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

#31    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 - 12:44 AM

Quote


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.



How do you define "skeptic"?
Are you perhaps referring to those of us who actually know something about Apollo, and who attempt to explain it to those who don't?

You seem to be referring to those of us who explain...


If that is the case, I should say this:

"The" explanation is relatively simple when knowledge is present in a strictly technical matter (I, at least attempt to keep it simple).   The aspects of Apollo discussed by hoax theorists are basically technical matters, of which the proponents have little understanding.

The real point here is that it is common for hoax believers to insist upon "proof" that we did this thing.   That is an untenable position to hold to, and is irrelevant to my position in such threads.

The scientific substantiation for the Apollo program is more voluminous than anything human kind has ever engaged in.  Further, it has been reviewed, verified, and been substantiated by the scientific community world-wide.


There is nothing for us to prove.  On the contrary, the hoax believer contends that, or accuses NASA of faking this thing.  The burden of proof is on them to prove their contentions.   It is not on those of us who were around for this thing, and who know how it was done.

To date such attempts at proof have not been sucessful, and of course, they cannot be successful.

Thus, I have always approached this topic as an educational opportunity.   Hoax beliefs are all based upon supposition, speculation, and a lack of knowledge of the subject matter.   I seek to educate people.

Thus, I will not "prove" that we did this thing.  We did.  That is established.  I will merely illustrate how it was done, based upon the questions that people ask.


That's why I ask for questions, and advise against argument.   Phrase things as questions, and alot more fun can be had.



#32    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 - 12:49 AM

Quote

... and why would they ever want to lift the rover? just curious, did they ever lift the rover on video or in transcript?



Silver...

Yes, they did in fact lift the rover.  Often, during deployment, they would manually pick the thing up and move it away from its intitially deployed position (after all, it only weighed about 80 pounds empty on the lunar surface).  

Apollo 15's telecast from EVA 1 clearly showed Jim Irwin and Dave Scott doing just that.

You can probabaly find clips of this taking place at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal site.




#33    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,191 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 19 October 2006 - 12:52 AM

Quote


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.


Thanks MID  thumbsup.gif  that does make sense, for sure !!!

I know this was covered in the other very lengthy thread, but would not this explanation of the dust settlement taking very little time mean, taking a closer look as to why there was no dirt/dust on the lunar landers landing pads. They are almost bowl shaped and should have captured some of this "dust" but yet they look like a brand new car just off the showroom floor?

I know that there is no atmosphere on the moon but would not the blast from a landing kick alot up and that blast would create almost a bit of swirl, considering that gas's where being burnt and possibly creating a swirl around the legs themselves and or imperfections in the ground?  There had to be some off gassing upon landing creating a very temporary gas like swirl? as these gases or vapor's fired out of the LEM.  ???   IMO  i think there should be dirt/dust on or in the landers pads?   just curious..


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


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

#34    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,191 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 19 October 2006 - 12:56 AM

Quote


Silver...

Yes, they did in fact lift the rover.  Often, during deployment, they would manually pick the thing up and move it away from its intitially deployed position (after all, it only weighed about 80 pounds empty on the lunar surface).  

Apollo 15's telecast from EVA 1 clearly showed Jim Irwin and Dave Scott doing just that.

You can probabaly find clips of this taking place at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal site.


Thanks again  thumbsup.gif

If thats the case for lack of tracks, why the lack of footprints?  I saw how hard it was to pick up and carry that rock. His feet shuffled all over.  I would think there would be a lot more foot prints concidering they would have been taking baby steps, and not jumping with the rover in hand. Again just an observasion.

EDIT:
Sorry I will try to find the video thx  thumbsup.gif

Edited by The Silver Thong, 19 October 2006 - 12:57 AM.

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


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

#35    DogsHead

DogsHead

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 408 posts
  • Joined:04 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:'straya

Posted 19 October 2006 - 01:20 AM

Quote


[attachmentid=28949]
And here is a close up of the right side of the original...

I wonder if this is a drive-by...
Anyhoo, just wanted to comment that this photo is of the front tyre of the rover.... and therefore is a bit cheeky to use it to illustrate that no tracks are behind the rover. Also, this topic (and many, many others) has been raked over thoroughly at BAUT. I'm not sure if the OP used the same image as the one examined over there, but in the full res version, there are tracks - they are just difficlt to make out.



