Yes I'm quite finished with Moon sand. How about volcanic ash or titanium?

What about Apollo 11 in LEO over Australia and NOT 35,000 miles away from Earth like they should have been?

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

So we are lead to believe.

Sorry. Did I miss the video ID you are going to supply of lunar regolith being kicked up and ascenting six times what it would on Earth?

Thanks.

You seem to be missing something here. The burden of proof is on YOU! If you think it was moon sand/titanium/volcanic ash that can magically fire itself at a ballistic trajectory; then it's up to you to prove it!

I thought you were going to give me the video ID of lunar regolith being kicked up and ascenting six times as high as it would on Earth.

Or comment on why Apollo 11 were spotted in LEO over Australia when they were supposed to be 35,000 miles from Earth.

No such luck.

Perhaps the burden of proof is on YOU!

This comment derives from a lack of understanding of basic science. I don't know why you think that dust should ascend six times higher, I assume that you think this due to ratio of gravity between the Moon and the Earth. For a start you need to take into account that the Earth has an atmosphere which would slow down anything traveling upwards. You are also neglecting that fact that the majority of material ejected from the lunar surface due to dust kicking up would have been ejected at an angle on a ballistic trajectory and not directly vertical, which in turn would not make it 'six times higher'.

I agree with Trinitrotoluele...you also seem to have a misunderstanding of how the method of science works or else you wouldn't be attempting to shift the burden of proof that rightfully belongs to the person making the extraordinary claim...you.

Oh I do apologise. Perhaps you wouldn't mind telling that to MID who claimed everything would ascend six times higher on the Moon.

Do the words "Apollo 11 in LEO over Australia and not 35,000 miles away from Earth" mean anything to you?

That said there was some impressive dust sprays across the Apollo mission, here is one.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v_1653633.mov

See there how much is displaced and how far it travels? See how it is traveling at a ballistic trajectory, obviously not under the influence of any atmosphere?

You still have not answered the guys question though bud?
(armchair fan here)

Do the words "Please offer me some proof other than speculation in a ten minute youtube video" mean anything to you?

I'm sure MID meant everything traveling vertically based on the gravity of the two bodies, not taking atmosphere on the Earth into account, cheese merchant.

Those hops of Schmitt are certainly impressive. Do you actually think that "regolith" is travelling six times as far as it would on Earth?

Doesn't look like it to me.

Do you have any better examples. I own all the SCFilms DVD sets so if you'd prefer give me the mission, disc number and chapter/time.

The quality is so much better.

Apollo 11. LEO. Australia. 35,000 miles. From. Earth.!

The video ID?
Slow down, cheese.

You must understand something.
The altitude of an object is dependent on the force imparted upon it. We don't know how much precise force was imparted on any dust kicked up on the Moon. We could calculate it from looking at the film and measuring the height of the object propelled, but I think that would not help you much.

My statement is based on relatively simple mathematics (uniform motion solutions) which apply to non-atmospheric conditions. These equations describe facts of nature. You'd have to understand them in order to understand what I'm talking about.

My post adressed your question about dust coming down on the Moon, rather than being suspended for hours. I made it as simple as possible.
I could give you hundreds of video clips from the ALSJ showing dust movement, but that wouldn't help you.

The proof of Apollo being in 1/6g on the Moon, in a vacuum is the Apollo 15 hammer and feather drop. That clip is available on the ALSJ site, and is linked in this thread, or the other massive moon hoax thread. That is conclusive proof.








Well, the lunar regolith that Buzz Aldrin kicked up on the Moon couldn't have been in any other place but the Moon, and of course, Buzz was there when he did it.
Further, your question here is about as convoluted as anything I have read in a while. It makes no sense.

You seem to be contending that this youtube production, put togteher by one of the many uneducated morons that do these sort of things thanks to the Internet, proves that Apollo 11 was in LEO at a time when they were supposed to be 35,000 miles away from earth on an inbound trajectory to re-entry.

The odd thing is that this film is complete conjecture and shows no proof. It discusses alot of things, but offers nothing.

Apollo 11 was in fact somewhere around where it says it was at that time on 7-24-69.


