Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Uncomprehensible apollo photographs


  • Please log in to reply
189 replies to this topic

#16    AtomicDog

AtomicDog

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Joined:11 Aug 2006

  • NASA Disinfo Agent

Posted 18 October 2006 - 08:38 PM

Quote


Every time I see this clip, I notice that the dust settles very quickly.  The fine dust should be kick up a big cloud of dust.  Ever drive behind someone on a dry dirt road? It takes a min or 2 for the dust to settle here on earth. It should take alot longer to settle on the moon, but it doesn't,  Why is that ???? ph34r.gif
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D81hZ8HcFf0



To a dust particle, air is very viscous (thick). This is also why a dandelion seed or a feather floats to the ground. Add in stray air currents and it is no wonder that dust kicked up on a dirt road on earth may take many minutes to settle.

With no air on the moon, the time it takes dust to fall is dependent only on its momentum and gravity. Kicked dust travels in ballistic arcs, such as you may see if you kicked a pile of BB shot. The dust stays in the "air" only as long as it takes to travel under lunar gravity - Which is longer than earth's gravity but not as long as it would be up if there was air supporting it.


#17    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,167 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 18 October 2006 - 08:47 PM

Quote


To a dust particle, air is very viscous (thick). This is also why a dandelion seed or a feather floats to the ground. Add in stray air currents and it is no wonder that dust kicked up on a dirt road on earth may take many minutes to settle.

With no air on the moon, the time it takes dust to fall is dependent only on its momentum and gravity. Kicked dust travels in ballistic arcs, such as you may see if you kicked a pile of BB shot. The dust stays in the "air" only as long as it takes to travel under lunar gravity - Which is longer than earth's gravity but not as long as it would be up if there was air supporting it.



I know that the lack of any atmosphere, would give the dust no resistants in it's decent, but I would have thought the dirt being shot up and out by the tires would travel alot further.

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#18    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,167 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 18 October 2006 - 08:57 PM

Quote


I know that the lack of any atmosphere, would give the dust no resistants in it's decent, but I would have thought the dirt being shot up and out by the tires would travel alot further.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mTsrRZEMwA

The lack of atmosphere is demonstated here.

It's just the outword velocity of the dust from the tires not going all that far.

I remember watching one of the guys throw a hammer and it went forever    hmm.gif


EDIT:
Opps didn't mean to do this  blush.gif

Edited by The Silver Thong, 18 October 2006 - 08:58 PM.

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#19    AtomicDog

AtomicDog

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Joined:11 Aug 2006

  • NASA Disinfo Agent

Posted 18 October 2006 - 09:17 PM

Quote



When you double the speed of them walking on the moon, that to looks like it could have been filmed on a sound stage and what we saw or have seen is the slowed down virsion to yet again enhance the 1/6 earths gravity.  




Double the speed of this clip:

Apollo 15 Dave Scott picking up and carrying a rock

Can you tell me that a double speed this clip looks like it could have been filmed on a sound stage?


And why, if you believe that Apollo went to the moon, that they would bother to fake footage rather than use the real stuff they undoubtledy shot?

And why would they repeat this fake photography for six missions?



#20    RabidCat

RabidCat

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts
  • Joined:22 Jul 2005
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 October 2006 - 09:23 PM

This dust business is like that old thing about which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold.  Obviously, a pound of feathers.
So if dust is kicked up on a planet with no atmosphere, as was stated, it travels ballistically, and will go so far as the angle of the initial trajectory and the acceleration due to gravity will allow.  As the particles decrease in size, there will be no visible or measurable difference in the trajectory, since there is no atmospheric impedance, as was stated.
However, if someone actually picked up one end of the vehicle, we would not look for slide marks of the tires still on the ground: we would look for the footprints of the person or persons doing the moving, and in the pictures at the beginning of this thread, there are none.
As to what we saw and/or didn't see, as in other threads, I state once again that there was technology used we were not allowed knowledge of, and once again I question the validity of the radio transmissions from the moon.  If one goes back to the originals, the normal voice channels were cut off after some statements by the astronauts, one asking "what the hell is that?" and another stating that something makes ours look like a horse and buggy, or something similar to that.  Communications between the nauts and Houston was then patched coded through the physical monitoring channels.
Some of the photography does not line up, which implies that it has been fooled with.  Remember that in 1969 photoshop did not exist.  I will not say that this indicates support for conspiracy that we didn't go: I will say that with my limited knowledge of photography, it appears that the photos were patched, perhaps to hide something that shouldn't be there.
I would also like to see the mathematics regarding the capability of the lunar lander rocketry, and whether it was in fact capable of liftoff, so I would ask the thrust of the rocketry and the total mass of the lander/cargo, and the fuel available to make such a liftoff.  There does seem to be some question about that.
Now, understand that I do not make these statements in support of the theory that the landing was staged.  I do make these statements to open the question of the technology available at the time.  My entry into aerospace was a couple years later, but I guarantee that I worked on technology that was well in advance of the Apollo mission, and it would be very hard to convince me that such technology was not available for the mission.  So I state that technology was used that was kept thoroughly secret (Cold War, remember), and some, if not all, of the anomalies are due to the necessity of the secrecy.
There is also the UFO question, but I won't get into that here, since it is off this subject.
So, just for kicks, how about if the tire tracks aren't there because some form of antigravity device was used?  This would explain the lack thereof, and also would put to rest the question of how the lander actually was able to lift off, if in fact the rocketry was incapable of doing same.
That should throw a wrench into the gears.