#36    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,191 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 19 October 2006 - 01:29 AM

Quote


I wonder if this is a drive-by...
Anyhoo, just wanted to comment that this photo is of the front tyre of the rover.... and therefore is a bit cheeky to use it to illustrate that no tracks are behind the rover. Also, this topic (and many, many others) has been raked over thoroughly at BAUT. I'm not sure if the OP used the same image as the one examined over there, but in the full res version, there are tracks - they are just difficlt to make out.


I could be wrong but I remember the pics you are taking about, and yes some tracks were found and some very hard to see. These pics are new to me, I hope I didn't miss them in the other thread unsure.gif


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


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

#37    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,191 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 19 October 2006 - 01:54 AM

Here we go a cool vid of them having a bit of testdrive and some fun. Man I would love to do that !!!!

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=150...p;q=lunar+rover

MID   I see what you were saying earlier

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


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

#38    AtomicDog

AtomicDog

    Astral Projection

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

  • NASA Disinfo Agent

Posted 19 October 2006 - 02:19 AM

Quote


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





I know you do. I hope I didn't come across as snippy in my reply; I was just trying to explore the reasoning behind faking some photos and not others.

As MID said, we're all here to learn. I've followed Apollo for nearly 40 years now and I still learn new stuff every day.  thumbsup.gif


#39    ShaunZero

ShaunZero

    Non-Corporeal Being

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

Posted 19 October 2006 - 04:52 AM

Quote


How do you define "skeptic"?
Are you perhaps referring to those of us who actually know something about Apollo, and who attempt to explain it to those who don't?

You seem to be referring to those of us who explain...
If that is the case, I should say this:

"The" explanation is relatively simple when knowledge is present in a strictly technical matter (I, at least attempt to keep it simple).   The aspects of Apollo discussed by hoax theorists are basically technical matters, of which the proponents have little understanding.

The real point here is that it is common for hoax believers to insist upon "proof" that we did this thing.   That is an untenable position to hold to, and is irrelevant to my position in such threads.

The scientific substantiation for the Apollo program is more voluminous than anything human kind has ever engaged in.  Further, it has been reviewed, verified, and been substantiated by the scientific community world-wide.
There is nothing for us to prove.  On the contrary, the hoax believer contends that, or accuses NASA of faking this thing.  The burden of proof is on them to prove their contentions.   It is not on those of us who were around for this thing, and who know how it was done.

To date such attempts at proof have not been sucessful, and of course, they cannot be successful.

Thus, I have always approached this topic as an educational opportunity.   Hoax beliefs are all based upon supposition, speculation, and a lack of knowledge of the subject matter.   I seek to educate people.

Thus, I will not "prove" that we did this thing.  We did.  That is established.  I will merely illustrate how it was done, based upon the questions that people ask.
That's why I ask for questions, and advise against argument.   Phrase things as questions, and alot more fun can be had.



I'm referring to those skeptics who will think up an explaination, back it with a little bit of logic and toss it out there, then call the believer unscientific and leave. They're being unscientific as well, and it pisses me off. Believe me, I don't believe in a moon landing hoax, I'm just talking about things in general, and mostly about Ghosts.

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

#40    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,871 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 19 October 2006 - 08:07 AM

Quote


I know this was covered in the other very lengthy thread, but would not this explanation of the dust settlement taking very little time mean, taking a closer look as to why there was no dirt/dust on the lunar landers landing pads. They are almost bowl shaped and should have captured some of this "dust" but yet they look like a brand new car just off the showroom floor?

I know that there is no atmosphere on the moon but would not the blast from a landing kick alot up and that blast would create almost a bit of swirl, considering that gas's where being burnt and possibly creating a swirl around the legs themselves and or imperfections in the ground?  There had to be some off gassing upon landing creating a very temporary gas like swirl? as these gases or vapor's fired out of the LEM.  ???   IMO  i think there should be dirt/dust on or in the landers pads?   just curious..


Basically, a jet hits a solid surface and spreads out as a radial sheet from the impingement point.  If the surface is loose, the radial flow can entrain particles and carry them along.  This happens on earth, eg the jets of a Harrier, but on earth the radial flow is slowed down by mixing with the surrounding air, and in turn drives the surrounding air into swirling flows.  In a vacuum, it just keeps going, getting less dense with distance, due to both the greater circumference it fills and the greater depth of the sheet as it expands away from the surface.