If you pay careful attention to the film, it is obvious that whoever saw this light traveling from North to South over Australia ( a big clue)at that time (still daylight)was seeing a re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere, not an orbiting object transiting. The image of an orbiting object from the ground is only seen in the immediate period post-sunset or pre-sunrise, and only on certain orbits. Orbital objects appear as bright stars in the skies, not as incredible bright lights that make everyone take notice. The ISS and Shuttle (on ISS missions) are frequently seen transiting, and almost no one notices, unless they happen to know when to look, and happen to be interested.


In Australia, a spacecraft flying from North to South would be a polar orbiting satellite, or the re-entry of such an orbiting affair. Even IF Apollo 11 was in Earth orbit, which it wasn't, this couldn't have been her, because Apollo Earth orbits were equatorial (inclination between 20 and 30 degrees). There is no overt North to South track of an equatorially inclined orbit over Australia.

A polar orbit, like that of the ISS (51.5 degrees), most definitely will track, and does track North to South over Australia on selected orbits.
Of course, it was determined that Proton 4 was re-entering the atmopshere at the time. Proton 4 was a Soviet satellite launched in order to study high energy cosmic particles. (Hint : any such satellite will be polar in orbit).

Sure enough, proton 4 was launched at an inclination of 51.55 degrees.

One way or the other, at 7:00pm in the Summer, the only orbiting item that could've been seen was a re-entering object. This one was obviously on a ploar orbit. No Apollo was ever on a polar orbit. It couldn't have been Apollo 11...besides, we knew where that one was. In fact, Australian tracking stations were following her at that moment...


You shouldn't rely on un-qualified youtube nonsense put together by people without any knowledge and lots of imagination.

I'm sure he did as well. Its easy to get confused when you are explaining vacuums and 1/6 g.

Yes, that was explained to him, Gav.

cheese...

Again,

slow down, read carefully, and do a little research before responding!

Its amazing you've managed to dig a satellite up and even worked out its orbit in that space of time when that fact wasn't worked out by any astronomers back in 1969.
You are a genius.

BTW I'm fairly sure in July its winter in Australia.

I love that video by the way:

Step 1) Something entered the atmosphere 5 hours before Apollo 11 was due to enter the atmosphere
Step 2) Object described as Satellite entering Earth's atmosphere
Step 3) There was NO DOUBT it was Apollo.

Got to love that logical reasoning!

By the way, a big clue should have been the fact that it was something ENTERING the atmosphere, hence the bright light. Spacecraft orbiting the Earth wouldn't have been a huge bright light. It would have appeared as a normal looking star traversing the night sky, which wouldn't have drawn any attention really.

EDIT: MID beat me to it!

So what exactly are you claiming would happen with lunar regolith that was kicked up on the Moon? Are you proposing that regolith kicked up that appears to travel as far as it would on Earth is normal? In a vacuum.

It would have traveled further horizontally and vertically, but not by six times more. It depends on a) the force applied to the dust in the first place b) whether an atmosphere is present and c) the angle at which the dust was displaced.

I love your reasoning BTW. Nobody could work out what it was in 1969 and the best they came up with was a Russian satellite that fell out of orbit 150 days previously.

"By the way, a big clue should have been the fact that it was something ENTERING the atmosphere, hence the bright light. Spacecraft orbiting the Earth wouldn't have been a huge bright light. It would have appeared as a normal looking star traversing the night sky, which wouldn't have drawn any attention really."

BTW that could have been Apollo 11 ENTERING the atmosphere. 35,000 miles away from where it was supposed to be.

Thank you.

READ BEFORE YOU WRITE.
RESEARCH A LITTLE BEFORE YOU SPEAK INNANITIES.
Astronomers don't know the orbit of any satellite, unless they ask what it is from the people who do...

They don't work out anything pertaining to satellites, and they had nothing to do with Apollo 11 or Proton 4's orbits.

The orbit of a satellite is PLANNED AND EXECUTED BY THOSE WHO LAUNCH IT. It is known before the fact. It is easy to determine that Proton 4's orbit was 51.55 degrees, just like it's easy to know that STS-122's orbit will be 51.5 degrees...BEFORE WE LAUNCH IT THIS COMING THURSDAY.

