If any moon landing believer however wants to argue about the prints left in the "lunar regolith", I'm sure some bright spark at NASA could have worked out how to mix sand and plasticine and cover the soundstages.


http://www.spinmaster.com/products/moonSand/

Jay Windley thinks that it would.

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...ge=8#1180474047

http://www.clavius.org/about.html

No suprise there. " Talking to Jay Windley is like talking to a brick wall" - Scott Grissom

David C,

Your issues (since you don't want to call them fights) seem to be with Jay Windley, and the moderators of the apollohoax forums. Jay Windley is not in any way affiliated with unexplained-mysteries.com, neither is apollohoax.net - and bringing up his forum, his posts on that forum, or the actions of the moderators on that forum is quite irrelevant to a completely separate discussion on the moon hoax here on this board. A few quotes of yours from your first post here:





You are either looking to badmouth Jay Windley and that forum, or you are looking here for vindication of your feelings about issues that have cropped up over there. Which is why the very first responses was that it was most definitely off topic.

David C, you are more than welcome to bring up any point about the moon hoax that you wish. You seem interested in the dust-free sand concept, so feel free to bring that up. Or any other aspect to the moon landing conspiracy. But as the quotes above show, you have a gripe with that forum, not with the issues relevant to the apollo hoax. That is not censorship. That is common sense.

Oh, if that were only true...

Everyone on the planet should know by now the explanation behind the "no stars" argument, but have any of the HB websites removed/corrected/admitted their mistake??

The answer to that is no, so the idea that the existance of wrong ideas has anything to do with their merit is completely laughable.



Do you really think that Scott Grissom is capable of evaluating evidence concerning his fathers death objectively??

I love a good laugh, but come on.



FYI, Jay doesn't moderate any sites that I am aware of...

Watch Jay Windley suddenly start believing in ufo's and flying triangles.

Unknown Apollo 11 satellite spotted in LEO over Southern Australia when it was supposed to be 35,000 miles away and 5 hrs from re-entering the atmosphere!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lABKEZFazfo

Not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but if "dust free sand" is the "reason" explaining why the lunar regolith behaves as it does, then how do you explain all of the "used" EVA suits impregnated with very fine dust???

It couldn't have been added after the fact as you can see it during the EVA's.

Oh and cheese, please present your own arguments. I am not impressed with "I saw it on youtube".

I do apologise. I take it you have no answer then for sand and Apollo 11 spotted in Southern Australia when it was supposed to be 35,000 miles away.

When have you personally donned an Apollo space suit and experimented to see if sand, or any other material would easily attach itself to said suit?

How do you tell the difference bewteen "very fine dust" from "grains of sand" impregnating the space suits in the Apollo photos and tv coverage?

Give me some photo ID numbers please!

If you have an argument to present, then present it, but I'm not wasting my time watching youtube videos for one very good reason...

When would it end?? How many videos are on youtube?? What's to stop you from just going from one to another and saying "explain this", or "explain that"???

I refuse to waste my time doing that.

It also shows a "lazyness" of argument that I will not be involved in...



Why would I have to put on a EVA suit to know that what is on the suits is finer than sand??



I watched the Lunar dust attach itself to the suits live, as it happened.

"If you have an argument to present, then present it, but I'm not wasting my time watching youtube videos for one very good reason...

When would it end?? How many videos are on youtube?? What's to stop you from just going from one to another and saying "explain this", or "explain that"???

I refuse to waste my time doing that.

It also shows a "lazyness" of argument that I will not be involved in..."

The "lazyness" is on your part because you are unwilling to admit you've just wasted ten mins watching the videos I linked and you are now totally stumped for an answer.

"Why would I have to put on a EVA suit to know that what is on the suits is finer than sand??

I watched the Lunar dust attach itself to the suits live, as it happened."

Good for you. "I watched it live on the telly". Is that the arguemet you are presenting?

Give me the specific mission you remember spotting "very fine dust" attaching itself to Apollo space suits and I'll double check the SCFilms DVD sets because it looks like sand to me?

Again. How do you tell the difference between 'very fine dust' and 'grains of sand'

Perhaps I'm not typing clearly enough...I don't watch youtube vids because they are a waste of my time...got it??