#21    AtomicDog

AtomicDog

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Joined:11 Aug 2006

  • NASA Disinfo Agent

Posted 18 October 2006 - 09:34 PM

Okay. Simple question. do you have any evidence of an antigravity device? How does this explain the lack of tire tracks any better than the explanations given?


#22    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,100 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 18 October 2006 - 10:12 PM

Quote


This dust business is like that old thing about which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold.  Obviously, a pound of feathers.



Were you being ironic here, because I can find no sign of it if you were?

A pound of feathers and a pound of gold both weigh the same (and for that matter have the same mass). However the gold has a vastly higher density. The feathers occupy a vastly higher volume.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf, 18 October 2006 - 10:14 PM.

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#23    RabidCat

RabidCat

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts
  • Joined:22 Jul 2005
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 October 2006 - 10:23 PM

As to the antigravity question, there are numerous devices that could be considered antigravity.  Find a book called "The Death of Rocketry" for one example.  Other possibilities exist, though there is some question of these.  If such a device existed, and was available, it could have been used to simply lift the machine up, set it down, and so on.  Voila!  No tire tracks.

As to the feathers/gold question, No.  A pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of gold, since feathers are weighed by conventional Av. measurements and gold is measured by Troy ounces.  Av. measurements have 16 ounces/pound, Troy has 12.  While the Troy ounce is heavier, slightly, than the A ounce, the difference is in the 4 extra ounces in the Av. system.
Sorry about that.  I thought that was common knowledge.  I promise I won't do it again.

Edited by RabidCat, 18 October 2006 - 10:26 PM.


#24    Waspie_Dwarf

Waspie_Dwarf

    Space Cadet

  • 32,100 posts
  • Joined:03 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bexleyheath, Kent, UK

  • We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

    Oscar Wilde

Posted 18 October 2006 - 10:43 PM

Quote


As to the feathers/gold question, No.  A pound of feathers weighs more than a pound of gold, since feathers are weighed by conventional Av. measurements and gold is measured by Troy ounces.  Av. measurements have 16 ounces/pound, Troy has 12.  While the Troy ounce is heavier, slightly, than the A ounce, the difference is in the 4 extra ounces in the Av. system.
Sorry about that.  I thought that was common knowledge.  I promise I won't do it again.


I walked into that didn't I? My excuse is I live in a country that has moved into the 21st century and gone metric.

However most of my chemistry lecturers would have deducted marks from your answer for mixing measuring systems without being specific.  original.gif

"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-boggingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the street to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space." - The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams 1952 - 2001

Posted Image
Click on button

#25    AtomicDog

AtomicDog

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 669 posts
  • Joined:11 Aug 2006

  • NASA Disinfo Agent

Posted 18 October 2006 - 11:15 PM

Quote


As to the antigravity question, there are numerous devices that could be considered antigravity.  Find a book called "The Death of Rocketry" for one example.  Other possibilities exist, though there is some question of these.  If such a device existed, and was available, it could have been used to simply lift the machine up, set it down, and so on.  Voila!  No tire tracks.




And if elves existed, they could have been used to simply lift the machine up, set it down, and so on.

If you are bringing antigravity into this discussion it is up to you to bring evidence of it. Sorry, mentioning a book title is not evidence.



#26    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 18 October 2006 - 11:22 PM

Quote


Every time I see this clip, I notice that the dust settles very quickly.  The fine dust should be kick up a big cloud of dust.  Ever drive behind someone on a dry dirt road? It takes a min or 2 for the dust to settle here on earth. It should take alot longer to settle on the moon, but it doesn't,  Why is that ???? ph34r.gif
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D81hZ8HcFf0



Silver:

The explanation for your question is that dust clouds are impossible on the Moon.  
This is because the Moon has no atmosphere, and atmosphere is required for a cloud of dust which takes a while to settle.

The fine particles of dust are actually suspended by the atmosphere...they are, in other words, interacting with the air, which holds them aloft for a time and swishes them all around.


On the Moon, no such thing can happen.  Dust moves in direct response to the impulse applied to it, and moves in predictable ballistic arcs.  