The LM footpads are clean because they are outside of the sheet until the last second, and even then in vacuum the sheet does not turn round the raised lip of the pad but travels straight across it.  In other words, both the sheet flow and the dust it carries travel in basically a set of straight lines away from the impingement point, and the top of the footpad is shadowed by its lip.  

The only point where the flow is deflected is around solid objects like the legs, but the flow only washes one side of such objects, leaving the far side in vacuum.  There is no reason why dry dust should stick to smooth metallic surfaces, any particles will just bounce off and be carried away by the gas flow.  The only dust that gets onto the pads will be that kicked on to them later by the astronauts' activities.

Edited by flyingswan, 19 October 2006 - 08:16 AM.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#41    itsnotoutthere

itsnotoutthere

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,113 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Royston Vasey

  • “Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while”

Posted 19 October 2006 - 01:20 PM

Well there is something totally unbelievable about this thread....no sign of Straydog yet..spooky.

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
― Groucho Marx

#42    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,191 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 19 October 2006 - 01:56 PM

Quote


I know you do. I hope I didn't come across as snippy in my reply; I was just trying to explore the reasoning behind faking some photos and not others.

As MID said, we're all here to learn. I've followed Apollo for nearly 40 years now and I still learn new stuff every day.  thumbsup.gif



Atomic

you hit the nail on the head there, I have learned more here on u.m. about this and many other things to boot  by asking questions and having people here who can answer them !! thx thumbsup.gif


Flyingswan

You do sound like you know what you are talking about !!  I may have some more questions but damn it's to early and I have only had 1 cup of joe so far  original.gif   Talk soon.


Ya  Where is Straydog ?  ph34r.gif





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


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

#43    RabidCat

RabidCat

    Psychic Spy

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

Posted 19 October 2006 - 02:13 PM

Quote


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

However, in the real world, your chemistry lecturers would have been wrong to do so.  In the real world, Troy is used worldwide as a measure on the markets.  Unfortunately.  It would be nice to have it all under one system.  I agree that it's a bit idiotic and makes for confusion: if you buy gold commodities, it comes in 100 ounce packages, Troy.  Would make it easier and more sensible to use metric.
'Nuff said.
Don't want to sway this interesting thread to dumb stuff.


#44    phunk

phunk

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 423 posts
  • Joined:14 Sep 2006

Posted 19 October 2006 - 05:34 PM

Quote


Basically, a jet hits a solid surface and spreads out as a radial sheet from the impingement point.  If the surface is loose, the radial flow can entrain particles and carry them along.  This happens on earth, eg the jets of a Harrier, but on earth the radial flow is slowed down by mixing with the surrounding air, and in turn drives the surrounding air into swirling flows.  In a vacuum, it just keeps going, getting less dense with distance, due to both the greater circumference it fills and the greater depth of the sheet as it expands away from the surface.

The LM footpads are clean because they are outside of the sheet until the last second, and even then in vacuum the sheet does not turn round the raised lip of the pad but travels straight across it.  In other words, both the sheet flow and the dust it carries travel in basically a set of straight lines away from the impingement point, and the top of the footpad is shadowed by its lip.  

The only point where the flow is deflected is around solid objects like the legs, but the flow only washes one side of such objects, leaving the far side in vacuum.  There is no reason why dry dust should stick to smooth metallic surfaces, any particles will just bounce off and be carried away by the gas flow.  The only dust that gets onto the pads will be that kicked on to them later by the astronauts' activities.


Good explanation but I think you missed another factor that will greatly reduce the dust on the footpads... didn't they cut the engines while they were still a few feet off the ground?


#45    Metz Moonflash

Metz Moonflash

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Joined:18 Oct 2006

Posted 19 October 2006 - 07:26 PM

Quote


Good explanation but I think you missed another factor that will greatly reduce the dust on the footpads... didn't they cut the engines while they were still a few feet off the ground?




Hi Everyone!

Sorry not to have followed up here.

I posted the same issue here;  http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=48175


But I will have a look at the replies here now to see if anyone have a different aproach.

If you want to see my own comments on different arguments about this topic, please click on the link above.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users