I didn't manage to dig it up. The information is readily available...if you understand what you're looking at.

Your youtube fellow obviously has no clue.

No, it couldn't have.

Again, read what is written.

"It would have traveled further horizontally and vertically, but not by six times more"

Good. There are hours and hours of Apollo footage I can wade through. Give me some more exps because your first wasn't up to scratch. It certainly didn't travel further horizontally or vertically than it would on Eath.

Precisely. I attemtpted to explain that, but...well, you know.
It's a little complicated for some folks.

Are you going to present credible evidence (here's a clue, you won't find it on youtube) for this or are you going to continue to handwave the same unproven assertion??

I'm ready to ignore you right now...you bring NOTHING to this discussion.

I think you really need to start thinking before you start typing. Consider this. Why would they bring them back five hours early? If they have "according to you hoax believers" pulled off the biggest hoax of the twentieth century, and they had stayed in Earths orbit for all that time, why would they risk landing them five hours early? It makes no sense from EITHER side. The world was watching when Apollo 11 landed; I'd be willing to wager that it was being followed on TV as well, and them entering the Earth's atmosphere and landing in the ocean was broadcast all over the television and the news. MID should be able to confirm this.

According to WHO...you?? You have yet to show us that you have any clue as to what you are talking about, so why should we be concerned with your opinion???

"Give me some more exps because your first wasn't up to scratch"

No. You give me solid proof that it wouldn't do that on the moon. The burden of proof is yours, not mine. I won't do your research for you, and just so you know providing links to conspiracy videos on youtube is not what I'd describe as research.

Yep. Confirmed.
Everything about Apollo 11 was broadcast live on TV worldwide...including the re-entry and splashdown, the latter of which occurred at 1649 UT on 7-24-69...12:49 EDT.

"If you pay careful attention to the film, it is obvious that whoever saw this light traveling from North to South over Australia ( a big clue)at that time (still daylight)was seeing a re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere, not an orbiting object transiting. The image of an orbiting object from the ground is only seen in the immediate period post-sunset or pre-sunrise, and only on certain orbits. Orbital objects appear as bright stars in the skies, not as incredible bright lights that make everyone take notice. The ISS and Shuttle (on ISS missions) are frequently seen transiting, and almost no one notices, unless they happen to know when to look, and happen to be interested."

Would it still have been daylight? July is WINTER in Australia.

"The image of an orbiting object from the ground is only seen in the immediate period **post-sunset** or pre-sunrise, and only on certain orbits."

EXACTLY. JULY IS *WINTER* IN AUSTRALIA.

BECAUSE DEAR FELLOW. IT DOES NOT TRAVEL ANY FURTHER THAN IT WOULD DO IF IT WAS SAND OR ANY OTHER HEAVY MATERIAL LIKE VOLCANIC ASH KICKED UP ON EARTH!

I have hours and hours of Apollo footage I can look through so give me some exps.

The burden of proof is on YOU to provide exps showing 'lunar regolith' travelling further on a vertical ballistic trajectory I'm afraid.

I'm afraid you are wrong, on both accounts.

Go and read up on what a ballistic trajectory is. Like I said, I won't do your research for you. You want to prove that the moon landing was false, then you are the one who has to come up with extraordinary evidence to prove it. I won't do it for you.

The whole dust-free sand issue started with this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxdPP7DdieI
1 minute 53 second mark

I was told that since there were no dust clouds, the footage was taken on the moon as dust billows in atmosphere.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1194111920

I then said that it would be easy to make a substance that was dust-free by sifting it and washing it. I was then told by several different people that it would be impossible to have dust-free sand where it was as just transporting it and placing it would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.
That is such a ridiculous idea that junior high school students would laugh at it.

I still want to hear opinions on this from all the pro-Apollo people who are posting here.

This person seemed a little confused by the question.
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2013951

No other pro-Apollo people have responded yet.

I'll explain it again.

Do you think that just transporting and placing dust-free sand will cause enough erosion to create enough dust to form a dust cloud when the sand is driven over?

Just that question--nothing else.