It actually takes dust much less time to settle on the lunar surface because of this.   It will go up, and out, as the case may be, but will fall based upon the gravity present, without any atmospheric interference.


#27    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 18 October 2006 - 11:44 PM

Quote


I know that the lack of any atmosphere, would give the dust no resistants in it's decent, but I would have thought the dirt being shot up and out by the tires would travel alot further.



How far up, or out the dust is actually propelled is a function of the force applied to it by, in this case, the wheels (in other words, the average initial velocity of the dust mass being examined).  One needs to know that and the angle of the trajectory in order to make an accurate calculation of how far something should go in a 1/6 gravity field.

With a bunch of dust, whose particles are being propelled at different angles, by wheels with titanium chevrons for treads which impact the soil and move across it, catching a certain amount of the dust and tossing back and up at varying rates of speed,  that's pretty tough to calculate.

The actual proof of lunar gravity is in watching the dust fall from its peak height.  Measuring this shows rather clearly that the dust is falling in a 1/6 gravity field, and, its behavior clearly indicates that it is also in a vacuum.

We only know of one place where this can happen:  the Moon.




#28    ShaunZero

ShaunZero

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,339 posts
  • Joined:13 May 2005
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 October 2006 - 12:21 AM

One thing I never understand. Why most skeptics use a scientific method, but for an explaination to be qualified as the "final explaination for something", all they have to do is make an educated guess?

In my opinion an explaination should not be qualified to be THE explaination unless it is scientifically proven to be the case.



Edited by Zero of Deism, 19 October 2006 - 12:21 AM.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?" ~ George Carlin
Are you a cynic?

#29    MID

MID

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 19 October 2006 - 12:22 AM

Quote



As to what we saw and/or didn't see, as in other threads, I state once again that there was technology used we were not allowed knowledge of, and once again I question the validity of the radio transmissions from the moon.  If one goes back to the originals, the normal voice channels were cut off after some statements by the astronauts, one asking "what the hell is that?" and another stating that something makes ours look like a horse and buggy, or something similar to that.  Communications between the nauts and Houston was then patched coded through the physical monitoring channels.



What technology was it that we were not aware of?

"What the hell is that," was stated more than once during an Apollo mission (Apollo 12's launch, for one!).   What transmissions are you talking about (identify mission, event, etc.)?  I can supply the conversation in context and make its meaning clear.  Ohterwise, there's no point in talking about transmissions.

"Patched coded through physical monitoring channnels..."?

Please show some substantiation for this contention.


Quote

Some of the photography does not line up, which implies that it has been fooled with.



Please explain what this means as well.  Examples, etc. (Identified, again).  I have previously shown many times that there are no anomalies in Apollo photographs.   There have been extensive threads regarding small snippets of video which are actually rather clear in what they show (to the knowledgable), and a lengthy, obtuse illustration of pareidolia regarding reflections in helmet visors.


I trust we're not going to delve into the unprovable again here?  


Quote

I would also like to see the mathematics regarding the capability of the lunar lander rocketry, and whether it was in fact capable of liftoff, so I would ask the thrust of the rocketry and the total mass of the lander/cargo, and the fuel available to make such a liftoff. There does seem to be some question about that.


Liftoff from the Moon?

Well, that's pretty simple stuff in principal.  More thrust than weight lifted does the trick in a gravity field.

3500 pounds of thrust, 1650-1700 pounds  of spacecraft  (about 10000 pounds of mass).  That implies about a 2 g push...up.  


The engine was propelled by Dinitrogen Tetroxide and Aerozine 50,  at a mixture ratio of approximately 1.6 (Oxidizer to Fuel).  There were approximately 5200 pounds of propellant loaded in the Ascent Stage tanks (870 pounds lunar weight), which burned at a rate of ~11 lbs./sec. during an approximately 7.25 minute ascent burn.


About 90% of the APS propellant was consumed during this burn.


I don't think there's any question about this (at least there shouldn't be), as it is all published in detail for each Apollo mission, and has been since the mission reports were written.  Given the voluminous nature of Apollo documentation, what question is there about this vehicles capabilities to do what it was designed to do...?



#30    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,167 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 19 October 2006 - 12:32 AM

Quote


Double the speed of this clip:

Apollo 15 Dave Scott picking up and carrying a rock

Can you tell me that a double speed this clip looks like it could have been filmed on a sound stage?
And why, if you believe that Apollo went to the moon, that they would bother to fake footage rather than use the real stuff they undoubtledy shot?

And why would they repeat this fake photography for six missions?


That is a good point, unless the rock is not really a rock !

I do want to point out, that I do believe man went to the moon, thanks for explaining some more of the landings validity  thumbsup.gif

Not sure what to make of the antigrav suggestion, seems a bit out there to me. The no tracks though is wierd !  and why would they ever want to lift the rover? just curious, did they ever lift the rover on video or in transcript?


Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users