Only to prevent David C from claiming that the dust was added later.



All of them...are you new at this??



Simple....difficulty in removal...the Lunar dust is still on the EVA suits for all to see...

cheese came in with the other guy..this is a multiple poster with an agenda..i dont give him til noon est...

Again please. Some examples.

What is that supposed to mean?

2 people join and come to this thread and try to turn it upsidedown?...at the same time..ok, it means what i said ...

Sorry. I'm not quite following you. Please clarify.

welcome to the forum...

The mods should be able to determine if cheese is a sock of David C.

I'll leave it to them to "handle" this...

Thank you. Hello everybody.

Do you have some problem with my posts? I have absolutely nothing to do with David C.

I've asked you for either photo ID's or video footage because you are 'presenting the arguement' that it "very fine dust" and not "grains of sand".

No...you have that bass-ackwards. You (and David C) claim that there is no fine dust evidenced in the Moon walk videos and we're waiting for your evidence to validate that claim.

...but it was a nice "try".

No. I just linked a video on U-T which you didn't watch.

You are 'presenting the arguement' its 'very fine dust' and not 'grains of sand' so I've asked you for some photo's or video footage and an explanation of how you can tell the difference!

Any time your ready!

Exactly...your "investigation" was simply linking to a video.



Why do HBs believe that if they keep saying something long and loud enough it will somehow become true??

The fine dust is evident on the used Apollo EVA suits...now if you're not even going to attempt to prove that wrong, then you need to move on to something else...

"The fine dust is evident on the used Apollo EVA suits...now if you're not even going to attempt to prove that wrong, then you need to move on to something else..."

Well give me either photo ID's or video footage with YOUR explanation of how you can tell its 'very fine dust' that has 'evidently' attached itself to the space suits and not 'grains of sand'.

Please!

"Exactly...your "investigation" was simply linking to a video."

And your investigation is......." I watched it live on the telly"

I said someone would have some thing else to say, no?



I wasn't exactly expecting a couple fo folks who've likely had a very bad time over at Apollo Hoax to come over here and bash Jay.
Hopefully, we won't be seeing any more of that nonsense here.

Given the amount of Moderator interest in these various posts, I should hope that cheese merchant and David C have gotten the message...and get off of the Dr. Windley is "owned" thing.

It appears that something is surfacing.
Let me see if I can assess the current issue...

There seems to be a "Dust Free Sand" thing here.
If I am reading correctly, our two new posters seem to think that lunar dust, as we saw it on the lunar surface, as we photographed, as we filmed, and as we've studied intensely for years right here on Earth, was some form of Earth sand that was washed, and transported to some sound stage and laid out as "lunar dirt"? It's kind of tough to follow the line of reasoning exhibited here, but that is what I'm getting from this.

If so, that is an original idea! I hadn't heard that concoction before. It is amazing what the human mind can create in support of a fallacy.




I think this statement confirms it.

The lunar dust was actually grains of sand, and I must assume that the poster(s) thinks it's earth sand.

Well, although an original idea, it's pretty shallow.

AS11-40-5877



Buzz Aldrin made this footprint in the pristine lunar soil for soil mechanics experts to study on 20 July 1969. Uh, what sand?
This is obviously microfine dust particulates which show adherence and defined, crisp prints. What sand can do that?

AS17-134-20426


Again, the characteristic of the soil is apparent, and the dust, even in this Apollo 17, Station 1, EVA 1 photo of Jack, clearly shows all over his lower legs.
Sand?

AS16-107-17523


Apollo 16, EVA 2, Station 6. Again, Charlie's legs are obviously covered by the dust, and of course, it's character as decidedly not sand is apparent.


I am thinking perhaps you weren't around for the missions, and don't realize the amount of pains taken to actually remove that dust from the suits prior to going back into the LM. The guys spent some time brushing each other off, trying to remove as much of it as possible from themselves before going back inside...all of that being procedure and of course being seen live on TV as it happened.

This material was microfine dust, and we know that it's structure is such that it is self adherent. It stick to the suits like powdered graphite would stick to them. And , much of it couldn't be removed.

