials / technology.
Cz

Indeed, looked into it, and seems I spoke without knowing the facts.  Kudos.

[MID]

Insanity, on 02 October 2012 - 02:30 AM, said:

I've felt that the moon landing was not a conspiracy, unless Russia was in on it.  Given the relationship between USA and Russia, if at the time, Russia had any inkling that USA faked the landing they'd been crying foul immediately.

Always been tempted to get a proper telescope and try to take a peek at the sites myself to see.

It seems you realize that Cz is correct:  there are no terrestrial tlescopes sufficient to see any Apollo landing sites.

However, the most advbanced cameras aboard LRO have shown the sites, with extraordinary detail---






These kind of proved things for all the folks who don't believe...(??)

[Insanity]

Yep, unfortunately I made the assumption of "Surely we can observe the surface of our own Moon from here".

[Czero 101]

Insanity, on 03 October 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

Yep, unfortunately I made the assumption of "Surely we can observe the surface of our own Moon from here".

Well, to be fair, we can... but only to a certain degree / resolution.

As I'm guessing you found out, a telescope with the resolution to observe the Apollo artifacts would require a mirror roughly 200 meters in diameter. With current technology, a mirror that large would bend and warp under its own weight, making it impossible to keep to the very strict specifications and tolerances required for optical telescopes.





Cz

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Czero 101, on 03 October 2012 - 01:29 AM, said:

As I'm guessing you found out, a telescope with the resolution to observe the Apollo artifacts would require a mirror roughly 200 meters in diameter. With current technology, a mirror that large would bend and warp under its own weight, making it impossible to keep to the very strict specifications and tolerances required for optical telescopes.

If you are building a single "monolithic" mirror this is undoubtedly true, however using a mosaic of smaller mirrors, as the two Keck telescopes do, there is no theorical reason why a telescope this size could not be constructed... it would however be extremely expensive. The European Southern Observatory currently has plans for the Overwhelmingly Large Telescope ( OWL) which will have a mirror 60-100m  in diameter.

However even a 200m telescope will not show the Apollo artifacts on the moon because of the limiting nature of Earth's atmosphere. Because it is constantly moving it reduces the angular resolution of telescopes dramatically. This is the reason that such a small telescope and Hubble can produce images superior to considerably larger Earth based instruments.

[Obviousman]

I'm still waiting for Turbs to show where in the document they referenced supports their claims, or for them to admit the document does not support them.

[Chrlzs]

I'm back.  Yaay.

Ready, Turbonium?  And are you totally, absolutely sure that the topic of luminosity and visibility of the exhaust affected areas beneath the LMs of the Apollo missions is one of the VERY BEST pieces of evidence you have?  After all, if you are forced to concede that you have no argument, that will mean that your best arguments aren't good enough...

Anyway, take your time thinking about it.  I'm in no hurry.  And I'd appreciate it if you would undertake this process in good faith.  If you are unwilling to debate the topics seriously and methodically, say so now and you'll save me a lot of wasted time.

[Gaden]

Chrlzs, on 03 October 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

I'm back.  Yaay.

Ready, Turbonium?  And are you totally, absolutely sure that the topic of luminosity and visibility of the exhaust affected areas beneath the LMs of the Apollo missions is one of the VERY BEST pieces of evidence you have?  After all, if you are forced to concede that you have no argument, that will mean that your best arguments aren't good enough...

Anyway, take your time thinking about it.  I'm in no hurry.  And I'd appreciate it if you would undertake this process in good faith.  If you are unwilling to debate the topics seriously and methodically, say so now and you'll save me a lot of wasted time.

Not going to hold my breath!