Thanks for clearing that up for me MID I always wondered about that!

No EXTRAORDINARY evidence is lunar regolith travelling further than sand or volcanic ash would on Earth.

You have HOURS and HOURS of footage from the entire Apollo missions to choose from.

So far you have provided only ONE exp.

Is that it?

No, there are many more examples. I just refuse to find them for you because

a) I find you arrogant and abrasive
b) It is your burden of proof, not mine.

It is up to you to prove that the dust shouldn't behave as it did on the videos. Not me.

My informed opinion is that you don't know squat about Apollo.



Do you really think that you will be "in charge" of where this discussion leads?

You have presented no evidence for "dust free sand" so your question is irrelevant...

Wrong on both counts. Mr. White is being deceptive in his video and doesn't want you to see certain important pieces of information. Notice that he never allows you to see the entire article from the West Australian. Could it be that he doesn't really want you to see things like this paragraph at lower left?





Odd that Jarrah never mentions that worldwide alert, isn't it? In reality, Proton 4 was tracked quite closely. The exact time of reentry of an uncontrolled satellite is, even today, a very difficult thing to predict exactly because the drag due to the upper atmosphere is not known very well.

Jarrah also claims that he couldn't find any data on the internet showing the exact reentry date for Proton 4, yet he shows this clip:



This is an excerpt from an Astronautix.com page. Here's a better copy, direct from the web site:



Jarrah claims that he could only find information that the satellite operated for 100 days, yet this data clearly shows a decay date (reentry) of 24 July 1969, the very date of the sightings over Australia. Apparently, Mr. White doesn't read his own sources very carefully.

You fine me arrogant? and abrasive? for asking you a simple question i.e. provide ONE example of footage showing lunar regolith being kicked and travelling farther than it was possible on Earth ????????

Please explain WHY you find me arrogant and abrasive?

This post is a great example.

Is it? Please explain why?

The demanding and insistence that I provide you with reasons for being arrogant and abrasive. Oh the irony.

I'm not discussing this anymore.

No I asked you to provide exps from hours and hours of tv coverage of lunar regolith being kicked and travelling further than possible on Earth.

You have only provided ONE example. There are NO other exps that you can provide because I have watched and OWN every single sec of it.

You don't want to discuss it anymore for the obvious reasons I've just given.

*SNIP* removed personal attack

Personal attacks are not allowed on these forums. Further violation will result in formal warnings.

Oh come off it. This "who, little ole' me" act was old before you started it.



Not necessary as the burden of proof is YOUR'S. I can't believe that you are having so much trouble understanding that.



Lets see...you know next to nothing about the Apollo missions, yet you question if they took place or not based on a youtube video.

Can you provide one reason why you shouldn't be ignored???

Enough please, we ask that members conduct themselves in a respectful manner which means no name calling, no bickering and no personal attacks.

Lets keep this civil please.

From our forum terms of service:

Cheese Merchant,

I'm not sure why you fail to understand that the burden of proof is yours. I don't have to prove anything. The Apollo Landings are scientific fact. If you want to present evidence that shows this to be false, then please go ahead. I will respond to any evidence that you present. I'd also consider curbing the personal attacks as well.

"Oh come off it. This "who, little ole' me" act was old before you started it."

I didn't start attacking anybodys character on here. Is that allowed?


Not necessary as the burden of proof is YOUR'S. I can't believe that you are having so much trouble understanding that.

Perhaps you can FIND me some examples of lunar regolith being kicked and travelling further than sand or volcanic ash would on Earth PROVING its on the Moon!
Do you have trouble understanding what I am asking for?

"Lets see...you know next to nothing about the Apollo missions, yet you question if they took place or not based on a youtube video.

Can you provide one reason why you shouldn't be ignored???"

You are making a lot of INCORRECT presumptions my friend. I DO NOT question events based on U-T videos.

What you're doing is ducking my question and it's obvious to everybody.

Here's the question. Please answer it.

If hoax-believers can answer it, pro-Apollo people can answer it.

I'd like to hear an answer to this question from the moderators too.

As I stated earlier...since there is no evidence for this "dust free sand" any question about it is irrelevant...do you understand????