Post EVA-3 on Apollo 17, Jack took this picture of the suits piled up in the LM interior (AS17-134-20524):



Now again, where does "sand" make that kind of a mess?


There is much known about the lunar dust. A vast amount of information is available concerning it's structure, composition, etc. It has no relation to any Earth dirt or sand.

Incredible photos.

Perhaps NASA discovered how to make "moon sand". Simple take sand and mix with plasticine. Out of this world.

http://www.spinmaster.com/products/moonSand/

Further, in consideration of the "sand" concept, it should be noted that the Apollo lunar soil samples revealed some very specific characteristics which isloate it from earth soils and sands.

Besides the size of particluates in the soil, the majority of which are less than 0.05 mm in size (that's really, really small...5/100 of a millimeter), the composition of the soil has high concentrations of sulfur, iron, magnesium, manganese, calcium, and nickel, which is not found in most Earth soils, and it shows a complete absence of water, which rather makes it uniquely lunar, as does the presence of tiny particles of glass which are impact derived. Further, the textures of the lunar agglutinates are extremely complex, and are unlike any Earth analog.


The references for studies on lunar soil are voluminous, and much is readily available on-line.
The material you see in the photos is lunar soil, unlike Earth soil, and certainly no terrestrial sand, which is larger in grain size than lunar soil by a large margin. Lunar soil approximates a grain size of what geologists call silt on Earth...but even at that, the composition and structure of lunar soil is unlike any Earth silt.

I've no doubt NASA have genuine lunar regolith.

Whats stopping them though from mixing sand with plasticine, dumping it on soundstages and faking the moon landings?

http://www.spinmaster.com/products/moonSand/

Those photos are just a couple of the approximately 6,000 that we took on the lunar surface. You'd be surprized at what's in those photos, and at the amount of material now available for educational purposes concerning Apollo!




Actually, it's not quite like mixing sand with plasticine.
Further, we've been making simulant lunar soil for years. It's necessary for medium to large scale engineeering studies associated with future lunar projects.

Take a read of this...

JSC-1 Lunar Simulant

A quick synopsis for everyone here that doesn't like to waste time watching U-T videos.
Moon Hoax investigator Jarrah White seems to have found very clear evidence that Apollo 11 were spotted in LEO in Southern Australia when they should have in fact been 35,000 miles away from Earth and five hours from re-entering the atmosphere!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lABKEZFazfo

Anybody like to comment? Or is my synopsis too brief?

I always wondered once the dust was disturbed how does it dissipate so fast I always figured it would just hover for days

I've always wondered why it falls straight back down in 1/6 g, when kicked up exactly like sand. Or should I say "moon sand"

I am no expert but the above photo of the suits all piled up do look like there covered with this product.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cement

You keep linking to this site about a kiddie product.
The stuff is wet! Lunar soil is not in any way.
Further, lunar soil it is dust. This material is a wet substance, which in fact doesn't dry out. That is not lunar simulant in any way. You can't kick up "Moonsand".


As to your question, nothing would stop them , today, from rigging up a set and putting on a lunar show.
It wouldn't be all too convincing however, since no Earth sound sets are in vacuum, and we of course know how particulates behave in vacuum. We could do better with computer simulations than with JSC-1 simulant, and you'd likely never know the difference.

However, between 1969 and 1972, when we actually executed the Apollo program, we had no lunar simulants, since we didn't actually know what the lunar soil was like!

...you cannot create a simulant of something you know nothing about.

Further, your statement here rather makes your question somewhat moot:

You have no doubt that NASA has genuine lunar regolith.

If we have it, which of course we do, and in quantity, how did we get it?

Why would we fake it today, when we actually went there and got it decades ago?

Cement on the Moon???? Surely not?

Cement mixed in with some of this perhaps!

http://www.spinmaster.com/products/moonSand/

Very much like it indeed, belial.
Alot more like cement than sand, that's for sure.

You keep linking to this site about a kiddie product.
The stuff is wet! Lunar soil is not in any way.
Further, lunar soil it is dust. This material is a wet substance, which in fact doesn't dry out. That is not lunar simulant in any way. You can't kick up "Moonsand".

How do you know you can't kick up 'moon sand'? Do you have some?

Granted that photo does look cement. I merely brought up the kiddies product to highlight how easy it is to mix sand with another material and you would have yourself something very similar to the photo of Buzz's bootprint.

Yes very interesting. Don't you think there's the slightest possibilty they used volcanic ash as a substitute for lunar regolith and faked the moon landings.

Very good question!

The big key to the answer here is the fact that we were on the Moon, and on the Moon, there is no atmosphere. In other words, it is a vacuum condition.

This is important because atmposhere is what causes fine silt-like particles, and in fact larger objects of low mass and large surface areas on Earth (like pieces of paper, or feathers, or things like that) to be suspended for a time before settling to the ground.

On the Moon, it doesn't matter what it is, a feather or a hammer, a rock or a plastic bag, a fabric equipment cover or a handful of dust --it will all go up when propelled by an impulse, and it will all fall back down, exactly the same. Nothing is suspended in air, because there's no air there at all.

A clod of dust, kicked up, will move up according to the force imparted to it, and it will fall back to the surface under the force of lunar gravity, evenly and without any of it being suspended in an atmpospheric constituent (that is, there won't be a dust cloud, because dust clouds are impossible to create in a vacuum--no air to suspend the fine particles).

There is nothing so magical about the Moon that would make dust, once propelled up, hover for hours. There is gravity there, albeit only 1/6 that of the Earth. What goes up, must come down applies on the Moon as well as on Earth. On the Moon however, things go up and stop ascending and take a longer time to do so they do on Earth, they go about 6 times higher than they would on Earth before stopping their ascent, and they descend back to the ground slower as well. But they do not hover for hours.

The low gravity on the Moon is not so low as to cause things to essentially float. If that were the case, astronauts would be suspended off the surface unable to do much of anything save struggle.

cheese...
Read my whole post.




No, I do not think so, not in the slightest. We didn't have any simulant in 1969. We couldn't make a simulant of something we had no idea about..
We made the various lunar simulants we have today because we got some of the real thing from Apollo lunar landing missions. Only then did we know what the soil was actually like.

Further, we didn't identify the need or start fabricating any lunar simulant until about 17-18 years after Apollo was over.

There is nothing so magical about the Moon that would make dust, once propelled up, hover for hours. There is gravity there, albeit only 1/6 that of the Earth. What goes up, must come down applies on the Moon as well as on Earth. On the Moon however, things go up and stop ascending and take a longer time to do so they do on Earth, t*hey go about 6 times higher than they would on Earth before stopping their ascent, and they descend back to the ground slower as well*. But they do not hover for hours.

Classic stuff. Give me the video ID where lunar regolith that has been kicked up by an Astronaut travels 6 times higher than it would on Earth before it stops its ascent.

How could the lunar regolith that Buzz kicked up be on the Moon when they were in LEO over Australia when they should have been 35,000 miles away from Earth?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lABKEZFazfo

Nobody at NASA could have worked out that titanium or volcanic ash was heavy material and wouldn't form a 'dust cloud'. Amazing. How did we ever get to the Moon?

According to this they can make fake lunar soil?
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/28dec_truefake.htm

Similar indeed. In fact, it was said during Apollo 11 that the soil characteristic almost looked wet.
However, it is obviously not wet. It is like several comnpounds we have on Earth who's fine grained nature and particle structure allows for self-adhesion and taking a very clear impression of something (corn starch, powedered graphite, etc...)




Before we go futher, let's can the innane argument and the silly "how do you know...do you have some..." type of question about something so common sense that an elementary school kid knows the answer, OK? It diminishes the discussion.

It's wet stuff. It's self adherent and obviously bound by water. If you kick it, it will just clod up, and move out in wet little lumps...completely unlike lunar soil, or any dust we have on Earth.

Enough of the "Moodsand", already. It's wet sandy material that's made for kids. It has no similarity to regolith at all.

Incredible. They'll be figuring out how to make lunar rocks next.

???

Dust cloud formation has nothing to do with lunar simulants. All of it will form dust clouds on Earth. You're beginning to get in a little over your head.
Take a breather and relax a while. You need to read these answers to your questions carefully, and think about them before responing.

In 2006 yes, after studying the REAL samples for nigh on 40 years.